Saudi Scholar: You must obey the ruler even if he has GAY SEX every night

[Omar del Sur]

I agree with ibn baz here, sadly today in Saudi, any Sheikh even giving advice is locked up.

Yes you're right, my mannerisms weren't great, but I'm talking to a brain dead Madkhali who's corrupted the salafi movement, I don't think a bit of harshness will hurt him

I think Sheikh Ibn Baz gave a good explanation of the subject and I think Sheikh Uthaymeen had a similar viewpoint....

if you respect Sheikh Ibn Baz.... I think you, Lum and myself are all in unanimity regarding that......

if that is so and if you're not against Salafiyyah, I think we should look at what we all in common and be united on that basis.... we can agree on some things and disagree on others but if we're all Muslims, let's not be divided....

I mean if that is really so, then all three of us have quite a bit in common...

we can disagree with each other on certain issues but we can respect each other.....

brothers and friends can disagree on issues..... if we all love Sheikh Ibn Baz, we all have that in common.... the exact details of how to understand the issue of rebellion... it's just a branch, as I see it

 

[Misil]

I mean..... "Mufti" Abu Layth tends to go and find some scholar somewhere who agrees with some weird, strange opinion of his and then uses this to justify some weird strange opinion

(you can see some of his weird opinions here if you're not familiar )

so I mean.... you might find some scholar who agrees with some weird opinion but the general consensus of the scholars is that the hadith in Saheeh Muslim are Saheeh...... that's not something specific to Sheikh Fawzan

no one is holding any deviant or strange opinion because they believe that the hadith in Saheeh Muslim are Saheeh....

that your argument seems to hinge upon Saheeh Muslim not being saheeh.... I mean it's a weak basis for an argument.... the scholars generally agree on Saheeh Muslim being reliable.... so the argument rests on a premise that isn't sound..... if there is any scholar that says the hadith is not saheeh, so be it but the overwhelming majority of scholars would disagree.... it's not a fringe view to hold Saheeh Muslim as Saheeh

Hudhayfa ibn al-Yaman reported: I asked, “O Messenger of Allah, we were living in an evil time and Allah brought us good in which we live now. Will there be evil after this good?” The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Yes.” I said, “And any good after this evil?” The Prophet said, “Yes.” I said, “And any evil after this good?” The Prophet said, “Yes.” I said, “How will it be?” The Prophet said, “Rulers after me will come who do not follow my guidance and my Sunnah. Some of their men will have the hearts of devils in a human body.” I said, “O Messenger of Allah, what should I do if I live to see that time?” The Prophet said, “You should listen and obey them, even if the ruler strikes your back and takes your wealth, even still listen and obey.”

Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1847

Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Muslim

https://abuaminaelias.com/dailyhadithonline/2012/09/15/tyrant-strike-back-patience/

Question


Are all the hadiths in Saheeh al-Bukhaari and Saheeh Muslim saheeh (sound)? I heard that there are some da‘eef hadiths in them – what are some examples? I hope that you can clarify this matter for me.

Answer

Praise be to Allah.

The scholars are unanimously agreed that as-Saheehayn (i.e., Saheeh al-Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim) are the soundest two books after the Book of Allah, may He be exalted, and they are held in the highest esteem by the Muslims, elite and common folk, scholars and ignorant, as is well known.

The majority of Muslims are also agreed that Saheeh al-Bukhaari is more sound that Saheeh Muslim in terms of scholarship and accuracy.

Abu ‘Amr ibn as-Salaah said:

Their two books are the soundest of books after the holy Book of Allah.

Muqaddimat Ibn as-Salaah, p. 10.

An-Nawawi said: That is according to scholarly consensus.

An-Nukat ‘ala Muqaddimat Ibn as-Salaah, p. 163.

