Salaam Alaikum.

Can you hear me now?

I can hear you.

OK, no problem.

OK, it's good.

Walaikum salam, warahmatullahi wabarakatuh.

Alhamdulillah.

You can hear me now, right?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay, I see.

Alhamdulillah.

I apologize for the delay, I had a connection problem.

It's okay, it's okay.

So, the space there, to explain a little to people, the space there is a response.

It will be a debate between the brother Mohamed Doura and the brother Abdel Hai Yahya Gous Hak.

Following yesterday's Space, where the brother Mohamed Doura responded to certain words of the brother Abdel Hai, and to which the brother Abdel Hai will now try to argue his words through the points mentioned in yesterday's Space.

So there are rules, I will put them at the top, because in the space before it was at the top, but now it has disappeared.

There are rules that have been contracted in both parts, in particular the form of UNORA that has issued these conditions.

So I will quote them here now.

So it's at the top of the space.

Among the conditions of this debate, There is no update in the debate, no rough speech.

Bring the references of the words of Sarant to the site.

Do not get out of the subject.

Do not interrupt the speaker.

And an intervention of 5 minutes, which will be with time of course, per speaker.

So there is 5 minutes of speech time.

at each speaker, and when the five minutes have elapsed, I will say to the other brothers, to the brothers to give the floor to the other brother.

Inshallah.

So I will reiterate the conditions one last time, and you will tell me if you accept the conditions of this debate.

So no insults in the debate, no rude speech, I have a remark on this.

The first is that you presented the Space by saying that it is a response from the brother Mohamed Hora to the ambiguity.

You are normally high, you are an arbiter, you do not have a qualificative to my words and you let him prove that these are ambiguities or something else.

You let me prove.

Secondly, the history of the Space yesterday had started on TikTok where brothers asked me to quote on which I was based to designate a group of people as being the matralists.

So I started to quote a few points, but I had a connection problem at that time.

They are here, they can testify.

And so it stopped there.

And then the few things I mentioned were passed on to my brother Mohamed Oura, who tried to bring the answers I found useful.

So it wasn't everything I had to say, it wasn't even the most important thing I had to say.

So the subject doesn't change.

I designate a group of people as being the Madakhila.

The question is always the same.

and I will try to show you why I call them Madakhila and what I rely on, on what rules and what are the foundations of this group that I call Madakhila.

So there will be what I mentioned yesterday, but there will also be other more important things.

Few, but also important, even more important than what was mentioned yesterday.

And I will start with that.

first, since the others, the brothers, they know it.

And then, Inshallah, we can start debating.

I can speak, I have something to say too.

Yes, go ahead.

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

First of all, I would like to remind you that the debate was first proposed by Abdul Hayy himself.

And in what he proposed, he said that it will be on all the points that I mentioned in my intervention.

So, in principle, the debate must be based on these points that I mentioned.

So, what he had to say and that I refuted, apparently he does not agree, so he has refutations because he even said that I said nonsense.

So he's going to explain to us, isn't he, today, isn't he?

He's going to show us, in fact, that it was nonsense, all that I said, or what I said in relation to what he said, in fact.

So the debate is on that.

Now, the fact that the brother had, for example, he had things to say, he had other points to mention, more important, according to him, and that he couldn't mention those, well, I'm responsible first of all for what I said and in relation to what I achieved.

Now, if there are other points that have not been mentioned because there is a connection problem or something else, I am not responsible for that.

Now, if there is a debate on these points that have not been mentioned another day or a later date, there is no problem with that.

But today, I want to know about the stupidities, that I told in my refutation, as Abulhay had to say.

So I don't want us to run away, because if we already leave what I had to say, as I said, it can take a lot of time.

So if we have to leave it or talk about it and add, if we have to add other things, I think we will take too much time.

So, we focus first on what I said.

Abdul Kheir shows us, doesn't he, that it was nonsense, and then we'll see what happens next.

So, that's it.

And the brother must start with that, in fact.

Not with what he couldn't mention, which I'm not aware of, in fact.

He must start with what was mentioned, what was refuted, and what he called nonsense, in fact.

So, that's what I wanted to say.

I would also like to remind you that brother Zaid will be there to coordinate in case someone exceeds the number of minutes.

For example, if I am talking and I don't realize that I am exceeding the minutes, he stops me.

The same also for brother Abdelhaid.

No, I insist anyway, I insist, to say, anyway, I do not see what you are against the fact that we address the other points that I wanted to quote and we will also address those that I quoted.

Why?

Because your answer, I can finish it for you.

in less than one sentence, is that I defined the foundations of the Madakhila, and you started your sentence by saying, it means that Shihrabi refuses, and it means, no, I didn't talk about Shihrabi, I talked about the Madakhila, so you couldn't answer without defining exactly what I mean by the Madakhila, who the Madakhila are.

You based your answer on a base that was false, and therefore everything you said could only be false.

So, in hindsight, I don't even need a debate to prove that what you said is false.

But I will still give you the details of your mistakes during this discussion.

I don't think we should dwell too much on this.

Masha'Allah, you are a student.

The topics that will be mentioned, we will not talk about chemistry, we will not talk about that.

We will talk about what you have followed, what I hear about Madakhila, what I blame them for.

Topics that you normally know, so we should not dwell too much on this kind of detail.

Well, I think that maybe what you think is not necessarily the reality.

To say that what I said is based on a false basis, and therefore everything I said is false, that doesn't make sense.

Because we are here to demonstrate that what you said is what is false.

We are here to demonstrate that.

So you can't say that I based myself on a false basis, you don't detail why,

etc.,

and then you say, no, everything I said was wrong,

etc.,

no.

So, the criteria, you tell me by the point there, for example, in the case of calling people macralist, you told me you were wrong, you couldn't say that, because, like that, like that, and I answer, and so on, we move forward, and then we'll see, for the other points that you didn't mention, as you said there.

But first, we focus on what was mentioned, for me it's very important.

Because you called that nonsense.

So it's important to show that it's nonsense.

When you answer to something that you don't even know the author's definition of, I'm sorry, you could only be wrong.

That's what you did.

I'll give you an example.

I'll give you an example.

Like me, I say, the materialists, for them, Wait, I prefer that we start the debate and start timing on this point.

say where I made the mistake, and then I'll answer.

Look, what we're going to do... Let's start the debate together, it's better.

Everyone will do what they want in these five minutes, provided that we stay on the main topic.

No, no, no, no.

So you don't want to debate?

Or do you realize that what you've done doesn't hold up?

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,

no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,

no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,

no, no, no, no, no,

no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

You are a student, you should know that we should not judge a thing.

We can't judge a thing.

The people who hear me, some will recognize themselves.

In my words, they will feel targeted, while I don't even put them in the definition.

I don't see what's complicated.

You start your intervention, your five minutes, you explain.

There is no problem.

You can start the timer, Zahid, please.

I would just like to say one thing.

Brothers, don't forget the conditions of the debate.

Don't cut the line and stay on the subject.

But I don't want to cut him off.

No, but I don't want to cut him off either.

Zeid, as soon as the person reaches 5 minutes, you sign.

Okay, okay.

It's good?

Yes, it's good.

It's good.

Alhamdulillah wa salatu wa salam wa rasoolillah wa shahadu an la ilaha illallah wahdahu li ash-sharika lah and I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him.

First of all, I would like to say that everything that I will quote, everything that I will be obliged to quote, as a word and as a judgment of Sheikh Rabi'a, is not at all his person that I am aiming for, nor the fact that I am insinuating that he is innovative or that he is disingenuous or anything else.

Okay?

So I would like us to agree on this, that the next day they do not tell me that he made Sheikh Rabi'a innovative or anything else.

So I tell you from the start.

Secondly, what do I mean by the Madakhila?

What I mean by the Madakhila are not at all the Salafis, they are not even those who listen to Sheikh Rabeer, but it is a part of people who have very specific characteristics that make them a group that is entitled to be designated as a group and given a name.

Another thing, why is it called the Madakhila?

Often we say, yes, but the Madakhila is a tribe, and as the brother said yesterday, it means that you say that Sheikh Rabir is imitating Sheikh Albani, although I never said that.

Why are they called the Madakhila?

First of all, by justice, because they allow themselves regularly the Hajuris, the Halabis, the Hassanis, the Falahis, and Allah SWT says, We have the right to give them that.

Secondly, it is totally false to say that when we say Madkhali, it means that we are imputing to Sheikh Rabi' all that we impute to this law.

We say every day the Alawis, the Fatimis, Yet, they are Shiites, and of course, we have a whore, neither Ali nor Fatima.

So, the Madkhalis are not Sheikh Rabbi, they are the people who have the characteristics that I will begin to name.

First characteristic, they have an exaggeration.

on the case and the person of Sheikh Rabieh.

An exaggeration on the person of Sheikh Rabieh.

It started with the fact that he calls him Imam.

They say Imam Rabieh al-Madghali.

But Sheikh Ben Baz, Sheikh Al-Usaimi and many others tell us that an Imam is someone...

You are not answering the question that was given, excuse me.

I told the brother that if the brother gets out of the subject, he has to stop.

No, no, no.

I'll be there in 5 minutes.

I'll be there in 5 minutes.

I'll be there in 5 minutes.

I'll be there in 5 minutes.

I'll be there in 5 minutes.

