Abu Layth (Nahiem Ajmal) Mockery Of The Religion

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291

"May Allah swt guide him .shame on him who with the right mind would follow this clown ."

"The clown version of Maajid Nawaaz"

"It does seem like he is mocking his own religion. This mufti needs to be sorted out by scholars - he is a joke."

"His knowledge may lead him to take strange positions on certain matters, but those following him are driven by desires looking for excuses."

"I am a qualified Islamic Scholar, I have never met an Aalim or heard of one who follows one of the 4 Schools of Thought who rejects the appearance of Imaam Mahdi(ra) and/or rejects the return of Isa(as). So Abu Layth is coming out with complete nonsense."

"Subhanallah no discipline, no manners, no respect and no patients....just making mockery and think it's a joke......wallahi he needs to grow up"





Not surprised there are people who follow their desires, so not surprised there are people promoting Abu Layth.
 

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
This is particularly grevious.


Extremely distasteful.

"Barakullaahu fee kum Habibi! The prophets and messengers mostly lived in the desert etc so what! This abu batil has no shame."

"He just wants to mold Islam with western ideals when it should be the opposite."

"According to Abu Layth's logic, even the Messenger (ﷺ) himself would be unqualified to give Fatwas about situations in the West, due to the fact he (ﷺ) was a bedouin and never had the "privilege" of living outside the Arabian Penisula. May Allah save us from people like Abu Layth, and may He expose them in this life and in the Hereafter."

"MAL should be given the award of the most shameless guy on earth. No matter how many times his blatant lies are caught red-handed, yet that won’t affect him, he will continue lying with no shame. If a person with any shame would have been in his place, he wouldn’t dare to show his face next time, as we say in Urdu , “Chullu bhar paani me doob Marta”."
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,907
You already made a thread on him and then called me a non Muslim for praising Abu layth.

Sunni defence channel doesn't come close to truely answering the good points the mufti has made. They only see evil in him.
 

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
"That which nearly all degenerates lack is the sense of morality and of right and wrong. For them there exists no law, no decency, no modesty." -Max Nordau
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,907
https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/sufi-muslims-and-gnosis.566/post-26032
The Quran basically is sorcery. Repeat these incantations in Arabic a bunch of times a day..... I used to repeat them. I even felt like I was doing sorcery. I don't think it's a proper way of prayer. With the Bible, you can pray in whatever language it is you use. And you can pray how you like. You're not mechanically repeating things in another language. It's very witchcraft-like.
I didn't say I didn't know what I was saying. I knew what the words meant in English but why was it so important that I uttered the words in a particular language? That's the aspect that is very witchcraft-like. I think everyone is familiar with the image of a sorcerer uttering incantations in some mysterious foreign language. With Christianity there is no insistence that you must pray in some particular holy language. You pray in whichever language you like. And I think it's generally best to pray in whatever language you are most comfortable. You can access God through the culture you are comfortable with. You don't have to give up your culture. If you are a Spanish-speaker, you can pray in Spanish, you can pray in Arabic, Swahili, whatever. I think this makes way more sense than the Arabcentrism of Islam. From an Islamic perspective, it's like you have way less aspect to the things of God if you don't know Arabic. The Quran even says we'll all be speaking Arabic in heaven.

Now I understand someone might say the Bible is Jewishcentric but this doesn't really hold up very well. You don't have to be super familiar with Jewish culture or understand Hebrew. You can keep your language and culture insofar as you're not doing things like idol-worship and you don't need a team of scholar to tell you which hand you can eat with and how many fingers you can use to eat with.

if anyone is slightly confused and wants to understand exactly what is going on here
@Etagloc is being an American.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,907
@Etagloc says the Quran is a book of sorcery..and when an actual scholar of hadith (Abu Layth) openly denies the legitimacy of many hadith within the bukhari text, gives examples and shows how they contradict the Quran.....he calls him a kafir.
 

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
if anyone is slightly confused and wants to understand exactly what is going on here
*mindless ad hominem*
you exemplify the tactics used when a person doesn't have the facts on their side. thus, you change the topic and distract from the facts and the issue. It's simple. You have troll gimmicks but I have facts. the ad hominem confirms that I've won the debate and that you can't win a real debate. so you avoid real debate with ad hominem.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,907
you exemplify the tactics used when a person doesn't have the facts on their side. thus, you change the topic and distract from the facts and the issue. It's simple. You have troll gimmicks but I have facts. the ad hominem confirms that I've won the debate and that you can't win a real debate. so you avoid real debate with ad hominem.
Won the debate? You didn't even know there is a surah in the Qur'an called "the morning star" and then when I made this clear you were like "I don't worship Lucifer"
Youre an imbecile and not capable of an actual debate.
Furthermore when I told you communism was a Jewish Bolshevik scam (ie they centralised every asset and then they dumped communism, privatised and kept the assets).. you later accused me of being pro-west/pro dajjal.
 

EpistemiX

Established
Joined
May 3, 2018
Messages
286
Won the debate? You didn't even know there is a surah in the Qur'an called "the morning star" and then when I made this clear you were like "I don't worship Lucifer"
Youre an imbecile and not capable of an actual debate.
Furthermore when I told you communism was a Jewish Bolshevik scam (ie they centralised every asset and then they dumped communism, privatised and kept the assets).. you later accused me of being pro-west/pro dajjal.
For the life of me, I do wonder why you engage with him. He's clearly not capable of actual discourse!
 

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
If I didn't have the facts on my side, I might not want a calm, rational, intellectual discussion either. When a person has to use insults rather than reason, it means they've lost the debate.

https://www.ummah.com/forum/forum/islam/general-islamic-topics/408505-excellent-and-well-needed-response-to-mufti-abu-layth

Excellent and well-needed response to "Mufti" Abu Layth
22-04-14, 09:18 AM

May Allah save our deen from being altered to suit people's fancies. - Ameen

As-salāmu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullāhi wa barakātuh.

