Archive of Tawheed

Why Are The ‘Scholars’ Silent? | Abu Hanzala Back up channel: https://t.me/kufrbittaghut2

We all know why he's silent

This is the official stance of the UAE government. Had anyone said return to ruling by the book of Allah their house would be raided that morning and Faris al Hammadi would make 10 refutation videos full of personal attacks. Where is the refutation for this? Isn't a caliphate something all Muslims want? What's wrong with that?

Those Who Take The Rulers As Lords Besides Allah | Abu Hanzala Back up channel: https://t.me/kufrbittaghut2

Saudi Preacher Khalid Al-Rashid's Imprisonment Marks 20 Years Sheikh Khalid Al-Rashid, who called for protests against the insulting cartoons depicting the Prophet (SAW) published in Denmark in 2005, was arrested by the Saudi authorities on charges of inciting fitnah. Born in 1970, Khalid Al-Rashid was arrested in Mecca in 2006 while performing Umrah and subsequently imprisoned. It is reported that he has been subjected to ill-treatment and torture while in prison.

🔴 The funerals of 112 bodies, extracted from the rubble of the residential block struck by Israel in Gaza's Sabra neighborhood on November 22, 2023. Approximately three years after the attack have been held. 308 people lost their lives in the attack. "If the dead had been someone who perished for insulting the Messenger of Allah, all the world’s leaders would gather, speaking of peace, brotherhood, and condemning terrorism, trying to convince us that they are humanitarian. What is the crime of these people that they are buried alive? Why are politicians, the media, and civil society organisations who only seem to remember humanity when Westerners die now silent?" - Abu Hanzala

Answering the doubts of Irja: The Dhat Anwat Incident What is the 'Dhat Anwat Incident'? Dhat Anwat was a tree which the polytheists of Mecca hung their swords and sought blessings from the tree prior to war. This was their tradition. In a hadith one of the companions asked the Prophet (SAW) to build one like it, to which the Prophet responded: “Allahu Akbar! What you have said is just like what the Children of Israel said to Musa: ‘Make for us a god just as they have gods’ [Al-A‘raf 7:138]. You will indeed follow the ways of those before you.” The companions who requested this were new Muslims and they claim that the request was major shirk, but the Prophet (PBUH) didn't make takfir of them [i.e. excused them]. Therefore those who pray to the dead, vote in democratic elections, join the armies of the tawaghit etc. can also be excused because they are ignorant. Answer: ➡ The scholars unanimously agreed that the request made to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was not major shirk because they did not request to worship the tree itself. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned this narration three times in his work Majmu‘ al-Fatawa and twice in his work Iqtida al-Sirat al-Mustaqim. In particular, when discussing this hadith under the subject of “the prohibition of resembling the disbelievers,” he was once asked about the ruling on people visiting specific places to supplicate to Allah there or performing similar acts. He cited this narration as evidence and said: “All of these are innovations. They are from the practices of the people of Jahiliyyah, and they are paths that lead to shirk.” He also mentioned the same hadith and said: “As can be seen in this hadith, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) rejected the Companions’ request for a mere tree under which they could rest in its shade and upon which they could hang their weapons, on the grounds that it was imitation of the disbelievers. So how could it be permissible, then, to imitate the polytheists in matters of far greater importance, or to show admiration for shirk itself?” Likewise, when explaining the issue of venerating places that are not to be venerated, Imam Suyuti, while speaking about the innovations committed in this regard, used the exact same words as Ibn Taymiyyah: “Take note of how the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) rejected their mere desire to imitate the disbelievers.” ➡ The people of Irja to equate a group who had newly entered Islam and went out to jihad alongside the Messenger of Allah with a people who have for years claimed to be Muslims (the tawaghit and their helpers) yet do not give the slightest importance to even a single ruling of Allah, let alone go forth to jihad. This must surely be among the most corrupt of comparisons. ➡ Lastly, the evidence put forward by the contemporary Murji’ah is not a decisive text regarding the dispute between us. In this narration, was the request made by some of the Companions an act of major shirk that expels from Islam, or was it minor shirk that does not expel its doer from Islam? The ambiguity here, the fact that the indication of the report is speculative (zanni) and that it accommodates more than one possible interpretation, shows that this narration cannot be taken as a clear and definitive proof on the matter. Therefore, what must be done before anything else is to evaluate the issue in light of the definitive, decisive texts. Allah (SWT) has declared that He will never forgive those who commit shirk, and He has named those who commit shirk as mushriks in His Book. The specification of these decisive texts with the claim that “if a person commits shirk out of ignorance, he cannot be named a mushrik” can only be done with other texts that are themselves equally decisive. To abandon the clear and explicit verses on this subject and instead deduce rulings from a narration, the indication of which is entirely speculative, is nothing short of the peak of ignorance. ✒ Murat Gezenler

The Hadith of the Ashes This hadith has no connection to the claim that ignorance can excuse shirk. The expression "لَئِنْ قَدَرَ عَلَيَّ" does not mean "if Allah has power over me". In Arabic, it can mean to restrain or rigorous questioning. The Qur’an uses the same wording regarding Yunus (AS): فَظَنَّ أَن لَّن نَّقْدِرَ عَلَيْهِ "And ˹remember˺ when the Man of the Whale stormed off ˹from his city˺ in a rage, thinking We would not restrain him..." [21:87] If we translate it the way these people translate the hadith, it would mean Yunus (AS) thought Allah had no power over him. Ibn Kathir, al-Qurtubi and other mufassirun explicitly reject this interpretation, clearly stating that it can amount to disbelief. So if you insist that the man in the Hadith of the Ashes meant, "If Allah has power over me, He will punish me," why don't you translate the verse about Yunus (AS) the same way?

