Abderrahman hassan: To understand the verse "ومن لم يحكم بما أنزل الله فأولئك هم الكافرون", you have to go to the سباب النزول، i.e the reason of revelation. You will see that the jews changed the legislation for zina from stoning to death into blackening the faces while they believed that it is NOT from Allah
In an attempt to excuse all of those who rule by other than what Allah revealed, this Murji and his tail ('Imran the showman) repeat that the tafsir of the ayah: 👈 أَلَا سَاءَ مَا يَحْكُمُونَ 👉 🔵 "Verily, evil is what they judge," is referring to the mushrikin burying their daughters and that, therefore, hukm refers to one's actions. And so if you say the kufr in the ayah: وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ 🔵 "Whoever does not rule by what Allah revealed - then it is those who the kafirun," is major kufr, then it implies that any sin like drinking alcohol is kufr. Because (according to them) hukm here is referring to any action, and it is only the Khawarij who declare takfir of sins like drinking alcohol. So if you take the ayah upon its apparent they impose on you their understanding and tafsir and declare you from the Khawarij. ⚠️ However, if one refers to the 5 most well-known and relied upon books of tafsir (at-Tabari, al-Baghawi, al-Qurtubi, ibn Kathir, as-Sa'di) none of them stated that is what the former ayah means. They are in agreement that it is in reference to the mushrikin attributing daughters to Allah, while not being pleased with that for themselves. 🔵 Those 'ulama from the Salaf like ibn Mas'ud, al-Hasan al-Basri, an-Nakha'i, as-Suddi, and others, who took the ayah based upon what is apparent did not interpret hukm as referring to every action, but as what is clear from the ayat and context: ruling between parties during disputes. The Khawarij did take this ayah and apply it to every action, claiming that is what was apparent. But they were refuted by the 'ulama like ibn 'Abbas and his students in their understanding. This is where the statements of kufrun duna kufr come in. They were refutations against the Khawarij who applied it upon every sin. They were not statements in support of the batil claim that ruling by other than what Allah revealed is kufrun duna kufr.
Ruling other than the Qur'aan and Sunnah is a great bid'ah and kufur Al Akbar. No doubt about that-the Book of Allah is sufficient to know that, Sunnah is aswell as common sense.
Ramadan's come and gone Alhamdulillah. Brothers can now drink some tea/water, put those cups and vessel to good use and don't let them sit there for decoration 😂😂😂. Salaam Alaykum
Scholars differ about this but, the least that can be said : whoever does so is on the verge of kufr. Many ahadeeth explain this. Abandoning Salah is worse than Zina, alcohol according to the consensus of Muslim scholars
You said "5 times a day", if you pray 2 or today you pray 4, this is a major sin, according to some of the Scholars. But if you were to abandon it all together or believe that it's not a must to pray or must to pray 5times(5 salah, accorded to the Sunnah) then is major kufur. That's one opinion. The 2nd is if you give up even 1(out of laziness or hardly prayed salah then you have left the fold of Islam, regardless of what's in your heart i.e believe that Salah is a must, and Tawhid etc. Both are just views. Wallau a'lam and anyone please correct me if i said wrong. Baralu Allahu fik.
Stop speaking from yourself and bring proof from statements of the Salaf, oh liars! "In an attempt to excuse all of those who rule by other than what Allah revealed, this Murji and his tail ('Imran the showman) repeat that the tafsir of the ayah: 👈 ألَا سَاءَ مَا يَحْكُمُونَ 👉
🔵 "Verily, evil is what they judge," is referring to the mushrikin burying their daughters and that, therefore, hukm refers to one's actions. And so if you say the kufr in the ayah: وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ 🔵 "Whoever does not rule by what Allah revealed - then it is those who the kafirun," is major kufr, then it implies that any sin like drinking alcohol is kufr. Because (according to them) hukm here is referring to any action, and it is only the Khawarij who declare takfir of sins like drinking alcohol. So if you take the ayah upon its apparent they impose on you their understanding and tafsir and declare you from the Khawarij. ⚠️ However, if one refers to the 5 most well-known and relied upon books of tafsir (at-Tabari, al-Baghawi, al-Qurtubi, ibn Kathir, as-Sa'di) none of them stated that is what the former ayah means. They are in agreement that it is in reference to the mushrikin attributing daughters to Allah, while not being pleased with that for themselves. 🔵 Those 'ulama from the Salaf like ibn Mas'ud, al-Hasan al-Basri, an-Nakha'i, as-Suddi, and others, who took the ayah based upon what is apparent *did not* interpret hukm as referring to every action, but as what is clear from the ayat and context: ruling between parties during disputes. The Khawarij did take this ayah and apply it to every action, claiming that is what was apparent. But they were refuted by the 'ulama like ibn 'Abbas and his students in their understanding. This is where the statements of kufrun duna kufr come in. They were refutations against the Khawarij who applied it upon every sin. They were not statements in support of the batil claim that ruling by other than what Allah revealed is kufrun duna kufr. Additionally, The Murji says that there is an ijma' that ruling by other than what Allah revealed is minor kufr. The official committee of scholars of Sa'udiyyah, however, said years ago whoever claims such has lied upon Ahlus-Sunnah due to jahl or an evil intention." - Companions of Hadith via Telegram
Great conversation. Very educational but you guys should bering somebody that actually has the views being discussed. Not two people who have the same views. Let both parties bring their evidence and debate it out. Then the listener can make his own decision based on the evidence.
