Тёмный
abdelbaasit1
abdelbaasit1
abdelbaasit1
Подписаться
Комментарии
@HelalHalimi-mq3sc
@HelalHalimi-mq3sc 2 месяца назад
Allah Akbar, may Allah keep Norman safe
@user-ur8jj2hu6z
@user-ur8jj2hu6z 7 месяцев назад
Brother can you translate some long video of his which are really beneficial in Shā Allāh
@abdelbaasit1
@abdelbaasit1 7 месяцев назад
I really want (and hope) to 🙌🏼 …At the moment I barely have time to add subtitles to a few short clips once in a while 😔 ..but that is my plan, if I can ever get around to it 😭😭😭 I already have a list of (slightly) longer videos by S̲h̲. al-ʿAdawī that I’ve been meaning to translate for a while now.
@user-ur8jj2hu6z
@user-ur8jj2hu6z 7 месяцев назад
@@abdelbaasit1 may Allah make it easy for you brother
@abdelbaasit1
@abdelbaasit1 7 месяцев назад
@@user-ur8jj2hu6z Amen 🙏🏼💙
@user-ur8jj2hu6z
@user-ur8jj2hu6z 8 месяцев назад
Barak Allahu feek !
@user-ur8jj2hu6z
@user-ur8jj2hu6z 8 месяцев назад
This matter should be discussed more in details by keeping this hadith in mind as weak.
@user-ur8jj2hu6z
@user-ur8jj2hu6z 8 месяцев назад
Barak Allahu feek, Brother it will be beneficial if you translate more videos, maybe add Shaykh Khaled bin Mahmoud Al Hayek also
@user-ur8jj2hu6z
@user-ur8jj2hu6z 8 месяцев назад
Anyways Al-Albanī is weak in hadith
@user-ur8jj2hu6z
@user-ur8jj2hu6z 9 месяцев назад
Barak Allahu feek akhi it was beneficial, translate more in Sha Allah
@ThatRandomGuy-wd7rw
@ThatRandomGuy-wd7rw Год назад
Shaykh Yasir Qadhi has a pretty long lecture on this topic, where he goes into the details of each ruling pertaining to this issue (i.e. celebrating the festivals and imitating the cultures of non-Muslims) and takes a more liberal (for lack of a better term) approach, due to which he got a lot of backlash from the Salafis.
@abdelbaasit1
@abdelbaasit1 Год назад
😭😭smh darn salafīs 🤦‍♀..get worked up over the most ridiculous things. Because Allah and the prophet made it *so* clear to us that we can’t celebrate bdays, anniversaries or any normal cultural occasions. The ʿĪd/festival conflation, etc., is another can of worms...and they’re basically just relying on one ḥadīth (which can def. be interpreted in more than one way) for their whole argument (i.e. “God gave you 2 days better than these, the sacrifice-day and the break-fast day...”). But 1. those days they did whatever on were from the pre-Islamic pagan era (jāhilīya), as the report says (so the assertion that it was, without a doubt, devoid of any religious/polytheistic elements, isn’t definitive). So to try & compare *that* to our regular holidays today...is already based on a shaky premise. 2. Where does it say, in clear language, in this report that it is forbidden to “play around” (as the report describes) on such days? It simply says: God gave you two better days. That’s it. Reading anything else into this would be an inference, and not clearly stated by the prophet. I'm sure YQ elaborated on all of this (pertaining to that ḥadīth) in the video you mentioned...which I may/may not have seen way back when 😅 (can't remember now 🤷🏻‍♂). But ya, all their arguments to justify their absolutely ḥarām-stance are so weak. Sadly, I used to defend that position when I was younger lol 😭 Even wrote an article on it (like 15? years ago I think)...on "Celebrating Non-Muslim Holidays." 🤔 At the time, I remember...a more knowledgeable friend tried to advise me & highlight that a lot of this stuff was disputed/not as clear as I thought, but I just brushed it off, thinking I knew better. 😑 Anyways, one of the main thrusts of their overall argument is this weak ḥadīth *(whoever imitates...),* which is actually part of a longer ḥadīth (that begins, “I was sent with a sword before the end of time...to ensure that God alone is worshiped...” and goes on to say that he makes a living (or gets his ‘provision’) with his spear (i.e. by fighting & capturing spoils of war), and that _humiliation awaits his enemies,_ and only *then* says that _whoever imitates a group of people is one of them)._ So the whole thing was in the context of war/combat...and the last line was about identifying if someone belonged to a particular (enemy) group. If they act like them, they’re one of them. --But even ignoring this context, the ḥadīth itself is of disputed authenticity...which no one today seems to acknowledge or highlight. They wanna base _so_ much on this one report, setting aside its context, but its chain of transmitters isn’t even all that. It’s not airtight. If there are question marks over narrators (and some people have been deemed unreliable, etc.), it's no longer an unassailable proof-text that can't be questioned. In fact, arguably even Imam al-Bukhārī deemed this report to be unreliable (as indicated by the wording with which he quoted a portion of it in a chapter heading in his Ṣaḥīḥ (before ḥadīth 2914): *“it’s said* that (yud̲h̲kar ʿan) Ibn ʿUmar reported on the prophet’s authority” [أخرجه البخاري معلقا بصيغة التضعيف]).
