Haqiqatjou Vs Suhaib Webb

[AMusee]

Some people are wondering, what is the significance of dunking on this washed up liberal imam of yesteryear?

The answer is, Webb was one of the original Compassionate Imams. He was one of the forerunners who set the model of liberalization of Islam post 9/11. The project was called "American Islam." And it was a message directly encouraged by RAND and other US gov affiliates.

This dawah to liberalism has had an incalculable negative cost on the Muslims in America. Are Muslims in the West getting closer to Islam or farther away since 9/11? We all know the answer to this. Look at your own families. Look within.

The work of Webb and the rest of the Compassionate Imams is to blame in large part. For every second generation or immigrant Muslim who felt that he benefitted from the watered down trash of these figures, many more became liberal deviants or worse.

What is shocking is that a figure like Webb has no remorse, no shame, no self accountability. Rather than own up to his many, many mistakes and acknowledge the damage he has caused, he will literally double down on his promotion of, e.g., a Muslim woman posing in a prn magazine.

And to top off this brazen mockery of Islam, the fool has the audacity to call his critics liars!

What a sad person. May Allah protect us.

Anyway, defeating this abomination of liberal "dawah" and completely discrediting it has been my mission for the past 6 years. I will not stop, so long as Allah wills.

 

[AMusee]

 

[vbdvllahj]

i cant stand these guys "giving dawah" speaking ebonic or slang.

 

[AMusee]

Compassionate Imams and madkhalis are both proponents of secular liberalism.

This is why their propaganda (i.e., "dawah") centers on suppressing any public criticism of deviant liberal actions and policies.

Compassionate Imams (e.g., Suhaib Webb):

You can only criticize religious scholars' normalization of liberalism secretly - in private (e.g., "Don't publicly criticize religious scholars who promote Muslim women featured in ographic magazines").

Madkhalis (e.g., the angry hobos, wannabe rappers, shawarma sellers, et al):

You can only criticize government normalization of liberal deviance secretly - in private (e.g., "Don't publicly criticize government policies building polytheistic temples in the gulf").

Two sides of the same misguided coin. And that's why you see these liberal and madkhali deviants team up these days to attack MuslimSkeptic. Interesting, no?






Madkhalis (e.g., Jahil North), Compassionate Imams (Suhaib Webb), Orientalist zanadiqa (Javad Hashmi), outright murtads (Apuss) are all ultimately proponents of secular liberalism - and, as a consequence - enemies of orthodox Islam.

For this reason. they are able to put aside their differences to unite against me.

"Imam Al-Shafi'i - may Allah have mercy upon him - was asked: 'How can we recognize the people of truth during times of turmoil?' He replied: 'Follow the arrows of the enemy, for they will guide you to them.'"

"سئل الإمام الشافعي رحمه الله تعالى: كيف تعرف أهل الحق في زمن الفتن؟! فقال: "اتبع سهام العدو فهي ترشدك إليهم".

Where do you see all the arrows pointing?

 

[AMusee]

 

[AMusee]

 

[vbdvllahj]

did people see this?

if you want to see it, watch this one first:



then here is when Haqiqatjou actually showed up:



I made a whole thread against Haqiqatjou ( https://www.somalispot.com/threads/daniel-haqiqatjou-and-red-pill.147554/ ) and he's wrong in his thing against "Madkhalis"... but he was absolutely right in confronting Subaib Webb and Suhaib Webb deserved it

average south asains sucking the cadaan man's .

 

[AMusee]

 

[AMusee]

 

[AMusee]

 

[AMusee]

 

[Omar del Sur]

Compassionate Imams and madkhalis are both proponents of secular liberalism.

This is why their propaganda (i.e., "dawah") centers on suppressing any public criticism of deviant liberal actions and policies.

Compassionate Imams (e.g., Suhaib Webb):

You can only criticize religious scholars' normalization of liberalism secretly - in private (e.g., "Don't publicly criticize religious scholars who promote Muslim women featured in ographic magazines").

Madkhalis (e.g., the angry hobos, wannabe rappers, shawarma sellers, et al):

You can only criticize government normalization of liberal deviance secretly - in private (e.g., "Don't publicly criticize government policies building polytheistic temples in the gulf").

Two sides of the same misguided coin. And that's why you see these liberal and madkhali deviants team up these days to attack MuslimSkeptic. Interesting, no?






Madkhalis (e.g., Jahil North), Compassionate Imams (Suhaib Webb), Orientalist zanadiqa (Javad Hashmi), outright murtads (Apuss) are all ultimately proponents of secular liberalism - and, as a consequence - enemies of orthodox Islam.

For this reason. they are able to put aside their differences to unite against me.

"Imam Al-Shafi'i - may Allah have mercy upon him - was asked: 'How can we recognize the people of truth during times of turmoil?' He replied: 'Follow the arrows of the enemy, for they will guide you to them.'"

"سئل الإمام الشافعي رحمه الله تعالى: كيف تعرف أهل الحق في زمن الفتن؟! فقال: "اتبع سهام العدو فهي ترشدك إليهم".