Well, everyone else talks about there own views on different platforms. This isnt BBC or any media channel. I don't see any point in what u are saying. They are here to preach for the right perspective nd what they believe in and not to confuse the listeners and they are here not to debate other people with different views .that has it's own time
⚖ Whoever does not Judge by what Allah Revealed is from the Kafirun, Dhalimun, and Fasiqun ⚖ 👉 Al-Qasimi (rahimahullah) said in his tafsir: Concerning this topic, it is reported from ibn Mas‘ud, al-Hasan [al-Basri], and an-Nakha‘i that these three ayat are general in its application to the Jews and this ummah. So whoever takes a bribe and substitutes the [correct] ruling, and thus rules by other than the ruling of Allah, then, he has disbelieved, oppressed, and acted immorally. This is also the view of as-Suddi, because it is what is apparent of the address. وقال القاسميي رحمه الله في تفسيره: (ونقل في اللباب عن ابن مسعود والحسن والنخعي؛ أن هذه الآيات الثلاث عامة في اليهود وفي هذه الأمة، فكل من ارتشى وبدل الحكم، فحكم بغير حكم الله، فقد كفر وظلم وفسق، وإليه ذهب السدي، لأنه ظاهر الخطاب). ⚠️ Don't allow the shubuhat of the neo-Jahmiyyah creep in upon you that the Salaf have an ijma' that ruling by other than what Allah revealed is minor kufr. They are liars. There is a disagreement amongst the Salaf on whether or not the one who leaves the ruling of Allah is a kafir for doing it once or not. And that is in contrast to ruling by other than what Allah revealed, where there is an ijma' related that whoever does so is a kafir.
Eddie Austin Ibn Bāz: “There is no imān for the one who believes the laws of the people and their opinions are superior to the Hukm of Allāh and His Messenger or that they are equal to it or that they resemble it or who leaves it or replaces it with fabricated laws and institutions invented by people, even if he believes that the laws of Allah are more encompassing and more just." - [Wujoob Tah'keem Shari'ah Allah' (pg. 16-17)] Ibn Bāz says he doesn’t care what is in your heart, as long as you dismantle the sharī’ah, you are a kāfir
Eddie Austin Uthaymīn: "The first type is when the Hukm of Allāh is removed and replaced with another Tāghūtī Hukm, so that the Hukm of the Sharī'ah is eliminated between the people and he puts in its place another Hukm from the fabrication of the humans and they remove the laws of the Sharī'ah concerning the Mu'amalah (i. e. the general actions between people) and they put in its place fabricated laws and this, without doubt, is Istib'daal (i. e. replacement) of the Sharī'ah of Allāh subhānahū wa-ta'āla, with other than it. And this is Kufr which removes one from the Millah because this person put himself at the level of the Creator because he shara'a (legislated) for the slaves of Allāh that which Allāh ta'āla did not give permission for and that is Shirk in His, ta'āla's saying: "Or have they partners with Allâh (false gods), who have instituted for them a religion, which Allâh has not allowed?" - (Ash-Shu'ara, 21) - "Fiqh Al-'Ebaadaat",
Eddie Austin Ibn Kathir: “So whoever leaves the clear Sharī’ah, which was revealed to Muhammad Ibn Abdullāh, the Seal of the Prophets, and takes the Hukm to other than it from the laws of Kufr which are abrogated, he has disbelieved. So what about the one who takes the Hukm to the ‘Yasiq’ (the law of the Tartars which mixed Shari’ah rulings with invented rulings) and puts it before it?! Whoever does that, he has disbelieved by the Ijmaa’ of the Muslims.” - “Al- Bidāyah wa Nihāyah”, Vol. 13/118-119. Ibn Kathir رحمه الله didn’t say the Ijmā of the scholars but Ijmā of the muslims So the mere dismantling of the sharia makes you a kāfir. You do not have to do istihlāl like the Saudi salafis claim.