@ThatRandomGuy-wd7rw
@ThatRandomGuy-wd7rw Год назад
@@abdelbaasit1 Some popular arguments (other than the ones you've mentioned) that I've heard Salafis using against wishing people and celebrating Christmas, Valentine's Day, Anniversaries, or even 4th of July, which I wished you some days ago, is that these festivals/traditions have pagan origins, or in the case of 4th of July, they say that it comes under the prohibition of nationalism that the people of Jahiliyyah used to do. Heck, they even forbid Saudis from celebrating their own National Day because of this reason, which is quite ironic, considering the fact that they always praise the rulers of Saudi Arabia and the Saudi royal family and don't tolerate any sort of criticisms hurled against them, which they try to justify using the ahadith to do with obeying the Muslim ruler (طاعة ولي الأمر). I remember watching a clip where the current Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Shaykh 'Abd al-'Aziz bin 'Abdillah Al ash-Shaykh, was praising the military alliance that formed between Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (the founder of the Salafi movement) and Muhammad ibn Sa'ud. They praise the Saudi state/regime so much, yet they can't allow their own citizens to celebrate their own National Day. Coming back to the main point, as YQ explained, a festival having a pagan origin is not issue at all. What matters is how the festival is celebrated now. Since most of these festivals are celebrated mostly in a secular way, there's no harm in participating in them, as long as you don't attend any religious commemorations. Plus, the prohibition of nationalism, as Mufti Abu Layth explained in one of his Monday Nights episodes, is only for those who excessively boast about their tribe/nationality/race and consider people of other tribes/nationalities/races to be inferior (i.e. racism). But, simply taking part in a cultural celebration of your country's independence is not the same as that. Plus, when it comes to festivals, like Christmas, these festivals do have basis in our religion as well, since we revere Jesus (عليه السلام) as a prophet and messenger of Allah, who was the last prophet sent to the Israelites. Of course, we don't have the exact same beliefs about Jesus as Christians, but that's not to say we don't respect him. If you look at the Qur'an, in Surah Maryam, it mentions the story of how Mary conceived miraculously and gave birth to Jesus and says, "Peace be upon me the day I was born, the day I die, and the day I will be raised back to life!” (19:33). So, the Qur'an also considers the birth of Jesus to be something blessed, again not in the same way as the New Testament does. Now, I've seen some Muslims say that you can't celebrate Christmas or even wish Merry Christmas to your fellow non-Muslims because in doing so, you are automatically agreeing with the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, which is nonsense, because Christmas has nothing to do with the divinity of Jesus. It's simply about the birth of Jesus, which is something that's commemorated in our scripture as well. This also ties in to another argument that is often used, which says that if you wish non-Muslims on their festivals, you are automatically agreeing with their religious beliefs (Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan has a clip where he uses this argument. Plus, I think some medieval jurists and scholars have also made this argument, which you know more about than me.), which absolutely doesn't make any sense in the modern world that we live in. When non-Muslims wish us on our 2 Eids, that doesn't automatically make them Muslims. So, yeah, these people really need to think more critically and stop being so dogmatic about it.
@abdelbaasit1
@abdelbaasit1 Год назад
@@ThatRandomGuy-wd7rw The “pagan origins” argument is one of the weakest, since how many rituals in our faith are rooted in pre-Islamic paganism? 😭 The sacrifice for a newborn baby (ʿaqīqa) that we think is so Islamic came from Jāhilīya-it was done in pre-Islam by the polytheists (hence Abū Ḥanīfa didn’t even consider it recommended). So, as far as we know, it’s a pagan ritual that was incorporated into Islam & “sanitized”/cleansed of some of the weirder shit associated w/ it (like smearing blood on a child’s face, etc.). We got the ʿĀs̲h̲ūrāʾ fast from the Jews-and some reports (in Buk̲h̲ārī from ʿĀʾis̲h̲a) even say it was a pagan fasting-day. Secondly, where’s the explicit textual proof to say anything originating in x culture/tradition (that isn’t “Islamic” in origin, let’s say) is necessarily forbidden to engage in-if devoid of all explicitly idolatrous rituals? There isn’t any. In fact, what we have is evidence to the contrary-that pagan-originating rituals were incorporated by the prophet into his own faith. Even the running between the two hills of Ṣafā/Marwa (why does the Qurʾān say that “if you visit the House (Kaʿba)...there's _no blame_ *(junāḥ)* on you if you go between them”?-like, it’s no sin to do this 🤔): look up the tafsīr of that verse (Qurʾān 2:158, and you’ll see how the Medinan companions (Anṣār) were hesitant to engage in it because they viewed it as a pagan practice (originating in paganism; like the hills were originally 2 idols...the Anṣār said, إن السعي بين هذين الحجرين من أمر الجاهلية “Running between these two rocks was a pagan practice” & Anas b. Mālik was asked about Ṣafā/Marwa, and he said, كانتا من مَشاعر الجاهلية “Before Islam, they were pagan icons, so Muslims were hesitant to engage in this ritual [فلما كان الإسلام، أمسكوا عنهما]”). Acc. to another report, Anas was asked if the ṣaḥāba initially disliked going btwn Ṣafā/Marwa, and he said, yeah, نعم كنا نكره الطواف بَينهما لأنهما من شعائر الجاهلية “We did, because they were symbols of pre-Islamic paganism!” But the verse changed that perception; just because they’ve been doing it...doesn’t mean you can’t now engage in this same ritual but *for God* now. But still, some companions of the prophet like Anas, Ibn al-Zubayr, and (students of companions like) Mujāhid believed it was only optional (no one *has to* run between Ṣafā & Marwa; it's not an obligation). And Ibn ʿAbbās + Ibn Masʿūd _(as in his muṣḥaf)_ read the verse as, “There's no blame on anyone who chooses NOT to go between (Ṣafā and Marwa),” with an added لَا (lā), which changes it to "not."
