Andrew tate self snitching

[Omar del Sur]

Lol, there always has been. Urf is a part of fiqh and even Salafi scholars acknowledge that, as long as it doesn’t contradict Quran and Sunnah and it is often used to fill in the gaps of what isn’t clearly defined in the Quran and Sunnah.

Example, the vast majority of Saudi scholars knew that cars for women most certainly isn’t haram, yet they disallowed under the guise of Urf and the impact they felt it could have on Saudi society. I drive, yet no Scholar can tell me driving is haram as Albani famously said about driving:

Questioner: Is it permissible for a woman to drive a car?
Answer:If it is permissible for her to ride upon a (female) donkey then it is permissible for her to drive a car.
Questioner: But there is a difference between a donkey and a car.
Sh Al-Albaanee: Which is more concealing – riding upon a donkey or in a car? I would suggest (riding in) a car.
Shaykh Naasir ud-Deen al-Albaanee​

Yet, Saudi scholars motivated by their own cultural understanding still banned it, despite the fact that there is nothing in the Quran and Sunnah to suggest women not driving. Female Sahabas rode a animals and as Albani cleverly noted, having a car is more covering and concealing than any donkey or camel.



It is wrong to imitate them in things that are Haram or of no benefit. But even then, I’ve noticed scholars do not apply that for a lot of things. Take for example, white Wedding dresses. We all know this is a very Western thing that is symbolic, yet:

https://islamqa.info/amp/en/answers/12853

Yet if you read this Fatwa which sites Ibn Uthaymeen, he states that white wedding dresses are not haram because it is NOW culturally acceptable in Saudi and the rest of the Muslim world. Yet, If we go back less than a hundred years ago, such a dress would most definitely have been seen as a European Christian wedding tradition.

Therefore, you need to be specific as to what constitutes imitating the non Muslims. Are such acts now common? Is it halal? The list continues.

The bottom line is anything that goes against the Quran and Sunnah obviously needs to shunned, there is no debate regarding that.



I get where you’re coming from and Muslims most definitely should be staunch in the face of Haram and halal. My point isn’t about the things that are clearly outlined as haram in the Sharia. I’m talking about situations in which there are differences of opinions and new situations that arise due to modernization and different societies.

1- the Saudi scholars that said it was haraam for women to drive didn't say it was based on urf. they had a different set of arguments.

2- I don't think it is correct to say "fiqh is evolving". yes, there are new issues that emerge in the world such as bitcoin. but this is only a tiny percentage of what fiqh deals with. most fiqh is not dealing with new technologies like bitcoin or smartphones. sure, when it comes to something like bitcoin we need to come up with how to look at it from a sharia standpoint... but we don't need to do things like adopt democracy.

3- fiqh is not based on urf. urf is a very small thing. I'm aware of issues where scholars have siad urf plays a role but it is a very small thing, if you read classical books of fiqh, urf only plays a very small role. there is no justification for talking of "British Islam," "Australian Islam," etc.

I don't mean anything against you personally. I think you are a former Salafi who does not follow the minhaj anymore. whether you drive a car or not is not the bottom line issue. cars are a new thing. I have huge respect for Sheikh Ibn Baz and I won't condemn his view but... cars are a new thing and the classical scholars obviously didn't have any rulings on cars. I think you were Salafi and left it and I hope you come back to it.

As to Westernization, I reject it. I have no desire to be culturally colonized by Europeans or their descendants.

I am sympathetic to you personally. I have disagreed with you on a lot but it's not something personal. I do believe you are a sort of modernist. Maybe I'm wrong, that is just the impression I get. In any case, I am not against you personally but I think we have very different ideas. I do not want a "US Islam," "British Islam," etc. I want the Islam of the earliest and best generations, I don't want a new Islam and I am attached to my own religion, culture and history, I do not want to adopt the ways of whites.

 

[Nak-Muay-Femeu]

My issue isn’t Zoomers Nak. At the end of the day, they’re young teenage boys and there is hope they’ll reform and have better role models in the future.

My biggest concern is the grown 30+ in the Dawah scene, who have marketed themselves as being a voice of deen and reason within the Muslim community. Yet, they’ve been the biggest supporters of Tate. Have actively shut down Muslim women calling them feminists and liberals and called men who argued against them ‘Western’ and turning against their Muslim ‘brother’.

