@@عبدالله-ر8ف6ق I'm sorry, but what defines a scholar? This guy is a lawyer, and an academic professor, so he is technically a scholar. He looks at what is written, the logic behind it, the history behind it , the environment of the time, and maybe some other stuff, I don't know... and .. he gives references, , so you can look it up yourself. Also I looked him up, and you can too, the guy has the qualifications, he is not some random Muslim. What do the scholars in your mind do differently that he doesn't?
I agree with Dr Khaled about salafi/wahabi Islam. Yes they have a strong belief in Tawheed and it did stop some of the pagan practices, but ultimately as Muhamamad Asad put it, it is Islam without the spirit.
It’s an Islam that is very black and white, arid, literalist, uncompromising and very shallow. Regarding Tawheed, Ibn Abdul Wahab acted as if he understood Tawheed better than anyone else and declared that those who didn’t agree with him was a kafir.
I recently started listening to Khaled Fadl n he immediately strike me as a profound modern thinker n Quran scholar which is the need of our time. Their has been so much confusion n deviation created created by sunni traditional scholars n Sunnism violent interpretation of Deen that is diverting many Muslims from Islam.
Asalamu wa alaykum. Please tell us the difference between the great Ashari-Maliki-Qadiri Khalwati Sufi Mujadidi and commentator of mutun including al khalil and his famous aqeeda Al Kharida al Bahiya Shaykh Ahmad Ad Dardir killing of logicians, Sufis, jurists and historians of the ottomans and Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahabb??
Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (rh) brought nothing new - Who are the Wahhabis Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (rh) was a mujaddid with nothing new. He followed the path of numerous people before him, the issues that he addressed such as grave worship, bid'ah, shirk, etc were already addressed by shayukh before him like Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Aqil, Ibn Jawzi, etc. Shaykh Hussain Ghannam work a book Tarikh Al-Najd about the history of the Najd and he was a witness of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (rh). Shaykh Ghannam wrote specifically about some of the bid'at going on in Arabia, such as the fact that people worshipped trees including two famous trees named At-Tarijya and Al-Fahhal, people believed that sacred trees gave them good luck, extended the life span's of their children, helped them find a spouse, and cured diseases. People visited the tombs of awliyat or charlatans in some cases. Shaykh Hussain Ghannam narrates that there was a cave related to a princess that people said she died in, and people went there seeking aid and assistance. When Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (rh) came to 'Uyanah he dealt with the same issues, the grave worship of Zayd ibn Al-Khattab (ra) was huge, trips to the graves of various other people was a huge thing, and the worship of sacred trees was huge. So he leveled the shrine over Zayd's (ra) tomb and chopped down the trees. And this became a problem because it exposed the SUFI charlatan shuyukh who were permitting people to go to these places. Shaykh Ghannam lived in the same region and era and spoke of this in favor of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab but yet Sufis think we are supposed to take biographies of the shaykh from randoms somewhere thousands of miles from Arabia, people who are till this day visting graves and awliyat, despite the fact that the Prophet (saws) sent Ali (ra) to level graves and BOTH Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri (ra) and Abu Huraira (ra) narrated that Rasoolulah (saws) told them that pilgrimage is only for Mecca, Medina, and Baitul Maqdis. Why is it new? Ibn Aqil (rh), one of the 4th century AH Baghdadi Hanbalis who experienced the early era of Sufism and its rise in Baghdad, reports that the Sufis of his time used to worship graves. In particular, the Sufis used to go to the grave of a man named Ma'ruf al-Kharki, they would take dirt from tombs, lay in them, write letters and throw them in the graves of awliyat, etc. Ibn Aqil (rh) came from the same city and rebuked them for this, kindling lights, kissing the tombs, covering them with fragrance, addressing the dead with needs, writing formulae on paper with the message: 'Oh my Lord, do such and such for me'; taking earth fi-om the grave as a blessing, pouring sweet fragrances over graves, setting out on a journey for them, and casting rags on trees in imitation of those who worshipped the gods Lat and 'Uzza. Dar Ibn al-Jawzee This is what