ابو يقين

🇸🇴

[ابو يقين @unknown_445556]

DON'T THINK I'M PIOUS BECAUSE OF MY POSTS.
I May Sin More Than You Do. May ALLAH Forgive Us. My All Posts Are Reminder For Myself Before Anyone Else.
May Allah forgive us for the sins we commit in private and public.

[أبو الدرداء القرشي @abudarda1a]

Your allegiance is to the Truth alone, not to your Shaykh or your Group.

— Sh. Sultān al-ʿUmayrī

[ابو يقين @unknown_445556]

One of the biggest problems with some young students today is attention.

You only have so much attention in your life. If most of it is spent tracking people, collecting mistakes, listening to refutations, waiting for the next person to slip, and figuring out who is “with” or “against” whom, then when exactly are you going to seek knowledge?

When are you going to memorize Quran? Study hadith? Learn fiqh? Usul? Arabic? Tafsir?

For some people, following mistakes has practically become their entire talab al-ilm.

And there is another problem: inconsistency in standards.

A contemporary scholar makes one mistake in an issue of aqidah or manhaj and suddenly every word he has ever said is investigated. People ask: Who does he sit with? Who praised him? Who did he refuse to warn against? Why didn’t he clarify this sentence? Why didn’t he retract that statement?

But then they read earlier scholars who had mistakes that were arguably much greater, including serious mistakes in aqidah, and suddenly there is tafsil, context, excuses, interpretation, consideration of the scholar’s overall Sunnah and service to Islam—and they still comfortably call him Imam, Shaykh al-Islam, al-Hafiz, etc.

I’m not saying those earlier scholars shouldn’t be excused or respected. The point is exactly the opposite: why does that scholarly fairness suddenly disappear when dealing with someone from the last 40 or 50 years?

Imagine taking the harshest standards some people apply to contemporary Salafi scholars and applying them mechanically to every scholar in Islamic history.

How many scholars would survive?

If your answer is, “No, you have to understand the earlier scholar’s context, his usul, what he intended, whether the statement was actually established from him, whether he was mistaken in ijtihad, whether he retracted, whether the mistake was characteristic of his methodology, and you have to weigh his Sunnah and scholarship as a whole,” then good.

That is precisely the point.

Be consistent.

And perhaps the saddest part is when the awam are constantly fed these disputes.

People will say, “These issues aren’t for the awam,” while producing hours of public content about individuals, names, warnings, responses and counter-responses—and then acting surprised when ordinary Muslims become obsessed with them.

If something truly isn’t for the awam, stop making the awam your audience for it.

Jarh, tahdhir and refutation have their proper place. Ahl al-Sunnah have never denied that.

But they are tools used to protect the religion. They are not the religion itself.

A student can spend years knowing exactly who made a mistake, who refuted him, who defended him, and who sat with whom—and still be unable to properly explain a chapter of fiqh, parse an Arabic sentence, discuss an issue of usul, or recite what he supposedly spent those years studying.

Your attention is part of your life.

Spend it becoming a person of knowledge, not merely a person who knows the mistakes of people of knowledge.

The strongest line, in my view, is “If something truly isn’t for the awam, stop making the awam your audience for it.” It captures the contradiction without denying legitimate jarḥ, radd, or taḥdhīr.

[ابو يقين @unknown_445556]

Your second post doesn’t really clarify the first. It changes the standard.

In the first post, John already heard that Muslims believe in one God and that Muhammad ﷺ is the final Messenger. But you still said John was NOT a kafir because he had misconceptions about Islam. You said those misconceptions had to be cleared up first.

Then when someone applied that same logic to Netanyahu, you responded by saying Netanyahu and other world leaders have “all heard the Truth.”

But that’s not the standard you gave us in the first post.

John had heard about Islam too. Your whole argument was that simply hearing about Islam isn’t enough if the person has a distorted understanding of it. So if someone says Netanyahu has a distorted understanding of Islam because he associates it with terrorism, you can’t just respond, “Well, he’s heard the Truth.” By your own first post, you would have to show that the misconceptions were actually cleared up for him.

Even the Subway example shows the problem.

You met a man who apparently didn’t even know what Islam was. Fine. That can be used as an example of someone to whom the message may not have reached.

But then you go further and say that if he died right there, he would not be punished eternally and that “with Allah” he is not a kafir.

How did you determine his individual ruling with Allah from one short conversation at Subway?

