Saudi Scholar: You must obey the ruler even if he has GAY SEX every night

[Faahiye]

JazakAllah khair - you are right in that it was the khwarji who assassinated Ali RA, but it was the fitna created by Muawiyah who assumed power illegally and gifted it to his son Yazid that led to the lasting turmoil and corruption in the Muslim world present to this day. Allah SWT will judge him, but his legacy is not one that I respect

@astorecalledkmart,

To blame a single person for such events that was caused by lots of different factors is an incorrect approach. The position of ahlu sunnah is that Ali (RA) was more in the right but unlike the Shia we take into account his intentions and acknowledge he was exercising his own ijtihad. He may have made mistakes but they were by no means bad intentions. The dispute between Ali (RA)and Muawiya(RA) was largely political with both having the intention of fixing the caliphate and spreading the deen. Its natural for people to differ but that doesn't mean both companions hated each other. Despite their dispute they had great respect for each other.


Best,

Faahiye

 

[Nilotufian]

Ayy rab bootyclappers: yes massa

 

[astorecalledkmart]

@astorecalledkmart,

To blame a single person for such events that was caused by lots of different factors is an incorrect approach. The position of ahlu sunnah is that Ali (RA) was more in the right but unlike the Shia we take into account his intentions and acknowledge he was exercising his own ijtihad. He may have made mistakes but they were by no means bad intentions. The dispute between Ali (RA)and Muawiya(RA) was largely political with both having the intention of fixing the caliphate and spreading the deen. Its natural for people to differ but that doesn't mean both companions hated each other. Despite their dispute they had great respect for each other.


Best,

Faahiye

JazakAllah khair - very informative brother. I still don't agree with the succession of Yazid and the creation of the Umayyad dynasty and agree with individuals such as Mawdudi in thinking that he caused more fitna than good, but your message overall is well taken.

 

[Tukraq]

@astorecalledkmart,

To blame a single person for such events that was caused by lots of different factors is an incorrect approach. The position of ahlu sunnah is that Ali (RA) was more in the right but unlike the Shia we take into account his intentions and acknowledge he was exercising his own ijtihad. He may have made mistakes but they were by no means bad intentions. The dispute between Ali (RA)and Muawiya(RA) was largely political with both having the intention of fixing the caliphate and spreading the deen. Its natural for people to differ but that doesn't mean both companions hated each other. Despite their dispute they had great respect for each other.


Best,

Faahiye

great so theres nothing wrong with it in principle so it would be okay for me to also rebel since its only political

 

[TekNiKo]

JazakAllah khair - you are right in that it was the khwarji who assassinated Ali RA, but it was the fitna created by Muawiyah who assumed power illegally and gifted it to his son Yazid that led to the lasting turmoil and corruption in the Muslim world present to this day. Allah SWT will judge him, but his legacy is not one that I respect

Who are you to Judge a sahabi? Muawiyah RA was entrusted as a scribe of the Quran did you know that? Stop critisizing political events that happened during that time. Yiu sound like you are judging him as if you are better.

 

[Faahiye]

great so theres nothing wrong with it in principle so it would be okay for me to also rebel since its only political

@Tukraq

As I said before the situation at the time was complicated and as a laymen I dont feel qualified to give a ruling. But nonetheless when it comes to rebelling against an unjust I am inclined to follow what ibn taymiyya, though controversial during his time, said

"I talked about fighting rulers in other instances, and the general rule is: If there is conflict between benefit (or reformation) and corruption (or harm), and goodness and sins or they are competing; then we must weight in the more likely among them in the case of competing benefit and harm, and conflicting goodness and corruption. As enjoining [what is right] and forbidding [what is wrong], even if it is based on bringing benefit and preventing corruption, includes looking at alternatives, so what abolishes benefit or creates corruption more is not recommended; in fact it would be prohibited if its corruption is more than its benefit. However, weighting between benefits and corruption is with the scale of the sharia (Islamic law), whenever the human is capable of following the texts he is not to abandon them, otherwise he performs ijtihad with his opinion to know al-ashbah (i.e. ambiguious laws) and al-nazair (i.e. similar laws), add to that if there is a lack of an expert on the texts and their judicatory implications."