It is a duty of every Muslim to ensure he takes his knowledge of the injunctions of Sharī‘ah from reliable authorities.[1] The madhhabs (schools of jurisprudence) of the four great mujtahid Imāms, Abū Hanīfah, Mālik, al-Shāfi‘ī and Ahmad rahimahumullāh, have been accepted by the scholars of the ummah. Their legal opinions have been collected, refined, developed and codified by dedicated scholars belonging to each one of the four madhhabs. Consequently, only these four madhhabs have survived, to the exclusion of others.[2]

Hence, the obligation of a Muslim in these times is to accept the legal injunctions of one of the four madhhabs[3], from competent and authorised scholars belonging to his chosen madhhab who relay to him its established positions.[4]

‘Mufti’ Abu Layth does not present the established viewpoints of the Mālikī school. Rather, he appears to take certain statements or events in isolation and generalise them to suit a particular narrative that may be called “progressive” or “modernist”. Such a methodology in giving fatwa, in disregard of the established positions of the madhhab, is unbefitting of a mufti. A mufti must issue fatwa on the correct and established view of his madhhab, and may not pick and choose from the available opinions at his fancy.[5] On this basis, ‘Mufti’ Abu Layth may not be referred to in matters of Sharī‘ah. We will briefly address each of his answers below to demonstrate the flaws in his methodology and conclusions:

http://www.askimam.org/public/question_detail/28999

Question

A person asked Mufti Abu Layth following questions. I wanted to know what is your point of view regarding his answers of questions,are these correct or merely agree to disagree:

Questions:

1- are we allowed to adopt a particular way of life against the sunnah to suit the society in which we live?

2- did the prophet salAllahu alihiwasallam allow for males to wear any sort of jewellery? (Apart from the ring)

3- what was the view of the classic Maliki jurists including Imam Malik in relation to the length of the beard?

4- is the dispute on the issue of the maximum of the beards length but not on its minimum length? And is the trimming referred to when it grows beyond a length?

5-Even if something is Mandoob or Mustahab shouldnt a Mufti or a public islamic leader adhere to that in order to give a positive message to the Ummah rather than one of that which may confuse people?

6- can Mas'ha of the head be performed with gel in the hair?

7- what is the ruling of the scholars in relation to not having a level haircut or having a hairstyle which is khilaaf Sunnah?



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) no its not against the Sunnah rather it is from the Sunnah to adopt the lifestyle of where you are e.g. in the expedition of Tabuk the Prophet (saw) wore a roman thawb
لبس جبة شامية
Qadi ibn AlAraby in his commentary explains this as the permissibility of wearing the clothes of the land etc.
& it definitely isn't an objective of the Deen to arabicise the world, a good example of this the Indo-pak subcontinent, they didnt embrace the Arabic thawbs etc rather stuck to their own Shalwar Kameez etc.

2) yes, the Prophet (saw) gave glad tidings to Suraqa about receiving the bracelets of Kisra, now would the Prophet give glad tidings for something Haram?
& in Umar (ra) 's time he actually made Suraqa wear them.
Now unless you have some clear conclusive proofs for these things being Haram if not then by default things are permissible unless proven otherwise, and its not enough to use the vague wording of a hadith prohibiting imitation of non-muslims or women, since what imitation is it speaking about? because we know that the Pagans of Arabia all kept beards that didn't make it imitating? We also know that the hanafiyya are absolutely fine with men wearing kohl (eyeliner) which is seen as extremely effeminate in many parts of the world, so is this not imitation? Or are these parameters just arbitrarily drawn up to suit our preconceived judgements.

3) the view of many Ulama including legends like Imam Malik is that the beard maybe trimmed although he himself doesnt expand on minimum length other Malikiya have. Qadi Iyad clearly states that trimming or completely shaving is only Makruh not Haram.

4) no it isn't, these seem to be arbitrary points and would have to be proven from the Sunnah.
Abu Waleed alBaji the legendary Andalusi scholar states that the hadith may equally be referring to trimming as opposed to growing and says anything above استئصال (barely a stubble) could then qualify upon that interpretation.

5) the Sharia is the same for all, we dont generically have different rulings for scholars others for students others for royalty etc. Its quite simple we have obligations that are a must and then we have recommended acts which are highly rewardable yet optional, Imam Malik was asked: does one debate/criticise over the sunnah acts? He responded no, you simply inform and that's all.
Such are the liberties of this Deen.

6) yes, anyone who has studied seerah or Arab history etc to some relevant depth will know that when the Arabs travelled they would conduct 'talbeed' which was to cover your hair in a gel substance that bound it together to prevent it getting in the way, its also the same interpretation the hanfiyyah give to the sahih hadith of the Prophet (saw) having his hair braided into four braids, they interpret that his hair was simply stuck with the gel he'd applied (saw) during that journey.
Since this was never seen as a preventive measure against wiping the hair by the best of generations, why would it now be a problem?

7). This question of hair length is a result of what I call 'pop fiqh' and not actual fiqh. The hadith regarding 'qaza' is to do with disfigurement and not styling and even then is only considered makruh as Qadi iyad and others explain in their commentary upon sahih Muslim.
Where is there any prohibition regarding hair styles? Or the command that 'all hair should be one length'?
since we know that the Prophet (saw) & many companions had long hair at times reaching their shoulders, now having long hair means its impossible for them all to be of equal length since the hair from the front line will naturally be much longer than that from the back or the sideburns, so from where do such arbitrary statements come from? especially when being made by people who claim to have some acquaintance with knowledge.

It is this point precisely in addition to many others that highly stress the crucial need to separate deen from culture. A phenomenon all too common amongst the subcontinent folk!

May Allah inspire us all to understand the true meaning of this Deen, and to refine our knowledge, understanding and most importantly our character. Ameen

Answer


Response



In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

As-salāmu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullāhi wa barakātuh.

It is a duty of every Muslim to ensure he takes his knowledge of the injunctions of Sharī‘ah from reliable authorities.[1] The madhhabs (schools of jurisprudence) of the four great mujtahid Imāms, Abū Hanīfah, Mālik, al-Shāfi‘ī and Ahmad rahimahumullāh, have been accepted by the scholars of the ummah. Their legal opinions have been collected, refined, developed and codified by dedicated scholars belonging to each one of the four madhhabs. Consequently, only these four madhhabs have survived, to the exclusion of others.[2]

Hence, the obligation of a Muslim in these times is to accept the legal injunctions of one of the four madhhabs[3], from competent and authorised scholars belonging to his chosen madhhab who relay to him its established positions.[4]

‘Mufti’ Abu Layth does not present the established viewpoints of the Mālikī school. Rather, he appears to take certain statements or events in isolation and generalise them to suit a particular narrative that may be called “progressive” or “modernist”. Such a methodology in giving fatwa, in disregard of the established positions of the madhhab, is unbefitting of a mufti. A mufti must issue fatwa on the correct and established view of his madhhab, and may not pick and choose from the available opinions at his fancy.[5] On this basis, ‘Mufti’ Abu Layth may not be referred to in matters of Sharī‘ah. We will briefly address each of his answers below to demonstrate the flaws in his methodology and conclusions:

Question One

In answer to the question,

“Are we allowed to adopt a particular way of life against the sunnah to suit the society in which we live?”

