Expsoing another Mushrik

[AhmedBahgat]

Salam all

I wanted to try something new, I went to youtube and typed the word "Sunnah", it came back with many videos by those Mushrikoon who lie to us boldly trying hard to justify their shirk, I found an English one so you guys see for yourself their crap, but don't worry if you can't see it because later on inshalllah I will reply to many of the lies he spewed, he was trying to brainwash many Indians btw, he is an Arab from UAE, be aware that he will do the intro in Arabic then he will talk English, he is not very bad in English btw:


Link

[AhmedBahgat]

Salam all

I wanted to try something new, I went to youtube and typed the word "Sunnah", it came back with many videos by those Mushrikoon who lie to us boldly trying hard to justify their shirk, I found an English one so you guys see for yourself their crap, but don't worry if you can't see it because later on inshalllah I will reply to many of the lies he spewed, he was trying to brainwash many Indians btw, he is an Arab from UAE, be aware that he will do the intro in Arabic then he will talk English, he is not very bad in English btw:


Link

[Rigel]

Ali baba and 40 thives!

[AhmedBahgat]

[AhmedBahgat]

[AhmedBahgat]

Salam all

In this comment I will try inshalllah to reply to the pure crap spewed by such hadith worshiper Sheikh Salem Al Amry

If you have noticed that he was labelled by the chairman as Sheikh, now let me tell you that most of the Muslim Arabs and possibly non Arabs use such word Sheikh in a very deceptive way, it is sort of being used by religious scholars to give them some sort of imaginary credit that this person is Alim (knowledgeable), despite the word actually means someone who is ageing, i.e. very old in age, this in no way implies that such old person is very knowledgeable, in fact we may have Sheikh who is an ignorant, for example the following was an alleged Quran verse that suppose to be left out because as we are told in the hearsay hadith the prophet declined to include it in the Quran when they collected it, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look:

The following alleged verse, suppose to be included in sura Al Noor, sura # 24:

الشيخ والشيخة إذا زنيا فارجموهما نكالاً من الله والله عزيز حكيم

[An alleged Quran verse that did not make it to the current Quran when they collected it, as alleged]

It simply reads as follow:

Al Sheikh Wa Al Sheikhah Iza Zania Fairjimuhuma Nikalan Min Allah Wa Allah Aziz Hakim

Here is a quick translation, please note that I will keep the two words Al Sheikh & Al Sheikhah untranslated so I can elaborate to what both words should mean :

Al Sheikh and Al Sheikhah, when they commit adultery, then stone them both, a punishment from Allah, and Allah is all-Mighty, all-Wise

-> This is where Al Mushrikoon tell us that it is a law from Allah to stone the adulterers, but they also told us that when they collected the Quran during the time of the prophet, they asked him if they include such verse, he (the prophet) refused to include the verse (as alleged in their hadith), we were told that his refusal was after a bit of arguments that were said by at least two sahabas, they asked in wonder, how come a married young and inexperienced man who committed adultery be stoned to death while an old man who is not married will only be lashed 100 lashes in public? Obviously their wonder was based on the conjecture that verse 24:2 only applies to the unmarried adulterers, on the other hand the alleged verse above that suppose to be in the same sura # 24 but never made it as alleged, is not really telling us to stone the adulterers if they are married, rather it tells us to stone Al Sheikh and Al Sheikhah if they commit adultery, and in no way the two words mean Married man and married woman, rather the words means, An old man and an old woman

Can you now see all that confusion?, well let me put it in points so you can follow it through:

1) The word Sheikh is used by many Arabs and Muslims to refer to religious scholars to imply that they are well founded in the religion

2) The word in no way means well founded because according to the alleged verses above, the words are used to refer to those who commit Zina and consequently they must be stoned as a punishment from Allah, i.e. they are not adhering to the religion, they are simply a Zani and Zania but at old age

3) Despite that the alleged verse above never made it to the Quran based on an alleged story that the prophet declined to include it when they collected the Quran during his time, Al Mushrikoon still want us to implement it someway or another through their hadith

4) In their quest to achieve so, they had to do the following deceptive actions:

A- Manipulate the meaning of the Arabic words Zani and Zania (to mean an unmarried person who commits adultery)

B- Manipulate the meaning of the Arabic words Sheikh and Sheikha (to mean married person)

Now, if we look at the Quran use of the word Sheikh, we should see clearly that it means one thing only, someone who is in old age, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look at the 3 times the Quran used the word:

She said: O wonder! shall I bear a son when I am an extremely old woman and this my husband an extremely old man? Most surely this is a wonderful thing.
[The Quran ; 11:72]

قَالَتْ يَا وَيْلَتَى أَأَلِدُ وَأَنَاْ عَجُوزٌ وَهَذَا بَعْلِي شَيْخًا إِنَّ هَذَا لَشَيْءٌ عَجِيبٌ (72)

-> See, in the story of prophet Ibrahim when the angels were sent to give Ibrahim and his wife the good news of having a child, his wife replied to them as follow: وَهَذَا بَعْلِي شَيْخًا , Wa Haza Baali Sheikha, i.e. and this my husband an extremely old man as translated by Shakir

Here is another example from the story of prophet Yusuf where his father prophet Jacob was also described as Sheikh:

They said: O chief! he has a father, a very old man, therefore retain one of us in his stead; surely we see you to be of the doers of good.
[The Quran ; 12:78]

قَالُواْ يَا أَيُّهَا الْعَزِيزُ إِنَّ لَهُ أَبًا شَيْخًا كَبِيرًا فَخُذْ أَحَدَنَا مَكَانَهُ إِنَّا نَرَاكَ مِنَ الْمُحْسِنِينَ (78)

-> See: إِنَّ لَهُ أَبًا شَيْخًا كَبِيرًا , Inna Lahu Aba Sheikha Kabira i.e. he has a father, a very old man

The final example is from the story of prophet Musa, where his future father in law was also called Sheikh:

And when he came to the water of Madyan, he found on it a group of men watering, and he found besides them two women keeping back (their flocks). He said: What is the matter with you? They said: We cannot water until the shepherds take away (their sheep) from the water, and our father is a very old man.
[The Quran ; 28:23]

وَلَمَّا وَرَدَ مَاء مَدْيَنَ وَجَدَ عَلَيْهِ أُمَّةً مِّنَ النَّاسِ يَسْقُونَ وَوَجَدَ مِن دُونِهِمُ امْرَأتَيْنِ تَذُودَانِ قَالَ مَا خَطْبُكُمَا قَالَتَا لَا نَسْقِي حَتَّى يُصْدِرَ الرِّعَاء وَأَبُونَا شَيْخٌ كَبِيرٌ (23)

-> See: وَأَبُونَا شَيْخٌ كَبِيرٌ , Wa Abouna Sheikh Kabir i.e. and our father is a very old man.

Clearly from the above that the word Sheikh only means a very old man, also it can not be used to describe a religious scholar because as we have seen in the alleged verse which never made it to the Quran that a Zani and a Zania were referred to as a Sheikh and a Sheikhah

If you also visit some Arab countries you should see many young people that are called Sheikh, in clear contradiction to what the word should mean, that is why I stated that they use it by deception, to imply that such person is somehow old enough (metpahorcially) to be well guided and be a faqih in the religion, for the rest though, they should follow what those sheikhs say regardless.

We are told that sheikh Salem Al Amry (the speaker) is a senior student to another sheikh who is named Muhammad Nasiruddin Al-Albani, another non Arab who indulged himself all his life studying, promoting and pondering upon the hearsay hadith, let me tell you briefly about Al-Albani as posted in wiki:

Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani, Arabic, محمد ناصر الدين الألباني (also al-Albani, Albani and other variants) (1914 - 1999) was an important and influential Islamic scholar of the 20th Century; he specialised in the fields of hadith and fiqh and was a prodigious writer and speaker.

I�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??m really puzzled man, those people claim that Bukhari and Muslim did the ultimate job of filtering all the crap out of the hearsay hadith then they put the rest in two Sahih books that suppose to be the second most authenticate book after the Quran as they claim, that was done 1200 years ago, yet we have mister Al-Albani coming 1200 years later doing the exact same, as if what Bukhari and Muslim did was not enough, as if in those 1200 years people invented more hadith about the prophet and the Ummah needs mister Al-Albani to step in and force the suppose to be Allah reservation to the hearsay hadith, the game of hadith is still going stronger and stronger, it seems Satan succeeded to secure such vulnerability to be the easiest way to flaw all the Muslims, look how they propagate their non sense for 1200 years, yet they contradict each other big times, what bigger contradiction than someone to come 1200 after Bukhari and Muslim to filter the hadith that suppose to be already filtered by Bukhari and Muslim as they claim, unless they bloody admit that what Bukhari and Muslim included in their sahihs are not really all sahih, therefore further work of filtering is required by someone like Al-Albani, we should see what mister Al Amry will say later regarding his teacher mister Al-Albani.

Mister Al Amry then went on introducing his Arabic intro which ironically is an exact copy of what all sheikhs say at the start of any speech, it is like they are programmed to say so without even showing sincerity while saying so, it is mostly Dua to Mohammed, please see a couple more videos and I can assure you that they all say the exact same, that is why he said it in Arabic despite every word of what he said is translatable to English, yet he chose to act like a parrot and just say it even if the audience are not Arab speaking which was the case, as if by saying so he is now confirmed to be a sheikh, what total crap of deception that is man

Mister Al Amry said two things in his typical Arabic introduction that raised my eye brows, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look:

-> Firstly he said: Asdaq Al hadith Kitab Allah, i.e. The most truthful saying is the book of Allah (i.e. Al Quran), I say, by him admitting so, then he indirectly admitted that the hadith (sayings) of Bukhari and Muslim can not be on the same level of truthfulness, that is because he used the word Asdaq i.e. Most truthful, in effect he contradicted all those who claim that Bukhari book has no lie in it, I�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??m not saying that Bukhari or Muslim lied, what I�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??m saying that they included lies in their suppose to be Sahih (lies free) books, i.e. everything in it is truthful which is a huge contradiction to those who admit that the most truthful book is the Book of Allah, as mister Al Amry just did in his video.

-> Secondly, he said straight after he said the above: Khair Al Haddi Haddi Mohammed, i.e. The best of guidance is the guidance of Mohammed, very strange indeed, as far as I know that there is only one guidance, it is the guidance of Allah, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look at what Allah commanded Mohammed to tell the people:

And do not believe but to him who followed your religion. Say: Indeed the guidance is the guidance of Allah, that someone may be given the like of what you were given; or they would dispute with you before your Lord. Say: The grace is in the hand of Allah, He gives it to whom He wishes; and Allah is all-Vast, all-Knowing.
[The Quran ; 3:73]

وَلاَ تُؤْمِنُواْ إِلاَّ لِمَن تَبِعَ دِينَكُمْ قُلْ إِنَّ الْهُدَى هُدَى اللّهِ أَن يُؤْتَى أَحَدٌ مِّثْلَ مَا أُوتِيتُمْ أَوْ يُحَآجُّوكُمْ عِندَ رَبِّكُمْ قُلْ إِنَّ الْفَضْلَ بِيَدِ اللّهِ يُؤْتِيهِ مَن يَشَاء وَاللّهُ وَاسِعٌ عَلِيمٌ (73)

-> See what Mohammed was ordered to say: قُلْ إِنَّ الْهُدَى هُدَى اللّهِ , Qul Inna Al Huda Huda Allah, i.e. Say: Indeed the guidance is the guidance of Allah, which simply means that Khair Al Huda is Huda Allah, i.e. the best guidance is the guidance of Allah, Mohammed was never ordered to say, that his guidance is the best of guidance, but mister Amry is telling us a sort of a fact that the guidance of Mohammed is the best of guidance, obviously he was trying to justify his hadith worshipping someway or another, in the process he proved his severe lack of many Quran verses like 3:73 above which told us that the guidance is only the guidance of Allah, Mohammed was simply carrying such guidance or delivering such guidance while on the other hand he has absolutely no power to make any one guided with it,this is because the guidance is not his but it is the guidance of Allah, this was said once more in another verse, letÃ??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??s have a look:

Say: Shall we call upon those other than Allah, which does not benefit us nor harm us, and shall we be returned back on our heels after Allah has guided us? (it is) Like him whom the Shaitans have enticed in the land, he has companions who call him to the guidance, (saying): Come to us. Say: Indeed the guidance of Allah is the guidance, and we are commanded to submit to the Lord of the worlds.
[The Quran ; 6:71]

قُلْ أَنَدْعُو مِن دُونِ اللّهِ مَا لاَ يَنفَعُنَا وَلاَ يَضُرُّنَا وَنُرَدُّ عَلَى أَعْقَابِنَا بَعْدَ إِذْ هَدَانَا اللّهُ كَالَّذِي اسْتَهْوَتْهُ الشَّيَاطِينُ فِي الأَرْضِ حَيْرَانَ لَهُ أَصْحَابٌ يَدْعُونَهُ إِلَى الْهُدَى ائْتِنَا قُلْ إِنَّ هُدَى اللّهِ هُوَ الْهُدَىَ وَأُمِرْنَا لِنُسْلِمَ لِرَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ (71)

-> See what Mohammed was ordered to say: قُلْ إِنَّ هُدَى اللّهِ هُوَ الْهُدَىَ ِ , Qul Inna Huda Allah Hua Al Huda, i.e. Say: Indeed the guidance of Allah is the guidance , which simply means that there is no other guidance but the guidance of Allah and it has to be the best guidance because there is no other guidance next to it, Mohammed on the other hand was ordered to say that he does not know what Allah will do with him nor with them, he was only a warner, i.e. delivering the guidance of Allah to them, letÃ??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??s have a look at the following verse:

Say: I am not the first of the messengers, and I do not know what will be done with me or with you: I do not follow anything but that which is revealed to me, and I am nothing but a plain warner.
[The Quran ; 46:9]

قُلْ مَا كُنتُ بِدْعًا مِّنْ الرُّسُلِ وَمَا أَدْرِي مَا يُفْعَلُ بِي وَلَا بِكُمْ إِنْ أَتَّبِعُ إِلَّا مَا يُوحَى إِلَيَّ وَمَا أَنَا إِلَّا نَذِيرٌ مُّبِينٌ (9)

-> See: Say: I am not the first of the messengers, and I do not know what will be done with me or with you:, see, he was not the first of the messengers, he was exactly like all other messengers, all carried the guidance of Allah which logically speaking should be the same that Ibrahim or Musa or Jesus, or Noah etc carried, it is not like Allah will send a better guidance with Mohammed while sending less guidance to the other prophets, see how Mohammed confirmed that he is only carrying the guidance while at the same time following it: I do not follow anything but that which is revealed to me, and I am nothing but a plain warner., see, nothing but a plain warner means that he was carrying the guidance that Allah sent to them through him, while at the same time he also said, I do not follow anything but that which is revealed to me i.e. he too had to follow the guidance that he carried to the others.

How come mister Al Amry states that Mohammed guidance is the best guidance while Mohammed himself could not guide anyone even the ones he loved and cared for, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s see:

Surely you cannot guide whom you love, but Allah guides whom He pleases, and He best knows the guided ones.
[The Quran ; 28:56]

إِنَّكَ لَا تَهْدِي مَنْ أَحْبَبْتَ وَلَكِنَّ اللَّهَ يَهْدِي مَن يَشَاء وَهُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِالْمُهْتَدِينَ (56)

-> See: Surely you cannot guide whom you love, this is because Mohammed was only carrying such guidance of Allah while at the end of the day it is Allah who guides whom He wills because He knows well who wants to be guided: but Allah guides whom He pleases, and He best knows the guided ones.

Other clear verses that explain to us the guidance of Allah that Mohammed or any other prophet carried to their people:

2: This is the Book, no doubt about it, a guidance to those who fear (Allah).
[The Quran ; 2:2]

ذَلِكَ الْكِتَابُ لاَ رَيْبَ فِيهِ هُدًى لِّلْمُتَّقِينَ (2)

-> See how the Quran is described as the Huda (the guidance): This is the Book, no doubt about it, a guidance to those who fear (Allah).

Allah gave us an example to whom we should follow of the following two parties:

1) A Party that guides to the truth
2) A Party that guides to the truth but only after it is guided

Despite the above two options lead to one thing which is the truth, yet it is presented to us by Allah through a saying of Mohammed as follow:

Say: Is there any of your associates who guides to the truth? Say: Allah guides to the truth. Is He then Who guides to the truth more worthy to be followed, or he who himself does not guide unless he is guided? So what is that with you, how do you judge?
[The Quran ; 10:35]

قُلْ هَلْ مِن شُرَكَآئِكُم مَّن يَهْدِي إِلَى الْحَقِّ قُلِ اللّهُ يَهْدِي لِلْحَقِّ أَفَمَن يَهْدِي إِلَى الْحَقِّ أَحَقُّ أَن يُتَّبَعَ أَمَّن لاَّ يَهِدِّيَ إِلاَّ أَن يُهْدَى فَمَا لَكُمْ كَيْفَ تَحْكُمُونَ (35)

-> See: Is He then Who guides to the truth more worthy to be followed, or he who himself does not guide unless he is guided?, see how the two options are presented in a way that the answer is only one of the two, despite the two ultimately lead to the same thing:

1) Who guides to the truth more worthy to be followed
2) or he who himself does not guide unless he is guided?

-> Well, we know well the Mohammed was 100% guided by Allah, yet if we have a choice between Mohammed and Allah then Allah alone is the one who guides because Mohammed needed to be guided himself before he may guide others, see how Allah gave us the answer in the start of the verse before the question being asked later in the verse: Say: Is there any of your associates who guides to the truth? Say: Allah guides to the truth.

-> Now I have to ask mister Al Amry, how come you say: the best guidance is the guidance of Mohammed while Mohammed himself can not guide others before he is guided by Allah himself?, if mister Al Amry had said: the best guidance is the guidance of Allah, then he would have been 100% accurate and I would have cheered for him, but his judgment failed him so I have to ask him exactly as 10:35 asked the people at the end of the verse: So what is that with you, how do you judge?

Let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s move on, hey, did you notice how he says: Salla Allah Alaihi Wasalam, LOL, HE HARDLY SAY THE WORD ALLAH, he says it like this: Salla al Alaihi Wasalam, it is like he says it very quick and in the process he sort of shortens the word Allah, please listen to it many times (he said it hundred of times), sort of they are programmed and they really don�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t mean what they say which is seeking the salat and blessing of Allah (glory be to Him) upon Mohammed

Mister Al Amry moved on to the definition of the word Sunnah, he clearly admitted that it means under the language Way, however he also told us that the Muslim scholars defined the word Sunnah as three things:

1) All the sayings of Mohammed
2) All the actions of Mohammed
3) And all the approvals of Mohammed

Sort of the so called Muslims scholars manipulated the linguistic meaning of Sunnah to suit their shirk

Mister Al Amry elaborated that it means: what the prophet said is sunnah and all the things that he did and practiced are also sunnah

In effect for a polygamous Muslim the following must also be sunnah:

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

It simply alleges that the prophet used to sleep with all his wives in an hour (a period of time) of the day or an hour of the night without having a bath in between, one of those who heard the above crap wondered to how the prophet managed to do that, so he was answered that the prophet was given the sexual power of 30 men, the hadith ended by stating that it was not known if he did it with 9 or 11 wives one after the other

Now, for a polygamous Muslim who is married to 4, it is now a sunnah to sleep with them one after the other without having a bath in between, this does not even make sense to a sexual freak.

How about being fair between the wives? Is it fair for the second to sleep with the first then sleep with the second straightaway without having a bath in between?

What lessons you reckon we should learn from such crap that only defames the great prophet? And even if it was true, why we need to know such things that is so private about his sexual life with his wiives?

Mister Al Amry continued in his doses of crap elaborating more to what sunnah means, as if after 1200 years of man made invented sunnah we still need to know what sunnah is, a funny thing that he said in his elaboration of the third type of sunnah (whatever the prophet approved) is as follow:

He said the things he approved of, i.e. the things he sanctioned, i.e. things happened in front of him and he kept quite.

Holy non sense man, so if he kept quite it means that it was a clear cut approval, so I wonder, if it is allowed, why he did not say so?, he must have said something, don�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t you reckon?, well the example given by Mister Al Amry is flawed, in fact the prophet clearly did not stay quite, he brought in the story about the roasted lizard that was introduced to the prophet to eat, so when the prophet was about to eat it, someone told him that it is a lizard, so the prophet quickly abstained from eating it, Khalid Ibn Al Walid asked him, is it haram? The prophet REPLIED that it is not haram rather he just does not like eating lizards, so Khalid Ibn Al Walid ate it in front of him and the prophet said nothing to him.

See, the prophet was not quite, he clearly answered the question that it is not haram to eat lizards, but for mister Al Amry, because the prophet stayed quite while Khalid Ibn Al Walid ate it, it meant that he approved it by staying silent, man, what load of crap and non sense is that? The prophet clearly ALLOWED IT A MINUTE EARLIER BY SAYING IT IS NOT HARAM, see how mister Al Amry is confused even in understanding his own hadith.

Mister Al Amry explanation to how it has to be approved by silence is the fact that a prophet will not be quite if he sees something wrong, so if something happened in front of him and he kept quite, then he approved it, but again, in the example given by mister Al Amry, the prophet clearly did not stay quite rather answered the question that is allowed, it seems to me that mister Al Amry was trying to find any hadith to qualify his man made invented third type of sunnah, opps I mean 4 types of sunnah, see how he again contradicted himself, he started to tell us that there are 4 types of sunnah despite he just told us that they are 3 types of sunnah

Here is the 4 new Sunnah types as he contradicted himself:

1) Sunnah Qawliah, like hadith Bukhari and Muslim in which we read many hadith ending with: the prophet said.....

2) Sunnah Feliah, the things he did, like prayer, for example the prophet said: Sallu kama Raitumuni Asulli, i.e. pray as you have seen me praying, another example is the alleged saying that the prophet said: Khuzu Manaskikakum Mini, i.e. take your rituals from me

3) Sunnah by Approval, to which he explaine earlier when he said that if the prophet saw anything and kept quite then it means he approved it

4) Sunnah Tarkiah, things that he didn�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t do, he continued by saying: despite the need was there, yet the prophet did not do it, he gave us an example of the Azan for salat (The prayer call) saying that some prayers have no Azan like Al-Eid prayer, in effect this type of Sunnah means things that were left by the prophet so we must do the same thing and leave it too

Clearly he contradicted himself, firstly he tells us that there are 3 types of Sunnah according to the scholars, then he tells us that there are 4 types of Sunnah, however this is nothing compared to what he said next, he said that the Sunnah is Wahi, i.e. the Sunnah is revelation, then he is telling the audience that they have to bear this in mind, sort of he is brainwashing their minds, again he used the same lame old excuse of verse 53:3, but we know well the Quran told us that the prophet talked and acted at least twice according to his own desires, and faulted and was corrected by Allah and was exposed to all humanity, here it is again:



See above, at least two times the prophet acted according to his own desires, I actually discovered another one, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look:

67: It is not for a prophet to have prisoners of war unless he has triumphed in the land; you desire the show of this world, while Allah desires (for you) the hereafter; and Allah is all-Mighty, all-Wise.

