I don't support this guy getting "Shamsi'd".... but look how this "Salafi" is literally doing an advertisement for McDonalds... this is being upon the sunnah according to these people
"Shaykh Said al Kamali responds to the Madkhalis and their likes"
- Thread starter Omar del Sur
- Start date
Ahlul big mac are fake Salafis. You reject their fake version of Salafiyyah, they start callling you innovator, off the minhaj, khariji. In reality, they don't represent Salafiyyah. I showed on the previous post how one of these fake Salafis was literally doing an advertisement for mcdonalds. Were they advertising McDonalds before McDonalds gave free meals to the Zionist soldiers in support of the genocide against Palestinians? Before that, they weren't promoting McDonalds. McDonalds does that and these fake Salafis respond by promoting McDonalds. This has nothing to do with the Salaf, the Salaf were honorable people, they weren't backstabbers.
The Salafi Doesn't Refute Muslims During War Against Kuffar! - Shaykh Abu Talha
Never think these people represent Salafiyyah. This guy (Faris) literally twisted the din to promote McDonalds. "Quran and Sunnah"? This guy went against Saheeh Al-Bukhari to promote McDonalds.
BOYCOTTING IS HARAM?!?! | @Farishammadi | PALESTINE | GAZA
Shamsi Calls Palestinians Mushriks...By Jalal Abualrub @DUSDawah
I wish people could see this Sheikh's book on Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab. His book on the Sheikh is like 400 pages and the pages are big, it is a huge book and its like an encyclopedia, the pages are much larger than normal size. This Sheikh who is criticizing Shamsi is very much Salafi, this is not a non-Salafi. This Sheikh also is the Sheikh who did the English translations of tafsir Ibn Kathir and Tafsir As-Sadi.
there is nothing Salafi about Shamsi's behavior here. if he is really so insistent about drinking Starbucks, he could at least not flaunt it, laugh and giggle about it.
I don't understand why anyone would want to take knowledge from this guy. The Gazans are on the front line in a battle between Islam and kufr and this guy stabs them in the back. Then there's his affiliation with the SPUBS cult.
I want to note two things
Firstly, isn't it very strange that three of these prominent alleged "Salafis"... just on this page... I could give more examples but just three on this page, one of whom I didn't even bring up, it was someone else who posted his channel....
isn't it strange that all three of them went out of their way to promote Starbucks and/or McDonalds??
their supporters will be furious if someone calls these people Zionists, these three will assert up and down they are not Zionists... and meanwhile while they will get mad if you call them Zionists, all three went out of their way to promote Starbucks and/or McDonalds while Muslims are boycotting these companies as part of a campaign against Zionism.
this is something very sketchy. and these people claim they are calling to Quran and Sunnah upon understanding of the Salaf. go back to Quran, Sunnah and the Salaf. if you take Quran, Sunnah and the Salaf as your starting point- how do you arrive at the behavior I just mentioned?
I could see how maybe you could arrive that not doing the boycott is permissible. I can see that. but how do you arrive at going out of your way and even going against Saheeh Al-Bukhari in the case of Faris- to promote Starbucks and McDonalds given the context? This makes zero sense if you're simply following Quran, Sunnah and the Salaf. And it makes one hundred percent sense if these people are agents being given orders.
Second thing. Notice how very aligned with the West these people are. Notice how they will basically never go against Western interests. Let's imagine Starbucks and McDonalds were supporting the Houthis. There is no way they would be promoting Starbucks and McDonalds. These people, whether they are literal agents or not (and I think they are), they basically act as Western agents.
I don't consider the campaign against Zionism and the campaign against ahlul starbucks to be separate campaigns. No campaign against colonialism should leave alone the collaborationists. Before Saladin went against the Crusaders, he first took on the collaborationist Fatimids.
