Skip to main content

Three Destructive Sins Frequently Observed In The Actions of Netanyahu and His Henchmen

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

Allah [The Exalted] says:
وَمَن يَكْسِبْ خَطِيٓـَٔةً أَوْ إِثْمًا ثُمَّ يَرْمِ بِهِۦ بَرِيٓـًٔا فَقَدِ ٱحْتَمَلَ بُهْتَٰنًا وَإِثْمًا مُّبِينًا

And whoever earns a fault or a sin and then throws it on to someone innocent, he has indeed burdened himself with falsehood and a manifest sin. [Surah An-Nisaa. Ayah 112]

Meaning: He has taken on the weight of the false accusations against the innocent, and committed an evident sin. This deed is one of the major and destructive sins, as he has combined several evils: earned a wrongful deed and sin, falsely accusing an innocent person, perpetuating a vile lie to absolve oneself and incriminate the blameless, and subjecting undeserving individuals to the consequences of such actions, and what it leads to regarding the people’s speech about the innocent person and other forms of corruption. [1]

The three sins highlighted in the Ayah are frequently observed in the actions of Netanyahu and his associates. There is no doubt that Netanyahu and his accomplices, recognised for their genocidal deeds, deserve to be included in the group of state figures who have carried out the most atrocious acts in contemporary times. Nevertheless, he endeavours to depict himself and his allies as advocates for the marginalised, despite being the ones with considerable political power and the capacity to impact policies and harm reputations. This reality is clear to any individual possessing a minimal amount of common sense.

Any influential person who dares to speak out against Netanyahu’s callous behaviour is pressured into retracting their statements under the guise of being labelled as anti-Semitic. This tactic is utilised to stifle dissent against Netanyahu’s Zionist regime, which aims to obfuscate the line between anti-Semitism and the atrocities committed by Zionists. It serves as a tool to suppress voices of reason, allowing for the perpetuation of injustice against Palestinians. Indeed, just as anti-Semitism is condemnable, so too is its manipulation to silence opposition or excuse the crimes inflicted upon Palestinians daily. The deliberate blurring of distinctions seeks to equate criticism of Netanyahu and Zionists with discrimination against Jews, conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. If successful in deceiving the masses with this fallacy, the Zionist agenda can persist unchecked, all while falsely claiming to represent the entire Jewish population and equating criticism of their actions with an attack on all Jews. This enables Netanyahu and his cohorts to justify their cruel and immoral conduct.

Also, the “Nazi Card” is frequently employed as a tactic against critics of the Zionists. In instances where the Zionists face harsh criticism or are reluctant to return what they have taken from the Palestinians, they resort to using the “Nazi card” as a defence mechanism, often proclaiming, “Never again will we allow a repetition of the suffering we have endured throughout history.” This strategy is predominantly utilised by the most extreme factions within the Zionist movement to discredit individuals who expose their wrongdoings and advocate for an immediate cessation of such actions. The settler movement, under the guidance of Zionist leaders and security forces, invokes these accusations when pressured to evacuate the occupied territories and relinquish unlawfully seized land. To reiterate, we refer to the Ayah once more:

Allah [The Exalted] says:
وَمَن يَكْسِبْ خَطِيٓـَٔةً أَوْ إِثْمًا ثُمَّ يَرْمِ بِهِۦ بَرِيٓـًٔا فَقَدِ ٱحْتَمَلَ بُهْتَٰنًا وَإِثْمًا مُّبِينًا

And whoever earns a fault or a sin and then throws it on to someone innocent, he has indeed burdened himself with falsehood and a manifest sin. [Surah An-Nisaa. Ayah 112]

Finally, exposing the Zionists for their evil behaviour does not mean that we condone the actions of anyone who sheds the blood of non-combatants. Saudi Prince Turki Al-Faisal stated on October 18, 2023: “All militarily occupied people have a right to resist their occupation, even militarily. I do not support the military option in Palestine. I prefer the other option: civil insurrection and disobedience. It brought down the British Empire in India and the Soviet Empire in Eastern Europe. Israel has overwhelming military superiority and we see in front of our eyes, the devastation and oblivion it is bringing to the people of Gaza. I categorically condemn Hamas’ targeting of civilian targets of any age or gender, as it is accused of. Such targeting belies Hamas’s claims to an Islamic identity. There is an Islamic injunction against the killing of innocent children, women, and elders. The injunction is also against the desecration of places of worship. I also condemn Hamas’ gifting the higher moral ground to an Israeli government that is universally shunned, even by half of the Israeli public as fascist, miscreant, and abhorrent. I condemn Hamas for giving this awful government the excuse to ethnically cleanse Gaza of its citizens and bombing them to oblivion. I condemn Hamas further undermining the Palestinian Authority as Israel has been doing. I condemn Hamas for sabotaging the attempt of Saudi Arabia to reach a peaceful resolution to the plight of the Palestinian people. But equally, I condemn Israel’s indiscriminate bombing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza and the attempt to forcibly drive them into Sinai. I condemn Israeli targeted killing and the indiscriminate Arrest of Palestinian children, women, and men in the West Bank. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I’ve been hearing a repeated phrase in American media: unprovoked attack. What more provocation is required to make it provoked than what Israel has done to the Palestinian people for three-quarters of a century? I refer you to the article in the Middle East Monitor of February 17 2014 under the title: Israeli army veterans admit role in massacre of Palestinians in 1948. Read it and weep as I did. Just this year, from May to July, over 450 Palestinians were killed, including 67 children. This bloodletting must stop. I condemn Israel’s stealing of Palestinian lands. I condemn Israeli colonists for rampaging through houses of worship in the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. I condemn Israel for destroying Palestinian homes and olive orchids. I condemn Israel for incarcerating Palestinian women, children, and men in concentration camps without reason to due process. I condemn Israel’s targeted killings and assassinations of Palestinians. I condemn Western politicians for shedding tears when Israelis are killed by Palestinians but refuse to even express sorrow when Israelis kill Palestinians. There are no heroes in this complicit. Only victims.


[1] An Excerpt from Tafsir As-Sadi

Contribution of the Callous Zionist propagandist and Rumour-monger [The Butcher of Gaza (Netanyahu)] to the blatant lies that led to the 2002 Invasion of Iraq!