Eddie Austin AbdulRahman Hassan is not only a jāhil but a liar too. He claimed that the saying of Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنه is authentic after being questioned by Shahid over its authenticity. “What has reached us from Ibn Abbās from his saying “Kufr Duna Kufr” is not reliable. It is narrated in Al-Hākim in his Mustadraq (Vol. 2/313) by the way of Hishām Ibn Hujāyr on the authority of Tawūs who heard it from Ibn Abbās. However, Hishām is declared Da’eef by Yahya Ibn Ma’ēn and Imām Ahmad Ibn Hanbal. - Al-Bidāyah Wa-Nihāyah” (Vol 13/119) [At-Tibyan Sharh’ Nawāqidh Al-Islam by Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhāb; explanation and footnotes by Sulaymān al-Alwān, Pg. 38]
Kufr .bit.taghut ‘Saudi’??? You mean like ibn baz claimed and Al-Albaani and Uthaymeen etc etc Why did they all not make takfeer using your belief Don’t skip these scholars due to your hatred for saudi blinding you because they all said istihlaal and so did many Ulama past like shiekh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah and istihlaal is not the only term used btw. As for your quote about ijmaa There is no ijmaa for the topic at hand because what you quoted clearly says ‘put it before it’ this means deems it better, (taqdeem) and is a major kufur belief, not merely ruling for which the scholars have all said is kufur asghar (minor) Please read and understand your own quotes and check if it is for you before you go fataawah shopping Can takfeer be made of the rulers of today Shiekh Ibn Uthaymeen m.ua-cam.com/video/as4P0i4F_7k/v-deo.html
With respect akhi, why do you guys avoid politics when it refers to the crimes of the Gulf states but suddenly get political when it's in their interest like regime change in Libya 2011, Syria 2012-present, Yemen 2014-present ?. I really want that question answered, is there some kind of unspoken loyalty to the Saudi regime amongst other regimes?.
Or maybe they just fear for their lives.. Look at all the sheikhs that are facing death sentences right now just for speaking the Haqq. It's a tricky one akhi
Well then you have to learn salafiyya deeply , what you have just said ... is concluding thing based what you see , through your perspective, which is perspective that doesn't comprehend essence of salafiyya fully ( don't worry , we don't know something sometimes, me too) See, salafiyya hates proclaiming hatred toward muslim ruler , its haram , its prohibited based on salaf's consensus , im from indonesia and thats what salafiyya does here . Then why we talk politics in specific place ? Well salafiyya show you the result of proclaiming hatred toward ruler . Really brother Its really silly misconception
First of all, what do you mean by "you guys" and "getting political"? Who of the major scholars of Saudi Arabia or these brothers called to anything concerning those countries? Let me clarify because you are confusing the issues: 1. Ghaddafi was declared Kafir already in 80's/90's by Scholars (who "those guys" follow) and none of them called the people to revolt against him or issued a fatwa of jihad. If they were the cause, why should it then take 20-30 years to start revolting? 2. Who of the major scholars called for rebelling in Syria? There are enough scholars who warned the people of doing so. I recommend you this short clip on this matter: "The Syrian Situation Explained In Beautiful Detail by Shaykh Sulayman ar-Ruhayli" 3. In Yemen its quite the opposite. Saudi Arabia is backing the government after President Salih asked for help when the Huthis took over the capital of Yemen and other major towns. Nobody called anyone to get involved in that conflict or this issue at all. So what are you referring to?
...and to prove that abderahman hassan is on the path of ahlu bid3a in reasoning, watch him and listen from 45:55 min to his answer when the host proved from the quran "إن الحكم إلا لله" wich is a muhkam-verse that the one who implements a judgment for the people to abide with wich contradict the judgment of Allah is a kafir, abderahman hassan countered this verse with the hadith wich states that the one who draw pictures is also creating just like Allah creates, so are the picture-makers kufar? Abderahman hassan came with a shubha wich is "mutashabih" i.e it can be explained is several ways. And this is the path of ahlu bid3a, they leave the muhkam verses and go to the mutashabih-texts. It is just like when we discuss with ash3aris about the aboveness of Allah and we use the verse of Allah settling on His Throne, they counter us with a verse wich is mutashabih like Allah is closer to you than your juggler-vain. Abderrham hassan himself said that it took him 9 years to solve the issue of judging by other then Allah and clearly said that he is on the path of shayk albani in this matter and we all know his speech about iman and kufr
Abderhman hassan: "Wich of the mufasireen explained the verse "ساء ما يحكمون" for instance in surat nahl 59, the way jou explained it? You said that it speaks about the action of burying the girls alive while the mufasireen says that they attribute the judgment for the allowance to burying them is from Allah !! This is what ibn kathir says: "Certainly, evil is their decision. meaning how evil are the words they say, the way they want to share things out and the things they attribute to Him" So this is talking about the i3tiqaad of the action believing that its halal while Allah never said this and not about the action of itself. I challenge everyone: Who of the salaf expained "يحكمون" as "actions" ??
@@faim.a7303After a quick check in the biggest tafaasir, the ayah in surah nahl, they almost all say it about them ascribing to Allaah that which they dont like for themselves, and ascribing daughters to Him and sons to themselves, meaning this part : ساء ما يحكمون. But I agree with u its better to be respectful , let Abdurrahman Hassan explain what he means on this part fully, he is fully capable of that and I dont think he is trying to deceive anyone.