Allah says:

﴿وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّىٰ نَبْعَثَ رَسُولًا﴾

“We do not punish until We send a messenger.”

That establishes a principle concerning punishment. It does not mean that after a two-minute conversation you can definitively tell us the final ruling of a specific person before Allah.

And notice the inconsistency:

With the Subway worker, you take his statement “What’s Islam?” at face value and conclude the message never reached him.

But with Netanyahu and other specific people, you simply declare that they “ALL heard the Truth” and “ALL know” about the Hereafter.

How do you know what was established upon either person before Allah?

You created an extremely high standard in the first post: the person must properly understand the message and his relevant misconceptions must be clarified.

Then, when someone applied that standard to a person you obviously believe is a kafir, you lowered it to: “He has heard the Truth.”

Pick one standard and apply it consistently.

And most importantly, separate three different questions:

What is a person’s outward ruling in this world?

Has the hujjah actually been established upon that particular individual?

What will Allah do with that individual in the Hereafter?

Those are not automatically the same question.

[Umar Elhashmi @UmarElhashmi]

To clarify, this is not in the ruling/legal sense in this world.

As we live in this world, non-Muslim = kafir, there’s no special category in between.

The post below is clarification that with Allah تعالى, He said in His book He will not punish a person who did not receive the message. It’s about the afterlife.

Also, I saw a jaahil majhool - ignorant and unknown person - quote the tweet saying if Netenyahu thinks islam is terrorism because of what he sees, he’s not a kafir.

There is no disagreement whatsoever that Netenyahu is kafir khaalid in Jahannam. He will go in and never ever leave.

Only a fool makes a conclusion as such, from a very simple statement that I spent time explaining.

The simple statement is: A person cannot have rejected the Truth if they do not know the Truth.

Netenyahu, all apologist christians, all world leaders who dont outwardly say they’re Muslim, etc- these people have ALL heard the Truth and they ALL know there is an afterlife they will face after death. They are all kuffar, nobody disagrees.

The initial post below is referring to people, like this man I met at Subway 2 months ago or so:
I ordered a tuna sandwich, but asked him to change his gloves and wash knives and don’t touch any meat before touching my sandwich.
He did so happily, and curiously asked me why?
I said to him “because I have a religious allergy to meat” — he laughed at the joke and said “religious allergy? What does that mean?”
I said it means, in my religion I cannot eat meat unless it is slaughtered a specific way, it’s called Halal meat.
His face visibly showed he was shocked, and he asked what religion is that?
I said, Islam. He said: What’s Islam?
I myself was shocked to hear that question— but he didn’t know.

Such a person, had he died before me answering what Islam is, would he have gone to hell for eternity? No, by Allah’s own words.

I have met multiple people like this, such as the last one at my own house, the mail guy, he came to drop a package off and I was outside so I went up to him so he didn’t have to walk all the way to our front door.
I walked up, in a green thobe, and I saw a big cross on his neck, so I asked, are you a proud practicing Christian? He’s like “I’m a proud everything, man”
I said, it’s good to see you believe in something, I have one request from you cause I care about you like my brother-
He said what’s that?
I said read the Quran
He said what’s that?
I said it’s the last holy book sent by God to us all to teach us
He’s like, wow I never heard of that, I’ll check it out for sure man I appreciate you

Someone like him? Hell for eternity, when he didn’t even know there was something called a Quran?

These two examples are of people who are not Muslim, but with Allah تعالى they are not kuffar- they have not rejected anything, yet.

We give da’wah because we care about the people.

Other people who know the truth, whether they agree or not, as I explained in the first post, are kuffar if they reject— with Allah.

With us, for example a Muslim woman marrying a nonmuslim, the ruling is the same between nonmuslim and Kaafir.

[ابو يقين @unknown_445556]

You’re actually proving the point.

No one is arguing that merely sitting in the same room as an Ashʿarī or Māturīdī is prohibited in every circumstance. The question is whether the principle you’re now invoking, المصلحة الشرعية and looking at the purpose of the gathering, is being applied consistently.

You say, “Understand صورة المسألة before passing a verdict.”

Exactly.

So why isn’t that same تفصيل given to the duʿāt in the West before they are refuted for appearing at conferences alongside people you consider innovators?

You’ve now admitted that مجرد الاجتماع, merely gathering with them, is not sufficient. You have to look at the purpose, what was actually said, what benefit was intended, what harm was being avoided, and whether there was a legitimate مصلحة شرعية.

