Response To the Mistakes of Hanafi Fiqh Channel || Part 1 ||

[@peopleofknowledge1]

good work, who is more knowledgable the ashari khalaf or the salaf who learned and seen RasulAllah (saas)

[@proudafricansufi5898]

Name me 100 Salaf without the help of a Computer and Kitabs in front of you on the spot and I will get 10 layman Ash'aris & Maturidis to do the same with ease because we study kitabs we dont learn from KZbin Videos

[@johnrazna2381]

@@proudafricansufi5898 lol, it's a lot more important to believe Allah is above his throne, etc, than to know the names of the great salaf.

[@holdshiftt2run308]

@@proudafricansufi5898 So if you can name 100 of the salaf, is your deen complete? Is your aqeedah correct? Does that make you a scholar? What is the point of naming 100 of the salaf when you don't have the foundations of the deen.

[@azadajk7128]

Proud African Sufi Only Ashari and Maturidi study from books? That’s a strange claim. Interestingly on other issues - when we refer to Bukhari, Muslim, Muwatta Malik, Musnad Ahmed and so on.. I’m often told by the Sufis that “we don’t take knowledge from books - we take it from the scholars (ie “scholars” of today)” so they can justify carrying on with their innovations. Moreover - I’ll bring you more than 100 people who you guys call Ashari but they’ve never studied the Ashari misguidance and are free from it. ... Final point - who is right from the Ashari and the Maturidi? Since they both can’t be right.

[@prophetsmasjidh3001]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5K7iWOkpM6IaZo Brother there is mistake in this video and one of other video you have written surah Al Isra instead of surah Al A'raf so check these!

[@Isa187]

As-salaamu alaykum brothers, and sisters Subhaanallaah, I see a lot of arguments in the comments. Attacking and slandering each other. People who aren't even here, are being spoken about. Fear Allah people. The sheikh from the Hanafi fiqh channel has presented something, and this Sheikh (I hope he doesnt mind me calling him sheikh) has presented something. Nobody is going to change their view/stance on the spot. It is upon us now to see which opinion is more correct. lets not attack each other because we have no knowledge and we are reacting from emotions. This is simply clinging on to a personality rather than the truth. Allah guides whomsoever he wills. Even if a million people come with a truth it will never help someone except by the will/permission of Allah. Use that thing in between your ears and research in shaa Allah. May Allah make our affairs easy and guide us all to the siraatul mustaqeem. Ameen Salaamu alaykum

[@thabsheerahmad]

kzbin.info/door/rZaEmMJxR3rRvCM1NPHkYA *السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته* *"INK OF BELIEVERS"* visions and works towards personal life making Right Path where people could come to attain and share knowledge in Islam and the Holy Book that nurture and encourage people from all walks of life to strengthen their belief in Allah and develop their innate creativity and inquisitive nature in the pursuance of truth while anchoring their hearts and souls in a moral framework of a God-centered life. Our mission is to cultivate proper Islamic qualities and habits which should be inherent in every Muslim through Quran and Sunnah.

[@BigDuck786]

Yasir has a point? What point does he have? Stop making it sound like the people from there (deoband) have a point or argument, or that they have some substance as opposed to Ahlus Sunnah.. like what are you talking about? They have no evidence for the nonsense they spew. Why would they? Their methodology and the way they go about things is where they believe in fabrications and extremely weak hadeeth and that's what they believe and implement. They're going to now have a response to the people of the Sunnah?

[@Isa187]

@@BigDuck786 As-salaamu alaykum my brother. Sorry, but I dont recall saying that anyone had a point in my comment. We have to be very careful my brother not to have harshness in our thoughts and actions as it can cloud our judgement and make us see and act in the wrong manner. I merely stated that they both presented something. Regardless of who we think is right, the point I was stressing on was the back-biting. The problems with muslims today is that we all become 'keyboard scholars' and start talking out of our place. I guarantee that at least 95 percent of the people commenting have not studied any islamic science above an elementary level, let alone speak or understand the arabic language. The scholars will deal with the matter and we have to be realistic with ourselves and humble our nafs and know what level we are on. When someone suffers a heart attack, what unqualified madman would try to perform open-heart surgery on them? I actually love our brother, sheikh abdur-rahmaan and agree with what he is presenting in this talk, but will I backbite the other brother? Never. Sheikh Abdur-Rahman has dealt with the matter. Why do I need to speak. Take the knowledge and lets keep it moving. JazaakAllaahu khayran. May Allah protect and guide us all.. Ameen

[@domingosmartins872]

Assalamu alaikum brother when it comes to Aqeedah it has be answered

[@Isa187]

@@domingosmartins872 Wa alaykumus-salaam. I agree with you brother. It definitely does

[@DawahTrucker2024]

Baaraka Allahu feek Ustadh Abdul Rahman, I'm so happy you are bringing these principles of Tawheed, i love it and now that you are mentioning it again it just makes my emaan and conviction stronger knowing that the way of the prophet Muhammad ﷺ, his companions رضي الله عنهم اجمعين and the way of the 4 Imams and the Salaf is the most balanced and correct way. بارك الله فيك كثيرا.

[@ozairtahir9276]

It's funny how the speaker says how Shaykh Yasir didn't bring one quote from the Salaf to prove tafwidh al-ma'ana when he himself didn't bring not a single quote to prove zahir al-ma'ana, the apparent "meaning". 1. He starts off with Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud and Ibn Abass رضي الله عنهما, and it is clear from the on set he went totally off topic - in fact mixing two very different things - when have the people who did tafwidh al-ma'ana of the sifat of Allah did tafwidh of Allah's names? Ya'ni of the asma al husna? We've always translated the names of Allah, for example "arRahman" as "most Merciful" etc. But it seems this shaykh made the blunder straight off and mixed asma Allah and sifat Allah together and went on to utilise this as proof that madhhab of the salaf was to take sifat at its apparent meaning when in fact this falls under the names not attributes. He then said both of the Sahabis رضي الله عنهما explained according to the Arabic language, another blunder by the shaykh. This is because the salafis have yet to give an explanation of yad يد of Allah according to the Arabic language, especially the meaning that is apparent. We know they can't do this - because they don't know the meaning or they are not willing to tell us the 'meaning' of hand and it's 'characteristics'. 2. He then quotes Abdullah Ibn 'Umar's رضي الله عنه athar, but where in this athar did he 'explain' the meaning of "yad" or it's "characteristics"? Where as few seconds previously this shaykh utilised as proof Ibn Masud and Ibn Abbas athars as examples because they "explained" some of Allah's names and some of their "characteristics". It seems this shaykh is only cherry picking athar. Anyway this hadith doesn't prove the "meaning" of yad because the meaning of yad could only be done by explaining it through the Arabic language (as the shaykh says). 3. He says quite ferociously wagging his finger at the camera that the hand of Allah is different compared to the hand of human, hand of clock, hand of monkey etc, but this is what out human mind comprehends no other hand beyond hands that are created, and that he agrees that none of these hands befit Allah, if thats the case then he doesn't know the meaning!!!! This is because if we know a meaning that of something by its language then it is essy to say it, but for Allah we dont use that meaning then the reality is we are doing tafwidh al-ma'ana saying Allahu Alam. 4. The shaykh again went of topic of with Ala and Irtafa'a, even the people of tafwidh of ma'ana do not negate the fact Allah is above and beyond the heavens and arsh - but we say Allah is not confined by the six directions, space and time. Please refer to Aqeedah Tahawiyyah. All these arguments are red herring and nothing concrete to prove. If anything this proves ta'weel is being done. 5. Even IkrImah's tafseer, where is the meaning? Just red herring arguments. 6. Assuming Ibn Mulaykah's tradition is authentic and his saying bal ithnatani is authentically attributed to him, then we ourself cannot deny that Allah uses the dual form of 'yad' in the Quran, he wasn't asked what was the meaning of yad, did he? Again red herring. 7. Rabi'ata Ra'y's answer of istawa غير مجهول doesn't mean he said "we know the meaning", it means it is not hidden, this is because Allah utilises it many times in the Qur'an, Allah said Istawa we also say it. this shaykh likes to severely stretch things. Same respons as Imam Malik. 8. What i find REALLY DISTURBING and on the borders of jismiyyah is proven as i watch this video. At 19.40 this Shaykh says: "Allah's sound, the voice..." Whilst saying this he does isharah to his own mouth. All i can say is: لا حول ولا قوة الا بالله I am no way going to listen to more of this nonsense.

