Wednesday, 28 June 2017   







You are here: Home Clarifications
Yasir Qadhi, Intellectual Stimulation and Salafiyyah: Part 3b - the Oppression of the Rulers, Open Rejection and Demonstrations
Posted by Abu.Iyaad, Editor in Clarifications
Topics: Yasir Qadhi Salafiyyah Salafism

  Mail To Friend    Printer Friendly Bookmark and Share

All praise is due to Allāh, the Lord of the Worlds and may the ṣalāt and salām be upon the Messenger, to proceed: In a recent interview (see here) Yāsir Qādhi claimed that Salafi Islam is not "intellectually stimulating" enough for his liking and that the "Salafi movement" (Salafiyyah) is "not capable of addressing modern issues." In this series of short articles observations and comments are made regarding the implications of what Yāsir Qādhi has expressed.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah: Sound intellect never opposes Salafiyyah (indicating that Yasir Qadhi's "intellectual stimulation" is from the shubuhaat (doubts) against the truth that are easily refuted. Read article here).

Yasir Qadhi's Intellectual Stimulation Compared to the Prophetic Sunnah

In the previous article we mentioned the speech of Ibn al-Qayyim regarding the correlation of al-qadaa wal-qadar with the Names of Allaah and His adl (justice) and hikmah (wisdom), in light of which we clarified the difference between a) the revealed texts - [which explain the true realities such as what results from Tawhid and Sunnah of public safety and economic well-being (al-amn and al-rizq) and what results from Shirk, bid'ah and disobedience of public insecurity, oppression and economic poverty (al-khawf and al-joo') - this being the first of all principles that one refers back to in evaluation of the condition and reality of townships, cities, and nations] - and b) the fikr (thought) and ra'i (opinion) of presumptious and arrogant minds.

Yasir Qadhi said in his article (screenshot):

Some people try to quote traditions that seem to prohibit fighting against the rulers, as if suggesting that the people of Egypt (and Tunisia) have done some type of wrong and incurred sin upon themselves by protesting their conditions.

And also:

And note as well that the protesters are unarmed and non-militant - this is not 'fighting against the ruler' but rather protesting against injustice!

This remark is indicative of a confused and befogged intellect, one that has not been given fiqh (understanding) or has been stripped of the fiqh it may have once had, an even worse situation as it entails misguidance upon knowledge. The Prophetic Sunnah has come with the prohibition of numerous distinct affairs, and so we see in the narrations that the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam):

  • Prohibited removing the hand of obedience from the ruler, even if he oppresses the people, beats them, looks after his own self-interests, demands his rights from the subjects whilst not fulfilling their rights and what is like that.

  • Prohibited attempts to forcefully take over authority by contending with the rulers, fighting them and removing them (except in the situation of open, manifest kufr whilst having ability and strong likelihood of a positive outcome).

  • Prohibited splitting from the main body of Muslims who are united behind a ruler (even if he is impious, oppressive, and does not follow the guidance or sunnah of the Messenger).

Here are the Prophetic traditions from which we can derive these prohibitions:

From al-Hudhayfah bin al-Yamaan (radiallaahu anhu) who said that the Messenger of Allaah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said, "There will be rulers after me who will not guide themselves with my guidance and nor follow my Sunnah. There will arise amongst you men whose hearts are the hearts of devils in the bodies of men." I said, "How shall I behave if I reach that (time)." He said, "Hear and obey the ruler, even if he beats your back and takes your wealth." Reported by Muslim. Here the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) gave five descriptions of rulers to come, a) not following his guidance, b) not following his sunnah, c) hearts of devils in bodies of men, d) confiscating people's wealth, e) beating people. Alongside all of this he ordered with hearing and obedience. Demonstrations and protests clash with this Prophetic statement which is in fact Divine revelation.

From Adiyy bin Haatim (radiallaahu anhu) who said: We said, "O Messenger of Allaah! We do not ask you about obeying the righteous (ruler) but about the one who does (such and such) and does (such and such" (and he mentioned evil)." So the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, "Have taqwa of Allaah, and hear and obey." Reported by Ibn Abee Aasim and declared Saheeh by Imaam al-Albaanee. Here, the Companions distinguished between the god-fearing, righteous leader and the sinful (unjust) leader, and the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasalllam) ordered with the same, hearing and obeying.