@@foufoua The majority of mufassireen said about that ayat that it refers to them attributing daughters to Allah. This includes Tabari, Ibn Kathir, Qurtubi, Ibn Ashoor, Saadi and Baghawy. Some of the mufassireen said that the meaning (or one of the meanings) is that they buried their daughters, most notably al Baghawi. But the ayat is general so both meaning are included Absolutely none of them said that it refers to istihlal by them believing it is permissible for them to do so
@@themansami Tafsir al baghawi: (ألا ساء ما يحكمون ) بئس ما يقضون لله البنات ولأنفسهم البنين ، نظيره : " ألكم الذكر وله الأنثى تلك إذا قسمة ضيزى " ( النجم - 22 ) ، وقيل : بئس حكمهم وأد البنات . Is the mening of the aya " ساء ما يحكمون" talking about the deeds/actions or about the judgment/decision wich comes from their believes/i3tiqaad ?
AbdulRahman Hassan is not only a jāhil but a liar too. He claimed that the saying of Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنه is authentic after being questioned by Shahid over its authenticity. “What has reached us from Ibn Abbās from his saying “Kufr Duna Kufr” is not reliable. It is narrated in Al-Hākim in his Mustadraq (Vol. 2/313) by the way of Hishām Ibn Hujāyr on the authority of Tawūs who heard it from Ibn Abbās. However, Hishām is declared Da’eef by Yahya Ibn Ma’ēn and Imām Ahmad Ibn Hanbal. - Al-Bidāyah Wa-Nihāyah” (Vol 13/119) [At-Tibyan Sharh’ Nawāqidh Al-Islam by Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhāb; explanation and footnotes by Sulaymān al-Alwān, Pg. 38]
Kufr .bit.taghut Deeming it weak has been dismantled in-depth in a book called ‘A study of the A Study Of The Tafsir Of Abdullah Ibn Abbas (RA) Kufr Duna Kufr’ 72 pages of words from the giant scholars of hadith Also showing that Imam ahmed did not deem it weak as misunderstood by todays less knowledgeable of mustalah al-hadith or at least Imam Ahmed’s mustalah [Published by Jamiah Media] Also shiekh Ibn al-Uthaymeen said “...some of those who have been effected with the fitna of takfeer (in this era) try to deem this weak...” (His ta’leeq on imam Al-Albaani’s book fitnat at-Takfeer)
@@truthseeker2095 don't listen to these statements. Even if we agree that Hisham is weak then we still believe the ayaat in maidah mean kufr that doesn't take muslims out of Islam unless they believe and utter saying ruling with man made laws is better or equal to the law of Allah. Hisham bin Hujayr is not weak as a general Statement bcos scholars differed about him. Sometimes times his hadeeth is accepted and sometimes not. Even Bukhari and Muslim reported from him in Saheeh but with corroborating chains .
In an attempt to excuse all of those who rule by other than what Allah revealed, this Murji and his tail ('Imran the showman) repeat that the tafsir of the ayah: 👈 أَلَا سَاءَ مَا يَحْكُمُونَ 👉 🔵 "Verily, evil is what they judge," is referring to the mushrikin burying their daughters and that, therefore, hukm refers to one's actions. And so if you say the kufr in the ayah: وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ 🔵 "Whoever does not rule by what Allah revealed - then it is those who the kafirun," is major kufr, then it implies that any sin like drinking alcohol is kufr. Because (according to them) hukm here is referring to any action, and it is only the Khawarij who declare takfir of sins like drinking alcohol. So if you take the ayah upon its apparent they impose on you their understanding and tafsir and declare you from the Khawarij. ⚠️ However, if one refers to the 5 most well-known and relied upon books of tafsir (at-Tabari, al-Baghawi, al-Qurtubi, ibn Kathir, as-Sa'di) none of them stated that is what the former ayah means. They are in agreement that it is in reference to the mushrikin attributing daughters to Allah, while not being pleased with that for themselves. 🔵 Those 'ulama from the Salaf like ibn Mas'ud, al-Hasan al-Basri, an-Nakha'i, as-Suddi, and others, who took the ayah based upon what is apparent did not interpret hukm as referring to every action, but as what is clear from the ayat and context: ruling between parties during disputes. The Khawarij did take this ayah and apply it to every action, claiming that is what was apparent. But they were refuted by the 'ulama like ibn 'Abbas and his students in their understanding. This is where the statements of kufrun duna kufr come in. They were refutations against the Khawarij who applied it upon every sin. They were not statements in support of the batil claim that ruling by other than what Allah revealed is kufrun duna kufr.
![The Hot Seat Podcast || Deconstructing Salafism in the 21st century [Ep 2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dIfURT-IzA0/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Hot Seat Podcast || Misconceptions of Bidah in Muslim Society [Ep 3]](/img/n.gif)
Best Podcast! Full of Knowledge and wisdom! Allahumabarik!
Alhumdullilah this is a great podcast, I love how the host is giving the shaykh these tough questions
good work brothers.
Can you put these into a playlist ان شاء الله
Abderrahman hassan:
To understand the verse "ومن لم يحكم بما أنزل الله فأولئك هم الكافرون", you have to go to the سباب النزول، i.e the reason of revelation.