he wrote all the way in the 4th century, this is the same exact thing occurring in Arabia in the time of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (rh). When the Sufis attack people and call them Wahhabis, then imply something new it shows how dumb and corrupt they are. First Wahhab is Allah's (swt) name so you have attacked people with one of the names of Allah (swt), then criticisms of Sufism predates Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (rh). Ibn Aqil (rh) criticized visitation to graves for intercession, Ibn Taymiyyah (rh) did as well, Abul Furraj Ibn al-Jawzi wrote parts of Talbees Iblis criticizing aspects of Sufism including fake miracles and homosexuality, adult Sufi men who loved young boys, Ali ibn Yusuf burned the books of Ghazzali, Shaykh Ghullam Khalil (rh) actually had some of the Sufis rounded up and charged as zindaq back when he was one of the big scholars in Baghdad during the rise of Sufism (during Junayd al-Baghdadi and Ahmad Ruwaym's time). Check that out, none of you Sufis know about that do you? Some of the early Sufis were charged with zindaq and heresy in Baghdad, ironically by another Hanbali, Ghulam Khalil (rh). So what is new about Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (rh)? Are Ibn Aqil, Taymiyyah, Khalil, etc Wahhabis too?!? They all lived eons before Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (rh), the association with Sufi critics as being "Wahhabis" is unhistorical drivel meant to deceive the masses and paint a picture that Sufism had no challenge until "200 years ago", Hanbali madhab itself has done innumerous damage to the Sufis for centuries, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (rh) is the newest guy on the scence. Same with Ash'aris, people like Ibn Qudamah and Al Hasan Al-Barbahari (rh) had already refuted them TOO. Are they "Wahhabis"? All of them lived before Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (rh). Ibn Hazm and Ibn Khaldun had already refuted the Rafidah before Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (rh), are they Wahhabis too? Imam Ahmad (rh) refuted Ahlul Kalaam and wrote an entire book about the Jahmiyyah, is he a Wahhabi too? Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (rh) is accepted by the jumhoor of Ahlu's-Sunnah, only Sufis and Shias hate him. Get over it. (btw Sufism itself has no origins to the sahaba/tabi'iin but came later and then used fabricated sisila chains)
Darling you don't understand how orthodoxies are produced . They're more a product & function of power than of truth ! So take a chill pill sit back and research more outside your supposed understanding of Islam !
As a Muslim, I believe that truth is in Quran, Sunnah and Ijma' (things that all Muslims or Muslim scholars agreed upon). Anything else is part of Ijtihad (personal trial to find the truth). I also believe that the nation will, inevitably, divide into so many sects that are all false and all deemed to hell, and only one group is true, it's not a sect, rather a group, those are the followers of the prophet and his companions, not anyone else. "لتتبعن سنن من كان قبلكم شبرا بشبر وذراعا بذراع حتى لو دخلوا جحر ضب لدخلتموه" You will follow the ways of the previous nations (jews, christians and all other deviant ex-believers) step by step even if they entered a lizard's pit you would enter the same pit. On the other side, the prophet PBUH said, there will always be a group of my nation living with the evident true way, whoever let them down still can't do them harm, except for some suffering, till the command of Allah comes "لا تزال طائفة من أمتي ظاهرين على الحق لا يضرهم من خذلهم حتى يأتي أمر الله"
There's Many-Countries named after People, Families, etc.: Hashimite Kingdom Of Jordan, Colombia, France, England, Scotland, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Ireland, Russia, India, etc. So, This-Person pontificating/claiming that Saudi Arabia is the Only Nation-State named after Humans is 💯%-Moronic.
The speaker said that Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world named after a family, ie Ibn Saud - Muhammad Ibn Saud who founded the first Saudi state and then later Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud. The countries that you mentioned, which ones are named after families? A logical fallacy on your part.
@@GarethBryant15The country in its short form is called Jordan and it’s actually named after the River Jordan. Banu Hashim was a clan (Hashim was much older than when the Kingdom of Jordan had come into existence and King Abdullah 1 was the first king) , whereas Ibn Saud was the name of the family that founded Saudi Arabia. So these two countries cannot be compared.