Al-Haafiz said in Muqaddimat al-Fath (p. 8):

The words of Ibn as-Salaah imply that the scholars are agreed on the view that al-Bukhaari is superior in terms of soundness to the book of Muslim, apart from what was narrated from Abu ‘Ali an-Neesaaboori: There is no book under the canopy of heaven that is more sound than the book of Muslim. And it was narrated from some of the Maghrebi shaykhs that the book of Muslim is superior to the book of al-Bukhaari. End quote.

Based on that, we must continue to uphold this status and the high esteem and respect that people have for them both, and it is not permissible under any circumstances to try to sow doubts or cast aspersions upon the hadiths in these books.

These two books are the main references and solid foundations on which the scholars rely to work out the rulings of sharee‘ah, so it is not permissible to cast aspersions on them or say things to sow doubts about them in such a way as to undermine their veracity in people’s minds, whether they are scholars or otherwise.

Rather those who may discuss such matters are senior scholars and specialists in hadith; no one else has the right to indulge in such matters which may undermine the foundations, sow doubts about the fundamentals and stir up confusion.

This is in general terms.

With regard to the details of the matter:

With regard to reports on which the two shaykhs [i.e., al-Bukhaari and Muslim] are agreed, there is no way to suggest that any of these reports are da‘eef (weak), because the ummah is agreed that whatever they agree upon is to be accepted.

Shaykh al-Islam said:

They did not agree upon any hadith but it is undoubtedly saheeh. The scholars are unanimously agreed that it is saheeh. End quote.

Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (18/20).

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/119516/are-there-any-daeef-weak-hadiths-in-al-bukhaari-and-muslim

there's more in the link if anyone wants to read more but I mean... Saheeh Muslim's reputation is pretty well known

I'm not taking anything away from the sahiyayn. But it's common knowledge that there are some weak narrations in them, for eg the sahih of bukhari has 3 or 4 weak narrations.

The grading that daraqutni gives that hadith is not a fringe one. Nawawi quotes the same thing in his explanation of sahih muslim, so does ibn hazm.

MALM is a shaytan, the Sunni Defence did a great job refuting him.

 

[Omar del Sur]

I'm not taking anything away from the sahiyayn. But it's common knowledge that there are some weak narrations in them, for eg the sahih of bukhari has 3 or 4 weak narrations.

The grading that daraqutni gives that hadith is not a fringe one. Nawawi quotes the same thing in his explanation of sahih muslim, so does ibn hazm.

MALM is a shaytan, the Sunni Defence did a great job refuting him.

I am aware that there are some hadith that have been under discussion...... I don't think the one that's been discussed here is one of those hadith.....

I don't think it is but I don't really know and it is possible that it is... is it a fringe view to say it might not be saheeh? I can't say for sure...... but it's definitely not a fringe view to take it as being saheeh

I mean I agree with Sheikh Ibn Baz's view and you said you agree with that view to so I think we think the same.... I'm comfortable with taking the hadith as authentic, you seem to think otherwise.... I'm not an expert on hadith.... I'm not in a posiiton to say that hadith hasn't been one of the ones under discussion

 

[Misil]

I think Sheikh Ibn Baz gave a good explanation of the subject and I think Sheikh Uthaymeen had a similar viewpoint....

if you respect Sheikh Ibn Baz.... I think you, Lum and myself are all in unanimity regarding that......

if that is so and if you're not against Salafiyyah, I think we should look at what we all in common and be united on that basis.... we can agree on some things and disagree on others but if we're all Muslims, let's not be divided....

I mean if that is really so, then all three of us have quite a bit in common...

we can disagree with each other on certain issues but we can respect each other.....

brothers and friends can disagree on issues..... if we all love Sheikh Ibn Baz, we all have that in common.... the exact details of how to understand the issue of rebellion... it's just a branch, as I see it

I don't follow fulan or fulan, I follow the Qur'an and authentic sunnah. If what the Saudi salafis say is rooted in that, then I'll take it and if it isnt then I'll leave it. It's as simple as that.