68: Were it not for a decree from Allah that preceded, surely there would have touched you for what you had taken, a great torture.
[Al Quran ; 8:67-68]

مَا كَانَ لِنَبِيٍّ أَن يَكُونَ لَهُ أَسْرَى حَتَّى يُثْخِنَ فِي الأَرْضِ تُرِيدُونَ عَرَضَ الدُّنْيَا وَاللّهُ يُرِيدُ الآخِرَةَ وَاللّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ (67)
لَّوْلاَ كِتَابٌ مِّنَ اللّهِ سَبَقَ لَمَسَّكُمْ فِيمَا أَخَذْتُمْ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ (68)

-> According to the Tafsir, the verses above were revealed on the day of the battle of Badr, at the end of the battle the Muslims had captured plenty of POWs, the prophet took the opinions of other Sahaba to suggest what they should do with them, Abu Bakr suggested that they are still brethrens and it will be best to take ransom of them and set them free, possibly they may embrace Islam after that. The prophet then asked Omar Ibn Al Khatab to suggest what they should do with the POWs, Omar firmly suggested killing them because they were the perpetrators who wanted to kill Mohammed and all his followers by waging war on them. The prophet didn�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t like what Omar said so he went with what Abu Bakr suggested, i.e. they took ransom from the POWs and set them free. And this is when they violated the limits of Allah, see how Allah informed them that what they did was wrong: It is not for a prophet to have prisoners of war unless he has triumphed in the land; you desire the show of this world, while Allah desires (for you) the hereafter;

-> However, Allah had decreed (prior to this incident) allowing the take of ransoms in lieu of the POWs during wars, see how Allah informed them in the next verse: Were it not for a decree from Allah that preceded, surely there would have touched you for what you had taken, a great torture., see how clear it is, i.e. the prophet faulted and did not know that Allah had already allowed this to happen (obviously the prophet did not know exactly what to do with the POWs, that is why he was taking the opinions of Abu Bakr and Omar), therefore at this time what the prophet did by taking ransom was never under the revelation from Allah, in fact, what is revealed from Allah clearly proves that if it was not for a decree from Allah that preceded their fault, they would have been inflicted with great torture, the prophet actually commented on this verse as we read in the Tafsir, it is alleged that he said, if the torture mentioned in 8:68 had been executed, they would have been all punished including the prophet EXCEPT Omar, because Omar didn�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t suggest to take money and set them free, because the money would have been used to make the Muslims stronger in the land (that is how Abu Bakr reasoned his suggestion of taking ransom), but again, desiring money means, desiring this life, see how Allah exposed them: you desire the show of this world, while Allah desires (for you) the hereafter;

Here you have it, at least 3 times in the Quran that the prophet acted according to his desires and faulted and was corrected and was exposed, no way was he under Wahi (revelation) during such time. Yet many confused Muslims like mister Al Amry are still adamant that whatever the prophet did and said must have been an act of Wahi from Allah.

To be continued.....

[AhmedBahgat]

Salam all

In this comment I will try inshalllah to reply to the pure crap spewed by such hadith worshiper Sheikh Salem Al Amry

If you have noticed that he was labelled by the chairman as Sheikh, now let me tell you that most of the Muslim Arabs and possibly non Arabs use such word Sheikh in a very deceptive way, it is sort of being used by religious scholars to give them some sort of imaginary credit that this person is Alim (knowledgeable), despite the word actually means someone who is ageing, i.e. very old in age, this in no way implies that such old person is very knowledgeable, in fact we may have Sheikh who is an ignorant, for example the following was an alleged Quran verse that suppose to be left out because as we are told in the hearsay hadith the prophet declined to include it in the Quran when they collected it, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look:

The following alleged verse, suppose to be included in sura Al Noor, sura # 24:

الشيخ والشيخة إذا زنيا فارجموهما نكالاً من الله والله عزيز حكيم

[An alleged Quran verse that did not make it to the current Quran when they collected it, as alleged]

It simply reads as follow:

Al Sheikh Wa Al Sheikhah Iza Zania Fairjimuhuma Nikalan Min Allah Wa Allah Aziz Hakim

Here is a quick translation, please note that I will keep the two words Al Sheikh & Al Sheikhah untranslated so I can elaborate to what both words should mean :

Al Sheikh and Al Sheikhah, when they commit adultery, then stone them both, a punishment from Allah, and Allah is all-Mighty, all-Wise

-> This is where Al Mushrikoon tell us that it is a law from Allah to stone the adulterers, but they also told us that when they collected the Quran during the time of the prophet, they asked him if they include such verse, he (the prophet) refused to include the verse (as alleged in their hadith), we were told that his refusal was after a bit of arguments that were said by at least two sahabas, they asked in wonder, how come a married young and inexperienced man who committed adultery be stoned to death while an old man who is not married will only be lashed 100 lashes in public? Obviously their wonder was based on the conjecture that verse 24:2 only applies to the unmarried adulterers, on the other hand the alleged verse above that suppose to be in the same sura # 24 but never made it as alleged, is not really telling us to stone the adulterers if they are married, rather it tells us to stone Al Sheikh and Al Sheikhah if they commit adultery, and in no way the two words mean Married man and married woman, rather the words means, An old man and an old woman

Can you now see all that confusion?, well let me put it in points so you can follow it through:

1) The word Sheikh is used by many Arabs and Muslims to refer to religious scholars to imply that they are well founded in the religion

2) The word in no way means well founded because according to the alleged verses above, the words are used to refer to those who commit Zina and consequently they must be stoned as a punishment from Allah, i.e. they are not adhering to the religion, they are simply a Zani and Zania but at old age

3) Despite that the alleged verse above never made it to the Quran based on an alleged story that the prophet declined to include it when they collected the Quran during his time, Al Mushrikoon still want us to implement it someway or another through their hadith

4) In their quest to achieve so, they had to do the following deceptive actions:

A- Manipulate the meaning of the Arabic words Zani and Zania (to mean an unmarried person who commits adultery)

B- Manipulate the meaning of the Arabic words Sheikh and Sheikha (to mean married person)

Now, if we look at the Quran use of the word Sheikh, we should see clearly that it means one thing only, someone who is in old age, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look at the 3 times the Quran used the word:

She said: O wonder! shall I bear a son when I am an extremely old woman and this my husband an extremely old man? Most surely this is a wonderful thing.
[The Quran ; 11:72]

قَالَتْ يَا وَيْلَتَى أَأَلِدُ وَأَنَاْ عَجُوزٌ وَهَذَا بَعْلِي شَيْخًا إِنَّ هَذَا لَشَيْءٌ عَجِيبٌ (72)

-> See, in the story of prophet Ibrahim when the angels were sent to give Ibrahim and his wife the good news of having a child, his wife replied to them as follow: وَهَذَا بَعْلِي شَيْخًا , Wa Haza Baali Sheikha, i.e. and this my husband an extremely old man as translated by Shakir

Here is another example from the story of prophet Yusuf where his father prophet Jacob was also described as Sheikh:

They said: O chief! he has a father, a very old man, therefore retain one of us in his stead; surely we see you to be of the doers of good.
[The Quran ; 12:78]

قَالُواْ يَا أَيُّهَا الْعَزِيزُ إِنَّ لَهُ أَبًا شَيْخًا كَبِيرًا فَخُذْ أَحَدَنَا مَكَانَهُ إِنَّا نَرَاكَ مِنَ الْمُحْسِنِينَ (78)

-> See: إِنَّ لَهُ أَبًا شَيْخًا كَبِيرًا , Inna Lahu Aba Sheikha Kabira i.e. he has a father, a very old man

The final example is from the story of prophet Musa, where his future father in law was also called Sheikh:

And when he came to the water of Madyan, he found on it a group of men watering, and he found besides them two women keeping back (their flocks). He said: What is the matter with you? They said: We cannot water until the shepherds take away (their sheep) from the water, and our father is a very old man.
[The Quran ; 28:23]

وَلَمَّا وَرَدَ مَاء مَدْيَنَ وَجَدَ عَلَيْهِ أُمَّةً مِّنَ النَّاسِ يَسْقُونَ وَوَجَدَ مِن دُونِهِمُ امْرَأتَيْنِ تَذُودَانِ قَالَ مَا خَطْبُكُمَا قَالَتَا لَا نَسْقِي حَتَّى يُصْدِرَ الرِّعَاء وَأَبُونَا شَيْخٌ كَبِيرٌ (23)

-> See: وَأَبُونَا شَيْخٌ كَبِيرٌ , Wa Abouna Sheikh Kabir i.e. and our father is a very old man.

Clearly from the above that the word Sheikh only means a very old man, also it can not be used to describe a religious scholar because as we have seen in the alleged verse which never made it to the Quran that a Zani and a Zania were referred to as a Sheikh and a Sheikhah

If you also visit some Arab countries you should see many young people that are called Sheikh, in clear contradiction to what the word should mean, that is why I stated that they use it by deception, to imply that such person is somehow old enough (metpahorcially) to be well guided and be a faqih in the religion, for the rest though, they should follow what those sheikhs say regardless.

We are told that sheikh Salem Al Amry (the speaker) is a senior student to another sheikh who is named Muhammad Nasiruddin Al-Albani, another non Arab who indulged himself all his life studying, promoting and pondering upon the hearsay hadith, let me tell you briefly about Al-Albani as posted in wiki:

Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani, Arabic, محمد ناصر الدين الألباني (also al-Albani, Albani and other variants) (1914 - 1999) was an important and influential Islamic scholar of the 20th Century; he specialised in the fields of hadith and fiqh and was a prodigious writer and speaker.

I�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??m really puzzled man, those people claim that Bukhari and Muslim did the ultimate job of filtering all the crap out of the hearsay hadith then they put the rest in two Sahih books that suppose to be the second most authenticate book after the Quran as they claim, that was done 1200 years ago, yet we have mister Al-Albani coming 1200 years later doing the exact same, as if what Bukhari and Muslim did was not enough, as if in those 1200 years people invented more hadith about the prophet and the Ummah needs mister Al-Albani to step in and force the suppose to be Allah reservation to the hearsay hadith, the game of hadith is still going stronger and stronger, it seems Satan succeeded to secure such vulnerability to be the easiest way to flaw all the Muslims, look how they propagate their non sense for 1200 years, yet they contradict each other big times, what bigger contradiction than someone to come 1200 after Bukhari and Muslim to filter the hadith that suppose to be already filtered by Bukhari and Muslim as they claim, unless they bloody admit that what Bukhari and Muslim included in their sahihs are not really all sahih, therefore further work of filtering is required by someone like Al-Albani, we should see what mister Al Amry will say later regarding his teacher mister Al-Albani.

Mister Al Amry then went on introducing his Arabic intro which ironically is an exact copy of what all sheikhs say at the start of any speech, it is like they are programmed to say so without even showing sincerity while saying so, it is mostly Dua to Mohammed, please see a couple more videos and I can assure you that they all say the exact same, that is why he said it in Arabic despite every word of what he said is translatable to English, yet he chose to act like a parrot and just say it even if the audience are not Arab speaking which was the case, as if by saying so he is now confirmed to be a sheikh, what total crap of deception that is man

Mister Al Amry said two things in his typical Arabic introduction that raised my eye brows, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look:

-> Firstly he said: Asdaq Al hadith Kitab Allah, i.e. The most truthful saying is the book of Allah (i.e. Al Quran), I say, by him admitting so, then he indirectly admitted that the hadith (sayings) of Bukhari and Muslim can not be on the same level of truthfulness, that is because he used the word Asdaq i.e. Most truthful, in effect he contradicted all those who claim that Bukhari book has no lie in it, I�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??m not saying that Bukhari or Muslim lied, what I�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??m saying that they included lies in their suppose to be Sahih (lies free) books, i.e. everything in it is truthful which is a huge contradiction to those who admit that the most truthful book is the Book of Allah, as mister Al Amry just did in his video.

-> Secondly, he said straight after he said the above: Khair Al Haddi Haddi Mohammed, i.e. The best of guidance is the guidance of Mohammed, very strange indeed, as far as I know that there is only one guidance, it is the guidance of Allah, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look at what Allah commanded Mohammed to tell the people:

And do not believe but to him who followed your religion. Say: Indeed the guidance is the guidance of Allah, that someone may be given the like of what you were given; or they would dispute with you before your Lord. Say: The grace is in the hand of Allah, He gives it to whom He wishes; and Allah is all-Vast, all-Knowing.
[The Quran ; 3:73]

وَلاَ تُؤْمِنُواْ إِلاَّ لِمَن تَبِعَ دِينَكُمْ قُلْ إِنَّ الْهُدَى هُدَى اللّهِ أَن يُؤْتَى أَحَدٌ مِّثْلَ مَا أُوتِيتُمْ أَوْ يُحَآجُّوكُمْ عِندَ رَبِّكُمْ قُلْ إِنَّ الْفَضْلَ بِيَدِ اللّهِ يُؤْتِيهِ مَن يَشَاء وَاللّهُ وَاسِعٌ عَلِيمٌ (73)

-> See what Mohammed was ordered to say: قُلْ إِنَّ الْهُدَى هُدَى اللّهِ , Qul Inna Al Huda Huda Allah, i.e. Say: Indeed the guidance is the guidance of Allah, which simply means that Khair Al Huda is Huda Allah, i.e. the best guidance is the guidance of Allah, Mohammed was never ordered to say, that his guidance is the best of guidance, but mister Amry is telling us a sort of a fact that the guidance of Mohammed is the best of guidance, obviously he was trying to justify his hadith worshipping someway or another, in the process he proved his severe lack of many Quran verses like 3:73 above which told us that the guidance is only the guidance of Allah, Mohammed was simply carrying such guidance or delivering such guidance while on the other hand he has absolutely no power to make any one guided with it,this is because the guidance is not his but it is the guidance of Allah, this was said once more in another verse, letÃ??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??s have a look:

Say: Shall we call upon those other than Allah, which does not benefit us nor harm us, and shall we be returned back on our heels after Allah has guided us? (it is) Like him whom the Shaitans have enticed in the land, he has companions who call him to the guidance, (saying): Come to us. Say: Indeed the guidance of Allah is the guidance, and we are commanded to submit to the Lord of the worlds.
[The Quran ; 6:71]

قُلْ أَنَدْعُو مِن دُونِ اللّهِ مَا لاَ يَنفَعُنَا وَلاَ يَضُرُّنَا وَنُرَدُّ عَلَى أَعْقَابِنَا بَعْدَ إِذْ هَدَانَا اللّهُ كَالَّذِي اسْتَهْوَتْهُ الشَّيَاطِينُ فِي الأَرْضِ حَيْرَانَ لَهُ أَصْحَابٌ يَدْعُونَهُ إِلَى الْهُدَى ائْتِنَا قُلْ إِنَّ هُدَى اللّهِ هُوَ الْهُدَىَ وَأُمِرْنَا لِنُسْلِمَ لِرَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ (71)

-> See what Mohammed was ordered to say: قُلْ إِنَّ هُدَى اللّهِ هُوَ الْهُدَىَ ِ , Qul Inna Huda Allah Hua Al Huda, i.e. Say: Indeed the guidance of Allah is the guidance , which simply means that there is no other guidance but the guidance of Allah and it has to be the best guidance because there is no other guidance next to it, Mohammed on the other hand was ordered to say that he does not know what Allah will do with him nor with them, he was only a warner, i.e. delivering the guidance of Allah to them, letÃ??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??s have a look at the following verse:

Say: I am not the first of the messengers, and I do not know what will be done with me or with you: I do not follow anything but that which is revealed to me, and I am nothing but a plain warner.
[The Quran ; 46:9]

قُلْ مَا كُنتُ بِدْعًا مِّنْ الرُّسُلِ وَمَا أَدْرِي مَا يُفْعَلُ بِي وَلَا بِكُمْ إِنْ أَتَّبِعُ إِلَّا مَا يُوحَى إِلَيَّ وَمَا أَنَا إِلَّا نَذِيرٌ مُّبِينٌ (9)

-> See: Say: I am not the first of the messengers, and I do not know what will be done with me or with you:, see, he was not the first of the messengers, he was exactly like all other messengers, all carried the guidance of Allah which logically speaking should be the same that Ibrahim or Musa or Jesus, or Noah etc carried, it is not like Allah will send a better guidance with Mohammed while sending less guidance to the other prophets, see how Mohammed confirmed that he is only carrying the guidance while at the same time following it: I do not follow anything but that which is revealed to me, and I am nothing but a plain warner., see, nothing but a plain warner means that he was carrying the guidance that Allah sent to them through him, while at the same time he also said, I do not follow anything but that which is revealed to me i.e. he too had to follow the guidance that he carried to the others.

How come mister Al Amry states that Mohammed guidance is the best guidance while Mohammed himself could not guide anyone even the ones he loved and cared for, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s see:

Surely you cannot guide whom you love, but Allah guides whom He pleases, and He best knows the guided ones.
[The Quran ; 28:56]

إِنَّكَ لَا تَهْدِي مَنْ أَحْبَبْتَ وَلَكِنَّ اللَّهَ يَهْدِي مَن يَشَاء وَهُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِالْمُهْتَدِينَ (56)

-> See: Surely you cannot guide whom you love, this is because Mohammed was only carrying such guidance of Allah while at the end of the day it is Allah who guides whom He wills because He knows well who wants to be guided: but Allah guides whom He pleases, and He best knows the guided ones.

Other clear verses that explain to us the guidance of Allah that Mohammed or any other prophet carried to their people:

2: This is the Book, no doubt about it, a guidance to those who fear (Allah).
[The Quran ; 2:2]

ذَلِكَ الْكِتَابُ لاَ رَيْبَ فِيهِ هُدًى لِّلْمُتَّقِينَ (2)

-> See how the Quran is described as the Huda (the guidance): This is the Book, no doubt about it, a guidance to those who fear (Allah).

Allah gave us an example to whom we should follow of the following two parties:

1) A Party that guides to the truth
2) A Party that guides to the truth but only after it is guided

Despite the above two options lead to one thing which is the truth, yet it is presented to us by Allah through a saying of Mohammed as follow:

Say: Is there any of your associates who guides to the truth? Say: Allah guides to the truth. Is He then Who guides to the truth more worthy to be followed, or he who himself does not guide unless he is guided? So what is that with you, how do you judge?
[The Quran ; 10:35]

قُلْ هَلْ مِن شُرَكَآئِكُم مَّن يَهْدِي إِلَى الْحَقِّ قُلِ اللّهُ يَهْدِي لِلْحَقِّ أَفَمَن يَهْدِي إِلَى الْحَقِّ أَحَقُّ أَن يُتَّبَعَ أَمَّن لاَّ يَهِدِّيَ إِلاَّ أَن يُهْدَى فَمَا لَكُمْ كَيْفَ تَحْكُمُونَ (35)

-> See: Is He then Who guides to the truth more worthy to be followed, or he who himself does not guide unless he is guided?, see how the two options are presented in a way that the answer is only one of the two, despite the two ultimately lead to the same thing:

1) Who guides to the truth more worthy to be followed
2) or he who himself does not guide unless he is guided?

-> Well, we know well the Mohammed was 100% guided by Allah, yet if we have a choice between Mohammed and Allah then Allah alone is the one who guides because Mohammed needed to be guided himself before he may guide others, see how Allah gave us the answer in the start of the verse before the question being asked later in the verse: Say: Is there any of your associates who guides to the truth? Say: Allah guides to the truth.

-> Now I have to ask mister Al Amry, how come you say: the best guidance is the guidance of Mohammed while Mohammed himself can not guide others before he is guided by Allah himself?, if mister Al Amry had said: the best guidance is the guidance of Allah, then he would have been 100% accurate and I would have cheered for him, but his judgment failed him so I have to ask him exactly as 10:35 asked the people at the end of the verse: So what is that with you, how do you judge?

Let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s move on, hey, did you notice how he says: Salla Allah Alaihi Wasalam, LOL, HE HARDLY SAY THE WORD ALLAH, he says it like this: Salla al Alaihi Wasalam, it is like he says it very quick and in the process he sort of shortens the word Allah, please listen to it many times (he said it hundred of times), sort of they are programmed and they really don�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t mean what they say which is seeking the salat and blessing of Allah (glory be to Him) upon Mohammed

Mister Al Amry moved on to the definition of the word Sunnah, he clearly admitted that it means under the language Way, however he also told us that the Muslim scholars defined the word Sunnah as three things:

1) All the sayings of Mohammed
2) All the actions of Mohammed
3) And all the approvals of Mohammed

Sort of the so called Muslims scholars manipulated the linguistic meaning of Sunnah to suit their shirk

Mister Al Amry elaborated that it means: what the prophet said is sunnah and all the things that he did and practiced are also sunnah

In effect for a polygamous Muslim the following must also be sunnah:

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

It simply alleges that the prophet used to sleep with all his wives in an hour (a period of time) of the day or an hour of the night without having a bath in between, one of those who heard the above crap wondered to how the prophet managed to do that, so he was answered that the prophet was given the sexual power of 30 men, the hadith ended by stating that it was not known if he did it with 9 or 11 wives one after the other

Now, for a polygamous Muslim who is married to 4, it is now a sunnah to sleep with them one after the other without having a bath in between, this does not even make sense to a sexual freak.

How about being fair between the wives? Is it fair for the second to sleep with the first then sleep with the second straightaway without having a bath in between?

What lessons you reckon we should learn from such crap that only defames the great prophet? And even if it was true, why we need to know such things that is so private about his sexual life with his wiives?

Mister Al Amry continued in his doses of crap elaborating more to what sunnah means, as if after 1200 years of man made invented sunnah we still need to know what sunnah is, a funny thing that he said in his elaboration of the third type of sunnah (whatever the prophet approved) is as follow:

He said the things he approved of, i.e. the things he sanctioned, i.e. things happened in front of him and he kept quite.

Holy non sense man, so if he kept quite it means that it was a clear cut approval, so I wonder, if it is allowed, why he did not say so?, he must have said something, don�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t you reckon?, well the example given by Mister Al Amry is flawed, in fact the prophet clearly did not stay quite, he brought in the story about the roasted lizard that was introduced to the prophet to eat, so when the prophet was about to eat it, someone told him that it is a lizard, so the prophet quickly abstained from eating it, Khalid Ibn Al Walid asked him, is it haram? The prophet REPLIED that it is not haram rather he just does not like eating lizards, so Khalid Ibn Al Walid ate it in front of him and the prophet said nothing to him.

See, the prophet was not quite, he clearly answered the question that it is not haram to eat lizards, but for mister Al Amry, because the prophet stayed quite while Khalid Ibn Al Walid ate it, it meant that he approved it by staying silent, man, what load of crap and non sense is that? The prophet clearly ALLOWED IT A MINUTE EARLIER BY SAYING IT IS NOT HARAM, see how mister Al Amry is confused even in understanding his own hadith.

Mister Al Amry explanation to how it has to be approved by silence is the fact that a prophet will not be quite if he sees something wrong, so if something happened in front of him and he kept quite, then he approved it, but again, in the example given by mister Al Amry, the prophet clearly did not stay quite rather answered the question that is allowed, it seems to me that mister Al Amry was trying to find any hadith to qualify his man made invented third type of sunnah, opps I mean 4 types of sunnah, see how he again contradicted himself, he started to tell us that there are 4 types of sunnah despite he just told us that they are 3 types of sunnah

Here is the 4 new Sunnah types as he contradicted himself:

1) Sunnah Qawliah, like hadith Bukhari and Muslim in which we read many hadith ending with: the prophet said.....

2) Sunnah Feliah, the things he did, like prayer, for example the prophet said: Sallu kama Raitumuni Asulli, i.e. pray as you have seen me praying, another example is the alleged saying that the prophet said: Khuzu Manaskikakum Mini, i.e. take your rituals from me

3) Sunnah by Approval, to which he explaine earlier when he said that if the prophet saw anything and kept quite then it means he approved it

4) Sunnah Tarkiah, things that he didn�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t do, he continued by saying: despite the need was there, yet the prophet did not do it, he gave us an example of the Azan for salat (The prayer call) saying that some prayers have no Azan like Al-Eid prayer, in effect this type of Sunnah means things that were left by the prophet so we must do the same thing and leave it too

Clearly he contradicted himself, firstly he tells us that there are 3 types of Sunnah according to the scholars, then he tells us that there are 4 types of Sunnah, however this is nothing compared to what he said next, he said that the Sunnah is Wahi, i.e. the Sunnah is revelation, then he is telling the audience that they have to bear this in mind, sort of he is brainwashing their minds, again he used the same lame old excuse of verse 53:3, but we know well the Quran told us that the prophet talked and acted at least twice according to his own desires, and faulted and was corrected by Allah and was exposed to all humanity, here it is again:



See above, at least two times the prophet acted according to his own desires, I actually discovered another one, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look:

67: It is not for a prophet to have prisoners of war unless he has triumphed in the land; you desire the show of this world, while Allah desires (for you) the hereafter; and Allah is all-Mighty, all-Wise.