I'll be there in 5 minutes.

I'll be there in 5 minutes.

I'll be there in 5 minutes.

I'll be there in 5 minutes.

I'll be there in 5 minutes.

I'll be there in 5 minutes.

I'll be there in 5 minutes.

I'll be there in 5 minutes.

I'll be there in 5 minutes.

I'll be there in 5 minutes.

I'll be there in 5 minutes.

I'll be there in 5 minutes.

I'll be there in 5 minutes.

I'll be there in 5 minutes.

I'll be there in 5 minutes.

I'll be there in 5 minutes.

I'll be there in 5 minutes.

I'll be there in 5 minutes.

I'll be there in 5 minutes.

I'll be there in 5 minutes.

I'll be there in 5 minutes.

I'll be there in 5 minutes.

I'll.

So we have to see what the subject of the debate is, because the basic subject of the debate, in particular what brother Worel had concluded, was the answer to the ambiguity, the answer to the point he made yesterday, and you had to answer to that.

and especially after these points where we detail and try to see who has said nonsense and who has not said nonsense, at this point we would have established the fact of, let's say, widening the discussion.

But as long as this is not established, as long as the subject is not established, the order of the subject is not established, it will not work.

So, Inshallah, I reactivate the microphone.

We have to establish the order of the subject, otherwise we'll get out of the subject, there will be no subject, we don't know what the subject is, we won't understand each other.

The subject is simple, the subject is materialism.

I can't talk about materialism without citing it, and I'm going to cite its foundations, including those I cited yesterday.

What bothers me is that you don't do that.

Note that he intervened, he cut me off, normally you have to give him an exercise.

No, I did not leave the subject at all, I am in the subject.

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

What bothers you?

I really don't understand.

I gave him a week.

to prepare for the discussion.

He said, no, no, I'm ready, you try to prepare yourself, Kada and Ani are so good that he's ready to talk about it at 2 o'clock in the morning.

No problem, I'll tell him tonight.

And I told him earlier on Twitter, I told him earlier on Twitter that no, I accepted all these conditions.

He designated the time, he designated it.

He designated the place, he designated the height, he designated the platform, he designated everything.

He said, the conditions that you said we agreed on, I didn't put any.

It's him who put all the conditions.

The only thing I ask is to be allowed to define.

the subject we are talking about.

In fact, he wants to talk about the Shiites, but how do we define what Shiites are?

Abdul Hay, let's be serious.

How is it possible that it is now that you say that you have chosen the subject, while you yourself have already mentioned the subject that must be mentioned since?

You said that it will be on all the points that I mentioned in my intervention.

But no, today you want to change.

Why do you want to change now?

I don't change, I was very well said.

There will be other points on the same subject.

It's the same subject.

Payyib, Payyib, it's settled.

That is to say, we are going to start, Payyib, we are going to start, if you agree, with the points mentioned, and then the materialism like the brother Abdelhaidi.

So at that moment, both will be served, as we can say.

Allah is the best.

You can turn on your microphones.

The research is in order.

We don't end with the definition, we start with the definition.

I don't understand.

You can start with that, but don't worry about the other points.

No problem, I'll get to the other points, don't worry.

What you've prepared for, we'll get there.

But there are other things that I absolutely need to mention.

I don't understand.

It's very simple.

It's going to take time.

It's going to take time.

Maybe we won't be able to mention the points that we have to mention.

No, I have to...

I have to define what I'm talking about and I have to mention the most important points that I designate as macralism and then... Go ahead, go ahead.

Wait, wait, wait.

Zeyd, Zeyd, you put five minutes, you cut the microphone, he doesn't intervene anymore.

5 minutes, 5 minutes, now it starts.

We agree, there is no turning back.

We agree and wait, wait, I define the subject and you confirm, God willing.

So now the brother will say what he has to say about matriarchalism.

And then, when he has said what he has to say about matriarchalism, he will come back to the complaints of brother Wara.

Is that it or is that not it?

That's it.

Is that it, brother Mohamed or not?

No, he only has to speak, then I will intervene.

There is no problem, come on.

It's good?

You cut him off, he doesn't speak anymore until I'm done.

Yes, I don't speak, I don't speak.

Yes, yes, but earlier you spoke and you interrupted me.

Anyway, I started, I started.

So, those who are designated by madralism are the people who have the Sepahs that I will quote.

The first of the Sepahs, an exaggeration, on the person of Sheikh Rabbi, an exaggeration worthy of the greatest groups of Sufis.

Among the evidences of this exaggeration is the fact that they call the Imam Rabbi al-Madkhali.

Sheikh Ibn Baz and others say that an imam is someone who can be taken as an example in all the chapters of religion.

That is why Ibn Baz thought that we could not say the Nawawi imam under the pretext of certain things that we cannot take as the Nawawi imam.

I am sorry, but Sheikh Rabi' is someone.

First of all, he has been criticized by scholars, among whom is Sheikh Ibn Jibreel, among whom is Sheikh Bakr Abu Zaid, among whom is Sheikh Albani.

I have all the references, if the brothers ask for them, with the pages and the audios.

Sheikh Rabi' is someone who has grudges against the foundations of the people of the Sunnah.

He still has denigrations and bad words against certain companions.

I also have the references.

He has a lot of denigrations from scholars and he also has errors in the questions we call faith, and this is one of the points we will mention.

So Sheikh Rabir is also part of the people, according to this rule, he is part of the people who cannot be called imam because he has the errors, the big errors that I have just mentioned.

Another thing, Sheikh Rabir is someone who walked with the Ikhwan for more than 15 years.

He also admitted that he was someone who said a lot of good things about Sayyid Qutb before going back.

Among the points I mentioned yesterday, I mentioned the fact that Sheikh Rabi's wound In the Madakhila, it is no longer negotiable.

Every time he speaks, it is not negotiable.

The best, the lightest of the Madakhila will tell you, yes, it's the scholars, we can't go into the slander of the scholars.

But none of them can say he was wrong.

However, Sheikh Rabih is known for something, it is the fact that he changes his mind.

Falah al-Harbi, at first he called it Mount Uhud, the mountain of Uhud, then he called it the ignorant.

Ali al-Halabi, he called him the great scholar, and then he became ignorant.

Abu al-Hassan, he called him the over-gifted, and then he became ignorant.

Sheikh Yahya al-Hajuri, he called him the one who holds the hand of Salafiyah, of an iron hand, and then he became stubborn, and so on.

He is not someone who can be counted on because he changes positions regularly.

I also mentioned the Madakhila and the Hadith al-Da'if.

This is among the other principles they have.

The Madakhila and the Hadith al-Da'if.

And I said that for the public of the Madakhila, so in response, it's not worth saying, no, Sheikh Rabi'i takes the Hadith al-Da'if or Sheikh Rabi'i says that Albania is wrong.

That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the Madakhila.

Your public is yours.

For them, Hadith Da'if is equal to Hadith thrown in the trash.

However, it's a science legend, it's not the case at all.

Not only is it used in Fada'il A'mal, but it's even used in Fiqh by the greatest of the Fuqara, like the case of Hadith Mursal, which is used by Shafi'i and others, and Imam Malik uses them, and Imam Ahmad prefers some.

under certain conditions, he prefers them to Qiyas.

Among the innovative foundations of the Madakhila is that they have The Tabdirs are the foundation of the people of the Sunnah to which this person has fallen.

And they play, they cheat, and they give names.

Instead of saying, this is a Mubtadir, they say it's a Hizbi, it's a Mumayya, it's a Ikhwan, it's a Sorori, it's a Haddadi, it's a Falihi, it's a Maghrawi, but what does that mean?

Give us a definition of all these groups that you are citing, give us our foundations, as I am doing with you.

No, they will say that such a person, he came out of the circle of the people of the Sunnah, have never designated the foundations that made him come out of the circle of the people of the Sunnah.

Among their deviations in the field of Tabligh, the fact that they make innovators by a question of fiqh or a question of jahwat ad-din, that is to say, you do not accept... Pardon?

10 seconds.

On the 5 minutes?

Yes.

You don't accept the words of Sheikh Rabi' in an injury, it's enough for him to make Hajar and call you.

It's over, it's over.

The 5 minutes have passed.

Brother Wura will answer.

Insha'Allah.

Brother, you can reactivate your microphone.

First of all, I don't know if everyone heard the intervention of the brother.

If not, at home, there are words that I didn't hear.

But when that doesn't hold, I want to start with the first point, which I find very important, because if this point is not If we don't understand each other, I think it will be difficult to move forward.

Why am I saying this?

Because if Abdul Hai says that he is not talking about Sheikh Robin, he is talking about people who have behaviors and foundations that he mentions.

What do I have to say about that?

You're quoting us, you're telling us, for example, there are people, a group of people, they say this, they say that, they say this, they say that.

Okay, these people, these people who say this, who say that.

If what they're saying is wrong, there's no doubt that we're going to say it's wrong.

If what they're saying is right, we're going to say that what they're saying is right.

So, I don't see my intervention in that context.

But if you say the Madakhila, that's known, we don't need to go from left to right.

When you say the Madakhila, we know that you are here giving people to the Cherrobéens.

And in principle, what does that mean?

It means that the Cherrobéens formed a group.

It came with things, new things, people followed it, people fanatized, didn't they?

They fanatized about these things.