[@ozairtahir9276]

[4:00] and [4:53] - He gives two quotes, one from Sayyidina Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud and one from Sayyidina Abdullah Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) respectively. He claims that in these two quotes the two sahabah mentioned, have explained the sifat of Allah of "al-Samad" and "al-Sayyid" along with a few others. Unfortunately he did not listen carefully to Shaykh Mohammad Yasir and in his haste has not realised that tafweedh al-Ma'na in the sifat is only in sifat al-Khabariyyah whereas he has given examples of sahabah explaining sifat al-Aqaliyyah. (See Episode 1 of Shaykh Mohammad Yasir's series for full explanations of the two. See here ) [6:45] - He questions, "Are we going to say Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud and Abdullah Ibn Abbas are mujassima?" This is a rather ridiculous question and further proof that "Ustadh" has not comprehended the difference between the different types of sifat, the sifat they have spoken on are not sifat that can create anthropomorphism or corporeality in the mind therefore to even ask such a question is embarrassing on his part. [7:10] - A quote of Abdullah Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him is given) and then a claim is made that he explained the sifat "yad" however if one listens carefully, Ibn Umar does not explain what the word "yad" means for Allah but rather relates as it comes; this is a proof for tafweedh and not against it! [8:15] - He claims that Allah created four things literally with His hand and then gives indication with his own hand, is this not tashbih? He then asserts that the asha'irah claim the word "yad" means only ability or power, however this is false and as Shaykh Yasir has explained we only hold that it is a possible meaning to remove ones mind from giving physical qualities to Allah, again please refer back to the series. [9:15] - A claim is made that Allah's Hand is not like the hand of the creation. He said we should affirm the sifat literally and said there's nothing wrong with saying Allah has a hand because we say that we have hands and a clock has hands but it's not the same thing so there's no tashbih. What he doesn't understand is that "clock hands" and "clock face" are figurative statements like saying "foot of the hill" and "eye of the needle" so really he's said take it literally but then given a figurative example when he claims to be against ta'wil and majaaz. He needs to go work on his English perhaps and rework his logic because a good 80% of what he was saying was in fact an affirmation of tafweedh and the positions of the asha'irah. [9:58] - Here a mention is made of Abu Aaliyah in Tadhkiratul Huffaz of Imam al-Dhahabi, and he makes another mention at [14:33] so it may be relevant to show what Imam al-Dhahabi's position on tafweedh was. See here: ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/74/assalamu-alaikum [10:36] - A mention is made of Abu Aaliyahs statement that Allah is above, as brother Abu Humayd has already stated, this is not denied however it cannot be asserted that this is according to sensory perception and there are many proofs for this including the statement of Ibn Hajr in Fath al-Bari however since the "Ustadh" likes to mention Imam al-Tabari, let us give some statements of Imam al-Tabari from his tafsir on Allah's Istiwa and Uluww': 1. "He is above His creations with His power." (Vol. 3, under Ayat al-Kursi) 2. "Allah is above His creation with His Kingdom and Power, not the elevation of movement." (Vol. 1, Surah al-Baqarah, Ayah 29) 3. "He is above them with His power and they are below Allah with less power." (Vol. 5, Surah al-An'am, Ayah 18) For more watch episode 3 of Shaykh Mohammad Yasir's series "Is Allah Above The Throne?" for what he said about Allah's aboveness/elevation (uluww') not being according to sensory perception (see here) [12:52] - He gives a quote of Ikrima of Allah's two hands and gives reference to Naqd of al-Darimi, this Darimi is a mujassima who claims that Allah can settle on the back of a mosquito, claiming Allah has two flanks/wings, that Allah is closer to the peak of a mountain/minaret than it's foot etc. We refuse to accept anything from a person who makes such claims! See episode 3 again in above link for full references. [15:46] - At the start of his video he claims the position of the salaf is to do tafweedh of the kayf but here he brings a quote of Sufyan Ibn Uyayna asking "how" is the istiwa? If how is consigned then why is he bringing this to prove meaning? [17:58] - He then makes mention of Imam Maliks statement on the same issue, he should refer to Shaykh Yasirs video "Imam Malik on Where Is Allah?" (see here) [17:45] - A statement is made that it is obligatory for one to believe in istiwa, asserting as though the asha'ira and maturidyyah do not believe it. Please give reference to show what proof there is that it is not believed by these two groups and also bring proof that believing in it means one must have a meaning for it and that meaning is elevation in direction and being according to sensory perception. [18:25] - At this point he states that the Prophet (sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam) would not leave us oblivious about our Lord. The simple answer to this is that he didn't, he told us what we needed to know which is sufficient. It was not needed for him to go into great depths for us to wonder about how Allah is etc since Allah will not question on these things rather He will question whether we truly believed in Him and worshipped Him without ascribing any partner to Him. [18:48] - Here he gets overly excited in quoting Imam al-Bukhari regarding the sawt (sound) of Allah and claiming that the asha'irah do not accept this sifat. Please prove that this has been rejected by the asha'irah? [19:42] - When speaking of the sound of Allah he indicated towards his mouth, demonstrating the sound of Allah coming out of his mouth. If Allah's sound is not like that of the creation then why is he demonstrating it coming out of his mouth, is this not tashbih? [22:05] - Again when speaking of Allah's right hand he waves his right hand, is this tashbih again or not? [22:25] - Here he speaks about Allah's nuzul and then demonstrates movement from above to below with his hands. Is he claiming movement for Allah? These tragic blunders don't seem to end! [23:18] - A quote of Imam al-Tirmidhi is given from his sunan claiming that this is a refutation of the asha'irah but rather it is a proof for the asha'irah as he clearly states that these sifat are to be read over and the part where Abdul Rahman states "it is to be taken on the apparent" is an interpolation and a lie against Imam al-Tirmidhi, no such statement exists in the quote! [23:35] - Here Abdul Rahman states that this was rejected by the Jahmiyyah in order to claim that this is similar to the asha'irah. Where have the asha'irah rejected this? The fact of the matter is that the Jahmiyyah have rejected this because they believed that Allah was on the earth and this cannot be applied to the asha'irah as we believe that Allah exists without a place and this negates existing on the earth. Therefore mention of this in direction to the asha'irah in desperation is academic dishonesty. As now most of his speech has been answered it becomes evident to anyone of sound discernment that this was a pathetic attempt to project incorrect beliefs on to the pious salaf, a speech filled with red herrings and deceit. The rest of the 7 or so minutes was filled with much more nonsense and brash statements with no substance. Let Abdul Rahman Hasan and the other detractors take note that the above is how one refutes something, systematically and point for point. If one is not up to it then they should not attempt half jobs half-heartedly. We request something that is worthy of being called a response!

[@muhammadjoshua7464]

Your comment needs to be on top

[@musfiqurkashem346]

​@@ozairtahir9276somebody already explained in the comments about Allah's Hands. I suggest you go read it. Hand can't just mean ability. It is illogical. I suggest stop blind following.

[@gshhxydhd4179]

Wallahi Bradford has too many deviant akhis.

[@whitelight3181]

Note: Misinterpreting vague 'quotes' cannot produce a watertight argument. Are you suggesting that explaining the meaning of 'As-Samad' and other divine names, is the same as giving a literal explanation to things like 'Yad'? - That would be truly misleading. You have NO ACTUAL example of the SALAF saying that 'Yad' and the like are 'literal'. In fact, the moment someone says that, it means they have likened The Most High to His creation!

[@mdarifuzzaman8073]

No one deny Allah has hand, and we believe on that. What we can be sure is Allah don´t have limb!! Don´t keep using your baseless arguments to proof something you don´t know.

[@abumuhamedaleealansari7811]

Md Arifuzzaman are you suggesting when someone said hands it only refers to bodily limbs ? What about the hand of clock is that bodily limbs also ?

[@huznmeee]

Jazakallah khair. Very clear and benefitial. I just want you to know that unfortunaltly not many asharis will be conficed. All they call us are wahabis wahabis wahabis. Subhanallah, may Allah guide them and us all.

[@TheBomshot]

He said Abdullah ibn Umar said Allah has Yad Haqiqita (physical hands) please give me the source and I will follow this in Aqeeda Jazak Allah

[@blueboy3098]

@@TheBomshot he said literal hands. not physical

[@muaaz8608]

@@TheBomshot He said "literal" not "physical" because physical is ambiguous.

[@sheikhsaklain15]

@@TheBomshot Mujahid reported: Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, said, “Allah Almighty created four things with His hand: Adam, upon him be peace, the Throne, the Pen, and the Gardens of Eden. Then, He said to the rest of creation, ‘Be’ and it was.” al-Sharī’ah lil-Ājurrī 756 عَنْ مُجَاهِدٍ عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا قَالَ خَلَقَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ أَرْبَعَةَ أَشْيَاءَ بِيَدِهِ آدَمَ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ وَالْعَرْشَ وَالْقَلَمَ وَجَنَّاتِ عَدْنٍ ثُمَّ قَالَ لِسَائِرِ الْخَلْقِ كُنْ فَكَانَ 756 الشريعة للآجري

[@ilmhunter7362]

Most mubtadi are, explaining the unseen... even they don't have the knowledge... It simple to say... Allahu Alam... May Allah subhana wa taala grant us more understanding

[@osamamanan2723]

Their minds are themselves polluted by Mujasmia, that is why they do taweel using their intellect.

[@penangtauhidcaller13]

minute 25 powerful. May Allah swt bless you Sheikh.How can we change what Allah is saying about himself and how can we says about Allah what we know not.

[@abdel1143]

After 8 minutes you already destroyed their false arguments ma sha Allah

[@Muhsine1]

what is he talking about?? he seems to be confused.. the seeing , hearing of Allah swt and His names like Al Ghany or As Samad are not were the salaf said bi la kayf! bi la kayf/ without asking how is on the words in the noble Quran like yad u Allah or waj u Allah .He Almighty is beyond human bodily forms and thus we say bi la kayf. SubhanaAllah. May Allah protect us from ignorance and arrogance. A beautiful and mannered way of speaking and lecturing is tantamount specifically in Islamic lectures.

[@bourney4914]

ABC Well thats why they have the Naql but no Aql, they are hence Naqlheads. If they use some Aql, which is a blessing of 'understanding of the religion' only then will the Naql make sense to them.:)

[@frankincensemerchant1284]

I would just like to comment that this video is about aqidah and that Imam Abu Hanifa was Athari in his Aqidah. Their is nothing wrong with following a madhab and in fact a laymwn should follow a madhab.

[@HasanYusufzai]

Imam Abu Hanifa was not an Athari. Aqeedah Tahawiyya, compiled by Imam At-Tahawi, was a compilation of the beliefs of Imam Abu Hanifa, and this work led to the formation of the Ash'ari and Maturidi schools. Also, Shaykh Mohammad Yasir has done videos clarifying the way Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik viewed Allah's "place." The claim that all four Imams were Athari in creed is a baseless one.

[@edrissrassuli4529]

@@HasanYusufzai you're wrong there were all athari.