68: Were it not for a decree from Allah that preceded, surely there would have touched you for what you had taken, a great torture.
[Al Quran ; 8:67-68]

مَا كَانَ لِنَبِيٍّ أَن يَكُونَ لَهُ أَسْرَى حَتَّى يُثْخِنَ فِي الأَرْضِ تُرِيدُونَ عَرَضَ الدُّنْيَا وَاللّهُ يُرِيدُ الآخِرَةَ وَاللّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ (67)
لَّوْلاَ كِتَابٌ مِّنَ اللّهِ سَبَقَ لَمَسَّكُمْ فِيمَا أَخَذْتُمْ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ (68)

-> According to the Tafsir, the verses above were revealed on the day of the battle of Badr, at the end of the battle the Muslims had captured plenty of POWs, the prophet took the opinions of other Sahaba to suggest what they should do with them, Abu Bakr suggested that they are still brethrens and it will be best to take ransom of them and set them free, possibly they may embrace Islam after that. The prophet then asked Omar Ibn Al Khatab to suggest what they should do with the POWs, Omar firmly suggested killing them because they were the perpetrators who wanted to kill Mohammed and all his followers by waging war on them. The prophet didn�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t like what Omar said so he went with what Abu Bakr suggested, i.e. they took ransom from the POWs and set them free. And this is when they violated the limits of Allah, see how Allah informed them that what they did was wrong: It is not for a prophet to have prisoners of war unless he has triumphed in the land; you desire the show of this world, while Allah desires (for you) the hereafter;

-> However, Allah had decreed (prior to this incident) allowing the take of ransoms in lieu of the POWs during wars, see how Allah informed them in the next verse: Were it not for a decree from Allah that preceded, surely there would have touched you for what you had taken, a great torture., see how clear it is, i.e. the prophet faulted and did not know that Allah had already allowed this to happen (obviously the prophet did not know exactly what to do with the POWs, that is why he was taking the opinions of Abu Bakr and Omar), therefore at this time what the prophet did by taking ransom was never under the revelation from Allah, in fact, what is revealed from Allah clearly proves that if it was not for a decree from Allah that preceded their fault, they would have been inflicted with great torture, the prophet actually commented on this verse as we read in the Tafsir, it is alleged that he said, if the torture mentioned in 8:68 had been executed, they would have been all punished including the prophet EXCEPT Omar, because Omar didn�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t suggest to take money and set them free, because the money would have been used to make the Muslims stronger in the land (that is how Abu Bakr reasoned his suggestion of taking ransom), but again, desiring money means, desiring this life, see how Allah exposed them: you desire the show of this world, while Allah desires (for you) the hereafter;

Here you have it, at least 3 times in the Quran that the prophet acted according to his desires and faulted and was corrected and was exposed, no way was he under Wahi (revelation) during such time. Yet many confused Muslims like mister Al Amry are still adamant that whatever the prophet did and said must have been an act of Wahi from Allah.

To be continued.....

[AhmedBahgat]

Mister Al Amry then stated that the Sahaba at the time used to write whatever the prophet said, hmmm, this indeed contradicts many of what we read in Masnad Ahmed (another Muhadith who was a good friend of Bukhari), let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look:

---

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Ismael TOLD us that Hammam ibn Yahya TRANSFERRED from Zaid ibn Aslam who TRANSFERRED from Yassar who TOLD that Abi Saeed SAID:

The messenger of Allah (Salla Allahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said do not write anything I say but the Quran and whoever writes anything but the Quran, it should be deleted

---

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Shoaib TOLD us that Hammam SAID that Zaid ibn Aslam TRANSFERRED from Ibn Yassar who TOLD that Abi Saeed SAID:

The messenger of Allah (Salla Allahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said do not write anything I say but the Quran and whoever writes anything, it should be deleted

---

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Yazeed TOLD us that Hammam ibn Yahya TRANSFERRED from Zaid ibn Aslam who TRANSFERRED from Yassar who TOLD that Abi Saeed SAID:

The messenger of Allah (Salla Allahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said do not write anything I say but the Quran and whoever writes anything but the Quran, it should be deleted

---

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Abu Ubaidah TOLD us that Hammam ibn Yahya TRANSFERRED from Zaid ibn Aslam who TRANSFERRED from Yassar who TOLD that Abi Saeed SAID:

The messenger of Allah (Salla Allahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said do not write anything I say but the Quran and whoever writes anything, it should be deleted

---

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Affan TOLD us that Hammam TOLD us that Zaid ibn Aslam TRANSFERRED from Ibn Yassar who TOLD that Abi Saeed SAID:

The messenger of Allah (Salla Allahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said do not write anything I say but the Quran and whoever writes anything but the Quran, it should be deleted

---

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Ishaq Ibn Isa told me that Abdul Rahman Ibn Zaid knew from his father who knew it from Ataa Ibn Yassar that Abu Hurairah said:

We were sitting down writing what we hear from the prophet salla Allah alaihi wa sallam, he came to us and said: What is that which you are writing. We said: it is what we hear from you, then he said: Another book with the Book of Allah?, we said: it is what we hear, he said: Write down the book of Allah, uphold the Book of Allah, what! Another book but the book of Allah?. Uphold the Book of Allah, Abu Hurairah said: So we collected what we wrote ALL TOGETHER and burnt it with fire, then we said: O Rasool Allah, can we talk about you?, he said: Yes you can talk about me and there should be no blame on you, and whoever lies about me deliberately, then his seat in hell will be secured. Then we said: Can we talk about the children of Israel?, He said: Yes you can talk about the children of Israel and there should be no blame on you, and whatever you say about them but there is more to wonder about them

The above hadith is clear that THERE SHOULD BE NO BOOK NEXT TO ALLAH BOOK, see how the prophet said it: Write down the book of Allah, uphold the Book of Allah. What! Another book but the book of Allah?. Uphold the Book of Allah

See how the sahaba MUST OBEY the prophet: So we collected what we wrote ALL TOGETHER and burnt it with fire

Now, see how he advised them that talking about him should only be ORAL: Yes you can talk about me and there should be no blame on you, and whoever lies about me deliberately, then his seat in hell will be secured

---

But mister Al Amry wants us to believe that the Sahaba wrote whatever the prophet said, which hadith you guys go for, mister Al Amry hadith or Ahmed Ibn Hanbal hadith?

Even orally, the prophet warned his sahaba against orally talking way too much about him, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look from Ibn Magih book (another Muhadith):

---

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Abu Bakr Abi Shaiba <-- Yahya Ibn Yaali Altaimi <-- Mohammad Ibn Ishaq Ibn Kaab <-- Ibi Qatada :

I have heard the prophet salla Allah alayhi wa sallam while he was on the stand saying : Be warned of talking too much about me, and whoever says something of what I said then he must speak truthfully and whoever lies by alleging things that I have never said then his seat in hell is secured
- See how the prophet warned the people against talking way too much about him: اياكم و كثرة الحديث عني ,Iyakum Wa Kuthrat Al Hadith Anny, i.e. Be warned of talking too much about me , in fact this is what many of the sahaba just did after the death of the prophet, letÃ??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??s have a look from Ibn Magih book:

---

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Mohammed Ibn Abdullah Ibn Namir <-- Abu Al Nadr <-- Shuba <-- Abdul Allah Ibn Abi Al Safar <-- Al Shubi:

I have accompanied Ibn Umar for a year and I never heard him transferring any hadith that was said by the prophet salla Allah alayhi wa sallam
-> See how some of the Sahaba refrained themselves from talking or transferring any hadith by the prophet after the prophet has died.

---

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Mohammed Ibn Bashaar <-- Abdul Al Rahman <-- Hammad Ibn Zaid <-- Yahya Ibn Said <-- Al Saib Ibn Yazid :

I have accompanied Saad Ibn Malklik from Madinah to Mecca and I have never heard him transferring one hadith that was said by the prophet salla Allah alayhi wa sallam
-> See how more Sahabas refrained themselves from talking or transferring any hadith by the prophet after his death.

---

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Abu Bakr Abi Shaiba & Mohammed Ibn Bashaar <-- Ghandar Mohammed Ibn Ghafar <-- Shuba <-- Gami Ibn Shaddad Abi Sakhara <-- Amer Ibn Abdul Allah Ibn Al Zobair <-- Abdul Allah Ibn Al Zobair:

I said to Zobair Ibn Al Aawam: Why I don�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t hear you saying any hadith about the prophet salla Allah alayhi wa sallam as I hear Ibn Masood and many others?. Zobair Ibn Al Aawam replied: While I didn�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t leave him (the prophet) since I embraced Islam, I heard him saying on the stand : Whoever lies about me deliberately then his seat in hell will be secured

---

How clear is the above, brothers and sisters?

Mister Al Amry said next, the most ridiculous statement ever, it seems their dependence on such stupid argument is on the rise because this is the second time I hear such crap from a hadith worshipper, remember the freak Egyptian from www.alqaheraalyoum.net *User* who tried to discredit me using a family photo, he told me the exact same and stupid argument on MSN, that Allah has protected the sunnah, both of those hadith worshippers refer to the following verse:

Indeed, We have sent down Al Zikr and We will most surely be its guardian.
[Al Quran ; 15:9]

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ (9)

-> Please note that I left the word الذِّكْرَ , Al Zikr, untranslated, the word literally means The reminder, sort of a message to remind you of something important, and for you to be reminded recurrently you need to read or hear such message recurrently, nothing fits to the meaning but one thing which is AL QURAN , mister Al Amry however and his likes are adamant that the word Al Zikr in verse 15:9 means Quran and Sunnah, well, the Quran used the word many times, we may have a look at a few verses later on inshalllah, but for now let me show you what 4 respected Mufasiroon said in regards to what Al Zikr means in verse 15:9

Source

---

Ibn Kathir

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ
وَهُوَ الْقُرْآن وَهُوَ الْحَافِظ لَهُ مِنْ التَّغْيِير وَالتَّبْدِيل وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ أَعَادَ الضَّمِير فِي قَوْله تَعَالَى " لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ " عَلَى النَّبِيّ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَقَوْلِهِ " وَاَللَّه يَعْصِمك مِنْ النَّاس " وَالْمَعْنَى الْأَوَّل أَوْلَى وَهُوَ ظَاهِر السِّيَاق .

-> Simply he is saying: وَهُوَ الْقُرْآن , Wa Hua Al Quran, i.e. And it is the Quran, i.e. Al Zikr is Al Quran.

---

Al-Gallaleen

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ
"إنَّا نَحْنُ" تَأْكِيد لِاسْمِ إنَّ أَوْ فَصْل "نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْر" الْقُرْآن "وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ" مِنْ التَّبْدِيل وَالتَّحْرِيف وَالزِّيَادَة وَالنَّقْص

-> Simply he is saying: الذِّكْر" الْقُرْآن" , Al Zikr, i.e. Ã??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??Al QuranÃ??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?Ã??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?Â�, i.e. Al Zikr is Al Quran.

---

Al-Tabari

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ
الْقَوْل فِي تَأْوِيل قَوْله تَعَالَى : { إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْر وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ } يَقُول تَعَالَى ذِكْره : { إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَلْنَا الذِّكْر } وَهُوَ الْقُرْآن

-> Simply he is saying: وَهُوَ الْقُرْآن , Wa Hua Al Quran, i.e. And it is the Quran, i.e. Al Zikr is Al Quran.

---

Al-Qurtubi

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ
يَعْنِي الْقُرْآن .

-> Simply he is saying: يَعْنِي الْقُرْآن, Yaani Al Quran, i.e. He means the Quran, i.e. Al Zikr is Al Quran.

---

Here you have it again, brothers and sisters, who should we believe exactly, is it:

1) Ibn Katir, Al-Gallaleen, Al-Tabari and Al-Qurtubi
2) Or mister Al Amry and the Egyptian pervert *User* from www.alqaheraalyoum.net
??

Let me tell you who should we believe, it�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s really simple, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s look at one verse from the Quran and we should be able to judge using our brains which Allah gifted us with and see what it should mean:

Sad, I swear by the Quran, full of reminders.
[Al Quran ; 38:1]

ص وَالْقُرْآنِ ذِي الذِّكْرِ (1)

-> See how clear it is: وَالْقُرْآنِ ذِي الذِّكْرِ , Wa Al Quran Zi Al Zikr, i.e. by the Quran, full of reminders, i.e. Al Quran is Al Zikr, i.e. we should believe Ibn Katir, Al-Gallaleen, Al-Tabari and Al-Qurtubi and dismiss sheikh Salem Al Amry. He is nothing but a desperate man.

The above verse is enough to expose the lie by such sheikh, but possibly it won�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t be enough for some, so let me totally slam dunk it:

41: Surely those who have disbelieved in the reminder when it has come to them, and most surely it is a Mighty Book:

42: Falsehood shall not come to it from before it nor from behind it; a revelation from the Wise, the Praised One.

43: Naught is said to you but what was said indeed to the messengers before you; surely your Lord is the Lord of forgiveness and the Lord of painful retribution.

44: And if We had made it a Quran in a foreign tongue, they would certainly have said: Why have not its signs been made clear? What! a foreign (tongue) and an Arabian! Say: It is to those who believe a guidance and a healing; and (as for) those who do not believe, there is a heaviness in their ears and it is obscure to them; these shall be called to from a far-off place.
[Al Quran ; 41:41-44]

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا بِالذِّكْرِ لَمَّا جَاءهُمْ وَإِنَّهُ لَكِتَابٌ عَزِيزٌ (41)
لَا يَأْتِيهِ الْبَاطِلُ مِن بَيْنِ يَدَيْهِ وَلَا مِنْ خَلْفِهِ تَنزِيلٌ مِّنْ حَكِيمٍ حَمِيدٍ (42)
مَا يُقَالُ لَكَ إِلَّا مَا قَدْ قِيلَ لِلرُّسُلِ مِن قَبْلِكَ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ لَذُو مَغْفِرَةٍ وَذُو عِقَابٍ أَلِيمٍ (43)
وَلَوْ جَعَلْنَاهُ قُرْآنًا أَعْجَمِيًّا لَّقَالُوا لَوْلَا فُصِّلَتْ آيَاتُهُ أَأَعْجَمِيٌّ وَعَرَبِيٌّ قُلْ هُوَ لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا هُدًى وَشِفَاء وَالَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ فِي آذَانِهِمْ وَقْرٌ وَهُوَ عَلَيْهِمْ عَمًى أُوْلَئِكَ يُنَادَوْنَ مِن مَّكَانٍ بَعِيدٍ (44)

-> See how clear it is, again : الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا بِالذِّكْرِ لَمَّا جَاءهُمْ وَإِنَّهُ لَكِتَابٌ عَزِيزٌ , Inna Alazin Kafaru Bi Al Zikr Lamma Gaahum Wa Innahu La Kitab Aziz, i.e. Surely those who have disbelieved in the reminder when it has come to them, and most surely it is a Mighty Book, clearly, Al Zikr is a Book, and most certainly Allah does not mean the books of Bukhari and Muslim, so we can have a safe guess at this moment that . Al Quran is Al Zikr, this safe guess will be confirmed in the next three verses:

-> See what is said in verse 41:42, Falsehood shall not come to it from before it nor from behind it; a revelation from the Wise, the Praised One., but we know well that falsehood has indeed come to the books of hadith, mister Al Amry, Bukhari and Muslim all confirmed it, in fact we know that Bukhari told us that there are a possible 593,000 fabricated hadith

-> Remember when I told you earlier that prophet Mohammed was assigned the same task of carrying the guidance to his people as all other prophets before him did, verse 41:43 confirms that, see: Naught is said to you but what was said indeed to the messengers before you;, it has to be the books of guidance that Allah sent to the people through all these messengers, these books of guidance must have stated the same exact thing. It can�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t be the books of hadith.

-> The final verse 41:44 must confirm that what Allah is talking about all along starting from verse 41:41 (Al Zikr) is nothing but Al Quran, see: وَلَوْ جَعَلْنَاهُ قُرْآنًا أَعْجَمِيًّا , And if We had made it a Quran in a foreign tongue, , i.e. Al Zikr is 100% Al Quran. This means that sheikh Salem Al Amry certainly lied to us.

-> Mister Al Amry did not only lie to us, he is also saying lies against Allah by saying that Allah gave the Muslims something no one else was given which is Isnad (The chian of narrators), funny indeed, where exactly Allah informed us with such?, look at what he provided as an evidence, he said that the Ummah of the prophet is known as the Ummah of Isnad, hmmmmm is that the proof that Allah gave Isnad to the Ummah?, mister Al Amry then said: Reliable narrators, starting with the Muhadith and ending with the prophet, hmmm, actually many hadith has nothing to do with the prophet at all, they were mere chat between other people and never made it to the prophet as the source of the first saying, possibly they consider it as a type of Sunnah Feliah, i.e. sunnah based on the actions of the prophet, you know like the hadith by Anas that the prophet used to do the rounds with his 9 or 11 wives without having a bath in between.

Mister Al Amry then sucked at the Indians by telling them: mashaallah because as he claims that India have many Muhadiths who narrated many hadith that go back to the prophet, very strange indeed, was India the place that where Mohammed lived or something? Yeh yeh, here is an Indian Muhadith, opps and a Mahdi as well:



Mister Al Amri explained the isnad as follow: So and so said that so and so said�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?�?????�????�???�??�?�¦.etc�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?�?????�????�???�??�?�¦ till he reaches the prophet, then he added that no nation have this except the Muslims. Then he tries to give merit to his stupid argument by suggesting to ask the pope if he can say a hadith with unbroken chain back to Jesus, despite most of the content of the alleged 4 gospels are chained back to Jesus. Then he repeated the same silly argument but with Musa this time, then he ended it with: Ask the Muslims if they have it (Isnad) and YES, he said so very proudly as you might have noticed, well, most Muslims possibly 99% of them know no one from such Isnad, they were only fed or brainwashed to believe that this Isand is sent from Allah, a clear cut lie against Allah to which mister Al Amry failed to prove which is: this was how Allah preserved the sunnah of the prophet through Isnad

Mister Al Amri continued on by saying: Many people who are idiots fools fabricate ahadith then attribute it to the prophet, so the scholars of hadith ask them where is the Isnad, then they say: oh in this Isnad so and so is a big liar, so the hadith is crossed out, this science of hadith is an amazing science

Hahahahaha, that was really stupid, man, as if those who fabricate the hadith can not fabricate the Isand, see how idiot fool he is, indeed if any idiot fool in here it has to be him because fabricating the Isand is as simple as fabricating the hadith, simply, someone may fabricate a hadith then attribute it to a chain of narrators that are well respected and trusted, what may stop them from doing so?, Absolutely nothing.

Mister Al Amry then added that for every narrator, they have their own biography, Ilm Al Jarh Wa Tadlil, i.e. the science of crediting and discrediting the narrators (another invented crap that has nothing to do with science), then he continued that they even know the year any narrator was born, the year he/she died and everything about him/her, that is how Allah protected the sunnah, and the scholars put those fabricated hadith in other books

In effect, he is saying that what Bukhari and Muslim did was complete and perfect, yet his teacher Al-Albani came 1200 years later authorising himself to accept or dismiss any hadith, see how he boasted about his teacher who died in 1999, he claims that Al-Albani was a leading authority (certainly self assigned authority), he checked all books of the sunnah and classified the ones that are authentic and the ones that are false, hmmmm, so what Bukhari and Muslim did 1200 years ago was not perfect?, man, what load of crap is this, I can�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t believe that all this crowd was watching and non dared to expose him, I don't think that all were in total agreement with him

He continued boasting about those muhaditheen including his teacher of course, by saying that those scholars spent their lifetime to serve and protect the sunnah of the prophet, so the sunnah is protected, hmmm, sure they can protect whatever they want to protect, unfortunately however that the best of us are those who spend their lifetime learning and teaching others the Quran, not those who spend their life time indulged in Jerry Springer crap suggesting to us that our great prophet used to do the rounds with all his 9 or 11 wives one after the other without having a bath in between, let me end it with the following hadith:
Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Mohammed Ibn Nashaar <-- Yahya Ibn Said Al Qattan <-- Shuba and Suffian <-- Alqamah Ibn Murttad <-- Saad Ibn Ubaidah <-- Abi Abdul Rahman Al Salma <-- Uthman Ibn Affan who said:

Rasool Allah (sslla Allah alayhi wa sallam) said (according to Shuba): Khairakum (the best of you) is he who learns the Quran and teaches it

According to Suffian, it goes like this: Afddalakum (The best of you) is he who learns the Quran and teaches it.

Certainly, Bukhari, Muslim, Al-Albani and mister Salem Al Amry can not be of such best of us, this is because they spent or still spending their lifetime learning and teaching something else other than Al Quran.

This was my reply to the first 14:00 minutes, there is still 46 minutes to reply to, however I�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??m not going to reply to the rest in such details, he has proven to be stupid, fool, ignorant and a clear cut liar, it was him who exposed himself

Salam all

[AhmedBahgat]

Mister Al Amry then stated that the Sahaba at the time used to write whatever the prophet said, hmmm, this indeed contradicts many of what we read in Masnad Ahmed (another Muhadith who was a good friend of Bukhari), let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look:

---

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Ismael TOLD us that Hammam ibn Yahya TRANSFERRED from Zaid ibn Aslam who TRANSFERRED from Yassar who TOLD that Abi Saeed SAID:

The messenger of Allah (Salla Allahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said do not write anything I say but the Quran and whoever writes anything but the Quran, it should be deleted

---

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Shoaib TOLD us that Hammam SAID that Zaid ibn Aslam TRANSFERRED from Ibn Yassar who TOLD that Abi Saeed SAID:

The messenger of Allah (Salla Allahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said do not write anything I say but the Quran and whoever writes anything, it should be deleted

---

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Yazeed TOLD us that Hammam ibn Yahya TRANSFERRED from Zaid ibn Aslam who TRANSFERRED from Yassar who TOLD that Abi Saeed SAID:

The messenger of Allah (Salla Allahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said do not write anything I say but the Quran and whoever writes anything but the Quran, it should be deleted

---

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Abu Ubaidah TOLD us that Hammam ibn Yahya TRANSFERRED from Zaid ibn Aslam who TRANSFERRED from Yassar who TOLD that Abi Saeed SAID:

The messenger of Allah (Salla Allahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said do not write anything I say but the Quran and whoever writes anything, it should be deleted

---

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Affan TOLD us that Hammam TOLD us that Zaid ibn Aslam TRANSFERRED from Ibn Yassar who TOLD that Abi Saeed SAID:

The messenger of Allah (Salla Allahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said do not write anything I say but the Quran and whoever writes anything but the Quran, it should be deleted

---

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Ishaq Ibn Isa told me that Abdul Rahman Ibn Zaid knew from his father who knew it from Ataa Ibn Yassar that Abu Hurairah said:

We were sitting down writing what we hear from the prophet salla Allah alaihi wa sallam, he came to us and said: What is that which you are writing. We said: it is what we hear from you, then he said: Another book with the Book of Allah?, we said: it is what we hear, he said: Write down the book of Allah, uphold the Book of Allah, what! Another book but the book of Allah?. Uphold the Book of Allah, Abu Hurairah said: So we collected what we wrote ALL TOGETHER and burnt it with fire, then we said: O Rasool Allah, can we talk about you?, he said: Yes you can talk about me and there should be no blame on you, and whoever lies about me deliberately, then his seat in hell will be secured. Then we said: Can we talk about the children of Israel?, He said: Yes you can talk about the children of Israel and there should be no blame on you, and whatever you say about them but there is more to wonder about them

The above hadith is clear that THERE SHOULD BE NO BOOK NEXT TO ALLAH BOOK, see how the prophet said it: Write down the book of Allah, uphold the Book of Allah. What! Another book but the book of Allah?. Uphold the Book of Allah

See how the sahaba MUST OBEY the prophet: So we collected what we wrote ALL TOGETHER and burnt it with fire

Now, see how he advised them that talking about him should only be ORAL: Yes you can talk about me and there should be no blame on you, and whoever lies about me deliberately, then his seat in hell will be secured

---

But mister Al Amry wants us to believe that the Sahaba wrote whatever the prophet said, which hadith you guys go for, mister Al Amry hadith or Ahmed Ibn Hanbal hadith?

Even orally, the prophet warned his sahaba against orally talking way too much about him, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look from Ibn Magih book (another Muhadith):

---

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Abu Bakr Abi Shaiba <-- Yahya Ibn Yaali Altaimi <-- Mohammad Ibn Ishaq Ibn Kaab <-- Ibi Qatada :

I have heard the prophet salla Allah alayhi wa sallam while he was on the stand saying : Be warned of talking too much about me, and whoever says something of what I said then he must speak truthfully and whoever lies by alleging things that I have never said then his seat in hell is secured
- See how the prophet warned the people against talking way too much about him: اياكم و كثرة الحديث عني ,Iyakum Wa Kuthrat Al Hadith Anny, i.e. Be warned of talking too much about me , in fact this is what many of the sahaba just did after the death of the prophet, letÃ??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??s have a look from Ibn Magih book:

---

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Mohammed Ibn Abdullah Ibn Namir <-- Abu Al Nadr <-- Shuba <-- Abdul Allah Ibn Abi Al Safar <-- Al Shubi:

I have accompanied Ibn Umar for a year and I never heard him transferring any hadith that was said by the prophet salla Allah alayhi wa sallam
-> See how some of the Sahaba refrained themselves from talking or transferring any hadith by the prophet after the prophet has died.