Waa'il bin Hujr (radiallaahu anhu) said: We said, "O Messenger of Allaah! Do you see that if there are rulers over us who prevent our rights from us and ask their rights from us?" He said, "Hear and obey, for upon them is their burden (of responsibility) and upon you is your burden (of responsibility)." Reported by Muslim. Here, the Companions asked when their rights are not fulfilled yet the rulers demands his rights from the subjects, and the Messenger commanded the same, to hear and obey.

From Anas (radiallaahu anhu) who said: The Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, "You will encounter atharah (selfishness of the rulers, neglect of subjects) after me, so have patience until you meet me [at the Hawd]." Reported by Muslim. Notice here that the Messenger specifically mentioned "atharah" which is what we see people complaining about, be that in Egypt or elsewhere, and note what the Messenger said to the Companions, "Until you meet me [at the Hawd]" this is significant because under no circumstance (except open clear manifest disbelief) did the Messenger allow removing the hand of obedience, not even for a lifetime, since he said to the Companions, "have patience until you meet me at the Hawd", meaning in the Hereafter, on the Day of Judgement! Imaam al-Nawawi gave a chapter heading for this hadeeth titling it, "Chapter: The Command of Patience Towards the Oppression of the rulers and Their Selfishness (in Material Matters)" and Ibn Abee Aasim gave it the chapter heading (in Kitab al-Sunnah), "Chapter: What the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) Commanded of Patience When A Man Sees Affairs Done By the rulers."

Ibn Mas'ood (radiallaahu anhu) reports that the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: "Indeed there will be atharah (selfishness of the rulers in material matters, neglect of subjects and their rights) and affairs that you will reject." They said, "O Messenger of Allaah! So what do you command us?" He said, "You fulfil the right due from you and ask Allaah for the right due to you." Reported by al-Bukhari and Muslim.

Ubaadah bin al-Saamit (radiallaahu anhu) said: "We gave the pledge of allegiance to the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) upon hearing and obeying (the ruler) in both secret and open, and upon spending in times of hardship, ease and 'atharah' (selfishness of the ruler), and that we do not contend for the power with those holding it unless we see open, clear disbelief for which we have evidence from Allaah (that it is kufr)." Reported by al-Bukhari and Muslim.

Abu Hurairah (radiallaahu anhu) relates that the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: "Upon you is to hear and obey (the ruler) in difficulty and ease, and in what you like and dislike and in 'atharah' [when the ruler is selfish (in worldly matters)]." Reported by Muslim in his Saheeh and Imaam al-Nawawi explains in Sharh Saheeh Muslim, "And (his saying) al-atharah is [the ruler's] self-preference and specification in the worldly affairs over you. Meaning, hear and obey, even if the rulers specify themselves in [material matters of] the world, and did not deliver your rights through that which they possess (of material affairs)."

Once we understand these Prophetic statements emanating from the light of divine revelation, we can begin to see what is in the statement of Yasir Qadhi...

Some people try to quote traditions that seem to prohibit fighting against the rulers, as if suggesting that the people of Egypt (and Tunisia) have done some type of wrong and incurred sin upon themselves by protesting their conditions.

... of either a) deception or b) intellectual confusion. One can see in the above statement that Qadhi's neurons are twisted and are not making the right connections in the right places. This is because he is not looking at this issue throught the light of revelation (wahy) but through the taint of his fikr and ra'i.

In the same article Qadhi says:

But for those here in America, who dare criticize the Egyptian masses based upon their own understandings of a set of hadith, I say to them, "Hold your tongues! You are not living in their situation. You have not experienced years and decades of economic, social and political repression. You have no right to pass verdicts on the situation of a people other than your own. Live their lives for a decade, and then feel free to comment on what they are doing."

Part 3a is largely a response to the specific kind of sentiment in the above paragraph. It deals with the relationship of Tawhid and Sunnah to public safety and economic well-being (al-amn and al-rizq) and the relationship of Shirk, bid'ah and disobedience to public insecurity, oppression of the ruler and economic poverty (al-khawf and al-joo' and jawr al-sultaan) - all as broad universal principles. And Yasir Qadhi feigns ignorance of this or tries to oppose it with his intellect.

And he also said:

And note as well that the protesters are unarmed and non-militant - this is not 'fighting against the ruler' but rather protesting against injustice!

What Yasir Qadhi is doing in the quotes cited above from his article on the Egyptian demonstrations is that he is taking the same approach towards the Prophetic traditions in matters of methodology as the Mu'awwilah (Ash'aris, Maturidis) take towards the Prophetic traditions in matters of creed. He is trying to invalidate them with his fikr, ra'i and ta'weel instead of taking to them with tasleem (submission).