@abdelbaasit1
@abdelbaasit1 Год назад
@@ThatRandomGuy-wd7rw the "prohibition of nationalism" lol I must've missed that verse 😂😂 where God spoke of "nationalism" as a concept. You're right tho, it's ironic that they forbid Saudis from celebrating the Saudi national day...but then say you have to "obey the ruler," -which is itself another idea taken too far. wow 🤩👏👏 I agree completely (😅your second paragraph...on what YQ said about such celebrations & Malm's point re the negative aspects of nationalism). 👌 Oh & great point about Christmas (even if it's not the correct date of when Jesus was born lol.. but still, the overall idea of "celebrating" a great person's birth--esp. considering how the Quran makes a special mention of his birth). The line of "in doing so, you are automatically agreeing with the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus," --😁 u beat me to it 🙌 The dumbest logic ever. Even Salafi scholar, Sh. al-Dido, exposed the stupidity of this (using the same argument you mentioned) when he said that when non-Muslims say "Happy Eid" to us, does that mean they believe our religion is true now (and their own is false)? Obviously not. So it's literally the same thing, he said. (Thanks for reminding me of this issue--I need to upload that clip w/ subtitles 😅) & also, I really appreciate your 💡 thoughtful comment. Wish more Muslims were more critical and open-minded like this 😔
@abdelbaasit1
@abdelbaasit1 Год назад
@@ThatRandomGuy-wd7rw in case I don't get around to adding the subs (eventually I will إن شاء الله)...but it might be a while, so until then, here's the playlist I saved for it: ru-vid.com/group/PLG9s9IAWzvBMEBUN7lz3kxmY8-dRUwQY9
@ThatRandomGuy-wd7rw
@ThatRandomGuy-wd7rw Год назад
Are there any scholars that have considered this hadith to be weak other than Shaykh Mustafa al-'Adawi?
@abdelbaasit1
@abdelbaasit1 Год назад
Firstly, I don't think any ḥadīth scholar worth their salt would try to say this ḥadīth (just looking at the ḥadīth itself) has been reliably transmitted. In fact, the scholars of ḥadīth, including Abū Dāwūd, the main transmitter of this report, generally agree that this narration is not authentic, since the narrator from ʿĀʾisha, Khālid b. Drake, never actually met her. But secondly, there's a difference been acknowledging (or being aware, rather) that a ḥadīth is unsound in its transmission--and--still citing it as a supporting text to bolster your legal position. It's like the other video I uploaded recently (on the widely quoted but unreliable ḥadīth: "God doesn't accept the prayer of an adult woman who prays without a headscarf _(khimār)");_ that's another ḥadīth that the majority cites, despite its inauthenticity. So I think every tradition expert is aware that this ḥadīth is chock-full of errors in its transmission. But regardless, this is the majority opinion...and this is a text that reinforces their view, so..🤷‍♀😅 Side note: I know some scholars may have no problem with that approach (rejecting/declaring a ḥadīth to be unreliable, which no one-as far as we know-previously rejected)...e.g. Ibn ʿUthaymīn's dismissal of the ḥadīth of the 'Antichrist's Spy' _(al-Jassāsa)_ in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (and when asked if he had any precedent from the _salaf_ (first Muslims) for this rejection, he said no, but that's not necessary). Rashīd Riḍā (d. 1935) also rejected it, but he's very recent. ...Anyways, I don't have anything against that approach (if a scholar's arguments are strong), because the possibility of error in transmission is always there (particularly with solitary reports, even if all the narrators have been deemed reliable), as Dhahabī and other ḥuffāẓ noted _(al-thiqa qad yaghlaṭ)._ But re Sh. Muṣṭafā, here, I don't think his style is to declare something weak that no expert in the past ever criticized. In fact, every criticism (of the transmission of this ḥadīth) that he points out in this video comes from earlier ḥadīth scholars who pointed out these exact flaws. So when he goes narrator by narrator, saying "this is the problem with him," he's referring to/regurgitating what classical experts in the field said. So every ḥadīth scholar who pointed out these same flaws in the past would've also considered this ḥadīth to be unreliable. OK, I saw al-Albānī (recent muḥaddith) say it's _ḥasan_ (passable) *due to other transmissions* (i.e. weak on its own) 😂 but Ibn Ḥajar, in his _Talkhīṣ,_ says Abū Dāwūd (d. 275/888) pointed out that it has a hidden flaw-that the transmission chain is disconnected (Khālid b. Durayk didn't hear from ʿĀʾisha). Noted ḥadīth expert Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī (d. 277/890) also pointed out this flaw & said that the correct version of this report is the one with a disconnected chain (رجّح أبو حاتم أنه مرسل), because Khālid didn't hear from ʿĀʾish. Salafi scholars Ibn Bāz and Ibn ʿUthaymīn said it's very weak, disconnected and unsound *both* in its transmission and content (ضعيف سندًا ومتنًا). Ḥadīth critic Ibn al-Qaṭṭān (d. 628/1231) said it's weak (in his _Naẓar)._ Ibn Ṭāhir (d. 507/1113) said (in his _Dhakhīra)_ that it has an unreliable narrator (Saʿīd b. Bashīr) in its chain. Shāfiʿī jurist/ḥadīth scholar Ibn al-Mulaqqin (d. 804/1401), in his _al-Badr al-Munīr,_ said the ḥadīth is defective (maʿlūl). ✩ In his dictionary of criticized ḥadīth transmitters, Ibn ʿAdī (d. 365/977) also points out problems in its transmission chain. ✩ Imam al-Shawkānī (d. 1255/1839), in his _Nayl,_ notes that many ḥadīth experts have criticized a narrator in its chain (تكلم فيه غير