You will see that the jews changed the legislation for zina from stoning to death into blackening the faces while they believed that it is NOT from Allah
In an attempt to excuse all of those who rule by other than what Allah revealed, this Murji and his tail ('Imran the showman) repeat that the tafsir of the ayah:
👈 أَلَا سَاءَ مَا يَحْكُمُونَ 👉
🔵 "Verily, evil is what they judge," is referring to the mushrikin burying their daughters and that, therefore, hukm refers to one's actions. And so if you say the kufr in the ayah:
وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ
🔵 "Whoever does not rule by what Allah revealed - then it is those who the kafirun," is major kufr, then it implies that any sin like drinking alcohol is kufr. Because (according to them) hukm here is referring to any action, and it is only the Khawarij who declare takfir of sins like drinking alcohol. So if you take the ayah upon its apparent they impose on you their understanding and tafsir and declare you from the Khawarij.
⚠️ However, if one refers to the 5 most well-known and relied upon books of tafsir (at-Tabari, al-Baghawi, al-Qurtubi, ibn Kathir, as-Sa'di) none of them stated that is what the former ayah means. They are in agreement that it is in reference to the mushrikin attributing daughters to Allah, while not being pleased with that for themselves.
🔵 Those 'ulama from the Salaf like ibn Mas'ud, al-Hasan al-Basri, an-Nakha'i, as-Suddi, and others, who took the ayah based upon what is apparent did not interpret hukm as referring to every action, but as what is clear from the ayat and context: ruling between parties during disputes. The Khawarij did take this ayah and apply it to every action, claiming that is what was apparent. But they were refuted by the 'ulama like ibn 'Abbas and his students in their understanding. This is where the statements of kufrun duna kufr come in. They were refutations against the Khawarij who applied it upon every sin. They were not statements in support of the batil claim that ruling by other than what Allah revealed is kufrun duna kufr.
Do you have a link to the entire version his recitation used in the intro
Ruling other than the Qur'aan and Sunnah is a great bid'ah and kufur Al Akbar. No doubt about that-the Book of Allah is sufficient to know that, Sunnah is aswell as common sense.
Whats the name of the book
Ramadan's come and gone Alhamdulillah. Brothers can now drink some tea/water, put those cups and vessel to good use and don't let them sit there for decoration 😂😂😂. Salaam Alaykum
inshaAllah can someone tell me the name of the reciter of the Quran in the beginning of the program
It's UstadhAbdurrahman Hassan himself
@@UmmSh ok, mashaAllah
If a person does not pray 5 times a day out of laziness, does that make him, her a non muslim?
Scholars differ about this but, the least that can be said : whoever does so is on the verge of kufr. Many ahadeeth explain this. Abandoning Salah is worse than Zina, alcohol according to the consensus of Muslim scholars
You said "5 times a day", if you pray 2 or today you pray 4, this is a major sin, according to some of the Scholars.
But if you were to abandon it all together or believe that it's not a must to pray or must to pray 5times(5 salah, accorded to the Sunnah) then is major kufur.
That's one opinion.
The 2nd is if you give up even 1(out of laziness or hardly prayed salah then you have left the fold of Islam, regardless of what's in your heart i.e believe that Salah is a must, and Tawhid etc.
Both are just views. Wallau a'lam and anyone please correct me if i said wrong. Baralu Allahu fik.
Stop speaking from yourself and bring proof from statements of the Salaf, oh liars!
"In an attempt to excuse all of those who rule by other than what Allah revealed, this Murji and his tail ('Imran the showman) repeat that the tafsir of the ayah:
👈 ألَا سَاءَ مَا يَحْكُمُونَ 👉
🔵 "Verily, evil is what they judge," is referring to the mushrikin burying their daughters and that, therefore, hukm refers to one's actions. And so if you say the kufr in the ayah:
وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ
🔵 "Whoever does not rule by what Allah revealed - then it is those who the kafirun," is major kufr, then it implies that any sin like drinking alcohol is kufr. Because (according to them) hukm here is referring to any action, and it is only the Khawarij who declare takfir of sins like drinking alcohol. So if you take the ayah upon its apparent they impose on you their understanding and tafsir and declare you from the Khawarij.
⚠️ However, if one refers to the 5 most well-known and relied upon books of tafsir (at-Tabari, al-Baghawi, al-Qurtubi, ibn Kathir, as-Sa'di) none of them stated that is what the former ayah means. They are in agreement that it is in reference to the mushrikin attributing daughters to Allah, while not being pleased with that for themselves.
🔵 Those 'ulama from the Salaf like ibn Mas'ud, al-Hasan al-Basri, an-Nakha'i, as-Suddi, and others, who took the ayah based upon what is apparent *did not* interpret hukm as referring to every action, but as what is clear from the ayat and context: ruling between parties during disputes. The Khawarij did take this ayah and apply it to every action, claiming that is what was apparent. But they were refuted by the 'ulama like ibn 'Abbas and his students in their understanding. This is where the statements of kufrun duna kufr come in. They were refutations against the Khawarij who applied it upon every sin. They were not statements in support of the batil claim that ruling by other than what Allah revealed is kufrun duna kufr.