[@jabba5716]

@@HasanYusufzai ah yes imam Abu Hanifa (rh) was adhari 😂

[@ishamsyahputra]

@@HasanYusufzai ya miskin... Aqeedah or creed is a set of beliefs. All the 4 imams of Fiqh were unanimous in affirming Allah's names and attributes. Only Ahlul Bidah picks and chooses what to follow. That's why they follow one of the 4 schools of Fiqh but take their Aqeedah elsewhere. When questioned, they claimed that the 4 imams are not schools of Aqeedah but what they fail to realize is that the 4 imams spoke and taught us about creedal matters.

[@Jammylune]

Brother Hassan, is correct and has well explained this matter. JazakulAllah kheir sheikh.

[@omarfarooqui123]

@Ad Deen dear brother, you went wrong in the whole discussion of what abdul rahman hasan was trying to explain. he quoted several times the salaf us saalih regarding the attributes of allah as you know and in none of the places you will not find that even a single scholar from the salaf has made tafweez of the meaning. can you show me single statement from sahaba where they said "we make tafweez of this attribute" or "only allah knows the meaning of this attribute" or such similar statements. if these quotes ain't enough for you, just read and understand the following quotes from the most famous of the salaf us saaliheen. barakallahufeek and may allah guide you. Imam Abu Ja‘far Muhammad ibn Jareer at-Tabari (d. 310 - may Allah have mercy on him) said:If someone were to say: What is the proper approach with regard to the meaning of these attributes that you have mentioned, some of which are mentioned in the Book and revelation of Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, and some were mentioned by the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)? Our response is: The correct approach in our view is to affirm the meaning in a real sense, without likening Him to His creation, as Allah said of Himself in the Qur’an (interpretation of the meaning): “There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer” [ash-Shoora 42:11]. … So we affirm all of the meanings that we said are mentioned in the reports and the Qur’an and the revelation according to their apparent meaning, and we reject any likening of Him to His creation. Hence we say: He, may He be glorified and exalted, hears all sounds, but not through a hole in an ear or through any physical faculty like those of the sons of Adam. Similarly, He sees all people with vision that is not like the vision of the sons of Adam, which is a physical faculty of theirs. He has two hands, a right hand, and fingers, but not in a physical sense; rather His two hands are outstretched, bestowing blessings upon creation, not withholding good. And He has a countenance or face, but it is not like the physical faces of the sons of Adam that are made of flesh and blood. We say that He smiles upon whomever He will of His creation, but we do not say that this is showing teeth (like a human smile); and He descends every night to the lowest heaven. End quote from Tabseer fi Ma‘aalim ad-Deen, p. 141-145 Imam Haafiz al-Maghrib Abu ‘Umar Yoosuf ibn ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abd al-Barr al-Andalusi al-Qurtubi al-Maaliki (d. 463) said: In principle, words are to be understood in a real sense, unless the ummah is unanimously agreed that something is not to be understood in a real sense, and is rather a metaphor, because there is no way to follow what has been revealed to us from our Lord except on that basis. Rather we should understand the words of Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, on the basis of the most apparent and clearest meaning, unless there is a strong reason to do otherwise. If it were justifiable for anyone to claim that something is a metaphor, then no statement would mean anything. Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, is far above saying anything in the Qur’an except that which is said in a manner that may be understood by the Arabs on the basis of their style of speech. Istiwa’ (rising above (the Throne)) is well known and understood in Arabic; it means rising above something and becoming settled and established. He said, narrating that there was consensus among Ahl as-Sunnah concerning this matter: Ahl as-Sunnah are unanimously agreed that all the divine attributes mentioned in the Qur’an and Sunnah are to be affirmed, and we are to believe in them and understand them in a real sense, not as metaphorical. But they do not discuss the nature of any of them. As for the followers of innovation, the Jahamis, all the Mu‘tazilah and the Khaarijis, all of them deny the divine attributes and do not understand them in a true sense; they claimed that the one who affirms them is likening Him to His creation. According to those who do affirm the divine attributes, these people are denying God. The truth is on the side of those who base their understanding on the wording of the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messengers, and they are the leaders of al-jamaa‘ah, praise be to Allah. End quote from at-Tamheed, 7/131, 145 Imam Abu Ahmad Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Muhammad al-Karji who is known as al-Qassaab (d. 360 AH) said concerning the Qaadari belief in a letter that he wrote for the caliph al-Qaadir bi Amr-Allah in 433 AH, which was signed by the scholars of that time to confirm its content, which was sent to the various regions: Allah is not to be described except as He has described Himself or as His Prophet has described Him. Any attribute that He has ascribed to Himself or that His Prophet has ascribed to Him, is an attribute in a real sense, and is not metaphorical. If it was metaphorical, then it would have been necessary to explain it in a manner different from the apparent meaning, so it would have been said: What is meant by vision is such and such, what is meant by hearing is such and such, and so on; it would have been explained in a way different from what one would understand from the apparent meaning. As the approach of the salaf is to affirm the attributes without interpreting them in a way different from the apparent meaning, this proves that they are not to be understood in a metaphorical sense; rather they are plain facts. End quote from al-Muntazam by Ibn al-Jawzi, speaking of the events of 433 AH; Siyar A‘laam an-Nubala’, 16/213 Imam al-Haafiz adh-Dhahabi said, after quoting the words of al-Qassaab referred to above: As Allah exists in a real sense, not metaphorically, His attributes cannot be taken as metaphorical, because in that case they could not be divine attributes, because the attributes are connected to the one who possesses those attributes. As He exists in a real sense, not in a metaphorical sense, His attributes cannot be metaphorical. As there is nothing equal or similar to Him, there can be nothing like His attributes. He said, commenting on the words of Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr mentioned above: He spoke the truth, by Allah. Whoever interprets all the divine attributes in a manner other than their apparent meaning, and regards the words as metaphorical, that will inevitably lead him to denying the Lord and likening Him to something non-existent. It was narrated from Hammaad ibn Zayd that he said: The likeness of the Jahamis is that of people who said: On our land there is a palm tree. It was said: Does it have leaves? They said: No. It was said: Does it have branches? They said: No. It was said: Does it have bunches of dates? They said: No. It was said: Does it have a trunk? They said: No. It was said: Then you do not have a palm tree on your land! End quote from al-‘Uluw, p. 239, 250 secondly you said that where did abu abdul rahamn hassan explained the characteristics of these attributes. i say why would we do that. we only explain that which has been revealed. the characteristics of allahs attributes have not been explained by allah or by our prophet(may peace be upon him) then why should we go overboard and try n explain them. and please my brother, also refer to other parts of these videos. it will get you a clear picture that how your shaykh yasir is deceiving you.

[@salafifayiz7712]

Allah bless you

[@abuarqam8577]

Well, this video is quite confusing. As far as the attributes of Allah are concerned, they were explained. But not the attributes of hands, leg and face They are not explained by the salaf in the examples the Sheikh gave. Nor they said it is literall the Sheikh made his own ijtehaad on the statements of salaf and expects us to do taqleed. Hand is literally a physical body organ and Allah is free from a physical body organ. Nobody denies that istiwaa happened, it is the ignorant literalism. Allah indeed did istiwa, but as it suits him, which includes him not being bound by space, time and directions.

[@tahirali5379]

Abdullah Mujahid you’re thinking too deeply into it again. Just accept that it happened the way Allah described it. By saying ‘he’s not bound by space or time’ and then trying to understand it you’re going into the ‘how’ of it which just leads to problems. Don’t go into details. Accept it and affirm it as the imams did. And leave the how because we don’t know and won’t be able to comprehend. Trying to ‘understand’ it using our laws of physics it the start of disaster because our laws won’t apply to the creator. Our laws of physics were created for our reality. It’s like saying we all have a beginning so what was Allah’s beginning? We all have a beginning because Allah created those laws for our reality. Allah is far about those logical explanations and realities. So accept that all Tudor attributes exits in their meaning, affirm them in their meaning, but don’t ask how. The Asharis thought they were clever and asked how and led to them deviating.

[@muhammadjoshua7464]

@@tahirali5379 you can do that or you can follow what the salafs did on this issue that is to leave the meaning to Allah alone (tafwid al-ma'na).

[@osamamanan2723]

When he explained a quotation of some salaf regarding Hands, the salaf said that Allah created 4 things by Hand and others by saying Qun. This statement is clear as it is. Where did you find the ijtehad here? Dont try hard to neglect such facts.

[@osamamanan2723]

Istawa alal arsh is the direction. We can give direction to Allah as with respect to our location Allah isfar above however, we believe that for Allah, this distance is negligible, Allah's might is not bound by direction and distance, it is only for us.

[@yusufyousuf3493]

SubhanAllah keep up the good work

[@Abby-ns5xh]

8:41 to 9:33 this guy has missed the point completely! The likeness of hand is in relation to it being a limb, nothing to do with size, colour, texture etc. Also, the clock hand is a pathetic example because it is metaphorical and also it is not an evidence you can ascribe to the salaf who of course didn't have clocks, this is a modern day desperate example of the salafi brothers. Furthermore, to say a hand that befits Allah, is in fact the most rediculous and contradictory statement. To say you don't know the how is not necessarily taking you out of anthropomorphism as you would like to think, in fact by saying literal hand is taking you into anthropomorphism, which is why the salaf said accept the apparent word to be part of the quran and leave the meaning to Allah!

[@SIGSEGV1337]

A clock hand is not metaphorical, nobody who understands linguistics would claim that it is, language has been used like this for practically the entirety of human history, that is simply a modern example.

[@abyrahman6610]

@@SIGSEGV1337 bro, a clock hand is a 'part' of the clock. Allah is free from parts and body limbs.