واحد); al-Mundhirī (d. 656/1258) said the same. ✩ Ibn al-Turkumānī (d. 750/1349), in his _al-Jawhar al-Naqī,_ criticized multiple narrators in its chain-of-transmission (e.g. Walīd was a _mudallis_ (someone who engaged in the deceptive act of attributing the ḥadīth that one heard from a weak teacher to a more reliable one from whom different material was heard), and of Saʿīd b. Bashīr, ḥadīth critic Yaḥyā said: *"he's nothing,"* Ibn Numayr added that he transmitted suspect ḥadīth _(munkar al-ḥadīth),_ Nasāʾī said he was weak _(ḍaʿīf),_ and Ibn Ḥibbān said he made terrible mistakes _(fāḥish al-khaṭaʾ)_ in transmission). ✩ Dhahabī (d. 748/1348), while admitting the report is weak, asserts that "it[s meaning] can be corroborated by quotes of certain companions." But the bottom line is: from *the prophet himself,* we have nothing reliable that clearly defines what body parts a Muslim woman must cover in public. I know I made this comment way too long already 😥 but I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that Dr. Saʿd al-Dīn al-Hilālī (b. 1954--world-renowned scholar of Islamic law, professor of comparative jurisprudence at al-Azhar, who also trained muftis in the _Dar al-Ifta_ program) has also done some interviews recently, talking about the inauthenticity of this hadith. I wanted to add subs to those videos too, but they're a bit long (compared to ʿAdawī's nice soundbites 😅). But also, speaking of contemporary scholars saying this hadith is unsound, hadith researcher Aḥmad Rajab (on his RU-vid Channel, under the name: الباحث أحمد رجب) uploaded an 18 min. video (titled: الدرس الثاني عشر: صحة حديث: إذا بلغت المرأة المحيض لم تصلح أن يُرى منها إلا هذا وهذا), where he highlights 5 problems _(ʿilal)_ in the transmission of this hadith and concludes that it cannot be reliably traced to the Prophet.
@ThatRandomGuy-wd7rw
@ThatRandomGuy-wd7rw Год назад
That's quite an interesting explanation of the story of Lot and his people, especially considering that Pride month is going on. Btw, if that's the case, how would you interpret the following verse: قَالَ هَـٰٓؤُلَآءِ بَنَاتِىٓ إِن كُنتُمْ فَـٰعِلِينَ He said, “O my people! Here are my daughters ˹so marry them˺ if you wish to do so.” (15:71) Here, Lot is offering his daughters to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, but why would he do that if his people were clearly homosexuals and their crime was simply that they lusted after other men without their consent? Btw, what's your actual stance on the prohibition/permissibility of homosexuality?
@abdelbaasit1
@abdelbaasit1 Год назад
He was doing anything he could to get them to leave his guests alone (also, this is one of the stronger proofs that they were, in fact, rapists; since the guests were from out of town (العالمين, as referenced in 26:165, and again in 15:70 when they tell him, أولم ننهك عن العالمين "Didn't we tell you not to take in any outsiders from out of town?" Because they knew he would do his best to hide any weary travelers from them, so they could rest and continue their travels unmolested---and, clearly, we can see here: they didn't care about whether or not the outsiders/travelers were also into having sex with them...It was just about blind lust and fulfilling their own desires. Quran 15:72 talks about how they were "intoxicated and blinded by their lusts.")... So (in 15:71 & 11:78) Lot was clearly desperate & was trying to get them to go away...and not break in and sodomize his guests. He even lamented in the next verse (11:80), after they said, _"You know very well what we want!"_ (11:79) In other words, it wasn't about consensual sex to them (or the guests' wishes); it was about what *they* wanted (إنك لتعلم ما نريد). They were gonna get what *they* wanted no matter what. That's literally the mentality of a rapist. So whatever Lot said was in a dire moment of fear and anxiety and stress... as he himself said shortly before the crazed mob rushed his house (جاءه قومه يُهرَعُون إليه), "This is a terrible/grievous day!" (11:77). And the same verse says, he was "distressed on their account" (سيء بهم) and was "powerless to do anything for them" (ضاق بهم ذرعا). So the proof that they were guilty of rape is more than ample. -But getting back to what I was saying earlier, in 11:80, Lot laments, "If only I had the strength (to fight all of you off) or could find a powerful fortress to take shelter in (and protect everyone from you)!" 😩 Lot 💯 recognized that they were a menace. So make no mistake about it: these were an intolerant (they threatened him + his family w/ expulsion just for voicing his concerns about their crazed behavior), psychopathic, violent gang of predatory bullies. They were a menace to all neighboring peoples--so it was a mercy/blessing from God when they were wiped out (in a manner, ironically or poetically, that mirrored their own sadistic practice--refer to Tabari & other classical tafsirs--of throwing stones at passers-by, to "mark" or "claim" them for themselves; and each one of them had his own rocks---so the divine punishment truly fit the crime and was an instance of poetic justice). But if, as many preachers, either deceptively or ignorantly, do today, you strip the story of all this essential context, which is in our own tafsir-literature, you end up with a confused narrative that makes no sense. People end up coming away with the idea that "just because they were gay" (or having consensual, monogamous gay relationships, peacefully, behind closed doors) they were annihilated by God in one of the worst ways...which couldn't be further from the truth.