‘Mufti’ Abu Layth writes,

“No its not against the Sunnah rather it is from the Sunnah to adopt the lifestyle of where you are e.g. in the expedition of Tabuk the Prophet (saw) wore a roman thawb. لبس جبة شامية
Qadi ibn AlAraby in his commentary explains this as the permissibility of wearing the clothes of the land etc. & it definitely isn't an objective of the Deen to arabicise the world, a good example of this the Indo-pak subcontinent, they didnt embrace the Arabic thawbs etc rather stuck to their own Shalwar Kameez etc.”

‘Mufti’ Abu Layth does not mention any legitimate proof for his claim that it is Sunnah to adopt the lifestyle of the place one happens to be in. The scholars have stated that to regard something that is not Sunnah as Sunnah amounts to altering the Sharī‘ah and introducing innovation into religion.[6] The Sunnah, in its general usage, refers to a religious practice or belief established from the Prophet (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) and his immediate successors.[7] If it was Sunnah to adopt the lifestyle of the place one happens to be in, why did the Sahābah fail to do this, and why did the jurists fail to record it as such?

Far from being Sunnah, it is documented from one of the most prominent Sahābah that he advised the Muslims to stick to their traditional Arab attire, and not adopt the non-Muslim dress of those around them. The senior Tābi‘ī, Abū ‘Uthmān al-Nahdī (d. 95 H), said:

“‘Umar wrote to us, while we were in Azerbaijan…[He said:] Be wary of over-indulgence, the dress of the idolaters and silk clothing…” (Sahīh Muslim)[8]

In another version, there is the addition:

“Hold fast to the dress of your father, Ismā‘īl (‘alayhissalām).” (Sahīh Abī ‘Awānah)[9]

At the most, it is permissible to adopt the attire of the people of a region one happens to be in, as long as it does not contravene the stipulations of Sharī‘ah. And this appears to be the Mālikī view.[10]

As for the example ‘Mufti’ Abu Layth presents, the “Roman Jubbah” or “Shāmī Jubbah” mentioned in the hadīth does not refer to a type of Jubbah worn by the Romans. Rather, it refers to a Jubbah that was made by the Christian Romans, as clarified by the commentators of the hadīth[11], including Qādī Ibn al-‘Arabī (468 – 543 H) who ‘Mufti’ Abu Layth refers to. Qādī Abū Bakr ibn al-‘Arabī said under this hadīth: “Shām at that time belonged to Rome. This [hadīth] entails the permissibility of [wearing] clothes that the Romans weaved without washing...”[12]

Moreover, assuming the garment was not merely Roman-made but Roman-fashion, Rasūlullāh (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was not amidst the Romans, but amongst his Arab companions. Nor was he travelling to Tabūk to settle amongst the Romans, but to engage them in battle. Hence, this evidence does not in any way support the claim that it is Sunnah to adopt the lifestyle of where one happens to be. Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī has explained that the reason why Nabī (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) wore this dress is its suitability for travel, as it was not baggy or loose like other garments.[13]

There is nothing intrinsically wrong in wearing a dress that Nabī (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) and the Sahābah did not wear,[14] although it must be in keeping with Shar‘ī guidelines. However, a great number of scholars have advised that Muslims should aspire to dress in the manner of the Prophet (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), his companions and the righteous of the ummah. His specific manner of dress falls under his “circumstantial” or “non-religious” habits (sunan al-zawā’id), and are thus not “Sunnah” in a religious sense. Nonetheless, to imitate him even in these mundane aspects, when there is no obstacle to doing so, is a sign of one’s attachment to, and love for, him. Hence, scholars have regarded it as “desirable” and “recommended” (mustahabb).[15]

The famous successor of the Subcontinent reviver, Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī, Dr ‘Abdul Hayy al-‘Ārifī, wrote about these circumstantial practices of the Prophet (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) as follows: “Another part [of the Prophetic conduct] are those matters which the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) did not carry out by way of Shar‘i sanction, but he adopted out of circumstantial habit. These are called ‘sunan al-zawā’id.’ Although the ummah are not held accountable for these matters, yet to follow him (Allah bless him and grant him peace) in them to the degree that is possible is an expression of love and affection, as all things of the beloved are beautiful [to the one who loves him]. This is the reason why the noble Sahābah copied him (Allah bless him and grant him peace) even in these mundane matters with great emphasis. And the pious have regarded acting on the smallest of the smallest of his (Allah bless him and grant him peace) habits more valuable than the entire world.” (Uswah Rasūl e Akram, pp. 39-40)

There are many examples from the lives of the Sahābah which show they imitated Nabī (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) in his habitual (non-religious) practices. For example, in relation to dress, it is related: the Sahābah wore a ring when Nabī (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) starting wearing one (Sahīh al-Bukhārī)[16]; Ibn ‘Umar (radiyAllāhu ‘anhumā) wore a particular type of sandals because Nabī (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) wore them (Shamā’il al-Tirmidhī)[17] ; Mu‘āwiyah ibn Qurrah and his father (radiyAllāhu ‘anhumā) would leave their qamīs unbuttoned in heat and cold because they saw Nabī (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) dressing this way (Sahīh Ibn Hibbān)[18]

Imām al-Ghazālī referred to imitating the Prophet (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) even in his mundane habits as “the key to felicity.” (Kitāb al-Arba‘īn fi Usūl al-Dīn)[19] Hence, while there is no religious proscription against wearing clothing that the Prophet (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) did not wear, many scholars have regarded it as desirable on the basis that it creates a connection with him. Some Mālikī texts also mention that to wear an item of clothing with the intention of imitating the Prophet (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is desirable.[20]

Question Two

In answer to the question,

“Did the prophet salAllahu alihiwasallam allow for males to wear any sort of jewellery? (Apart from the ring) ”

‘Mufti’ Abu Layth said:

“Yes, the Prophet (saw) gave glad tidings to Suraqa about receiving the bracelets of Kisra, now would the Prophet give glad tidings for something Haram? & in Umar (ra) 's time he actually made Suraqa wear them. Now unless you have some clear conclusive proofs for these things being Haram if not then by default things are permissible unless proven otherwise, and its not enough to use the vague wording of a hadith prohibiting imitation of non-muslims or women, since what imitation is it speaking about? because we know that the Pagans of Arabia all kept beards that didn't make it imitating? We also know that the hanafiyya are absolutely fine with men wearing kohl (eyeliner) which is seen as extremely effeminate in many parts of the world, so is this not imitation? Or are these parameters just arbitrarily drawn up to suit our preconceived judgements.”