And saying, “But they didn’t refute them on stage,” doesn’t automatically settle the issue either. You would first have to establish the principle that every permissible gathering with an innovator requires publicly refuting his bidʿah during that same gathering.

Otherwise, where is the evidence for that condition?

Your alcohol analogy also assumes the very thing you’re trying to prove. Someone openly drinking alcohol in front of you is actively committing a munkar in the gathering. An Ashʿarī simply sitting beside you while nobody is discussing the disputed theological issue is not necessarily the same صورة.

And regarding this conference, if your argument is that its title is “countering ideological deviation,” that still doesn’t answer the principle. Were the specific Ashʿarī and Māturīdī doctrines of the scholars present actually being refuted? If not, then according to the standard you just imposed on Western duʿāt, that they share a platform, discuss general agreed upon matters, and don’t address the deviations of those sitting with them, you still have to explain the فرق المؤثر between the two cases.

If there is a genuine difference, establish it with a consistent ضابط.

But you cannot use مصلحة شرعية and consideration of صورة المسألة for one group, then abandon that تفصيل and reduce the other group to “he sat with an innovator.”

That is precisely the inconsistency being questioned.

[Al-I'tisam bi-Sunnah @AlitisaamSunnah]

Look who's out of the woodwork again, recycling talking points that have already been answered. الله المستعان

Can somebody please explain the following to the brother who keeps repeating them:

1. No one has ever closed the door completely on attending gatherings where innovators may be present. The scholars tie this to مصلحة شرعية: attending to clarify the truth and refute falsehood is one thing, and sitting there to lend legitimacy is another. Put the animosity aside for a moment and understand صورة المسألة before passing verdicts on it.

2. Stop drawing a false equivalence with what some Western du'at do at gatherings with innovators, where:
a) nothing is clarified, and it's pure platforming and sharing the stage;
b) the talks stay on general matters everyone agrees on, while the pressing issues that separate truth from error are never touched.

That's like spending every evening with those who drink alcohol and never once mentioning the harms of alcohol. That is the تمييع being criticised. A scholar sitting at a table whose whole purpose is refutation is not the same thing.

1. The very title of this conference is countering الانحراف الفكري, ideological deviation. Its sessions are on the role of fatwa in confronting deviation and on building immunity against it. You're comparing a platform built for الرد والبيان (refuting & clarifying) with gatherings built for mutual praise.

The Qur'an sets the criterion:
فَلَا تَقْعُدُوا مَعَهُمْ حَتَّىٰ يَخُوضُوا فِي حَدِيثٍ غَيْرِهِ﴾ [النساء: 140]. “then do not sit in that company unless they engage in a different topic, or else you will be like them”

The prohibition is on sitting silently while falsehood is spoken. It is not on standing up to answer it. Even if the falsifiers are present.

Ya Allah guide this mans heart…

[Himmel @ibnrajab01]

Absolute obedience of Ruler.

Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned:

The way of the Murji’ah and those like them, who follow the path of obeying rulers unconditionally,even if they are not righteous.

[Mahmud Ibn ‘Abidin @mahmud_murrah]

[Thread 🧵] Pre-Taymiyyan scholars affirming “ḥulūl al-ḥawādith.”

The affirmation of al-afʿāl al-ikhtiyāriyyah (volitional actions temporally enacted by Allāh) is often falsely pinned as a heresy of Ibn Taymiyyah that was foreign to the Salaf al-Ṣāliḥ and the early scholars.

[𓍼 @ngrtard]

shaykh turayfi mogs all his opps in literally every way bro 😹 even if it’s something small as surahtul fatiha

[Sumaiya سمية @IslamPeaceLife]

“Gaza is the cause of the entire Muslim Ummah!”

-Abdul Aziz al-Tarefe (May Allah preserve him and free him from captivity with honour)

[Academia Kashmiriyyah @KashmiriHanbali]

That's enough Madkhali Twitter for one day.....

