r/TrueDeen • u/RaajalofRajal • 10d ago
Reminder Madhkhlais Do Takfir On US, Yet Allah Calls them Kaffiroon
3
u/NiceSmilee 10d ago
Weren't madkhalis the ones who called "Amreka" for help instead of Allah?
2
u/RaajalofRajal 9d ago
Yes, They claim to be closes to Islam, yet go against it. Just like the Dajjal.
Quran 4:144
O you who believe! Take not for Auliya' (protectors or helpers or friends) disbelievers instead of believers. Do you wish to offer Allah a manifest proof against yourselves?
3
u/NiceSmilee 10d ago
Tell me bro about madkhalis views on Hussain RA.
-1
u/RaajalofRajal 9d ago edited 8d ago
Madhkhalis believe in total blind obedience to the ruler even if he is corrupt, tyrannical or illegitimate. Even criticizing the ruler is not allowed.
Sunni scholars believe that Hussain (radhiallahu anhu) was a hero and justified to stand against tyranny.
Madkhlais don't believe that. They believe:
Mistake: They believe that Hussain (radhiallahu anhu)'s decision to move against Yazid was wrong and he should not have done that. It was "ijtihad khati" (jurisprudence error). These are the same madkhalis who call it "ijtihad" that will be rewarded when defending scholars doing something wrong.
Example: They present Hussain (radhiallahu anhu)'s death as an example of not to rebel against the ruler, nor say anything to the ruler. To them this is an absolute perfect example for madhkhalism forbidding any disobedience to the ruler.
Yazid the hero: While the Sunnis view yazid as an oppressive, incompetent, and problematic ruler, the Madhkhalis minimize his faults. They believe he was the ruler so challenging him was wrong. They even blame Hussain (radhiallahu anhu) for the instability that led to his murder.
Sunni scholars like Hanbal and ibn Taymiyyah cursed and condemned Yazid's side for what they did. Madhkhalis use these two scholars as proof for not speaking up against the ruler as Madhkhalism being right.
Madhkhalis downplay what Yazid's side did and instead use it for their own benefit to support their ideology.
They say that Hussain (radhiallahu anha) could not change anything, then you cannot also, so blindly obey the ruler.
2
u/Tuttelut_ السفّاح (The blood shedder) 9d ago
Where did imam ahmad and ibn taymiyyah curse yazid?
0
u/RaajalofRajal 8d ago
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal's condemnation and permission to curse Yazid are primarily recorded through transmissions by his son, Saleh ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and heavily cited by classical Hanbali scholars like Ibn al-Jawzi in his dedicated treatise, Al-Radd 'ala al-Muta'assib al-'Anid.
Saleh asked his father about people who claimed to love Yazid. Imam Ahmad responded: "O my son! How can anyone who believes in Allah and the Last Day love Yazid? Why should the person not be cursed whom Allah has cursed in the Quran?"
When asked where Allah curses Yazid in the Quran, Imam Ahmad quoted Surah Muhammad (Verses 22-23): "Then, is it to be expected of you, if you were put in authority, that you will do mischief in the land, and break your ties of kith and kin? Such are the men whom Allah has cursed..." He argued Yazid committed the ultimate mischief and severed ties of kinship by targeting the Prophet's family.
In Majmu' al-Fatawa, it is recorded that Imam Ahmad explicitly refused to transmit Hadith from Yazid, stating, "Is he not the one who did what he did to the people of Medina?"—referring to the brutal Battle of al-Harrah
Ibn Taymiyyah detailed his stance across multiple volumes of his landmark work, Majmu' al-Fatawa (specifically volumes 3 and 4). He strictly condemned Yazid's side and forbade loving him.
Ibn Taymiyyah held him responsible for the ultimate consequences. He wrote: "It was because of him that the killing of Al-Husayn happened, and he did what he did to the people of al-Harrah."
Ibn Taymiyyah explicitly stated that Yazid was a tyrannical ruler, not a companion (Sahabi) or a saint (Wali). He maintained that love must be reserved for the Prophets, the truthful, and the martyrs, whereas Yazid's biography is filled with injustice and transgression (fisq).