Firstly, the traditions prohibit not only force against the ruler, but also prohibit challenging his authority with what is less than that - [so long as he does not manifest plain, clear, kufr, and there are no barriers to removing him such as lack of power or possibility of greater evil]. For such narrations order hearing and obeying in what is good, even if the ruler is oppressive and unjust - and demonstrations, protests, rallies to protest injustice clash with these traditions. Imaam al-Shawkaanee (rahimahullaah) said, in Kitab al-Baghy in al-Sayl al-Jarrar: "Al-Baaghee is the one who exits from obedience to the Ruler and reviles him with respect to [the ruler's absence of] attending to the beneficial interests of the Muslims without any baseerah (insight) and without intending (genuine) advice..."

Secondly, demonstrations, protests and mass revolutions are methodologies based around Marxist, Leninist, Socialist perceptions of justice and injustice, they are far removed from sound correct perceptions of al-qadaa wal-qadar and al-khalq wal-amr and al-adl wal-hikmah - how a Muslim sees and perceives things in conjunction with Allaah's Names and Attributes. And for that reason we see in all of the revealed texts that pertain to the rulers what clashes with the notion of demonstrations, rallies and protests, whether peaceful or violent.

Thirdly, the Scholars of Islam, Sunnah and Salafiyyah are very clear in this issue, and Yasir Qadhi arrogantly assumes he is intellectually superior to them. There are many, many verdicts of the Major Salafi Scholars regarding demonstrations and protests, and all of them, without exception are united that they are not from the methodologies of Islaam and are prohibited in the Sunnah, they come under the general prohibitions in those ahaadeeth. Such scholars include Shaykh Ibn Baz, Shaykh al-Albani, Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen, Shaykh al-Fawzaan, Shaykh Rabee' bin Haadee, Shaykh Abd al-Muhsin, Shaykh Zayd al-Madkhali and many many others. In order not to prolong matters, we will cite just a couple of representative fatwas from Shaykh Ibn Baz:

Question: Are political demonstrations organized and carried out by men or women against rulers and governments considered legitimate ways of correcting people? If someone dies during such protests, is he then considered a martyr? Shaykh Ibn Baz: "I do not believe political demonstrations, neither by men nor women, are considered a remedy (to influence the leaders). Rather, I see them as ways leading to more tribulations and evils. They bring about oppression of people and violations of their rights. However, the Islamically-legislated ways are things such as writing, sincere advising, calling to that which his good by safe means - the means used by the people of knowledge, the companions of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), and those who afterwards followed them in righteousness. Some legitimate means would be by writing (to the leaders and rulers), personally speaking with them, calling them, or advising them. No one should publicly slander them upon the pulpits (during lectures in the mosques) and other places saying, "They do this and that!" and "All this evil is because of them!" And from Allah we seek help." Taken from the cassette: Fatawa al-'Ulama' fi Ta'ah Wulat al-Amr. Shaykh Ibn Baz, may Allah have mercy on him, also said: "These and other violent means are some of the most dangerous ways people oppose the truth. They result in chaos, oppression, enmity, and beatings. Similar to this is what some people carry out of political demonstrations which also cause great harm to those calling to the truth. They stage marches in the streets, screaming and shouting, all of which has nothing to do with the correct way to reform, rectify, and call to that which is good..." Taken from the magazine: al-Buhuth al-Islamiyyah (38/210) through the book called "Al-Fatawa Ash-Shar'iyyah fi Al-Qadhaya Al-'Asriyyah," - via Answering-Extremism.Com

And then fatwas from Shaykh Ibn al-Uthaymeen (rahimahullaah):