Best,

Faahiye

 

[Tukraq]

@Tukraq

As I said before the situation at the time was complicated and as a laymen I dont feel qualified to give a ruling. But nonetheless when it comes to rebelling against an unjust I am inclined to follow what ibn taymiyya, though controversial during his time, said

"I talked about fighting rulers in other instances, and the general rule is: If there is conflict between benefit (or reformation) and corruption (or harm), and goodness and sins or they are competing; then we must weight in the more likely among them in the case of competing benefit and harm, and conflicting goodness and corruption. As enjoining [what is right] and forbidding [what is wrong], even if it is based on bringing benefit and preventing corruption, includes looking at alternatives, so what abolishes benefit or creates corruption more is not recommended; in fact it would be prohibited if its corruption is more than its benefit. However, weighting between benefits and corruption is with the scale of the sharia (Islamic law), whenever the human is capable of following the texts he is not to abandon them, otherwise he performs ijtihad with his opinion to know al-ashbah (i.e. ambiguious laws) and al-nazair (i.e. similar laws), add to that if there is a lack of an expert on the texts and their judicatory implications."

Best,

Faahiye

I don't follow taymiyyas opinion, anyways best, but I don't see any problem in principle in rebelling islamically neither do I have a negative view of muawiaya he did the right thing

 

[Lum]

This is much better except that there is no ijma' on the matter of rebelling against a ruler, the salaf themselves rebelled.

when did the Salaf rebel? Provide your evidence if you are truthful.
This refutes you:

 

[Lum]

I don't follow taymiyyas opinion, anyways best, but I don't see any problem in principle in rebelling islamically neither do I have a negative view of muawiaya he did the right thing

Why? Rebellion only leads to chaos, anarchy, terrorist groups and muslim blood being spilled.

 

[Vanessa]

I’m 100% sure those salafis do gay activities

 

[Lum]

JazakAllah khair - very informative brother. I still don't agree with the succession of Yazid and the creation of the Umayyad dynasty and agree with individuals such as Mawdudi in thinking that he caused more fitna than good, but your message overall is well taken.

Why? The sahabi are the best people of this nation. Who are you to jugde them? They were choosen to be The companions of the greatest man to ever walk this earth, and spread the deen. What have we done in comparison?

 

[Misil]

when did the Salaf rebel? Provide your evidence if you are truthful.
This refutes you:

It's common knowledge that the salaf rebelled, go brush up on Islamic history. Also the hadith that fawzan quotes is a weak one with a disconnected chain.

Don't make me bring out the aqwal of the likes of Ibn hajar, annawawi or even the explanations of the kaba'ir from the hanabila. If you want, I can give you an explanation to aqeedah atahawiya by a Saudi scholar who goes into detail about the different types of rebellions.

You have been warned, don't test me

 

[astorecalledkmart]

Why? The sahabi are the best people of this nation. Who are you to jugde them? They were choosen to be The companions of the greatest man to ever walk this earth, and spread the deen. What have we done in comparison?

JazakAllah khair. I am not judging anyone, I am presenting facts. The dispute between Muawiyah and Ali RA was political, not religious, but Muawiyah and his son established a precedent for hereditary dictatorship. This is not something that is debatable - this is a fact. The majority of Sahaba supported Ali RA as the 4th caliph, and the overwhelming majority were opposed to the Umayaads with the appointment of Yazid - this is history, not opinion. Qutbahs were being given personally insulting sahaba on the order of Yazid. In the end, none of us know their intentions except Allah and Allah will judge between them.

In any case the purpose of this thread was to discuss the validity of obeying leaders engaged in haraam. I don't subscribe to blindly following anything. Allah gave us a mind and faculties of reason for a purpose, and despite the opinions of some "scholars", the precedent of standing against oppression and oppressors is a duty and expectation of believers and is described as such in the Quran itself

 

[Tukraq]

It's common knowledge that the salaf rebelled, go brush up on Islamic history. Also the hadith that fawzan quotes is a weak one with a disconnected chain.

Don't make me bring out the aqwal of the likes of Ibn hajar, annawawi or even the explanations of the kaba'ir from the hanabila. If you want, I can give you an explanation to aqeedah atahawiya by a Saudi scholar who goes into detail about the different types of rebellions.

You have been warned, don't test me

You just shut @Lum up lol, always pushing daeef hadiths and opinions of Saudi nobodies

 

[Lum]

You just shut @Lum up lol, always pushing daeef hadiths and opinions of Saudi nobodies

Proof?

 

[Misil]

Proof?

The hadith that says you can't rebel even if he flogs your back and takes your wealth is a weak hadith. Muhadiths like aldaraqutni mention that the chain is disconnected. This same narration is used by fawzan to fit his narrative.

 

[Omar del Sur]

You just shut @Lum up lol, always pushing daeef hadiths and opinions of Saudi nobodies

says the one pushing a liberal agenda

 

[Omar del Sur]

It's common knowledge that the salaf rebelled, go brush up on Islamic history. Also the hadith that fawzan quotes is a weak one with a disconnected chain.