Firstly, isn't it very strange that three of these prominent alleged "Salafis"... just on this page... I could give more examples but just three on this page, one of whom I didn't even bring up, it was someone else who posted his channel....
isn't it strange that all three of them went out of their way to promote Starbucks and/or McDonalds??
their supporters will be furious if someone calls these people Zionists, these three will assert up and down they are not Zionists... and meanwhile while they will get mad if you call them Zionists, all three went out of their way to promote Starbucks and/or McDonalds while Muslims are boycotting these companies as part of a campaign against Zionism.
this is something very sketchy. and these people claim they are calling to Quran and Sunnah upon understanding of the Salaf. go back to Quran, Sunnah and the Salaf. if you take Quran, Sunnah and the Salaf as your starting point- how do you arrive at the behavior I just mentioned?
I could see how maybe you could arrive that not doing the boycott is permissible. I can see that. but how do you arrive at going out of your way and even going against Saheeh Al-Bukhari in the case of Faris- to promote Starbucks and McDonalds given the context? This makes zero sense if you're simply following Quran, Sunnah and the Salaf. And it makes one hundred percent sense if these people are agents being given orders.
Second thing. Notice how very aligned with the West these people are. Notice how they will basically never go against Western interests. Let's imagine Starbucks and McDonalds were supporting the Houthis. There is no way they would be promoting Starbucks and McDonalds. These people, whether they are literal agents or not (and I think they are), they basically act as Western agents.
I don't consider the campaign against Zionism and the campaign against ahlul starbucks to be separate campaigns. No campaign against colonialism should leave alone the collaborationists. Before Saladin went against the Crusaders, he first took on the collaborationist Fatimids.
Last edited:
Why we love the salaf
Shamsi Demolishes Bob The Builder! | Speakers Corner
Faris being posted by openly Zionist account:
Internet Nomad
✪͓̽W͓͓̽̽i͓͓̽̽n͓͓̽̽t͓͓̽̽e͓͓̽̽r͓̽ ͓̽A͓͓̽̽r͓͓̽̽c͓̽✪͓̽
Do you think it’s possible to critique a ruler and don’t want to start a violent revolution.
techsamatar
I put Books to the Test of Life
Certainly, according to Islamic principles, if you are unable to change a situation with your hands, you can still dissent in your heart and mind. However, it's crucial not to spread poison and propaganda, especially if the ruler is not explicitly forcing you to disobey Allah, forbidding your prayers, or personally oppressing your family. Engaging in such activities can lead to uprisings and the spread of falsehood, as observed in the unfortunate events in Iraq, where millions of Muslims perished and the country's wealth was looted due to various factors, including misinformation and instability.
Prophet of Allāh (salallaahu ‘alaihi wassallam), upon whose statements and actions we establish our religion, stated in an authentic tradition:
“There will appear after me rulers, they will not guide by my guidance, and they will not establish my Sunnah; there will be amongst them men whose hearts will be hearts of devils in the bodies of men!” He was asked: “How should I behave, O Messenger of Allāh, if I reach that time?” He replied: “Hear and obey the Amīr (i.e. the ruler), even if he beats your back and [illegally] takes your wealth – hear and obey!” [1]
@Omar del Sur @Qeelbax @Galool Can any of you point to me a Muslim government or ruler today whose heart is of the devil, who is not a Muslim and does not accept the guidance of the Prophet and Sunnah, and takes their people's wealth and beats their back? even if the ruler fulfilled all those traits the prophet still said hear and obey.
Prophet of Allāh (salallaahu ‘alaihi wassallam), upon whose statements and actions we establish our religion, stated in an authentic tradition:
“There will appear after me rulers, they will not guide by my guidance, and they will not establish my Sunnah; there will be amongst them men whose hearts will be hearts of devils in the bodies of men!” He was asked: “How should I behave, O Messenger of Allāh, if I reach that time?” He replied: “Hear and obey the Amīr (i.e. the ruler), even if he beats your back and [illegally] takes your wealth – hear and obey!” [1]
@Omar del Sur @Qeelbax @Galool Can any of you point to me a Muslim government or ruler today whose heart is of the devil, who is not a Muslim and does not accept the guidance of the Prophet and Sunnah, and takes their people's wealth and beats their back? even if the ruler fulfilled all those traits the prophet still said hear and obey.