Question: What is the Islamic position of political strikes, demonstrations, and protests in mosques because some people claim to base these actions of theirs upon a religious verdict that has supposedly come from you, as they claim. They allege that during some past circumstances in Algeria, you allowed these actions with the conditions that no rioting would result and no armed resistance or similar evils. So what is the ruling of this in your opinion and what is your advice for us? Shaykh Ibn al-Uthaymeen: How often lies are made against me! I ask Allah to guide anyone who lies against me that he never repeats such statements.It is amazing that people do these sorts of things while being completely unaware of what has taken place as a result in other countries in which the youth took to such methods. What did they achieve? Did they gain anything? Yesterday, a radio station in London announced that the number of Algerian casualties has reached forty thousand in just three years! Forty thousand people (dead)! Such an enormous number of people the Muslims have lost due to chaotic incidents like these. A fire, as you know, always begins with a single spark then becomes a burning blaze. How do you prevent people when they begin to hate one another and despise their leaders, eventually leading themselves to take up arms? Only evil and anarchy result. The Prophet commanded that when a person sees something he dislikes from his leader that he should persevere with patience. This fatwa was taken from a book called "Al-Fatawa Ash-Shar'iyyah fi Al-Qadhaya Al-'Asriyyah" The Shaykh also said: "As for staging public confrontations and protests, this is against the guidance of the Salaf. You now know that these affairs have nothing at all to do with Islamic legislation nor do they bring about any rectification. They do nothing but cause more harm? During the time of the ruler, al-Ma'mun, many scholars were killed because they refused to accept his order and say the Quran was created. He killed so many scholars and forced the people to say this statement of falsehood. Despite this, we have never heard that Imam Aḥmad, or any other of the leading Imams, ever carried out strikes and protests in the mosques. We have also never heard that they used to publicly spread his (the ruler, al-Ma'mun) faults just to instill within the people hatred and enmity against him... So, we don't support political demonstrations, protests, strikes, or similar actions. Correction and reconciliation can be obtained without these means. There must be some hidden hand, foreign or native (to the country), which tries to propagate these kinds of things." From "Fatawa Al-'Ulama Al-Akabir" (pgs. 139-144) - via Answering-Extremism.Com.

And finally, a fatwa from Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan:

Question: Is staging political demonstrations a legitimate way to correct and resolve the problems of the Islamic nation? Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan: "Our religion is not one of chaos and anarchy. Our religion is one of discipline and order, calmness and serenity. Staging political demonstrations was never originally from the actions of Muslims as they never knew of such things before. Islam is a religion of calmness and mercy and discipline. Chaos, disorganization, and the inciting of tribulations are not from Islam. This is Islam, and the rights of all people are fulfilled and earned by seeking them in the manner Islam has legislated. Demonstrations mostly result in bloodshed and the destruction of property and wealth. Such things are not permissible." Through the book called "Al-Fatawa Ash-Shar'iyyah fi Al-Qadhaya Al-'Asriyyah," - via Answering-Extremism.Com

This is a matter agreed upon by all Salafi Scholars - and we mean here genuine Salafi scholars, not the fake ones feigning Salafiyyah, such as the Qutbiyyah of Egypt like Muhammad Hassan and his likes from the straying, wandering ignoramuses who say in one moment "demonstrations and protests are unlawful, participation in politics is discouraged", then when the mirage and the waft of authority appears to be around the corner, they turn on their heels and say "participation in politics is necessary, and sharing the cake ain't a bad idea after all, we can live with that." So this is a matter established with the Salafi scholars and those who oppose it are those who incorporated Marxist, Socialist, Communist methodologies as means of reform, and they include Abu A'la Mawdudi, Hasan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb and Taqi al-Deen al-Nabahani all of whom made Islamic reform based around revolutions of sorts, whether violent, non-violent, or through mass-populist uprising, or via an elitist political party, or through general party-politics. So those feigning Salafiyyah in Egypt, they are in reality guiding themselves not by Salafi Scholars and the Salafi manhaj, but by politicians and thinkers far away from Salafiyyah. It is a crime to link them with Salafiyyah, since they do not refer to the senior Salafi scholars for guidance in these great and serious matters and this is a foundational principle from the principles in the Qur'an and the Sunnah that they oppose.

So the intent here then is that when Yasir Qadhi says:

Some people try to quote traditions that seem to prohibit fighting against the rulers, as if suggesting that the people of Egypt (and Tunisia) have done some type of wrong and incurred sin upon themselves by protesting their conditions.

And also:

But for those here in America, who dare criticize the Egyptian masses based upon their own understandings of a set of hadith, I say to them, "Hold your tongues! You are not living in their situation. You have not experienced years and decades of economic, social and political repression. You have no right to pass verdicts on the situation of a people other than your own. Live their lives for a decade, and then feel free to comment on what they are doing."

And also:

And note as well that the protesters are unarmed and non-militant - this is not 'fighting against the ruler' but rather protesting against injustice!

All of this indicates a man who - by implication of his own misguided speech - does not find the Prophetic Sunnah "intellectually stimulating enough" because as we said before, Salafiyyah by definition is pure Islaam and pure Islaam is but the texts of wahy (revelation) upon the understanding of the Companions, and the ahaadeeth we cited above are from revelation. When Yasir Qadhi says that Salafi Islam is not intellectually stimulating enough for him and that it cannot address modern day problems, then in reality he is speaking of these usool (foundations) that we have mentioned regarding the rulers, and they are from the greatest of what characterise the Salafi way and which distinguish the Salafi methodology, its Scholars and followers from those besides them.