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

Imam Ibn Al-Qayyim [may Allah have mercy upon him] said:

Beware of (lying or lies) because it corrupts one’s ability to illustrate information based on what it should be in reality. It corrupts one’s ability to illustrate information and his ability to teach the people. The liar portrays what is non-existent as something present and what is present as something non-existent. He portrays truth as something false and falsehood as something true; he portrays good as evil and evil as good, so this corrupts his conception and knowledge, which then becomes a punishment upon him. Then he portrays what is not true to the one deceived by him – the one who is inclined towards him- so he corrupts his conception and knowledge. The soul of the liar turns away from the existing reality -inclined towards what is non-existent and gives preference to falsehood. And when his conception and knowledge is corrupted, which is the basis of every wilfully chosen deed, his deeds become corrupt and marked by lies, so those deeds would emanate from him just as lies emanate from the tongue- he neither benefits from his tongue nor his deeds. This is why lying is the basis [or foundation] of immorality, just as the Prophet [peace and blessings of Allah be upon him]said, “Indeed lies lead to immorality [or wickedness] and indeed immorality [or wickedness] leads to the fire. [Bukhaari 2606/2607]

Firstly lies emerge from the heart and then on the tongue, so it corrupts it; then it transfers to the limbs and corrupts its actions, just as it corrupts the statements of the tongue. Therefore, lying prevails over his statements, deeds, and state of affairs; corruption becomes deeply rooted in him, and its disease leads to destruction if Allah does not grant him cure him with the medication of truthfulness, which uproots it (i.e. lying) from its original source. This is why the basis [or foundation] of all the deeds of the hearts is based on truthfulness; and the basis of their opposites – such as showing off, self-amazement, pride, being glad [with ungratefulness to Allah’s Favours], conceitedness, boastfulness, insolence, weakness, laziness, cowardice, disgrace and other than them- is lies. The origin of every righteous deed- whether carried out in private or public- is based on truthfulness. And the origin of every corrupt deed – whether carried out in private or public- is lies. [1]

Narrated Anas Ibn Maalik [may Allaah be pleased with him] that the Prophet [peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him] said, “Do you know what Al-Ad’hu is (i.e. calumny)?” They (i.e. the people) said, “Allaah and His Messenger know best”. He said, “Transmitting speech from some people to another people to destroy their (mutual relationships)”.

Al-Allamah Zayd Bin Haadi [may Allaah have mercy upon him] stated: The subject matter of this hadeeth is about the dangerous (consequences) of tale-carrying in this Dunyaa and the Aakhirah. Indeed, the Prophet [peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him] called it Ad’hu, and the meaning of Ad’hu is to transmit speech from some people to other people to corrupt their relationships. And in the hadeeth of Ibn Mas’ood [may Allah be pleased with him], it is explained to mean tale-carrying and that is to transmit the statement of one person to another person, or from a group of people to another group, or from one country to another one to cause corruption. This is one of the major sins due to its evil (consequences) and the punishment (associated with it) in this life and the next. In this worldly life, it may lead to murder, chaos, and other similar affairs – events that are in opposition to rectification. Due to this, the scholars say that the tale carrier- the one who transmits speech from one person to another person, or from a group of people to another group, or from one country to another to sow the seeds of corruption- causes more harm than a magician. This is because a magician might only harm one person, but as for the tale-carrier, he might harm many individuals, and the tribulation that (results from this deed of his) will be prolonged. [2]

What did Zionist Netanyahu say about nuclear weapons in Iraq?!
https://youtu.be/fpQdg4D78Jc?si=WzNITHR4myXBUrzm


[1] Fawaa’id pages 202-203
[2] At-ta’leeqaat Al-Maleehah Alaa Silsilatil Ahaadeeth As-Saheehah. 1/27-28

Part 2: The True Reality of The Secularist Transgressor Atatürk

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

He Believed In Secularism and Its Practical Implementation

In Turkey, secularism was established after the downfall of the Ottoman Empire under the leadership of Ataturk. Despite his outward display of religious devotion, such as praying in front of soldiers and flattering scholars, Ataturk had a hidden agenda. Once he achieved his goals, he executed his vile plan. He separated Turkey from the rest of the Ottoman Empire, declared secularism, banned the call to prayer and prayers in Arabic, enforced the adoption of European clothing instead of Islamic dress, abolished Shariah courts and introduced secular laws, replaced the Hijri date with the Gregorian date, prohibited polygyny and equated inheritance between the two biological sexes (males and females), eliminated Islamic education, banned the teaching of the Quran, and replaced the Arabic script with Latin letters.

He played a role in overthrowing Sultan Abdul Hameed II and facilitated the opportunity for Zionists to acquire land in Palestine. The Zionist movement had already begun to show its presence before the initial gathering of its devoted supporters in 1897, which alarmed the Sultan. Consequently, he took precautionary measures. In 1871, he declared 80 percent of Palestine as state-owned property to prevent the Zionists from purchasing any land there. Subsequently, in May 1901, the Zionists proposed to pay off the foreign debts of the Ottomans and promote the Ottoman Sultan’s interests in Europe in exchange for allowing Zionist settlements in Palestine and transferring governance to the Zionists. However, the Sultan rejected this offer in both 1901 and 1902, even though the Ottoman Empire had the largest Jewish population in the world at that time, with Jews living freely in the city of Thessaloniki.

The Zionists and Freemasons conspired with some young Turks to overthrow the sultan, as the Sultan himself declared on September 22nd, 1913: “I abdicate the throne due to the oppression and threats from the Young Turks. This faction demanded my approval for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, which I refused. They even offered 150 million British gold pieces, which I also declined, stating that I would never agree, even if you offer 150 million British gold pieces, rather not even if you offer all the gold in the world. Following my firm stance, they deposed me from power. I am grateful to Allah for not agreeing to establish a new state on Palestinian lands within the Ottoman State and the Islamic community”.

The Sultan was subsequently confined in Thessaloniki at the residence of a Jewish banker named Allatini, and the Zionists were granted permission to colonise all Palestinian territories that once used to be under Sultan’s jurisdiction. The Young Turks then forged a strong alliance with the Zionists as they assisted in the Sultan’s overthrow. A prominent Zionist banker and freemason named Emmanuel Carasso, who was an associate of Talat Pasha, a member of the delegation that delivered the news of Sultan’s removal from power, played a pivotal role in organising the Zionist migration to Palestine. These Young Turks, who deposed the Sultan, repaid their debt by aiding Carasso in expanding his wealth.

In 1917, an agreement was reached between the British Empire and certain individuals, leading to the approval of the creation of a Zionist nation-state in Palestine. Following the defeat of the Ottoman army in Syria, Palestine came under British occupation in 1918. Subsequently, the lands previously under the authority of Sultan Abdül Hamid and taken over by the Young Turks were transferred to British control. During this period of British rule, the number of Zionist settlements in Palestine grew, and they were permitted to purchase land. Due to economic hardships, many Arabs were compelled to sell their lands, having previously enjoyed prosperity under Sultan Abdul Hameed II. By 1947, over half of the Palestinian population was living in areas occupied by the Zionists, who also owned a significant portion of the land. The path to independence began with Zionist groups pressuring the British to depart, leading to the United Nations’ approval for the establishment of a Zionist state in 1948. Subsequently, a series of conflicts ensued between Arab armies and the Zionists in 1948, 1967, and 1973, with the Zionists ultimately gaining the upper hand with the support of Europe. [Risaalah Fil Adyaan Wal-Firaq Wal-Madhaahib. page 486-487]

Read article by Shaikh Abu Iyaad [may Allah preserve him]

Shaykh Muḥammad Amān Al-Jāmī on the Two Faces of Secularism:

https://abuiyaad.com/a/jami-two-faces-of-secularism

Part 1: The True Reality of The Secularist Transgressor Atatürk

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

Imam Al-Albani [may Allah have mercy upon him] stated:

كما يقال إنه جمعني مجلس مرة مع قسيس من قساوسة النصارى فجرى بحث طويل بيني وبينه ، والقصة فيها طول وفيها فائدة ولكن الوقت ضاق يعني معنا نحو خمس دقائق .ولذلك فأذكر منها ما يتعلق بهذا المقام ، لقد أنكر هذا القسيس على المسلمين أنهم حكموا بكفر الذي كان من قبل يسمى بمصطفى كمال باشا ، ثم سمي بأتاتورك ، أبو الأتراك والذي حاد بالأتراك المسلمين عن كثير من أحكام دينهم كما هو معلوم ، هذا القسيس هاجم المسلمين ونسبهم إلى الغلو في تكفيرهم لأتاتورك هذا بزعمه هو أنه لم يصنع شيئا يذكر ويستحق عليه التكفير سوى أنه فرض على الشعب التركي القبعة ، البرنيطة معروفة هذه البرنيطة عندكم وهي القلنسوة التي لها مظلة ، إما مظلة كاملة أو مظلة أمامية ، فكان ردي عليه من ناحيتين ، الناحية الأولى ولا أطيل فيها أن الرجل لم يخالف الإسلام فقط في هذه الناحية وإنما غير كثيرا من أحكام الشريعة ، منها أن جعل للأنثى في الإرث مثل حظ الذكر ، أما فيما يتعلق بمسألة البرنيطة فهنا خضت معه بحثا طويلا خلاصته أن الإسلام من كماله أنه وضع أحكاما وتشريعات في سبيل أن يحافظ المسلمون بها على شخصيتهم الإسلامية لكي لا ينماعوا مع الزمن في شخصية أمة أخرى ، وذكرت له وهو رجل مع الأسف مثقف بأن علماء الإجماع يقولون بأن أي شعب يريد أن يحافظ على شخصيته فعليه أن يحافظ على تقاليده وعلى تاريخه وعلى لغته ، هذا أمر مسلم لديهم في علم الاجتماع ، فقلت له فكان من فضل الإسلام وكمال تشريعه أنه شرع للمسلمين أن يحافظوا على شخصيتهم المسلمة وأن لا يتشبهوا بالمخالفين لهم بل وأن يتقصدوا مخالفتهم كما شرحت لكم آنفا ، هذا الرجل أتاتورك وهنا الشاهد من هذا المثال لو كان يريد الخير للشعب التركي المسلم ووجد فرضا في القبعة مصلحة لا يجدها في لباس آخر فكان باستطاعته أن يجعل فارقا بين قبعة المسلم التركي وقبعة غير المسلم التركي ، كأن يجعل مثلا شريطا على قبعة المسلم كل من يرى هذا المسلم المتبرنط يقول هذا مسلم ولو أنه لبس لباس الكفار ، لكن الرجل فعل ما فعل عداء لدين الإسلام ولذلك حكم عليه علماء المسلمين بالكفر والردة والخروج عن دين الإسلام ، بحث طويل كان بيني وبينه في هذه القضية حتى ألهمني الله عزوجل فقلت له بعد أن قال هذه قضية أن هذا اللباس صار أمر أممي وليس خاصا بشعب من الشعوب أو بدين من الأديان فجئته من ناحية حساسة ، هذا القسيس لبناني والقساوسة اللبنانيون لهم زي خاص ، أولا لباسهم سواد في سواد وثانيا قلنسوتهم هي كطربوش تعرفونه الطربوش الأحمر ولكنه طويل ضعف الطربوش طولا وأسود
السائل
مثل الهرم يعني ؟
الشيخ : لا ، الهرم يكون رأسه رفيع ، هذا يكون مثل السطل هكذا ، الشاهد قلت له هل أفهم من كلامك أن اللباس ليس له علاقة بالدين أنه مث بالنسبة إليك أنت يجوز أن ترفع هذه القلنسوة وتضع على رأسك الطربوش الأحمر وعليه العمامة البيضاء ؟ فمن نظر إليك ظن فيك أنك شيخ من شيوخ المسلمين ؟ قال : لا ، لا ، لا ، قلت له لماذا فهذا لباس ؟ وليس له علاقة بالدين ؟ قال لا ، نحن علماء النصارى يعني ، نحن رجال الدين ولنا زي خاص من بين النصارى عموما لنا زي خاص ، فألهمني الله عزوجل وقلت له كلمة يعني سقط من بعدها تماما وتبين أنه لا مجال لأحد أن يجادل في الإسلام ، قلت له هذا هو الفرق بيننا نحن معشر المسلمين وبينكم أنتم معشر النصارى ، فنحن لا فرق عندنا بين عالم ومتعلم وغير متعلم مادام أنه يجمعنا الإسلام ، فما لا يجوز لأكبر عالم لا يجوز لأقل مسلم ، هذا عندنا ، أما عندكم فعندكم رجال دين ورجال لا دين ، هكذا قلت له ، بدليل أنك تقول هذا لباس خاص بكم أنتم معشر القسيسين ، أما النصارى الآخرون فيلبسون ما يشاءون ، لا هذا عندنا لا يجوز ، ما يحرم على أكبر إنسان وأتقى إنسان يحرم على أصغر وما لا يجوز أن يلبسه العالم لا يجوز أن يلبسه الأمي ، وهكذا ، فسقط في يده والحقيقة هذه من فضائل الشريعة الإسلامية ولعل في هذا القدر كفاية والحمد لله رب العالمين

During a conversation with a Christian priest, we engaged in a lengthy discussion and analysis. Although the story is extensive and contains numerous benefits, our time is limited to just 5 minutes. Hence, I will only mention what is relevant to this occasion. The priest expressed disapproval towards the Muslims, specifically the scholars, for declaring Mustapha Kamal Pasha, later known as Ataturk, as a disbeliever. Ataturk, who is considered the father of the Turks, implemented policies that restricted Turkish Muslims from adhering to many of the rulings of their religion, as is widely known. The priest verbally attacked the Muslims and accused them of extremism for excommunicating Ataturk, arguing that his only offense was making the wearing of Western-style hats compulsory for Turkish civil servants. In response, I presented two arguments against the priest. Firstly, it is important to note that Ataturk not only opposed Islam in this particular matter, but he also made significant changes to the Shariah, such as altering the inheritance laws to equate the shares of females and males. (I)

In terms of the hat’s subject matter, I engaged in an extensive discussion and analysis, the essence of which is summarised as follows: One of the aspects of Islam’s perfection is its establishment of laws and divine regulations to help Muslims maintain their Islamic identity and avoid adopting the (un-Islamic) identities of other groups. I pointed out to him that scholars specialising in the topic of Ijmaa [(II) religious consensus] assert that any society wishing to preserve its distinctiveness must safeguard its customs, history, and language, considering this an undeniable principle in the field of consensus. Therefore, I explained to him that among the virtues of Islam and the excellence of its laws is the provision for Muslims to uphold their Muslim identity and refrain from emulating those who oppose it; instead, they should be in opposition to the ways of those who contradict their identity.

And if Ataturk, as an example, truly desired the welfare of the Turkish Muslim society and believed that making the hat mandatory would bring about such benefits that other forms of clothing could not, then he possessed the capability to differentiate between the Turkish Muslim hat and the non-Muslim Turkish hat. For instance, he could have placed a distinctive band on the Muslim hat, so that anyone who saw a Muslim wearing it would immediately recognize their religious affiliation, even if they were dressed in garments typically associated with unbelievers. However, Ataturk’s actions were in direct contradiction to the principles of the Islamic faith, leading Muslim scholars to declare him an apostate and disbeliever (i.e. not due to this matter regarding the hat, but other affairs that are tantamount to apostasy).