@@GarethBryant15This my friend is called an ad hominem attack. You attacked me personally rather than the argument. Just like a football player who kicks the player rather than the ball. It’s called foul. And btw when you attack people personally, you actually lose the debate. Grow up!
There's no such Thing as "Najdī-Islām" or "Wahhābī-Islām". That's like claiming that there's such a Thing as: "Sunnī-Islām", "Sūfī-Islām", "Shī`ī-Islām", "Tablīghī-Islām", "Ikhwānī-Islām", etc. None of these Ahzāb/Religio-Sectarian Groups possess any Religio-Monopoly over al-Islām. This is a Bullshit-Claim, honestly. "Najdism/Wahhābism" doesn't even exists: these Religio-Terms are simply Religio-Euphemisms of Salafism, which honestly is just as Hizbī/Religio-Deviant as any/all these Other-Ahzāb.
O' Allah!.....Thank you thank you Thank you for your commentary. You said what I thought and knew all along. SHUKRAAN! ❤❤❤
This video literally transformed my life, I was having an insane crisis of faith before coming across this video of Dr. Fadl.
Astaghfirullah, learm your deen from the scholars
@@عبدالله-ر8ف6ق I'm sorry, but what defines a scholar? This guy is a lawyer, and an academic professor, so he is technically a scholar. He looks at what is written, the logic behind it, the history behind it , the environment of the time, and maybe some other stuff, I don't know... and .. he gives references, , so you can look it up yourself. Also I looked him up, and you can too, the guy has the qualifications, he is not some random Muslim. What do the scholars in your mind do differently that he doesn't?
@@عبدالله-ر8ف6ق he's a professor ...... He does this professionally
@@عبدالله-ر8ف6ق
Where’s your evidence that he’s not a scholar ?
@@عبدالله-ر8ف6قscholars who according to your premise are the rightly guided ones? He is a jurist and has ijazas to teach just to let you know.
I agree with Dr Khaled about salafi/wahabi Islam. Yes they have a strong belief in Tawheed and it did stop some of the pagan practices, but ultimately as Muhamamad Asad put it, it is Islam without the spirit.
@StrivenLight I'm not sufi, but salafism/wahhabism is not the spirit of Islam.
It’s an Islam that is very black and white, arid, literalist, uncompromising and very shallow. Regarding Tawheed, Ibn Abdul Wahab acted as if he understood Tawheed better than anyone else and declared that those who didn’t agree with him was a kafir.
Wahhābism is a Mythos/Pseudo-Narrative...it's unreal.
profound. thank you for this video.
true fact i always feels about it
MashAllah this talk is a true gem
Should not say Wahhabi Islam but Wahhabism, which denotes the specific interpretation of Islam and not equal to Islam
So knowledgeable .
Thank you so much
Wonderful
Awesome ❤️
Can you please elaborate on the verse 24:51 - “We hear and obey”.
What book did Dr Abou Fadl recommend here? Sorry I couldn't understand from the audio.
The Vision of Islam: The Foundations of Muslim Faith and Practice by Chittick and Murata
Islam and the Blackamerican by Sherman Jackson
I recently started listening to Khaled Fadl n he immediately strike me as a profound modern thinker n Quran scholar which is the need of our time. Their has been so much confusion n deviation created created by sunni traditional scholars n Sunnism violent interpretation of Deen that is diverting many Muslims from Islam.
this guy is a mix between mr miyagi & yoda
Asalamu wa alaykum. Please tell us the difference between the great Ashari-Maliki-Qadiri Khalwati Sufi Mujadidi and commentator of mutun including al khalil and his famous aqeeda Al Kharida al Bahiya Shaykh Ahmad Ad Dardir killing of logicians, Sufis, jurists and historians of the ottomans and Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahabb??
Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (rh) brought nothing new - Who are the Wahhabis
Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (rh) was a mujaddid with nothing new. He followed the path of numerous people before him, the issues that he addressed such as grave worship, bid'ah, shirk, etc were already addressed by shayukh before him like Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Aqil, Ibn Jawzi, etc. Shaykh Hussain Ghannam work a book Tarikh Al-Najd about the history of the Najd and he was a witness of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (rh).