---

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Mohammed Ibn Bashaar <-- Abdul Al Rahman <-- Hammad Ibn Zaid <-- Yahya Ibn Said <-- Al Saib Ibn Yazid :

I have accompanied Saad Ibn Malklik from Madinah to Mecca and I have never heard him transferring one hadith that was said by the prophet salla Allah alayhi wa sallam
-> See how more Sahabas refrained themselves from talking or transferring any hadith by the prophet after his death.

---

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Abu Bakr Abi Shaiba & Mohammed Ibn Bashaar <-- Ghandar Mohammed Ibn Ghafar <-- Shuba <-- Gami Ibn Shaddad Abi Sakhara <-- Amer Ibn Abdul Allah Ibn Al Zobair <-- Abdul Allah Ibn Al Zobair:

I said to Zobair Ibn Al Aawam: Why I don�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t hear you saying any hadith about the prophet salla Allah alayhi wa sallam as I hear Ibn Masood and many others?. Zobair Ibn Al Aawam replied: While I didn�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t leave him (the prophet) since I embraced Islam, I heard him saying on the stand : Whoever lies about me deliberately then his seat in hell will be secured

---

How clear is the above, brothers and sisters?

Mister Al Amry said next, the most ridiculous statement ever, it seems their dependence on such stupid argument is on the rise because this is the second time I hear such crap from a hadith worshipper, remember the freak Egyptian from www.alqaheraalyoum.net *User* who tried to discredit me using a family photo, he told me the exact same and stupid argument on MSN, that Allah has protected the sunnah, both of those hadith worshippers refer to the following verse:

Indeed, We have sent down Al Zikr and We will most surely be its guardian.
[Al Quran ; 15:9]

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ (9)

-> Please note that I left the word الذِّكْرَ , Al Zikr, untranslated, the word literally means The reminder, sort of a message to remind you of something important, and for you to be reminded recurrently you need to read or hear such message recurrently, nothing fits to the meaning but one thing which is AL QURAN , mister Al Amry however and his likes are adamant that the word Al Zikr in verse 15:9 means Quran and Sunnah, well, the Quran used the word many times, we may have a look at a few verses later on inshalllah, but for now let me show you what 4 respected Mufasiroon said in regards to what Al Zikr means in verse 15:9

Source

---

Ibn Kathir

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ
وَهُوَ الْقُرْآن وَهُوَ الْحَافِظ لَهُ مِنْ التَّغْيِير وَالتَّبْدِيل وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ أَعَادَ الضَّمِير فِي قَوْله تَعَالَى " لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ " عَلَى النَّبِيّ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَقَوْلِهِ " وَاَللَّه يَعْصِمك مِنْ النَّاس " وَالْمَعْنَى الْأَوَّل أَوْلَى وَهُوَ ظَاهِر السِّيَاق .

-> Simply he is saying: وَهُوَ الْقُرْآن , Wa Hua Al Quran, i.e. And it is the Quran, i.e. Al Zikr is Al Quran.

---

Al-Gallaleen

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ
"إنَّا نَحْنُ" تَأْكِيد لِاسْمِ إنَّ أَوْ فَصْل "نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْر" الْقُرْآن "وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ" مِنْ التَّبْدِيل وَالتَّحْرِيف وَالزِّيَادَة وَالنَّقْص

-> Simply he is saying: الذِّكْر" الْقُرْآن" , Al Zikr, i.e. Ã??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??Al QuranÃ??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?Ã??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?Â�, i.e. Al Zikr is Al Quran.

---

Al-Tabari

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ
الْقَوْل فِي تَأْوِيل قَوْله تَعَالَى : { إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْر وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ } يَقُول تَعَالَى ذِكْره : { إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَلْنَا الذِّكْر } وَهُوَ الْقُرْآن

-> Simply he is saying: وَهُوَ الْقُرْآن , Wa Hua Al Quran, i.e. And it is the Quran, i.e. Al Zikr is Al Quran.

---

Al-Qurtubi

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ
يَعْنِي الْقُرْآن .

-> Simply he is saying: يَعْنِي الْقُرْآن, Yaani Al Quran, i.e. He means the Quran, i.e. Al Zikr is Al Quran.

---

Here you have it again, brothers and sisters, who should we believe exactly, is it:

1) Ibn Katir, Al-Gallaleen, Al-Tabari and Al-Qurtubi
2) Or mister Al Amry and the Egyptian pervert *User* from www.alqaheraalyoum.net
??

Let me tell you who should we believe, it�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s really simple, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s look at one verse from the Quran and we should be able to judge using our brains which Allah gifted us with and see what it should mean:

Sad, I swear by the Quran, full of reminders.
[Al Quran ; 38:1]

ص وَالْقُرْآنِ ذِي الذِّكْرِ (1)

-> See how clear it is: وَالْقُرْآنِ ذِي الذِّكْرِ , Wa Al Quran Zi Al Zikr, i.e. by the Quran, full of reminders, i.e. Al Quran is Al Zikr, i.e. we should believe Ibn Katir, Al-Gallaleen, Al-Tabari and Al-Qurtubi and dismiss sheikh Salem Al Amry. He is nothing but a desperate man.

The above verse is enough to expose the lie by such sheikh, but possibly it won�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t be enough for some, so let me totally slam dunk it:

41: Surely those who have disbelieved in the reminder when it has come to them, and most surely it is a Mighty Book:

42: Falsehood shall not come to it from before it nor from behind it; a revelation from the Wise, the Praised One.

43: Naught is said to you but what was said indeed to the messengers before you; surely your Lord is the Lord of forgiveness and the Lord of painful retribution.

44: And if We had made it a Quran in a foreign tongue, they would certainly have said: Why have not its signs been made clear? What! a foreign (tongue) and an Arabian! Say: It is to those who believe a guidance and a healing; and (as for) those who do not believe, there is a heaviness in their ears and it is obscure to them; these shall be called to from a far-off place.
[Al Quran ; 41:41-44]

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا بِالذِّكْرِ لَمَّا جَاءهُمْ وَإِنَّهُ لَكِتَابٌ عَزِيزٌ (41)
لَا يَأْتِيهِ الْبَاطِلُ مِن بَيْنِ يَدَيْهِ وَلَا مِنْ خَلْفِهِ تَنزِيلٌ مِّنْ حَكِيمٍ حَمِيدٍ (42)
مَا يُقَالُ لَكَ إِلَّا مَا قَدْ قِيلَ لِلرُّسُلِ مِن قَبْلِكَ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ لَذُو مَغْفِرَةٍ وَذُو عِقَابٍ أَلِيمٍ (43)
وَلَوْ جَعَلْنَاهُ قُرْآنًا أَعْجَمِيًّا لَّقَالُوا لَوْلَا فُصِّلَتْ آيَاتُهُ أَأَعْجَمِيٌّ وَعَرَبِيٌّ قُلْ هُوَ لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا هُدًى وَشِفَاء وَالَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ فِي آذَانِهِمْ وَقْرٌ وَهُوَ عَلَيْهِمْ عَمًى أُوْلَئِكَ يُنَادَوْنَ مِن مَّكَانٍ بَعِيدٍ (44)

-> See how clear it is, again : الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا بِالذِّكْرِ لَمَّا جَاءهُمْ وَإِنَّهُ لَكِتَابٌ عَزِيزٌ , Inna Alazin Kafaru Bi Al Zikr Lamma Gaahum Wa Innahu La Kitab Aziz, i.e. Surely those who have disbelieved in the reminder when it has come to them, and most surely it is a Mighty Book, clearly, Al Zikr is a Book, and most certainly Allah does not mean the books of Bukhari and Muslim, so we can have a safe guess at this moment that . Al Quran is Al Zikr, this safe guess will be confirmed in the next three verses:

-> See what is said in verse 41:42, Falsehood shall not come to it from before it nor from behind it; a revelation from the Wise, the Praised One., but we know well that falsehood has indeed come to the books of hadith, mister Al Amry, Bukhari and Muslim all confirmed it, in fact we know that Bukhari told us that there are a possible 593,000 fabricated hadith

-> Remember when I told you earlier that prophet Mohammed was assigned the same task of carrying the guidance to his people as all other prophets before him did, verse 41:43 confirms that, see: Naught is said to you but what was said indeed to the messengers before you;, it has to be the books of guidance that Allah sent to the people through all these messengers, these books of guidance must have stated the same exact thing. It can�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t be the books of hadith.

-> The final verse 41:44 must confirm that what Allah is talking about all along starting from verse 41:41 (Al Zikr) is nothing but Al Quran, see: وَلَوْ جَعَلْنَاهُ قُرْآنًا أَعْجَمِيًّا , And if We had made it a Quran in a foreign tongue, , i.e. Al Zikr is 100% Al Quran. This means that sheikh Salem Al Amry certainly lied to us.

-> Mister Al Amry did not only lie to us, he is also saying lies against Allah by saying that Allah gave the Muslims something no one else was given which is Isnad (The chian of narrators), funny indeed, where exactly Allah informed us with such?, look at what he provided as an evidence, he said that the Ummah of the prophet is known as the Ummah of Isnad, hmmmmm is that the proof that Allah gave Isnad to the Ummah?, mister Al Amry then said: Reliable narrators, starting with the Muhadith and ending with the prophet, hmmm, actually many hadith has nothing to do with the prophet at all, they were mere chat between other people and never made it to the prophet as the source of the first saying, possibly they consider it as a type of Sunnah Feliah, i.e. sunnah based on the actions of the prophet, you know like the hadith by Anas that the prophet used to do the rounds with his 9 or 11 wives without having a bath in between.

Mister Al Amry then sucked at the Indians by telling them: mashaallah because as he claims that India have many Muhadiths who narrated many hadith that go back to the prophet, very strange indeed, was India the place that where Mohammed lived or something? Yeh yeh, here is an Indian Muhadith, opps and a Mahdi as well:



Mister Al Amri explained the isnad as follow: So and so said that so and so said�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?�?????�????�???�??�?�¦.etc�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?�?????�????�???�??�?�¦ till he reaches the prophet, then he added that no nation have this except the Muslims. Then he tries to give merit to his stupid argument by suggesting to ask the pope if he can say a hadith with unbroken chain back to Jesus, despite most of the content of the alleged 4 gospels are chained back to Jesus. Then he repeated the same silly argument but with Musa this time, then he ended it with: Ask the Muslims if they have it (Isnad) and YES, he said so very proudly as you might have noticed, well, most Muslims possibly 99% of them know no one from such Isnad, they were only fed or brainwashed to believe that this Isand is sent from Allah, a clear cut lie against Allah to which mister Al Amry failed to prove which is: this was how Allah preserved the sunnah of the prophet through Isnad

Mister Al Amri continued on by saying: Many people who are idiots fools fabricate ahadith then attribute it to the prophet, so the scholars of hadith ask them where is the Isnad, then they say: oh in this Isnad so and so is a big liar, so the hadith is crossed out, this science of hadith is an amazing science

Hahahahaha, that was really stupid, man, as if those who fabricate the hadith can not fabricate the Isand, see how idiot fool he is, indeed if any idiot fool in here it has to be him because fabricating the Isand is as simple as fabricating the hadith, simply, someone may fabricate a hadith then attribute it to a chain of narrators that are well respected and trusted, what may stop them from doing so?, Absolutely nothing.

Mister Al Amry then added that for every narrator, they have their own biography, Ilm Al Jarh Wa Tadlil, i.e. the science of crediting and discrediting the narrators (another invented crap that has nothing to do with science), then he continued that they even know the year any narrator was born, the year he/she died and everything about him/her, that is how Allah protected the sunnah, and the scholars put those fabricated hadith in other books

In effect, he is saying that what Bukhari and Muslim did was complete and perfect, yet his teacher Al-Albani came 1200 years later authorising himself to accept or dismiss any hadith, see how he boasted about his teacher who died in 1999, he claims that Al-Albani was a leading authority (certainly self assigned authority), he checked all books of the sunnah and classified the ones that are authentic and the ones that are false, hmmmm, so what Bukhari and Muslim did 1200 years ago was not perfect?, man, what load of crap is this, I can�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t believe that all this crowd was watching and non dared to expose him, I don't think that all were in total agreement with him

He continued boasting about those muhaditheen including his teacher of course, by saying that those scholars spent their lifetime to serve and protect the sunnah of the prophet, so the sunnah is protected, hmmm, sure they can protect whatever they want to protect, unfortunately however that the best of us are those who spend their lifetime learning and teaching others the Quran, not those who spend their life time indulged in Jerry Springer crap suggesting to us that our great prophet used to do the rounds with all his 9 or 11 wives one after the other without having a bath in between, let me end it with the following hadith:
Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Mohammed Ibn Nashaar <-- Yahya Ibn Said Al Qattan <-- Shuba and Suffian <-- Alqamah Ibn Murttad <-- Saad Ibn Ubaidah <-- Abi Abdul Rahman Al Salma <-- Uthman Ibn Affan who said:

Rasool Allah (sslla Allah alayhi wa sallam) said (according to Shuba): Khairakum (the best of you) is he who learns the Quran and teaches it

According to Suffian, it goes like this: Afddalakum (The best of you) is he who learns the Quran and teaches it.

Certainly, Bukhari, Muslim, Al-Albani and mister Salem Al Amry can not be of such best of us, this is because they spent or still spending their lifetime learning and teaching something else other than Al Quran.

This was my reply to the first 14:00 minutes, there is still 46 minutes to reply to, however I�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??m not going to reply to the rest in such details, he has proven to be stupid, fool, ignorant and a clear cut liar, it was him who exposed himself

Salam all

[AhmedBahgat]

Salam all

I'm sure you still remember that we were told that sheikh Salem Al Amry was a senior student to Al-Albany, I actually did not know much about Albany, but I spent most of the day today reading about him, I was shocked actually, most Arab countries consider him kafir, in fact he was expelled from many Arab countries, remember that his student mister Al Amry was boasting about Albany knowledge, well, let me show you what is said about what they call his innovations in the religion:

Among Albani's innovations in the Religion:

1- In his book Adab al-Zafaf he prohibits women from wearing gold jewelry - rings, bracelets, and chains - despite the Consensus of the Ulema permitting it.

2- He claims that 2.5% zak�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢t is not due on money obtained from commerce, i.e. the main activity whereby money circulates among Muslims.

3- He absolutely prohibits fasting on Saturdays.

4- He prohibits retreat (i`tikaf) in any but the Three Mosques.

5- He claims that it is lawful to eat in Ramadan before Maghrib as defined by the Law, and similarly after the true dawn.

6- He compares Hanafi fiqh to the Gospel.1

7- He calls people to imitate him rather than the Imams of the Salaf such as the founders of the Four Schools, and his followers invalidate the hadiths that contradict his views.

8- He prohibits the make-up performance of prayers missed intentionally.

9- He claims that it is permissible for menstruating women and those in a state of major defilement (junub) to recite, touch, and carry the Qur'an.

10- He claims over and over that among the innovations in religion existent in Madina is the persistence of the Prophet's - Allah bless and greet him - grave in the mosque.

11- He claims that whoever travels intending to visit the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - or to ask him for his intercession is a misguided innovator.

12- He claims that whoever carries dhikr-beads in his hand to remember Allah Most High is misguided and innovating.

13- He invented a location to Allah Most High above the Throne which he named al-mak�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢n al-`adam�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�® - "the non-existent place."

14- He claims in Tamam al-Minna that masturbation does not annul one's fast.

15- He published "corrected" editions of the two Sahihs of al-Bukhari and Muslim, which he deceitfully called "Abridgments" (mukhtasar) in violation of the integrity of these motherbooks.

16- He published newly-styled editions of the Four Sunan, al-Bukhari's al-Adab al-Mufrad, al-Mundhiri's al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib, and al-Suyuti's al-Jami` al-Saghir, each of which he split into two works, respectively prefixed Sahih and Da`if in violation of the integrity of these motherbooks.

17- He said: "Many of those who interpret figuratively [the Divine Attributes] are not heretics (zan�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢diqa), but they say what heretics say," and "figurative interpretation is the very same as nullification (al-ta'w�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�®l `ayn al-ta`t�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�®l)."2

18- He suggests that al-Bukhari is a disbeliever for interpreting the Divine Face as dominion or sovereignty (mulk) in the verse "Everything will perish save His countenance" (28:88) in the book of Tafsir in his Sahih: "Except His wajh means except His mulk, and it is also said: Except whatever was for the sake of His countenance." Albani blurts out: "No true believer would say such a thing" and "We should consider al-Bukhari innocent of that statement."3

19- In imitation of the Mu`tazila, tawassul (seeking means), istigh�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢tha (asking for help), and tashaffu` (seeking intercession) through the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - or one of the Awliy�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢' he declared prohibited acts in Islam (har�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢m) tantamount to idolatry (shirk) in his booklet al-Tawassul as did his friends Bin Baz and those who obey them such as al-Qahtani in al-Wala' wa al-Bara' and others, in flat rejection of the numerous sound and explicit narrations to that effect, such as al-Bukhari's narration of the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - from Ibn `Umar - Allah be well-pleased with him -: "Truly the sun shall draw so near on the Day of Resurrection that sweat shall reach to the mid-ear, whereupon they shall ask (istagh�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢th�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�») help from Adam - upon him peace -, then from Musa - upon him peace - , then from Muhammad - Allah bless and greet him - who will intercede (fa yashfa`u)... and that day Allah shall raise him to an Exalted Station, so that all those who are standing [including the unbelievers] shall glorify him (yahmaduhu ahlu al-jam`i kulluhum)."

20- He denies that the name of the Angel of death is `Azr�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢'�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�®l and claims such a name has no basis other than Israelite reports, although `Iyad reports the Consensus on the Umma on it in al-Shifa'.

21- Like the rest of Wahhabi and "Salafi" innovators he declares Ash`aris, Maturidis, and Sufis to be outside the fold of Ahl al-Sunna and even outside the fold of Islam, although Allah Most High and His Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - praised them! Upon revelation of the verse "Allah shall bring a people whom He loves and who love Him" (5:54), the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - pointed to Abu Musa al-Ash`ari - Allah be well-pleased with him - and said: "They are that man's People."4 Al-Qushayri, Ibn `Asakir, al-Bayhaqi, Ibn al-Subki, and others said that the followers of Abu al-Hasan al-Ash`ari - i.e. Ash`aris who were mostly Sufis - are included among Abu Musa's People for in every place that a people are affiliated to a Prophet, what is meant is the followers of that Prophet.

As for Maturidis, they are referred to in the narration of the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - from Bishr al-Khath`ami or al-Ghanawi with a sound (sah�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�®h) chain according to al-Hakim, al-Dhahabi, al-Suyuti, and al-Haythami: "Truly you shall conquer Constantinople and truly what a wonderful leader will her leader be [Mehmet Fatih Sultan - Allah be well-pleased with him -], and truly what a wonderful army will that army be!" Both the leader and his army were classic Hanafi Maturidis and it is known that Mehmet Fatih loved and respected Sufis, practiced tawassul, and followed a Shaykh. Moreover, enmity against Ash`aris, Maturidis, and Sufis, is nif�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢q and enmity against the Umma of Islam as most of the Ulema of Islam are thus described.

22- In at least five of his books5 he calls for the demolition of the Green Dome of the Prophet's Mosque in al-Madina al-Munawwara and for taking the Prophet's grave outside the Mosque.

23- He states: "I have found no evidence for the Prophet's - Allah bless and greet him - hearing of the salaam of those who greet him at his grave" and "I do not know from where Ibn Taymiyya took his claim6 that he - Allah bless and greet him - hears the salaam from someone near." This and the previous item are among his greater enormities and bear the unmistakable signature of innovation and deviation.7<

24- He considers it an innovation to visit relatives, neighbors, or friends on the day of `Eid and prohibits it.8

25- He gave the fatwa that Muslims should exit Palestine en masse and leave it to the Jews as it is part the Abode of War (d�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢r al-harb).9

26- He advocates in his Salat al-Nabi - Allah bless and greet him -, the formula "Peace and blessings upon the Prophet" instead of "upon you, O Prophet" in the tashahhud in contradiction of the Four Sunni Schools, on the basis of a hadith of Ibn Mas`ud whereby the Companions used the indirect-speech formula after the passing of the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him -. But the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - himself instructed them to pray exactly as he prayed saying: "Peace and blessings upon you, O Prophet" without telling them to change it after his death, nor did the major Companions (whose Sunna we were ordered to imitate together with that of the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him -), such as Abu Bakr and `Umar, teach the Companions and Successors otherwise!

27- He prohibits praying more than 11 rak`as in Tarawih prayers on the grounds that the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - never did and in blatant rejection of his explicit command to follow the Sunna of the well-guided Caliphs after him.

28- He declares that adding more to 11 supererogatory rak`as in the late night prayer (tahajjud) is an innovation rather than an act of obedience on the grounds that the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - "never ever prayed one hundred rak`as in his whole lifetime"10 although the Ulema agree that there is no prescribed limit to something which the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - commanded without specifically quantifying it, and he - Allah bless and greet him - said in three authentic narrations: "Know that the best of your good deeds is prayer,"11 "Prayer is a light,"12 and "The night prayer is in cycles of two [rak`as] and when one of you fears the rising of the dawn, let him pray a single one."13 It is also established in many authentic narrations collected by Imam `Abd al-Hayy al-Lacknawi in the second part of his Iqamat al-Hujja `ala anna al-Ikthar min al-Ta`abbudi Laysa bi Bid`a that the Companions and Salaf prayed hundreds if not thousands of rak`as in every twenty-four hours!

29- He considers it an innovation to pray four rak`as between the two adh�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢ns of Jumu`a and before Salat, although it is authentically narrated that "the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - prayed four rak`as before Jumu`a and four rak`as after it."14

30- He declares it prohibited (har�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢m) and an innovation to lengthen the beard over a fistful's length although there is no proof for such a claim in the whole Law and none of the Ulema ever said it before him.15

31- He gives free rein to his propensity to insult and vilify the Ulema of the past as well as his contemporaries. As a result it is difficult to wade through his writings without being affected by the nefarious spirit that permeates them. For example, he considers previous editors and commentators of al-Bukhari's al-Adab al-Mufrad ("Book of Manners"!) "sinful," "unbearably ignorant," and even "liars" and "thieves." Of one he says: "There are so many weak hadiths [in his choice]... that it is an unislamic practice"; of another: "It is ignorance which must not be tolerated"; of another: "Forgery and open lie... His edition is stolen [from a previous one]."16 Such examples actually fill a book compiled by Shaykh Hasan `Ali al-Saqqaf and titled Qamus Shata'im al-Albani wa Alfazihi al-Munkara al-Lati Yatluquha `ala `Ulama' al-Umma ("Dictionary of al-Albani's Insults and the Heinous Words He Uses Against the Scholars of the Muslim Community").

32- He revived Ibn Hazm's anti-madhhab�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�® claim that differences can never be a mercy in any case but are always a curse on the basis of the verse (If it had been from other than Allah they would have found therein much discrepancy( (4:82).17 Imam al-Nawawi long since refuted this view in his commentary on Sahih Muslim where he said: "If something is a mercy, it is not necessary for its opposite to be the opposite of mercy. No-one makes this binding and no-one even says this, except an ignoramus or one who affects ignorance." Similarly, al-Munawi said in Fayd al-Qadir: "This is a contrivance that showed up on the part of some of those who have sickness in their heart."

33- He expresses hatred for those who read Imam al-Busiri's masterpiece, Qasidat al-Burda, and calls them cretins (mah�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢b�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�®l),18 i.e. millions of Muslims past and present including the likes of Imams Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani, al-Sakhawi, and al-Suyuti who all included it as required reading in the Islamic curriculum.19

34- He perpetuates lies if they detract from Ash`aris, such as his remark that Imam Sayf al-Din al-Amidi did not pray,20 although Dr. Hasan al-Shafi`i in his massive biography entitled al-Amidi wa Ara'uhu al-Kalamiyya showed that the story that al-Amidi did not pray was a forgery put into circulation during the campaign waged by Imam Ibn al-Salah against him for teaching logic and philosophy in Damascus.