The discussion and examination between him and me regarding this matter was quite extensive until Allah made me mentally stimulated and bestowed on me the ability to utter a timely statement when the priest stated, “This attire is not specific to any particular society or religion, but rather a global matter.” In response, I approached the topic from a sensitive standpoint. This particular priest is Lebanese, and Lebanese priests have a distinct attire. Firstly, they wear all black, and secondly, their hoods resemble a cowl, similar to a red cowl but longer and darker. I questioned him, “Does your statement imply that clothing has no connection to religion? For instance, would it be permissible for you to remove your hood and instead wear a red cowl with a white turban, giving the impression that you are a respected Shaikh among the Muslim community?”

He responded, “No, no, no.” I then questioned him, “If that’s the case, why do you wear this attire and does it not have any connection to religion?” He explained, “We are Christian scholars, meaning we are religious men and we have a specific attire that is common among Christians. We have a distinct dress code.” Then by the will of Allah, I was inspired and I made a profound statement that left him speechless, showing that there was no room for argument against Islam. I pointed out, “This is the distinction between us Muslims and you Christians; we do not differentiate between a scholar, a student, or anyone else, as long as we are united in Islam. What is impermissible for the most knowledgeable scholar is also impermissible for the least knowledgeable Muslim. This is what is between us, but as for yourselves, you have ‘Men of Religion’ and ‘Men who are not Men of Religion”

This is the manner in which I presented the situation to him, citing evidence that you, as a priest, claim that this attire is specific to priests, while others can wear whatever they please. However, this is not acceptable for us – it is not allowed. What is forbidden for the most honorable and devout individual (muslim) is also forbidden for the one with the lowest rank. What is prohibited for a Muslim scholar to wear is also prohibited for an ordinary individual. Consequently, he was filled with remorse and left speechless. This indeed exemplifies the virtues of the Islamic Shariah. [https://youtu.be/iKlyiyjwyRw Paraphrased. Your feedback is welcomed to improve the content of this article Jazaakumullaahu Khayran]


Footnote I: Inheritance:

Introduction to the Science of Inheritance – By Uways At-Taweel

 

Footnote II: Muslim life – By Shaikh Abu Khadeejah [may Allaah preserve him]

https://www.abukhadeejah.com/the-importance-of-the-muslim-lifestyle-and-community-islam-4-9/

https://www.abukhadeejah.com/muslim-lifestyles-choices-and-adopting-non-muslim-practices-that-conflict-with-islamic-teachings-islam-4-1/

https://www.abukhadeejah.com/muslim-lifestyles-choices-and-adopting-non-muslim-practices-that-conflict-with-islamic-teachings-islam-4-1/

https://www.abukhadeejah.com/living-with-non-muslims-in-the-west-with-fine-conduct/

https://www.abukhadeejah.com/ibn-taymiyyah-on-participating-in-the-annual-celebrations-of-the-unbelievers/

https://www.abukhadeejah.com/origin-of-pinata-and-why-it-is-a-must-that-muslims-do-not-use-in-celebration/

Finally: NB: Imaam Al-Albani [may Allah have mercy upon him] only mentioned one amongst some of Ataturk’s misguidance, rather the upright scholars declared him a disbeliever due to his many evil beliefs and deeds that are founder on secularism. Al-Allamah Muhammad Amaan Al-Jaami [may Allah have mercy upon him] said, “Secularism is disbelief and the mother of all evil”. [Asbaab Al-Ijaabah Cassette 2] However, we are reminded of the fact that removing someone from Islaam is the job and responsibility of the upright scholars of Ahlus Sunnah- neither the responsibility of the common people nor the misguided sects such as the khawaarij. Read and Listen Regarding Principles of Takfeer (excommunication)

http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?secID=MNJ&subsecID=MNJ09&loadpage=displaysubsection.cfm

http://www.sahihalbukhari.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=MNJ09&articleID=MNJ090006&articlePages=1

http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=MNJ05&articleID=MNJ050003&pfriend=

http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/downloads/pdf/MNJ050018.pdf

http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=MNJ05&articleID=MNJ050018&articlePages=1

[a] More insights on the Zionism series

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

It is important to mention that Nathan Birnbaum (a) was one of the first to use this term as a political alternative to Jewish nationalism. (b) The intention behind Birnbaum’s use of this term was to emphasise the sanctity of the movement by linking it to Mount Zion, (c) (d) and perhaps this was connected to what he was aspiring to achieve at the “Bales” (e) Conference in Switzerland. (f) Furthermore, Birnbaum was likely aware of the historical use of the term Zion by the Christian Church in supporting the Jews’ political efforts to establish a national homeland in Palestine. (g)

An Nasraniyyah As-Suhyuniyyah, Nash’atuhaa Wa A’hammu Aqaa’idihaa Vol 1. pages 65-66

——————————————

[a] Nathan Birnbaum, an Austrian-Jewish writer, was born in 1864 AD and passed away in 1937 AD. Growing up in a Hasidic family, he played a significant role in the establishment of the Kadima organization. However, he later became a member of the “Agudat Israel” group and opposed Zionism. Birnbaum published an article criticizing the assimilation of Jews with other nations, and he also oversaw the edition of several Jewish Zionist newspapers. For more information, refer to Herzl’s diaries on page 511 and the Dictionary of Zionist Terms on page 66.

[b] See Encyclopedia Judaica Vol 16. Page 1032

[c] Mount Zion is a common term that specifically refers to the city rather than the hill. Zion, on the other hand, is the name of the eastern hill in Ancient Jerusalem. It was the site of the city of the Jebusites, which was under the control of Prophet Dawud, peace be upon him, the King of Israel. Atop this hill, you can find the Temple of Sulayman, peace be upon him, the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and the Dome of the Rock. For more information, you can refer to Circle – Biblical Encyclopedias: 5/54, Dictionary of Major Religions: p. 816, and Al-Munajjid Fil A’lam, p. 349.

[d] See: Zionism between religion and politics: p. 25

[e] Basel or Basle is a city in northern Switzerland. Minerals include: (coal and salt). Its agricultural products are very few. It has factories for: (iron, copper, and steel). It exports: (cow, hides, ghee, and others). See Al-Munajjid Fil A’lam p. 105.

[f] Switzerland is a federal republic in Central Europe, its capital is Bern. Its agricultural products include grains, sugar beets, potatoes, and grapes, and its industrial products include the manufacture of machines, watches, and paper. See Al-Munajjid Fil A’laam p. 318

[An Nasraniyyah As-Sahnuniyyah Nasha’atuhaa Wa Ahammu Aqaa’idihaa Vol 1. pages 65-66]

[g] There were three tribes in Palestine before the children of Israel took control of it: they were the Phoenicians who inhabited it around the year 3000 BC, and they settled in the northern region of the Mediterranean Sea. And the Canaanites descended south of the Phoenicians and occupied the central region of Palestine in the year 2500 BC. These were Arab tribes migrating from the Arabian Peninsula, then groups came from the Island of Crete around the year 1200 BC. It was called [فلستين] and was situated between Jaffa and Gaza on the Mediterranean Sea. The Canaanites called these people [فلسطين] and the name prevailed over the entire region, so it became referred to as [فلسطين]. According to what the Jews mentioned in their books, and what was written in the history of the region is that these peoples continued (residing) in the region. Many wars between them and the Children of Israel and the Jews occurred, which continued throughout the presence of the Jews in that region. Therefore, from a historical perspective, it becomes clear to us that the Jews were not the first to inhabit Palestine, but rather they entered it or some of it and captured parts of it after it had been in the possession of these people.