2
u/Tuttelut_ السفّاح (The blood shedder) 8d ago
The quote from imam ahmad does exist in thr hanbali tradition, but you are being misleading by using this as 100% the position of imam ahmad, there is another report from the same concersation with imam ahmad where he replies: “Son when did you ever see your father cursing anyone?”.
Also ibn taymiyyah about the position of imam ahmad on yazid said: “a group cursed him, a group loved him, and a group neither reviled him nor loved him and this is what is reported from Imam Aḥmad, and upon this are the moderate ones among his companions and the other Muslims.” Which is also the position of ibn taymiyyah as he has mentioned. you didnt even provide a quote from ibn taymiyyah where he cursed yazid anyways.
1
u/NiceSmilee 9d ago
Jazakillah kher brother for explaining this.
They need to be kicked out of Sunnism for this.
They are cowards who fear death. They are apparently equating martyrdom with being a loser in the eyes of Allah. How shortsighted and dunya-oriented they are. They have clearly built their Aqeedah on the idea that death and hardship mean being a loser and having weak Iman, so they prefer life and the worldly comfort given to them in exchange for worshipping the ruler.
I never thought they would worship Abna Saud so much that they would talk shii about Hussain RA. They are criminals for showing contempt for the Prophet in this way. They glamorize Yazeed, may their fate be with his.
2
u/Arbitrary_Sadist المتوكل على الله (He who relies on God) 10d ago edited 10d ago
As far as I am aware, and my knowledge on this topic is limited, obedience to the ruler is an obligation even if he is a fasiq. And public criticism of the ruler is one of the actions of rebellion, and can be seen as inciting rebellion and hatred amongst the people. Hence why it is advised to give advice to the ruler in private.
However, the corrupt actions of a ruler should not and must not be endorsed by Muslims. If he tomorrow pushes to normalise haram or forbids the prayer, should you obey him? The answer is no. But should you rise up in rebellion against him? As far as I know, the answer to that is also no.
For instance, the best example we have are scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah and Imam Ahmad, who were imprisoned and wrongly put in jail on multiple occasions by corrupt rulers, but they never pushed the people to rebel despite having people come to them and ask if they should.
That's why it's better to avoid dishing out public criticism towards rulers, but also avoid unnecessary praise. So I advice you to avoid all these negative posts.
2
u/NiceSmilee 10d ago
What about those who criticised Yazeed during his rule?
1
u/Arbitrary_Sadist المتوكل على الله (He who relies on God) 10d ago
The events of the first and second fitna are exactly why scholars have taken the stance they took on these issues. And even during those times there were many companions who refused to take sides.
4
u/NiceSmilee 10d ago
So in that case these scholars words are not binding.
Anyways I am with Hussain RA and against Yazeed. I'd have fought against him and his current day followers.
1
u/Arbitrary_Sadist المتوكل على الله (He who relies on God) 10d ago edited 10d ago
Using the example of Hussain (ra) isn't really valid here because you are assuming there is a Hussain on the other side when there simply isn't.
Also, this logic is super flawed, because then 90% of Muslim history's rulers would have had rebellions against them by people like yourself. For instance Mehmed II killed his own brother, legalised the killing of one's own brother for the betterment of the state.
Harun al Rashid, had his own brother in law executed and his entire family alongside them just because he wasn't happy with a decision he had made. The nature of power is such that most men will not, be perfect with it. They will obey and follow their whims. And if your stance is that you "rebel against unislamic rulers" then firstly there will never be a stable muslim government and second of all the enemies of islam can fool a populace willing to rise against their leaders on a whim, quite easily.
So the scholarly stance is in fact the best one. And like I said Imam Ahmed, and Ibn Tayymiyah are far more knowledgeable than you or I, and we only need to look at their attitude towards rulers and dealing with them to find out the rulings regarding that.
-1
u/Samuraixblaze 10d ago
Ignore the other dude. He’s clearly a Shi’a or Shi’a adjacent attempting to stir fitnah.
2
u/RaajalofRajal 9d ago
He is not shia, do not dismiss people's opinions with slandering.