35- He perpetuates the false claim first made by Munir Agha the founder of the Egyptian Salafiyya Press, that Imam Abu Muhammad al-Juwayni - the father of Imam al-Haramayn - "repented" from Ash`ari doctrine and supposedly authored a tract titled Risala fi Ithbat al-Istiw�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢' wa al-Fawqiyya ("Epistle on the Assertion of Establishment and Aboveness").21 This spurious attribution continues to be promoted without verification - for obvious reasons - by modern-day "Salafis" who adduce it to forward the claim that al-Juwayni embraced anthropomorphist concepts. The Risala in question is not mentioned in any of the bibliographical and biographical sources nor does al-Dhahabi cite it in his encyclopedia of anthropomorphist views entitled al-`Uluw. More conclusively, it is written in modern argumentative style and reflects typically contemporary anthropomorphist obsessions.

36- He derides the fuqah�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢' of the Umma for accepting - in their massive majority - the hadith of Mu`adh ibn Jabal on ijtih�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢d as authentic then rejects the definition of knowledge (`ilm) in Islam as pertaining to fiqh but claims that it pertains only to hadith,22 although the Ulema of the Salaf explicitly said that a hadith master without fiqh is a misguided innovator! And he defines the `�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢lim as "meaning, of course, the `Salafi' `�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢lim, not the `Khalafi [late Egyptian Shaykh] Ghazali'!"23 Al-Qurtubi said: "One of the knowers of Allah said: A certain group that has not yet come up in our time but shall show up at the end of time, will curse the scholars and insult the jurists."24

Source

[AhmedBahgat]

Salam all

I'm sure you still remember that we were told that sheikh Salem Al Amry was a senior student to Al-Albany, I actually did not know much about Albany, but I spent most of the day today reading about him, I was shocked actually, most Arab countries consider him kafir, in fact he was expelled from many Arab countries, remember that his student mister Al Amry was boasting about Albany knowledge, well, let me show you what is said about what they call his innovations in the religion:

Among Albani's innovations in the Religion:

1- In his book Adab al-Zafaf he prohibits women from wearing gold jewelry - rings, bracelets, and chains - despite the Consensus of the Ulema permitting it.

2- He claims that 2.5% zak�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢t is not due on money obtained from commerce, i.e. the main activity whereby money circulates among Muslims.

3- He absolutely prohibits fasting on Saturdays.

4- He prohibits retreat (i`tikaf) in any but the Three Mosques.

5- He claims that it is lawful to eat in Ramadan before Maghrib as defined by the Law, and similarly after the true dawn.

6- He compares Hanafi fiqh to the Gospel.1

7- He calls people to imitate him rather than the Imams of the Salaf such as the founders of the Four Schools, and his followers invalidate the hadiths that contradict his views.

8- He prohibits the make-up performance of prayers missed intentionally.

9- He claims that it is permissible for menstruating women and those in a state of major defilement (junub) to recite, touch, and carry the Qur'an.

10- He claims over and over that among the innovations in religion existent in Madina is the persistence of the Prophet's - Allah bless and greet him - grave in the mosque.

11- He claims that whoever travels intending to visit the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - or to ask him for his intercession is a misguided innovator.

12- He claims that whoever carries dhikr-beads in his hand to remember Allah Most High is misguided and innovating.

13- He invented a location to Allah Most High above the Throne which he named al-mak�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢n al-`adam�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�® - "the non-existent place."

14- He claims in Tamam al-Minna that masturbation does not annul one's fast.

15- He published "corrected" editions of the two Sahihs of al-Bukhari and Muslim, which he deceitfully called "Abridgments" (mukhtasar) in violation of the integrity of these motherbooks.

16- He published newly-styled editions of the Four Sunan, al-Bukhari's al-Adab al-Mufrad, al-Mundhiri's al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib, and al-Suyuti's al-Jami` al-Saghir, each of which he split into two works, respectively prefixed Sahih and Da`if in violation of the integrity of these motherbooks.

17- He said: "Many of those who interpret figuratively [the Divine Attributes] are not heretics (zan�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢diqa), but they say what heretics say," and "figurative interpretation is the very same as nullification (al-ta'w�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�®l `ayn al-ta`t�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�®l)."2

18- He suggests that al-Bukhari is a disbeliever for interpreting the Divine Face as dominion or sovereignty (mulk) in the verse "Everything will perish save His countenance" (28:88) in the book of Tafsir in his Sahih: "Except His wajh means except His mulk, and it is also said: Except whatever was for the sake of His countenance." Albani blurts out: "No true believer would say such a thing" and "We should consider al-Bukhari innocent of that statement."3

19- In imitation of the Mu`tazila, tawassul (seeking means), istigh�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢tha (asking for help), and tashaffu` (seeking intercession) through the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - or one of the Awliy�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢' he declared prohibited acts in Islam (har�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢m) tantamount to idolatry (shirk) in his booklet al-Tawassul as did his friends Bin Baz and those who obey them such as al-Qahtani in al-Wala' wa al-Bara' and others, in flat rejection of the numerous sound and explicit narrations to that effect, such as al-Bukhari's narration of the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - from Ibn `Umar - Allah be well-pleased with him -: "Truly the sun shall draw so near on the Day of Resurrection that sweat shall reach to the mid-ear, whereupon they shall ask (istagh�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢th�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�») help from Adam - upon him peace -, then from Musa - upon him peace - , then from Muhammad - Allah bless and greet him - who will intercede (fa yashfa`u)... and that day Allah shall raise him to an Exalted Station, so that all those who are standing [including the unbelievers] shall glorify him (yahmaduhu ahlu al-jam`i kulluhum)."

20- He denies that the name of the Angel of death is `Azr�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢'�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�®l and claims such a name has no basis other than Israelite reports, although `Iyad reports the Consensus on the Umma on it in al-Shifa'.

21- Like the rest of Wahhabi and "Salafi" innovators he declares Ash`aris, Maturidis, and Sufis to be outside the fold of Ahl al-Sunna and even outside the fold of Islam, although Allah Most High and His Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - praised them! Upon revelation of the verse "Allah shall bring a people whom He loves and who love Him" (5:54), the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - pointed to Abu Musa al-Ash`ari - Allah be well-pleased with him - and said: "They are that man's People."4 Al-Qushayri, Ibn `Asakir, al-Bayhaqi, Ibn al-Subki, and others said that the followers of Abu al-Hasan al-Ash`ari - i.e. Ash`aris who were mostly Sufis - are included among Abu Musa's People for in every place that a people are affiliated to a Prophet, what is meant is the followers of that Prophet.

As for Maturidis, they are referred to in the narration of the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - from Bishr al-Khath`ami or al-Ghanawi with a sound (sah�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�®h) chain according to al-Hakim, al-Dhahabi, al-Suyuti, and al-Haythami: "Truly you shall conquer Constantinople and truly what a wonderful leader will her leader be [Mehmet Fatih Sultan - Allah be well-pleased with him -], and truly what a wonderful army will that army be!" Both the leader and his army were classic Hanafi Maturidis and it is known that Mehmet Fatih loved and respected Sufis, practiced tawassul, and followed a Shaykh. Moreover, enmity against Ash`aris, Maturidis, and Sufis, is nif�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢q and enmity against the Umma of Islam as most of the Ulema of Islam are thus described.

22- In at least five of his books5 he calls for the demolition of the Green Dome of the Prophet's Mosque in al-Madina al-Munawwara and for taking the Prophet's grave outside the Mosque.

23- He states: "I have found no evidence for the Prophet's - Allah bless and greet him - hearing of the salaam of those who greet him at his grave" and "I do not know from where Ibn Taymiyya took his claim6 that he - Allah bless and greet him - hears the salaam from someone near." This and the previous item are among his greater enormities and bear the unmistakable signature of innovation and deviation.7<

24- He considers it an innovation to visit relatives, neighbors, or friends on the day of `Eid and prohibits it.8

25- He gave the fatwa that Muslims should exit Palestine en masse and leave it to the Jews as it is part the Abode of War (d�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢r al-harb).9

26- He advocates in his Salat al-Nabi - Allah bless and greet him -, the formula "Peace and blessings upon the Prophet" instead of "upon you, O Prophet" in the tashahhud in contradiction of the Four Sunni Schools, on the basis of a hadith of Ibn Mas`ud whereby the Companions used the indirect-speech formula after the passing of the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him -. But the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - himself instructed them to pray exactly as he prayed saying: "Peace and blessings upon you, O Prophet" without telling them to change it after his death, nor did the major Companions (whose Sunna we were ordered to imitate together with that of the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him -), such as Abu Bakr and `Umar, teach the Companions and Successors otherwise!

27- He prohibits praying more than 11 rak`as in Tarawih prayers on the grounds that the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - never did and in blatant rejection of his explicit command to follow the Sunna of the well-guided Caliphs after him.

28- He declares that adding more to 11 supererogatory rak`as in the late night prayer (tahajjud) is an innovation rather than an act of obedience on the grounds that the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - "never ever prayed one hundred rak`as in his whole lifetime"10 although the Ulema agree that there is no prescribed limit to something which the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - commanded without specifically quantifying it, and he - Allah bless and greet him - said in three authentic narrations: "Know that the best of your good deeds is prayer,"11 "Prayer is a light,"12 and "The night prayer is in cycles of two [rak`as] and when one of you fears the rising of the dawn, let him pray a single one."13 It is also established in many authentic narrations collected by Imam `Abd al-Hayy al-Lacknawi in the second part of his Iqamat al-Hujja `ala anna al-Ikthar min al-Ta`abbudi Laysa bi Bid`a that the Companions and Salaf prayed hundreds if not thousands of rak`as in every twenty-four hours!

29- He considers it an innovation to pray four rak`as between the two adh�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢ns of Jumu`a and before Salat, although it is authentically narrated that "the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - prayed four rak`as before Jumu`a and four rak`as after it."14

30- He declares it prohibited (har�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢m) and an innovation to lengthen the beard over a fistful's length although there is no proof for such a claim in the whole Law and none of the Ulema ever said it before him.15

31- He gives free rein to his propensity to insult and vilify the Ulema of the past as well as his contemporaries. As a result it is difficult to wade through his writings without being affected by the nefarious spirit that permeates them. For example, he considers previous editors and commentators of al-Bukhari's al-Adab al-Mufrad ("Book of Manners"!) "sinful," "unbearably ignorant," and even "liars" and "thieves." Of one he says: "There are so many weak hadiths [in his choice]... that it is an unislamic practice"; of another: "It is ignorance which must not be tolerated"; of another: "Forgery and open lie... His edition is stolen [from a previous one]."16 Such examples actually fill a book compiled by Shaykh Hasan `Ali al-Saqqaf and titled Qamus Shata'im al-Albani wa Alfazihi al-Munkara al-Lati Yatluquha `ala `Ulama' al-Umma ("Dictionary of al-Albani's Insults and the Heinous Words He Uses Against the Scholars of the Muslim Community").

32- He revived Ibn Hazm's anti-madhhab�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�® claim that differences can never be a mercy in any case but are always a curse on the basis of the verse (If it had been from other than Allah they would have found therein much discrepancy( (4:82).17 Imam al-Nawawi long since refuted this view in his commentary on Sahih Muslim where he said: "If something is a mercy, it is not necessary for its opposite to be the opposite of mercy. No-one makes this binding and no-one even says this, except an ignoramus or one who affects ignorance." Similarly, al-Munawi said in Fayd al-Qadir: "This is a contrivance that showed up on the part of some of those who have sickness in their heart."

33- He expresses hatred for those who read Imam al-Busiri's masterpiece, Qasidat al-Burda, and calls them cretins (mah�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢b�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�®l),18 i.e. millions of Muslims past and present including the likes of Imams Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani, al-Sakhawi, and al-Suyuti who all included it as required reading in the Islamic curriculum.19

34- He perpetuates lies if they detract from Ash`aris, such as his remark that Imam Sayf al-Din al-Amidi did not pray,20 although Dr. Hasan al-Shafi`i in his massive biography entitled al-Amidi wa Ara'uhu al-Kalamiyya showed that the story that al-Amidi did not pray was a forgery put into circulation during the campaign waged by Imam Ibn al-Salah against him for teaching logic and philosophy in Damascus.

35- He perpetuates the false claim first made by Munir Agha the founder of the Egyptian Salafiyya Press, that Imam Abu Muhammad al-Juwayni - the father of Imam al-Haramayn - "repented" from Ash`ari doctrine and supposedly authored a tract titled Risala fi Ithbat al-Istiw�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢' wa al-Fawqiyya ("Epistle on the Assertion of Establishment and Aboveness").21 This spurious attribution continues to be promoted without verification - for obvious reasons - by modern-day "Salafis" who adduce it to forward the claim that al-Juwayni embraced anthropomorphist concepts. The Risala in question is not mentioned in any of the bibliographical and biographical sources nor does al-Dhahabi cite it in his encyclopedia of anthropomorphist views entitled al-`Uluw. More conclusively, it is written in modern argumentative style and reflects typically contemporary anthropomorphist obsessions.

36- He derides the fuqah�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢' of the Umma for accepting - in their massive majority - the hadith of Mu`adh ibn Jabal on ijtih�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢d as authentic then rejects the definition of knowledge (`ilm) in Islam as pertaining to fiqh but claims that it pertains only to hadith,22 although the Ulema of the Salaf explicitly said that a hadith master without fiqh is a misguided innovator! And he defines the `�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢lim as "meaning, of course, the `Salafi' `�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢lim, not the `Khalafi [late Egyptian Shaykh] Ghazali'!"23 Al-Qurtubi said: "One of the knowers of Allah said: A certain group that has not yet come up in our time but shall show up at the end of time, will curse the scholars and insult the jurists."24

Source

[AhmedBahgat]

Salam all

I posted a small comment today on youtube site for this video and guess what, my comment was deleted and I can not add comments any more, I just stated that this sheikh contradicted himself, lied to us and said lies against Allah

See how they can not handle the truth, they prefer to be blind and blinded

Salam

[AhmedBahgat]

Salam all

I posted a small comment today on youtube site for this video and guess what, my comment was deleted and I can not add comments any more, I just stated that this sheikh contradicted himself, lied to us and said lies against Allah

See how they can not handle the truth, they prefer to be blind and blinded

Salam

[AhmedBahgat]

Good morning all

Here is sheikh Al-Albany (the teacher of such sheikh Salem Al Amry) insulting Sheikh Sharawi (my Quran mentor), he called him the following:


Link


1- Liar (you feel that in his style that he is a liar)
2- Munharif (has gone astray)
3- People can not learn knowledge from him


what a complete freak that Al-Albany has turned to be

I seek refuge in Allah

Salam

[AhmedBahgat]

Good morning all

Here is sheikh Al-Albany (the teacher of such sheikh Salem Al Amry) insulting Sheikh Sharawi (my Quran mentor), he called him the following:


Link


1- Liar (you feel that in his style that he is a liar)
2- Munharif (has gone astray)
3- People can not learn knowledge from him


what a complete freak that Al-Albany has turned to be

I seek refuge in Allah

Salam

[AhmedBahgat]

Here is mister Al-Albany insulting another Sheikh (Sheikh Kishk), he called him:


Link


1- Qasas
2- Hawash

very insulting I have to tell you

How come this sheikh from UAE (Al Amry) holds him in such high regard despite all his innovations in the religions (posted above) and his insults to other religious scholars?

No one can blame me then for insulting him (Al Amry), indeed he is a clear cut liar, clear cut confused and most importantly he has gone astray indulged in his shirk

Salam

[AhmedBahgat]

Here is mister Al-Albany insulting another Sheikh (Sheikh Kishk), he called him:


Link


1- Qasas
2- Hawash

very insulting I have to tell you

How come this sheikh from UAE (Al Amry) holds him in such high regard despite all his innovations in the religions (posted above) and his insults to other religious scholars?

No one can blame me then for insulting him (Al Amry), indeed he is a clear cut liar, clear cut confused and most importantly he has gone astray indulged in his shirk

Salam

[AhmedBahgat]

Here is Al-Albany giving a fatwa that allows starpping bombs around us to bomb the enemy, i.e. committing suicide is allowed according to Al-Albany, as long as we intend to kill the enemy along with us:


Link

[AhmedBahgat]

Here is Al-Albany giving a fatwa that allows starpping bombs around us to bomb the enemy, i.e. committing suicide is allowed according to Al-Albany, as long as we intend to kill the enemy along with us:


Link

[AhmedBahgat]

Here is the Jahil Al-Albani allowing the adult men to suck the breasts of women, as if this way the man should be prohibited upon the woman

what crap is this man?, as if any woman can produce milk any time, absolute non sense that is again based on their crap hadith


Link


See, how this Albani is a clear cut Wahaabi who still was not happy with what Bukhari and Muslim did so he created his own Sahih version that is based on Bukhari and Muslim books

Salam

[AhmedBahgat]

Here is the Jahil Al-Albani allowing the adult men to suck the breasts of women, as if this way the man should be prohibited upon the woman

what crap is this man?, as if any woman can produce milk any time, absolute non sense that is again based on their crap hadith


Link


See, how this Albani is a clear cut Wahaabi who still was not happy with what Bukhari and Muslim did so he created his own Sahih version that is based on Bukhari and Muslim books

Salam

[AhmedBahgat]

Here he is again suggesting that masturbating to ejaculate during the fasting of Ramadan by men will not invalidate the fasting:


Link


What carp is that, brothers and sisters?

[AhmedBahgat]

Here he is again suggesting that masturbating to ejaculate during the fasting of Ramadan by men will not invalidate the fasting:


Link


What carp is that, brothers and sisters?

[AhmedBahgat]

Salam all

Today inshaallah I will try to reply to the next 10 minutes in the video by sheikh Salem Al Amry

As we have seen so far that we are dealing with a very confused man who has committed three mistakes:

1) Contradicted himself (at least two times when he told us that the Sunnah are 3 types then later on he said that they are 4 types, and when he told us that the prophet kept quite in the story of the roasted lizard while the prophet clearly did not stay quite and clearly allowed eating the lizards a second earlier)

2) He lied to us when he told us that the Arabic word Al Zikr in verse 15:9 means Sunnah, I clearly showed that 4 respected scholars confirmed that the word Al Zikr in 15:9 means the Quran ONLY, I also showed a few Quran verses showing clearly that Al Zikr is a Book which is Al Quran, yet there are still many more verses that should prove that Al Zikr is nothing but Al Quran, which I may walk you through in another comment inshaallah

3) He said lies against Allah when he told us that Allah sent down Isnad (the chain of narrators) to the Ummah while Allah never said so, nor sheilkh Al Amry managed to prove it by any other mean but calling that our Ummah is called the Ummah of Isnad

The last one above is actually a huge crime in Islam, the Quran clearly told us that we should never say things that we don�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t know against Allah:

Say: My Lord has only prohibited indecencies, those of them that are apparent as well as those that are concealed, and sin and rebellion without justice, and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down any authority, and that you say against Allah what you do not know.
[The Quran ; 7:33]

قُلْ إِنَّمَا حَرَّمَ رَبِّيَ الْفَوَاحِشَ مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَمَا بَطَنَ وَالإِثْمَ وَالْبَغْيَ بِغَيْرِ الْحَقِّ وَأَن تُشْرِكُواْ بِاللّهِ مَا لَمْ يُنَزِّلْ بِهِ سُلْطَانًا وَأَن تَقُولُواْ عَلَى اللّهِ مَا لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ (33)


Let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s analyse this crystal clear verse just in case it is hard for some:

-> The verse starts by telling Mohammad to: Say: My Lord has only prohibited, clearly the word used Harram, i.e. prohibited , now, here is what Allah has made Haram:

1) الْفَوَاحِشَ مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَمَا بَطَنَ , i.e. indecencies, those of them that are apparent as well as those that are concealed

2) وَالإِثْمَ, i.e. and sin

3) وَالْبَغْيَ بِغَيْرِ الْحَقِّ , i.e. and rebellion without justice

4) وَأَن تُشْرِكُواْ بِاللّهِ مَا لَمْ يُنَزِّلْ بِهِ سُلْطَانًا , i.e. and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down any authority

5) وَأَن تَقُولُواْ عَلَى اللّهِ مَا لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ , and that you say against Allah what you do not know.

How plain is that? Come on, mister Al Amry is a sheikh who should have understood the Quran, why he does not understand the above then? I can�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t believe this, man, mister Al Amry told us that Allah sent Isnad, it is our right to ask him from where he got this information about Allah? If he can�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t prove it then he must be one of those who say things against Allah, which they do not know, remember what this verse just told us, it is HARAM to say things against Allah which we have no knowledge, this is actually a common sin that Satan always try hard to make the believers fall into, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look

168: O people! Eat the lawful and good things out of what is in the earth, and do not follow the footsteps of the shaitan; indeed to you, he is a clear enemy.
169: He only commands you with evil and indecency, and that you may say against Allah what you do not know.
[Al Quran ; 2:168-169]

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ كُلُواْ مِمَّا فِي الأَرْضِ حَلاَلاً طَيِّباً وَلاَ تَتَّبِعُواْ خُطُوَاتِ الشَّيْطَانِ إِنَّهُ لَكُمْ عَدُوٌّ مُّبِينٌ (168)
إِنَّمَا يَأْمُرُكُمْ بِالسُّوءِ وَالْفَحْشَاء وَأَن تَقُولُواْ عَلَى اللّهِ مَا لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ (169)

-> See how Satan always try to make us say things against Allah which we have no knowledge: do not follow the footsteps of the shaitan; indeed to you, he is a clear enemy., He only commands you with evil and indecency, as well, Satan commands us to: وَأَن تَقُولُواْ عَلَى اللّهِ مَا لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ , and that you say against Allah what you do not know. and that is exactly what mister Al Amry did, he said things against Allah which he has no knowledge or proof, simply he submitted to Satan according to 2:168-169

That was the first 14 minutes in his video, in the next 10 minutes, his confusion, lies and deception will be more evident, let me start and waste no time because this one is going to be big too

One of the things he said trying hard to explain his invented fourth type of Sunnah (Sunnah Tarkiah) that because the prophet did not call the Azan before the Eid prayer then if any Muslim community later on decided to call the Azan before the Eid prayer then it has to be a Bidah an invention, the word Bidah is not really a bad word however in his typical Arabic introduction he made the word really bad, let me explain:

He said in his Arabic introduction: Kul Bidah Dalalah Wa Kul Dalalah Fi Al Nar, i.e. every invention (in the religion) is misguidance and every misguidance will be in the fire

Therefore according to his crap, any Muslim community which came in later generations and decided to call the Azan for the Eid prayer (for whatever compelling reason) then they must go to hell according to mister Al Amry crap, obviously it makes no sense, or should I say it only does if we take our brains out of the picture and just follow the hearsay and Zun without even qualifying any sense behind it, simply we are told by those sheikhs to be mute, dumb and blind , while Allah told us not to ever be as such, in fact Allah in many times described the kafirs as being as such (mute, dumb and blind)

It is like regardless of whatever any arising circumstances with any later Muslim generation that may lead to them making an Azan for the Eid prayer, they just can�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t do it or they will be classified as misguided and doomed in hell. I actually read in many Islamic books that many argued that not every Bidah (invention in the religion) is misguidance. In fact what most of sheikh Al Amry said in his Arabic introduction is based on the hearsay hadith, i.e. this part that every invention is misguidance and every misguidance is in the fire, is a typical hadith from their books, Allah on the other hand never said that the inventor of every religion invention will be destined to hell.

Simply, his elaboration regarding this invented fourth type of Sunnah that he called Sunnah Tarkiah, is useless because it does not make any sense, in fact the prophet never did many things, for example he never drove a car, he never prayed in an airplane, he may have never used the types of toilets that most human use today, I can find many things that most Muslims do during our time and it will be never done by the prophet and his companions, would that make those Muslims inventors bound to hell? That is why he said that many Muslims do not understand this fourth type of Sunnah, yet he failed to make us understand it because the example of the Azan for Eid prayer is simply not enough, in fact, I see nothing wrong in calling the Azan for the Eid prayer if for whatever reason it will be better to inform many that the Eid prayer is about to start, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s just say to inform the people that they need to be a bit quick because according to the hadith, if the Zakat is being paid after the Eid of Fitr prayer (the end of Ramdan month) starts, then it can�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t be Zakat any more, rather Sadaqah, and I can assure you that many Muslims miss out because the Eid prayer time is always unknown and sort of left to the Imam of the mosque to when to start praying, so I say making an Azan 10 or 15 minutes before it is actually a very good Bidah that should help the Muslims to make up the Zakat before the Eid prayer starts.