As for the religious perspective, Allah revealed in the Qur’an that Musa [peace be upon him] said:

يَا قَوْمِ ادْخُلُوا الْأَرْضَ الْمُقَدَّسَةَ الَّتِي كَتَبَ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ وَلَا تَرْتَدُّوا عَلَىٰ أَدْبَارِكُمْ فَتَنقَلِبُوا خَاسِرِينَ

O my people! Enter the holy land (Palestine) which Allah has assigned to you, and turn not back (in flight) for then you will be returned as losers. [Surah Al-Maa’idah. Ayah 21

Regarding Allah’s statement [كَتَبَ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ – Which Allah has assigned to you], Ibn Ishaq [may Allah have mercy upon him] said (meaning), “Which Allah has bestowed on you”. As-Sa’diy [may Allah have mercy upon him] said, (meaning), “Which Allah has commanded you (to enter)”. Al-Qataadah [may Allah have mercy upon him] said, “The people were commanded (to enter) just as we are commanded to perform the prayer, pay the Zakat, perform Hajj and Umrah”.

So, according to some of the Scholars, Allah’s statement [كَتَبَ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ – Which Allah has assigned to you] does not mean to ownership. And based according to others, it means ownership on condition that they entered it. And others say that it was a gift to them. This makes clear the meaning of “Which Allah has assigned to you” alongside the fact that there is no proof in this that they have a (specific) right to Palestine, and that is because Allah bestows many blessings on His faithful servants whilst they are in that state of (sound) faith, and it is for them whilst they are in that state of (sound) faith. But in the case of disbelief, they have no right to it. When Allah commanded the children of Israel to enter, they turned away, so He prevented them from entering, but when they responded and were obedient, Allah granted it to them. This is why Imaam Ibn Katheer [may Allah have mercy upon him said about the Ayah: “A promise that Allah has made and conveyed by your father Israel that he will bequeath it to those of you who believe”. Therefore, it was theirs whilst they were in that state of (sound) faith, but as for in their state of disbelief (in the final Messenger and seal of the Prophets), they have no right to it. This is demonstrated by Allah’s statement:

فَأَوْحَىٰ إِلَيْهِمْ رَبُّهُمْ لَنُهْلِكَنَّ الظَّالِمِينَ وَلَنُسْكِنَنَّكُمُ الْأَرْضَ مِن بَعْدِهِمْ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ لِمَنْ خَافَ مَقَامِي وَخَافَ وَعِيدِ

Their Lord inspired them [i.e. the Prophets]: “Truly, We shall destroy the Zalimun (disbelievers and wrong-doers.). And indeed, We shall make you dwell in the land after them [i.e. the disbelievers]. This is for him who fears standing before Me (on the Day of Resurrection or fears My Punishment) and also fears My Threat”. [Surah Ibraaheem. Ayaat 13-14]

Allah [The Exalted] said:
وَلَقَدۡ ڪَتَبۡنَا فِى ٱلزَّبُورِ مِنۢ بَعۡدِ ٱلذِّكۡرِ أَنَّ ٱلۡأَرۡضَ يَرِثُهَا عِبَادِىَ ٱلصَّـٰلِحُونَ

And indeed We have written in Zabur and after (We have already written in the) Dhikr that My righteous servants shall inherit the land. [Surah Al-Anbiya. Ayah 105]. [An Excerpt from “Diraaasaat Fil Ad’yaan Al-Yahoodiyyah Wan-Nasraaniyyah. pages 65-67. Publisher: Daar Adwaa As-Salaf. 6th Edition 1439AH (2018). May Allah bless Ustaadh Harun Banton for sharing the source of this article].

Imaam Ibn Al-Qayyim [may Allah have mercy upon him] stated: The word Zabur in this Ayah means all the revealed books and does not specifically mean the Zabur that was given to (Prophet) Dawud [peace be upon him]. The word Adh-Dhikr in this Ayah is the Ummul Kitaab that is with Allah [i.e. the Lawh Al-Mahfooz], the word Al-Ard in this Ayah means the Dunyah and the righteous servants mean the Ummah of Muhammad [peace be upon him]. This Ayah is one of the signs of the Prophethood of Muhammad [peace and blessings of Allah be upon him] because he conveyed this (affair) at Makkah, while all the people of Makkah were unbelievers, enemies to him and his companions, and the Mushrikoon had expelled them from their homeland (Makkah) and their dwellings.

The word Dhikr has been mentioned in reference to the Kitaab in the statement of the Prophet [peace and blessings of Allah be upon him] in a hadith reported by Imaam Al-Bukhari and Muslim that: “There was Allah and nothing else before Him and His Throne was over the water, and He then created the Heavens and the Earth and wrote everything in the Dhikr [The Book].” [Saheeh al-Bukhari. Number 7418]

This is the Dhikr [The Book] in which was written that the earth will be inherited by the Ummah of Muhammad [peace and blessings of Allah be upon him], and the revealed books have been referred to as Zubur in the statement of Allah:

وَمَآ أَرۡسَلۡنَا مِن قَبۡلِكَ إِلَّا رِجَالاً۬ نُّوحِىٓ إِلَيۡہِمۡ‌ۚ فَسۡـَٔلُوٓاْ أَهۡلَ ٱلذِّكۡرِ إِن كُنتُمۡ لَا تَعۡلَمُونَ
بِٱلۡبَيِّنَـٰتِ وَٱلزُّبُرِ‌ۗ

And We sent not (as Our Messengers) before you (O Muhammad ) any but men, whom We inspired, (to preach and invite mankind to believe in the Oneness of Allah). So ask of those who know the Scripture [learned men of the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)], if you know not. [بِٱلۡبَيِّنَـٰتِ وَٱلزُّبُرِ‌ۗ – with clear signs and Books]. [Surah An-Nahl. Ayaat 43-44] [An Excerpt from “Shifaa Al-Aleel” page 39]

Imaam Muhammad Ibn Saalih Al-Uthaymeen [may Allah have mercy upon him] stated: Based on this, for example, the land of the Arabs is not for the Arabs, the land of the Persians is not for the Persians, and the land of the Romans is not for the Romans (i.e. Allah can give it to others). The land belongs to Allah and He gives it as a heritage to whom He will, and they are the righteous servants who believe and do righteous deeds. Whoever disbelieves in Allah and is too proud to obey Him has no right to the land. Allah gives it as a heritage to whomever He wills of the righteous servants. Based on this, if the children of Israel said, “The land of Shaam is ours because Musa [peace be upon him] said: [يَا قَوْمِ ادْخُلُوا الْأَرْضَ الْمُقَدَّسَةَ الَّتِي كَتَبَ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ – O my people! Enter the holy land (Palestine) which Allah has assigned to you], we say: Indeed, Musa [peace be upon him] said this because at that time you were righteous people and the righteous servants of Allah, and the earth belongs to Allah Who gives it as a heritage to whomever He wishes from among His righteous servants. However, after the advent of Islam and you disbelieved in it, you became unworthy of (this inheritance), and the righteous and believers in Muhammad [peace and blessings of Allah be upon him]- those who follow him – became its inheritors.