In conclusion, this is the second article dealing with Yasir Qadhi's remarks on the Egyptian revolution, and as a reminder we are evaluating his claims about Salafiyyah and his arrogant presumption of intellectual superiority by looking at three or four issues he has spoken about, from them the Egyptian revolution and from them the agreements he signed with Jahmite saint-worshippers, and from them his remarks about Salafi scholars and other matters, which are yet to come inshaa'Allaah. And the aim behind all of this is to see whether aql (reason) and hikmah (wisdom) lie with Salafiyyah (pure Islam by definition) or with Yasir Qadhi. And so far we have seen that Yasir Qadhi is not intellectually stimulated by evaluating the realities of cities and nations upon the Tawheed of the Messengers - for if he was, he would have complained, in his article, of the oppression by millions of Egyptians in their worship of the idols of al-Badawi, Dusuqi and others, before complaining of the ruler's selfishness and oppression (atharah). And this leads us to conclude with a beautiful statement from the great Scholar, Mu'aadh bin Jabal (radiallaahu anhu) who said (as related by Abu Amr al-Daanee in al-Sunan al-Waaridah fil-Fitan):

الأمير من أمر الله عز وجل فمن طعن في الأمير فإنما يطعن في أمر الله عز وجل

The ruler is from the affair (i.e. placement) of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, so whoever reviled the ruler, then he is (in reality) reviling the affair (i.e. placement) of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic.

This is an amazing statement and it comprises the aqeedah of al-qadaa wal-qadar, and al-hikmah wal-ta'leel fee af'aal illaah (wisdoms and reasons behind Allaah's actions) which Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim explain to be from the loftiest and greatest of issues pertaining to the aqeedah of Tawheed because it penetrates into every aspect of creed and legislation. The saying of Mu'aadh bin Jabal should be read and understood in light of this and in light of the hadeeth of Abdullah bin Amr and the precious statement of Ibn al-Qayyim cited in Part 3a. We will reproduce them here again to show that aql and hikmah is to be found in the usool (foundations) of Salafiyyah, with the Salafi Imaams and those upon their way and not with pseudo-intellectuals who are confused (in both matters of aqeedah and manhaj) as is the case with Yasir Qadhi.

Abdullah bin Umar narrates that the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said:

O gathering of the Muhaajireen, there are five, which if you are put to trial with, and I seek refuge in Allaah that you should be put to trial with them: [1] Never does obscenity manifest in a people (society) until they openly display it (in public) except that plagues and diseases spread amongst them, those which had not passed in their forefathers who passed (before them). [2] Never do they cheat in the weights and measures except that they are taken by years (of famine, hardship), scarcity in provision and (جور السلطان عليهم) the oppression of the ruler over them... Related by Ibn Majah, al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak and al-Tabarani in al-Awsat and refer to Shaykh al-Albanee's Saheeh al-Jaami' al-Sagheer (no. 4019).

And Ibn al-Qayyim says in Miftaah Daar is-Sa'aadah, Daar Ibn 'Affaan Publishing, (2/177):

And reflect in His, the Most High's wisdom in making the kings of the servants, their leaders and their rulers to be of the same species as the actions [of the servants]. Rather, it is as if their actions became manifest in the appearances of their rulers and kings.

If they remain upright, then their kings will remain upright, and if they turn away (from uprightness), then they (the kings) too will turn away from uprightness.

And if they (the servants) oppress [themselves and others], then their kings and rulers will oppress [them].

And if their appears plotting and deception from them, their rulers will [be made to] behave likewise, and if they (the servants) prevent the rights of Allaah that are between themselves and become miserly with respect to them (i.e. withhold the rights of each other), then their kings and their rulers will withhold the right that they (the servants) have upon them and will become miserly with respect to them.

And if they take from the one who is considered weak, what they do not deserve to take from him in their dealings (i.e. misappropriate from him), then the kings will take from them (the servants) what they do not deserve to take (from them) and will inflict them with taxes.

And everything that they (the servants) take away from the weak person, the kings will take away from them with power, force.

So their actions (those of the servants) become manifest in their actions (those of the kings and rulers). And it is not from the Divine wisdom that the evil-doers and the sinners are made to be ruled over [by anyone] except by one who is of their like.