Wtf even is this?!!! 😂😂😂

How do you even get Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Ramadan al-Buti, Ahmad al-Hazimee, Ali Khamenei, Muhammad Surur, Habbib Ali Jifri, Usamah bin Laden, Muhammad bin Hadi, and Ali al-Halabi on the same poster? 😭

[فيصل بن قزار الجاسم @faisalaljasem]

ما كنت أتصور أن في الناس من يجرؤ على الادعاء بأن الكيان المحتل لم يقصف غزة بالطائرات، فضلًا عن أن يكون صاحب هذه الدعوى مسلمًا، ثم داعية، ثم متصدرًا للفتيا في نوازل عظيمة

ولا أدري: هؤلاء الذين قتلهم الكيان المحتل في غزة خلال حربه التي امتدت قرابة عامين، حتى بلغوا قريبا من ثمانين ألفا، ولا يزال يقتل فيهم إلى يومنا هذا، بماذا قُتلوا؟ أبالسكاكين والمطارق؟! وهذا الدمار الهائل الذي حل بغزة، وسوّى أحياء ومباني بالأرض، كيف وقع؟ أبالرمي بالحجارة؟ أم بقذائف الدبابات التي لا يمكن أن تسوي مباني وأبراجا بالأرض فضلا عن أي تسوي قطاعا بأكمله أو أكثره؟ أم بماذا؟!

لقد شاهد العالم كله قصف الطائرات لغزة بالصوت والصورة، وافتخر به الكيان المعتدي نفسه، وتحدثت التقارير عن كميات هائلة من المتفجرات وصواريخ الطائرات ألقيت على هذه البقعة الصغيرة من الأرض، بلغت ما يعادل قوة ثلاث قنابل نووية. فكيف يمكن لعاقل، بعد هذا كله، أن ينكر أن الطائرات قصفت غزة وقتلت أهلها ودمرت عمرانها؟!

ومن يجهل حقيقة ظاهرة كهذه، موثقة بالصوت والصورة، ومعلومة للعالم أجمع، بل مقرًّا بها من المعتدي نفسه، فكيف يحل له أن يتصدر للفتيا في نوازل الأمة الكبرى

إن إنكار أمر بهذا الظهور لا يكاد يخرج عن ثلاثة احتمالات: مكابرة لا نظير لها، أو خلل في الإدراك، أو انقطاع تام عن متابعة ما جرى ويجري في غزة

بل إن الكيان المحتل نفسه يعجز عن ادعاء مثل هذه الدعوى أو الترويج لها؛ فغاية ما يمكن أن يفعله أمامها أن يضحك من الحال التي بلغها بعض المنتسبين إلى الدعوة من المسلمين

هذا فضلًا عن إنكاره وجود شبكة أنفاق في غزة احتمى بها المجاهدون وعجز العدو عن اكتشافها كلها وتدميرها، وتكذيبه وجود أسرى إسرائيليين بأيديهم، وزعمه أن ذلك كله كذب وأفلام!
ومآل هذه الدعوى لا يخرج عن احتمالات في غاية الغرابة: فإما أن يكون المجاهدون ـ بحسب لازم قوله ـ متعاونين مع الكيان المحتل وأمريكا وقوى الغرب النصراني في تصوير واقع مزعوم لا حقيقة له، وأن الجميع تواطؤوا وخططوا لهذه «المسرحية» التي انتهت بقتل قادتهم الواحد تلو الآخر، وقتل أهليهم، وتدمير غزة وقتل أهلها وتهجيرهم!
وإما أن يكون المجاهدون قد خدعوا الكيان المحتل وأجهزة استخباراته والعالم أجمع، فأوهموهم بوجود شبكة من الأنفاق لا حقيقة لها، وأقنعوهم بأن لديهم أسرى إسرائيليين وهم في الحقيقة غير موجودين، وظل الكيان يبحث عن أسرى لا وجود لهم، ويتفاوض على إطلاق سراحهم، ويعلن أسماءهم وأعدادهم، وهو يجهل حقيقة أمرهم!
فأي القولين أُخذ به، كانت النتيجة دعوى لا يقبلها عقل، ومصادمة لوقائع شهدها العالم وتناقلتها وسائل الإعلام، وأقر بها أطراف الحرب أنفسهم

فإلى الله المشتكى

ومن تجرأ على إنكار ما استقر علمه عند الخاص والعام، والمسلم والكافر، والصديق والعدو، وجازف بتكذيب ما تشاهده الأعين، وتتناقله الأخبار، ويقر به أطراف الصراع أنفسهم؛ فلا يُؤمن بعد ذلك أن يجازف في أحكامه على الآخرين، وأن يكابر في الحقائق إذا خالفت قوله، وأن يصر على الخطأ ولو قامت أمامه الشواهد، وأن يحمل الوقائع على ما يوافق رأيه بدل أن يحمل رأيه على ما تثبته الوقائع.