I admire the salafi movement, they've brought a lot of good, mainly the mass availability of books through their various publishing houses.

What I don't like about them however, is how they've changed the madhabi taqleed to a taqlid of the saudi scholars. If you're going to say blind following the madhabs ain't good, then fine, go with the dhahiri route, but don't go full 360 and just blind follow Saudi ulema

 

[Misil]

I am aware that there are some hadith that have been under discussion...... I don't think the one that's been discussed here is one of those hadith.....

I don't think it is but I don't really know and it is possible that it is... is it a fringe view to say it might not be saheeh? I can't say for sure...... but it's definitely not a fringe view to take it as being saheeh

I mean I agree with Sheikh Ibn Baz's view and you said you agree with that view to so I think we think the same.... I'm comfortable with taking the hadith as authentic, you seem to think otherwise.... I'm not an expert on hadith.... I'm not in a posiiton to say that hadith hasn't been one of the ones under discussion

Bro the hadith is weak, scholars of hadith have said that,one of the guys in the chain is unknown. Fawzan and ibn baz were probably not aware and they're not even specialists on the science of hadith.

Anawawi says the same thing in his explanation of sahih muslim, there is no greater explanation of that sahih than his.

I can give you even contemporary scholars who say the same thing like ishaq al huweyni. Go ask any scholar of haidth and he'll tell you it's a weak narration

 

[Yahya]

No wonder they be losing to houthis with superior weaponry. The generals are busy thinking about booty that the prince will reward him with.

 

[Omar del Sur]

I don't follow fulan or fulan, I follow the Qur'an and authentic sunnah. If what the Saudi salafis say is rooted in that, then I'll take it and if it isnt then I'll leave it. It's as simple as that.

I admire the salafi movement, they've brought a lot of good, mainly the mass availability of books through their various publishing houses.

What I don't like about them however, is how they've changed the madhabi taqleed to a taqlid of the saudi scholars. If you're going to say blind following the madhabs ain't good, then fine, go with the dhahiri route, but don't go full 360 and just blind follow Saudi ulema

well.... if someone blind follows the Saudi scholars.... as I understand it, that's kind of their own fault.... I mean if you take a knife and you misuse it.... it's one's own responsibility for using it improperly, I don't see it as the knife's fault.....

I don't think Sheikh Fawzan has told anyone to blind follow him..... I love Sheikh Fawzan, I love Sheikh Ibn Baz, I love Sheikh Madkhali......

that doesn't mean I necessarily have to agree with everything they say...... I mean if there's a fatwa of Sheikh Ibn Baz which goes against Quran and Sunnah, I'm happy to go along with Quran and Sunnah.....

I've heard some people say bad things about Sheikh Madkhali..... I mean if someone can show me what exactly Sheikh Madkhali says that is incorrect and where it contradicts Quran and Sunnah... I'm happy to go along with Quran and Sunnah on the topic.....

I think taking the issue of revolution as a central thing in Islam.... I think it's strange and I think it seems like Marxism.... Marxism is all about "revolution, revolution, revolution"..... I'm not accusing you of taking that approach btw....

but I've come across some types where..... they seemed to be all about revolution, revolution, revolution..... if I hear that I don't think of the Quran, I think of Karl Marx..... and one of those types..... I heard him call Sheikh Fawzan a munafiq....

and they seemed very excited........ this makes me very uncomfortable.... I don't think of Islam as being about revolution.... maybe an inner, spiritual revolution but not a go-out-in-the-streets revolution.....

and the other thing is..... I try to be a quiet, peaceful person..... if we're looking at something in Islam, I want to look at in the same kind of calm manner as if I'm looking at a problem in computer programming......