Additionally, The Murji says that there is an ijma' that ruling by other than what Allah revealed is minor kufr. The official committee of scholars of Sa'udiyyah, however, said years ago whoever claims such has lied upon Ahlus-Sunnah due to jahl or an evil intention."
- Companions of Hadith via Telegram
Great conversation. Very educational but you guys should bering somebody that actually has the views being discussed. Not two people who have the same views. Let both parties bring their evidence and debate it out. Then the listener can make his own decision based on the evidence.
That's risky business for them...
Well, everyone else talks about there own views on different platforms. This isnt BBC or any media channel. I don't see any point in what u are saying. They are here to preach for the right perspective nd what they believe in and not to confuse the listeners and they are here not to debate other people with different views .that has it's own time
⚖ Whoever does not Judge by what Allah Revealed is from the Kafirun, Dhalimun, and Fasiqun ⚖
👉 Al-Qasimi (rahimahullah) said in his tafsir: Concerning this topic, it is reported from ibn Mas‘ud, al-Hasan [al-Basri], and an-Nakha‘i that these three ayat are general in its application to the Jews and this ummah. So whoever takes a bribe and substitutes the [correct] ruling, and thus rules by other than the ruling of Allah, then, he has disbelieved, oppressed, and acted immorally. This is also the view of as-Suddi, because it is what is apparent of the address.
وقال القاسميي رحمه الله في تفسيره: (ونقل في اللباب عن ابن مسعود والحسن والنخعي؛ أن هذه الآيات الثلاث عامة في اليهود وفي هذه الأمة، فكل من ارتشى وبدل الحكم، فحكم بغير حكم الله، فقد كفر وظلم وفسق، وإليه ذهب السدي، لأنه ظاهر الخطاب).
⚠️ Don't allow the shubuhat of the neo-Jahmiyyah creep in upon you that the Salaf have an ijma' that ruling by other than what Allah revealed is minor kufr. They are liars. There is a disagreement amongst the Salaf on whether or not the one who leaves the ruling of Allah is a kafir for doing it once or not. And that is in contrast to ruling by other than what Allah revealed, where there is an ijma' related that whoever does so is a kafir.
Eddie Austin Ibn Bāz: “There is no imān for the one who believes the laws of the people and their opinions are superior to the Hukm of Allāh and His Messenger or that they are equal to it or that they resemble it or who leaves it or replaces it with fabricated laws and institutions invented by people, even if he believes that the laws of Allah are more encompassing and more just."
- [Wujoob Tah'keem Shari'ah Allah' (pg. 16-17)]
Ibn Bāz says he doesn’t care what is in your heart, as long as you dismantle the sharī’ah, you are a kāfir
Eddie Austin Uthaymīn: "The first type is when the Hukm of Allāh is removed and replaced with another Tāghūtī Hukm, so that the Hukm of the Sharī'ah is eliminated between the people and he puts in its place another Hukm from the fabrication of the humans and they remove the laws of the Sharī'ah concerning the Mu'amalah (i. e. the general actions between people) and they put in its place fabricated laws and this, without doubt, is Istib'daal (i. e. replacement) of the Sharī'ah of Allāh subhānahū wa-ta'āla, with other than it. And this is Kufr which removes one from the Millah because this person put himself at the level of the Creator because he shara'a (legislated) for the slaves of Allāh that which Allāh ta'āla did not give permission for and that is Shirk in His, ta'āla's saying: "Or have they partners with Allâh (false gods), who have instituted for them a religion, which Allâh has not allowed?"
- (Ash-Shu'ara, 21) - "Fiqh Al-'Ebaadaat",
Eddie Austin Ibn Kathir: “So whoever leaves the clear Sharī’ah, which was revealed to Muhammad Ibn Abdullāh, the Seal of the Prophets, and takes the Hukm to other than it from the laws of Kufr which are abrogated, he has disbelieved. So what about the one who takes the Hukm to the ‘Yasiq’ (the law of the Tartars which mixed Shari’ah rulings with invented rulings) and puts it before it?! Whoever does that, he has disbelieved by the Ijmaa’ of the Muslims.” - “Al-
Bidāyah wa Nihāyah”, Vol. 13/118-119.
Ibn Kathir رحمه الله didn’t say the Ijmā of the scholars but Ijmā of the muslims So the mere dismantling of the sharia makes you a kāfir. You do not have to do istihlāl like the Saudi salafis claim.
Eddie Austin AbdulRahman Hassan is not only a jāhil but a liar too. He claimed that the saying of Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنه is authentic after being questioned by Shahid over its authenticity.
“What has reached us from Ibn Abbās from his saying “Kufr Duna Kufr” is not reliable. It is narrated in Al-Hākim in his Mustadraq (Vol. 2/313) by the way of Hishām Ibn Hujāyr on the authority of Tawūs who heard it from Ibn Abbās. However, Hishām is declared Da’eef
by Yahya Ibn Ma’ēn and Imām Ahmad Ibn Hanbal.