In order to positively affirm a statement or practice of Nabī (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), one needs to have reliable evidence[21]. The records of the events in question, relating to Nabī (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) giving glad-tidings to Surāqah (radiyAllāhu ‘anh) that he will receive the bracelets of Kisrā and ‘Umar (radiyAllāhu ‘anh) making him wear them, do not meet the criteria of authenticity. Moreover, one version of this report mentions only that ‘Umar (radiyAllāhu ‘anh) handed over the items to Surāqah, not that he made him wear them or that Nabī (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) gave him glad tidings of receiving them.[22] Even so, the reports clearly show this was a gesture of the downfall of Kisrā and an emblem of honour for Surāqah.[23] Hence, he was not “wearing” the bracelets as such; but displaying them for others to see.

Jewellery is for women and not men, as reported from Imām Mālik himself.[24] The Prophet (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said: “Silk clothing and gold are forbidden for the males of my ummah, and permissible for their females.” (Jāmi‘ al-Tirmidhī)[25] Moreover, he cursed the men who imitate women and women who imitate men. (Sahīh al-Bukhārī)[26]

The Mālikī position has been recorded in the Mukhtasar of Khalīl and its commentaries. Jewellery made from gold or silver, with the exception of a silver ring, is harām for adult males.[27] Moreover, earrings and necklaces have been stipulated as being for women alone, such that if a woman was not to wear them, she will be sinful if her intention is imitation of men.[28]

As for kohl (in the Hanafī madhhab)[29] and a silver ring for men, these are not “arbitrarily” excluded from the general rule. Rather, they are excluded by explicit pronouncements of the Sharī‘ah. Moreover, the Hanafīs have explicitly stated that the intention when applying kohl should not be for “beautification” (zināh), as that is for women.[30]

Question Three

In answer to the question,

“What was the view of the classic Maliki jurists including Imam Malik in relation to the length of the beard?”

‘Mufti’ Abu Layth replied:

“The view of many Ulama including legends like Imam Malik is that the beard maybe trimmed although he himself doesnt expand on minimum length other Malikiya have. Qadi Iyad clearly states that trimming or completely shaving is only Makruh not Haram.”

Imām Mālik did not unconditionally allow trimming of the beard. He allowed trimming only when it is “excessively long”.[31] The condition of “excessive length” shows that when it is not so, the beard is not to be trimmed, as explicitly stated by the Mālikī scholars who related this from him[32]. Imām Mālik narrates in his Muwattā’ that the Prophet (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) ordered trimming the moustaches and letting the beard grow.[33] Mālikī scholars refer to this narration of al-Muwattā’ to substantiate the Mālikī view on the obligation of growing the beard.[34]

As for Qādī ‘Iyād’s statement, it was said in a commentary of hadīth.[35] The language used in commentaries of hadīth is more flexible than in books of Fiqh. “Makrūh” is often used in the meaning of harām. In fact, it is recorded of Qādī ‘Iyād that he held “makrūh” to be in the meaning of harām in certain juristic statements.[36] Qādī ‘Iyād’s statement, therefore, must be understood in light of the official position of the Mālikī madhhab, which is the prohibition (hurmah) of shaving the beard or cutting it when it is not long.[37]

Question Four

In answer to the question,

“Is the dispute on the issue of the maximum of the beards length but not on its minimum length? And is the trimming referred to when it grows beyond a length?”

‘Mufti’ Abu Layth said:

“No it isn't, these seem to be arbitrary points and would have to be proven from the Sunnah.
Abu Waleed alBaji the legendary Andalusi scholar states that the hadith may equally be referring to trimming as opposed to growing and says anything above استئصال (barely a stubble) could then qualify upon that interpretation.”

In the Mālikī view, when the beard is “not long”, cutting it is harām. “Long” refers to a length somewhat more than a handful.[38] Hence, “not long” refers to what is less than approximately the length of a fist.

As for Abu l-Walīd al-Bājī, his statement is with regards to the interpretation of the hadīth which states, “make the beard plentiful” or “leave the beards” (a‘fu l-luhā). He first relates the most common interpretation that it means “making the beard plentiful.” Then he mentions: “According to me, it is possible that he means the beards are to be left from total removal.”[39] The only reason al-Bājī introduced this interpretation is because the common meaning would entail the beard is left completely unattended. But, as al-Bājī goes on to mention, Imām Mālik stated that stray hairs can be cut and the beard can also be trimmed when extremely long. Hence, his interpretation was only intended to avoid the understanding that the beard cannot be trimmed at all. He certainly did not mean that the beard may be trimmed to just above a stubble. Moreover, there are other wordings of the same hadīth which certainly mean “to make the beard plentiful” and leave no room for interpretation.[40]

Question Five

In answer to,

“Even if something is Mandoob or Mustahab shouldnt a Mufti or a public islamic leader adhere to that in order to give a positive message to the Ummah rather than one of that which may confuse people?”

‘Mufti’ Abu Layth said:

“The Sharia is the same for all, we dont generically have different rulings for scholars others for students others for royalty etc. Its quite simple we have obligations that are a must and then we have recommended acts which are highly rewardable yet optional, Imam Malik was asked: does one debate/criticise over the sunnah acts? He responded no, you simply inform and that's all.
Such are the liberties of this Deen”

It is incorrect to assert that the Sharī‘ah does not consider the position of scholars and prescribe stricter rules for them. In general, scholars have a duty to be more cautious in Dīn, as they are the leaders of men and people adopt them as examples to follow.