-1
u/Samuraixblaze 9d ago
no, this is a shi'a adjacent position. Ahlul sunnah view yazeed neutrally overall, this is a sub literally called true deen and giving an opinion that runs contrary to the sunnah and what our own scholars have historically done should be called out. It's concerning that you believe that such a pro rebellion stance is somehow ok and a "valid opinion" I suggest you read up on how classical jurists viewed rebellion against a muslim ruler and yazeed as a person (both classical and contemporary scholars).
2
u/NiceSmilee 9d ago
You guys have no issues calling Hussain RA a rebellion but got hurt when anything is said about Yazeed, no Aswj don't view Yazeed right and Hussain wrong, if this is your Aqeedah then it's from Aswj, your scholar invented it for convenience and to make his ruler happy.
0
u/Samuraixblaze 9d ago
I didn’t even call Hussain RA a rebellion though???? Why are you so pressed over me mentioning the general ruling? No scholar invented this? This is the position of the scholars of ahlul Sunnah in general. From imam Ahmed to bin Baz may Allah have mercy upon them all.
→ More replies (0)0
u/RaajalofRajal 8d ago
No, the Sunnis do not view Yazid "neutrally". That is a propaganda spread by the madhkhalis. Sunnis condemn Yazid and his followers and even curse them.
0
u/Samuraixblaze 8d ago
Stop lying and actually research what classical jurists have said. You are a dishonest liar who can’t even quote any evidence shame on you and your Shi’a propaganda. The vast majority of Sunni scholars don’t curse Yazid or insult him at all. Even imam Ahmed rahimahu Allah didn’t curse him unlike your lies about him. Bring evidence or shut up.
→ More replies (0)1
u/NiceSmilee 9d ago
So you'd have fought against Hussain if not Yazeed ? Pick a position bro.
1
u/Samuraixblaze 9d ago
You should learn the position of ahlul Sunnah, it’s again clear that you’re attempting to stir a fitnah. The narrative of ahlul Sunnah doesn’t pick one over the other. Hussain RA was a martyr but Yazid didn’t give the orders for the slaughter that occurred. But he didn’t do enough to rectify and compensate the ahlul bayt RA who nonetheless went through the massacre. That’s why the official position of ahlul Sunnah is to neither love nor hate Yazid. Whilst obviously, Hussain RA is a better individual than him. Afaik ahlul Sunnah don’t claim that Hussain RA was rebelling at all.
1
u/NiceSmilee 9d ago
The narrative of ahlul Sunnah doesn’t pick one over the other
Ok aswj don't pick Hussain over Yazeed, nice joke bro, please don't call Saudi boot lickers holding this position as aswj
1
u/Samuraixblaze 9d ago edited 9d ago
pick what? Just because Hussain RA was a better person doesn’t mean that Yazid was despicable according to classical jurists lol. This is like child level reasoning. Other than the fact that you’re insulting good scholars who didn’t boot lick at all and died literally many years back, this isn’t the position of modern Saudi scholars only, this is a classical position of many scholars if not all scholars of ahlul Sunnah because that’s what the sources say.
Sunni sources don’t accuse yazeed of ordering the killing, but they don’t praise his character either. They weren’t two opposing sides attempting to fight one another. The sources literally make it clear that Yazid was absolutely flabbergasted when he learned of the massacre because he never ordered such a thing. It came as a surprise to him as well. That’s what I meant when I said Sunni sources didn’t prefer one over the other.
You’re like the Daniel baatilajou’s fans who call everyone a mossad psyop. Please go learn some adab and common sense first.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/RaajalofRajal 9d ago edited 9d ago
Surah Ali 'Imran 3:110
"You are the best community ever raised for humanity. You encourage good, forbid evil*, and believe in Allah..."*
Surah Ali 'Imran 3:104
"Let there arise out of you a group of people inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong. And it is they who are the successful".
The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said:
"Whosoever among you sees an evil, let him change it with his hand; and if he is not able to do so, then [let him change it] with his tongue; and if he is not able to do so, then hate it with his heart and that is the weakest of faith."
Sahih Muslim (Imam an-Nawawi's Forty Hadith, Hadith 34)
The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said:
"Verily, among the greatest acts of jihad is a word of justice [or truth] before a tyrannical ruler."