@abdelbaasit1
@abdelbaasit1 Год назад
So this was the furthest thing from a reasonable, civil dialogue/situation... It *must* be viewed for what it truly was: a desperate attempt to bargain with a ravenous mob...but obviously, it wasn't going to work. He could've been stalling for time even. 🤷 God only knows. Btw, you are aware there's more than one interpretation given for the whole "daughters" (بناتي) part? I don't view it as... him literally offering up his own girls to the mob of men (animals, rather) banging on his door, wanting to have their way with his handsome guests. I go with the interpretation that he was condemning them for their behavior and telling them to settle down with some of the town's women. Basically, stop this madness! 😂😭 Also: it's not *absolutely* clear that they were 💯 gay (like, they did all this just because of their sexual orientation); we have reason to believe (from the tafsir-literature and other indications) that they were only doing this (sodomizing male outsiders) as a way of showing their power and dominance... It wasn't like, they were *only* into men (and wanted to live monogamously---otherwise, they wouldn't be sodomizing anyone they found on the roads, kidnapping random people, harassing Lot to hand over his guests, having sex out in the open (as the Quran mentions, تأتون في ناديكم المنكر), outraging public decency). These were wild, animalistic people, driven by a desire to dominate and have control over others. And since men were at the top of the social hierarchy, sodomizing other men from out of town gave them the biggest rush & greatest satisfaction. Hasan al-Basri (see Qurtubi, Ibn Atiyya, etc.) said, "They would not have sex with one another; they would only do this to outsiders (كانوا لا ينكحون إلا الغرباء and كانوا يفعلون ذلك بالغرباء، وَلم يكن يَفعله بعضهم ببعض)." Others said they did *also* do it with one another, in addition to travelers. But this isn't agreed on...so either view could be correct. But regardless, it's obvious that they were def. rapists.
@abdelbaasit1
@abdelbaasit1 Год назад
For your last question, tbh that's a much more iffy, convoluted can of worms...which I'd rather not open here 😬😅- *But,* what I am willing to say is this: the only time the Qurʾān itself speaks of this issue, it's in the context of this story about a particular nation/society...who _(as much as some people don't want to hear or accept it)_ *were* 1) into rape, 2) were like a gang of thugs, 3) didn't tolerate anyone speaking out against their criminal behavior or trying to protect/save anyone they picked to sodomize, 4) were not monogamous in any way and did not want to be in monogamous gay relationships behind closed doors, and 5) outraged public decency by having sex in public. So any attempts to compare those crazy people w/ gay people today (who share none of these qualities) is not only disingenuous and misrepresentative of the Qurʾānic text (and context of the story), but actually causes harm to people (creates doubts about the entirety of the faith for many Muslim youth) and perpetuates this extreme, unwarranted hate of people who mean no harm to anyone. So once the Qurʾānic narrative is put in its place and properly understood, then...we must ask: is there any other ("non-Qawm-Lūṭ-related") verse that speaks of this issue? No... Then what about in the hadith literature? Has anything been reliably transmitted from the prophet himself on the topic of homosexuality? No, every single reported hadith comes through a criticized transmission chain. ...Then people will say, the first four caliphs executed men for having gay sex. Ok, let's see the transmission-chains for those reports (and as Sh. Muṣṭafā al-ʿAdawī said in the other video I recently uploaded, there's nothing reliable going back to them). So we can't even prove that the first four caliphs of Islam executed men for being caught having same-sex intercourse. And even if it was true that they did, it wouldn't prove that the Prophet ordained this penalty; it could very well be a judgment they arrived at through their own ijtihād. As for the big question ("well, is it [same-sex intercourse] a sin then?"--BTW, keep in mind here, both the Qurʾān & Sunna are silent on female same-sex relationships...so anything on that will have to be inferred or assumed, as it's not *clearly* talked about anywhere), there's 2 ways to look at it: 1) either you *can* definitely infer that...from the apparent _(ẓāhir)_ or literal, but decontextualized, meaning of a few verses (in the Qawm-Lūṭ narrative)... but again, 2) it could also be argued that Lot's condemnations of his people's behavior must be understood in light of what they were actually doing, which, at least acc. to Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, was only sodomizing foreigners, not "their own." So every verse where he calls them out for this...is to be understood as referring to this evil practice. But even going with the view of other exegetes (that, in addition to sodomizing male outsiders, they also did it among themselves), what is obviously the more egregious transgression and violation (of the two)? It's clearly the one perpetrated against innocents, the unwilling participants and unwary travelers (al-g̲h̲urabāʾ). So if just *that* one point is understood, it'll become clear that the generic wording of a few verses cannot, with integrity, be taken out of this obvious context and used to declare consensual, *monogamous* same-sex relationships one of the worst sins imaginable (as this modern conceptualization had nothing to do w/ what Lot was calling out *or* what his townsmen were doing). But, that being said, if people do take it that way (and I know Muslims generally do), I do see how that conclusion can be arrived at; I just believe it's a misunderstanding of what this whole thing was about (additionally, when you look at the Biblical narrative of this episode, it becomes even more clear). When you add to that: the fact that we have no reliable records of the Prophet himself commenting on this story/these Qurʾānic passages... it just crystalizes the fact that this matter isn't as clear-cut as people make it out to be. lol 😹 I said I wasn't gonna answer, but 🤷 oh well. It's unfortunately a very touchy topic these days, and some people think a person's *faith* actually rests on (/is determined by) their understanding of this issue...which is so dumb. Besides the Prophet's silence on the matter, and God only speaking of it in the context of a story about a gang of rapists... there's so much ambiguity, 😒 if only people weren't so closeminded and obstinately devoted to the temple of institutionalized religion.
