Xasan Xuseen oo dadkoo dhan gaaleysiiyay

[grandpakhalif]

From Sufism to Islam my story

[Sagaashan]

Ilaahay culumadii salafiga kheyr ha siiyo, without having a solid agreement on the basis of hadith there can be no argument as shown here. How can you arrive at the same conclusion when the sources are not agreed upon. This would have been a piece of cake if we just said saxiix hadith was the base, yaa allah.

[ZubeirAwal]

From Sufism to Islam my story

That guy is a clown, its sad to see you learn from him.

[SultanOrder]

The Sunni scholar al-Nawawi in describing the manners and etiquette of making

pilgrimage to the shrine of Prophet Muhammad (s), writes:

The pilgrim should face the shrine of the Messenger of Allah (s), make him a means (tawassul) towards reaching God and seek his wasilah as intercession (shafa'at), in the same manner as the Bedouin who visited the Prophet's shrine and standing beside it said: Peace unto you O Messenger of Allah, I have heard Allah has said:

...Had they, when they had wronged themselves, come to you and asked Allah's forgiveness and the Apostle had asked forgiveness for them, they would certainly have found Allah Most-Propitious, Most-Merciful. (Holy Qur'an 4: 64).

This is a Bedoin who calls out "Asalamu alaykum Ya Rasullahi" scw at his grave scw, speaking to him as if he heard him. Has not anyone heard the hadith about the prophet speaking to the mushrakin and the sahaba wondering asking if they heard him scw, and he said they hear me better than you.

Sxb the ayah talks about while the rasuul was alive, not after his death. The Bedoin proves nothing sxb anyone can use an ayah as an evidence to prove whatever action they are engaged in-wrongfully or rightfully. I have heard the qisa about the 'badr' when the prophet talked to the dead over their graves, but what does that prove. The rasuul was a miracle on this earth and was capable of many things, but obviously would not enjoy the same rights as a dead person.

Bro, did you not see who is using this hadith? Imam Nawawi, considered the second greatest shaykh After Imam Shafi'i in the Shafi madhab. He even talks about using the rasul as a mediation. And We know that this hadith isn't just for the time of the rasul since the sahaba did it and even recorded and preserved it.

[SultanOrder]

Ilaahay culumadii salafiga kheyr ha siiyo, without having a solid agreement on the basis of hadith there can be no argument as shown here. How can you arrive at the same conclusion when the sources are not agreed upon. This would have been a piece of cake if we just said saxiix hadith was the base, yaa allah.

We have been bringing sahiih hadiths.

[ZubeirAwal]

Ilaahay culumadii salafiga kheyr ha siiyo, without having a solid agreement on the basis of hadith there can be no argument as shown here. How can you arrive at the same conclusion when the sources are not agreed upon. This would have been a piece of cake if we just said saxiix hadith was the base, yaa allah.

Saxib Wahhabis insist to be called Salafis in claim that they only follow the first three generations, however the scholars of the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah have many times laid this claim to rest by proving that they vie against the Salaf in many areas, therefore, it is a crime against the truth of Islam to title them as Salalfis. This is especially given the fact that they only take from Sa’udi approved scholars, and very rarely quote from any scholar that predates Imaam Ibn Taymiyah.

For this reason we call them Wahhabis as opposed to the pure claim that they are Salafis, i.e. people who follow the first three generations. Moreover, since the time of the Salaf, i.e. the first three generations up until the Sa’udi invasions on the Hijaaz, no scholar from the Ahl us-Sunnah [or any other sect for that matter] coined themselves with the title as-Salafi [the Salafi]. This is a new and strange practice which has appeared after Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab.

Infact, what we do find is that the scholars of Muslim orthodoxy in most cases titled themselves after the name of the founder of a specific madh-hab. For example Imaam Rajab al-Hanbali called himself such to identify himself with the madh-hab of Imaam Ahmad Bin Hanbal. Nobody ever censured this practice, moreover Imaam Ibn Rajab al Hanbali even wrote a book entitled ar-Radd ‘alaa man itabi’ ghayr ul-Madh-haahib ul-Arba’ah, i.e. The Refutation to those whom follow other than the Four Madh-habs.