[@SIGSEGV1337]

@@abyrahman6610 Nobody said anything about a body. God is indivisible but he has attributes. Is God's knowledge not a 'part' of him? Don't get hung up on the English, remember we're talking about sifaat not ajza.

[@abyrahman6610]

@@SIGSEGV1337 but what is the literal meaning of hand??

[@SIGSEGV1337]

@@abyrahman6610 It depends entirely on context, as does the use of all words. This is why when you read a dictionary a given word may have more than one definition. When speaking about Allah, the literal meaning of Hand is the attribute with which He does certain things.

[@jamalmian8920]

shaykh mohammad Yasir is saying the truth allah hu akber

[@jamalmian8920]

May Allah Guide you,

[@mdarifuzzaman8073]

I am seeing this stupid Ahlee hodos again!! Astagfirullah!!

[@ajc1753]

sheikh yasir is a liar

[@islamzindabadchannel]

iam listing sheikh all series i love it. from pakistan

[@muhammadjoshua7464]

I don't get it, He didn't refute Shaikh Yasir's point with any proof. What is the point of this video?

[@abubakralmali9625]

Al-Khateeb narrated in his “Tarikh Baghdad” v 13 p 394-395 from Imam Abu Bakr Abdullah ibn Sulayman ibnul Ash’at, son of the famous Imam Abu Dawud, addressing a group: “What do you say about a topic on which agree Malik and his companions, Ash-Shafi’i and his companions, Al-Awza’i and his companions, Al-Hasan ibn Salih and his companions, Sufyan Ath-Thawri and his companions, Ahmad ibn Hambal and his companions?” They replied: “It is among most authentic topic”. He said: “All of these agreed on the misguidance of Abu Hanifah” Abdullah ibn Sulayman ibnul Ash’at is Thiqah. Az-Zahabi said in his “Sayr” v 13 p 233: “From the most Thiqah of Hufaz”. See also “Kamil” of ibn ‘Adi, “Mizan ul Itidal” and others. Al-Kawthari tried to attack this Imam, but Az-Zahabi refuted such matters long before.

[@sanaullasharief5319]

A Deobandi scholar has suggested to revive a sunnah, TO BREAK THE FAST BY INDULGING IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, rather than with dates. As usual with Hanafis he issued this fatwa based on the books of elders, NOT ON THE BASIS OF QURAN AND SAHIH AHADEES Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari of leicester, UK This may sound strange to some, hence please understand it in its proper context. Imam ibn Sirin (Allah have mercy on him) says that the Companion Sayyiduna Abdullah ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) would, at times, open his fast with sexual relations [with his wife]. (Related by Tabarani in his Mu’jam al-Kabir with a sound chain of transmission) Imam Suyuti adds that this means he would engage in sexual intimacy even before eating, and possibly even before offering his Maghrib prayers. This may be so that he is satisfied and able to fully concentrate on his prayers. (Al-Wishah fi Fawa’id al-Nikah) Those married may want to - at least once - act upon this sunna of a Sahabi; but make sure not to delay maghrib for too long, since that is Makruh!! Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari discusses this in his book entitled, 'Islamic Guide to Sexual Relations' from the bottom of Page 19 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pray Allah to save us from BLIND MUQALLIDS. Aameen

[@5eek3r0fknowl3dg3]

sanaulla sharief liar

[@sanaullasharief5319]

The Secret Scouser any proof?

[@5eek3r0fknowl3dg3]

sanaulla sharief yeah

[@aminkhan1265]

alhamdullilah all four madahb are true

[@gamingwithumar2.012]

This Somali man is a legend. Subha Allah

[@RashidIndasan]

ALLAHU AKBAR, HERE IN THE PHILIPPINES, I DEBATED ALSO ASHA'EERA.MAY ALLAH BLESS YOU USTADH HASSAN.

[@abab7196]

rashid indasan you debated Asharis? What are you then?? Shis salafi wahabi?? Asharis are the only one on haq and ahle sunnah

[@rat1771]

Ab Ab says who

[@abab7196]

Rat Imām Tājuddīn al-Subkī’s explanation of the creed of Ibn Hajīb. Know, that Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jamā`ah are all in agreement upon one Creed regarding what is obligatory, permissible, and impossible (for Allāh), even if they differed regarding the methods and fundamentals that arrive to that. In general, they [Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jamā`ah] are three groups, as ascertained by copious study of all of the sources (istiqrā’): 1. The people of Hadīth. Their basic fundamentals are the revealed proofs (adillah al- sam’iyyah), by that I mean the Book, the Sunnah, and the Ijmā’ (consensus). 2. The people of rational investigation and thought. They are the Ash`arīs and the Hanafīs 1 [the Māturīdīs]. The Shaykh of the Ash`arīs is: Abūl Hasan al-Ash`arī. The Shaykh of the Hanafīs is Abū Mansūr al-Māturīdī. They are in agreement regarding the fundamentals of the sam’īyyāt (revealed knowledge) that the intellect can only deem as rationally possible, as well as the areas wherein the two (rational and revealed knowledge) are combined. They are in agreement in all areas of creed except in the issue of takwīn 2 and the issue of taqlīd [in `aqīdah]. 3. The people of ecstatic experience (wajd) and unveiling, and they are the Sūfīs. Their fundamentals are the fundamentals of the people of rational investigation and Hadīth in the beginning, and that of unveiling and inspiration (ilhām) in the end.

[@abab7196]

Rat Notes: 1 In Mu’id al-Nī’am wa-Mubīd al-Niqām Imām Tāj al-Dīn al-Subkī says: And these Hanafīs, Shāfī’is, Mālikīs, and virtuous Hanbalīs,- Allah be praised - are one hand in matters of creed, none (of them) departing from that save the lowly ones from the Hanafīs and Shafī’is that joined ranks with the people of ‘Itizal, and the lowly ones of the Hanbalīs that joined ranks with the people of Tajsīm. And Allah has spared the Mālikīs for we have not seen any Mālikī except that he was an Ash`arī in creed…

[@rat1771]

Ab Ab I need evidence and proof.

[@zaidsiddiqui5790]

🙄 i find deobandi are more closer to haq. As ALLAHA described himself with limited choice of word. Rather you are explaining the attribute of his eminence and power, rather the conflict is on physical attributes.

[@islamzindabadchannel]

so are you deobandi

[@zaidsiddiqui5790]

Yes - but i never had this kind of discussion ever uptill now. I was thought that ALLAHA has a hand, how? We don't know. Maybe both aspects are right there shouldn't be a dispute on this as ALLAH himself hasn't clarified it. I believe Allaha is free from any kind of physical attributes we try to ascribe to him.

[@AbuHumaira_]

Deobandis are not only Asharis but Atharis too. May ALLAH ﷻ guide us

[@zaidsiddiqui5790]

@@CosmoCreedthanks for your suggestion. The understanding is from Quran.

[@Alhamdulila786]

@@zaidsiddiqui5790exactly brother we don’t know but we do know Allah says he has a hand jist like Allah says he is the all seeing so Allah can see us but not like the way we see so we affirm and don’t try describe unlike the asharis/ deobandi deny and give a false explanation/translation of the attributes of Allah

[@mahbubrm2148]

Just by saying Allah's hand is not like us doesn't mean you are free from being a mujassimah .. Hand itself means a body part whether it's a hand like us or an alien . And Allah is free from having Jism .

[@اسماعيلالخطابالسندي]

You clearly never watched the video. Watch the first 5 minutes again. He explains that point very clearly

[@shokzz1532]

Imam Aboo Haneefah affirms a yad for Allah in Al Fiqh Al Akbar. Although salafis generally say that it is weak. But deobandis consider it to be authentic so it’s a proof against them

[@humaidashraf1460]

Abdul Rehman hasan you need to come face to face with Sheikh Yaser!

[@Jammylune]

+Humaid Ashraf your yasir neither speak English nor Arabic fluently, and his knowledge is blind.

[@humaidashraf1460]

+Greenbird G my brother i dont think you know sheikh yaser hes fluent in english as he taught many kids in islamic schools and he can speak arabic more fluent then this joke ustaad

[@Jammylune]

No, only you know everything and nobody else knows anything. Yaser seems to be the joker here.

[@mohammedsharif3431]

+abdussamad002 these videos are useless to respond. And he will get marked if he has a one on one with shaykh yasir. You're guy had to look at a laptop for his ilm. Mufti Google at its best

[@Foralluhaterz]

He can face and is ready to meet barelvi scholar asrar rashid who did well in his debate but when it comes to Shaykh Yasir, he never dares to do such a thing

[@sanaullasharief5319]

Deobandies also believe in the sufi concept of 'noor e muhammadi'. Ref 1.ASHRAF aLI THANVI'S book tazkiratul habeeb 2. zakari kandhalvi's book atoor ul majmmoa and 3.sheikh muhammad aslam qasmi's book seerat e halbiya. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOOR E MUHAMMADI- IN DEOBANDI LITERATURE Asharaf Ali Thanvi quoted the fabricated Hadith attributed to AbdurRazq about Nur Muhammadi being created first from Allah's Nur, then creation coming from the Prophet's noor, Thanvi quotes a narration that Noor Muhammadi went in Abdul Mutalib one day he was sleeping in Makkah, and he woke up with Kohol in eyes and oil in hair. He was brought to Kahin who said he should be married, and he got married... Then it is said Abdul Muttalib's body was perfumed and Noor Muhammadi was shining in his forhead People of Makkah when seeking rain would invoke Allah through Abdul Mutalib and would got rain with the Barakah of Noor Muhammad Here there is a narration that the Noor Muhammad went in Abdullah ibn Muttalib, and a jewish Kahin saw his face and saw in it the Noor of prophecy, and wanted to get married with Abdullah but he refused. Then Thanvi quoted another narration telling Noor Muhammad appeared in Abdul Muttalib when Abrahah wanted to destroy the Ka'bah... And Thanvi quote us these fabrciations from Mawahib of Qastallani... Comments: What 'Aqeedah is this ? Which Salaf spoke of this light going and transfering to different people ? The Noor of Muhammad being in Abdul Muttalib and Abdullah, what nonsense... And Deobandi's creed in Noor Muhammadi that Sufi also call Ruh Muhammadi or Haqiqah Muhammadiyah is agrred upon by both Deobandi Brawli...and they say that the universe works with the Faydh (benediction of this light)... And these non Islamic ideas taken from Ibn 'Arabi have been explained in "Abe Hayat" (water of life) of Nanotwi, "Aftab Nubuwat" of Qari Tayib, "Naqsh Hayat" of Husayn Ahmad Madni and other Deobandi books... Rather it is a Batini, Shi'ah, Wahdatul Wujudi creed...resembling the Christian religion in the relation of the Holy spirit with Prophet Jesus And Chrisitians idolaters also say creation came from the light of Jesus... And our Sufis Deobandis say creation comes from light of Muhammad (saw)... May Allah protect us from Triniatrian/Shi'a/sufi creed of Nur or Ruh Muhammadi.