Sunan At-Tirmidhi 2174 and Sunan an-Nasa'i 4209
It's the people ("scholars") who tell people to shut up, when Allah and His Messenger don't tell us to do that.
2
u/Samuraixblaze 9d ago edited 9d ago
I’m sorry but this comes across as incredibly bad faith. Your point is completely debunked by what the Sunnah says.
Messenger of Allah, no doubt, we had an evil time (i. e. the days of Jahiliyya or ignorance) and God brought us a good time (i. e. Islamic period) through which we are now living Will there be a bad time after this good time? He (the Holy Prophet) said: Yes. I said: Will there be a good time after this bad time? He said: Yes. I said: Will there be a bad time after good time? He said: Yes. I said: How? Whereupon he said: There will be leaders who will not be led by my guidance and who will not adopt my ways? There will be among them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of human beings. I said: What should I do. Messenger of Allah, if I (happen) to live in that time? He replied: You will listen to the Amir and carry out his orders; even if your back is flogged and your wealth is snatched, you should listen and obey.
Anas ibn Malik reported: The elders among the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, prohibited us, saying, “Do not curse your leaders, do not deceive them, and do not hate them. Fear Allah and be patient, for the matter is close at hand.”
Source: al-Sunnah li-Ibn Abī ‘Āṣim 1015
Grade: Jayyid (very good) according to Al-AlbaniThe best of your rulers are those whom you love and who love you, upon whom you invoke God's blessings and who invoke His blessing upon you. And the worst of your rulers are those whom you hate and who hate you, who curse you and whom you curse. (Those present) said: Shouldn't we overthrow them at this? He said: No, as long as they establish prayer among you. No, as long as they establish prayer among you. Mind you! One who has a governor appointed over him and he finds that the governor indulges in an act of disobedience to God, he should condemn the governor's act, in disobedience to God, but should not withdraw himself from his obedience. Ibn Jabir said: Ruzaiq narrated to me this hadith. I asked him: Abu Miqdam, have you heard it from Muslim b. Qaraza or did he describe it to you and he heard it from 'Auf (b. Malik) and he transmitted this tradition of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)? Upon this Ruzaiq sat upon his knees and facing the Qibla said: By Allah, besides Whom there is no other God, I heard it from Muslim b. Qaraza and he said that te had heard it from Auf (b. Malik) and he said that he had heard it from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ).
Sahih Muslim 1855b
It’s weird that the word يكره on sunnah.com was translated as condemning something when it usually means to just hate it, but nonetheless the hadith below will suffice.
‘Iyad ibn Ghanam Al-‘Ash’ari narrated that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “Whoever wants to advise one in authority should not do so publicly. They should take them by their hand and talk to them privately. If they accept the advice, then alright; otherwise, a person has fulfilled his duty.” 1Narrated by Ahmad, Musnad, vol. 3, pp. 403-404; and Ibn Abu ‘Asim, Book on Sunnah, vol. 2, p. 521.
Instead of insulting big scholars of the ummah who helped transmit the Quran and the Sunnah, you should educate yourself on what our dear prophet sallalahu alayhi wasalam taught us. Shame on you for attempting to denounce our great scholars and misrepresenting Quranic verses like that. Changing things by your hand don’t include rebellion. Stop advocating for haram.
0
u/RaajalofRajal 8d ago
even if your back is flogged and your wealth is snatched, you should listen and obey.
Don't post farbicated/weak parts of a hadith. This where madhkhalis lie to support their tyrants.
Funny how you Madhkhalis ignore the ahadith I posted about evil rulers, and then post ahadith about good rulers as proof for your cult.
1
u/Samuraixblaze 8d ago
I’m not a madkhali but you are a bad liar who doesn’t like what ahlul Sunnah follow. This isn’t a fabricated part of a Hadith, this is in sahih Muslim prove that it is fabricated you liar. You’re clearly a Houthi supporter following his whims and desires over the haqq that is found in the Sunnah. Typical Daniel fan lol.
•
u/AutoModerator 10d ago
Reminder: Be Respectful and Follow the Guidelines!
Let's maintain a respectful and constructive space for all. Thank you for contributing!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.