The past few months have been bizarre. Definitely has made me look at situations differently. Tate for me isn’t the biggest issue for me. He’s merely an immoral swindler who has managed to use social media to his advantage despite being a deeply unhinged individual. It is older religious men’s reactions that she worried me.

They're grifters. Their entire business model relies on whipping young sexually fustrated autists into a frenzy and saying or doing anything that'll lead to more traffic/clicks. They'd probably start calling Dajjal "Akhi" and have him on their podcast if it meant more views lol

 

[Angelina]

They're grifters. Their entire business model relies on whipping young sexually fustrated autists into a frenzy and saying or doing anything they'll lead to more traffic/clicks. They'd probably start calling Dajjal "Akhi" and have him on their podcast if it meant more views lol

You’ve hit the nail on the head. Rallying behind Tate has given them a cool half a million views and that’s at least 5 figures each month. It’s a shame really because integrity goes a long way.

 

[Hamzza]

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Sheikh Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahhab opinion on the tawassul through the prophet and Saalixiin:

,
فكون بعض العلماء يرخص بالتوسل بالصالحين , وبعضهم يخصه بالنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم , وأكثر العلماء ينهى عن ذلك ويكرهه, فهذه المسألة من مسائل الفقه , ولو كان الصواب عندنا قول الجمهور: إنه مكروه.
فلا ننكر على من فعله , ولا إنكار في مسائل الإجتهاد
​

"The fact that some(scholars) allow Tawassul by the righteous and some by the Prophet, and most scholars forbid that and dislike it, and this is a issue from the issues of Fiqh and what is correct in our view is what the plurality say that it is Makrooh so we do not denounce the one who does it, and there is no denunciation in matters of Ijtihaad."

​

 

[Abdisamad]

Prick thought he could turn Romania into his personal playground and it would just be sweet

Imagine the losers looking up to him

 

[Hamzza]

I’m still Athari and believe that you can’t and shouldn’t make Tawassul through the Prophet S.A.W However, when you look at history, a lot of prominent scholars such as Suyuti, Nawawi and the like believed you can, hence how is it possible to accuse them of shirk, yet still quote them? Also, the view of it being clear cut shirk is a new one. It’s one of Sheikh AbdulWahab, who mind you lived only 250-300 yrs ago, yet when we look at the history of Islam, hardly any scholar said it’s clear shirk. That is what has changed my mind along with other issues with regards to the life of Abdul Wahab. But Each to their own. I’m still in the learning process and I might change my mind.

A lot of what you have heard about Sheikh Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahhab is not true. Also, you don't need to boot-lick Mohamed ibn Abdul Wahhab or any other Sheikh to be Salafi, some major Salafi Sheikhs disagreed with Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahhab on some matters and they still identify as Salafis. There is a reason why Salafis love to call themselves Salafi & say they want to follow Islam as understood by the earliest generations and hate to be called Wahabbi.

 

[Lovelypriestess]

I don’t take my knowledge from these speakers. Hardly watch them. But young men do. They look up to them and now we have little boys screaming feminism at anyone that raises concerns about a man who talks about pimping women (Tate).

Yes, he’s Muslim and yes, we should wait until he’s proven guilty, but he’s been self snitching and even if you want to wait until he is prosecuted before condemning, which is fine and a wise move, why would you still publicly defend a man who has behaved terribly since converting even for gaals moral standards and in which the evidence so far doesn’t bode well? At this point they’re burying their heads in the sand. Ignoring the scary and vile things he’d said, but pretesting his innocence. These are all 30+ older Muslim men. They should know better.

It's truly embarrassing seeing so many Muslims (both men AND women) protecting him because he converted to Islam as if his actions afterwards was everything but halal. Honestly, it's crazy how so many of these types convert to Islam (and Christianity) and the community most of the times loves it.

Yes, people can change even in prison and having done haram stuff but many of them convert for all the wrong reasons (most male reverts that have converted to Islam that i knew only did it to marry the woman or want to enter a polygamous relationship, they didn't give a damn about the religion). It's very cringe to see the community embracing folks like that. It's not like Andrew and the likes are a good PR. Infact it has the opposite reaction (a sexist pimp and human trafficker converting to Islam? See, that religion approves of people like that since they hate women).