Mister Al Amry then repeated that his teacher mister Al-Albani checked all books of Sunnah, then based on his own authority he classified this hadith is authentic and that hadith is not, so he made it easy on the Muslims, now I�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??m not denying mister Al-Albany such authority of deciding which hadith may be authentic and which that may be not. His problem though is the same exact problem that all those Muhaditheen like Bukhari and Muslim suffer from, they only care about Isnad, they never cared about Matn (content) of the hadith, as long as they think that such chain of narrators are truthful, then whatever they say must be truthful regardless it makles sense or not and regardless it defames the prophet or not and even regardless it defames Allah or not.

That is why I have to give myself the same authority that these people have given themselves, it has to be up to me to decide which hadith that may be authentic and which that may be not, I on the other hand won�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t give a damn about the chain of narrators, I will only look at the Matn (the content) and compare it with the Quran, if no violation is committed and everything makes sense then I will accept such hadith as mere teaching from other people regardless who they are. This way I feel much more comfortable and more confident while accepting any conjecture from the hadith or even from any one.

Mister Al Amry moved then to cook another lie against the Quran, he is using verse 59:7 to validate his many books of hearsay that are called hadith, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look at the verse first:

Whatever Allah has restored to His Messenger from the people of the towns, it is for Allah and for the Messenger, and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, so that it may not be a thing taken by turns among the rich of you, and whatever the Messenger gives you, accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is severe in retribution.
[Al Quran ; 59:7]

مَّا أَفَاء اللَّهُ عَلَى رَسُولِهِ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْقُرَى فَلِلَّهِ وَلِلرَّسُولِ وَلِذِي الْقُرْبَى وَالْيَتَامَى وَالْمَسَاكِينِ وَابْنِ السَّبِيلِ كَيْ لَا يَكُونَ دُولَةً بَيْنَ الْأَغْنِيَاء مِنكُمْ وَمَا آتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانتَهُوا وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ شَدِيدُ الْعِقَابِ (7)

-> Most hadith worshippers use the above verse trying hard to validate their lies, on the process they continue to lie, they are telling us that the verse above is about accepting those books of Sunnah while the verse above is very clear that it was not about that,, even by just looking at the verse with no Tafsir, we can sense that it is not about the Sunnah, rather a specific incident that happened during the time of Mohammed, see: Whatever Allah has restored to His Messenger from the people of the towns, it is for Allah and for the Messenger, and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, so that it may not be a thing taken by turns among the rich of you, simply the verse was revealed after the prophet and the believers won a battle against the kafirs, they ended up with a lot of kafirs possessions, so the prophet needed to divide it between the believers, so Allah is saying that all what they took after winning the war should be divided between : it is for Allah and for the Messenger, and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer,, Allah even explained why, see: so that it may not be a thing taken by turns among the rich of you,, simply it means that to prevent some already rich people of getting richer, imagine what the prophet faced at the time while dividing such booties, there is no doubt that people conflicted with each other, sort of some were not happy from what the prophet gave them and others were not happy because the prophet did not give them from what they desired, so Allah is telling them regarding the division of war booties: and whatever the Messenger gives you, accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back,, please read the Tafsir to confirm what I just said, now with people like mister Al Amry, they remove such sentence from the whole verse and present it on its own, so it becomes general and not specific to what the verse is aimed at, on the other hand I actually agree that whatever the Messenger gives you (concerning laws), accept it, and whatever he forbids you (concerning laws), keep back, but only if it is compatible with the Quran, for example like Salat, i.e. what I read or learnt from the books of Sunnah about Salat, is 100% compatible with the Quran, this is because of the fact that the Quran mentioned the Salat 100s times, therefore I have no problem with all such hadith of Salat but only after they also pass the common sense test, I just can�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t be blind and accept the work of all those humans blindly while the fact remains that I will not be able to blame anyone of them if been discovered that they are wrong and I just followed them blindly.

Now, the hadith in Bukhari and many other books confirm the message of 59:7, the hadith has given us an example of the prophet dividing a war booty after the battle of Khaiber, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look:

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Here is a quick translation:

Alhamidi TOLD us that Suffian TOLD us that Alzahri SAID that Anbaissah Ibn Sayd SAID that Abu Hurairah SAID:

I came to the prophet Sallah Allah Alaihi Was allam while he was in Khaiber after they conquered it and said, O messenger of Allah, give me some of the war booty, then one of the children of Saeed Ibn Alaas said: Do not give him any O messenger of Allah. then Abu Hurairah said: This is the killer of Ibn Qawqal, so Ibn Saeed Ibn Alaas said: This is Strange coming from a man who came to us from under the legs of Lambs and rant about the killing of a Muslim man whom Allah has honoured on my hands (i.e. he killed him) while Allah yet did not humiliate me on his hands. Then he (Abaissah) said, I do not know if the prophet gave him a share or not

Clear from the above Bukhari hadith, that Ibn Saeed Ibn Alaas was an ex kafir who killed a Muslim (Ibn Qawqal) before his Islam, when the prophet was dividing the booty after the victory of Khaiber, Abu Hurairah came to the prophet seeking a share (that should say a lot about his personality), one of the other Muslims (Ibn Saeed Ibn Alaas) objected, so Abu Hurairah quickly attacked him by telling the prophet not to give such man any share because he was the killer of Ibn Qawqal, so Ibn Saeed Ibn Alaas replied back by attacking Abu Hurairah.

The objective of the above hearsay hadith is simply to confirm that those ex Kafirs who committed crimes against Islam before their Islam, are forgiven, and they should share the war booty with other Muslims, despite that the hadith ended with a confusing fact that they did not know if the prophet gave him a share or not, in effect the hadith is really useless because it did not tell us what we should do with the ex kafirs regarding the division of war booty.

Mister Al Amry moved on to another verse trying hard to justify his shirk with the invented books of Sunnah next to the book of Allah, now, he is using the following verse:

Say: If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful
[Al Quran ; 3:31]

قُلْ إِن كُنتُمْ تُحِبُّونَ اللّهَ فَاتَّبِعُونِي يُحْبِبْكُمُ اللّهُ وَيَغْفِرْ لَكُمْ ذُنُوبَكُمْ وَاللّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ (31)

-> The message of the verse above is clear, Say: If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, , how this can relate to the Hadith books? Hold on, mister Al Amry says: i.e. Allah is making it clear to follow the prophet so Allah loves us back, i.e. Allah made it obligatory on us to follow the prophet, sure, I totally agree with that, but we do not have the prophet among us, we only have what we heard about him for 1200 years, therefore we only have one thing to qualify what we hear, this thing is nothing but the Quran, in effect one of the prophet roles was to explain to us things, not everything though, rather things that we may differ in it, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look:

And We have not sent down to you the Book except that you may make explain to them that about which they differ, and (as) a guidance and a mercy for a people who believe.
[The Quran ; 16:64]

وَمَا أَنزَلْنَا عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ إِلاَّ لِتُبَيِّنَ لَهُمُ الَّذِي اخْتَلَفُواْ فِيهِ وَهُدًى وَرَحْمَةً لِّقَوْمٍ يُؤْمِنُونَ (64)

-> See: And We have not sent down to you the Book except that you may make explain to them that about which they differ,, therefore the prophet was either talking Quran verses or explaining Quran verses to explain to us things that we may have differed in it, we don not need to know that he married Aysha when she was 6 and consumed the marriage when she was 9, simply it has nothing to do with the religion nor that we need to follow the prophet in such because if that is true then it should be only suited to their time, in fact during such time it was a common custom that fathers offer their young daughters for marriage, something that is hardly done 1400 years later.

Therefore, I totally agree with mister Al Amry that without the Sunnah, we will not know the Deen nor understand Islam, I do not need to imagine that there is no Sunnah though as mister Al Amry suggested, because I�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??m sure that in such case Allah would have planned to include how to pray, and how to pay Zakat etc in the Quran, so when mister Al Amry says that the Sunnah explains the Quran, I have to conservatively agree with him because I say the Sunnah explains parts of the Quran not all of it, and most certainly the Sunnah is not needed with many parts of the Quran, but I still have to ask mister Al Amry, how knowing that the prophet married Aysha at the age of 6 and consumed the marriage at the age of 9 is an explanation to any part in the Quran?

See what I�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??m talking about, I�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??m indeed following any Sunnah that is related firmly to the Quran someway or another as well is logically acceptable, I have nothing to do with what they call Sunnah yet it has nothing to do with anything in the religion, or it contradicts the words of Allah big times. Very simple indeed.

Mister Al Amry then categorised the relation between Quran and Sunnah as follow:

A) Direct Relationship between Sunnah and Quran, as scholars of Osul say, the Sunnah details the summery, general statement, like when Allah said Wa Aqimu Al Salat

Again, I conservatively agree, I agree that the Sunnah in most cases must have direct relation with the Quran, on the other hand I disagree calling the Quran a summary, because this is a contradiction to what Allah has said in the Quran many times that the Quran is a detailed book, for the Salat and other rituals though, it was part of the plan of Allah to leave it to the prophet to teach it or explain it for us, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look:

And if it was not for the grace of Allah upon you and His mercy, a party of them would have desired to misguide you and they do not misguide but themselves, and they shall not harm you in anything, and Allah has sent down to you the Book and the wisdom and He has taught you what you did not know, and indeed the grace of Allah upon you is great.
[The Quran ; 4:113]

وَلَوْلاَ فَضْلُ اللّهِ عَلَيْكَ وَرَحْمَتُهُ لَهَمَّت طَّآئِفَةٌ مُّنْهُمْ أَن يُضِلُّوكَ وَمَا يُضِلُّونَ إِلاُّ أَنفُسَهُمْ وَمَا يَضُرُّونَكَ مِن شَيْءٍ وَأَنزَلَ اللّهُ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَعَلَّمَكَ مَا لَمْ تَكُنْ تَعْلَمُ وَكَانَ فَضْلُ اللّهِ عَلَيْكَ عَظِيمًا (113)

-> Very clear, Mohammad was given 3 things from Allah:
1) Al Kitab, (The Quran), َأَنزَلَ اللّهُ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ , Allah has sent down to you the Book

2) Al Hikmah, (The wisdom), وَالْحِكْمَةَ, and the wisdom

3) Other things that Mohammad did not know, وَعَلَّمَكَ مَا لَمْ تَكُنْ تَعْلَمُ, and He has taught you what you did not know

Now, Mohammad mission was to deliver those 3 things, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s see how Allah told us about it as well:

As We have sent between you a messenger from among you who recites to you Our signs and purifies you and teaches you the Book and the wisdom and teaches you that which you did not know.
[The Quran ; 2:151]

كَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا فِيكُمْ رَسُولاً مِّنكُمْ يَتْلُو عَلَيْكُمْ آيَاتِنَا وَيُزَكِّيكُمْ وَيُعَلِّمُكُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَيُعَلِّمُكُم مَّا لَمْ تَكُونُواْ تَعْلَمُونَ (151)

-> Clear as light from 2:151, Allah sent His prophet to do the followings:

1) يَتْلُو عَلَيْكُمْ آيَاتِنَا , recites to you Our signs

2) وَيُزَكِّيكُمْ , and purifies you

3) وَيُعَلِّمُكُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَة , and teaches you the Book and the wisdom , obviously we can see that teaching us in the Scripture is something else other than teaching us the wisdom., these are the first two items that were sent to Mohammad from Allah as we read earlier in 4:113

4) وَيُعَلِّمُكُم مَّا لَمْ تَكُونُواْ تَعْلَمُونَ , and teaches you that which you did not know, and here is the third item that was given to Mohammad from Allah, consequently he delivered it as well to us and that thing should cover anything that is not detailed in the Quran or Hikmah like the Salat for example. Yet I have to ask mister Al Amry what Hikmah exactly in knowing that the prophet used to sleep with all his 9 or 11 wives one after the other without having a bath in between? Most likely the prophet did not do that and even if he used to do it, then that is his private sexual life that we should never put in a book that can be used with the kafir enemy of Islam to defame the prophet.

Mister Al Amry so asked: can anyone teach me how to pray from the Quran? I say no one can, but at least the Salat is mentioned 100s times in the Quran, and at least we know well that Allah ordained the law of prayer on us, Mohammed on the other hand did not decree the law of prayer on us, he only explained to us how to pray and in this case his actions is 100% qualified by the Quran according to 4:113 & 2:151. Did you notice how these two verses are very much tight together, they say the exact things that Allah gave Mohammed and consequently what Mohammed should have given us. Just for fun did you notice that 4+1+1+3 = 2+1+5+1 = 9, LOL, something for the 19ers or the Submitters cult members to cheer about.

Mister Al Amry then had a shot at those who are calling themselves Qurani, or Quraniyoon, he asked the Indians if they have them in India? Then added to ask any of those to teach him Salat from Quran? Well, I actually agree with him, I had a shot at those called Quran aloners for about 2 years on their web site, indeed they do not know how to pray nor do they know how to perform any ritual, they ended up inventing their own crap regarding such rituals, for them no Sunnah means no Sunnah, regardless

See, I�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??m sitting some where in the middle between these two extremist groups:

1) The hadith advocates who accept any hadith in Bukhari and Muslim regardless
2) The Quran aloners who reject any Sunnah regardless

Mister Al Amry then told us there will never be a contradiction between Quran and Sunnah, if there is a contradiction, it is only in your mind, but the reality that there is no contradiction, he stated that we will never see a contradiction between the Quran and the authentic Sunnah of the prophet, simply because both of them are from Allah, so it is irrational to find a conflict or a contradiction, if there is a contradiction it is either the hadith is not authentic or our understanding is incorrect.

I�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??m really puzzled with his statement, that if there is a contradiction, he says it has to be one of the followings only:

1) Either the hadith is not authentic
2) Or our understanding is not correct

Of course, what else it might be, on the other hand this is exactly what we are trying to say that some hadith in Sahih Bukhari and Muslim that contradict the Quran, can not be authentic, why it has to be that our understating is incorrect?

The problem with such sheikhs that they want to eliminate your right to use your brain, they only want this right to themselves while at the same time not showing that they are great examples for us to follow, indeed the example of Bukhari, Muslim and Al-Albany, all gave their own selves the right to qualify any hadith and at the same time they are taking such right from the rest of the Muslims, as if we may blame them if they are wrong in their conclusions, their conclusions that are based on an invented crap called Ilm Al Jarh Wa Al Tadleel, the science of crediting and discrediting the narrators, I call it Ilm Al Ightiab, i.e. the science of talking ill about others through conjectures trying to discredit them based on personal opinions and not facts.

Mister Al Amry then added: Some who say that we only follow what is in the Quran, say no no no no, you follow the Quran and Sunnah, because you have been commanded by Allah to follow the Quran and Sunnah.

Well, why it has to be Quran only or Quran&Sunnah?

Why it can�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t be Quran and Sunnah that is qualified by the Quran?

It is really a simple question with very obvious answer, that Quran and Sunnah that is qualified by the Quran should be the safest way to go.

Mister Al Amry then told us a long story that he confused with other stories in between: A woman came to Abdullah Ibn Masood who said: A woman who plucks her eyebrow is cursed, she told him what are you saying, I have read the Quran cover to cover and never read what you said, Ibn Masood who was one of the Fuqahaa (knowledgeable), but because he left Madina earlier, so many of the hadith of the prophet, he did not hear of, (Mister Al Amry then moved on to another story without finishing this one he just started), in the early days of Dawaa Muslims used to pray putting the hands between knees, but this practice was abrogated, but Ibn Masood did not know about this abrogation, so he was praying as he praying before, but this could not be used against Ibn Masood, because the hadith did not reach him, due to the difficulty at such time for any hadith to spread, that is why Abu Hurairah used to sit down with the prophet plenty of times so he memorised many hadith, (mister Al Amry started another story about Abu Hurairah) so later on when he (Abu Hurairah) was narrating the hadith some of the Sahaba like Omar Ibn Alkhatab used to ask him:

Did the prophet say that?

Abu Hurairah used to reply as follow:

Yes Omar but your were busy, I was next to his knee, yes he said that, then he moved on to yet another story, when Omar was heading to Syria and heard about the plaque that is spreading in there, he asked the Sahaba what they say? The Sahaba were divided into two groups, one said let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s go there and the other said no, the disease is very contagious, dangerous and fatal, so Omar decided not to go, only 100 of Sahaba including Omar, did not hear about a hadith about the plaque that was said by the prophet. Mister Al Amry uses this story as a defence when asked, is it possible that such Imam did not know about a hadith? Mister Al Amry answer is yes it is possible, he explains that only Abdul Al Rahman Ibn Awuf heard the hadith of the plaque but he was away answering the call of nature, but when he returned and found out that the army has decided not to head to Syria, he said, I heard the prophet saying:

If you heard of a plaque in a town and you are inside that town, don�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t leave the town, and if you are outside, don�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t enter,

So Omar said, Alhamdulleleah

Man, what a confusing and boring story(s) by sheikh Al Amry, did you notice how Omar quickly questioned Abu Hurairah if he heard the prophet saying so, to which Abu Hurairah affirmed and told Omar that he was too busy to hear it, but he was sitting at the knees of the prophet hearing every thing he said, again the always questionable Abu Hurairah, let me show you a strange example from Sahih Bukhari

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Amr Ibn Hafs TOLD us that his father TOLD them that Alamash TOLD them that Abu Salih SAID that Abu Hurairah SAID:

The prophet Salla Allah Alaihi Wa Sallam said: The best alms is that which is given when one is rich, and a giving hand is better than a taking one, and you should start first to support your dependents. A wife says: You should either provide me with food or divorce me. A slave says: Give me food and enjoy my service. A son says: Give me food; to whom do you leave me?

The people said: O Abu Hurairah! Did you hear that from the messenger of Allah?

Abu Hurairah said: No, it is from Abu Hurairah.

-> See, Abu Hurairah starts by telling us: The prophet Salla Allah Alaihi Wa Sallam said:, then the people doubted him and asked him: O Abu Hurairah! Did you hear that from the messenger of Allah?, then Abu Hurairah replies: No, it is from Abu Hurairah.

LOL, How clear is that, brothers and sisters? If Abu Hurairah was such man of integrity why Omar Ibn Alkhatab, Aysha and many other people always doubted what he said about the prophet?

Well, possibly you want to see more, now worries, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look at another hadith:

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Alzuhari SAID that Anas Ibn Malik SAID:

The messenger of Allah Salla Allah Alaihi Wa Sallam said: Do not make drinks in Al-Dubba nor in Al-Muzaffat.

Abu Hurairah used to add to them Al-Hantam and Al-Naqir.

-> See how Anas Ibn Malik clearly told us that Abu Hurairah used to add to what the prophet prohibited in the above hadith.

I have never trusted Abu Hurairah nor will I, I have nothing against the man, it is their own Sahih hadith that forced me to be as such, there is far more to say about Abu Hurairah but I will leave this to its own thread inshaalllah.

At this moment the video took a break showing some written hadith on the screen, one of the hadith shown is this one:

Abdullah Ibn Amr said that the prophet said, a Muslim is the one who avoids harming Muslims with his tongue and hands, and a Muhajir is he who gives up what Allah has forbidden
[Sahih Bukhari, Vol 1, Kitab Al Iman, chapter 4, haidth 15]

-> See: a Muslim is the one who avoids harming Muslims with his tongue, well, mister Al-Albany, the teacher of mister Al Amry can not be classified as a Muslim then, let me remind you with his insults against two of the best sheikhs Egypt produced and also are of Al-Albany generation:


Link

Link


See, he is calling sheikh Sharawi and sheikh Kishk, Liars, Hawash, Qasas and Munharif

That was the end of part 1 in the video, it ended at minute 24:30, I would like to do the exact same which is have a break and show you a couple of written hadith from Sunan Al-Darmy:

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Yazeed TOLD us that Alawam HEARD Ibrahim Altaimy who SAID:

Ibn Masood was informed that the people have other books that they admire, so he stayed until they brought such book to him and he destroyed it then he said: The people of the book before you will be destroyed because they studied the books of their Ulamaa and left the book of their Lord.

->. How clear is that, brothers and sisters? See, the people of the book will be destroyed in the JD because they admire the books of their Ulamaa while abandoning the book of Allah that was sent to them, this was clearly stated in another hadith, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Zakariah Ibn Uday TOLD us that Ubaid Allah who is Ibn Amr, that Abdulmalik Ibn Umair HEARD Abi Bardah who HEARD Abi Musa SAYING:

The children of Israel wrote a book then they followed it and left the Torah.

-> See how clear it is this time, sounds like the Muslims, hey

Finally, I will leave you yet with another hadith, still from Sunan Al-Darmy, this hadith however tells us about an incident when Allah revealed the following Quran verse:

Is it not enough for them that We have sent down to you the Book which is recited to them? Most surely there is mercy in this and a reminder for a people who believe.
[The Quran ; 29:51]

أَوَلَمْ يَكْفِهِمْ أَنَّا أَنزَلْنَا عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ يُتْلَى عَلَيْهِمْ إِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ لَرَحْمَةً وَذِكْرَى لِقَوْمٍ يُؤْمِنُونَ (51)


Here is the hadith:

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Mohammed Ibn Ahmed TOLD us that Suffian SAID that Amr SAID that Yahya Ibn Gaadah SAID:

The prophet Salla Allah Alaihi Wa Sallam came one day with a book and said: It is enough misguidance for the people who desire something else to what their prophet has come to them with, or a book other than their book

So Allah revealed verse 29:51]

-> See how 29:51 raises a very strong argument against those who desire other books to seek guidance from it but the book of Allah: أَوَلَمْ يَكْفِهِمْ أَنَّا أَنزَلْنَا عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ يُتْلَى عَلَيْهِمْ , i.e. Is it not enough for them that We have sent down to you the Book which is recited to them? , indeed the Quran is the only source of: Most surely there is mercy in this and a reminder for a people who believe.

See: A reminder for a people who believe.

Salam all

[AhmedBahgat]

Salam all

Today inshaallah I will try to reply to the next 10 minutes in the video by sheikh Salem Al Amry

As we have seen so far that we are dealing with a very confused man who has committed three mistakes:

1) Contradicted himself (at least two times when he told us that the Sunnah are 3 types then later on he said that they are 4 types, and when he told us that the prophet kept quite in the story of the roasted lizard while the prophet clearly did not stay quite and clearly allowed eating the lizards a second earlier)

2) He lied to us when he told us that the Arabic word Al Zikr in verse 15:9 means Sunnah, I clearly showed that 4 respected scholars confirmed that the word Al Zikr in 15:9 means the Quran ONLY, I also showed a few Quran verses showing clearly that Al Zikr is a Book which is Al Quran, yet there are still many more verses that should prove that Al Zikr is nothing but Al Quran, which I may walk you through in another comment inshaallah

3) He said lies against Allah when he told us that Allah sent down Isnad (the chain of narrators) to the Ummah while Allah never said so, nor sheilkh Al Amry managed to prove it by any other mean but calling that our Ummah is called the Ummah of Isnad

The last one above is actually a huge crime in Islam, the Quran clearly told us that we should never say things that we don�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t know against Allah:

Say: My Lord has only prohibited indecencies, those of them that are apparent as well as those that are concealed, and sin and rebellion without justice, and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down any authority, and that you say against Allah what you do not know.
[The Quran ; 7:33]

قُلْ إِنَّمَا حَرَّمَ رَبِّيَ الْفَوَاحِشَ مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَمَا بَطَنَ وَالإِثْمَ وَالْبَغْيَ بِغَيْرِ الْحَقِّ وَأَن تُشْرِكُواْ بِاللّهِ مَا لَمْ يُنَزِّلْ بِهِ سُلْطَانًا وَأَن تَقُولُواْ عَلَى اللّهِ مَا لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ (33)


Let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s analyse this crystal clear verse just in case it is hard for some:

-> The verse starts by telling Mohammad to: Say: My Lord has only prohibited, clearly the word used Harram, i.e. prohibited , now, here is what Allah has made Haram:

1) الْفَوَاحِشَ مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَمَا بَطَنَ , i.e. indecencies, those of them that are apparent as well as those that are concealed

2) وَالإِثْمَ, i.e. and sin

3) وَالْبَغْيَ بِغَيْرِ الْحَقِّ , i.e. and rebellion without justice

4) وَأَن تُشْرِكُواْ بِاللّهِ مَا لَمْ يُنَزِّلْ بِهِ سُلْطَانًا , i.e. and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down any authority

5) وَأَن تَقُولُواْ عَلَى اللّهِ مَا لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ , and that you say against Allah what you do not know.