Don't make me bring out the aqwal of the likes of Ibn hajar, annawawi or even the explanations of the kaba'ir from the hanabila. If you want, I can give you an explanation to aqeedah atahawiya by a Saudi scholar who goes into detail about the different types of rebellions.

You have been warned, don't test me

"Those who revolt against the Muslim rulers and rise-up in opposition to them have no proof for their actions when they claim they are following the example of some of the virtuous Salaf (early Muslims) who rebelled. What they regard as “proof” is actually not proof for them at all."

https://www.abukhadeejah.com/revolt...y-of-rulers-in-light-of-the-sunnah-and-salaf/

Generally, we shouldn't promote rebellion and revolution. However, I think Abu Khadeejah's opinion does lean a little too strongly in a given direction and I think Sheikh Ibn Baz explains things in a very good and balanced way:

Praise be to Allaah.

The basic comprehensive principle of sharee’ah is that it is not permitted to remove an evil by means of a greater evil; evil must be warded off by that which will remove it or reduce it. Warding off evil by means of a greater evil is not permitted according to the scholarly consensus (ijmaa’) of the Muslims. If this group which wants to get rid of this ruler who is openly committing kufr is able to do so, and can bring in a good and righteous leader without that leading to greater trouble for the Muslims or a greater evil than the evil of this ruler, then that is OK. But if rebellion would result in greater trouble and lead to chaos, oppression and the assassination of people who do not deserve to be assassinated, and other forms of major evil, then that is not permitted. Rather it is essential to be patient and to hear and obey in matters of good, and to offer sincere advice to the authorities, and to pray that they may be guided to good, and to strive to reduce evil and increase good. This is the correct way which should be followed, because that is in the general interests of the Muslims, and because it will reduce evil and increase good, and because this will keep the peace and protect the Muslims from a greater evil.

-Sheikh Ibn Baz

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/9911/is-it-permissible-to-rebel-against-the-ruler

also.... if you don't agree with someone on something, maybe have an intellectual discussion.... but.. taking a "don't test me, bro!" approach is not an appropriate way.....

can you imagine any serious professors in an academic discussion saying that to each other? it should be a cold, dispassionate dicussion, not a WWE match.... that's not what Islam is

 

[Misil]

"Those who revolt against the Muslim rulers and rise-up in opposition to them have no proof for their actions when they claim they are following the example of some of the virtuous Salaf (early Muslims) who rebelled. What they regard as “proof” is actually not proof for them at all."

https://www.abukhadeejah.com/revolt...y-of-rulers-in-light-of-the-sunnah-and-salaf/

Generally, we shouldn't promote rebellion and revolution. However, I think Abu Khadeejah's opinion does lean a little too strongly in a given direction and I think Sheikh Ibn Baz explains things in a very good and balanced way:

Praise be to Allaah.

The basic comprehensive principle of sharee’ah is that it is not permitted to remove an evil by means of a greater evil; evil must be warded off by that which will remove it or reduce it. Warding off evil by means of a greater evil is not permitted according to the scholarly consensus (ijmaa’) of the Muslims. If this group which wants to get rid of this ruler who is openly committing kufr is able to do so, and can bring in a good and righteous leader without that leading to greater trouble for the Muslims or a greater evil than the evil of this ruler, then that is OK. But if rebellion would result in greater trouble and lead to chaos, oppression and the assassination of people who do not deserve to be assassinated, and other forms of major evil, then that is not permitted. Rather it is essential to be patient and to hear and obey in matters of good, and to offer sincere advice to the authorities, and to pray that they may be guided to good, and to strive to reduce evil and increase good. This is the correct way which should be followed, because that is in the general interests of the Muslims, and because it will reduce evil and increase good, and because this will keep the peace and protect the Muslims from a greater evil.

-Sheikh Ibn Baz

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/9911/is-it-permissible-to-rebel-against-the-ruler

also.... if you don't agree with someone on something, maybe have an intellectual discussion.... but.. taking a "don't test me, bro!" approach is not an appropriate way.....

can you imagine any serious professors in an academic discussion saying that to each other? it should be a cold, dispassionate dicussion, not a WWE match.... that's not what Islam is

I agree with ibn baz here, sadly today in Saudi, any Sheikh even giving advice is locked up.

Yes you're right, my mannerisms weren't great, but I'm talking to a brain dead Madkhali who's corrupted the salafi movement, I don't think a bit of harshness will hurt him

 

[Omar del Sur]

The hadith that says you can't rebel even if he flogs your back and takes your wealth is a weak hadith. Muhadiths like aldaraqutni mention that the chain is disconnected. This same narration is used by fawzan to fit his narrative.