Is There Excuse of Ignorance For People Who Commit Shirk | Abu Hanzala Back up channel: https://t.me/kufrbittaghut2

Just when you thought it couldn't get worse

More disgrace from these so-called du'at. This time with a Christian who goes by "Godlogic Apologetics" on YouTube. The guy he is smiling and posing with insults Allah and His Messenger. It's not haram to debate with disbelievers, but this type of friendly demeanor with people who insult Allah and the Prophet is not only disgraceful but it's also the type of wala' that endangers one's religion (if Sheikh Uthman ibn Faruq was really a Muslim...) It appears the only people they make bara' from is us, the Muslims. We are "khawarij", we are "terrorists", we are "extremists", "dogs of hellfire"...They never want to associate with us even though according to them we are still Muslim. I've seen Muslims being thrown out of mosques and removed from podcasts by so-called "Muslims" simply for saying that voting is shirk. But when it comes to people who insult Allah and His Messenger, they don't mind smiling and joking with them, taking pictures with them and so on.

Ibn al-Jawzi said: "My advice to you is this: never grow weary of sending blessings upon Muhammad (SAW). Whoever frequently sends blessings upon him, hoping for Allah's favour, Allah will aid him through His subtle kindness and gracious favour." 📚 Bustān al-Wāʿiẓīn

Our sisters in Roj protesting the frequent raids by the Kurdish forces. To speak out against what is happening in Gaza but to turn blind eye to what is happening in al-Hol, Roj, Rosafa and others is nothing but hypocrisy. No one will publicise the oppression happening in those camps. Why? Are they not women and children? Just as we pray for those in Gaza, we pray for them too. Just as Gazans need aid, so do the sisters in the camps.

Subhanallah! The so-called dawah scene of the coconuts is an utter disgrace. The guy in the back, for those who don't know, is David Wood. A Zionist Christian who insulted the Prophet (SAW) countless times, who ripped pages of the Quran, burned the Quran did every possible thing to insult Allah, His Messenger, the wife of the Messenger and the Muslims. Like that's not enough, he supports the mass murder carried out by Israel in Gaza yet these people are out there joking with him, hanging out with him like they're friends. Forget wala and bara they even refer to him as "D-Wood" and seek his validation...Such is the spinelessness of these engagement chasing clowns. Sadly the English speaking demographic is dominated by the likes of these people. There's only one known person in the English speaking dawah scene who is actually preaching Islam and that's not nearly enough to combat these mushrikin who are misguiding mass numbers of people.

Wiping Over Socks For Wudhu & Its Conditions The fact that the Prophet (SAW) wiped over socks and commanded people to wipe over socks has reached the level of mutawatir. Because of this, when you open books of aqeedah you will find statements such as, "We wipe over socks." What place does the issue of wiping over socks have in books of aqeedah? It is because this matter has been transmitted by tawatur, and since the people of bid'ah rejected it, Ahl al-Sunnah reflected their acceptance of it in their books of aqeedah. Therefore, it is permissible to wipe over socks. But what are the conditions for wiping over socks? There are only two conditions regarding wiping over socks. Every condition mentioned beyond these two is the result of the scholars' own ijtihad. Such ijtihad is binding only upon the scholar who made it and is not binding upon anyone else. The first condition is this: whatever we wipe over, whether socks, shoes, or anything else, must have been put on while in a state of ritual purity. Al-Mughirah ibn Shu'bah (RA) said: "I was travelling with the Prophet (SAW). The Prophet performed ablution, and I bent down to remove his leather socks. He said, 'Leave them, for I put them on while I was in a state of purity.'" This shows that whatever we wear on our feet must have been put on while we were in a state of purity. It makes no difference whether it is socks, shoes, or a bandage. The second condition is that the Prophet (SAW) permitted a resident to wipe over what he is wearing on his feet for one day and one night, and a traveller for three days and three nights. Narrated by Ali ibn Abi Talib (RA): "The Messenger of Allah (SAW) appointed three days and three nights for the traveller, and one day and one night for the resident." As for conditions such as the socks having to be thick, suitable for walking in, or preventing water from passing through...where did these conditions come from? They are conclusions reached by scholars through ijtihad in the circumstances in which they lived. We respect those ijtihad; they represent the opinions of those scholars, and they are obliged to act according to their own reasoning. However, if someone wishes to place a restriction upon something that the Prophet (SAW) stated in absolute terms, then he must also provide evidence for that restriction. Just as we learned the permissibility of wiping over socks from the Prophet (SAW), we also learn its conditions from the Prophet (SAW). For this reason, there is nothing wrong with wiping over thin socks. Moreover, there are explicit narrations from Umar ibn al-Khattab (RA) and Anas ibn Malik (RA) that they wiped over thin socks. Anas (RA) said that they would wipe over woollen socks even though water could pass through them, and it has been reported from Umar (RA) that wiping over socks is permissible even if they are thin. Therefore, whether the socks are thin or thick, whether the shoes are thin or thick, and whether what covers the foot is socks, shoes, or a bandage, it is permissible to wipe over them. ✒ Abu Hanzala

Those with whom you have entered into a treaty, then they break their treaty each time, and they do not fear Allah. [8:56] But for breaking their covenant We condemned them and hardened their hearts. They distorted the words of the Scripture and neglected a portion of what they had been commanded to uphold. You ˹O Prophet˺ will always find deceit on their part, except for a few. [5:13]

"I Don't Believe In Allah But I'm A Good Person" | Abu Hanzala Back up channel: https://t.me/kufrbittaghut2

When Does Entertainment Become Haram? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMK_aiDZ-Lc

The Path To Victory Is Through The Sharia | Abu Hanzala