@ThatRandomGuy-wd7rw
@ThatRandomGuy-wd7rw Год назад
@@abdelbaasit1 Thank you for your 1000-word essay on this topic LOL. No, but seriously, thank you so much. I understand your perspective. Btw, can you give me the reference for the saying of al-Hasan al-Basri that you used in your 2nd reply?
@abdelbaasit1
@abdelbaasit1 Год назад
@@ThatRandomGuy-wd7rw haha😅😁 no worries (and ya 😥😭 sorry about the length.. I always end up rambling on..😒). Oh, and that Hasan-Basri gem of a quote can be found in Qurtubi’s and Baghawi’s _tafsir,_ Ibn ‘Atiyya’s _Muharrar_ (wish I could share screenshots in these RU-vid comments..because I saved all of this). Will get u the exact references (chapter/verse number, vol/pg) in the next comment 👍🏼😉
@ThatRandomGuy-wd7rw
@ThatRandomGuy-wd7rw Год назад
Yo, Mufti Abu Layth, the Maliki don of the 21st century!
@abdelbaasit1
@abdelbaasit1 Год назад
😅😁 haha - he has his moments 🤷🏻‍♂😎
@ThatRandomGuy-wd7rw
@ThatRandomGuy-wd7rw Год назад
Interesting. I personally used to, even when I was a hardline Salafi (around 4-5 years ago), make du'a after every Salah, even though I also used to follow the opinions of the Arab Gulf ma'shaykh (By that, I think you're referring to people like Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymeen, Bin Baz, Salih al-Fawzan and so on, right?).
@abdelbaasit1
@abdelbaasit1 Год назад
Yeah, I believe so (had to look up Sh. 'Uthaymīn's fatwa saying it's not prescribed to make du'a' after the prayer, neither individually or collectively & Ibn Baz's saying that one shouldn't raise their hands & make du'a' after the daily prayers---just checked Fawzan's 😅 he said _making du'a' for your needs after the prayer is encouraged,_ but then in another fatwa he said _"raising your hands (in du'a) after the prayer is an innovation and forbidden, as the Prophet did not do so")._ 👈🏼 I remember that understanding being popularized (back when I also ascribed myself to that group)...like it's an "innovation" and sin to raise your hands (they made a big deal out of 'raising hands' for some reason, even though it's from the generic etiquette of du'a') after the prayer & make du'a'; or, at the very least, it's "against the sunnah" 🤷‍♂
@eprohoda
@eprohoda Год назад
you created good .see you soon. Abdelbaasit1-:))
@ThatRandomGuy-wd7rw
@ThatRandomGuy-wd7rw Год назад
You have a lot of playlists in your channel that problematize many ahadiths, even in Bukhari and Muslim, that are widely accepted by Muslims. Do you consider Bukhari, Muslim and the other major hadith compilations to be reliable in general?
@abdelbaasit1
@abdelbaasit1 Год назад
I used to be in that more dogmatic mindset of...e.g. if it's in Bukhari/Muslim, that somehow means it's unquestionably true (as if God chose these books and told us everything in them is 💯). But the more you study, you realize that just isn't true. All these scholars, from Bukhari to Muslim to Abu Dawud to Ahmad, to the many who preceded them like Malik, Abd al-Razzaq, etc., were fallible (and engaging in their own ijtihad), as were the narrators in these transmission-chains. Hadith experts *did* absolutely disagree on the reliability of different narrators, even those found in hadith that Bukhari/Muslim chose to include in their books (side note: there are other hadith books called "Sahih" like Ibn Khuzayma's Sahih or Ibn Hibban's Sahih, but that doesn't mean all the hadith in them are 'sahih' according to all other hadith scholars--the same is true of Bukhari/Muslim). There's a lot that can be said on the subject of hadith, but for me (and to keep it simple), if there's historically been criticism of a narrator, that means the hadith's authenticity is not agreed-on and can be questioned. Unfortunately, a lot of this stuff isn't (I feel, purposely) translated into English, maybe to keep most Muslims (who can't access this material) in the dark...so they can continue believing the popular narrative of "all these hadith are/have been unanimously accepted," when that clearly wasn't the case. Even a hadith that has zero criticism and is 100% 'sahih' does not provide certainty that the Prophet said it, only a likelihood (according to the dominant view). But every tradition I've made a playlist for on my channel has indeed been criticized, even the ones found in Sahih al-Bukhari/Muslim (which, interestingly, even Bukhari considered hadith in Muslim's Sahih to be unreliable, and the same for Muslim re hadith in Bukhari's Sahih, as al-Baji mentioned in his al-Ta'dil wa l-Tajrih); it's just that people aren't given this info. 