Prior to when the Muslims were expelled (from this inherited land), it was occupied by the Roman Christians (who inherited it from) the Jews because they were the righteous after the Jews; then the Muslims occupied it after them because they are the righteous servants of Allah. So, the land of Shaam was written as an inheritance for the righteous (as Allah said): [وَلَقَدۡ ڪَتَبۡنَا فِى ٱلزَّبُورِ مِنۢ بَعۡدِ ٱلذِّكۡرِ أَنَّ ٱلۡأَرۡضَ يَرِثُهَا عِبَادِىَ ٱلصَّـٰلِحُونَ – And indeed We have written in Zabur and after (We have already written in) Dhikr that My righteous servants shall inherit the land].

Due to this, the Children of Israel (inherited the land from) those people in the sacred land who had great strength because they were upon the truth; then the Christians inherited it from the Jews because they were the people of truth, then the Muslims inherited it from the Christians because they are the people of truth. Based on this, the Yahood at present have no (specific) right to Palestine or any other part of Allah’s earth. Therefore, if the Muslims become righteous and return to their true religion, through which Allah will grant them the heritage of their land, they will regain the land.

وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ كَمَا اسْتَخْلَفَ الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِمْ

Allah has promised those among you who believe, and do righteous good deeds, that He will certainly grant them succession to (the present rulers) in the earth, as He granted it to those before them…[Surah An-Nur. Ayah 55] [An Excerpt from “Tafseer Surah An-Nur”. Ayah 55. Slightly paraphrased]

Finally, with regards to the present situation of Palestine, then indeed, one returns to the advice of the Senior Scholars [Imaams: (Abdul Azeez Bin Baaz, Imaam Al-Albaanee, Muhammad Ibn Saalih Al-Uthaymeen, Al-Allaamah); Al-Allaamah Rabee Bin Haadi al-Mad’kali, Al-Allaamah Abdul-Muhsin Al-Abbaad, Al-Allaamah Saalih al-Fawzaan, Al-Allaamah Saalih Al-Luhaydaan, Al-Allaamah Al-Ghudayyaan, Al-Allaamah Abdul Azeez Aala Ash-Shaikh].

One of the disturbing reasons why the butcher of Gaza (callous Netanyahu) and his Zionist henchmen continue murdering innocent women, men and babies!

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

Allah [The Exalted] says:

مَنْ قَتَلَ نَفْسًا بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا وَمَنْ أَحْيَاهَا فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا

If anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land – it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. [Surah Al-Maa’idah. Ayah 32]

Meaning: The killer lacks any valid reason to take a life, and it is imperative that no one should kill another person unless there is a justified cause.

If an individual is audacious enough to murder someone who does not deserve it, this indicates that they do not differentiate between the person they killed and others, rather, they would commit this act whenever their evil inclinations prompt them to do so. Consequently, their audacious behavior, which led them to kill, is tantamount to killing all of humanity. Conversely, if a person refrains from killing and instead saves a life, even though their inner desires urge them to do otherwise, out of fear of Allah, it is as if they have saved the lives of all humankind. This is because the fear of Allah that they possess prevents them from killing someone who does not deserve it.

An Excerpt from Tafseer As-Sadi. Slightly paraphrased

[11] These people are either unaware of or concealing some realities regarding the legacy of Erudite Salafi Imam Abdul Azeez Bin Baaz

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

The Prophet [peace and blessings of Allah be upon him] said: “Indeed, the scholars are the inheritors of the prophets, for the prophets do not leave behind a dinar or a dirham for inheritance, but rather, they leave behind knowledge. So whoever takes hold of it, has acquired a large share (i.e. of inheritance)”. [(1)]

The anonymous writers at Wikipedia stated: His obituary in The Independent said “His views and fatwas (religious rulings) were controversial, condemned by militants, liberals and progressives alike”. He was also criticised by hard line Salafi jihadists for supporting the decision to permit U.S. troops to be stationed in Saudi Arabia in 1991. [End of quote]

Response:

First, we have already established in this series that there is no benefit in saying that an affair is contentious while offering no solid knowledge-based proof to differentiate truth from untruth based on the Qur’an and Sunnah as understood by the Sahaabah.

Second, the mere usage of the word militant is enough to disprove the Imam’s opponents because there is no militancy in Islam; rather, the Khawaarij are the ones on the path of militancy. Visit the website prepared by Shaikh Abu Iyaad [may Allah protect him]: https://www.kharijites.com/kj/

Third, liberals and so-called progressives in our time are well-known for their misguidance and extreme immorality, so there is no need to go into detail about their affairs. Listen to Shaikh Abu Khadeejah’s clarification.

https://abukhadeejah.com/modernity-western-liberalism-materialism-in-islamic-discourse-abu-khadeejah/

Fourth, cretins on Wikipedia and elsewhere are always keen to repeat that there is a group called Salafi Jihadists, despite the fact that it has already been robustly refuted by Shaikh Abu Khadeejah [may Alla preserve him].

Read here:

https://abukhadeejah.com/a-response-to-western-academics-who-categorise-salafis-into-quietists-politicos-and-jihadists-and-why-this-is-a-false-categorisation/

Finally, the cretins at Wikipedia once again failed to provide any explanation regarding the Shariah position on admitting non-Muslim soldiers in Muslim countries, whether in Saudi Arabia or any other Muslim country; instead, they just stated that this was a point of contention. However, unlike the cretins and pseudo-researchers at Wikipedia, the Salafiyyoon provide detail and educate the Ummah. Read the article by Shaikh Abu Khadeejah [may Allah preserve him]:

https://abukhadeejah.com/ibn-baaz-allowed-the-american-military-into-saudi-arabia/

Indeed, merely being on the opposing side is insufficient because the misguided opponents—the liberals, so-called progressives, and militants—who are all following divergent pathways of Bidah and misguidance, have not offered any unambiguous knowledge-based proof.

To be continued…InShaaAllah.


[(1)]: Sunan At-Tirmidhee 2682

So and So Identifies as a Dog or a Cat! [What is the basis of this absurd behaviour?]