And so, because of that, we called them Madakhila.

Because if Sheikh Robin is innocent of all these things that you mention, but how are you going, why are you going to affiliate these people to Sheikh Robin by saying Madakhila?

Why not affiliate these people, I don't know, to Sheikh Bin Baz or another Sheikh?

Why to Sheikh Robin?

So there is a link there.

Until then, in the intervention of Abdul Hayek, he didn't explain the link.

And then I come back here to say that when you said that I was based, in fact, my base was false.

No, my base was not false.

It was your base that was false.

Why?

Because when we want to give the population, when we want to affiliate people, because when you say the Madahila, we consider that it is what?

What does that mean?

It means that it is a sect.

The Madahila is a sect.

So when you want to give a name to a group, what does it have to do with?

It has to do with the fact that these people follow this individual.

It's about the fact that these people follow this individual.

So, the people, right?

These people who call themselves Mada Akhila, it is obvious that they follow several scholars, they do not follow only Sheikh Robin.

Why restrict Sheikh Robin?

So we have to make the link.

When we look at the Salaf, we do not know a name that was given.

The Salaf did not give a name to a group.

By attributing these people to one person and then considering that this person is one of the people of the Sunnah, he is someone well guided.

When we talk about jahmiyya, the salafis called people jahmiyya.

Why?

It is in relation to jahm.

When we talk about Bakriya, it is in relation to who?

It is in relation to Bakr ibn Urth.

So that's how it is.

It was not known to the Salaf.

When we give the name, for example, we say, I don't know, the Umari, we attribute this name to Umar, and then Umar is considered as someone who is well guided.

This was not known to the Salaf.

The brother said that I invented it, that it is a new rule invented.

No, it is not a new rule invented, it comes from the Salaf, it is what is known to the Salaf.

And I'm going to make you listen to a word here, isn't it?

I think Abdul Hayy still takes Sheikh Al-Fawzan as a reference, I think.

So I'm going to show you here an audio of Sheikh Al-Fawzan, where he explains to us when he says, when he will actually attribute people to a person, in fact.

Jahliyyah, Mu'tazilah, and Suhiyyah.

So we attribute the new things to their companions.

As for the things that are according to the Sunnah of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, they are attributed to the Prophet.

The Sunnah of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him.

10 seconds, 10 seconds, 10 seconds.

10 seconds left?

No.

Well, the audio of the Sheikh is not finished, but I think I'll cut it first.

I'm just going to intervene quickly.

I'm going to warn you now.

You cut the microphone.

I'm going to warn you a minute before.

That is to say, now it's not 10 seconds because I've been told it's not very long.

So, one minute before.

So, as soon as I say one minute, you prepare the end of the speech, Inshallah.

And then I'll let you finish, if it takes 2-3 seconds, a few seconds.

But the speech will have to be finished in a minute, Inshallah.

BarakAllahu feekum.

Yes, I would like to start by saying that Cherfouzen's audio is out of the question, simply because Cherfouzen says that the bid'ah was given to the one who committed it.

Our subject is not at all that.

The proof is that he gives the example of Sophia.

Sophia is not a person.

He is saying, he said very well in Arabic, he said, the bid'ah was given to the one who committed it.

He is not at all saying that we are not calling anyone from this nomination.

By the way, I think that Sheikh Fauzan and all the others say that Abu Hassan Al-Ash'ari made a Tawbah.

So why do you keep calling those whom you consider to be misguided as Ash'ari?

While the person to whom they are affiliated, you yourself, among the arguments that you use most often against them, is to say that he did Tawbah and you are still in it.

And I gave you the example of Al-Alawiyin and Al-Fatimiyin, which should normally have been enough not to have addressed this point.

So, I repeat it to you, Al-Alawiyun, Al-Fatimiyun, we don't even finish the names, the Asha'ira, whatever you want.

No, there is a big difference between assigning a bid'ah to the one who committed it and assigning a group of people to the person for whom they have sectarized.

Whether these people agree with them or not.

Among the foundations of matriarchalism, there is global tabdi'a.

The global Tabdi'a, for example, the Madkhali will say, there are no scholars in Morocco.

Like that.

There are no scholars in Morocco.

This is a general Tabdi'a for all the scholars in Morocco.

This requires two things, to make it true.

Either you are someone who did Istiqra' Ta'am, you went down to Morocco, you said, there are 150 scholars, I visited them all, and none of them is good.

So I say there are no scholars in Morocco.

you have innovated a foundation called general tabdi' and the madakhila are in this second case of general tabdi'.

the other foundation they have is wala or bara' one for the other.

when I took back at-Shalabi to have said tibia no one among the madakhila dared to take it back.

they didn't even force him to do a tawbah when he said that Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala had a tibia.

When I took over the mistakes of Abdul Hadi of Marseille, it was the same.

Never will a Madhhalist come to tell the truth about another Madhhalist.

While Imam Ali Ibn Madinah, when he was asked about his father in the transmission of the Ahadith, he said, my father is weak.

And Abu Dawud, may Allah have mercy on him, also spoke about his own son.

This is how the imams of the Salafis were.

Not like you, who were afraid to say that Chalabi doesn't have to say Tibia, that it's a mistake, that it's a catastrophe in the dogma.

And every time one of you makes a mistake, the others can't speak.

Another innovative foundation is exaggeration in Saudi Arabia.

the country of Tawheed, the best country, and so on, and his governor, I even see people, he is Mauritanian, he lives in France, he has the flag of Saudi Arabia on his computer.

What is this?

Since when did the Salafi designated a country under any pretext, even Baghdad, when there were thousands of scholars, incomparable with Saudi Arabia today.

Sharia is something normal, we don't have to give a medal to someone because he applies Sharia, it's the normal course of things, it's the application of Sharia.

There were countries where there were thousands of servants.

We never said, we designated and specified a country by saying, it is this country, the land of the Tauhid, and we must love it, we must defend it, among the foundations.

Among the innovative foundations of the Madahila, the exaggeration in the question of obedience to the governor.

They have transformed the foundation of not going out on the governor to a second completely innovative foundation, which is to love the governors.

and applaud for the governor, whatever he does, even if he fights against Shari'a day and night, we must love him and we must salute him.

Another foundation, among their innovative foundations, is to do dhahiriya and to take the behaviors of certain Salaf as texts that have been revealed and applied to them, as they did at the death of al-Qaradawi, may Allah have mercy on him, or on many other occasions.

They bring you a word from a Salaf and they draw judgments that they apply to Muslims, and I stop there.

Tayyib.

Barakallahu fikir.

Barakallahu fikir.

Oui, bon, moi je n'avais pas terminé, en fait, ma réfutation, c'est le problème.

Ici, je ne sais pas s'il a bien compris la parole de Cheikh Al-Fawzan, ou bien, bon, il s'est précipité, je ne sais pas trop, mais le Cheikh Al-Fawzan dit clairement, il dit, la yusamma da'wa bismi s-sohibiha illa izakana s-sohibah mukhalifan lil-rasul.

He says that we don't give the name of a Darwa to a person unless that person contradicts the messenger.

So he's not talking here about what you mentioned, in fact.

You said, yes, now, today, you say, you call people Madakhila, referring to Sheikh Robin, so you mean that in fact there is a Darwah that is there, isn't it, which contradicts the messenger, and which was in fact founded by Sheikh Robin.

That's it, in fact.

You can't come here and say, no, I'm going to call people Madakhila because they are fanatizing against someone, but he, the Sheikh, he has no problem, he confesses to all this, or he doesn't have a problem.

And I took the example of the Salaf.

I said here, I took the case of the Salaf.

When you cite the, how do you call it, the Fahru Krimi or the other, the Alawis, etc.

No, I'm talking about the Salaf here.

The Salaf.

Cite me a Salaf who gave the name of a Dawa, isn't it?

Someone who is on the Sunnah.

That is, he gave the name to a group of people, the name of this person, and he considered this person as being on the sunnah.

Quote me a Salaf who did that, it is not known to Salaf.

If you want to attribute, if you want to give this name of Madar Hila to a group of people, N'est-ce pas?

En principe, ça veut dire que le Cheikh Robin est venu avec des fondements, il a contradit, n'est-ce pas, des fondements des gens de la Soudan, et les gens l'ont suivi dans ça, ils se sont fanatisés par rapport à ça, maintenant on les a filiés au Cheikh Robin.

Mais si le Cheikh Robin n'a rien à voir avec ça, comment tu vas filier ces gens au Cheikh Robin?

Même s'ils se fanatisent, comme tu dis, même s'ils se fanatisent pour le Cheikh Robin, tu ne vas pas ici venir dire ici qu'on va les appeler les Madars.

Non, c'est pas comme ça.

Ensuite, I was saying that this is very important.

Why?

Because if you tell us that you are not talking about Cheikh Rovien, you are talking about the behavior of certain people.

If I tell you that I personally do not recognize myself in everything you are saying, if I tell you that everything you are quoting, they do this, they do that, I don't recognize myself in that, what are you going to say?

So it really has to be well defined, because I can't come and debate for things, that is, you are citing things, the things you are citing there, I can see that it's not fair, I can see that it's just a waste if it's true, etc.

So the real problem, what you are explaining to us, Why?

Isn't it?