🤫 And I get it...you don't want the average Muslim to start doubting the status we've given these books...as semi-divine/divinely protected/[almost] on par with the Quran. If you say, 'yeah, this hadith has some question marks over its transmission chain,' it'll just open the door to more questioning. But the truth is, as Shafi'i reportedly said, that God will not allow any book to be error-free save His. And as Dhahabi and others noted, even a reliable narrator (thiqa) can make mistakes (qad yaghlaṭ). Last thing: the hadith science is a human one, so naturally, it's going to have its failings. The Prophet never said: "After I die, document all my sayings and compile them in books and derive religious rulings based on these statements." People assume that was his will (because it is what happened), but I'm more skeptical of that claim. On the Prophet's deathbed, Umar said, "The Book of God is enough for us." Umar threatened to physically harm Abu Hurayra (the most prolific hadith narrator) because of his abundant hadith narration and banned him from narrating traditions. Notable companions of the Prophet, e.g. Aisha, questioned hadith that other companions attributed to the Prophet (sometimes just using the Quran). Some even used their reasoning alone to cast doubt on a hadith (e.g. Ibn Abbas w/ a report Abu Hurayra narrated). Umar sometimes demanded more witnesses to corroborate a hadith narrated directly to him by a companion(!), otherwise he wouldn't accept it. Imagine someone doing that today 😅...the heat they would get. And here, there was no long chain of narrators. The companion himself is narrating a hadith to Umar, and Umar wasn't willing to accept it till he knew that other companions also heard the same! Sorry for making this comment so long/all over the place... It's just, the more you dig into hadith, you'll realize it's much more complicated than we've been led to believe.
@abdelbaasit1
@abdelbaasit1 Год назад
one last thing that I forgot to mention: sometimes scholars would question a hadith purely based on its text/content, because something seemed off about it to them (gharābat al-matn). e.g. Shaykh Ibn ʿUthaymīn, one of the leading Salafi scholars, famously doubted the 'jassāsa' hadith, which is in Sahih Muslim! He was straight up asked, 'Did any scholar from the early generations of Islam (salaf) question this hadith?' And he said, 'No, not that I'm aware of, but ما هو شرط that's not necessary/not a condition' (i.e. I don't have to have a precedent to question a hadith I find problematic). (Though, he did quote a nineteenth-century scholar, Shaykh Rashīd Riḍā, as having also rejected this hadith.) But he just said, النفس لا تطمئن إلى صحته that it didn't sit right with him (في نفسي منه شيء 'something feels off about it'), and he couldn't accept that it was true. This approach of matn (textual) criticism of hadith was also taken by other Muslim scholars of the past.
@ThatRandomGuy-wd7rw
@ThatRandomGuy-wd7rw Год назад
@@abdelbaasit1 Thanks for your comprehensive reply. Yeah, even Shaykh Al-Albani, one of the leading Salafi scholars of Hadith of the 20th century, problematized ahadiths in even the two Sahihayn (i.e. Bukhari and Muslim). ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-w46-M1XqsUQ.html Btw, regarding the stuff that you mentioned about the Sahabah, like 'Umar ibn Al-Khattab (RA) preventing Abu Hurairah (RA) from narrating hadith and so on, I've seen some people responding to that by saying that these are taken from Shi'a sources and cannot be found in the Sunni sources. What do you have to say about that?
@abdelbaasit1
@abdelbaasit1 Год назад
@@ThatRandomGuy-wd7rw I’ve never actually read (in-depth) or studied Shia sources before. So everything I quoted (e.g. the stuff about the sahaba & hadith narrations, and the ‘Umar-Abu-Hurayra thing) was from what I’ve read directly in recognized Sunni sources. Off the top of my head, I believe the ‘Umar/Abu-Hurayra report was mentioned by Dhahabi in his Siyar. This stuff is all in our own books, but it’s just another thing that’s not shared with the masses 😔
@ThatRandomGuy-wd7rw
@ThatRandomGuy-wd7rw Год назад
@@abdelbaasit1 Great response. Btw, I also had a few other questions to ask, if you don't mind. 1. What are your thoughts on the age of 'Ayesha (RA)? 2. What is your opinion on the permissibility of music and beard for men?
@madoo8911
@madoo8911 2 года назад
I enjoy every lecture of hamza, amazing the way that he teach the deen...
@pureislampurehuman4186
@pureislampurehuman4186 4 года назад
jis jis ko subscribe chaye wo mujhe subscribe kare me 100% back karonga
@rashidkj2991
@rashidkj2991 4 года назад
Mashaallah...amazing scholar
@abrahimbozcin7662
@abrahimbozcin7662 4 года назад
me to
@quantumo2099
@quantumo2099 4 года назад
Alhamdulilah! Beautiful
@hatimkhan913
@hatimkhan913 5 лет назад
gooos bumps
@yasminmont.6067
@yasminmont.6067 5 лет назад
Why did the video turn into audio only? I love watching the Sheikh talking and interacting with his facial expressions...Also, why did you say that we are not to pray for Kofar? Some of them are good people, why can't I pray for them? You contradicted yourself later in the same speech saying that some Kofar don't belong to hell.... Then you said all Muslims won't go to hell even if they belong there!!! This can't be true dear Sheikh... Sorry with all due respect, but I am gonna have to respectfully disagree with that one.