When Talhah ibn ‘Ubaydillāh (radiyAllāhu ‘anh) performed a permissible action which could have been misinterpreted as something blameworthy, ‘Umar (radiyAllāhu ‘anh) reprimanded him, as recorded in the Muwatta’, saying: “You are, Oh people, imāms that the people follow.”[41] Hence, a scholar must be conscious of how his actions will be perceived by the public, and act accordingly.

The scholars of the Hanafī madhhab explicitly mention a ruling in which the ‘ulamā’ differ from non-‘ulamā’. If a Muslim attends a dinner on invite, and unexpectedly finds music playing at the table and he is unable to put a stop to it, he may endure until the meal is complete. A scholar on the other hand, may not do this. If he is unable to stop them, he must leave, because not doing so in that situation would tarnish the Dīn and open the door of sin for Muslims.[42]

Hujjat al-Islām Imām al-Ghazālī states that a minor sin performed in public by a scholar (e.g. wearing silk garments) transforms the sin into a major sin.[43]

The reason for these statements and rulings is obvious. A scholar is regarded by the common people as a model to follow. Hence, at least in his public activities, a scholar must adopt utmost caution not to fall into anything considered blameworthy in the Sharī‘ah.

Question Six

In answer to the question,

“Can Mas'ha of the head be performed with gel in the hair?”

‘Mufti’ Abu Layth said:

“Yes, anyone who has studied seerah or Arab history etc to some relevant depth will know that when the Arabs travelled they would conduct 'talbeed' which was to cover your hair in a gel substance that bound it together to prevent it getting in the way, its also the same interpretation the hanfiyyah give to the sahih hadith of the Prophet (saw) having his hair braided into four braids, they interpret that his hair was simply stuck with the gel he'd applied (saw) during that journey. Since this was never seen as a preventive measure against wiping the hair by the best of generations, why would it now be a problem?”

This too is an irresponsible answer. The ruling of applying a substance to the head is discussed in the books of the Mālikīs. There are four situations to this ruling:

The substance forms a thick impermeable coating over the hair of the head, and there is no severe need for it. In this case, wudū’ will not be valid as the obligation of wiping over the head will not have been fulfilled. An example is applying a solid layer of henna over the head.[44] This ruling comes directly from the founder of the madhhab, Imām Mālik.[45]



The substance is not thick, but forms a thin lining over the hair, like oil, perfume or hair dyes. In this case, wudū’ will be valid.[46]



There is severe need for applying the substance, in that not doing so will result in injury or harm. In this case, too, wudū’ is valid. Imām Mālik interpreted the hadīth which states that the Prophet (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) wiped over his turban for wudū’ as being for severe need.[47]



The substance is applied only at the roots of the hairs near the scalp and not on the outer surface of the hair. In this case too, wudū’ is valid as it is not a condition to wipe the roots of the hair.[48]

Talbīd is applying a gel-like substance to the hair during Hajj to keep it from becoming dishevelled or infected with lice.[49] The Mālikīs have considered wudū’ in this state valid on the basis of it falling into the third or fourth situations mentioned above.[50][51]

Hence, if applying gel to the hair amounts to the first situation described above, wudū’ will not be valid in the Mālikī madhhab.

Question Seven

In answer to the question,

“What is the ruling of the scholars in relation to not having a level haircut or having a hairstyle which is khilaaf Sunnah?”

He said:

“This question of hair length is a result of what I call 'pop fiqh' and not actual fiqh. The hadith regarding 'qaza' is to do with disfigurement and not styling and even then is only considered makruh as Qadi iyad and others explain in their commentary upon sahih Muslim.
Where is there any prohibition regarding hair styles? Or the command that 'all hair should be one length'?
since we know that the Prophet (saw) & many companions had long hair at times reaching their shoulders, now having long hair means its impossible for them all to be of equal length since the hair from the front line will naturally be much longer than that from the back or the sideburns, so from where do such arbitrary statements come from? especially when being made by people who claim to have some acquaintance with knowledge. It is this point precisely in addition to many others that highly stress the crucial need to separate deen from culture. A phenomenon all too common amongst the subcontinent folk!”

The prohibition regarding particular haircuts come from Nabī (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). He forbade “qaza‘” (Sahīh al-Bukhārī, Sahīh Muslim). Qaza‘ is to shave part of the head and leave part of it.[52] Imām Mālik said: “If they wish to leave his hair, let them leave it, and if they wish to shave it, let them shave it all.”[53] It is also reported from Nabī (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) that he saw a child with part of his head shaved and part unshaved and he said: “Shave all of it or leave all of it.”[54]

As far as it being “only” makrūh, it is not appropriate for a Muslim to regard something makrūh (tanzīhī) as something light or insignificant. Makrūh is blameworthy and reprehensible in Sharī‘ah (as opposed to khilāf al-awlā or mubāh). The renowned Mālikī scholar of Usūl, Imām al-Shātibī (d. 790 H), explains that persistence on makrūh tanzīhī results in sin.[55] The great Hanafī jurist, Rashīd Ahmad Ludhyānwī (d. 1422 H), also states that “by continued repetition of a maukruh tanzīhī act, it becomes makrūh tahrīmī.”[56]

Conclusion

From the above analysis of this small sample of ‘Mufti’ Abu Layth’s answers, it is clear that his methodology and conclusions are extremely flawed. Thus, it would be incorrect to refer to him for matters of Sharī‘ah.

Note: If ‘Mufti’ Abu Layth has answers to our responses, we will gladly facilitate correspondence with him on an academic level.

And Allah Ta‘ālā Knows Best

Zameelur Rahman

Student Darul Iftaa
UK

Checked and Approved by,
Mufti Ebrahim Desai.

www.daruliftaa.net

This is guy is dodgier than dodgy, almost the equivalent of suhaib webb but on this side of the pond.

Some of his latest dodgy 'fatwas':

* Transgender individuals should be allowed to marry, have families etc

* You can sit at a table with alcohol.

* Bank loans and car finance deals with interest are permissible.

* Going on dates is fine e.g. meeting a girl at a coffee shop.

His Usool seems to be based on two things - just keep things 'natural' and the 'voice of reason' basically his way of saying let's try and blur Islam to fit with a western non-Muslim lifestyle. Personally I'm surprises more reputable Malikis haven't refuted him given how he (ab)uses that Madhab to justify a lot of what he says.