Today, you say that you give the population of Madakh to the people, while in the case of Sheikh Rubia, you understand or you say that he is well guided, which we understand, but then you say that he has mistakes.

Okay?

Then the case of the Ash'arites.

The Ash'arites, you can take the example of the Ash'arites.

Why?

Because first of all, Abul Hassan, the Ash'ari, When some scholars say that he repented, it is not in a total way.

He did not come back on all his mistakes.

Secondly, if the people of science say that the H1A1 is wrong, it is because it was known.

like that, this appellation was known, it is not those who are known in fact.

They have been called like that because, isn't it, Abul Hassan Al-Hashari, isn't it, he got lost, he brought falsehoods, and they followed him in that, and so they called him like that, and that confirms what I said.

And so they called them like that, that is to say, Ash-Shah-I-Ran.

Now, if after himself he repented, if some scholars continue to say Ash-Shah-I-Ran, it is in relation to the basis.

It is in relation to the basis.

And knowing that Abu al-Hassan did not repent on all the points, on all his mistakes or his mistakes.

So that's an example that goes by, it's not, it doesn't hold.

And I come back, I insist, I say the Salaf.

I say the Salaf well.

When you say the Fatimiyun there, it's not here, are the Salaf who called those like that?

So I have to quote the Salaf here.

Then, you mentioned the case of the dear Bin Baz, who says that we should not call someone an imam unless we follow him in everything.

Well, there is no precision in this word, because there is not a savant that we will follow in everything.

There is no scholar that we will follow in everything.

It is the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, that we will follow in everything.

Each scholar can be wrong.

It can be in a matter of belief, it can be in a matter of fanaticism, isn't it?

Ensuite, cette parole, c'est une parole du chef.

Est-ce que tout le monde est obligé d'accepter ça?

Non.

Des savants avant le chef d'une base ont fait le contraire de ce qu'il dit.

Des savants appelés l'imam Naoui, par exemple.

Des savants avant le chef d'une base ont appelé l'imam Naoui, imam.

On sait très bien que l'imam Naoui s'est trompé dans des questions d'asthma asyphate.

Mais des savants l'ont appelé imam.

Des savants l'ont appelé imam.

C'est fini?

Non, non.

OK.

I'm thinking about one thing.

I've been told that the exchanges are quite long, and I don't know if the audience wants to go for direct exchanges.

Basically, it would be more spontaneous exchanges.

We answer argument by argument, in spontaneity.

Of course, everyone should let themselves be heard, and let time define the other, and let it be two sides.

I don't know if you opt for this option or you stay on the 5-minute option.

For me, we stay at least one more time on the 5-minute option, and then we'll go to one minute each, or one question each, one point each, for example.

All right.

Barakallah.

Go ahead, I'll launch the stopwatch.

Wait, wait, wait.

It means that we have 5 minutes, then I come back in 6-5 minutes, right?

That's it, that's it, that's exactly how it is.

So, I conclude, according to the definition of Brother Mohamed, that when we say Hajuri, it means that Sheikh Al-Hajuri contradicted the Prophet, Al-Halabi, Al-Maghrawi.

I would like him to give me the points on which these people contradicted the Prophet, and that it was worth it to give them sects in their name, according to his own rule.

According to his own rule, which says that in order to be given a name, you have to contradict the Prophet.

I have never said that Sheikh Arabi didn't make any mistakes.

The proof is that I have cited mistakes.

I would like you to respond to some of them.

The fact that he denigrated the Sahaba, the fact that he denigrated the great scholars, the fact that he has no problem pushing back the Ijma' when he doesn't arrange it.

I would like you to respond to that.

You ask me how I should react if I don't recognize myself in what you're saying.

If you don't recognize yourself in that, you're not a Madrali.

If you don't recognize yourself in what I'm saying, you're not a Madrali.

That's fine.

If for you, Sheikh Arabi, it's just a savant among others, you don't like him, you put him aside.

You don't imitate him in everything you do.

Saudi Arabia is a Muslim country like any other.

Everything I've just said, you don't have a role in it.

That's it, you're someone, God willing, on the good side.

Concerning Ibn Baz, I didn't say that he spoke about all the chapters in the book.

He spoke about the chapters of Usuluddin.

And once again, I don't even want to argue with you on this, I want to make you notice the ease with which you reject Ibn Baz's speech.

I'm just asking you the same thing.

Reject Rabih's speech with the same ease.

Look, you didn't have any trouble, and no one here, I think, will treat you as a liar or a liar or you have doubts.

You have the word of Ibn Baz, for you it doesn't fit in your head, it's not suitable, you reject it, no problem.

Do the same with the many words of Sheikh Rabi' in which Janab-e-Sawwab left the truth, he put himself aside, like the fact that... I will give you an example of inaccuracies.

Here we will really go into why.

Sheikh Rabi''s jarhs, I never take them... I never take them... Like that, in the absolute.

Okay?

Why do I never take them in the absolute?

When he says, for example, when he says that he read, he says that he read, that he read the books of Sayyid Qutb when he was in high school.

And he says, Wallahi, I swear by Allah, that he read them in high school and that he knew them, and so on.

But he was born in 1932, let's say that he was in high school until 1952, at 20 years old, let's say, 22 years old until 1954, let's say.

The book he wrote, he was imprisoned.

So it was already 1965.

And the first edition came out only a few years later.

So here Sheikh Harabi is an example.

He is swearing by Allah on something that is not exact.

And when the book of Seyyid Qutb is published, he couldn't have read it himself in high school because Sheikh Harabi had already almost 40 years, at the time when this book was published.

And above all, before saying that, he said something else.

He said that Seyyid Qutb touched on the real truth and that Seyyid Qutb understood the understanding of the Prophets and all the praises he gave to Seyyid Qutb.

All of this makes Sheikh Al-Abir someone of whom we can consider the opinions, but never.

I would like you to tell us what Sheikh Rabir said about the Sahaba.

I would like you to give me an answer, because for me, as someone who is part of Hadith and Sunnah, it is not something acceptable.

It is something that is enough for me to no longer consider someone as a reference when I know that he said about the Sahaba, for example, he said in Sahabi, he said nonsense, he said the Sahaba, by some, they fall into slander, and he said Abu Dharr is better than Muawiyah, Ibn Amro, thousands of times, and so on, things that are not reasonable.

Yes, in fact, I think that Abdul Hayy, that's why I didn't want us to go into the points and leave the essentials.

Because the essential points, in fact, we didn't mention that, in fact.

And it's really a problem.

In short, here, so I was saying that Salaf were not known, that we gave names to people like that, and we know that the person to whom we assigned these people, it's someone who is on the Sunnah, it's someone who has no problem, Salaf were not known.

And then the brother, the brother mentioned, I look quickly at what I have noted there.

Yes, I said, well, in relation to the words of Sheikh Gumbaz, yes, I said that scholars have called, scholars who have made mistakes, even in belief, they called these people imams, that is known in kutub.

And really, the one who is humiliated is someone who has not really read the books of the scholars.

You take the case of Imam Abu Hanifa.

Abu Hanifa is still called Imam, even to this day.

Although it is true that at the time of the Salaf, there was a slander in the case of Imam Abu Hanifa.

But of course, in everything that happened, there were additions, there were people who added things, etc.

So, the scholars always call him imam, knowing that he made a mistake in the question of imam, it is known, and this is known to people of science.

So, to come and say that we have to call someone imam, in the sense that we have to follow him in everything, even in questions of belief, even in questions of belief, a scholar can make a mistake in questions of belief, he always remains imam, it is someone, it is a model that we must follow, but we say at this point he made a mistake, we do not follow him at this point.

because the scholars are not infallible.

So, concerning the question of Cheikh Robé, because I see that the brother, in fact, at one point he says he is talking about a group of people, and at one point he quotes Cheikh Robé's errors, so-called Cheikh Robéan.

So, finally, we wonder, in fact, what is it, in fact?

Do you actually know that when you say Mada Hila, You are actually affiliating these people to Cheikh Robin, by saying that Cheikh Robin made mistakes, he invented things, people followed him, that's why you called these people madakhis, or really, it's like you said, I'm asking myself questions, because first you explain that you are talking about certain people who do things, so it's not Cheikh Robin, and then you bring back Cheikh Robin, he made this mistake, this mistake, this mistake.

Then, for the question of companions, you mention here the case of... As I said, in your first intervention, there was a bit of... I didn't listen to everything you had to say, so I couldn't answer everything you had to say, except if you come back to that, and then I could answer that.

But still, what I listened to, you talk about, and you mentioned that again, Cheikh Rovien denigrated his companions.

Cheikh Rovien denigrated his companions.

And you say that you can't take him as a reference.

And in a way, you say, if I understood correctly, that in fact, it's someone you can base yourself on, but not base yourself on.

I don't know what you mean by that, not base yourself on.

But in short, concerning the denigration of companions, First of all, Sheikh Rami Zakaron is known for his companions.

He is someone who respects his companions.

He is someone who loves the companions of the Prophet Muhammad.

And he is someone who defended the companions of the Prophet several times.

He defended the companions of the Prophet when Sayyid Qutb had to denigrate certain companions.

Sheikh Robin has written a whole book where he defends the companion Abu Bakr and other companions.

So the defense of Sheikh Robin on the subject of companions is known.

And in his explanations of books like Surah al-Sunnah, we clearly see the respect and love that Sheikh Robin has for his companions.