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

Imam As-Sadi [may Allah have mercy upon him] stated:

The statement of many materialists (atheists) and those who blindly follow them is that “There should be freedom of thought, everyone should be free to hold the opinion he sees fit and the proposal he makes”. This has also manifested its great harm. Indeed, freedom of thought – giving everyone his freedom (i.e. based on desires) – has shown to be the very reason behind anarchy; rather that is its basis. Animals become better than them (i.e. humankind and Jinn) when they are given freedom in that which corrupts their morals and (sound) beliefs, thus their deeds become chaotic. This is the reality in every country where freedom has been let loose and not restricted by the divine legislated restrictions that conform with (sound) intellect because the souls command evil, incline towards arrogance and insolence, and approach every desire whether it harms individuals and groups or not. Just as giving one the freedom to do as he pleases unrestrictedly cannot remain because if everyone was left with his freedom that he can murder, injure or hit, or take the wealth of the people or violate their honour, the state of affairs would have been corrupted, the world would be in anarchy, chaos, disturbance and great harm will occur; likewise, the freedom of thought has brought evil, and from its filthy fruits is dispensing with religion and the Messengers [peace and blessings of Allah be upon them], rejecting what they brought and that which sound intellect indicates, such as the obligation of restraining and guarding oneself against the harmful affairs related to creed, morals and deeds. Among the outcomes of freedom of thought are the statements heard from the atheistic and vile newspapers that shake the hearts of the people of sound intellect, and indeed they have done great harm to the beliefs and morals; rather it has harmed governments, groups and individuals. As for the Islamic legislation, then indeed it – and praise be to Allāh – came to alert the intellects and urge towards (sound) reflection on those affairs that are useful for one to reflect on, such as the signs Allah has created in the creation and the signs conveyed in the divine revelation; pursues the sound paths of reflection and examining them, and thus it affirms the beneficial sciences and truthful understandings- urges towards every beautiful character, warns against every evil character and places a sound restriction on ideas, which if encroached will result in destructive things and various types of misguidance. If ideas are not restricted by sound intellects and religion – which Allāh has provided for the servants in which is the rectification of their affairs and perfection of their circumstances, then indeed they give birth to chaos and error, misguidance, misery, folly and insanity.

[An Excerpt from “Ad-Dalaa’il Al-Qur’aaniyyah”. page 22]

[5] The Clueless Critics of Erudite Salafi Scholar Al-Allaamah Salih Al-Fawzaan

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

Abu Umamah [may Allah be pleased with him] reported that Allah’s Messenger [peace and blessings of Allah be upon him[ said, “Whoever loves for the sake of Allah, hates for the sake of Allah, gives for the sake of Allah, and withholds for the sake of Allah has perfected Imaan”. [(1)]

The cretins at Wikipedia said, “Human Rights Watch has attributed hate speech by Saleh al-Fawzan towards Shia and rafida when he called these groups “brothers of Satan” and specifically about a faction of Shia followers as “unbelievers” who “lie about God, his prophet, and the consensus of Muslim”. Hala Al-Dosari also claims that al-Fawzan considers Islamic minority sects to be heretics”. [End of quote]

First, Al-Allaamah Saalih Al-Fawzaan [may Allah preserve him] is one of the noble Salafi Scholars of our time, and so-called “Human Rights Watch” has no authority in the Sight of Allah to judge the statements of this upright Salafi Scholar, except based on the infallible final divine revelation. Indeed, he resides in a country that permits him to pass judgment of the Shariah against anyone who contradicts the Qur’an and the Sunnah as understood by the Sahaabah. Second, the Shariah legislates both love and hatred for Allah’s Sake, as the Messenger [peace and blessings of Allah be upon him] said, “Whoever loves for the sake of Allah, hates for the sake of Allah, gives for the sake of Allah, and withholds for the sake of Allah has perfected Imaan”.

Third, Al-Allaamah Saalih Aala Ash-Shaikh [may Allah preserve him] said the following regarding s-called human rights, “The major powers utter this term if they want to impose something new on nations, society, and the people regardless of their countries and cultures. So, after the Second World War, they wanted to establish a new world order by way of which the major powers would be able to control all countries. At times this control is cultural, sometimes through strong opinions and the exercise of freedoms at other times, and power is exercised through interference in the affairs of the countries in which they want to interfere”. [Footnote a]

Fourth, other than what is found in these two links, there is nothing else to add to Al-Allaamah Saalih Al-Fawzaan’s verdict against Raafidah Shiites.

http://www.shia.bs/index.cfm
https://abukhadeejah.com/the-devils-deception-of-the-raafidah-shiah/

Finally, the cretins stated, “Hala Al-Dosari also claims that al-Fawzan considers Islamic minority sects to be heretics”. [End of quote]

It doesn’t matter who holds this view, whether this Hala or others, but rather, the methodology of the pious predecessors is to be applied with dealing with the deviated sects. Hafs Bin Humaid [may Allah have mercy upon him] said: I asked Abdullah Ibn Al-Mubaarak [may Allah have mercy upon him], “How many sects have this Ummah divided into?” He said, “The foundation of the sects are four: the shia, the harooriyyah (i.e. khawaarij), the qadariyyah, and the murji’ah”. The Shia splintered into twenty-two sects, the Harooriyyah into twenty-one sects, the Qadariyyah into sixteen sects, and the Murji’ah into thirteen sects”. [(2)]

The previous Mufti of Saudi Arabia Imaam Abdul Azeez Bin Baaz [may Allah have mercy upon him] was asked: What is the meaning of the Messenger’s [peace and blessings of Allah be upon him] statement about the Ummah in the hadith, “All of them (sects) are in the fire except one” and who is that one? Will the other 72 (deviant) sects abide in the fire for all eternity?

Response: The prophet [peace and blessings of Allah be upon him] said, “The Jews split into 71 sects, meaning all of them were misguided and ruined, except one. The Christians split into 72 sects, meaning all of them were misguided and ruined, except one. And this Ummah will split into 73 sects, all of them in the fire, except one. Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah (those who firmly cling to the authentic Prophetic Sunnah and are unified upon it) are this single group – the Prophet’s companions and those who exactly follow them in faith, the adherents to sound faith and pure Islamic monotheism. Concerning the other 72 (deviants) sects that have been threatened with (entry into) the fire, among them is one who is a disbeliever [Footnote b], one who is a sinner, and one about whom it has been proved with clear evidence that he is an innovator in religion (Mubtadi). So, among them, the one who dies in a state of unbelief [Footnote c] will be in the fire for eternity, while the one who dies in a state of devotion to religious innovation that is less than major disbelief [Footnote d] or sins is under Allah’s will, while still threatened with the fire. So, based on this, it is known that not all of them are disbelievers, but rather among them is a disbeliever, while the others are sinners and innovators in religion. [(3)]

——————————————————-

Footnote a:

[1] Human Rights – Some Succinct Observations By Shaikh Saalih Aala Ash-Shaikh

[2] Human Rights – Some Succinct Observations By Shaikh Saalih Aala Ash-Shaikh

[3] Human Rights – Some Succinct Observations By Shaikh Saalih Aala Ash-Shaikh

[4] Human Rights – Some Succinct Observations By Shaikh Saalih Aala Ash-Shaikh

[5] Human Rights – Some Succinct Observations By Shaikh Saalih Aala Ash-Shaikh

[6] Human Rights – Some Succinct Observations By Shaikh Saalih Aala Ash-Shaikh

Footnotes b and c: NB: Takfeer – declaring that a Muslim left the fold of Islam is a judgement that can only be given by the upright scholars and none else.

https://www.manhaj.com/manhaj/articles/obkwf-takfir-and-the-excuse-of-ignorance-shaykh-saalih-al-fawzaan.cfm

Footnote d: All religious innovations are evil, but there are those tat will exit a person from the fold of Islam (Bida’atul Mukaffirah) and those that do not exit a person from the fold of Islam (Bida’atul Mufassiqah).