فمن هان عليه ردُّ المحسوس المشاهد، وتكذيب الوقائع الظاهرة التي تواتر علمها بين الناس، كان ردُّه للحقائق الأخرى أهون عليه؛ لأن الخلل حينئذ لا يقف عند خطأ في معلومة بعينها، وإنما يتجاوز ذلك إلى منهج في النظر والحكم: يبدأ بالرأي، ثم تُلوى الوقائع لتوافقه، ويُدفع كل ما يناقضه بالمكابرة أو التكذيب

ومن كانت هذه طريقته في التعامل مع الأمور المشاهدة المعلومة للخاص والعام، فكيف يُطمأن إلى أحكامه في المسائل الدقيقة والنوازل المشتبهة التي تحتاج إلى تثبت وتحرٍّ وجمع للوقائع قبل تنزيل الأحكام؟!

وأني لأرجو أن يخرج المتكلم فيراجع هذا الكلام، ويبيّن خطأه في هذا الإطلاق ووهمه فيه، ويرجع عنه؛ فإن الرجوع إلى الحق فضيلة، والإقرار بالخطأ خير من التمادي فيه والمكابرة عليه، ولا سيما ممن يتصدر للكلام في دين الله ونوازل المسلمين

وهذا أدعى إلى أن يطمئن الناس إلى كلامه الشرعي وفتاواه في المستقبل؛ فإن من ظهر منه الرجوع إلى الحق متى تبين له، والتصحيح لخطئه متى ظهر، كان ذلك أبعث على الثقة بعلمه وتحريه، وأحفظ لمكانة الفتوى وهيبتها

[ابو يقين @unknown_445556]

You are going to meet Allah.

Not as a username.
Not with your followers.
Not with the people you argued with online.

You will stand before Him alone.

ولقد جئتمونا فرادى كما خلقناكم أول مرة

“And you have certainly come to Us alone, just as We created you the first time.”
[Qur’an 6:94]

Ask yourself:

If I died tonight, what have I prepared for that meeting?

Your sins should not make you despair, but they should make you repent. Your good deeds should not make you feel secure, but they should make you ask Allah for acceptance.

The door of tawbah is still open.

Return to Allah before you return to Him.

[ابو يقين @unknown_445556]

One thing that concerns me about some Salafi circles living in the West is how much energy is spent refuting other Salafis, attaching labels to them, and turning disagreements between students and du’at into public battles.

You may see someone produce far more content attacking another Salafi than addressing the kufr, atheism, liberalism, Christianity, and doubts about Islam that ordinary Muslims are exposed to every day.

Then when asked why these detailed refutations are constantly made public, the response is: “This isn’t for the laymen.”

But who makes up the majority of the audience consuming, sharing, and arguing over this content? The laymen themselves.

Refuting errors and warning against genuine innovation have their proper place. But there must also be fiqh of priorities. If the result is that ordinary Muslims become experts in the names, disputes, labels, and personal conflicts of du’at while remaining unable to answer basic doubts raised against Tawhid, the Qur’an, the Sunnah, or the Prophet ﷺ, then something has gone seriously wrong with our priorities.

[ابو يقين @unknown_445556]

@IQudamah72360 He is using the same tactics that these guys deployed against other shuyuk

[د. مطلق الجاسر @Dr_Mutlaq]

تنبيه:
قدّمتُ قبل ستّ سنوات تقريبًا لأحد محققي الكتب تحقيقَه لمتن الأرجوزة الميئية، وأثنيتُ بما ظهر لي من حاله حينئذ، ثم فوجئتُ بتغيّر حاله بعدُ -مع الاسف- ونشره لكلامٍ لا أرتضيه، من ترويج لبعض البدع وأهلها، وبناء على ذلك فإنني أبرأ إلى الله من ذلك وأسحب هذا التقديم.
وأنصح هذا الكاتب وغيره بتقوى الله والعودة للسنة والكف عن الترويج للبدع وأصحابها.
وأسأل الله للجميع الهدى والسداد.

[صالح العُصَيمي @Osaimi0543]

كم مضى من الوقت وأنت تُقلِّبُ ناظريك في وسائل التَّواصل؟ وما الذي استفدته منها؟، سؤالان ينبغي أن تُكرِّرهما على نفسك مرَّةً بعد مرَّةٍ؛ لتُحْكِمَ عِقالها، وتُقيِّدَ انطلاقها، وتحفظَ قوَّتها، وتصونَ نقاوتها، فافطن لهذا، ولا تجعله كلامًا عابرًا لا تعملُ به.