Now, yes, Sheikh Robin had to say things against some companions who were not.

he had to say things that were not good about certain companions.

40 seconds, 40 seconds.

Yes, quickly, but what a lot of people, a lot of people who quote this, what they don't know is that Cheikh Robin came back to this, he did Tewba.

Cheikh Robin repented about the things he had to say about certain companions.

And he wrote a whole book.

He wrote a book, didn't he?

The title of the book is Al-Qar al-Al-Qiyana wal-Makruh.

In this book, the Sheikh comes back and makes tauba about what he had to say about certain companions.

Then he also evokes other points, because there are some people who have also exaggerated or who have added things about him, in fact, about what he had to say about certain companions.

And so in this book, The time is over.

So, you said 5 minutes, 5 minutes again, and now we're going to have some direct exchanges.

It's good, it's good.

Will you continue?

Yes, Inshallah.

Inshallah.

Tayyib, Muhammad Ghoray, he spoke, so that's it.

The condition is that... Let me hear you online.

I didn't understand there.

No, these are direct exchanges.

You continue your argument, but the other person has to listen and not interrupt.

So until the other person finishes, you continue.

Yes, that's it.

Meaning?

Meaning that you speak spontaneously.

Ah, ok.

Ok, no problem.

Ok, ok, that's good.

He can continue his speech.

Continue your speech.

Je peux continuer?

Oui, oui.

Yes, so I was saying that Cheikh Robien actually repented of his mistakes, and Cheikh Robien is known for that.

If he made a mistake and it's proven, he comes back to it.

And that's precisely what we blame those who often blame him by saying that, no, Cheikh Robien said this on this road, he also denigrated his companions.

But those who have been criticized, or those who have been criticized by Cheikh Robien, have these people come back to their mistakes?

Sheikh Rubien, if the error is proven, he comes back.

When he had attributed to Allah a language, Sheikh Rubien had made a mistake.

He had attributed to Allah a language.

He hadn't paid attention.

When people said to him, but Yashir, you said this, that, that, that, he came back.

He only did Qa'uba in relation to that publicly.

And that is known to Sheikh Rubien.

So we can't come today, right?

Take things where the Sheikh repented.

he clearly clarified things, we still attribute it to the Sheikh.

Well, I can apologize to Abdul Hai by saying that he did not know, and this is the case of many of those who cite this ambiguity, and I had already refuted this ambiguity in an audio, someone had brought it up and I had refuted it, I think the title of the audio was what he called the Madrhalist movement, something like that.

So, for that, it's already swept away.

Then, The brother talked about other things there.

Can you remind me?

Yes, that's it.

Excuse me.

Concerning the case of... You mentioned the case of al-Hajuri and the others there.

Well, sincerely, what you call Madakhila, do you sincerely believe that these people consider al-Hajuri, al-Marawi, as being people of the Sunnah, of the Salafis?

No.

But there you go.

So they gave the population precisely because they see that these people contradict the foundations and the world is fanatical about them.

My question was, what are they?

Because you defined and you said, he has to go, he contradicted the prophet.

I ask you the question, in what?

In what did he contradict the prophet?

First of all, my word was on the foundations.

I said that someone who comes with new foundations, okay, and that people become fanatical and follow him in that, we attribute these people, we attribute these people to this person in relation to those.

Now I mentioned the words of Sheikh Al-Fawzan.

Sheikh Al-Fawzan made it clear that we will give the population of the Dawa to the person if, how do we call that, the person has contradicted the messenger.

And it's obvious, Sheikh Al-Fawzan, when he says if the person has contradicted the messenger, he doesn't mean Here, the fact of contradicting the Prophet on a Mas'ala, a Mas'ala of Fiqh, for example, of Furun, because it is known that many scholars contradict the Prophet on Mas'ales, because they believed that the hadith, for example, is weak, or they thought that this hadith did not seem to understand it like that, etc.

So the sheikh does not aim for this kind of contradiction.

So when the sheikh says that, he means that the person has something new, foundations, novelties, which are opposed, isn't it, to religion?

My question remains the same.

Can you designate the foundations with which he came to Heria, for example?

No, the debate, we have to have it little by little.

As I said, we shouldn't leave the base of the debate.

And that's what I didn't want.

Because now we're going to talk about Yahya al-Hajouri, the debate is going to be...

No, no, no, that's not it.

You want me to change my name?

I'll put someone else in front of me.

I have a question for you.

When I told you, I was more local, I told you the Al-Hajuris.

What did you quote to say?

To say that the Al-Hajuris, the Marawis and all that, are people who are on the Sunnah, are good people, despite their name, right?

The Madakhs call these people the Hajuris etc.

I want you to understand that, honestly, do you think that the Madakhs, when they call these people the Hadjouris, the Hadjouris, the Marawis, do they consider these people to be Sudanese?

You told me no.

So the debate is closed on this point.

No, it's not closed.

No, no, no, no, no, no,

no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,

no, no, no, no, no, no, no,

no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, You affirm what you just affirmed, the debate is not over, it has just begun.

Because you say, yourself... Let me finish, look, I didn't cut you off.

You're saying that in order to give a name to someone, they have to contradict the prophet, or he has a foundation, or whatever.

But when I give you names, and I say, show me these people, how did they contradict the prophet, obviously when we talk about Ossol and Padforo, and what are the foundations they have innovated, You are incapable of citing them and you are content to

tell me that if the

Madakhila have considered

them as Moubtadians,

it is because they are Moubtadians.

No, precisely.

You are going in all directions.

No, not at all.

You tried to talk about the foundations of Mada Akhila.

Now you explain to us the foundations of these people.

I made you understand that you can't call these people Mada Akhila, while Cheikh Robie is innocent of the foundations they follow.

Now, when you quote me, you say, no, al-Hajuri, al-Mahrawi and all, we call them, we give names, we call a group of people, there are people who are called, who are affiliated to these people, what they have contradicted, etc.

Now I'm making you understand that the Madaxilas, those whom you consider Madaxilas, they don't consider them as people of the Sunnah, it's a man who says that.

But why?

That's why they gave this name.

Why do you want to bring this up?

No, but why?

Why did they do it?

Wait.

Why are you bringing this up against me?

No, but actually, bringing someone into the circle of people of the Sunnah is not the choice of the Madakhila.

It's not up to you to choose.

There are rules.

The imam Hisham Ibn Rahimahullah, and others have established rules when we take someone out of the circle of people of the Sunnah.

We don't need Sheikh Rabi'a or followers of Sheikh Rabi'a for that, Alhamdulillah.

These are stories that have been settled by At-Tarqoshi Rahimahullah, by Al-Ash'hatibi Rahimahullah.

Even if Sheikh Rabi'a never existed, Islam would not suffer, believe me.

So, either we say that To designate that someone has a farqa, first of all, this person must be himself guilty of entorse, and secondly, this entorse must be an entorse to

a

foundation of the sunnah, or to contradict a prophet in a foundation of the sunnah, You tell me, no, we want to call them Halabi, because we think they are outside of the Sunnah.

In that case, I tell you, I also want to call you Madrali, because I think you are not in the Sunnah, and you have no proof to ask me, otherwise you would get out of the subject.

It is simple, I show you that the rule on which you rely to defend yourself is not good.

No, in fact, it is you who is ... you don't understand what is being said.

I have the impression that you don't understand what is being said.

Here you are telling me that you want to make an argument against me.

I make you understand that this argument that you bring against me does not suit you.

Why?

Because you want to contest the fact that we give the name to people in relation to the foundations that this person had to innovate.

You want to contest that.

So you give the case of al-Hajjuri, al-Maghrawi, and everything.

Now I ask you the question, that the Madakhilas, those who call themselves Madakhilas, do they consider these people as Sunnis?

You tell me no.

So how do you bring that as an argument against me?

I think everyone understood, except you, who doesn't want to understand.

But you're telling me that in order to get someone out of the Sunnah, he must have committed a sin, a foundation of the Sunnah.

And the name you give him, the author of that name, he himself must have committed that sin.

I gave you an example, and I could have given you ten.

Brothers, brothers, excuse me, Abdelhaid.

I see that the debate... In fact, there were points that I could have noted because I wasn't busy.

No, no.

Excuse me, Zeid.

Zeid, excuse me.

I want to say something.

In fact, what you wanted... In fact, what you had to do... I'll explain what you had to do.

You had to ask me first.

Do you consider the Hadjuri, the Marawis, as people of the Sunnah or not?

Now I'll answer you, and then you'll say, why don't you consider them as people of the Sunnah?

And then I'll explain.

You see?

But you don't come, you tell me, you bring it up as an argument, saying that these people have contradicted themselves, and you recognize that the Madaxilas called them that because they contradicted themselves.

No, precisely, the Madaxilas called them that because they didn't contradict anything.

In any case, the subject here is not related to Hadjuri and Marawi.

You know, Mohamed, you tell me, I don't have an answer, I just pass around.

It's true that the basic subject was a bit far-fetched.

You're going to tell me, well, I know that Abdel Hai is going to say that in particular it's because the Madakhila do the tabjeer of people without principles.

And so he wants to cite a specific point.

But if we cite a specific point, we go to another subject a little.

So we must at least specify, Allah knows, in any case, we must return to the basis a little on the points announced.