With this said a question should come to mind! Why do Wahhabi’s insist they are called Salafis? As seen from many “Salafi” publications, they deem the orthodox tradition of following one of the four madh-habs as blind following [taqleed] and some even imply that following a madh-hab is shirk. Never the less, they deem the following of a specific madh-hab as bid’ah, i.e. innovation and upon this premise claim that they do not follow the four Imaam’s or any other scholar but they strictly follow the Salaf. i.e. the first three generations, however this claim is bogus, as the four Imaams are from the first three generations and so is the methodology they used to derive rulings from the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Thus, it is correct that we call the blind followers of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab the Wahhabis, after their true founder, and reviver of the end of times Khawaarij.

[The`Republic]

Having watched the video for a bit, it's obvious we have seen this script before. He doesn't seem very original nor very creative and neither is he the most inspiring person out there. This is when I take a page out of Alpha's book and say "meh."

[Beenaale_No1]

You guys have gone completely off topic. Xassan Xusseen is a filthy hypocrite and a warmonger .He's the Somali version of the white right-wing Republicans in USA. They also like to send other poor kids to die in senseless wars while they sit at home and their kids go to private school. .

And Abu Mussab is a f-king clown. Listen to this other videos, the guy is a lunatic. Everything is haram to him. Watching Youtube is haram, you will go to hell. 

[ZubeirAwal]

You guys have gone completely off topic. Xassan Xusseen is a filthy hypocrite and a warmonger .He's the Somali version of the white right-wing Republicans in USA. They also like to send other poor kids to die in senseless wars while they sit at home and their kids go to private school. .

And Abu Mussab is a f-king clown. Listen to this other videos, the guy is a lunatic. Everything is haram to him. Watching Youtube is haram, you will go to hell. 

taking photos of the ka'ba is haram, using cameras is haram, how did he get his videos on youtube then?

stupid khawarjites, their so blind in the head.

[SultanOrder]

Having watched the video for a bit, it's obvious we have seen this script before. He doesn't seem very original nor very creative and neither is he the most inspiring person out there. This is when I take a page out of Alpha's book and say "meh."

The muslims have become citizens without a state camal. His argument is like a group of americans who have signed a new constitution for themselves in the USA, an American would have the same reaction, this person is not american, he is a traitor, he should loose his citizenship, we either of to try them for treason or kick them out of the country. etc.

[Sagaashan]

Ilaahay culumadii salafiga kheyr ha siiyo, without having a solid agreement on the basis of hadith there can be no argument as shown here. How can you arrive at the same conclusion when the sources are not agreed upon. This would have been a piece of cake if we just said saxiix hadith was the base, yaa allah.

We have been bringing sahiih hadiths.

how the hell is abuukarsubeer's musalsal hadiith saxiix that is the whole foundation of the argument. Wallahi that hadiith is so rare i have never heard it even mentioned.

[The`Republic]

PO, I listened enough to his simplistic logic to know there was nothing there. Personally if the Sheikh seems overly political in a negative way, I just don't care to listen to them. It tells me enough about their personalities.

Personally between letting that guy having authority and secularism, I would choose secularism in a heart beat.

[ModerateMuslim]

is this still going on? why can't you sufis just concede and embrace islam instead of ignoring the clear words of allah swt while bringing fabricated and irrelevant hadiths. for example one of you brought forth a hadith saying the prophet saw is alive. what does that have to do with anything? every muslim knows the prophets saw and martyrs are alive but now in the same state as us. just concede sufis and abandon shirk....

[ZubeirAwal]

Ilaahay culumadii salafiga kheyr ha siiyo, without having a solid agreement on the basis of hadith there can be no argument as shown here. How can you arrive at the same conclusion when the sources are not agreed upon. This would have been a piece of cake if we just said saxiix hadith was the base, yaa allah.

We have been bringing sahiih hadiths.

how the hell is abuukarsubeer's musalsal hadiith saxiix that is the whole foundation of the argument. Wallahi that hadiith is so rare i have never heard it even mentioned.