[صالح العُصَيمي @Osaimi0543]

أنفع النَّاس للناس في النُّصح والإرشاد من جمع الله له الدِّين المتين والعقل المَكين، وعاش فيهم ومات وهو يرى أنَّه مسكين، لا يخدعه الثَّناء، ولا يَلبسه الرِّياء، ولا تتجارى به الأهواء، ولا يبحث عن اسمه إلَّا في ديوان السُّعداء، فاطلبوا لأنفسكم هذه المنزلة... اللَّهمَّ اجعلنا منهم.

[Himmel @ibnrajab01]

Al Subki mentioned the greatest muhadditheen frm the era of sahaba until his own era calling them :“preservers of this Sharīʿah,” “knights of isnād,” and “masters of this discipline” “scholars whom the people of our time cannot be compared to”.

He names Ibn Taymiyyah among them.

[أبو محمد المالكي @TaymiFawaid]

A summary of Sh Sulṭān al-ʿUmayrī’s view on seeking intercession from the dead

There are several definitions of the word intercession, but the closest and most accurate definition we can go with is seeking a means, on behalf of another person, to obtain a benefit for him or ward off harm from him. Thus, seeking intercession from others falls under the category of seeking duʿāʾ from others.

Seeking intercession is not intrinsically an act of worship, and its ruling differs across different circumstances. It could be permissible, impermissible, or even shirk. If it is sought from the living, such as asking a living person to ask Allāh to forgive your sins, heal you, or admit you into Paradise, it is permissible according to the majority, with some even citing a consensus in it.

If it is sought from the dead, it is either sought near the grave or far from the grave. If it’s sought near the grave, there’s a difference of opinion among the scholars on whether it’s shirk or forbidden. The correct opinion is that it’s forbidden. If it’s sought far from the grave, the correct opinion is that it’s major shirk.

There is a specific type of seeking intercession that has a different ruling, which is seeking intercession in the Hereafter. Seeking this from the Prophet ﷺ was permissible during his lifetime. As for seeking it from anyone other than Him, then the correct opinion is that it’s impermissible because it pertains to the unseen. However, it falls short of major shirk because the person who seeks it still believes the intercession would be dependent on God’s permission. As for seeking intercession in the Hereafter from the dead, then this takes the same ruling as seeking worldly intercession from the dead as previously discussed.

Seeking intercession reaches shirk when it ascribes Allāh’s rubūbiyyah, ilāhiyyah, or names or attributes to the creation, or when a deficiency is ascribed to Allāh. Therefore, it becomes shirk in the following scenarios:

1) When it involves utmost humility and submission to other than Allāh, or when it is accompanied by acts of worship directed to other than Allāh, such as sacrificing for other than Allāh and so on.

2) When it is sought from a created being from a far distance, since it ascribes knowledge of the unseen to the creation.

3) When it is believed that accepting the intercession is binding upon Allāh سبحانه وتعالى.

4) When it is believed that the intercessor informs Allāh of something within the affairs of the creation that He does not already know.

5) When it is believed that the intercessor would influence God’s will to do good for the creation, as this is attributing deficiency to Allāh and believing that the creation can overpower the Creator.

6) When it is believed that the intercessor will assist Allāh in delivering good to the creation, as it implies a deficiency in God’s power.

7) When it is believed that Allāh’s provision can only be attained through the intercession of the intercessor.

8) When the intercession is sought in a way that makes it impossible for the intercessor to perceive what is being requested of him, such as a large number of people gathering at a grave and simultaneously asking its inhabitant to intercede for them in many different languages. This implies that the intercessor can hear every single person who calls upon him and understand every single language that is being spoken, which is something only Allāh can possess.

The majority of scholars make two conditions for the validity of intercession, while some extend them to four. However, we can say that intercession is not valid except with two conditions: 1) that Allāh permits the intercessor to intercede, and 2) that Allāh is pleased with the one being interceded for.

[ابن محبوب @IbnMahbub_]

SubhanAllah. A beautiful video

One of the most senior scholars of our time, Allāma Abdul Aziz al-Rajihi sitting in the lesson of Shaykh Salih Aal al-Shaykh, another senior scholar of our time.

[Academia Kashmiriyyah @KashmiriHanbali]

@IbnMahbub_ I swear to God, Ummaysan over complicated one of the most simplistic common sense things in Usool.

He shouldn't be allowed to teach Fiqh, Usool, Qawa'id and the Scared Sciences with this level of ignorance and incompetence.

Allah safeguard us all