Takfir IS Aslu Din! | Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan

Takfir is from Aslu Din, and the 'Adhir of a grave-worshiper is no different from an 'Adhir of a Jew or Christian.

[@anbdulghaniy]

بارك الله فيكم

[@busufyan]

وفقك الله يا سليمان

[@tturaabb]

جزاك الله خيرا

[@vcdrrj]

Anyone who dives into this issue and raises the agenda is a khariji

[@ghurabasharia]

Thats not an usool

[@MEH-ob8pb]

But ibn Taymīyyah, Imam Suyuti, al qadi Iyyad and more say it's hukum shari 🤷🏻‍♂️ Can someone answer

[@sulaymanalathari381]

I've actually answered this multiple times--almost two years ago, initially. Here is a quotation, verbatim, as well as some additional commentary: Kufr and Fisq are Sharʿī Aḥkām, the punishments and consequences for them, as well as labeling one with them are not known by the ʿAql. Such labels (of Kufr and Fisq) were given by Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, and the Najdī Āʿimmah (رحمهم الله) to the one deserving of punishment as well as the rulings upon him. The context of this quote isn’t much different, since Kufr to Ibn Taymīyyah was only the rejection of the texts, As he said: "Kufr is only by rejecting what is known from the Dīn by necessity, or rejecting the widespread legal texts that are agreed upon and what is similar to that." - Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, 1/106. Kufr and Īmān in the context of Shaykh al-Islām's quote are indeed only known by the texts, not the ʿAql. Regardless, this quote is used when it is unrelated. A thing that needs to be realized is that Takfīr isn’t the mere labeling of someone as a Kāfir and then applying the rulings that come along with it. The basic Takfīr of Millatu Ibrāhīm is the recognition that the one who worships other than Allāh is not upon Tawḥīd nor the same Dīn as himself. How can one be a Jāhil regarding Mushrikūn? Is it not known by the necessity of the religion the idol-worshiper and grave-worshiper are not upon Islām? Where is proof from the Qurʾān and Sunnah that one can be excused for believing an idol-worshiper is upon the same Dīn as himself? As for the statements of Ḥukm Sharʿī and that only known by the texts, there isn’t an issue, it is regarding the Aḥkām (rulings; like regarding their slaughtering, marriage, and so forth) and labels that come with it. In the same way we often see in the books of Ahl as-Sunnah, that we only describe Allāh with the Attributes with which He has described Himself or with which the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم has described Him; i.e., there must be a Sharʿī evidence for it in the Book or the Sunnah. At the same time, it belongs to the foundations of Ahl as-Sunnah that some attributes can be known with the intellect and fiṭrah and therefore no one can be excused in denying them (and therefore even the Ashāʿirah affirm some of these, though their affirmation is not complete), such as: the Hearing (as-Sam'), the Sight (al-Baṣar), the Power (al-Qudrah), the Life (al-Ḥayāt), that He Speaks, that He always existed and will continue to exist forever, and so on. Would it be right for us to say that these [attributes] cannot be known with the intellect, because the scholars have agreed that we describe Allāh only with the Attributes with which He has described Himself or with which the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم has described Him? The answer is crystal clear, but when young people who did not smell the fragrance of knowledge, but only listen to some audio or publications here and there, feel certified to “refute”, then it goes wrong, especially when they try to refute the truth in which there is no doubt.Would it be right for us to say that these [attributes] cannot be known with the intellect, because the scholars have agreed that we describe Allāh only with the Attributes with which He has described Himself or with which the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم has described Him? The answer is crystal clear, but when young people who did not smell the fragrance of knowledge, but only listen to some audio or publications here and there, feel certified to “refute”, then it goes wrong, especially when they try to refute the truth in which there is no doubt. If you are genuinely sincere, feel free to message me on Instagram: @al.kufr.bit.taghut

[@ahlulathar3555]

@@sulaymanalathari381 💯

[@taylank6418]

​@@sulaymanalathari381what you are talking about is making baraa. Yes baraa is from intellect. No one says a new muslim can commit shirk akbar because he's new and don't know the ahkam

[@Muxammadamiin]

Takfeer is of 2 types. 1) Takfeer al lughawi 2) Takfeer ash shar’ii What ibn taymiyah& co are talking about here is the hukm shar’ii. But the first type of takfeer is known by aql. It’s {BELIEVING THE LACK OF ISLAM OF THE MUSHRIK}. Simple. This doesn’t need wahy to be known unlike the second type.

[@zvb41r]

@@sulaymanalathari381when it is said that kufr and shirk is known by aql and fitrah, does it mean All kufr and shirk is known by aql and fitrah Or some are known by risalah and some by fitrah?

[@yossytiko1226]

الفوزان لا يكفر طاغوت سلولي

[@AbaAslam]

نعم فوزان هو منافق وهذا معروف لكن قد يلفظ الحق من ألسنة الكذبة

[@abdullahabdilaahi3872]

هذا كلام باطل

[@audioproduction9863]

But if you aks fawzan "Usaymeen was a azir of the mushrekeen?" fawzan will condem his takfeer

[@Unbekannt181]

If you were to ask him if Bashar Asad is a kafir, he will not be able to answer you, although he says takfir al mushrikeen is from aslu deen and therefore he himself would have become a mushrik. Al Fauzan definitely belongs to the Ulama as Suu

[@ahlulathar3555]

Specific Takfir is related to personal ijtihad. Maybe one doesn’t know about he Kufr of person, or believes that people lie about that person doing Kufr, or believes that the person repented. As long as the foundations of believe of a person are correct, then he is a Muslim.

[@audioproduction9863]

@@ahlulathar3555 DON'T ACT BLIND!!!!!!!!

[@ahlulathar3555]

@@audioproduction9863 ?