In particular, there were arguments made against the brother Abdel Hai.

So the fact that the Madakhila In short, yes, there was a point.

Wara mentioned the point that the Madakhila... In short, sometimes you cite the Madakhila followers and sometimes you cite Sher Abel.

So he would like to know a little more detail.

And you, my brother Wara, my brother Abdelhaid, he mentioned a point about the Fatimids and Aisha.

In fact, I don't know of any examples that interest me, but a rule is supposed to... apply to everyone.

When we say in mathematics that x times 0 is equal to 0, we put the x to tell you that whatever the number you put instead of the x, it will give 0.

When I am told that the rule is that before naming a group, Madakhila or Hajurila or I don't know what, this Hajurila or Madkhalila must be guilty himself, and in addition, he must be guilty of intrusion into the foundations of the Sunnah of the Prophet, peace be upon him.

So I want to see if this rule is applied all the time, or is it applied just to defend the Madakhila.

Besides, it's always the same thing, he will tell me, let's move on to this point, I'm sorry, on the words of Sheikh Rabih towards the Sahaba.

Yes, I was aware, it was an article that was in the website Kulsalafi.

which was called Al-Qar al-Al-Qiyana wal-Makar.

But there are two problems with that.

The first problem, and it's the least important, is that these Tawbahs of Sheikh Rabi' don't exist anymore on his website.

On the other hand, these denigrations still exist.

Okay?

So that's the first thing.

Secondly, from the moment that someone denigrates several companions, what do we conclude?

Are these errors, mistakes, or Does anyone have the right to say that this person has bad foundations in this chapter of behavior with the Sahaba?

And if ever we take that, is the Tawbah of this kind of thing done like that?

You come, you denigrate a Sahabi, the next day you say, excuse me, and the next day it's still me, the Imam of the Ahwadiyya, it doesn't matter.

I just denigrated a few companions, I made a Tawbah, I wrote you a paper, it's on my site, it's good, give me back the captain's armband of the people of the Sunnah and I'll start again.

No, I'm sorry.

The Salafi didn't act like that.

When someone fall into this kind of fundamental error, he was put aside for a long time until we understand what made him fall into this and make him understand that the error that you made is not just any error.

Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, he warned all those who said the Qur'an, including those he was certain that they said it under torture or out of fear of being tortured, out of fear of being killed.

Despite this, Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, The problem, Abdelhaid, is that you went into too many subjects.

And I don't even follow you anymore because you go in all directions.

And that's really complicated.

If we stayed point by point, as I explained, it would have been good.

When you talk about, how do you call it, You say a rule, if we have a rule, it applies to everyone.

That's the basis.

But that doesn't mean, because you can't reason here according to mathematics as you say there.

No, religion is not that.

I'll take the case of the cover.

The one who falls into great disbelief, what is the rule?

The great disbelief is that he leaves Islam.

But everyone who falls into great disbelief, does he leave Islam?

He can leave Islam, he may not leave Islam.

The person may not even leave Islam.

Because there are conditions, there are principles, there are rules.

So it's like that.

So even if we say, for example, that it's like the case when we say that someone who commits an innovation, or someone who contradicts a foundation, especially the foundations of the people of the Sunnah, he comes out of the Sunnah, he is no longer considered as someone of the Sunnah.

This is the general sentence, this is the general rule.

But that doesn't mean that any scholar or anyone who is going to contradict a foundation automatically says that he came out of the Sunnah.

So, this is the fact of taking this principle and saying that it should apply to everyone.

No, not necessarily.

Then, since you have mentioned several points, I don't even find myself, you take the case of the Qur'an being created, that Sheikh Rabbi, you have to make the difference.

You have to make the difference between someone, for example, who comes, who says, for example, that Muawiyah was a misguided person, He was not a good person.

Or that Ousmane, he was someone who made fritangles, tea, and stuff like that.

You have to make the difference between someone who says that and someone who says a word, but that word, when you listen to it, it's not actually a good adab, a good behavior towards the companion.

It's not a good way to speak.

You see, dear Robé, in what he came across, Are you going to find words, when we look at this, we are going to put this in the first category that I mentioned?

Then, the person who repents, we must accept his repentance, we accept his repentance.

This is the answer.

Someone who repents, especially if the person is known to follow the truth, we accept his repentance.

Why do we say no, we don't accept his repentance, we don't consider it as a reference, when the person has recognized his mistake and the person has corrected himself?

Yes, so that's actually one of the things that Sheikh Robin mentioned when he was talking about the foundations of Haddadiyya.

The person will come back to his mistake, the person will repeat that, that I came back, etc.

They will always continue to stick that to the person.

And that's very dangerous.

It's very dangerous.

So, I wanted us to come back.

As I said, you mentioned a lot of points, really.

How do you call that?

I'm a bit, how should I say, I can't find myself with everything you've mentioned, it was so... you've mentioned it so many times, but I want us to come back to our duo, to my duo.

You said that I said stupid things, so I want you to demonstrate that I said stupid things in this duo.

Because if we start talking and we go into Hadjouri, Marodi and all that, well, you see, that's not the goal, that's not the goal.

And that's what I didn't want, and we got into that, unfortunately.

So, I want you to come back to what I mentioned in the audio.

You explain to me these nonsense, what you consider to be nonsense, and then I want to respond to that.

That's it, actually.

Now, if you want a debate on Al-Hajjouri bin Mahroubi, I don't know who that is, that can come later, but let's stay on this point.

first, it's very important for me.

You said that a rule... You said that a rule doesn't apply...

I'll just finish this and I'll come back to what you want.

You said that a rule, it's not because there's a rule that it's going to apply to everyone, all the time and so on.

Of course, on the other hand, we have precisely The people of the Soudan have rules.

It's not like, we're going to apply it, but we don't want to apply it with him because we like him.

No, it's not like that at all.

We have rules.

We have rules through which we know when we apply.

In the absolute, when we don't apply.

When we let go of a judgment, when we don't let go of it.

We have rules in that.

It's not fraud.

It's not anarchy.

You play with the rules.

When you want someone to denigrate a companion, it's a shiri.

When you don't want him, it's someone who defended the sahaba.

He showed publicly that he was a panti and then... I didn't...

I don't want to cut you off.

I don't want to cut you off.

I don't want to cut you off.

I don't want to cut you off.

I don't want to cut you off.

I don't want to cut you off.

I don't want to cut you off.

I don't want to cut you off.

I don't want to cut you off.

I don't want to cut you off.

I don't want to cut you off.

I don't want to cut you off.

I don't want to cut you off.

I don't want to cut you off.

I don't want to cut you off.

I don't want to cut you off.

I don't want to cut you off.

I don't want to cut you off.

I don't want to cut you off.

I don't want to cut you off.

I don't want to cut you off.

I don't want to cut you off.

I don't want to cut you off.

I don't want to cut you off.

I don't want to cut you off.

So, I know it's a rule that is not...

For example, okay, he did the taoba.

Do you agree with me that when we have a rule, it doesn't mean it applies to everyone?

But we have rules.

We don't apply it to the worst.

You apply it to the worst.

Do you agree with that now, after?

But how about you?

You explained it to me.

I'll give you a very simple example.

You now, you now.

Okay, look, Mohamed.

Look, you told me the Sahaba are left aside, there is no problem.

But this denigration of the great scholars, has it come back to this too?

Personally, I didn't listen to this part, which is detailed, it's really proven.

What did he say exactly?

I will give you the references, do you have a notebook?

It is possible that he said something, and you thought it was not good, but in reality it is not.

Okay, I will quote them, and you tell me if it is good or not, okay?

Wait, I will do it.

He says, on page 573, he says, And the fatin, the intelligent, awakened person, knows who are the scholars of India, Iran, Iraq, and Sham.

And the person, I will translate directly, I gave you the references.

And the awakened, intelligent person is...

This is in the Majmou, which volume?

Majmou al-Kutub al-Rasail, volume 10, page 573.

Okay.

Okay?

After this point, Inshallah, we will come back to the base of the subject, Inshallah.

You can reactivate the microphones.

It's important to denigrate scholars, it's not nothing.

We have to say, just now, the brother Muhammad said, he was wrong, he made mistakes, Ibn Bazi made a mistake, everyone makes mistakes, Ash'ari made a mistake, Ash'ari made a mistake, everyone made a mistake.

But when we get to Sheikh Arabi, we should never cite the word.

We should always find the excuses first.

We cite more excuses than mistakes.

So I'll tell you what he says.

The intelligent people are the scholars of India, Iran, Iraq, and the Levant.

They are Rawafid, and worse than Rawafid.

Okay?

What did he say?

He said, Al-Fatih knows who are the scholars of India, Iran, Iraq, and the Levant.

They are Rawafid, and worse than them.

Okay.

He said, they are Rawafid, and worse than Rawafid.

I'm coming, it's nothing.

That's the least serious.

I'm coming, I'm coming.

I quote and then you answer.

Wait, you've already quoted one.

It's going to be too much, actually.

I want you to stop me on that.

What?

I'm going to stop first on that, then you quote the other point.

Okay, go ahead.

Ok, so here you are making us understand that the Sheikh is saying that the scholars of Iraq, what did he also say?

India, Iran, Iraq, etc.

Yes, he said that they are worse than the Rawafids.

Yes, the Rawafids are worse than the Rawafids.