I don't think being heated is the way to analyze things.... I think it gets in the way of examing things in an accurate manner......

also, with Sheikh Fawzan..... I think like 90-95 percent of his work isn't really related to the topic of revolution.... I look at the topic as a side issue.....

anyways, I'm not saying you take these kinds of approaches I mention but these are just some of my thoughts when it comes to that topic of revolution..... I grew up hearing about revolution, revolution is a familiar topic to me..... I just don't see it as the answer in most cases......

and I mean plus Sheikh Fawzan is an old man.... I love him for the sake of Allah for who he is..... he's an old-man... I don't expect Sheikh Fawzan to turn Viet Cong.... I see him as a kind friendly, old man.... sort of like a friendly, old man in the masjid..... a friendly old man in the masjid.... you appreciate him for who he is.... you don't expect the friendly old man in the masjid to run out into the streets and start a revolution......

 

[Omar del Sur]

Bro the hadith is weak, scholars of hadith have said that,one of the guys in the chain is unknown. Fawzan and ibn baz were probably not aware and they're not even specialists on the science of hadith.

Anawawi says the same thing in his explanation of sahih muslim, there is no greater explanation of that sahih than his.

I can give you even contemporary scholars who say the same thing like ishaq al huweyni. Go ask any scholar of haidth and he'll tell you it's a weak narration

I know that those are not famous hadith specialists but.... I would expect they've at least read Nawawi

that being said..... you can't necessarily just take my word for it on something and vice versa.....

can you show me Nawawi's commentary on the hadith? I would like to see the commentary.

Nawawi seems to be what some people today would call a "Madkhali"

"An-Nawawi summarizes the views of the righteous predecessors, saying:

وَأَمَّا الْخُرُوجُ عَلَيْهِمْ وَقِتَالُهُمْ فَحَرَامٌ بِإِجْمَاعِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَإِنْ كَانُوا فَسَقَةً ظَالِمِينَ وَقَدْ تَظَاهَرَتِ الْأَحَادِيثُ بِمَعْنَى مَا ذَكَرْتُهُ وَأَجْمَعَ أَهْلُ السُّنَّةِ أَنَّهُ لَا يَنْعَزِلُ السُّلْطَانُ بِالْفِسْقِ وَأَمَّا الْوَجْهُ الْمَذْكُورُ فِي كُتُبِ الْفِقْهِ لِبَعْضِ أَصْحَابِنَا أَنَّهُ يَنْعَزِلُ وَحُكِيَ عَنِ الْمُعْتَزِلَةِ أَيْضًا فَغَلَطٌ مِنْ قَائِلِهِ مُخَالِفٌ لِلْإِجْمَاعِ قَالَ الْعُلَمَاءُ وَسَبَبُ عَدَمِ انْعِزَالِهِ وَتَحْرِيمِ الْخُرُوجِ عَلَيْهِ مَا يَتَرَتَّبُ عَلَى ذَلِكَ مِنَ الْفِتَنِ وَإِرَاقَةِ الدِّمَاءِ وَفَسَادِ ذَاتِ الْبَيْنِ فَتَكُونُ الْمَفْسَدَةُ فِي عَزْلِهِ أَكْثَرَ مِنْهَا فِي بَقَائِهِ

As for rebelling against the ruler and fighting him, it is forbidden by consensus of the Muslims even if he is sinful and oppressive. I have mentioned many narrations with this meaning. The people of the Sunnah have agreed that the ruler should not be removed due to his sinfulness. As for the view mentioned in the books of jurisprudence from some of our companions that he should be removed, which is also the opinion of the Mu’tazilites, then it is a serious mistake from them and is in opposition to the consensus. The scholars have said the reason his removal and rebellion against him is forbidden is because of what that entails of tribulations, bloodshed, and corruption, for the harm in removing the ruler is greater than letting him remain.