Where do you see all the arrows pointing?

I'm with Haqiqatjou on this Suhaib Webb thing but this thing he does of pretending that Salafis and liberals are on the same team is..... that is a really absurd theory.

Sheikh Rabee Al-Madkhali has been backed by Sheikh Fawzan, Sheikh Ibn Baz, Sheikh Uthaymeen, Sheikh Albaani.

So it's dishonest of the "anti-madkhalis" to pretend that "madkhalism" is something separate from Salafiyyah. there is no distinct "Madkhali" sect, "Madkhalis" are Salafis.

If there is a Madkhali sect, all those scholars I mentioned- I guess they must all be "Madkhalis" as they all have supported Sheikh Rabee Al-Madkhali.

I'm a supporter of Sheikh Rabee Al-Madkhali, he is a great sheikh.

now according to this strange theory pushed by Haqiqatjou... Madkhalis are in favor of secular liberalism. So Sheikh Fawzan, Sheikh Ibn Baz.... those are secular liberals? Myself, Omar del Sur- I am a secular liberal??? Nobody who knows me thinks I'm a liberal. People here have read my stuff. It should be pretty obvious that I'm not remotely a liberal.

So this idea that I'm a secular liberal and that Salafis are secretly secular liberals.... that theory is absurd. Yes, Salafis don't promote riling up the people like blm or marxists.... so... whoever doesn't follow that marxist type approach- they are a liberal? that is what a liberal is?

Haqiqatjou is right in his criticism of Suhaib Webb but his take on "Madkhalis" secretly being in favor of secular liberalism.... that is really far from reality. nobody who knows Salafis should think Salafis are secular liberals. avoiding stirring people up against governments is not secular liberalism. in fact, historically, liberalism is very much associated with revolution. my view that basically "the masses should know their place" is closer to unliberal ideologies than it is to liberalism.

 

[Omar del Sur]

average south asains sucking the cadaan man's .

I was really disappointed by how they acted but.... I thought about it and... maybe it's because they invited Suhaib Webb in the first place and maybe they were concerned they would look bad by association if the person they invited was discredited.... or maybe they really are that lost that they didn't understand how deviant Webb is when it got pointed out.... I don't understand what was going on with them

 

[AMusee]

 

[AMusee]

 

[AMusee]

The problem is not mere mistakes @YasirQadhi. The problem is making these mistakes on multiple occasions and then when one is confronted regarding them you double down on the same "mistakes". Webb doubled down by mentioning Malcolm X doing an interview for Playboy. This was an attempt to legitimize a hijabi sister appearing in the magazine that has a history of being known for filth. So, this was an attempt to defend his original stance years later. FYI, Malcolm X was a member of the NOI at the time the interview took place. This interview took place in 1963 a year before he came to true Islam the following year in 1964. Webb did not recognize this error and attempt to rectify it. He doubled down on it and attempted to use Malcolm X's interview while he was a member of the NOI to defend it. He also called a brother out and requested to bring cameras to a masjid. The Imam of the masjid did not want such a spectacle to take place at his masjid. This is not proper etiquette of a former Imam like Webb. So, let's attempt to represent the situation accurately when commenting on these issues.

 

[Hamzza]

I'm with Haqiqatjou on this Suhaib Webb thing but this thing he does of pretending that Salafis and liberals are on the same team is..... that is a really absurd theory.

Sheikh Rabee Al-Madkhali has been backed by Sheikh Fawzan, Sheikh Ibn Baz, Sheikh Uthaymeen, Sheikh Albaani.

So it's dishonest of the "anti-madkhalis" to pretend that "madkhalism" is something separate from Salafiyyah. there is no distinct "Madkhali" sect, "Madkhalis" are Salafis.

If there is a Madkhali sect, all those scholars I mentioned- I guess they must all be "Madkhalis" as they all have supported Sheikh Rabee Al-Madkhali.

I'm a supporter of Sheikh Rabee Al-Madkhali, he is a great sheikh.

now according to this strange theory pushed by Haqiqatjou... Madkhalis are in favor of secular liberalism. So Sheikh Fawzan, Sheikh Ibn Baz.... those are secular liberals? Myself, Omar del Sur- I am a secular liberal??? Nobody who knows me thinks I'm a liberal. People here have read my stuff. It should be pretty obvious that I'm not remotely a liberal.

So this idea that I'm a secular liberal and that Salafis are secretly secular liberals.... that theory is absurd. Yes, Salafis don't promote riling up the people like blm or marxists.... so... whoever doesn't follow that marxist type approach- they are a liberal? that is what a liberal is?

Haqiqatjou is right in his criticism of Suhaib Webb but his take on "Madkhalis" secretly being in favor of secular liberalism.... that is really far from reality. nobody who knows Salafis should think Salafis are secular liberals. avoiding stirring people up against governments is not secular liberalism. in fact, historically, liberalism is very much associated with revolution. my view that basically "the masses should know their place" is closer to unliberal ideologies than it is to liberalism.