[@whitebelt920]

It is Allah alone who knows and no creature can comprehend fully the unseen.

[@islamicmercy4181]

Abdur Rahman, is switching the reality of the matter he is using sayings to there apparent text on those things which are known for instance the Attribute of Al Aleem. Which are known by fact that this is the apparent meaning were in reality the question is on the issue such as hand, feet etc.. then he brings saying such as that Allah created them with his hand we must take this literal according to him. My question would be from the Hadith in Bukhari it says when Allah becomes close to someone he Allah becomes there hand from which they hold with, Allah becomes there feet from which they walk with etc.. If we stick to the psedo Salafi methodology then the belief would end up with we have to believe that Allah becomes the individual but how we don't know. The psedo salafis always change there methodology when it comes to this hadith the one I mentioned. I can mention many Verses and Hadiths. May Allah protect us from such a belief. Ameen

[@holimolibebalanced9348]

Explaining what is obvious, everyone agrees on that, what about mutashaabihaat, we say we don't even say hand, we only say yadلله يد بلا كيف و لا تأويل A translation is also a ta'weel نفوض إلى الله تعالى All Imaam Bukhari(ra) did was quote a ta'weel, proving khalaf not Salaf, people who know a little know there too many holes here

[@AbuHumaira_]

I like the adab of Ustaad Abdul Rahman Hassan حفيظ الله 🤍

[@MMAth2]

Wallah this has helped

[@osamamanan2723]

It baffles me how these jahmiyya reject clear cut text.

[@abderawat2254]

He has spoken the truth!

[@iswardy]

Maybe you could do a video on what is the position all the imams of the 4 madzhabs regarding this issue

[@ammaare5561]

This can be found with a single google search

[@REEZU88]

ukahlehadees u spk out of ignorance, shias & qadianis are not hanafis but mirza gulam qadiani was ahlehadees, he belong to ur firqa, lot of qadianis were salafis b4, coz they left taqleed & abused ulema of ahlusunnah as well as aulia, due to which Allah swt misgudided them & thrown in qadianism.

[@REEZU88]

+UK AhleHadees can u prove that? its open challenge for you....

[@mdarifuzzaman8073]

your father Qaidiani was a friend of your another father Hosein Ahmed batalavi who registered the name Ahle hadith with brithish government in India!! Check the fact busterd before throwing your dirty filth.

[@naz4578]

One can simply pose the question, when you go to the apparent meaning of each attribute, those too have material, finite and limited definitions - are you saying God is material, finite and limited?

[@zeeshulko]

+nazhat iqbal limited definition for humans

[@houseoftawhid]

The Answer is Very Simple this Universe is made of Matter and Physical Substance and its the necessities of this world and Allah is the CREATOR of these things and he is out from his creation .

[@abderawat2254]

This is incorrect. We know that only when the people started using philosophy did they come up with these things and philosophy is not an evidence in Islam. However, if you look at the salaf which is an evidence you will not find that they negate the how but rather they will affirm the attributes and say I do not know for the how. If you did want to use logic then it's simple Allah has a yad (hand) but we know that it cannot be the hand of a human or like that of the creation of Allah. So we know he has a yad so we affirm it but since this is Allah we don't know how and so the how is unknown. Simple logic. Those who say Allah said hand but he meant something else have no evidence for their belief from the salaf.

[@Shafmohaa]

ما شاء الله، جزاك الله خيرا يا شيخ

[@thewolf1801]

Ibn Hajar Al-Haitami said in his book entitled ‘Al-I’laam bi Qawaati’ Al-Islam,’ about the one who said ‘Allah has a hand’: “If he says in response to someone who says: “So and So is between the hands of Allah”, (if he then says) “Allah’s hand is long”; it has been declared that such a person is guilty of unbelief if he meant (by ‘hand’) the limb (jaarihah). Such has disbelieved. Otherwise, he has not (if he didn’t mean the ‘limb’)…As for if he makes a general pronouncement and doesn’t mean it (i.e. the limb), he does not disbelieve.” Taken from the book Al-‘I’laam bi Qawaati’ Al-Islam.

[@ishamsyahputra]

Sure, you can follow later scholars who are affected by Greek theology, no problems. Allah have already preserved his religion through the revelations, and the Ulema of the Salaf. Alhamdullilah for Islam. Alhamdullilah for Quran and Sunnah.

[@maeezshaikh642]

Please keep it up.... May Allah bless you

[@SubaruSupra3]

Allahuma Barik, the matter is clear from the evident you provided

[@deFreijtas]

Ustadh AbdulRahman Hassan states that Allah Has a hand that befits Him. The literal meaning hand is not applicable to the Creator. The literal meaning constitutes a body part and Allah is free of any body part. IF by hand you do not mean bodypart but another meaning like for example power, then yes according to that definition it could be right. The word hand has multiple meanings and one or more of these meanings befits Allah. Not the literal meaning of hand that again is a BODY PART. Classical scholars have written about this mentioning that we cannot use the literal meaning of Hand and that we should use another meaning because it is on that context. If one is to say the people are in my hand, this does not mean that literally mean that the people are in my hand, it is figure of speech which indicates that I have control over the people. Sheikh Yasir is correct in this and Ustadh abdulrahman hassan is unfortunately mistaken. No disrespect.

[@knowledgeshare622]

Allah has hand ! he says in his Quran! You should believe it ! but DON;T COMPARE ANY HANDS WITH HANDS OF CREATION USING YOUR BRAIN. because his hand is nothing like any others (laisa ka mislihi shaiyun-Quran)

[@deFreijtas]

+niz ngr ow boi. how can i explain this again. the fact u said Allah has a hand. you are saying he has a limp. a bodily function. it does not matter if He has a hand that is not like the creation, it is not about that, it is about the fact that u say He has a hand that is bodily. He is free from limbs or the like. so the literal meaning hand cannot be used, regardless if it is like the creation or not! brothers please use common sense. it is not haram to use your brain as long as it is in line within the acceptable opinions within this ummah. brothers read the classical works plz.

[@deFreijtas]

+niz ngr just by stating that His hand is not like the creation does not mean that it is not a body. it is still a body if you take the literal meaning. a hand that is not like the creation is still a hand and is still bodily!

[@tahirali5379]

You’re going against the great sahabas and imams by saying that. Why isn’t what the imams say sufficient? Why are you more clever than them and better versed with the Quran and Arabic language? Why not just stick to what the best generations said? If you say ‘chicken legs’ and take the word literally, do you imagine a humans legs in your mind? Take camel legs LITERALLY, do you say that means human legs? Of course not. They have legs that is appropriate for them! So why when Allah’s attributes are mentioned do you automatically say ‘it means human type’? It’s just shaitan deceiving you and making you look for excuses to stick to your stubbornness.

[@fountainoflife9573]

all people want to know which of you are true , Im just muslim i just accept truth, I also agree with salafi and hanafi both of them will be not true , one of them is true. Thanks you Muhammad Yasir opened challange to all salafis . Im waiting for responding to him

[@abdulhaqqmiller6970]

I LOVE IT!!!! MASHA'ALLAH!!!

[@KaratedoTiger]

Verse 26 and 27 Ar Rahman."Whatsover is on it(the earth) will perish and the face of your lord will remain for ever" How do you intrepret this verse?Should we take the literil meaning of this verse?The face has been interpreted as Allah Majesty.I think and I think you will agree that tahweel has been made? furthermore Imaam Bukari did he follow Imaam Shafee MAzhab?He was a great Muhadith that was from Mazhab imam Shafee.

[@khan786811]

why dont you go 1 on 1 with him. go to bradford nd u will find out

[@abdullahkhan-qk3lk]

+khan786811 THEY ARE COWARDS, NEVER COME FACE TO FACE WITH PEOPLE OF KNOWLEDGE THEY WILL ONLY DEBATE WITH WHO DONT KNOW ANYTHING.

[@aliyeshaw9077]

+abdullah khan what about you? do you have pure knowledge in islam or simply mixed islam from zorasterinism and hindu ideology.

[@sakib7745]

+abdullah khan Don't describe scholars as cowards. Who knows, you might be sinful for doing so.

[@mohammedsharif3431]

True. They only talk the talk. And pick on weak people. Shaykh yasir al hanafi would merk this guy. So called Quran and sunnah they follow. Ma guy isn't even wearing a hat

[@muhammedi5583]

Brother, it would do well to make your statements easier to understand as it took me a bit to get what you're saying, which is fine as long as I got it in the end, however the brother +Islam 1990 may have misunderstood.