- Al-Bidāyah Wa-Nihāyah” (Vol 13/119) [At-Tibyan Sharh’ Nawāqidh Al-Islam by Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhāb;
explanation and footnotes by Sulaymān al-Alwān, Pg. 38]
Kufr .bit.taghut
‘Saudi’???
You mean like ibn baz claimed and Al-Albaani and Uthaymeen etc etc
Why did they all not make takfeer using your belief
Don’t skip these scholars due to your hatred for saudi blinding you because they all said istihlaal and so did many Ulama past like shiekh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah and istihlaal is not the only term used btw.
As for your quote about ijmaa
There is no ijmaa for the topic at hand because what you quoted clearly says ‘put it before it’ this means deems it better, (taqdeem) and is a major kufur belief, not merely ruling for which the scholars have all said is kufur asghar (minor)
Please read and understand your own quotes and check if it is for you before you go fataawah shopping
Can takfeer be made of the rulers of today
Shiekh Ibn Uthaymeen
m.ua-cam.com/video/as4P0i4F_7k/v-deo.html
In Somali language these soo call Salafees (waa kali good muslim).
With respect akhi, why do you guys avoid politics when it refers to the crimes of the Gulf states but suddenly get political when it's in their interest like regime change in Libya 2011, Syria 2012-present, Yemen 2014-present ?. I really want that question answered, is there some kind of unspoken loyalty to the Saudi regime amongst other regimes?.
Or maybe they just fear for their lives.. Look at all the sheikhs that are facing death sentences right now just for speaking the Haqq. It's a tricky one akhi
Well then you have to learn salafiyya deeply , what you have just said ... is concluding thing based what you see , through your perspective, which is perspective that doesn't comprehend essence of salafiyya fully ( don't worry , we don't know something sometimes, me too)
See, salafiyya hates proclaiming hatred toward muslim ruler , its haram , its prohibited based on salaf's consensus , im from indonesia and thats what salafiyya does here .
Then why we talk politics in specific place ? Well salafiyya show you the result of proclaiming hatred toward ruler .
Really brother Its really silly misconception
@@revert2014 keep assuming without proof ...
And which salafy or which sheikh which talking about politic?
First of all, what do you mean by "you guys" and "getting political"? Who of the major scholars of Saudi Arabia or these brothers called to anything concerning those countries? Let me clarify because you are confusing the issues:
1. Ghaddafi was declared Kafir already in 80's/90's by Scholars (who "those guys" follow) and none of them called the people to revolt against him or issued a fatwa of jihad. If they were the cause, why should it then take 20-30 years to start revolting?
2. Who of the major scholars called for rebelling in Syria? There are enough scholars who warned the people of doing so. I recommend you this short clip on this matter: "The Syrian Situation Explained In Beautiful Detail by Shaykh Sulayman ar-Ruhayli"
3. In Yemen its quite the opposite. Saudi Arabia is backing the government after President Salih asked for help when the Huthis took over the capital of Yemen and other major towns. Nobody called anyone to get involved in that conflict or this issue at all.
So what are you referring to?
hard questions
...and to prove that abderahman hassan is on the path of ahlu bid3a in reasoning, watch him and listen from 45:55 min to his answer when the host proved from the quran "إن الحكم إلا لله" wich is a muhkam-verse that the one who implements a judgment for the people to abide with wich contradict the judgment of Allah is a kafir, abderahman hassan countered this verse with the hadith wich states that the one who draw pictures is also creating just like Allah creates, so are the picture-makers kufar?
Abderahman hassan came with a shubha wich is "mutashabih" i.e it can be explained is several ways.
And this is the path of ahlu bid3a, they leave the muhkam verses and go to the mutashabih-texts.
It is just like when we discuss with ash3aris about the aboveness of Allah and we use the verse of Allah settling on His Throne, they counter us with a verse wich is mutashabih like Allah is closer to you than your juggler-vain.
Abderrham hassan himself said that it took him 9 years to solve the issue of judging by other then Allah and clearly said that he is on the path of shayk albani in this matter and we all know his speech about iman and kufr
Abderhman hassan:
"Wich of the mufasireen explained the verse "ساء ما يحكمون" for instance in surat nahl 59, the way jou explained it? You said that it speaks about the action of burying the girls alive while the mufasireen says that they attribute the judgment for the allowance to burying them is from Allah !!
This is what ibn kathir says:
"Certainly, evil is their decision. meaning how evil are the words they say, the way they want to share things out and the things they attribute to Him"
So this is talking about the i3tiqaad of the action believing that its halal while Allah never said this and not about the action of itself.
I challenge everyone:
Who of the salaf expained "يحكمون" as "actions" ??
@@faim.a7303After a quick check in the biggest tafaasir, the ayah in surah nahl, they almost all say it about them ascribing to Allaah that which they dont like for themselves, and ascribing daughters to Him and sons to themselves, meaning this part : ساء ما يحكمون. But I agree with u its better to be respectful , let Abdurrahman Hassan explain what he means on this part fully, he is fully capable of that and I dont think he is trying to deceive anyone.