@yasminmont.6067
@yasminmont.6067 5 лет назад
Gosh, I needed that. Thank you so much Sheikh Hamza. Thank you so much
@ahmedjallohr1341
@ahmedjallohr1341 5 лет назад
I love this Shk he has a good heart. Allahu Akbar
@kinaankayasseh1231
@kinaankayasseh1231 5 лет назад
Wow what a video👏👏👏
@Fazeelat19945
@Fazeelat19945 5 лет назад
This man is so knowledgeable, truly amazing.
@yasminenazarine1629
@yasminenazarine1629 5 лет назад
How lucky we are we have many good educated moslims teachers shayhk like him like Ishmael mufty many many of them some from.USA like this brother some from England many western country many southeast isian country website computers change people life millions convert to Islam around the 🌎 from church & office job military many people 😀😃Islam in every houses European country full of moslims family we have four revert moslims Barakallah one of them my husband but my husbands never believing Jesus or church never nor his father No Jesus No thanksgiving No Christmas🎄🎅👻🎃fals god Jesus No 🐖 meat no birthday they're white settler people in USA but never believed Jesus they said ran pagan made Jesus his name is not Jesus as matter of fact they don't believed Jesus they said is man made fals god fals king he said 🐖 lover people made Jesus his father still no believer of Jesus he said something about Jesus is not pleasant but I'm not kaffer dick suckers pussy suckers Jesus name on their mouth Friday Saturday they sucking every burritos they killing their children's for life insurance they killing spouses for life insurance they cheating their husbands for best friends or black boyfriends white boyfriends cheating their spouses 🍸 poison in club sex with preachers sex with every married men in the church in the club no pride no dignity pussy free sex in the city that's my husband said he never ever been to church he's white redish hair his family lives in USA almost three centuries came from English Scottish when I used to talk about Jesus he ignored me didn't want to listen but he was very close frendshipps with jew Turkish & isreail people still he's not Jesus believer only Turah Quran his family says man made Jesus fals god he don't celebrate anything about cultures of USA white settler European but he believed only one god created of universe🌎 ☀⭐🌙 & mankind he says there's no god only ☝ Almighty the creater Jesus Roman pagan god they created from 🌞god to son god his father military retired mother teachers & dead he's well educated man he were the kind of white settler no 🐖 meat but farm grand father used to cow🐂🐃moos 🐐he says all holidays made by men in USA not by mighty god they never seen church in their life he used to read Jewish book from wish book store now he's reading moslims book he get from Amazon this is life of my husband family
@adamabdullah1369
@adamabdullah1369 5 лет назад
May Allah swt grant you Jannah for you contributions and love to educate people.Amim
@IsmailAbdulMusic
@IsmailAbdulMusic 6 лет назад
Good lecture!
@rizwanramzan5729
@rizwanramzan5729 6 лет назад
I love Hamza Yusef for the sake of Allah swt! I love how he explains deen!!.. Amazing shiekh!
@Aqsakhan-oz9eg
@Aqsakhan-oz9eg 6 лет назад
Wallahi I also look forward to the Day of Judgement
@jojo-cq6qv
@jojo-cq6qv 6 лет назад
May Allah reward sheikh Hamza Yusuf immensely in this life and the next Amen. I truly believe that we need more scholars like this and that we need to be listening to scholars like this more and more. Imagine the excellent state our community could reach if scholars like Hamza Yusuf were respected in the way they should be. People would convert to Islam just through seeing the peace and love and tolerance radiating from its followers. Let's all try to be more like this in our faith. I want to be more like this inshaAllah. To always have the best opinion of my Lord and to give a good impression of His followers and how they treat His creation.
@syedmuhammaddanielhassnain5990
Assalamu aleykum Warahmatullahi wabarakatuhu, there is a different approach to the issue of sects... And it's a different narration that says "All of them in Paradise except for one".
@majidbenyounes3433
@majidbenyounes3433 6 лет назад
Enjoying all contributions Please tell us more about your experiences in Africa.thank you
@MsPearl2001
@MsPearl2001 6 лет назад
This guy is truly amazing! God bless, Allahu Akbar!
@hanaidres68
@hanaidres68 6 лет назад
And I love you and Bin Bea for the sake of God, your family and friends so lucky to have you.. God bless you all.
@subudjj9368
@subudjj9368 6 лет назад
One of the doctora at nazi concentration camps who killed and experimented on so many children fled to Egypt and became a muslim
@jaysmith6013
@jaysmith6013 6 лет назад
Subud jj Allah knows best, but if he had a pure heart and accepted Islam.. then even he would be forgiven for those sins. Only Allah knows
@majidbenyounes3433
@majidbenyounes3433 6 лет назад
Jay Smith Who are you sir ?
@kamilkhaskia1283
@kamilkhaskia1283 7 лет назад
أي عام كان هذا الدعاء ؟
@i9md
@i9md 8 лет назад
هاد الدعاء سنة كم ؟ بدي اياه صوت
@abdelbaasit1
@abdelbaasit1 10 лет назад
Make sure to turn on captions :)
@MohammedGamal5
@MohammedGamal5 12 лет назад
7:24 :]
@nouraebrahim9961
@nouraebrahim9961 12 лет назад
جزاك الله خيرا كثيييرا
@islamsalahmd
@islamsalahmd 14 лет назад
جميل جدا