How plain is that? Come on, mister Al Amry is a sheikh who should have understood the Quran, why he does not understand the above then? I can�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t believe this, man, mister Al Amry told us that Allah sent Isnad, it is our right to ask him from where he got this information about Allah? If he can�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t prove it then he must be one of those who say things against Allah, which they do not know, remember what this verse just told us, it is HARAM to say things against Allah which we have no knowledge, this is actually a common sin that Satan always try hard to make the believers fall into, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look

168: O people! Eat the lawful and good things out of what is in the earth, and do not follow the footsteps of the shaitan; indeed to you, he is a clear enemy.
169: He only commands you with evil and indecency, and that you may say against Allah what you do not know.
[Al Quran ; 2:168-169]

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ كُلُواْ مِمَّا فِي الأَرْضِ حَلاَلاً طَيِّباً وَلاَ تَتَّبِعُواْ خُطُوَاتِ الشَّيْطَانِ إِنَّهُ لَكُمْ عَدُوٌّ مُّبِينٌ (168)
إِنَّمَا يَأْمُرُكُمْ بِالسُّوءِ وَالْفَحْشَاء وَأَن تَقُولُواْ عَلَى اللّهِ مَا لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ (169)

-> See how Satan always try to make us say things against Allah which we have no knowledge: do not follow the footsteps of the shaitan; indeed to you, he is a clear enemy., He only commands you with evil and indecency, as well, Satan commands us to: وَأَن تَقُولُواْ عَلَى اللّهِ مَا لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ , and that you say against Allah what you do not know. and that is exactly what mister Al Amry did, he said things against Allah which he has no knowledge or proof, simply he submitted to Satan according to 2:168-169

That was the first 14 minutes in his video, in the next 10 minutes, his confusion, lies and deception will be more evident, let me start and waste no time because this one is going to be big too

One of the things he said trying hard to explain his invented fourth type of Sunnah (Sunnah Tarkiah) that because the prophet did not call the Azan before the Eid prayer then if any Muslim community later on decided to call the Azan before the Eid prayer then it has to be a Bidah an invention, the word Bidah is not really a bad word however in his typical Arabic introduction he made the word really bad, let me explain:

He said in his Arabic introduction: Kul Bidah Dalalah Wa Kul Dalalah Fi Al Nar, i.e. every invention (in the religion) is misguidance and every misguidance will be in the fire

Therefore according to his crap, any Muslim community which came in later generations and decided to call the Azan for the Eid prayer (for whatever compelling reason) then they must go to hell according to mister Al Amry crap, obviously it makes no sense, or should I say it only does if we take our brains out of the picture and just follow the hearsay and Zun without even qualifying any sense behind it, simply we are told by those sheikhs to be mute, dumb and blind , while Allah told us not to ever be as such, in fact Allah in many times described the kafirs as being as such (mute, dumb and blind)

It is like regardless of whatever any arising circumstances with any later Muslim generation that may lead to them making an Azan for the Eid prayer, they just can�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t do it or they will be classified as misguided and doomed in hell. I actually read in many Islamic books that many argued that not every Bidah (invention in the religion) is misguidance. In fact what most of sheikh Al Amry said in his Arabic introduction is based on the hearsay hadith, i.e. this part that every invention is misguidance and every misguidance is in the fire, is a typical hadith from their books, Allah on the other hand never said that the inventor of every religion invention will be destined to hell.

Simply, his elaboration regarding this invented fourth type of Sunnah that he called Sunnah Tarkiah, is useless because it does not make any sense, in fact the prophet never did many things, for example he never drove a car, he never prayed in an airplane, he may have never used the types of toilets that most human use today, I can find many things that most Muslims do during our time and it will be never done by the prophet and his companions, would that make those Muslims inventors bound to hell? That is why he said that many Muslims do not understand this fourth type of Sunnah, yet he failed to make us understand it because the example of the Azan for Eid prayer is simply not enough, in fact, I see nothing wrong in calling the Azan for the Eid prayer if for whatever reason it will be better to inform many that the Eid prayer is about to start, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s just say to inform the people that they need to be a bit quick because according to the hadith, if the Zakat is being paid after the Eid of Fitr prayer (the end of Ramdan month) starts, then it can�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t be Zakat any more, rather Sadaqah, and I can assure you that many Muslims miss out because the Eid prayer time is always unknown and sort of left to the Imam of the mosque to when to start praying, so I say making an Azan 10 or 15 minutes before it is actually a very good Bidah that should help the Muslims to make up the Zakat before the Eid prayer starts.

Mister Al Amry then repeated that his teacher mister Al-Albani checked all books of Sunnah, then based on his own authority he classified this hadith is authentic and that hadith is not, so he made it easy on the Muslims, now I�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??m not denying mister Al-Albany such authority of deciding which hadith may be authentic and which that may be not. His problem though is the same exact problem that all those Muhaditheen like Bukhari and Muslim suffer from, they only care about Isnad, they never cared about Matn (content) of the hadith, as long as they think that such chain of narrators are truthful, then whatever they say must be truthful regardless it makles sense or not and regardless it defames the prophet or not and even regardless it defames Allah or not.

That is why I have to give myself the same authority that these people have given themselves, it has to be up to me to decide which hadith that may be authentic and which that may be not, I on the other hand won�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t give a damn about the chain of narrators, I will only look at the Matn (the content) and compare it with the Quran, if no violation is committed and everything makes sense then I will accept such hadith as mere teaching from other people regardless who they are. This way I feel much more comfortable and more confident while accepting any conjecture from the hadith or even from any one.

Mister Al Amry moved then to cook another lie against the Quran, he is using verse 59:7 to validate his many books of hearsay that are called hadith, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look at the verse first:

Whatever Allah has restored to His Messenger from the people of the towns, it is for Allah and for the Messenger, and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, so that it may not be a thing taken by turns among the rich of you, and whatever the Messenger gives you, accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is severe in retribution.
[Al Quran ; 59:7]

مَّا أَفَاء اللَّهُ عَلَى رَسُولِهِ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْقُرَى فَلِلَّهِ وَلِلرَّسُولِ وَلِذِي الْقُرْبَى وَالْيَتَامَى وَالْمَسَاكِينِ وَابْنِ السَّبِيلِ كَيْ لَا يَكُونَ دُولَةً بَيْنَ الْأَغْنِيَاء مِنكُمْ وَمَا آتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانتَهُوا وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ شَدِيدُ الْعِقَابِ (7)

-> Most hadith worshippers use the above verse trying hard to validate their lies, on the process they continue to lie, they are telling us that the verse above is about accepting those books of Sunnah while the verse above is very clear that it was not about that,, even by just looking at the verse with no Tafsir, we can sense that it is not about the Sunnah, rather a specific incident that happened during the time of Mohammed, see: Whatever Allah has restored to His Messenger from the people of the towns, it is for Allah and for the Messenger, and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, so that it may not be a thing taken by turns among the rich of you, simply the verse was revealed after the prophet and the believers won a battle against the kafirs, they ended up with a lot of kafirs possessions, so the prophet needed to divide it between the believers, so Allah is saying that all what they took after winning the war should be divided between : it is for Allah and for the Messenger, and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer,, Allah even explained why, see: so that it may not be a thing taken by turns among the rich of you,, simply it means that to prevent some already rich people of getting richer, imagine what the prophet faced at the time while dividing such booties, there is no doubt that people conflicted with each other, sort of some were not happy from what the prophet gave them and others were not happy because the prophet did not give them from what they desired, so Allah is telling them regarding the division of war booties: and whatever the Messenger gives you, accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back,, please read the Tafsir to confirm what I just said, now with people like mister Al Amry, they remove such sentence from the whole verse and present it on its own, so it becomes general and not specific to what the verse is aimed at, on the other hand I actually agree that whatever the Messenger gives you (concerning laws), accept it, and whatever he forbids you (concerning laws), keep back, but only if it is compatible with the Quran, for example like Salat, i.e. what I read or learnt from the books of Sunnah about Salat, is 100% compatible with the Quran, this is because of the fact that the Quran mentioned the Salat 100s times, therefore I have no problem with all such hadith of Salat but only after they also pass the common sense test, I just can�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t be blind and accept the work of all those humans blindly while the fact remains that I will not be able to blame anyone of them if been discovered that they are wrong and I just followed them blindly.

Now, the hadith in Bukhari and many other books confirm the message of 59:7, the hadith has given us an example of the prophet dividing a war booty after the battle of Khaiber, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look:

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Here is a quick translation:

Alhamidi TOLD us that Suffian TOLD us that Alzahri SAID that Anbaissah Ibn Sayd SAID that Abu Hurairah SAID:

I came to the prophet Sallah Allah Alaihi Was allam while he was in Khaiber after they conquered it and said, O messenger of Allah, give me some of the war booty, then one of the children of Saeed Ibn Alaas said: Do not give him any O messenger of Allah. then Abu Hurairah said: This is the killer of Ibn Qawqal, so Ibn Saeed Ibn Alaas said: This is Strange coming from a man who came to us from under the legs of Lambs and rant about the killing of a Muslim man whom Allah has honoured on my hands (i.e. he killed him) while Allah yet did not humiliate me on his hands. Then he (Abaissah) said, I do not know if the prophet gave him a share or not

Clear from the above Bukhari hadith, that Ibn Saeed Ibn Alaas was an ex kafir who killed a Muslim (Ibn Qawqal) before his Islam, when the prophet was dividing the booty after the victory of Khaiber, Abu Hurairah came to the prophet seeking a share (that should say a lot about his personality), one of the other Muslims (Ibn Saeed Ibn Alaas) objected, so Abu Hurairah quickly attacked him by telling the prophet not to give such man any share because he was the killer of Ibn Qawqal, so Ibn Saeed Ibn Alaas replied back by attacking Abu Hurairah.

The objective of the above hearsay hadith is simply to confirm that those ex Kafirs who committed crimes against Islam before their Islam, are forgiven, and they should share the war booty with other Muslims, despite that the hadith ended with a confusing fact that they did not know if the prophet gave him a share or not, in effect the hadith is really useless because it did not tell us what we should do with the ex kafirs regarding the division of war booty.

Mister Al Amry moved on to another verse trying hard to justify his shirk with the invented books of Sunnah next to the book of Allah, now, he is using the following verse:

Say: If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful
[Al Quran ; 3:31]

قُلْ إِن كُنتُمْ تُحِبُّونَ اللّهَ فَاتَّبِعُونِي يُحْبِبْكُمُ اللّهُ وَيَغْفِرْ لَكُمْ ذُنُوبَكُمْ وَاللّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ (31)

-> The message of the verse above is clear, Say: If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, , how this can relate to the Hadith books? Hold on, mister Al Amry says: i.e. Allah is making it clear to follow the prophet so Allah loves us back, i.e. Allah made it obligatory on us to follow the prophet, sure, I totally agree with that, but we do not have the prophet among us, we only have what we heard about him for 1200 years, therefore we only have one thing to qualify what we hear, this thing is nothing but the Quran, in effect one of the prophet roles was to explain to us things, not everything though, rather things that we may differ in it, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look:

And We have not sent down to you the Book except that you may make explain to them that about which they differ, and (as) a guidance and a mercy for a people who believe.
[The Quran ; 16:64]

وَمَا أَنزَلْنَا عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ إِلاَّ لِتُبَيِّنَ لَهُمُ الَّذِي اخْتَلَفُواْ فِيهِ وَهُدًى وَرَحْمَةً لِّقَوْمٍ يُؤْمِنُونَ (64)

-> See: And We have not sent down to you the Book except that you may make explain to them that about which they differ,, therefore the prophet was either talking Quran verses or explaining Quran verses to explain to us things that we may have differed in it, we don not need to know that he married Aysha when she was 6 and consumed the marriage when she was 9, simply it has nothing to do with the religion nor that we need to follow the prophet in such because if that is true then it should be only suited to their time, in fact during such time it was a common custom that fathers offer their young daughters for marriage, something that is hardly done 1400 years later.

Therefore, I totally agree with mister Al Amry that without the Sunnah, we will not know the Deen nor understand Islam, I do not need to imagine that there is no Sunnah though as mister Al Amry suggested, because I�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??m sure that in such case Allah would have planned to include how to pray, and how to pay Zakat etc in the Quran, so when mister Al Amry says that the Sunnah explains the Quran, I have to conservatively agree with him because I say the Sunnah explains parts of the Quran not all of it, and most certainly the Sunnah is not needed with many parts of the Quran, but I still have to ask mister Al Amry, how knowing that the prophet married Aysha at the age of 6 and consumed the marriage at the age of 9 is an explanation to any part in the Quran?

See what I�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??m talking about, I�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??m indeed following any Sunnah that is related firmly to the Quran someway or another as well is logically acceptable, I have nothing to do with what they call Sunnah yet it has nothing to do with anything in the religion, or it contradicts the words of Allah big times. Very simple indeed.

Mister Al Amry then categorised the relation between Quran and Sunnah as follow:

A) Direct Relationship between Sunnah and Quran, as scholars of Osul say, the Sunnah details the summery, general statement, like when Allah said Wa Aqimu Al Salat

Again, I conservatively agree, I agree that the Sunnah in most cases must have direct relation with the Quran, on the other hand I disagree calling the Quran a summary, because this is a contradiction to what Allah has said in the Quran many times that the Quran is a detailed book, for the Salat and other rituals though, it was part of the plan of Allah to leave it to the prophet to teach it or explain it for us, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look:

And if it was not for the grace of Allah upon you and His mercy, a party of them would have desired to misguide you and they do not misguide but themselves, and they shall not harm you in anything, and Allah has sent down to you the Book and the wisdom and He has taught you what you did not know, and indeed the grace of Allah upon you is great.
[The Quran ; 4:113]

وَلَوْلاَ فَضْلُ اللّهِ عَلَيْكَ وَرَحْمَتُهُ لَهَمَّت طَّآئِفَةٌ مُّنْهُمْ أَن يُضِلُّوكَ وَمَا يُضِلُّونَ إِلاُّ أَنفُسَهُمْ وَمَا يَضُرُّونَكَ مِن شَيْءٍ وَأَنزَلَ اللّهُ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَعَلَّمَكَ مَا لَمْ تَكُنْ تَعْلَمُ وَكَانَ فَضْلُ اللّهِ عَلَيْكَ عَظِيمًا (113)

-> Very clear, Mohammad was given 3 things from Allah:
1) Al Kitab, (The Quran), َأَنزَلَ اللّهُ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ , Allah has sent down to you the Book

2) Al Hikmah, (The wisdom), وَالْحِكْمَةَ, and the wisdom

3) Other things that Mohammad did not know, وَعَلَّمَكَ مَا لَمْ تَكُنْ تَعْلَمُ, and He has taught you what you did not know

Now, Mohammad mission was to deliver those 3 things, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s see how Allah told us about it as well:

As We have sent between you a messenger from among you who recites to you Our signs and purifies you and teaches you the Book and the wisdom and teaches you that which you did not know.
[The Quran ; 2:151]

كَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا فِيكُمْ رَسُولاً مِّنكُمْ يَتْلُو عَلَيْكُمْ آيَاتِنَا وَيُزَكِّيكُمْ وَيُعَلِّمُكُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَيُعَلِّمُكُم مَّا لَمْ تَكُونُواْ تَعْلَمُونَ (151)

-> Clear as light from 2:151, Allah sent His prophet to do the followings:

1) يَتْلُو عَلَيْكُمْ آيَاتِنَا , recites to you Our signs

2) وَيُزَكِّيكُمْ , and purifies you

3) وَيُعَلِّمُكُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَة , and teaches you the Book and the wisdom , obviously we can see that teaching us in the Scripture is something else other than teaching us the wisdom., these are the first two items that were sent to Mohammad from Allah as we read earlier in 4:113

4) وَيُعَلِّمُكُم مَّا لَمْ تَكُونُواْ تَعْلَمُونَ , and teaches you that which you did not know, and here is the third item that was given to Mohammad from Allah, consequently he delivered it as well to us and that thing should cover anything that is not detailed in the Quran or Hikmah like the Salat for example. Yet I have to ask mister Al Amry what Hikmah exactly in knowing that the prophet used to sleep with all his 9 or 11 wives one after the other without having a bath in between? Most likely the prophet did not do that and even if he used to do it, then that is his private sexual life that we should never put in a book that can be used with the kafir enemy of Islam to defame the prophet.

Mister Al Amry so asked: can anyone teach me how to pray from the Quran? I say no one can, but at least the Salat is mentioned 100s times in the Quran, and at least we know well that Allah ordained the law of prayer on us, Mohammed on the other hand did not decree the law of prayer on us, he only explained to us how to pray and in this case his actions is 100% qualified by the Quran according to 4:113 & 2:151. Did you notice how these two verses are very much tight together, they say the exact things that Allah gave Mohammed and consequently what Mohammed should have given us. Just for fun did you notice that 4+1+1+3 = 2+1+5+1 = 9, LOL, something for the 19ers or the Submitters cult members to cheer about.

Mister Al Amry then had a shot at those who are calling themselves Qurani, or Quraniyoon, he asked the Indians if they have them in India? Then added to ask any of those to teach him Salat from Quran? Well, I actually agree with him, I had a shot at those called Quran aloners for about 2 years on their web site, indeed they do not know how to pray nor do they know how to perform any ritual, they ended up inventing their own crap regarding such rituals, for them no Sunnah means no Sunnah, regardless

See, I�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??m sitting some where in the middle between these two extremist groups:

1) The hadith advocates who accept any hadith in Bukhari and Muslim regardless
2) The Quran aloners who reject any Sunnah regardless

Mister Al Amry then told us there will never be a contradiction between Quran and Sunnah, if there is a contradiction, it is only in your mind, but the reality that there is no contradiction, he stated that we will never see a contradiction between the Quran and the authentic Sunnah of the prophet, simply because both of them are from Allah, so it is irrational to find a conflict or a contradiction, if there is a contradiction it is either the hadith is not authentic or our understanding is incorrect.

I�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??m really puzzled with his statement, that if there is a contradiction, he says it has to be one of the followings only:

1) Either the hadith is not authentic
2) Or our understanding is not correct

Of course, what else it might be, on the other hand this is exactly what we are trying to say that some hadith in Sahih Bukhari and Muslim that contradict the Quran, can not be authentic, why it has to be that our understating is incorrect?

The problem with such sheikhs that they want to eliminate your right to use your brain, they only want this right to themselves while at the same time not showing that they are great examples for us to follow, indeed the example of Bukhari, Muslim and Al-Albany, all gave their own selves the right to qualify any hadith and at the same time they are taking such right from the rest of the Muslims, as if we may blame them if they are wrong in their conclusions, their conclusions that are based on an invented crap called Ilm Al Jarh Wa Al Tadleel, the science of crediting and discrediting the narrators, I call it Ilm Al Ightiab, i.e. the science of talking ill about others through conjectures trying to discredit them based on personal opinions and not facts.

Mister Al Amry then added: Some who say that we only follow what is in the Quran, say no no no no, you follow the Quran and Sunnah, because you have been commanded by Allah to follow the Quran and Sunnah.

Well, why it has to be Quran only or Quran&Sunnah?

Why it can�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t be Quran and Sunnah that is qualified by the Quran?

It is really a simple question with very obvious answer, that Quran and Sunnah that is qualified by the Quran should be the safest way to go.

Mister Al Amry then told us a long story that he confused with other stories in between: A woman came to Abdullah Ibn Masood who said: A woman who plucks her eyebrow is cursed, she told him what are you saying, I have read the Quran cover to cover and never read what you said, Ibn Masood who was one of the Fuqahaa (knowledgeable), but because he left Madina earlier, so many of the hadith of the prophet, he did not hear of, (Mister Al Amry then moved on to another story without finishing this one he just started), in the early days of Dawaa Muslims used to pray putting the hands between knees, but this practice was abrogated, but Ibn Masood did not know about this abrogation, so he was praying as he praying before, but this could not be used against Ibn Masood, because the hadith did not reach him, due to the difficulty at such time for any hadith to spread, that is why Abu Hurairah used to sit down with the prophet plenty of times so he memorised many hadith, (mister Al Amry started another story about Abu Hurairah) so later on when he (Abu Hurairah) was narrating the hadith some of the Sahaba like Omar Ibn Alkhatab used to ask him:

Did the prophet say that?

Abu Hurairah used to reply as follow:

Yes Omar but your were busy, I was next to his knee, yes he said that, then he moved on to yet another story, when Omar was heading to Syria and heard about the plaque that is spreading in there, he asked the Sahaba what they say? The Sahaba were divided into two groups, one said let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s go there and the other said no, the disease is very contagious, dangerous and fatal, so Omar decided not to go, only 100 of Sahaba including Omar, did not hear about a hadith about the plaque that was said by the prophet. Mister Al Amry uses this story as a defence when asked, is it possible that such Imam did not know about a hadith? Mister Al Amry answer is yes it is possible, he explains that only Abdul Al Rahman Ibn Awuf heard the hadith of the plaque but he was away answering the call of nature, but when he returned and found out that the army has decided not to head to Syria, he said, I heard the prophet saying:

If you heard of a plaque in a town and you are inside that town, don�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t leave the town, and if you are outside, don�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t enter,

So Omar said, Alhamdulleleah

Man, what a confusing and boring story(s) by sheikh Al Amry, did you notice how Omar quickly questioned Abu Hurairah if he heard the prophet saying so, to which Abu Hurairah affirmed and told Omar that he was too busy to hear it, but he was sitting at the knees of the prophet hearing every thing he said, again the always questionable Abu Hurairah, let me show you a strange example from Sahih Bukhari

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Amr Ibn Hafs TOLD us that his father TOLD them that Alamash TOLD them that Abu Salih SAID that Abu Hurairah SAID:

The prophet Salla Allah Alaihi Wa Sallam said: The best alms is that which is given when one is rich, and a giving hand is better than a taking one, and you should start first to support your dependents. A wife says: You should either provide me with food or divorce me. A slave says: Give me food and enjoy my service. A son says: Give me food; to whom do you leave me?

The people said: O Abu Hurairah! Did you hear that from the messenger of Allah?

Abu Hurairah said: No, it is from Abu Hurairah.

-> See, Abu Hurairah starts by telling us: The prophet Salla Allah Alaihi Wa Sallam said:, then the people doubted him and asked him: O Abu Hurairah! Did you hear that from the messenger of Allah?, then Abu Hurairah replies: No, it is from Abu Hurairah.

LOL, How clear is that, brothers and sisters? If Abu Hurairah was such man of integrity why Omar Ibn Alkhatab, Aysha and many other people always doubted what he said about the prophet?

Well, possibly you want to see more, now worries, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look at another hadith:

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Alzuhari SAID that Anas Ibn Malik SAID:

The messenger of Allah Salla Allah Alaihi Wa Sallam said: Do not make drinks in Al-Dubba nor in Al-Muzaffat.

Abu Hurairah used to add to them Al-Hantam and Al-Naqir.

-> See how Anas Ibn Malik clearly told us that Abu Hurairah used to add to what the prophet prohibited in the above hadith.

I have never trusted Abu Hurairah nor will I, I have nothing against the man, it is their own Sahih hadith that forced me to be as such, there is far more to say about Abu Hurairah but I will leave this to its own thread inshaalllah.

At this moment the video took a break showing some written hadith on the screen, one of the hadith shown is this one:

Abdullah Ibn Amr said that the prophet said, a Muslim is the one who avoids harming Muslims with his tongue and hands, and a Muhajir is he who gives up what Allah has forbidden
[Sahih Bukhari, Vol 1, Kitab Al Iman, chapter 4, haidth 15]

-> See: a Muslim is the one who avoids harming Muslims with his tongue, well, mister Al-Albany, the teacher of mister Al Amry can not be classified as a Muslim then, let me remind you with his insults against two of the best sheikhs Egypt produced and also are of Al-Albany generation:


Link

Link


See, he is calling sheikh Sharawi and sheikh Kishk, Liars, Hawash, Qasas and Munharif

That was the end of part 1 in the video, it ended at minute 24:30, I would like to do the exact same which is have a break and show you a couple of written hadith from Sunan Al-Darmy:

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Yazeed TOLD us that Alawam HEARD Ibrahim Altaimy who SAID:

Ibn Masood was informed that the people have other books that they admire, so he stayed until they brought such book to him and he destroyed it then he said: The people of the book before you will be destroyed because they studied the books of their Ulamaa and left the book of their Lord.