[@maeezshaikh642]

Masha Allah... Jazak Allahu khair Shaikh

[@Mohammed-gw2nn]

Salaam alaikum akhi Please reply to his challenge on Kibaab Al ijaaz by Shiekh Saad Abdullah Bin Bareek an Saudi Scholar On V1 pg 53 masalah taqallab alaqidah on some of the differences on Salafiyyah scholars had Shiekh Albani Shiekh Usaimeen & Shiekh Bin Baaz May ALLAH AWJ Be Pleased With Them And more so Shiekh Muhammad Yasir is challenging Barakallah hu fikum

[@mohammedkhan-yd8dh]

sheikh yasir has explained this issue clearly please stop being stubborn on your baathil

[@electrifrying]

Good video masha Allah. I would just like to ask what is the wisdom in sharing this on Imran Mansur's page? Half of his followers are 15 year old kids, who know nothing about these discussions. Perhaps start with the basics, and work them up?

[@electrifrying]

***** I understand what the content was. My question was why is it being shared on Imran's page? You have to consider his audience. Look, you used 8 Arabic words in the first 4 lines of that message above. Why dive into this topic without explaining the words, giving the background etc. Most of the followers of this page are teenagers. ‘Alî b. Abî Tâlib - Allah be pleased with him - said: "Narrate to people what they can understand; do you want Allah and His Messenger to be disbelieved?" Quoted by Al-Bukhârî, Al-Sahîh, Chapter about a person preferring some people with certain knowledge to the exclusion of others. Ibn Hajr said in Fath Al-Bârî, “[In this narration] there is evidence that ambiguous knowledge should not be mentioned amongst the general public.” Shaykh Muhammad b. Sâlih Al-‘Uthaymîn - Allah have mercy on him - explained this very important and often misunderstood point beautifully. After mentioning the narration of ‘Alî, he states: It is therefore an aspect of wisdom in da’wah (calling others to Allah) that you should not surprise people with things they are not able to comprehend. Rather, you should call them in stages, bit by bit until their minds settle…” He goes on to say: “[The statement of ‘Alî] ‘Do you want Allah and His Messenger to be disbelieved?’ is a rhetorical question, posed as a criticism of such behavior. It means: by narrating to people things they cannot understand do you want Allah and His Messenger to be disbelieved? This is because in such cases when you say, “Allah said, and His Messenger said” they will say you have lied if their minds cannot comprehend what you are saying. Here, they are not disbelieving Allah and His Messenger, but they are disbelieving you because of this speech that you have attributed to Allah and His Messenger. Thus they will end up disbelieving Allah and His Messenger - not directly - but by way of the one who transmits this knowledge (i.e. you). Now if it is said: Should we stop telling people things they cannot understand even if they need to know? The answer is: no, we do not leave this knowledge altogether, but we should tell them in a way that they will be able to understand. This is done by telling them stage by stage, bit by bit until they can accept the speech we want them to know and they can feel comfortable with it. We do not abandon knowledge that people cannot understand and just say ‘this is something they will reject or dislike so we will not speak about it.’ The same is the case with acting upon a Sunnah that people are not used to and which they might find objectionable. We should act by this Sunnah, but only after informing people about it, such that they will be able to accept it and feel comfortable about it. We learn from this narration (of ‘Alî) that it is important to employ wisdom in calling to Allah, and that it is incumbent upon anyone who calls to Allah to consider the level of understanding of those he is inviting, and that he should put everyone in their proper place. Majmû’ Fatâwâ Ibn ‘Uthaymîn Vol.10 p140.

[@abdussamadabdullah7079]

The sheikh used a dictionary to prove his point on aqeedah. In comparison the Ahlus Sunnah only use authentic sources Quran and Sahih Hadith

[@159blackseedoil]

After listening to 5mins of the respected sheikh's lecture, it seems that he truly lacks knowledge in this field.

[@adenjamac2296]

Who

[@thugg22]

I would like the Madkhalis to refute Imaam Ibn Kathir because he said (concerning istiwaa) that the outward meaning that comes to the minds of anthropomorphists is not accepted. Also can someone list me all those sayings of the Salaf who said that: "we accept the literal meaning of the attributes", Instead of "let them pass as they came"?

[@zia5878xs]

this salafi quotes from Abdullah ibn masud. lol. he is actually quoting hanafi scholar and then calls himself hanafi. he should quote from ibn taymiyyah or their bin baat or albani or uthmaien. shows how they manipulate their aqeedah.

[@jabba5716]

Abdullah ibn masood (ra) was hanafi?????? You absolute jahil

[@darkman6999]

who thinks scholars attacking scholars are getting increased so much nowadays. Also of topic question what is ustad Abdul Rahman hassan qualification/ status. like is he an alim, a mufti or anything I'm just curious. I almost 100% shore he is a hafiz but other than that I have no clue. Also which school did he go to (Islamic studies wise). I know where sheikh muhamme yasir went to, he is one of the darul uloom madrasah in the Uk- wither dewsbery, Birmingham, Bradford, bury or Blackburn.

[@اسماعيلالخطابالسندي]

Ustaadh AbdulRahman Hassan memorised Qur'an and Buloogh Al-Muraam at a young age and studied with a number of scholars, including: Shaykh Saalih Al-Fawzaan, Shaykh Muhammad Aadam Al-Ethiobee, Shaykh AbdulKareem Khudayr, Shaykh AbdulMuhsin Al-Abbaad and Shaykh Abdullah Al-Ubaylaan. He currently resides in London and lectures and teaches in various Masaajid in London.

[@abdullahkhan-qk3lk]

Just by looking at this guy its clear, HE IS TALKING ABOUT ISLAM, SUNNAH, TOUHEED, IS IT SUNNAH NOT TO WEAR A CAP? YOU ARE ACTUALLY ALLERGIC TO SUNNAH !!!

[@zeeshulko]

+abdullah khan is that all u can come up with ....by the way the wearing cap during namaz is sunnah and he is not offering salah. so no need to wear skulcap all the time like sleeping or going to toilet

[@zeeshulko]

This aalim is not from indo pak rather he's from somalia

[@zeeshulko]

abdussamad002 By the way what proof i r talking about coz don't remember you giving me any proofs. Allahu mustaan

[@hamzaahmed5436]

Subhanallah it’s like I’m just listening to the salaf speaking and not ustadh abdulrahman hassan. All in with the quotes and reference and nothing from himself.

[@qasis42]

the aqeeda is very simple alhamdulillah. confirm that which Allah has confirmed in the Qur'an. or upon the tongue of His Messenger(saw). Without asking how, without comparing it to the creation and without changing its meaning or interpretation. if Allah says He has a hand. we confirm this. khalass. theres no other argument or understanding regarding this. we dont make assumptions when it comes to what Allah intends or means. we take it literally according to the Arabic language and according to the understanding of the Prophet(saw). Where did the Prophet(saw) or sahaba ever say Yad means power or any of this?

[@ShafiAshari]

Assalamu Alaykum Can I ask you? why did the sahaba made ta’wil on hands to quwea and for dihk to mercy.

[@mahmudibnabidin]

Wa alaykum assalam. The Sahabah did not make that ta’wil. If you need proof, I can provide.

[@shokzz1532]

They did not.

[@nadsss4538]

Brother there is only one link between imaam Abu Hanifa and the prophet (saw) so he is a taa'bi'een. Where does that put you. There is more of the Muslim ummah following imaam Abu hanifa. Please take a chill pill and calm down. Imaam Abu Hanifa knew 100's of hadith off by heart. How many do you know? Salaf means purist form (sahabah). Are you from the purist form???

[@اسماعيلالخطابالسندي]

Not hundreds more like thousands. Even I know hundreds and I'm not a student of knowledge.

[@newsindia7868]

How many salafi group with in you I think 7 Just unite yourself first than come to deabte

[@ابوحمزة-ذ6ظ]

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته فضيلة الأخ الغالي عبد الرحمن .....هل فسر الوجه واليد .....هذا المقصود ......لأن تفسير هذه الصفات يؤدي إلى التكييف بخلاف تفسير الصمد و العليم و الحكيم والمهيمن الخ....أما مسألة تفسير صفات الله الذاتية فقد ذكر أنه لا يفسر لأنه يؤدي إلى التكييف او مثل هذا في شرح العقيدة الواسطية في برنامج أصول العلم بدمام 1437

[@RayyanMusa]

The rejections of Madhabs by Salafis is because of Taqleed . However, they continuously fail to mention, great fiqh scholars were part of Salaf generations. Imam Abu Haneef was a Tabiee, Imam Malik and Imam Shafee were Taba tabieen. The issue of authenticity was never an issue for these scholars, as the number of narrators were a few and trusted, it was later generations which weaken the hadiths used by these scholars. It is this basic lack of Islamic History that has caused much of the problems in the Ummah. The great books of hadith were compiled 200 years later !! It common experience the closer someone is to the source of knowledge the accurate they will be. To disregard such great scholars of Fiqh is ignorance, foolishness and ultimately lead to failure in the hereafter.

[@JA-uk2qw]

Abdul Essa Any sources you recommend?