Madkhalis are indirectly supporting secularization and liberalism by condemning every bit of advice to fasiq rulers like MBS & MBZ and falsely labeling it as Khurooj.

Salafi Scholars like Ibn Uthaymeen رحمه الله praised Ashari Sheikhs from the past and present, this doesn't mean they support or belong to their manhaj. Similarly, Ibn Baz and Sheikh Uthaymeen verbally announcing their support for Sheikh al Madkhali doesn't mean they agree with every one of his beliefs.


To demonstrate the difference between Sheikh Ibn Uthaymeen and the Madkhalis/Jadiidiyo, in the above clip Ibn Uthaymeen says, "A ruler is not to be fought even if he commits every sin in the book(drinking alcohol, sodomy...etc), until he apostates( meaning he can be fought against if he apostates from Islam)."

Now compare Ibn Uthaymeens' statement to what this Madkhali sheikh is saying:

I dont think you people think. I am afraid what you guys gonna do when another Siad Barre emerges. Will it be 1990 all over or are we gonna be patient for the remaining time he is alive?

Ibn Taymiyyah said, “It is said that sixty years of a tyrannical leader is more proper than a single night without an authority, and experience has proven this true.”

Source: Majmū’ al-Fatāwá 28/391

When are we gonna contemplate and follow the the wise words and rulings of our scholars?

Bashar Assad may be a kafir but the Muslims do not have the necessary power to replace him and do it without bloodshed, nor do they have a replacement that they all agree on just like Somalis in 1991.

 

[AMusee]

 

[AMusee]

 

[Omar del Sur]

Madkhalis are indirectly supporting secularization and liberalism by condemning every bit of advice to fasiq rulers like MBS & MBZ and falsely labeling it as Khurooj.

Salafi Scholars like Ibn Uthaymeen رحمه الله praised Ashari Sheikhs from the past and present, this doesn't mean they support or belong to their manhaj. Similarly, Ibn Baz and Sheikh Uthaymeen verbally announcing their support for Sheikh al Madkhali doesn't mean they agree with every one of his beliefs.


To demonstrate the difference between Sheikh Ibn Uthaymeen and the Madkhalis/Jadiidiyo, in the above clip Ibn Uthaymeen says, "A ruler is not to be fought even if he commits every sin in the book(drinking alcohol, sodomy...etc), until he apostates( meaning he can be fought against if he apostates from Islam)."

Now compare Ibn Uthaymeens' statement to what this Madkhali sheikh is saying:

this whole argument is based on only taking of some what Sheikh Uthaymeen said and not all of it. you can't just take part of what the Quran says, for example, and then not consider the context of the other verses, of the tafsir, of the hadith, etc.

you can't just take some piece of what Sheikh Uthaymeen said and then just ignore the larger context of what else he said.

and this whole argument is based on that. there are no scholars who go around calling people "Madkhalis". and this whole argument... it has less weight than a feather.

Sheikh Uthaymeen and Sheikh Ibn Baz had the same viewpoint that you are claiming is a "Madkhali" viewpoint. According to your logic, Sheikh Uthaymeen and Sheikh Ibn Baz were both Madkhalis. Sheikh Albaani too. Sheikh Fawzan as well. It would be more logically consistent for you to just take a position of being openly anti-Salafi rather than claiming to be against "Madkhalism". This notion that there is a "Madkhali" sect is fake just like the notion that there is a "Wahhabi" sect.

this is the exact same view that you condemn as a "Madkhali" view.

and furthermore, who benefits from not making it a condition that Muslims should only rebel against a kaffir ruler if it doesn't mean a greater evil will result? who benefits from promoting that Muslims should rebel even if it just results in destroying the Muslim country.... who benefits from this is the forces that want to destroy and destabilize Muslim countries. this view promotions the destruction and destabilization of Muslim countries just like the enemies of Muslims would like to see. in reality, this view expressed by Sheikh Uthaymeen and other "Madkhalis" helps to protect the national security of Muslim countries and to not end up like Syria. If you think Syria is how Muslims should end up then why not go there yourself? If you don't want those conditions for yourself, don't wish them for other Muslims.

Sheikh Uthaymeen: "However, there is a fifth condition for the revolt to be obligatory. Is it obligatory for us to revolt against the ruler just because it is allowed? One has to consider the advantage. Are we able to overthrow him? [If yes] then in this case we revolt. If we are unable, then we do not revolt. All religious duties are only [duties] if they are doable.

Moreover, if we are able to revolt, then there is a risk that the disadvantage is greater and worse than if this leader were to keep his (position as a) leader. If we revolt against him and he wins, we become more humiliated while he becomes even worse in his transgression and disbelief."

https://abdurrahman.org/2015/04/18/shaykh-ibn-uthaymeen-about-the-arab-rulers/

Sheikh Ibn Baz:

Is it permissible to rebel against the ruler? - Islam Question & Answer

islamqa.info