I'm gonna bet that within 5 years he'll be a fully fledged member of Quilliam Foundation, he's certainly being groomed well in that direction...
 

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
I have no particular opinion of this website, I don't typically read it and don't know much about it
but this article is correct and the push to promote stuff like Abu Layth is very much a part of what this article is talking about...

if you support stuff like Abu Layth, this is the agenda you are supporting. Maybe you should see if the CIA can see about getting you a paycheck for your efforts in supporting the war against Islam. It's sad to see how willing people are to turn sellout. I'm not an idiot and I see the agenda you support. Either you are malicious, a fool, wilfully ignorant or a combination of those things. Islam is being attacked and whichever side you're on- Allah will judge. The pawns of colonialism can attack all they want but the facts remain.

http://www.khilafah.com/american-plan-to-subvert-islam/

American Plan to subvert Islam

written by Editorial

Here is the summary section from the 2005 RAND report by Cheryl Bernard entitled ‘Civil Democratic Islam. Partners Resources and Strategies.’ It articulates the American plan to subvert Islam and in its place create a western friendly ‘American Islam.’

Allah (swt) says in Surah al-Baqara, ayah 120, TMQ:
“Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with you until you follow their religion.”

America is trying to divide the Muslim Ummah into various camps. Bush initiated this plan after 9/11 when he made it clear that ‘you are either with us or with the terrorists.’ The RAND report below divides the Ummah into four camps. They are the: fundamentalists, traditionalists, modernists and secularists. In spite of this we must always remember that the Muslim Ummah is ONE body and we must oppose any such division. The only camp we are in is the camp of the believers.

Muslims at all levels of society in the Muslim world must ensure they work for furthering the cause of Islam and Muslims and not for supporting the western colonial plan. We must always remember that despite the plots and plans of the colonialist kuffar, Allah is the best of planners.

Allah (swt) says in Surah al-Anfal, ayah 30, TMQ:
“They plot and plan, and Allah too plans; but the best of planners is Allah.”

Report:

Civil Democratic Islam. Partners Resources and Strategies.

Cheryl Bernard

RAND Corporation

Download full report here

Summary

There is no question that contemporary Islam is in a volatile state, engaged in an internal and external struggle over its values, its identity, and its place in the world. Rival versions are contending for spiritual and political dominance. This conflict has serious costs and economic, social, political, and security implications for the rest of the world. Consequently, the West is making an increased effort to come to terms with, to understand, and to influence the outcome of this struggle.

Clearly, the United States, the modern industrialized world, and indeed the international community as a whole would prefer an Islamic world that is compatible with the rest of the system: democratic, economically viable, politically stable, socially progressive, and follows the rules and norms of international conduct. They also want to prevent a "clash of civilizations" in all of its possible variants-from increased domestic unrest caused by conflicts between Muslim minorities and "native" populations in the West to increased militancy across the Muslim world and its consequences, instability and terrorism.

It therefore seems judicious to encourage the elements within the Islamic mix that are most compatible with global peace and the international community and that are friendly to democracy and modernity. However, correctly identifying these elements and finding the most suitable way to cooperate with them is not always easy.

Islam's current crisis has two main components: a failure to thrive and a loss of connection to the global mainstream. The Islamic world has been marked by a long period of backwardness and comparative powerlessness; many different solutions, such as nationalism, pan-Arabism, Arab socialism, and Islamic revolution, have been attempted without success, and this has led to frustration and anger. At the same time, the Islamic world has fallen out of step with contemporary global culture, an uncomfortable situation for both sides. Muslims disagree on what to do about this, and they disagree on what their society ultimately should look like. We can distinguish four essential positions:

  • Fundamentalists reject democratic values and contemporary Western culture. They want an authoritarian, puritanical state that will implement their extreme view of Islamic law and morality. They are willing to use innovation and modern technology to achieve that goal.
  • Traditionalists want a conservative society. They are suspicious of modernity, innovation, and change.
  • Modernists want the Islamic world to become part of global modernity. They want to modernize and reform Islam to bring it into line with the age.
  • Secularists want the Islamic world to accept a division of church and state in the manner of Western industrial democracies, with religion relegated to the private sphere.
These groups hold distinctly different positions on essential issues that have become contentious in the Islamic world today, including political and individual freedom, education, the status of women, criminal justice, the legitimacy of reform and change, and attitudes toward the West.

The fundamentalists are hostile to the West and to the United States in particular and are intent, to varying degrees, on damaging and destroying democratic modernity. Supporting them is not an option, except for transitory tactical considerations. The traditionalists generally hold more moderate views, but there are significant differences between different groups of traditionalists. Some are close to the fundamentalists. None wholeheartedly embraces modern democracy and the culture and values of modernity and, at best, can only make an uneasy peace with them.

The modernists and secularists are closest to the West in terms of values and policies. However, they are generally in a weaker position than the other groups, lacking powerful backing, financial resources, an effective infrastructure, and a public platform. The secularists, besides sometimes being unacceptable as allies on the basis of their broader ideological affiliation, also have trouble addressing the traditional sector of an Islamic audience.

Traditional orthodox Islam contains democratic elements that can be used to counter the repressive, authoritarian Islam of the fundamentalists, but it is not suited to be the primary vehicle of democratic Islam. That role falls to the Islamic modernists, whose effectiveness, however, has been limited by a number of constraints, which this report will explore.

To encourage positive change in the Islamic world toward greater democracy, modernity, and compatibility with the contemporary international world order, the United States and the West need to consider very carefully which elements, trends, and forces within Islam they intend to strengthen; what the goals and values of their various potential allies and protégés really are; and what the broader consequences of advancing their respective agendas are likely to be. A mixed approach composed of the following elements is likely to be the most effective:

  • Support the modernists first:
– Publish and distribute their works at subsidized cost.

– Encourage them to write for mass audiences and for youth.

– Introduce their views into the curriculum of Islamic education.

– Give them a public platform.

– Make their opinions and judgments on fundamental questions of religious interpretation available to a mass audience in competition with those of the fundamentalists and traditionalists, who have Web sites, publishing houses, schools, institutes, and many other vehicles for disseminating their views.

– Position secularism and modernism as a "counterculture" option for disaffected Islamic youth.