Shaykh Ghannam wrote specifically about some of the bid'at going on in Arabia, such as the fact that people worshipped trees including two famous trees named At-Tarijya and Al-Fahhal, people believed that sacred trees gave them good luck, extended the life span's of their children, helped them find a spouse, and cured diseases. People visited the tombs of awliyat or charlatans in some cases. Shaykh Hussain Ghannam narrates that there was a cave related to a princess that people said she died in, and people went there seeking aid and assistance. When Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (rh) came to 'Uyanah he dealt with the same issues, the grave worship of Zayd ibn Al-Khattab (ra) was huge, trips to the graves of various other people was a huge thing, and the worship of sacred trees was huge. So he leveled the shrine over Zayd's (ra) tomb and chopped down the trees. And this became a problem because it exposed the SUFI charlatan shuyukh who were permitting people to go to these places. Shaykh Ghannam lived in the same region and era and spoke of this in favor of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab but yet Sufis think we are supposed to take biographies of the shaykh from randoms somewhere thousands of miles from Arabia, people who are till this day visting graves and awliyat, despite the fact that the Prophet (saws) sent Ali (ra) to level graves and BOTH Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri (ra) and Abu Huraira (ra) narrated that Rasoolulah (saws) told them that pilgrimage is only for Mecca, Medina, and Baitul Maqdis.
Why is it new? Ibn Aqil (rh), one of the 4th century AH Baghdadi Hanbalis who experienced the early era of Sufism and its rise in Baghdad, reports that the Sufis of his time used to worship graves. In particular, the Sufis used to go to the grave of a man named Ma'ruf al-Kharki, they would take dirt from tombs, lay in them, write letters and throw them in the graves of awliyat, etc. Ibn Aqil (rh) came from the same city and rebuked them for this,
kindling lights, kissing the tombs, covering them with fragrance, addressing the dead with needs, writing formulae on paper with the message: 'Oh my Lord, do such and such for me'; taking earth fi-om the grave as a blessing, pouring sweet fragrances over graves, setting out on a journey for them, and casting rags on trees in imitation of those who worshipped the gods Lat and 'Uzza. Dar Ibn al-Jawzee
This is what he wrote all the way in the 4th century, this is the same exact thing occurring in Arabia in the time of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (rh). When the Sufis attack people and call them Wahhabis, then imply something new it shows how dumb and corrupt they are. First Wahhab is Allah's (swt) name so you have attacked people with one of the names of Allah (swt), then criticisms of Sufism predates Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (rh). Ibn Aqil (rh) criticized visitation to graves for intercession, Ibn Taymiyyah (rh) did as well, Abul Furraj Ibn al-Jawzi wrote parts of Talbees Iblis criticizing aspects of Sufism including fake miracles and homosexuality, adult Sufi men who loved young boys, Ali ibn Yusuf burned the books of Ghazzali, Shaykh Ghullam Khalil (rh) actually had some of the Sufis rounded up and charged as zindaq back when he was one of the big scholars in Baghdad during the rise of Sufism (during Junayd al-Baghdadi and Ahmad Ruwaym's time). Check that out, none of you Sufis know about that do you? Some of the early Sufis were charged with zindaq and heresy in Baghdad, ironically by another Hanbali, Ghulam Khalil (rh). So what is new about Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (rh)? Are Ibn Aqil, Taymiyyah, Khalil, etc Wahhabis too?!? They all lived eons before Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (rh), the association with Sufi critics as being "Wahhabis" is unhistorical drivel meant to deceive the masses and paint a picture that Sufism had no challenge until "200 years ago", Hanbali madhab itself has done innumerous damage to the Sufis for centuries, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (rh) is the newest guy on the scence. Same with Ash'aris, people like Ibn Qudamah and Al Hasan Al-Barbahari (rh) had already refuted them TOO. Are they "Wahhabis"? All of them lived before Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (rh). Ibn Hazm and Ibn Khaldun had already refuted the Rafidah before Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (rh), are they Wahhabis too? Imam Ahmad (rh) refuted Ahlul Kalaam and wrote an entire book about the Jahmiyyah, is he a Wahhabi too?
Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (rh) is accepted by the jumhoor of Ahlu's-Sunnah, only Sufis and Shias hate him. Get over it.
(btw Sufism itself has no origins to the sahaba/tabi'iin but came later and then used fabricated sisila chains)
Darling you don't understand how orthodoxies are produced . They're more a product & function of power than of truth !
So take a chill pill sit back and research more outside your supposed understanding of Islam !
BTW you forgot to mention the book he is recommending is by a scholar on ibn Arabi ,William Chittick ! 😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@shoaibbhat279 What book?
@@alial-yunani nothing forget it !
As a Muslim, I believe that truth is in Quran, Sunnah and Ijma' (things that all Muslims or Muslim scholars agreed upon). Anything else is part of Ijtihad (personal trial to find the truth).
I also believe that the nation will, inevitably, divide into so many sects that are all false and all deemed to hell, and only one group is true, it's not a sect, rather a group, those are the followers of the prophet and his companions, not anyone else.
"لتتبعن سنن من كان قبلكم شبرا بشبر وذراعا بذراع حتى لو دخلوا جحر ضب لدخلتموه"
You will follow the ways of the previous nations (jews, christians and all other deviant ex-believers) step by step even if they entered a lizard's pit you would enter the same pit.
On the other side, the prophet PBUH said, there will always be a group of my nation living with the evident true way, whoever let them down still can't do them harm, except for some suffering, till the command of Allah comes
"لا تزال طائفة من أمتي ظاهرين على الحق لا يضرهم من خذلهم حتى يأتي أمر الله"
There is no "Wahhab Islam" , such a think does not exist.
There's Many-Countries named after People, Families, etc.: Hashimite Kingdom Of Jordan, Colombia, France, England, Scotland, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Ireland, Russia, India, etc. So, This-Person pontificating/claiming that Saudi Arabia is the Only Nation-State named after Humans is 💯%-Moronic.
The speaker said that Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world named after a family, ie Ibn Saud - Muhammad Ibn Saud who founded the first Saudi state and then later Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud. The countries that you mentioned, which ones are named after families? A logical fallacy on your part.
Hashimite Kingdom of Jordan...
...named after Banī-Hāshim: literally meaning "Family-Of-Hāshim".
@@GarethBryant15The country in its short form is called Jordan and it’s actually named after the River Jordan. Banu Hashim was a clan (Hashim was much older than when the Kingdom of Jordan had come into existence and King Abdullah 1 was the first king) , whereas Ibn Saud was the name of the family that founded Saudi Arabia. So these two countries cannot be compared.
Persons like you are the Reason how/why Muhammad (Peace be upon them) stated: "Apathy/Arrogance is denying Truth & mocking People.".
(an-Nawawī)
@@GarethBryant15This my friend is called an ad hominem attack. You attacked me personally rather than the argument. Just like a football player who kicks the player rather than the ball. It’s called foul. And btw when you attack people personally, you actually lose the debate. Grow up!
There's no such Thing as "Najdī-Islām" or "Wahhābī-Islām". That's like claiming that there's such a Thing as: "Sunnī-Islām", "Sūfī-Islām", "Shī`ī-Islām", "Tablīghī-Islām", "Ikhwānī-Islām", etc. None of these Ahzāb/Religio-Sectarian Groups possess any Religio-Monopoly over al-Islām. This is a Bullshit-Claim, honestly. "Najdism/Wahhābism" doesn't even exists: these Religio-Terms are simply Religio-Euphemisms of Salafism, which honestly is just as Hizbī/Religio-Deviant as any/all these Other-Ahzāb.
The fact that he describes these groups this way seems to imply that he recognizes a non-monopoly.
He makes up his own story.
@@dhrubopilot when Imam Mehdi is coming
@Dragon Sufi You can't even prove that "Najdism" is actually a Thing...it's not even a Religio-Concept.
@@FreePalestine8096 No Makhlūq (Being/Created-Thing) has any Monopoly over al-Hudā/al-Hidāyah (Guidance). Guidance exclusively belongs to Allah.