So, what does the Sheikh say?

In what context?

Do you have the book?

Tell us the context.

I have the book, but I don't have that at the moment.

Well, I have it.

What context do you want to give to this?

Walfa, tell us.

There is still context, my brother.

It's simple.

What do you want as a context for this?

SubhanAllah.

For Ibn Ubaid, what do you want as a context?

What I can tell you right now.

What I can tell you right now.

You see, Muhammad, we are seeing the application of Madhhab.

You are doing it now.

I'm sorry, we quoted an argument.

We quoted an argument.

There are two solutions.

We go together, we see the source itself, and we observe the context of the source, etc.

Or, because it's enough with one word, the brother has to ask for the context, even if, I think, God knows, Abdelhaid, if you ask your brother Mohammed Wara the context, he will give it to you.

So I think it's not too much to ask for the context.

So every time we quote a word, we have to stay here until next month, we have to quote two pages.

The word is clear.

First of all, let's move away from the subject.

No, it's the subject.

This is the application of matriarchalism.

I don't want to, actually.

Look, Abdulhaid, Abdulhaid, Abdulhaid, do you realize that we accept...

Mohamed, this is the application of matriarchalism.

You refuse...

Wait, he bugged me.

Ah, you're like a beginner.

In fact, you are debating all this, but there were a lot of subjects announced in one hour.

Normally it was one theme and one subject.

And especially in the conditions, there was the fact of... Sorry?

You listened to what I said?

No, we didn't hear you.

I was saying that more than an hour ago, we didn't even address the basis of the debate.

Abdul Hai brought us to a lot of subjects, but that wasn't the subject.

If you wanted us to talk about the so-called mistakes of Cheikh Robien, we could have a debate about that.

We came to talk about my intervention.

You called it stupidity.

I want to know what stupidity is.

And you explain that to us.

That's it.

That's why I didn't want us to start with things you didn't mention.

Because after that, it will go.

The other will say this, the other will say that.

It will be in another thing.

We go from subject to subject.

That's the real problem.

So let's go back to the basics.

What was said in my intervention, that you described as stupidity, explain to me why it is stupidity, and then I'll answer.

That's it.

What you mentioned, we could even talk about it at the end.

Mohamed, yesterday...

No, no, no, yesterday you stayed 4 hours.

Yesterday you stayed 4 hours.

Yesterday you stayed 4 hours, while you had no one in front of you to answer.

Mohamed, I may be more busy than you, certainly, but there's no problem.

I just wanted to clarify something.

Anyway, let's get back to the points I mentioned in my interview.

No, but still, I want your comment on the words of Sheikh Arabi.

I didn't quote you when he denigrated Sheikh Benbez, when he denigrated Sheikh Admochi Rabbe, when he denigrated...

Look, look, what I could tell you, in relation to what you quoted, what I could tell you is to ask the question of knowing, Sheikh Arabi, when he said that, he said that they know.

No, no, I have it, I have it, I have it in front of me, I have the references, I have the image of Sheikh Arabi.

Who knows, the scholars who said it.

Muhammad, you yourself... We know that he abused in his words.

Do you know them?

When he says, Ibn-Ubaz, he stabbed the Salafis of Ta'anad Khabit, you don't know who he is?

No, it's not something else, it's the same subject.

From there, you go to Ibn-Ubaz now.

When he says that Sheikh Abdel-Mahsel Abad defends the Popes... Abdel-Haye, Abdel-Haye, I'm sorry.

Let's come back to my intervention.

That's

it, we have to come

back

to the subject,

because there are three speakers.

We have a chance to quote some words.

You can quote some words, I'm not aware of those words.

I don't know what Sheikh Robin said about that.

That's not a debate at all.

You see?

It's not a debate, you're not going to come and say, yes, well, Sheikh Robin said that in this book, for example.

OK, we'll come back to that.

Yesterday, we mentioned the point of Saudi Arabia.

OK, we'll come back to that.

No, wait, wait, wait, wait.

Point by point, in fact.

The point of Saudi Arabia.

I think we're going to re-establish the five-minute rule, but based on the theme.

Because there were really too many topics.

There were too many...

Excuse me, Zey.

I prefer that we stay live.

OK, that works.

Let's go back to the subject.

What is the basic subject?

The points that have been mentioned.

I'm trying to mention them in order.

You want the order?

You want to designate the subjects and the order?

How do I designate the subjects?

It's in my intervention.

Okay, on Saudi Arabia, yesterday you said, we are right to call it the land of Tawheed, right?

The first point, the first point that was mentioned.

Remind me, come on, I don't even remember.

Okay, the first point, I will remember the first point, because I had noted.

So the first point of yesterday's conference was, So, the life of Sheikh Rabbi... So, wait a minute.

So, the life of Sheikh Rabbi is prevalent all the time, even when he contradicts a consensus.

Was that the first point?

Yes.

Yes, go ahead.

Yes, the life of Sheikh Rabbi in your country is not critical.

You said in your country.

All the time...

All the time, you will find excuses for him.

He denigrates the Sahaba, we find excuses for him.

He denigrates the great scholars, we find excuses for him.

He says, for example, when he wanted to weaken the authority of Abdullah ibn Omar when he said about the second Aden that it was a bid'ah, it was done by Hisham ibn al-Ghaz, the reporter Hisham ibn al-Ghaz.

And he said that Hisham ibn al-Ghaz is weak, and so on, and so on, and so on.

Whereas the sayings of the imams of Zohr Huwa Ta'dil in Hisham Ibn Al-Ghaz.

SubhanAllah, Sheikh Mukbir Rahimullah says in Qurrat Al-Ayn in the answers of Qaid Al-Allabi and Saheb Adyan.

He says, Abdullah Ibn Umar was denied and he says that he prays as in Musa Ibn Abi Shaybah.

The scholar Muhammad Adam Al-Athiopi, the authentic one.

All the authentic scholars come and all the imams of Zohr Huwa Ta'dil, the ancients, They say that Hisham ibn al-Ghaz is a rapporteur of fiqh,

but since

Al-Athar doesn't like Sheikh Rabir, he didn't hesitate to say that the research I did, even Ibn Hajar and the others didn't do the same research.

Where did he say that?

Subhanallah.

Can I finish?

Yes, go ahead.

Thank you.

And so, it's always like this.

It's always like that.

And he says, look, I'll quote it to you.

He says, As Imam Ahmad and Wali Ibn Ma'in said, there is another important saying.

Yes, the problem is that he has no problem refuting the words of Aïmé Madjouche Ouattadil when he likes them.

No, no.

And when someone does the same thing, when someone does the same thing, okay, who is today?

Abdelhaïd, you have to be fair, you have to be equitable.

In what you quoted, Sheikh Rabbi tells you well, even if some people of Hadith have said this and that.

So that means it's not all the people of Hadith.

Then he quotes scholars who have said the opposite.

He says this is what is right.

Where is Ishqaq in this?

No, no.

Precisely.

No, precisely.

He didn't say that.

Let me finish like this, Dioza.

He says, as for the words of the Hafidh Ibn Hajar, when he says it is not...

No, he said that you have the right to read at the beginning.

No, but... That's it, we read it.

Now we come to the conclusion of his book.

No, but if he followed some scholars in that, what's the point?

No, he followed...

No, but tell me the same, if there's nothing...

I want you to understand that he contradicted all the scholars who passed, etc.

No, no, but I'm going to give you... Look, if you stop me at every sentence, we're not going to finish.

I'm going to give you examples, that's what I need.

Before continuing on this point, first come back to what he said before.

Explain that to people, what he said before.

Well, are you going to stop me at every sentence?

Explain this to me.

If you quote what Sheikh Aoudoubi said before, correctly, I don't want to stop you.

Okay.

He says... I don't want to give him intentions.

He says...

wa in atlaqa alayhi ba'ad ahl al-hadid annahum thiqa'a mem si certain dee jan dee hadid deez ki son thiqa'a ee il son, sa si sheikh rabi'i il ansit 3, voo veray plu tar ki yon a boku pluz ke 3 yahya ibn ma'in edu haim wa muhammad ma'abdillah ibn ammar d'akor?

ee il dee fa sawab la vi pre-pandero ee ki li salih c'ein degri moin ke thiqa'a As Imam Ahmed said, and Ibn Ma'in has another saying about it.

Ibn Ma'in has a second saying about it, where he said, there is no harm in it.

And from there, Al-Dhahabi said about it, it is true.

Then, what does Abu Khaitha say?

The saying of the Hafidh Ibn Hajar, wait.

4 to 8 is what he says, the second part there.

Yes, yes, yes.

He says, he says, life is pre-pondering and it is salih.

Basically, salih is the last degree just before da'if.

Lower than that, it's over.

You go to the trash.

So he says, Ibn Ma'id has another opinion on it.

No, no, no, you cheated there.

You said the sheikh said, he said, why don't you recite it?

I said it twice.

Let me finish.

You translated the first part without understanding the second part, now you want to quote this part?

No, I translated it twice, I quoted it twice.

Okay, Ibn Ma'in has a second opinion on this.

I didn't translate it, brother.

And that's why... It's not Imam Ahmed.

What?

Like Imam Ahmed said.

But I said it, I just wanted to say it.

But I said it.

But... The sheikh says that what is right is that the narrator is sound.