->. How clear is that, brothers and sisters? See, the people of the book will be destroyed in the JD because they admire the books of their Ulamaa while abandoning the book of Allah that was sent to them, this was clearly stated in another hadith, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Zakariah Ibn Uday TOLD us that Ubaid Allah who is Ibn Amr, that Abdulmalik Ibn Umair HEARD Abi Bardah who HEARD Abi Musa SAYING:

The children of Israel wrote a book then they followed it and left the Torah.

-> See how clear it is this time, sounds like the Muslims, hey

Finally, I will leave you yet with another hadith, still from Sunan Al-Darmy, this hadith however tells us about an incident when Allah revealed the following Quran verse:

Is it not enough for them that We have sent down to you the Book which is recited to them? Most surely there is mercy in this and a reminder for a people who believe.
[The Quran ; 29:51]

أَوَلَمْ يَكْفِهِمْ أَنَّا أَنزَلْنَا عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ يُتْلَى عَلَيْهِمْ إِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ لَرَحْمَةً وَذِكْرَى لِقَوْمٍ يُؤْمِنُونَ (51)


Here is the hadith:

Source

Thumbnail, click to enlarge.

Mohammed Ibn Ahmed TOLD us that Suffian SAID that Amr SAID that Yahya Ibn Gaadah SAID:

The prophet Salla Allah Alaihi Wa Sallam came one day with a book and said: It is enough misguidance for the people who desire something else to what their prophet has come to them with, or a book other than their book

So Allah revealed verse 29:51]

-> See how 29:51 raises a very strong argument against those who desire other books to seek guidance from it but the book of Allah: أَوَلَمْ يَكْفِهِمْ أَنَّا أَنزَلْنَا عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ يُتْلَى عَلَيْهِمْ , i.e. Is it not enough for them that We have sent down to you the Book which is recited to them? , indeed the Quran is the only source of: Most surely there is mercy in this and a reminder for a people who believe.

See: A reminder for a people who believe.

Salam all

[AhmedBahgat]

Salam all

Let me continue refuting sheikh Al Amry allegations regarding Quran and sunnah, if you remember in my last comment, sheikh Al Amry started a story about Ibn Masood and a woman who used to pluck her eyebrows, mister Al Amry confused the story with many other stories until the end of part one, yet the main story was not completed, so let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s start Part 2 in which mister Al Amry continue such story between Ibn Masood and that woman.

When Ibn Masood told the woman that she is cursed because she plucks her eyebrows, the woman replied that she read the whole Quran and there was no such ruling in it, Ibn Masood replied to her that if she read the Quran then she should have read 59:7 which says: whatever the prophet gives you, take it, and whatever he forbids you, abstain from it

See how what I said earlier is confirmed in here, they take such sentence from the whole verse and present it in a way as if it is a verse on its own, which implies a general statement despite 59:7 is specific to the division of war booties.

Mister Al Amry continued the story that the woman wanted to make Ibn masood angry so she told him that his wife is doing it too (plucks her eyebrows).

Ibn Masood told the woman to go and check, and after she discovered that she stopped doing it, Ibn Masood told the woman that if his wife continued to do it, then she would have been divorced.

The above story is assumed to confirm to us the that Sunnah explains the Quran, while the story in fact has nothing to do with the Quran, just a mere advice from the prophet that the women should not do that, to which I again conservatively agree.

Mister Al Amry came up with yet another example, he did better in the next example because it directly relates to the Quran regarding what we should eat and what we should not eat, yet I believe that his example is flawed, let me explain:

Mister Al Amry suggested to imagine that we have two containers, one is labelled dead animals, and the other is labelled blood, what we need to do is to fill the two containers with the corresponding items, i.e. any dead goes into container one, and any blood goes into container two,

You can sense what mister Al Amry is setting up, obviously he is targeting this Quran verse:

Forbidden to you are the dead, and blood, and flesh of the swine, and that on which any other name than Allah has been invoked, and the strangled and the beaten to death, and that killed by a fall and that killed by a horn, and that which wild beasts have eaten, except what you managed to slaughter it, and what is sacrificed on the idol stones and that you seek to know the unseen by throwing arrows; that is a abomination. This day have those who disbelieved are in despair of your religion, therefore fear them not, and fear Me. This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed upon you My favour and chosen for you Islam as a religion; but whoever is forced by hunger, not inclining deliberately to a sin, then indeed Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[Al Quran ; 5:3]

حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَيْتَةُ وَالْدَّمُ وَلَحْمُ الْخِنْزِيرِ وَمَا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللّهِ بِهِ وَالْمُنْخَنِقَةُ وَالْمَوْقُوذَةُ وَالْمُتَرَدِّيَةُ وَالنَّطِيحَةُ وَمَا أَكَلَ السَّبُعُ إِلاَّ مَا ذَكَّيْتُمْ وَمَا ذُبِحَ عَلَى النُّصُبِ وَأَن تَسْتَقْسِمُواْ بِالأَزْلاَمِ ذَلِكُمْ فِسْقٌ الْيَوْمَ يَئِسَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ مِن دِينِكُمْ فَلاَ تَخْشَوْهُمْ وَاخْشَوْنِ الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الإِسْلاَمَ دِينًا فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ فِي مَخْمَصَةٍ غَيْرَ مُتَجَانِفٍ لِّإِثْمٍ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ (3)

-> As you can see above, the verse is prohibiting the dead and the blood as a source of food: Forbidden to you are the dead, and blood,

Now, msiter Al Amry is asking, is the fish dead or alive?, obviously it has to be dead (assuming we just bought it from a shop), therefore it has to go to the first container that is labelled dead animales, he then added that those who follow the Quran only can not eat fish.

Did you see how some Indians were shaking their heads in agreement with him, obviously they are aiming at an alleged hadith in which prophet stated that the only allowed dead to eat is the fish and the only allowed blood is the liver

Hold on a second, the example above is way too flawed, how about we bring 2 kilos of meat from the butcher, which container it should go to?, obviously iit should go to the container labelled dead animals too, are you with me brothers and sisters?, well the cows we eat are DEAD as well, we do not eat live cows, or do we?

See, the cows is like the fish, you kill the cow before you eat it by cutting its throat, while with the fish you kill it before you eat it by taking it out of the water, we don�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t need to slit the throat of the fish as we do with the cow, however both of them share the fact that if the cow was dead before we slit its throat or the fish was dead and floating on th water, then both are haram to eat, do you get it, mates?

The whole purpose of not eating the dead is to make sure that no harm will be caused to us by eating it, yet we eat both the fish and the cow while they are dead, however from the moment of their death to the moment of eating them (known), the meat of both should be reserved properly or both will rotten because they are dead, one was killed by slitting its throat and the other was killed by taking it out of the water. Can you see how flawed his example is. Certainly eating a dead cow (unknown how and when it died) or a dead fish (unknown how and when it died) must be haram according to 5:3

Mister Al Amry moved to his second flawed example, the liver, he thinks that the liver is nothing but blood, which is 100% wrong, so he is saying that the liver should go to the container labelled blood and consequently those who follow Quran only can not eat the liver, for mister the Amry however he is allowed to eat it because the prophet made exceptions and allowed it.

See, when I was young I was fed such hadith, for me if this hadith is true, it has to be scientifically incorrect because the liver is something else but the blood, in fact the liver is an organ to clean the blood, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look at what is the liver in the human body which I believe should be similar to the liver in the animals:

Liver, largest internal organ of the human body. The liver, which is part of the digestive system, performs more than 500 different functions, all of which are essential to life. Its essential functions include helping the body to digest fats, storing reserves of nutrients, filtering poisons and wastes from the blood, synthesizing a variety of proteins, and regulating the levels of many chemicals found in the bloodstream. The liver is unique among the body�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s vital organs in that it can regenerate, or grow back, cells that have been destroyed by some short-term injury or disease. But if the liver is damaged repeatedly over a long period of time, it may undergo irreversible changes that permanently interfere with function.

The human liver is a dark red-brown organ with a soft, spongy texture. It is located at the top of the abdomen, on the right side of the body just below the diaphragm�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??a sheet of muscle tissue that separates the lungs from the abdominal organs. The lower part of the rib cage covers the liver, protecting it from injury. In a healthy adult, the liver weighs about 1.5 kg (3 lb) and is about 15 cm (6 in) thick.

Despite its many complex functions, the liver is relatively simple in structure. It consists of two main lobes, left and right, which overlap slightly. The right lobe has two smaller lobes attached to it, called the quadrate and caudate lobes.

Each lobe contains many thousands of units called lobules that are the building blocks of the liver. Lobules are six-sided structures each about 1 mm (0.04 in) across. A tiny vein runs through the center of each lobule and eventually drains into the hepatic vein, which carries blood out of the liver. Hundreds of cubed-shaped liver cells, called hepatocytes, are arranged around the lobule's central vein in a radiating pattern. On the outside surface of each lobule are small veins, ducts, and arteries that carry fluids to and from the lobules. As the liver does its work, nutrients are collected, wastes are removed, and chemical substances are released into the body through these vessels.

Unlike most organs, which have a single blood supply, the liver receives blood from two sources. The hepatic artery delivers oxygen-rich blood from the heart, supplying about 25 percent of the liver's blood. The liver also receives oxygen-depleted blood from the hepatic portal vein. This vein, which is the source of 75 percent of the liver's blood supply, carries blood to the liver that has travelled from the digestive tract, where it collects nutrients as food is digested. These nutrients are delivered to the liver for further processing or storage.

Tiny blood vessel branches of the hepatic artery and the hepatic portal vein are found around each liver lobule. This network of blood vessels is responsible for the vast amount of blood that flows through the liver�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??about 1.4 liters (about 3 pt) every minute. Blood exits the liver through the hepatic vein, which eventually drains into the heart.
Source

See, the liver is something else but blood, however its relation with the blood is very important as you have read, unlike most organs, which have a single blood supply, the liver receives blood from two sources, this is to serve one of the main purpose of the liver which is to clean the blood, I�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??m sure it makes no sense to clean blood with blood, there is no question that the liver is not blood. If primitive people may think of it as blood then the cow flesh also contains blood, in fact if you go to a halal butcher and buy some meat, you should see the meat dripping blood, consequently it has to be prohibited too, obviously prohibiting the blood in 5:3 logically means prohibiting drinking liquid blood, it has nothing to do with the liver, the meat, the spleen, or any other organ for that matter.

Here you have it, brothers and sisters, his two examples of the fish and the liver are 100% flawed, if he says the fish is dead and we are allowed to eat it, then I say it is the same with the cows and others, they are also dead before we eat them, he may say, but killing the cows and other is controlled by knowing when to slit their throats, I say same with the fish, their death is controlled by taking them out of the water, now if I say you can not eat a dead cow which died before slitting its throat, then, can mister Al Amry eat a dead fish that is found floating over the water somewhere?, He also got it totally wrong by claiming that the liver is blood while the fact of the matter is, the liver is not blood but flesh.

So far I have replied to about 35-40 minutes of this video, will continue later on inshaallah

Salam All

[AhmedBahgat]

Salam all

Let me continue refuting sheikh Al Amry allegations regarding Quran and sunnah, if you remember in my last comment, sheikh Al Amry started a story about Ibn Masood and a woman who used to pluck her eyebrows, mister Al Amry confused the story with many other stories until the end of part one, yet the main story was not completed, so let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s start Part 2 in which mister Al Amry continue such story between Ibn Masood and that woman.

When Ibn Masood told the woman that she is cursed because she plucks her eyebrows, the woman replied that she read the whole Quran and there was no such ruling in it, Ibn Masood replied to her that if she read the Quran then she should have read 59:7 which says: whatever the prophet gives you, take it, and whatever he forbids you, abstain from it

See how what I said earlier is confirmed in here, they take such sentence from the whole verse and present it in a way as if it is a verse on its own, which implies a general statement despite 59:7 is specific to the division of war booties.

Mister Al Amry continued the story that the woman wanted to make Ibn masood angry so she told him that his wife is doing it too (plucks her eyebrows).

Ibn Masood told the woman to go and check, and after she discovered that she stopped doing it, Ibn Masood told the woman that if his wife continued to do it, then she would have been divorced.

The above story is assumed to confirm to us the that Sunnah explains the Quran, while the story in fact has nothing to do with the Quran, just a mere advice from the prophet that the women should not do that, to which I again conservatively agree.

Mister Al Amry came up with yet another example, he did better in the next example because it directly relates to the Quran regarding what we should eat and what we should not eat, yet I believe that his example is flawed, let me explain:

Mister Al Amry suggested to imagine that we have two containers, one is labelled dead animals, and the other is labelled blood, what we need to do is to fill the two containers with the corresponding items, i.e. any dead goes into container one, and any blood goes into container two,

You can sense what mister Al Amry is setting up, obviously he is targeting this Quran verse:

Forbidden to you are the dead, and blood, and flesh of the swine, and that on which any other name than Allah has been invoked, and the strangled and the beaten to death, and that killed by a fall and that killed by a horn, and that which wild beasts have eaten, except what you managed to slaughter it, and what is sacrificed on the idol stones and that you seek to know the unseen by throwing arrows; that is a abomination. This day have those who disbelieved are in despair of your religion, therefore fear them not, and fear Me. This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed upon you My favour and chosen for you Islam as a religion; but whoever is forced by hunger, not inclining deliberately to a sin, then indeed Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[Al Quran ; 5:3]

حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَيْتَةُ وَالْدَّمُ وَلَحْمُ الْخِنْزِيرِ وَمَا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللّهِ بِهِ وَالْمُنْخَنِقَةُ وَالْمَوْقُوذَةُ وَالْمُتَرَدِّيَةُ وَالنَّطِيحَةُ وَمَا أَكَلَ السَّبُعُ إِلاَّ مَا ذَكَّيْتُمْ وَمَا ذُبِحَ عَلَى النُّصُبِ وَأَن تَسْتَقْسِمُواْ بِالأَزْلاَمِ ذَلِكُمْ فِسْقٌ الْيَوْمَ يَئِسَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ مِن دِينِكُمْ فَلاَ تَخْشَوْهُمْ وَاخْشَوْنِ الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الإِسْلاَمَ دِينًا فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ فِي مَخْمَصَةٍ غَيْرَ مُتَجَانِفٍ لِّإِثْمٍ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ (3)

-> As you can see above, the verse is prohibiting the dead and the blood as a source of food: Forbidden to you are the dead, and blood,

Now, msiter Al Amry is asking, is the fish dead or alive?, obviously it has to be dead (assuming we just bought it from a shop), therefore it has to go to the first container that is labelled dead animales, he then added that those who follow the Quran only can not eat fish.

Did you see how some Indians were shaking their heads in agreement with him, obviously they are aiming at an alleged hadith in which prophet stated that the only allowed dead to eat is the fish and the only allowed blood is the liver

Hold on a second, the example above is way too flawed, how about we bring 2 kilos of meat from the butcher, which container it should go to?, obviously iit should go to the container labelled dead animals too, are you with me brothers and sisters?, well the cows we eat are DEAD as well, we do not eat live cows, or do we?

See, the cows is like the fish, you kill the cow before you eat it by cutting its throat, while with the fish you kill it before you eat it by taking it out of the water, we don�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??t need to slit the throat of the fish as we do with the cow, however both of them share the fact that if the cow was dead before we slit its throat or the fish was dead and floating on th water, then both are haram to eat, do you get it, mates?

The whole purpose of not eating the dead is to make sure that no harm will be caused to us by eating it, yet we eat both the fish and the cow while they are dead, however from the moment of their death to the moment of eating them (known), the meat of both should be reserved properly or both will rotten because they are dead, one was killed by slitting its throat and the other was killed by taking it out of the water. Can you see how flawed his example is. Certainly eating a dead cow (unknown how and when it died) or a dead fish (unknown how and when it died) must be haram according to 5:3

Mister Al Amry moved to his second flawed example, the liver, he thinks that the liver is nothing but blood, which is 100% wrong, so he is saying that the liver should go to the container labelled blood and consequently those who follow Quran only can not eat the liver, for mister the Amry however he is allowed to eat it because the prophet made exceptions and allowed it.

See, when I was young I was fed such hadith, for me if this hadith is true, it has to be scientifically incorrect because the liver is something else but the blood, in fact the liver is an organ to clean the blood, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look at what is the liver in the human body which I believe should be similar to the liver in the animals:

Liver, largest internal organ of the human body. The liver, which is part of the digestive system, performs more than 500 different functions, all of which are essential to life. Its essential functions include helping the body to digest fats, storing reserves of nutrients, filtering poisons and wastes from the blood, synthesizing a variety of proteins, and regulating the levels of many chemicals found in the bloodstream. The liver is unique among the body�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s vital organs in that it can regenerate, or grow back, cells that have been destroyed by some short-term injury or disease. But if the liver is damaged repeatedly over a long period of time, it may undergo irreversible changes that permanently interfere with function.

The human liver is a dark red-brown organ with a soft, spongy texture. It is located at the top of the abdomen, on the right side of the body just below the diaphragm�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??a sheet of muscle tissue that separates the lungs from the abdominal organs. The lower part of the rib cage covers the liver, protecting it from injury. In a healthy adult, the liver weighs about 1.5 kg (3 lb) and is about 15 cm (6 in) thick.

Despite its many complex functions, the liver is relatively simple in structure. It consists of two main lobes, left and right, which overlap slightly. The right lobe has two smaller lobes attached to it, called the quadrate and caudate lobes.

Each lobe contains many thousands of units called lobules that are the building blocks of the liver. Lobules are six-sided structures each about 1 mm (0.04 in) across. A tiny vein runs through the center of each lobule and eventually drains into the hepatic vein, which carries blood out of the liver. Hundreds of cubed-shaped liver cells, called hepatocytes, are arranged around the lobule's central vein in a radiating pattern. On the outside surface of each lobule are small veins, ducts, and arteries that carry fluids to and from the lobules. As the liver does its work, nutrients are collected, wastes are removed, and chemical substances are released into the body through these vessels.

Unlike most organs, which have a single blood supply, the liver receives blood from two sources. The hepatic artery delivers oxygen-rich blood from the heart, supplying about 25 percent of the liver's blood. The liver also receives oxygen-depleted blood from the hepatic portal vein. This vein, which is the source of 75 percent of the liver's blood supply, carries blood to the liver that has travelled from the digestive tract, where it collects nutrients as food is digested. These nutrients are delivered to the liver for further processing or storage.

Tiny blood vessel branches of the hepatic artery and the hepatic portal vein are found around each liver lobule. This network of blood vessels is responsible for the vast amount of blood that flows through the liver�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??about 1.4 liters (about 3 pt) every minute. Blood exits the liver through the hepatic vein, which eventually drains into the heart.
Source

See, the liver is something else but blood, however its relation with the blood is very important as you have read, unlike most organs, which have a single blood supply, the liver receives blood from two sources, this is to serve one of the main purpose of the liver which is to clean the blood, I�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??m sure it makes no sense to clean blood with blood, there is no question that the liver is not blood. If primitive people may think of it as blood then the cow flesh also contains blood, in fact if you go to a halal butcher and buy some meat, you should see the meat dripping blood, consequently it has to be prohibited too, obviously prohibiting the blood in 5:3 logically means prohibiting drinking liquid blood, it has nothing to do with the liver, the meat, the spleen, or any other organ for that matter.

Here you have it, brothers and sisters, his two examples of the fish and the liver are 100% flawed, if he says the fish is dead and we are allowed to eat it, then I say it is the same with the cows and others, they are also dead before we eat them, he may say, but killing the cows and other is controlled by knowing when to slit their throats, I say same with the fish, their death is controlled by taking them out of the water, now if I say you can not eat a dead cow which died before slitting its throat, then, can mister Al Amry eat a dead fish that is found floating over the water somewhere?, He also got it totally wrong by claiming that the liver is blood while the fact of the matter is, the liver is not blood but flesh.

So far I have replied to about 35-40 minutes of this video, will continue later on inshaallah

Salam All

[AhmedBahgat]

Salam all

I would like to add a small comment to elaborate further on the Arabic word Al Zikr, We have seen how mister Al Amry alleged that verse 19:5 (seen below) is talking about reserving the Sunnah by Allah:

Indeed, We have sent down Al Zikr and We will most surely be its guardian.
[Al Quran ; 15:9]

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ (9)

-> His allegation is based on the clear cut lie that the Arabic word Al Zikr means Sunnah, to which I refuted earlier and showed everyone that the Arabic word Al Zikr in 15:9 means the Quran only, I have provided the following evidences to support my claim

1) 4 of the most respected Mufasireen (Ibn Kathir, Al Gallalin, Al Tabary and Al Qurtubi) explanation to 15:9 and all agreed that the word Al Zikr means the Quran

2) Verse 38:1, where both words Al Quran and Al Zikr were mentioned,: Sad, I swear by Al Quran, full of Al Zikr

3) Verses 41:41-44 in which we read both words Al Zikr in verse 41:41 and Al Quran in verse 44:44, which leads to that Al Zikr is nothing but Al Quran: Surely those who have disbelieved in Al Zikr when it has come to them, and most surely it is a Mighty Book, & And if We had made it Quranan in a foreign tongue

Let me show you another verse that is repeated 4 times in the same sura, in those 4 times we read that Al Quran was made easy for Al Zikr, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look:

And We have certainly made the Quran easy for remembrance , so is there any who will remember?
[Al Quran ; 54:17]

وَلَقَدْ يَسَّرْنَا الْقُرْآنَ لِلذِّكْرِ فَهَلْ مِن مُّدَّكِرٍ (17)

-> See: يَسَّرْنَا الْقُرْآنَ لِلذِّكْرِ , Yassarna Al Quran LilZikr, i.e. We have made Al Quran easy for Al Zikr, i.e. We have made the Quran easy for rememberance, i.e. Al Quran is Al Zikr, the same exact message was repeated in 54:22 & 54:32 and 54:40

Salam

[AhmedBahgat]

Salam all

I would like to add a small comment to elaborate further on the Arabic word Al Zikr, We have seen how mister Al Amry alleged that verse 19:5 (seen below) is talking about reserving the Sunnah by Allah:

Indeed, We have sent down Al Zikr and We will most surely be its guardian.
[Al Quran ; 15:9]

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ (9)

-> His allegation is based on the clear cut lie that the Arabic word Al Zikr means Sunnah, to which I refuted earlier and showed everyone that the Arabic word Al Zikr in 15:9 means the Quran only, I have provided the following evidences to support my claim

1) 4 of the most respected Mufasireen (Ibn Kathir, Al Gallalin, Al Tabary and Al Qurtubi) explanation to 15:9 and all agreed that the word Al Zikr means the Quran

2) Verse 38:1, where both words Al Quran and Al Zikr were mentioned,: Sad, I swear by Al Quran, full of Al Zikr

3) Verses 41:41-44 in which we read both words Al Zikr in verse 41:41 and Al Quran in verse 44:44, which leads to that Al Zikr is nothing but Al Quran: Surely those who have disbelieved in Al Zikr when it has come to them, and most surely it is a Mighty Book, & And if We had made it Quranan in a foreign tongue

Let me show you another verse that is repeated 4 times in the same sura, in those 4 times we read that Al Quran was made easy for Al Zikr, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look:

And We have certainly made the Quran easy for remembrance , so is there any who will remember?
[Al Quran ; 54:17]

وَلَقَدْ يَسَّرْنَا الْقُرْآنَ لِلذِّكْرِ فَهَلْ مِن مُّدَّكِرٍ (17)

-> See: يَسَّرْنَا الْقُرْآنَ لِلذِّكْرِ , Yassarna Al Quran LilZikr, i.e. We have made Al Quran easy for Al Zikr, i.e. We have made the Quran easy for rememberance, i.e. Al Quran is Al Zikr, the same exact message was repeated in 54:22 & 54:32 and 54:40

Salam