I'm jealous of the innocent Madkhali tribe, imagine all the ajr they'll be getting on the day of judgement from all the vile slandering
Last edited:
this is something ahlul starbucks is hiding from the people. if you study the view of the classical scholars, this is their view. as I mentioned elsewhere- Sheikh Ibn Baz actually urged that governments that dismantled the shariah should be fought. That's not me saying that- that is what he said. I am not urging anyone to rebel against governments of any Muslim country or anything like that. even in cases where for example scholars made takfir of a ruler... like for example Sheikh Ibn Baz made takfir of Saddam and some others made takfir of Assad and Gaddafi- but does that necessarily mean the people should rebel?
even if it is shown that the ruler is not a Muslim, this does not necessarily mean that rebelling is a good idea. my belief is that even if the ruler was not a Muslim, he should not be rebelled against if rebelling against him will lead to a greater evil. what I've laid out here is the correct view.
it would be a joke to claim that Saudi is ruling by the shariah. I am not "rebelling against the ruler", I am simply criticizing the Saudi government- and for very good reasons! Criticizing is nothing compared to what the classical scholars and Sheikh Ibn Baz allowed for a government that dismantles the shariah.
This idea that any way that I am not allowed to criticize stuff like Saudi Shakira concerts and the other degeneracy going on there... and that the moment I say any word of criticism that this means I am a khariji, this is a bogus false ideology promoted by the Saudi government itself via this fake version of Salafiyyah it's currently promoting, in order that it can legitimize killing and torturing anyone who rightfully speaks up and opposes what is happening.
Just the fact that Saudi is pushing this sinister fake version of salafiyyah that promotes legitimizing the killing of whoever criticizes their government and going after those of us who aren't duped by their fake version of Salafiyyah, just as it functions to legitimize the arrest, and possibly torture and killing of Saudi scholars who rightfully oppose the forced Westernization... just that Saudi is pushing this kind of thing is all the more reason to openly criticize that government. I don't know of the governments of Malaysia or Indonesia doing that kind of thing.
And if people really are wondering whether it's true that anyone who criticizes a government in a Muslim country and is therefore a khariji.... bear in mind, this would be insane if we actually followed where that ideology would lead. Tons of Pakistanis have criticized the post-Imran Khan government. Probably most of the population of Pakistan, like 90% of this forum, some ridiculously enormous percentage of the Muslim ummah, numerous modern and classical scholars including Albani and Sheikh Uthaymeen would be khawarij according to this ideology. The "madkhalis" themselves would be khawarij according to this ideology because they are known to criticize Hamas, the Taliban, Qatar and Turkey. On one hand, they call you a khariji dog of hellfire if you criticize degenerate concerts in Saudi Arabia and say you are calling for chaos and bloodshed via revolution. Then they go and criticize Hamas! According to their own logic, they themselves are khawarij dogs of hellfire calling for chaos and bloodshed via revolution because of their criticizing Hamas. But for some reason this only applies if you criticize Saudi but not Hamas. It is an evident double standard.
see? us criticizing the Saudi gov makes us "keyboard khawarij" but this user criticizing Hamas doesn't make him a "keyboard khariji". it is utter hypocrisy.
well the longish post I just made was from my phone while I was out and about. anyways, I've put a lot of stuff in this thread.
people should go through the videos I've posted in this thread and watch them if they haven't seen them. yes it is a lot of content but what's discussed here is very important and has to do with proper minhaj.
Trending
-
-
BREAKING NEWS Saudi ex-Muslim Terror attack in Germany kills 12 people during Christmas Festival- Started by TekNiKo
- Replies: 126
-