[@seanmikaeel90s50]

Lol what are you talking about bro salafiyeen can be any madhab but in aqueeda, it is aqueeda tus salaf simple bruv

[@RayyanMusa]

@@seanmikaeel90s50 Thank you for proving my point about the lack of knowledge on Islamic History!😄

[@maazmustafa2322]

You're ignoring the early in the day when hadith weren't compiled there were instances of knowledgeable people opposing the sunnah simply coz they'd not come across a hadith. Like that sahaba who killed someone in battle even though he said the shahadah, which made the prophet SAW angry. Imam Abu hanifa living in Iraq didn't have as many sahabas and as good a city for education like madinah. He may have missed out on hadith and given fatwas based on qiyas. Only when sunnah was compiled years and years later and knowledge spread more to other parts of the Muslim world did it become readily available and we found out some fatwas were given against clear cut hadith Edit: BTW he himself follows shafi madhab. And all 4 imams were from the salaf. You're right about narrators being few during the times these imams lived but bcoz knowledge wasn't as widespread as it is now they may have missed out on hadith here & there

[@AbdulEssa-kp4vf]

@@maazmustafa2322 Many Salafi are unaware of the oral tradition of the Hadith. In your example, you have conflated an incident that occurred during the lifetime of the Prophet (SAW) which would have been in Medina, 10 years after the prophet's mission. They were many sahaba that were not very knowledgeable in Islam at the time. Writing hadith was not a common practice amongst the sahaba, due to expense. The paper was not introduced to the Muslims until the Ummard Empire reached Tang Empire (China) after 751 AD. The death of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), occurred in 13 Hijri and 632 AD. You can observe it was after 80 years paper became common. The Grandfather of Imam Abu Hanifa used to send gifts and money to Hazrat Ali (RA), who on many occasions made dua for his Grandfather and his generations. Also over 500 sahaba settled in Kufa, which was an army garrison town during the time of Hazrat Umar. Which was 638 AD. However as you may not know, Hazrat Ali (RA) moved the Islamic capital to Kufa during his fight against Hazart Muawiya in 657 AD (36 Hijri). Imam Hussain and Hassan also stayed in Kufa, so this ridiculous assertion Knowledge was spread later is false. The Alhe Bayt was primarily based around Kufa the home town of Imam Abu Hanifa. One of the principal teachers of Imam Abu Hanifa is Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī al-Ṣādiq. The great, great-grandson of the Prophet Muhammad. I would advise Salafi to investigate Muslim history in detail, and not parrot the Salafi version, you will find many of the things you have been told is just false. For example, Shia for the first 300 years was a political movement and the difference among Muslims was political in nature and not theological. The Shia of today is not the same as the Shia during the time 751 AD. Similarly, the 'Salaf' of today is not the same as 751 AD both are an extreme version. As both groups have thrown away tradition and lack of critical thinking.

[@TheBomshot]

Where did Abdul ibn Abbas say Allah his hand is Haqiqita? Please I need this proof Jazak Allah

[@fahdfriends]

TheBomshot or where he(R.A) said that its meaning is not known or present it philosphically kalami.....salaf always punctured the deception of kalami deviations......

[@TheBomshot]

but ibn tamiyya went beyond this and he transgressed these boundaries

[@seanmikaeel90s50]

Bring your proofs if you are truthful,

[@mohammednouman9547]

Doing a joke ? Speak with wisdom man . Abdullah ibn masood R.Z. also told not to raise your hand before and after ruku ( Sahi , Tirmidhi , Nasai )

[@sunninotjahmi9779]

Imam abdullah ibn mubarak ra (the student of imam abu hanifah ra) said: "the hadith of ibn mas'ud ra is not established (proven)." Sunan al kubra by imam bayhaqi 2/79.

[@UmarIbnAlKhattab1]

And it's RadhyaAllahu an not razi

[@nematazhar4763]

If u say I m hanfi and u call him imam Azam he did not say any thing about it bring Dali from him,?

[@mohammednouman9547]

Hanafis are very strong by Hadith and Quran . Quran supports most the Hanafis . Yasir Al Hanafi is correct

[@mohammedthalha2766]

السلام علیکم یھدیک و یسعدک اولا ، لا یجوز احد ان یقول انٌ ظنی صحیح ومن دونه بدعۃ الآ تری ان المسلمون یختلفون بعد وفات النبی صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم عن المسائل الکثیرۃ ، فلماذا تتفرق امۃ المسلمین وماذا تحصل بھذا ؟ الا ، علیک ان انتھی خاصا العوام الاٌ تکذب رأی المسلمین الذین کانوا یتفاضلون منکم ارأیتم ، ماذا تقول یوم القیامۃ بفعل ھذا ؟؟ أتقول انی اھدی الناس الی الکتاب و السنۃ ، لا ، بل کنت تھدی الی مذھبک کان الناس یتسابقون باالأعمال و النیۃ و أنتم یا اخی تداعی ان رأیی صحیح والآخر کلا باطلا الی متی تجادلون ؟ والی متی تختلفون؟ ھل لھذا یحمل نبیی المصائب لامتہ؟؟؟؟

[@Abdulrahman-wo2ob]

السلف لم يقولو (بلا كيفية) لكن قالوا (بلا كيف) و الفرق شاسع، لأن "كيفية" نكرة و "كيف" أداة استفهام. فالكيفية تقبل ال التعريف و "رب" كقول القائل (الكيفية) أو (رب كيفية) لكن كيف ليست نكرة. فلوا كانوا السلف ينفون الكيفية لقالوا (بلا كيفية) لكن "كيف" هي أداة استفهام كقول الله (ألم تر كيف فعل ربك) أو قول القائل (كيف حالك) فنفي الكيف أي نفي الاستفهام، بمعنى لا يجوز السؤال (كيف كذا و كذا). و الله سبحانه أعلم

[@zak2509]

what happened to quran and sunnah as they claim to follow? not one qoute!

[@edrissrassuli4529]

He quoted the sahabah and the understanding of the quran and the sunnah

[@franksonnetti7299]

This speech was refuted here ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/252/answering-imran-dawah-mansur-rahman

[@bourney4914]

Frank Sonnetti Allah bless you in abundance for sharing! that link and responses has made it very clear Alhamdulillaah jazakallahu khyran Allahu akbar!!

[@moarirash]

After listening for a few minutes, I thought who cares!! If you Ulama have differences, go and sort it out privately. Why are you bringing this on youtube!! Allah will not ask me about what I know about him apart from the basics.He will ask me about me and what I did.This video and the one he is refuting is pathetic.

[@adamalm.400]

you Cleary don't understand the dangers of speaking without knowledge. May Allah give succes to the brother 3abdarRahmaan.

[@muhammedi5583]

You clearly haven't responded suitably to his comments...

[@moarirash]

+Adam Almagribi i do understand. that's why i do not speak without the knowledge. Also there is a thing called taqwa. This game of one-upmanship is not islam

[@HH-bi7yk]

This is Ibadah? Whole channel on Hanafi??

[@fahdfriends]

Oh well done for puncturing the devils deception of pseudo hanafi fiqh channel.....

[@qkayani]

What was recited in the opening logo? Was it quran? Sounded like luhaydan

[@sadatmashud8072]

Sometimes,the hanafis want be sturborn. Why should u ignorantly ascribe these statement to the salaf

[@TheBomshot]

Allah tells us in the Quran that Tafweel is the best decision for the final out come

[@Klick17]

Tafweel? Did you misspell something akhi or is that something I don't know of?

[@therealasadali2325]

Hanafi Fiqh Zindabaad! Shaykh Yasir showed right from wrong, the salafies are on fire! Dont worry akhi, take a cold shower!

[@Da123Kid]

I don't think so, we will reply in a respectable manner, something your parents nor your teachers taught you.

[@guideustvonline]

+PellaWon don't bring the brother's parents in this, you should be ashamed of yourself.

[@mahmudadeniyi9876]

+PellaWon your response shows how ignorant you are

[@Da123Kid]

+Mahmud Adeniyi - Ignorant? No I'm simply saying what is the truth, the failure too understand the way you speak too and about others, if your tongue is lose then say whatever degrading things you want but expect to be corrected and anyway this notion will be countered and rejected by many others, you guys want to prove us wrong then cool do it, but base you arguments on knowledge not emotions, this loyalty and ascribing your entire life to a Fiqh is ok but then give justice in completeness and ascribe yourself to the Aqeedah of Imam Abu Hanifa to which of course you won't, Mohammad Yasir is your new spokesmen and looking at his videos I see what vibe you guys are on.

[@Da123Kid]

+Mahmud Adeniyi - So no I'm not ignorant

[@maeezshaikh642]

Jazak Allahu khair ustad abdur rahman

[@043ash]

Please can anyone tell me who the reciter was that recited the ayat at the beginning

[@luluali5451]

Sheikh khaleel al husary

[@abdussamadabdullah7079]

It's very easy to quote hadith without any scholarship. Opening a collection of hadith without understanding who the collection was compiled for, and what the commentaries and disparagement of those works were, is not academic. You cannot simplify scholarship, it is not painting by numbers or join-the-dots.

[@Kardu3]

He has two phDs and is working on a third

[@muhammadabuauzai2661]

@@Kardu3 You mean Ustaz has two PHD? May I know more about it and what PHD is he taking right now?

[@husain897]

then if just reading how you make basic of Aqidah if to belif Allah has hand? Allah sitting in his tron? and so on.. you can really understand what you realy saying?

[@zahidhasan9418]

exactly

[@axmedabuukar4180]

Maashaa Allaah may Allaah protect you from these racist blind followers who happens to be from same continent.

[@SMK_Mehmet]

I find these subjects not beneficial in the sense of uniting but these are essential in our religion. One may think/believe in both ways in the attributes of Allah, literal or figural speeches. But there is no need to belittle or even takfiir if someone is thinking or believing the so called ''wrong'' way. As far as what is right, there have been enough evidences presented in this video.