Al-Allaamah Rabee Bin Haadee Al-Madkhalee [may Allaah preserve him] was asked whether there is a difference between Bidah Al-Mukaffirah and Bidah Al-Mufassiqah; so he replied that there is Bidah Mukaffirah, such as rejecting the Ruyah (i.e. denying that the believers will see Allah in the afterlife); rejecting Allaah’s Uluww [i.e. denying that Allaah is above his creation –Allah ascended over the Throne in a way that benefits his majesty)]; invoking other than Allah; offering slaughtered sacrifice (i.e. animals) to other than Allah etc. These are affairs of Bidah Al-Mukaffirah (the bidah that is tantamount to disbelief). But we do not make Takfeer of the people who commit this type of Bidah until we establish the proof against them. That is because some of them (i.e. the people who fall into these affairs) carry doubts and are far away from the era of Prophethood and its light (i.e. guidance). So they fall into the likes of these Bidah. Rejecting the Ruyah is disbelief; rejecting Allaah’s Uluww is disbelief; the saying that the Qur’an is created is disbelief-major disbelief. But this person, -[who testifies that none has the right to be worshipped except Allaah and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allaah, and he prays, observes fasting, wants paradise and believes in that] -received the doubts of the people of falsehood, so he falls into the likes of these affairs (i.e. these innovations that are tantamount to disbelief). So we say to him: You have fallen into disbelief and the evidence is this and this, and we clarify for him. So if Allaah grants him Tawfeeq and he returns to the truth, then all praise is due to Allaah. But if not, we declare him a disbeliever after establishing the proofs against him. As for Bidah Al-Mufassiqah, it is other than this (i.e. it is not at the level of that which is tantamount to disbelief)… [A paraphrased excerpt. http://www.rabee.net/ar/questions.php?cat=26&id=484 ]

May Allah guide these enemies of Al-Allaamah Saalih Al-Fawzaan or protect us from their Falsehoods. Please refer to this document if the cretins try to change the text on Wikpedia that this series is based on.

Wiki_Shaikh_Saalih_Al_Fawzaan_Final


[(1)]: Saheeh Sunan Abee Dawud. Number 4681

[(2)]: Al-Ibaanah of Ibn Battah 1/379-380

[(3)]:https://binbaz.org.sa/fatwas/17308/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AF-%D8%A8%D9%82%D9%88%D9%84%D9%87-%EF%B7%BA-%D9%83%D9%84%D9%87%D9%85-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7-%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%AF%D8%A9

[20] A Brief Look at Pseudo Researchers in Salafiyyah: [Examination of a Fabricated Quietist Faction Within Salafiyyah Called Mad’khalism]

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

Imaam Abdur-Rahmaan Bin Naasir As-Sadi [may Allah have mercy upon him] said, “It is well known that Allah does not love ignorance, doubts, confusion, or misguidance; rather, He loves the religion He has ordained, knowledge, and certainty. Indeed, we have been commanded to ask Allah [The Exalted] to guide us to the straight path, which entails knowledge of the truth and acting on it, and the Qur’an is the cure, guidance, and light. The Muslims agree that doubt and confusion are unpraiseworthy, and it is expected – absolutely- that a person who does not possess knowledge of something is obligated to keep quiet and seek knowledge via its (sound) sources”. [(1)]

The ignoramuses stated: “The polemics of the Madkhalists are markedly different from other Salafist groups as well. A noted feature of Madkhalism during Muslim dogmatic exchanges is clarifying the opponent sect instead of only discourse regarding the topic of discussion”. [End of quote]

Response: First of all, as we have already mentioned, there is no such thing as a Madkhalist group within Salafiyyah, not to mention the presence of other Salafi groups within Salafiyyah.

Read: http://www.salafis.com/index.cfm

https://abukhadeejah.com/a-response-to-western-academics-who-categorise-salafis-into-quietists-politicos-and-jihadists-and-why-this-is-a-false-categorisation/

Second, Salafi Scholars, including Al Allaamah Rabee Bin Haadi Al-Mad’khali, do not write or speak to contradict others for personal motives; rather, their writings and speeches are intended to establish truth and refute falsehood, so that no one stands in the way of truth. Ibn Aqeel [may Allah have mercy upon him] said, “If the truthful ones remained silent and the falsifiers spoke, the creation (humankind and Jinn) would abandon what they have witnessed (of truth) and reject what they have not witnessed. As a result, when the devout desire to revive the Sunnah, the people reject it and think that it is bidah”. [(2)]

Third, the ignoramuses stated that a noted feature of Madkhalism (i.e. so-called Mad’khalism) during Muslim dogmatic exchanges is clarifying the opponent sect instead of only discourse regarding the topic of discussion! Indeed, this statement demonstrates the cretins’ incompetence once more, because the discussion of sects and parties is always centered on refuting false beliefs and methodologies, as well as identifying specific characteristics of the deviant sects. The fact that in such discussions, not only are the topics discussed, but also sometimes the sect itself and how to deal with it, is found in the Prophet’s [peace and blessings of Allah be upon him] statement, “ “The Qadariyyah are the Magians of this community. If they are ill, do not pay a sick visit to them, and if they die, do not attend their funerals”. [(3)] [See Footnote a] Also Allah’s Messenger [peace and blessings of Allah be upon him] said, “The thing I fear most for my Ummah are the leaders of misguidance”. [(4)]

Imaam Al-Barbahaaree [may Allah have mercy upon him] said: “Imaam Barbahaaree [may Allah have mercy upon him] said, “Know that leaving the correct path occurs in two ways. Firstly, a man strays from the correct path intending nothing but good, so his error is not to be followed since it leads to destruction. Secondly, a man who deliberately opposes the truth and acts contrary to the Pious ones who came before him, he is astray, leading others astray, a rebellious devil within the Ummah. It is a duty upon those who know of him to warn the people against him and to explain his condition to them so that no one falls into his innovation and is destroyed”. Continue reading below:

Leaving The Correct Path Occurs In Two Ways

The situation is as apparent as the midday sun, yet owing to ignorance, the these pseudo researchers at Wikipedia have rushed to blame the so-called Mad’khalists that “a noted feature of Madkhalism during Muslim dogmatic exchanges is clarifying the opponent sect instead of only discourse regarding the topic of discussion”, despite the fact that the  cited Prophetic narrations demonstrate that wrong beliefs, the deviant sects, and their leaders must be identified and refuted.

Footnote a: The Splitting of the Muslim Ummah: Part 1 – The Completion and Perfection of the Religion and The Way of the Companions:

https://www.aqidah.com/creed/articles/oeotc-glimpses-into-the-splitting-of-the-muslim-ummah-part-1.cfm

To be continued…InShaaAllah


[(1)]: An Excerpt from Al-Adillatul Qawaatiq Wal-baraaheen Fee Ibtaali Usoolil Mulhideen. Page 15. slightly paraphrased

[(2)]: Shifaa As-Sudoor Fee Ziyaaratil Mashaahid Wal-Quboor. Page 148

[(3)]: Saheeh Sunan Abu Dawud 4691

[(4)]: Tirmidhee 2229