– Facilitate and encourage an awareness of their pre- and non-Islamic history and culture, in the media and the curricula of relevant countries.

– Assist in the development of independent civic organizations, to promote civic culture and provide a space for ordinary citizens to educate themselves about the political process and to articulate their views.

  • Support the traditionalists against the fundamentalists:
– Publicize traditionalist criticism of fundamentalist violence and extremism; encourage disagreements between traditionalists and fundamentalists.

– Discourage alliances between traditionalists and fundamentalists.

– Encourage cooperation between modernists and the traditionalists who are closer to the modernist end of the spectrum.

– Where appropriate, educate the traditionalists to equip them better for debates against fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are often rhetorically superior, while traditionalists practice a politically inarticulate "folk Islam." In such places as Central Asia, they may need to be educated and trained in orthodox Islam to be able to stand their ground.

– Increase the presence and profile of modernists in traditionalist institutions.

– Discriminate between different sectors of traditionalism. Encourage those with a greater affinity to modernism, such as the Hanafi law school, versus others. Encourage them to issue religious opinions and popularize these to weaken the authority of backward Wahhabi-inspired religious rulings. This relates to funding: Wahhabi money goes to the support of the conservative Hanbali school. It also relates to knowledge: More-backward parts of the Muslim world are not aware of advances in the application and interpretation of Islamic law.

– Encourage the popularity and acceptance of Sufism.

  • Confront and oppose the fundamentalists:
– Challenge their interpretation of Islam and expose inaccuracies.

– Reveal their linkages to illegal groups and activities.

– Publicize the consequences of their violent acts.

– Demonstrate their inability to rule, to achieve positive development of their countries and communities.

– Address these messages especially to young people, to pious traditionalist populations, to Muslim minorities in the West, and to women.

– Avoid showing respect or admiration for the violent feats of fundamentalist extremists and terrorists. Cast them as disturbed and cowardly, not as evil heroes.

– Encourage journalists to investigate issues of corruption, hypocrisy, and immorality in fundamentalist and terrorist circles.

– Encourage divisions among fundamentalists.

  • Selectively support secularists:
– Encourage recognition of fundamentalism as a shared enemy, discourage secularist alliance with anti-U.S. forces on such grounds as nationalism and leftist ideology.

– Support the idea that religion and the state can be separate in Islam too and that this does not endanger the faith but, in fact, may strengthen it.

Whichever approach or mix of approaches is chosen, we recommend that it be done with careful deliberation, in knowledge of the symbolic weight of certain issues; the meaning likely to be assigned to the alignment of U.S. policymakers with particular positions on these issues; the consequences of these alignments for other Islamic actors, including the risk of endangering or discrediting the very groups and people we are seeking to help; and the opportunity costs and possible unintended consequences of affiliations and postures that may seem appropriate in the short term.
 

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
Dawah Man actually discussed this

They are hiding amongst us...

Lets cut straight to the chase!

There are enemies amongst us, hypocrites in our ranks, inside-agents have infiltrated us, hidden operatives have camouflaged themselves in our communities...

What do they want from Islam? ... It's destruction!

What do they want from you O Muslim?

Kufr! They want you to disbelieve, the way they disbelieve!

Some of us have befriended them, some us are related to them... Even scarier yet... Some of us take knowledge from them! Those who have taken them as their teachers and reference points are in the most critical situation. Muhammad ibn Sireen said 'Verily this religion is knowledge, so be mindful who you take your religion from!'... (Maqaddimatu Sahih Muslim).

What kind of religion will you have if your teacher is a hypocrite, a heretic who feigns Islam to win your trust only to later inject your heart with doubts and confusion due to your lack of knowledge causing you to leave the path of Islam towards the gates of the Hell-fire?

But their plot will not be successful! Allah won't let it be so, victory will be for His righteous slaves as He promised...

How do we identify these snakes in the grass?

Allah gave His righteous slaves a sign in Surah Muhammad v.30, a measure to identify and unveil hypocrites who are hiding in our ranks. When talking about how to identify the hypocrites, Allah said to the Prophet ﷺ

وَلَو نَشاءُ لَأَرَيناكَهُم فَلَعَرَفتَهُم بِسيماهُم ۚ وَلَتَعرِفَنَّهُم في لَحنِ القَولِ

"If We wish, We will show them to you so that you recognize them by their mark.Yet you will recognize them by their tone of speech..."

Let us ponder on this verse so we can know these heretics amongst us. The following points I will mention to you are from the tafseer of Imam ibn Katheer. In case anyone wants to follow up what I said make your way to the full version inshaa'Allah

In the above verse Allah showed the Prophet ﷺ that he will come to know who the hypocrites are even if they are not specifically and clearly highlighted.

How? BY THEIR STATEMENTS! ... By their words! Their objectives, will become apparent from their mouths. They will not be able to hide what is in their hearts, as Imam ibnul Qayyim said 'The tongue is like a spoon, it scoops up that which is inside of the heart!' [al-Hilyah]

The kufr inside of their hearts will become apparent on their tongues

Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) elaborated this when he said 'There is no one who hides a secret (belief) except that Allah makes it appear on his face and his tongue' [Tafsir Ibn Kathir]

So how do we identify these people? By what they say! What is in the heart will manifest on the tongue, and this will manifest in so many ways!

What I want to talk about is one of the most dangerous manifestations on the tongues of these heretics, one that is so clear and apparent! This is the manifestation of their opposition, antagonism, degradation, of the Sunnah of the Prophet !

The attack on the Prophet ﷺ Sunnah, when it comes to hadeeth is done in two ways

1) They attack the companions of the Prophet ﷺ who narrated the hadeeth to us in the first place! This is what the Shi'ah do! As Imam Abu Haatim al Raazi said about the Shi'ah 'Anyone who attacks the companions of the Prophet ﷺ is attacking our witnesses, rather it is the Sunnah that they want to attack'

The reality is they can not go to the Prophet ﷺ directly so they go to his companions who carry those narrations This is why Shaykh al-Albaani said 'They hate Abu Hurayrah because he broke their backs with so many narrations!' ... It is important that you comprehend this point! They don't really care about Abu Hurayrah, it is what he is carrying they hate, and this is the Prophet's Sunnah!