@@faim.a7303
Give me one of the salaf who interpreted the word "يحكمون" in "يعملون" or "يفعلون"
@@foufoua The majority of mufassireen said about that ayat that it refers to them attributing daughters to Allah. This includes Tabari, Ibn Kathir, Qurtubi, Ibn Ashoor, Saadi and Baghawy.
Some of the mufassireen said that the meaning (or one of the meanings) is that they buried their daughters, most notably al Baghawi.
But the ayat is general so both meaning are included
Absolutely none of them said that it refers to istihlal by them believing it is permissible for them to do so
@@themansami
Tafsir al baghawi:
(ألا ساء ما يحكمون ) بئس ما يقضون لله البنات ولأنفسهم البنين ، نظيره : " ألكم الذكر وله الأنثى تلك إذا قسمة ضيزى " ( النجم - 22 ) ، وقيل : بئس حكمهم وأد البنات .
Is the mening of the aya " ساء ما يحكمون" talking about the deeds/actions or about the judgment/decision wich comes from their believes/i3tiqaad ?
I like silence
AbdulRahman Hassan is not only a jāhil but a liar too. He claimed that the saying of Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنه is authentic after being questioned by Shahid over its authenticity.
“What has reached us from Ibn Abbās from his saying “Kufr Duna Kufr” is not reliable. It is narrated in Al-Hākim in his Mustadraq (Vol. 2/313) by the way of Hishām Ibn Hujāyr on the authority of Tawūs who heard it from Ibn Abbās. However, Hishām is declared Da’eef
by Yahya Ibn Ma’ēn and Imām Ahmad Ibn Hanbal.
- Al-Bidāyah Wa-Nihāyah” (Vol 13/119) [At-Tibyan Sharh’ Nawāqidh Al-Islam by Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhāb;
explanation and footnotes by Sulaymān al-Alwān, Pg. 38]
Why was hisham declared as weak? Please give us insight shaykh.
Kufr .bit.taghut
Deeming it weak has been dismantled in-depth in a book called
‘A study of the A Study Of The Tafsir Of Abdullah Ibn Abbas (RA) Kufr Duna Kufr’
72 pages of words from the giant scholars of hadith
Also showing that Imam ahmed did not deem it weak as misunderstood by todays less knowledgeable of mustalah al-hadith or at least Imam Ahmed’s mustalah
[Published by Jamiah Media]
Also shiekh Ibn al-Uthaymeen said
“...some of those who have been effected with the fitna of takfeer (in this era) try to deem this weak...”
(His ta’leeq on imam Al-Albaani’s book fitnat at-Takfeer)
@@truthseeker2095 don't listen to these statements. Even if we agree that Hisham is weak then we still believe the ayaat in maidah mean kufr that doesn't take muslims out of Islam unless they believe and utter saying ruling with man made laws is better or equal to the law of Allah. Hisham bin Hujayr is not weak as a general Statement bcos scholars differed about him. Sometimes times his hadeeth is accepted and sometimes not. Even Bukhari and Muslim reported from him in Saheeh but with corroborating chains .
In an attempt to excuse all of those who rule by other than what Allah revealed, this Murji and his tail ('Imran the showman) repeat that the tafsir of the ayah:
👈 أَلَا سَاءَ مَا يَحْكُمُونَ 👉
🔵 "Verily, evil is what they judge," is referring to the mushrikin burying their daughters and that, therefore, hukm refers to one's actions. And so if you say the kufr in the ayah:
وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ
🔵 "Whoever does not rule by what Allah revealed - then it is those who the kafirun," is major kufr, then it implies that any sin like drinking alcohol is kufr. Because (according to them) hukm here is referring to any action, and it is only the Khawarij who declare takfir of sins like drinking alcohol. So if you take the ayah upon its apparent they impose on you their understanding and tafsir and declare you from the Khawarij.
⚠️ However, if one refers to the 5 most well-known and relied upon books of tafsir (at-Tabari, al-Baghawi, al-Qurtubi, ibn Kathir, as-Sa'di) none of them stated that is what the former ayah means. They are in agreement that it is in reference to the mushrikin attributing daughters to Allah, while not being pleased with that for themselves.
🔵 Those 'ulama from the Salaf like ibn Mas'ud, al-Hasan al-Basri, an-Nakha'i, as-Suddi, and others, who took the ayah based upon what is apparent did not interpret hukm as referring to every action, but as what is clear from the ayat and context: ruling between parties during disputes. The Khawarij did take this ayah and apply it to every action, claiming that is what was apparent. But they were refuted by the 'ulama like ibn 'Abbas and his students in their understanding. This is where the statements of kufrun duna kufr come in. They were refutations against the Khawarij who applied it upon every sin. They were not statements in support of the batil claim that ruling by other than what Allah revealed is kufrun duna kufr.