[@saadaden7769]

​@@Unbekannt181 he takfīrs bashar stop lying guys bashar is clear.

[@annsushiholic367]

Takfir is not ashludien Takfir is wajibatudein.. If takfir is ashludiien how come Salih Fauzan still with regim Saudi..

[@larsstahl7720]

this is where things get strange... ! I agree, he and many others, but we do not know if there is ikrah for them to say certain things or not. In one occation he said police are the true mujahedeen. !! SubhanAllah, that statement is crazy enough. But we take the good and leave the bad, as we cannot know all the resons behind the statements, there are amazing ulema in prison in saudi, who retracted their statements that got them in prison, but later re spoke their first position again and clarified they were under ikrah. In Saudi and other taghoot ruled countries the dhulm on its people are exstrem and its hard to know sometimes what is correct. so we give these ulemas the benefitr of a doubt for some of these unclear statements they sometimes make, uthaymneen aswell, Ibn Baz as well in hope we will find the clarity in the matters in times to come. And remember that just because a person has knowledge, does not mean he is always correct. Regarding asl deen ands hukm shari...Takfir is from both depending on the reason and situation it is adressed.

[@annsushiholic367]

@@larsstahl7720 salih fauzan is الجبت

[@aadivgurdi]

@@larsstahl7720 kzbin.info/www/bejne/qJWaZ3d_pp6Kr7Msi=aEO8_mmtrMCrCNMV Sheikh Fawzan, individual takfir. For about rulers, read Sahih bukhari 7055 (some translations can be interpreted incorrectly) and you could extract 4 conditions of fighting the ruler (which would require making takfir of ruler): 1. You must see blatant kufr 2. The kufr act is blatant 3. The act is an act of kufr 4. You must have sufficient proof from Allah (Of course these are translations) Hadith in Arabic: "حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ، حَدَّثَنِي ابْنُ وَهْبٍ، عَنْ عَمْرٍو، عَنْ بُكَيْرٍ، عَنْ بُسْرِ بْنِ سَعِيدٍ، عَنْ جُنَادَةَ بْنِ أَبِي أُمَيَّةَ، قَالَ دَخَلْنَا عَلَى عُبَادَةَ بْنِ الصَّامِتِ وَهْوَ مَرِيضٌ قُلْنَا أَصْلَحَكَ اللَّهُ حَدِّثْ بِحَدِيثٍ، يَنْفَعُكَ اللَّهُ بِهِ سَمِعْتَهُ مِنَ النَّبِيِّ، صلى الله عليه وسلم‏.‏ قَالَ دَعَانَا النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَبَايَعْنَاهُ فَقَالَ فِيمَا أَخَذَ عَلَيْنَا أَنْ بَايَعَنَا عَلَى السَّمْعِ وَالطَّاعَةِ، فِي مَنْشَطِنَا وَمَكْرَهِنَا، وَعُسْرِنَا، وَيُسْرِنَا، وَأَثَرَةٍ عَلَيْنَا، وَأَنْ لاَ نُنَازِعَ الأَمْرَ أَهْلَهُ، إِلاَّ أَنْ تَرَوْا كُفْرًا بَوَاحًا، عِنْدَكُمْ مِنَ اللَّهِ فِيهِ بُرْهَانٌ‏.”

[@hobbyjournalist9190]

What about someone who says that the takfir is not from Asludin?

[@ilias-qt1so]

Kaafir cuz he says that someone who worship a grave or a Christian (no diff between ‘em)is a Muslim he cannot see de difference between the truth and the false

[@AbaAslam]

Ikhwah just to confirm, does all of this apply after the Hujjah has been established upon the Mushrik, the original committer of Kufr? And does Takfir only be an Asl of Din regarding the Mushrikeen, and not those who fall into Kufr without Shirk (for example defaming the Qur’an, making fun of Islam etc.)? Or does Takfir remain an Asl for both Mushrikeen and Kuffar without Shirk? Jazakumullahu Khayr

[@MEH-ob8pb]

@@ilias-qt1so But ibn Taymīyyah, Imam Suyuti, al qadi Iyyad and more say it's hukum shari 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@ahlulathar3555]

@@MEH-ob8pb We follow the Athar of the Salaf, we‘re not bound to muta‘akhirin. There are clear cut sayings of the salaf; that the one who deems the perpetrator of shirk to be Muslim (by not making takfir on him), then he is a Kafir himself.

[@ahlulathar3555]

@@MEH-ob8pb Nobody denies that Takfīr al-Mushrikin is a hukm shar‘i, but it’s still known by the fitrah and aql. People like you haven’t understood what hukm shari means. Something can be a hukm shari, but also from the usul ad-din itself. It doesn’t have to be only one of these things.

[@ahmedhaydari8605]

If fawzan believes takfir is aslu deen he’s the biggest munafiq on the face of the earth 😂😂😂

[@aadivgurdi]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/qJWaZ3d_pp6Kr7Msi=aEO8_mmtrMCrCNMV Sheikh Fawzan, individual takfir

[@adorablecheetah2930]

How do we then understand this with other scholars who say there is excuse? This is the issue

[@adorablecheetah2930]

@أحمد Yes but don't they know the fataaawa of the salaf

[@adorablecheetah2930]

@أحمد Yes because of that my friends are like... There is difference of opinion before scholars...

[@adorablecheetah2930]

@أحمد Correct me if I'm wrong. So grave worshippers are non muslim, every single one of them but those who don't make takfeer of them individually are called kuffar collectively but not individually. Correct?

[@adorablecheetah2930]

@أحمد But for clear cut grave worshippers it is individual takfeer for each and every single grave worshipper right?

[@adorablecheetah2930]

@أحمد Do you mean that we consider him to be a non muslim but don't outright say that to his face because we want him to get closer to Allah and not be stubborn?