I mean..... "Mufti" Abu Layth tends to go and find some scholar somewhere who agrees with some weird, strange opinion of his and then uses this to justify some weird strange opinion

(you can see some of his weird opinions here if you're not familiar )

so I mean.... you might find some scholar who agrees with some weird opinion but the general consensus of the scholars is that the hadith in Saheeh Muslim are Saheeh...... that's not something specific to Sheikh Fawzan

no one is holding any deviant or strange opinion because they believe that the hadith in Saheeh Muslim are Saheeh....

that your argument seems to hinge upon Saheeh Muslim not being saheeh.... I mean it's a weak basis for an argument.... the scholars generally agree on Saheeh Muslim being reliable.... so the argument rests on a premise that isn't sound..... if there is any scholar that says the hadith is not saheeh, so be it but the overwhelming majority of scholars would disagree.... it's not a fringe view to hold Saheeh Muslim as Saheeh

Hudhayfa ibn al-Yaman reported: I asked, “O Messenger of Allah, we were living in an evil time and Allah brought us good in which we live now. Will there be evil after this good?” The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Yes.” I said, “And any good after this evil?” The Prophet said, “Yes.” I said, “And any evil after this good?” The Prophet said, “Yes.” I said, “How will it be?” The Prophet said, “Rulers after me will come who do not follow my guidance and my Sunnah. Some of their men will have the hearts of devils in a human body.” I said, “O Messenger of Allah, what should I do if I live to see that time?” The Prophet said, “You should listen and obey them, even if the ruler strikes your back and takes your wealth, even still listen and obey.”

Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1847

Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Muslim

https://abuaminaelias.com/dailyhadithonline/2012/09/15/tyrant-strike-back-patience/

Question


Are all the hadiths in Saheeh al-Bukhaari and Saheeh Muslim saheeh (sound)? I heard that there are some da‘eef hadiths in them – what are some examples? I hope that you can clarify this matter for me.

Answer

Praise be to Allah.

The scholars are unanimously agreed that as-Saheehayn (i.e., Saheeh al-Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim) are the soundest two books after the Book of Allah, may He be exalted, and they are held in the highest esteem by the Muslims, elite and common folk, scholars and ignorant, as is well known.

The majority of Muslims are also agreed that Saheeh al-Bukhaari is more sound that Saheeh Muslim in terms of scholarship and accuracy.

Abu ‘Amr ibn as-Salaah said:

Their two books are the soundest of books after the holy Book of Allah.

Muqaddimat Ibn as-Salaah, p. 10.

An-Nawawi said: That is according to scholarly consensus.

An-Nukat ‘ala Muqaddimat Ibn as-Salaah, p. 163.

Al-Haafiz said in Muqaddimat al-Fath (p. 8):

The words of Ibn as-Salaah imply that the scholars are agreed on the view that al-Bukhaari is superior in terms of soundness to the book of Muslim, apart from what was narrated from Abu ‘Ali an-Neesaaboori: There is no book under the canopy of heaven that is more sound than the book of Muslim. And it was narrated from some of the Maghrebi shaykhs that the book of Muslim is superior to the book of al-Bukhaari. End quote.

Based on that, we must continue to uphold this status and the high esteem and respect that people have for them both, and it is not permissible under any circumstances to try to sow doubts or cast aspersions upon the hadiths in these books.

These two books are the main references and solid foundations on which the scholars rely to work out the rulings of sharee‘ah, so it is not permissible to cast aspersions on them or say things to sow doubts about them in such a way as to undermine their veracity in people’s minds, whether they are scholars or otherwise.

Rather those who may discuss such matters are senior scholars and specialists in hadith; no one else has the right to indulge in such matters which may undermine the foundations, sow doubts about the fundamentals and stir up confusion.

This is in general terms.

With regard to the details of the matter:

With regard to reports on which the two shaykhs [i.e., al-Bukhaari and Muslim] are agreed, there is no way to suggest that any of these reports are da‘eef (weak), because the ummah is agreed that whatever they agree upon is to be accepted.

Shaykh al-Islam said:

They did not agree upon any hadith but it is undoubtedly saheeh. The scholars are unanimously agreed that it is saheeh. End quote.

Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (18/20).

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/119516/are-there-any-daeef-weak-hadiths-in-al-bukhaari-and-muslim

there's more in the link if anyone wants to read more but I mean... Saheeh Muslim's reputation is pretty well known