[@BigDuck786]

It is obligatory to call to the truth and to forbid and fight against the falsehood. No we do not unite with the people of Bid'ah - the people who have chosen a path other than the path of the messenger S.A.W & his companions in their entirety, and not one worships others besides him Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala, like how these deobandi's worship Imam Abu Hanifa in the way they follow him and defend him even though there are matters where hadeeth are so clear against the fatwa of Imam Abu Hanifa (these ahadeeth did not reach Abu Hanifa R.A) and yet they will still somehow find a loophole to go against their own messenger A.S to follow Imam Abu Hanifa, thus worshipping him like a God. The Imam himself is free from these people and said, "The Hadeeth is my madhab." These deobandi's need to realise this and accept this, only then can they change. And it is only Allah who guides. May Allah SWT guide them to Ahlus Sunnah

[@sanaullasharief5319]

DEOBANDI ANTHROMORPHISM Hajarul Aswad; the black stone "There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer." 42: 11) "Invent not similitudes for Allah. Truly, Allah knows and you know not."( 16:74) Say: He is Allah, the One! (1) Allah, the eternally Besought of all! (2) He begetteth not nor was begotten. (3) And there is none comparable unto Him. (4) 'Surah Al-Ikhlas(112)Moulana Zakaria writes in Fazael-e-Hajj page 124, The Black stone is Allah's right hand. The black stone; which a Haji is required to kiss or to touch with his hand. Rasulullah Sal'am called it 'The right hand of Allah'. That kissing of the Hajar is in symbolic terms the kissing of the hand of his Beloved Master. Is that not a sign of Allah's grace to allow this insignificant man such liberty? To the great ones who lost and drowned themselves; in the love of Allah, the touching of Ka'bah's corners; and the stones; also the door of the Ka'bah: signify kissing the hands and feet of the beloved, which are manifest signs of love. Perhaps there is not a poet worth his name who did not in one or another of his works express this exposition of love. Virtues of Hajj page 124

[@abdollahsalleh2502]

+ Sanaullah Sharif What Moulana Zakaria writes sounds like Hinduism to me. Hopefully you are not a Deobandi.

[@safiasaleh7322]

Jazakallah Khair Ustadh. We need to know these matters so our deen is not corrupted. May Allah bless you. We follow the Salaf but need to know the correct Aqieedah.

[@adenjamac2296]

Asalamu alekum are you somali

[@safiasaleh7322]

@@adenjamac2296 no

[@imperialglassandtimber2567]

The quran states that Allah is the creator of everything, meaning there is nothing that exists that was not preceeded by non existence. Time, place, the arsh, humans and jin everything was created by Allah. The prophet peace be upon him mentioned that Allah existed and nothing else existed. The scholars of Ahlu sunnar waljama3a such as imam Ali said that Allah created the thrown as a testament of his power and not a place for him to sit (or rise above) imam Al shafi3i said who ever claim that Allah is sitting on the arsh is a blasphemer, Abu ja3far at tahawi stated that Allah is clear of resembling the creation in any way what so ever. Meaning that Allah is not confound to place and time because he created them so they do not limit him. This not something that is of an opinion by the scholars it is something that is unanymously agreed upon by all scholars. Logically we understand that Allah created everything, imam abu hanifa was aproached by people that believed Allah was above the throne and he was asked about it he refuted their ill claim with a simple statement. where was Allah before sitting on the throne ? He existed eternally without being in a place or time and after he created his throne he remained as he was before creating it. Why ? because the statement Allah is in the heavens or on the throne or above the throne leads to either one of two things. Either Allah was imperfect before creating the creation then he only became perfect after residing in the skies or on the throne or ontop of the throne. Or either that Allah was perfect before creating the creation then he became imperfect after residing in the skies or on the throne or ontop of the throne. Both of these statement are incorrect because Allah does not CHANGE because that is the most prominent sign that something is a creation! Some people refer to the Ayah that they believe claims God sits on the throne and they translate it as such due to their ignorance, when comparing that to what is said by all the scholars of Ahlu sunnah wal jama3a then we understand that Allah does not resemble any of the creation in any way and is not confined to space or time or even place. One must learn the correct knowledge of Ahlu sunnah wal jama3a before displaying ignorance. This is just in summary their are many many many many more textual proofs that support the claim of Ahlu sunnah

[@rasimuddinmd9190]

Moulana I respect you from the core of heart, but following a mahajab is not a problem if they think it is from quran and Sunnah. Someone says that Ahadith is weak but other say this Ahadith is strong. Abu hanifa is included in the second best generation that Muhammad mentioned and he met few shahaba and thousands tabeen, took Ahadith from them. Great scholars like Bukhari, muslim, never ask people to stop people following taqlid.

[@adeebsheriff5150]

Evidence for your statement he took Ahadith from Sahaba and Tabi'een?

[@TheBomshot]

Are you saying Imam Tirmidhi is from the Salaf???? 🤔 I think we are confusing the Salaf with the Khalaf

[@GemsAndBenefits]

Ikam - Imām at-Tirmidhī رحمه الله was born in 209AH, and last generation of the Salaf ended about 50 years after that. So yes, hes was from the Salaf

[@rahmatrahmatsalmanisalmani8635]

Ahle hadees ( Salafi ) 33 group deferent Firka & deference name. Each other fighting. What Salafi & what Ahle Hadees ( who Salafi )

[@altGoolam]

This is ambiguous "He literally created it with his hand" and "The way it is, Allah SWT alone knows" Then stop calling it a hand. Because you are actually attributing a hand as you understand it. And stop denying that that hand is not a hand as we understand it. It's such a pointless and absurd issue because the pseudo-Salafi approach obviously leads to more confusion, as it has in every aspect of life. What a long legacy of confusion and destruction modern Salafis have. Now they still want to check others where they have clearly failed.

[@Harun-cd6jz]

The hadith which states that Allah swt created Adam as, 'Adn (paradise), the qalam (pen), and 'arsh (throne) with his hands to distinguish them from the rest of the creation is clear proof that intrepretating "hand" in this case to be qudrah (power) as the Asharis do is problematic because that necessitates that either Allah swt has two powers/abilities or that he created those 4 things with his ability but did not create the rest of creation with his ability. If Yad only meant ability in this hadith then Adam as, 'adn, qalam, and the 'Arsh would not be unique at all. You would also be agreeing with Iblis, who did not see Adam alayhi salaam to be a unique creation. Iblis would simply argue that if yad/hand only means power then Allah swt created both Iblis and Adam as with his power so there would be no difference between Iblis and Adam as by the logic of the 'Asharis. This is why placing 'aql (logic) over naql (text) as your Usool is actually ilogical. None of the Asharis have seen Allah swt so how can they negate his sifat? That is illogical. Allah swt has 99 names plus more that are unknown and he has more sifat than names. So how can the Asharis say that he only has 7 attributes that are from haqiqah and everything else is a metaphor? That's also illogical.

[@WawanGunawan-oz6gi]

@@Harun-cd6jz well there's also ayah in Quran that everything is created from water ? Now is this literally or metaphorical ?

[@Abby-ns5xh]

@IShouldTellPeople More when salafi brothers say Allah has a literal hand but not like ours. I ask a very simple question, what is a hand? Please answer this question

[@Abby-ns5xh]

@IShouldTellPeople More the point is that you are claiming it is a literal hand, so I'm merely asking what is meant by that because you also claim it is not a literal hand by denying it to be a limb.

[@Abby-ns5xh]

@IShouldTellPeople More bro you getting it wrong. The term clock hand is in itself metaphoric, plus don't use that pathetic example please because the salaf didn't have clocks, this is a desparate modern day salafi example. Furthermore, Allah affirms 'yad', the salaf accepted the word to be part of the quran but consigned the meaning to Allah. That's what you should do. Accept it is part of quran but that only Allah knows its true meaning. This is a siffat of Allah. If you say it means hand literally but that you don't know the how and it is befitting to Allah, then you have still attributed a limb to Allah (na-oodhobillah)

[@Jericho_S]

very informative, thanks for pointing out.

[@josephmiles3077]

does anyone know the name of the nasheed he played at the start for about 2 seconds i think it was a poem

[@AbuMalik10149]

Joseph Miles it is the ta'iyyah by Abu Ishaq Al-ilbiri

[@darlinghysa4276]

mistakes of Hanafi school were only the trouble caused by an inn(Han of fi(k)) of small ifrit xhins that were nearby the founders of this school.

[@muhammedi5583]

1:43 Really?

[@mahmudadeniyi9876]

please bro. Hassan Abdul Rahman I disagree with you on giving meaning to Allah's attribute else it will give rooms to numerous interpretation by different people

[@ToxicOfficialV2]

I don't know who I can trust, this geezer or the one with a big beard

[@muhammadabdulmateen8473]

Shaykh yasir has a video on salafi where do you take your deen from. If this guy speaking here can present one hadith without the ashari maturidi sufi involved in the hadith thn u can do all a favour by presenting it. Still waiting

[@Harun-cd6jz]

Asharis came in the 4th century and Maturidi came in the middle of the 3rd century. Imam Bukhari rh died before Abu Hasan Al-'Ashari was born and Imam Muslim died in 261 AH when Al-'Ashari was 1 years old. The entirety of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim were written before Asharis even existed. Anytime you read a sanad directly from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim you are narrating without Asharis. The Jahmi'ah and Mu'tazilah were the mutakalaameen of Bukhari and Imam Muslim's time not the Asharis. Imam Abu Hasan Al-'Ashari was originally Mutazili until the age of 40 THEN he left and started the 'Ashari school in the 4th century. Timirdhi, Ibn Majah, and Abu Dawud were also deceased by this time. Only An-Nasa'i lived to the 4th century and he died in 303 AH at the beginning of that century. The kutub as-sittah were established already.

[@muhammadabdulmateen8473]

@@Harun-cd6jz so the 6 imams who compiled the hadith shld either have the creed of the ashari and maturidi or the mutazila and khawarij ? So who is the same creed as the 6 imams.

[@Mahdi--no8fn]

@@muhammadabdulmateen8473 If you are fan of YQ then listen this kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z5mWk3xohcynrck He proves Athari cread to be the earliest creed, and ahlul-kalam comming in to being after being contaminated/influenced by Christian arguments/debates in syria century later.