And when the very first band (of Islaam) was the best of the generations, and the most pious of them, then their rulers were likewise. And when they became tarnished (i.e. corrupted), the rulers were made corrupted over them. Thus, the wisdom of Allaah refuses that the likes of Mu'aawiyah, and 'Umar bin 'Abdil-'Azeez are put in authority over us in the likes of these times [the 8th Century Hijrah], let alone the likes of Abu Bakr and 'Umar. Rather, our rulers are in accordance with our (nature) and the rulers of those before us were in accordance with their (nature).

And the rulers of the 20th century are according to whose nature? So all of this shows that Yasir Qadhi is jaahil (ignorant) in these matters and he does not have fiqh in the matters of aqeedah because these matters are tied to the greatest topics in aqeedah, such as al-hikmah wal-adl in the actions of Allaah, and it shows that aqeedah is not an academic subject that you merely speak about, it's more than that and penetrates every facet of life at an individual and societal level. And here we see perfectly, the difference illustrated between Salafiyyah (comprising aql and hikmah) and between the darkness and confusion of the fikr and ra'i of misguided, ignorant, arrogant, thinkers.


Link to this article:   Show: HTML LinkFull LinkShort Link
Share or Bookmark this page: You will need to have an account with the selected service in order to post links or bookmark this page.

                 
  
Subscribe via RSS or email:
Follow us through RSS or email. Click the RSS icon to subscribe to our feed.

     

Related Articles:
Add a Comment
You must be registered and logged in to comment.





Topics
No Categories

Latest Articles
Shaykh Salih Al-Fawzan on Saying 'I Am Salafi'
Shaykh Salih Al-Fawzaan on the Claim That Salafiyyah Was a Phase That Has Come and Gone
Shaykh Salih Al-Fawzaan: Saying 'I Am Salafi' Means Following the Salaf With Precision, in Knowledge and Action
Shaykh Salih Al-Fawzaan on the Word 'Salafi' and the Claim That It Causes Separation
Refuting Yasir Qadhi and the Orientalists: Ibn Taymiyyah on 'Salafiyyah' Being the Prophetic Way
Yasir Qadhi: Salafiyyah Is a Fallible Human Trend Equivalent to Historical and Modern Sects
1st Open Letter to Abu Eesa Niamatullah to Make Tawbah to Allaah and Apologise for His Slanders
Evaluating the Claim of Salafiyyah by Abu Eesa Niamatullah and His Slanders Against the Adherents to the Salafi Methodology: Part 4
Evaluating the Claim of Salafiyyah by Abu Eesa Niamatullah and His Slanders Against the Adherents to the Salafi Methodology: Part 3
Evaluating the Claim of Salafiyyah by Abu Eesa Niamatullah and His Slanders Against the Adherents to the Salafi Methodology: Part 2

Pages
No pages found.

Most Popular
Refuting Yasir Qadhi and the Orientalists: Ibn Taymiyyah on 'Salafiyyah' Being the Prophetic Way
Evaluating the Claim of Salafiyyah by Abu Eesa Niamatullah and His Slanders Against the Adherents to the Salafi Methodology: Part 1 - Introduction
1st Open Letter to Abu Eesa Niamatullah to Make Tawbah to Allaah and Apologise for His Slanders
Yasir Qadhi: Salafiyyah Is a Fallible Human Trend Equivalent to Historical and Modern Sects
Yasir Qadhi, Intellectual Stimulation and Salafiyyah: Part 1 - Salafiyyah by Definition Is Authentic Islam
Shaykh Al-Albaanee on the Doubt: Allaah Has Named Us Muslims So Why Use the Label 'Salafi'?
Imaam al-Albaanee: Compelling Argument for the Usage of the Term 'Salafi'
Yasir Qadhi, Intellectual Stimulation and Salafiyyah: Part 3c - Yasir Qadhi's Fabrication Against the Prophetic Methodology
Evaluating the Claim of Salafiyyah by Abu Eesa Niamatullah and His Slanders Against the Adherents to the Salafi Methodology: Part 3
Yasir Qadhi, Intellectual Stimulation and Salafiyyah: Part 3b - the Oppression of the Rulers, Open Rejection and Demonstrations

Archives (View more)
2014 • July
2014 • April
2014 • March
2013 • September
2013 • August
2013 • April


Copyright © 2017 . All rights reserved. RSSTagsPrivacyLegal and Terms of UseSitemap