Hah

Hafith Al-’Iraqi states in his Tarh At-Tathrib, “Its chain is jayyid (good).” (3/297) Al-Haythami said in Majma’ Az-Zawa’id, “It is reported by Al-Bazzar and its men are the men of the Sahih.” (9/24) Imam As-Suyuti declared its chain Sahih in his work “Al-Khasa’is” (2/281) as well as in his takhrij of the Ash-Shifaa. The late researcher and Hafith Abdullah ibn Siddiq Al-Ghumari wrote in his work نهاية الآمال ، في شرح وتصحيح حديث عرض الأعمال that this chain was Sahih.

Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Alawi Al-Maliki (rahimahullah) stated in his Mafahim, “It was also declared Sahih in Hafith As-Suyuti in Mu’jizat, as well as Al-Khasa’is, as well as by Al-Qastalani who explained Sahih Al-Bukhari. Al Munawi stated in Fayd Al-Qadir that it was Sahih, as well as Az-Zurqani in his Sharh of Qastalani’s Al-Mawahib. It was also declared Sahih by Imam Al-Khafaji in his explanation of Ash-Shifaa’. (pgs 248-249, English edition translated as “Notions that Must be corrected”)

The opponents of this hadith claim that this narration is weak due to the narrator Abdul Majid ibn Abdul ‘Aziz ibn Abi Rawwad, who in their view is weak in memory. The late Muhammad Al-Albani in his Da’ifah quoted Al-Haythami’s words ‘and its men are the men of the Sahih’ and then said, ‘[However] He is spoken about negatively (وهو متكلم فيه). The wahhabi leaning website, Islamweb.net ((http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/Show ... on=FatwaId )), has declared this hadith weak as well, repeating the verdict of Al-Albani in his Silsilat Ad-Da’ifah that the strongest of the narrations is that of Bakr ibn Abdullah Al-Muzani, a mursal narration that in his view is authentic. We shall return to this mursal narration later in the article. At this time the claim that Abdul Majid ibn Abdul Aziz ibn Abi Rawwad is weak must be investigated. Why didn’t Al-Haythami deem him weak in his grading of this hadith? Or Suyuti and the others who declared it authentic? .

It's sahih sxb

[Sagaashan]

Hah

Hafith Al-’Iraqi states in his Tarh At-Tathrib, “Its chain is jayyid (good).” (3/297) Al-Haythami said in Majma’ Az-Zawa’id, “It is reported by Al-Bazzar and its men are the men of the Sahih.” (9/24) Imam As-Suyuti declared its chain Sahih in his work “Al-Khasa’is” (2/281) as well as in his takhrij of the Ash-Shifaa. The late researcher and Hafith Abdullah ibn Siddiq Al-Ghumari wrote in his work نهاية الآمال ، في شرح وتصحيح حديث عرض الأعمال that this chain was Sahih.

Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Alawi Al-Maliki (rahimahullah) stated in his Mafahim, “It was also declared Sahih in Hafith As-Suyuti in Mu’jizat, as well as Al-Khasa’is, as well as by Al-Qastalani who explained Sahih Al-Bukhari. Al Munawi stated in Fayd Al-Qadir that it was Sahih, as well as Az-Zurqani in his Sharh of Qastalani’s Al-Mawahib. It was also declared Sahih by Imam Al-Khafaji in his explanation of Ash-Shifaa’. (pgs 248-249, English edition translated as “Notions that Must be corrected”)

The opponents of this hadith claim that this narration is weak due to the narrator Abdul Majid ibn Abdul ‘Aziz ibn Abi Rawwad, who in their view is weak in memory. The late Muhammad Al-Albani in his Da’ifah quoted Al-Haythami’s words ‘and its men are the men of the Sahih’ and then said, ‘[However] He is spoken about negatively (وهو متكلم فيه). The wahhabi leaning website, Islamweb.net ((http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/Show ... on=FatwaId )), has declared this hadith weak as well, repeating the verdict of Al-Albani in his Silsilat Ad-Da’ifah that the strongest of the narrations is that of Bakr ibn Abdullah Al-Muzani, a mursal narration that in his view is authentic. We shall return to this mursal narration later in the article. At this time the claim that Abdul Majid ibn Abdul Aziz ibn Abi Rawwad is weak must be investigated. Why didn’t Al-Haythami deem him weak in his grading of this hadith? Or Suyuti and the others who declared it authentic? .

It's sahih sxb

raximuhullahi has spoken