KR

State of the Union Salafis https://www.facebook.com/share/p/12DMw1GZGhX/

(Vote closing tonight)

Because it’s the Telegraph https://telegraph.co.uk/gift/c5b19f5a49408bce

شيء من الجهالات والتناقضات في كتاب نقض مفهوم شرك العبادة للفهيد : https://x.com/simbai07/status/1877773309045051639

شيء من الجهالات والتناقضات في كتاب نقض مفهوم شرك العبادة للفهيد : https://x.com/simbai07/status/1877773309045051639

MAW: "And this shirk I speak of today has covered the Earth from East to West except for 'the strangers' who were mentioned in the hadith, and how few they are." وهذا الشرك الذي أذكره اليوم، قد طبق مشارق الأرض ومغاربها، إلا الغرباء المذكورين في الحديث، وقليل ما هم. https://shamela.ws/book/7629/122#p2

Shaykh Hatim al-Awni has merged تكفير أهل الشهادتين and مفهوم شرك العبادة into a single book.

مقدمة الطبعة الجديدة لكتاب تكفير أهل الشهادتين

Free download option

Free download option https://imamghazali.co.uk/products/maghazi-ebook?fbclid=IwY2xjawHwn6JleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHaxf1jDeydsPvx_lzn9p0IZP6PLHrpeHD0mtE-2xn6cAlmURacLM6Pg4iw_aem_OWZXyxaRxdggQCxzVb-DCw&shpxid=1c8b2c17-3cd8-4e47-b2ef-f650ab83c494

Keep talking, numbskulls. (Clarification for all dunces: Numbskulls = anti-Ikhtilat extremists, not Arshad Madani or Taqi Usmani in the photo)

https://x.com/MrIAS3/status/1877741132102189294?s=19 This is an old statement by Mufti Taqi. It is nothing to do with the paper by MZ and ZC. And it certainly does not address the specific of Mufti Taqi’s own attendance in mixed gatherings or his own interview with a Russian Muslim sister or sitting next to her in a panel. I’m sure these guys don’t think Mufti Taqi is doing Tafsiq on himself. So I wonder what rabbit of a ta’wil they’ll pull out of their topis and pagris on this occasion. Similar to the case of Awwamah, I’m certain they are too cowardly to ask Mufti Taqi directly when he participates in mixed gatherings or willingly sits next to women outside Pakistan. But these Deobandi idiots running around with these snippets, scans, and clips are behaving like Salafis and particularly the Madakhilah. Mufti Taqi is NOT addressing the paper written by ZC and MZ, but the comments portray that he was asked specifically about the paper and that he was refuting or responding to it. This is classic low-tier contemporary Salafi behaviour that these Deobandi Madakhilah have imbibed. Oh Mufti Taqi refuted you…in the 1980s when you weren’t even born. Grow up.

Oh I didn’t know there were women. Oh I saw the maslahah so I allowed it just for this occasion. Oh nobody told me in advance there would be women. Oh I didn’t want to cause fitnah and walk out. Oh I’m blind in my right eye - and the women were sitting to my right. Oh how dare you criticise me. Oh I was just a guest. Oh I don’t do this in my own mosque and seminary. These have been the weak and feeble responses by the anti-Ikhtilat extremists thus far, when their own have been caught with women. Have I missed any of their bogus ta’wils? Maybe they can now be humble enough and just stick to the one answer that makes sense: Oh I am so out of my depth and should finally and permanently shut up.

The above is somewhat of a charitable take on this quite absurd situation. Frankly, is easier to shift mountains compared to getting into the anti-Ikhtilat extremists’ thick skulls that Awwamah’s ill-advised and hastily written ‘letter’ - probably written on the back of leading and loaded questions put to him - poses more problems to their extreme position than solutions. They are so bereft of any analytical capability that instead of critically assessing how that letter affects them and Awwamah himself, some of them proceeded to translate it and spread it across the internet and social media platforms. The fact that they have nothing to say about Awwamah’s mixed gathering settings speaks volumes. In fact, the first question these guys should have been asking themselves and Awwamah is what exactly are the parameters of prohibited Ikhtilat, given that Awwamah himself knowingly and willingly engaged in Ikhtilat on multiple occasions. But they didn’t do that. Note they have landed themselves in yet another quagmire of their own doing. Knowing the temperament of both Awwamah and the fickleness of the anti-Ikhtilat extremists, I severely doubt they’ll ever be able to extract out of him any coherent position on the parameters of prohibited Ikhtilat that doesn’t run roughshod over Awwamah’s own credibility. They can all moan, complain, and flail their arms and legs all they want about why these serious questions are being asked of their faulty position. The fact is there is no way they can square this circle - or any circle for that matter. To this day, many of those ‘signatories’ caught in mixed settings have been hiding in radio silence. I cannot even begin to imagine the cognitive dissonance under which the anti-Ikhtilat extremists are labouring. The anti-Ikhtilat extremists are hellbent on Tafsiq. There are parallels with Takfiris and Tabdi’is here. But they come unstuck when they prove themselves to be demonstrably inconsistent in applying said Tafsiq, especially when it affects their own. They just want to be selective and apply Tafsiq to the scholars and educational institutions with whom they have an axe to grind. Those Tafsiqi nutjobs can take their Tafsiq and stick it where the sun doesn’t shine. And I don’t mean the Faroe Islands.

Fw: Shaykh Awwama (hafizahullāh) and the Recent Fatwa The topic of ikhtilāṭ has been a hotly debated issue in certain circles over the past few months. Personally, I refrained from engaging in the discussion, as I did not see how I could contribute meaningfully. However, I recently came across a fatwa by Shaykh Muḥammad Awwama that has been circulated by some individuals to assert that Shaykh Awwama’s position is against ikhtilāṭ and that his name is being misused by others. Regardless of one’s stance on the debate, it is clear that for many of those sharing the fatwa, ikhtilāṭ is defined as any gathering where men and women are present without a physical barrier. Their assumption is that this fatwa unequivocally condemns such gatherings. However, rather than strengthening their argument, this creates more issues than it resolves. I was personally present at a gathering where Shaykh Awwama attended, and men and women were present without a barrier. Other senior scholars, including Shaykh Rātib Nabulsī (hafizahullāh) were also in attendance. The scholars had a clear view of the audience, and I have included a picture from that event as evidence to substantiate my claim. I had seen UK students of knowledge also present, this can be easily confirmed. While additional pictures and videos exist showing similar gatherings and other senior scholars repeatedly in attendance, I am only referencing one I witnessed firsthand. Given these facts, those circulating the fatwa are left with two possible interpretations: 1. Shaykh Awwama was aware of the setup but is being deceptive by claiming he did not know about the presence of women. This would imply deliberate dishonesty and engaging in sin (according to the understanding of some), which would amount to fisq (open sinfulness)—a suggestion from which we seek Allah’s refuge. 2. Shaykh Awwama does not consider the absence of a barrier to constitute ikhtilāṭ. Instead, he was informed that some individuals were using some pictures and videos to justify ikhtilāṭ in an impermissible context, which he condemns. Those seeking clarification from Shaykh Awwama on this issue should present the available pictures, videos, and testimonies and ask whether such gatherings, as depicted, are considered ḥarām. If they are deemed ḥarām, then Shaykh Awwama and the host of other scholars who attend such gatherings, including his students, should be requested to repent. This approach would provide clarity on his stance and resolve the ambiguities being circulated under the guise of the fatwa.

And the evidence keeps on piling up