The narrator is sound.

Like Imam Ahmed said.

That's what you have to say.

And Ibn Ma'in, in another opinion, he says, it's not bad.

And that is why Zahabi says that he is truthful.

Then he says, regarding the opinion of Ibn Hajar that he is truthful, it is a word that is not good.

Now I will tell you what is said in the Aqwal of Ibn Hajar.

Sheikh Arabi makes us believe that there are only two who say that he is good.

Okay, okay, I will stop you first please.

Here, Sheikh Rambé evokes a divergence on, isn't it, a role.

Where is the Ijkal here?

The fact that he has chosen a position between the positions of the people of the Sunnah here, or the scholars of Hadith.

The Ijkal is that the imams of the Qutb ad-Din are classified into Mutashaddid, Mutasahin, and Mu'taddin.

And when we come to try to do Let me finish.

Look, I never cut you off, you cut me off all the time.

The A'imad Zohwa Tadil are classified as hard, middle class and lax.

When we want to get a reporter's

grade,

we have to take the grades of all those who have spoken on it,

taking

into consideration who among them is a laxist, who among them is hard, who among them is average, and also take into consideration who among them knows him the best because he is from the same country or because he is one of these.

Shuyukh, but also, the third element that we will consider, we will consider their number.

Except Sheikh Rabieh, what did he just do?

He makes us believe that there are only three, while Imam Ya'qub ibn Sufyan al-Fasawi, in Ma'rifat al-Tariq volume 2, page 394, he says, Abu Hatim al-Razi, note it well, put two red lines below Abu al-Hatim al-Razi because he is still a pillar in this field.

And his words, he says, because Hisham bin Ghaz is from Homs, in Syria.

Okay?

The imam is Yahya bin Ma'in.

He says, trust.

The imam, wait, I lost the conversation.

Look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look,

look, look, look,

look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look,

look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look,

look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look,

look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, In

fact, it's as if you were following the Shiekh of Albania in a hadith that he authenticated, for example, and you say, no, the hook he gave here is not good because there is such a rule in the Hadith, so the Shiekh of Albania here followed what he wanted, in fact.

No, you can't say that.

The judgment of a hadith and the judgment of a reporter are two different disciplines.

The science of the hadith, if a scholar has taken a position among the positions of the people of the hadith, If you don't agree, you mention your argument, saying that I see that what he said does not hold, because this, because that.

But you don't take that as a...

When you want to judge a reporter, Basically, look at what you're saying.

I'm not cutting you off.

I've mentioned 7, there's an 8th, a 9th, a 10th, an 11th.

Let's move on, let's move on.

I see that this is not a point that...

No, no, no, no, wait.

It's not a point... No, but Mohamed, look, I let you decide the time.

The duration, the place, the day, you want to decide even?

No, we don't fight because it's a very important point.

You, you want to make people believe.

No, no, it's not like that.

No, I won't let you make people believe that when the imams say you're a diverse adil, you come and choose what you want.

No, that's with the madakhis.

But with the people of science, Wait, let me finish.

No, let me finish.

I let you finish and let me speak.

Go ahead, finish.

Say what you want and let me speak.

What I want is that we get right to the point.

It's like you came, you have a point that you want to treat, and you sweep away all the others as soon as it suits you.

No, no, I want one subject, one subject.

Look, earlier...

In the end, the points that we wanted, that is, that we wanted to treat, we couldn't treat that?

We're in it, but we're not.

You wanted to treat them your way.

We are treated superficially.

I don't want to be superficial.

You have an example that doesn't hold it.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,

no, no, no, no, no,

no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,

no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,

no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,

no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,

I don't cut you off

when you speak.

Judging a hadith is relative to many elements that surround it.

Judging a reporter is following precise rules.

that have been established by the scholars of the Jurisprudence.

When the Prophet Ibn Hazar said to someone, for example, that he is a Saduq, he didn't take it out of his head.

He made a mix.

He took into consideration everything that has been said, he classified it.

But let me speak.

He classified the imams as lax, average, and hard.

He saw their numbers, he looked at who among them knew the best the reporter in question, and then he drew a judgment.

It's not that you give me three words when there are 16 of them.

You don't classify them by who knows them, who lives in the same city as them, and who doesn't.

And you draw a conclusion, and you don't have to say anything, again, because it's... You're exaggerating, actually.

You don't have anything to do with it, you see, on the fact that he authenticated a story, there is no problem, you can bring your arguments, you can bring your arguments, you can prove that.

He did not follow the people of the hadith.

No, he did not follow the people of the hadith, precisely.

He did not follow the people of the hadith, precisely.

He did not follow the people of the hadith, precisely.

He did not follow the people of the hadith, precisely.

He did not follow the people of the hadith, precisely.

He did not follow the people of the hadith, precisely.

He did not follow the people of the hadith, precisely.

He did not follow the people of the hadith, precisely.

He did not follow the people of the hadith, precisely.

He did not follow the people of the hadith, precisely.

He did not follow the people of the hadith, precisely.

He did not follow the people of the hadith, precisely.

He did not follow the people of the hadith.

Imam Ahmed is classified as a god?

Yes.

No, there is no such thing as a god.

In fact, Imam Ahmed is classified as a god among the people of Hadith.

Imam Ahmed is among the scholars who are right in the middle.

No, I thought for years like you, but in fact, Imam Ahmed is classified as a god and not as a god.

Look, look, we're in the middle of it.

He has the right to cast his opinions, and you're saying, no, no, Imam Ahmed, no, we really need to calm down.

Now, you're... Now, by the way, Subhanallah... Subhanallah...

Now, in fact, we need to respond to everyone's point of view.

We need to respond to everyone's point of view, Inshallah.

I can't answer his point, he doesn't even let me finish.

I could have said everything I had to say in one minute, but he doesn't want me to finish.

I think we're going to go quickly to the points that have been criticized in my speech.

It's better actually.

But this one is part of it.

Yes, what is the point here?

It's part of it.

What is the point?

The precise point, but he quoted it, the brother.

What is it?

The first point he mentioned is the fact that as soon as you pronounce something, you follow it.

The example you gave, the example you gave of the Panteleum of Ijma.

Yes.

How so?

What are you talking about?

The example you gave contradicts the example you gave earlier.

No, that was not an example on the Ijmer.

It was an example for the fact that, even when they are in the middle of the day...

The point is that you don't cut me off, please.

Don't cut me off and don't decide when we pass, when we stop.

Answer if you have something to answer, ask questions, but don't cut me off.

It's not in all the senses either, you have to stay on the point.

The Ijma' reported by Imam Shafi'i on the fact that the one who leaves out the acts in their entirety is not a Muslim.

Sheikh Rabir, not only does he go against the Ijma' but he goes even further.

He decides that those who take the Ijma' are Haddadites.

What do you say to that?

Can you repeat that please, because it got cut off.

I told you that on the Ijma' reported by Imam Shafi'i, the one who leaves out all the acts, all the acts, that he is no longer a Muslim, Sheikh Rabi'.

not only does he not hesitate to deny the Ijma' and to contradict it, but in addition he dares to qualify those who break the Ijma' of Haddadi, of Takfiri, of everything that goes with it.

What do you say?

Yes.

OK.

Well, first of all, how do we call it?

In relation to Imam Shihafiri, Imam Shihafiri did not say that whoever abandons all acts is no longer a Muslim.

Imam Shihafiri never said that, in fact.

What has been reported from Imam Shihafiri are precise terms.

And precisely these precise terms, there is a Nishkal, already at the level of understanding, but in addition to that, at the level of its authenticity.

So, here, when you say that Imam Shafi'i said, the one who leaves all acts is no longer a Muslim, that's not already fair, Imam Shafi'i did not say that, but you understood the words of Imam Shafi'i.

Ensuite, le même chef est connu qui ne rend pas mes crayons, celui qui délaisse la prière.

Alors, celui qui ne rend pas mes crayons, celui qui délaisse la prière, va-t-il rendre mes crayons celui qui délaisse les actes apparents?

We can't make Mekran the one who abandons apparent acts.

Why?

Because prayer is the greatest work after Tawheed.

There is no work above it.

So that means that if we don't make Mekran someone for an act that is greater, we will not make Mekran someone for an act that is less.

This is why Sheikh Ibn al-Faymin, when he was asked the question about the one who abandons Hajj and fasting, he was asked, Where is the proof that the one who leaves the hajj, the fast, is not a disbeliever?

What did Sheikh Ibn al-Faymin say?

He said that it has been proven that the one who leaves zakat, by negligence, does not leave Islam.

And the Sheikh said that if the one who leaves zakat does not leave Islam, the zakat is greater than the fast, the hajj.

Consequently, the one who leaves what is less, does not also leave Islam.

Donc si on n'a pas rendu mécréant celui qui délaisse un acte qui est le plus grand, on ne va pas rendre mécréant celui qui délaisse, n'est-ce pas, l'acte qui est moindre.

Maintenant, quelqu'un pourra dire qu'on peut dire peut-être qu'on va rendre mécréant celui qui va délaisser, n'est-ce pas, l'acte qui est le plus grand là, lorsque c'est associé aux actes qui sont moindres là.

Je réponds tout de suite pour dire que ceci en fait n'a aucune base dans les textes.

On n'a pas dans les textes une chose that if you leave this out, it is not disbelief.