2) In recent times we have seen another way of attacking the Prophet's hadeeth. This is the method of the orientalists which many hypocrites amongst us have adopted and left us fooled under their 'Muslim' guises, tricking us with their Muslim names and Islamic vocabulary. What is this method of attack? To attack the narrators of the hadeeth, specifically the ones who recorded the chains in their books, such as Imam al Bukhaari.

Why do they attack al Bukhaari? Not because they hate al Bukhaari, but it is to undermine and get rid of all of those narrations that he is holding in his book! Anyone who insults or attacks him is a CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR HERETIC!

UNDERSTAND the following point, please! They attack the sahabah, and narrators such as al Bukhaari because they cannot go and directly attack the Prophet ﷺ! This will be too blatant of an attack, their cover will be exposed, so they go around the bend and attack the men and women who are our link to the Prophet ﷺ himself! A devious and devilish method.

A few words on al Bukhaari!

Are we saying al Bukhaari is infallible, are we saying he is above scrutiny and question?

No! Of course not! Rather al Bukhaari has been scrutinised intensely by some of the most vigorous and robust scholars such as Imam al Daraqutni! He was a man of the Sunnah, but the truth was more beloved to him than men. So he went deep into al Bukhaari, trying to verify every inch of his book. What was the conclusion? That Allah truly protected this book! Allah merely used al Bukhaari as a means to safeguard His Messenger's Sunnah! The little, and when I say little, I really mean little criticism that Imam al Daraqutni came out with at the end was a mistake on his part, this became clear when scholars further went and scrutinised al Daraqutni himself!

Scholars concluded that anyone who tries to bring out criticisms of al Bukhaari that Imam al Daraqutni didn't mention, nor did the scholars before him ever mention... then he is a heretic! If al Daraqutni, a scholar of hadeeth who wrote a 20+ volume books of hadeeth from memory couldn't find mistakes in al Bukhaari and the thousands of scholars before and after him couldn't HOW THE HELL CAN YOU COME AND PICK OUT MISTAKES!!!! Saheeh al Bukhaari has been in the spotlight for the last 1200+ years... and its light still shines bright with the authentic Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ!

So respect yourself and spare yourself the embarrassment by leaving Saheeh al Bukhaari alone. Talking about al Bukhaari is like spitting at the sun... that spit will fall back on your face!

My brothers and sisters, I beg you, in the name of Allah, do not be fooled by these devils, some of whom pretend to be Sunni but they are innovators, some pretend to be Muslims but are disbelieving hypocrites... all of them can be known through their speech and their statements.

For now, I'm heading out, and inshaa'Allah I'll catch you guys with another article next Wednesday

Your Brother In Islam
Imran Ibn Mansur
AKA
 

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
You can lead a person to facts but you can't make them listen to logic.

 

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
"That which nearly all degenerates lack is the sense of morality and of right and wrong. For them there exists no law, no decency, no modesty." -Max Nordau


A clear lapdog of the West. I don't get why he doesn't just become an atheist. The man is a clear product of colonialism.

"In this video, Abu Layth claims to be upon the traditional understanding of Islam. We have created a compilation of Abu Layth's shocking heretical views which will demonstrate that Abu Layth not only isn't preaching traditional Islam but a new religion altogether. We conclude the video asking our viewers to decide the name of this new religion."

Watch the video for yourself. The evidence speaks for itself. He's basically made his own religion.

"Malware because he is like a virus who tries to infect others. That guy is truly ill. He has disease in his heart. His disease is that he wants to mix Islam and kufr. He wants Islam to conform to kufr. He is a slave to secularism and has a huge inferiority complex. Therefore khilafah in his eyes is extremism but secularism is tawhid."

"I knew he was bad, but not this bad. Shocking, absolutely SHOCKING!"

"How does this man even have a following? If his followers still support him after watching this video then they are as bad as him."

"He is promoting a form of islam that the west want us to have"

" How does this guy have supporters? His supporters must be those people that sin, and instead of feeling bad, and repenting about those sins, they want to feel like they're not doing anything wrong."

"Is this guy for real?? Is this his own version of Islam? Who actually follows this man?"

"Fantastic refutation. An excellent summary of Abu Layth's deviance, inshAllah this video will be the reference for anyone who needs to know what he is about"

"So Who follow Abu Layith? Its those youth who born in Muslim family, ignorant about Islam, At best learn how to read Quran in Madrasa &
heavily Adopted Liberalism, Feminism,Scientism as Their Worldview..They see world with those ideological glass & hold those ideology True..So when they see Certain Islamic teaching goes against those western ideology some reject Islam & become Murtard & some try hard to Twist Islam to fit with those ideology & these people suffer from cognitive dissonance..& people like Abu layith help those poor people to fell into more delusion"

"If he wants to promote whatever nonsense he wants to but why does he use the cloak of islam. Why is he dragging Islam? He says things which has nothing to do with Islam but in order to legitimize it he uses Islam."

"Is anything haraam ?"

"Laytheism - an attempt of missleading the gullible masses with a mish mash of strange unheard of heretical beliefs whilst simultaneously claiming to be orthodox and traditional."

"The dawah part was depressing, can any Muslim who loves Islam ever say don’t try and bring people to Islam?"

"Is this fool even muslim!!!!!!!"

"Sooooo, which religion is lunatic layth following again?At this point, I'm starting to think that this guy was hired by mossad to misguide muslims... eh"

"Wow this guy is a 5 star Kāfir, excellent video, this pretty much destroyed him once and for all."

"Ok this guy is a complete idiot but what kinda idiots are those who ask him questions.smh"

"not a single thing he said, aligns with islam, truly an amazing feat to think that he himself is a muslim, he's a laytheist"

"I don't think TSD should dedicate anymore time to this heretic. . This exposes MAL completely. . What he's preaching ain't Islam. . And whosoever follows his heretical fatwas/ideas ain't Muslim. . There's no need for further discussion. ."

"In my understanding this is a murtad kafir lol"

"I am by far no takfiri but this guy is a murtad. He literally said dont convert people and i quote "what good is there for people in islam?". And as the video shows he says "if i wasnt born muslim i wouldnt have ever accepted islam". Subhan Allah. What a clear murtad."

"Many thanks guys. Expose the lier"

"Is he trying to be an another majid nawaz?"

"This is cringing! Especially at 10:32. The Prophet (as) said there will come a time where people from his ummah will make halal, haram and haram, halal......the end of times are near!"


 
Last edited:
Top