Source: Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1840"

https://abuaminaelias.com/islam-forbids-violent-rebellion/

also, Sheikh Albaani is considered a hadith specialist and it seems he considered the hadith Saheeh

“Listen to the ruler and obey him when it is hard for you and when it is easy for you, whether you are pleased or displeased, and when others are given preference over you, and even when he consumes your wealth and beats your back.” (Declared sahīh by Al-Albāni; see Dhilāl Al-Jannah and At-Ta’līqāt Al-Hisān).

https://www.abukhadeejah.com/revolt...y-of-rulers-in-light-of-the-sunnah-and-salaf/

 

[Misil]

I know that those are not famous hadith specialists but.... I would expect they've at least read Nawawi

that being said..... you can't necessarily just take my word for it on something and vice versa.....

can you show me Nawawi's commentary on the hadith? I would like to see the commentary.

Nawawi seems to be what some people today would call a "Madkhali"

"An-Nawawi summarizes the views of the righteous predecessors, saying:

وَأَمَّا الْخُرُوجُ عَلَيْهِمْ وَقِتَالُهُمْ فَحَرَامٌ بِإِجْمَاعِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَإِنْ كَانُوا فَسَقَةً ظَالِمِينَ وَقَدْ تَظَاهَرَتِ الْأَحَادِيثُ بِمَعْنَى مَا ذَكَرْتُهُ وَأَجْمَعَ أَهْلُ السُّنَّةِ أَنَّهُ لَا يَنْعَزِلُ السُّلْطَانُ بِالْفِسْقِ وَأَمَّا الْوَجْهُ الْمَذْكُورُ فِي كُتُبِ الْفِقْهِ لِبَعْضِ أَصْحَابِنَا أَنَّهُ يَنْعَزِلُ وَحُكِيَ عَنِ الْمُعْتَزِلَةِ أَيْضًا فَغَلَطٌ مِنْ قَائِلِهِ مُخَالِفٌ لِلْإِجْمَاعِ قَالَ الْعُلَمَاءُ وَسَبَبُ عَدَمِ انْعِزَالِهِ وَتَحْرِيمِ الْخُرُوجِ عَلَيْهِ مَا يَتَرَتَّبُ عَلَى ذَلِكَ مِنَ الْفِتَنِ وَإِرَاقَةِ الدِّمَاءِ وَفَسَادِ ذَاتِ الْبَيْنِ فَتَكُونُ الْمَفْسَدَةُ فِي عَزْلِهِ أَكْثَرَ مِنْهَا فِي بَقَائِهِ

As for rebelling against the ruler and fighting him, it is forbidden by consensus of the Muslims even if he is sinful and oppressive. I have mentioned many narrations with this meaning. The people of the Sunnah have agreed that the ruler should not be removed due to his sinfulness. As for the view mentioned in the books of jurisprudence from some of our companions that he should be removed, which is also the opinion of the Mu’tazilites, then it is a serious mistake from them and is in opposition to the consensus. The scholars have said the reason his removal and rebellion against him is forbidden is because of what that entails of tribulations, bloodshed, and corruption, for the harm in removing the ruler is greater than letting him remain.

Source: Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1840"

https://abuaminaelias.com/islam-forbids-violent-rebellion/

also, Sheikh Albaani is considered a hadith specialist and it seems he considered the hadith Saheeh

“Listen to the ruler and obey him when it is hard for you and when it is easy for you, whether you are pleased or displeased, and when others are given preference over you, and even when he consumes your wealth and beats your back.” (Declared sahīh by Al-Albāni; see Dhilāl Al-Jannah and At-Ta’līqāt Al-Hisān).

https://www.abukhadeejah.com/revolt...y-of-rulers-in-light-of-the-sunnah-and-salaf/

Nawawi mentions an ijma on the matter by the scholars of the shafi madhab. This ijma is disputed by khateeb al shirbini. So how can there be ijma within the shafi madhab if a great like imam al shirbini is clarifying its dispute

 

[Misil]

And don't quote me abu khadeeja the charlatan. He can't even read Qur'an properly and he's taking about khurooj this khurooj that, man needs to get his priorities sorted out