Transcripts
Speaker 2: It will be a debate between the brother Mohamed Doura and the brother Abdel Hai Yahya Gous Hak.
Speaker 2: 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.
Speaker 2: 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.
Speaker 2: There are rules that have been contracted in both parts, in particular the form of UNORA that has issued these conditions.
Speaker 2: 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.
Speaker 2: So I will reiterate the conditions one last time, and you will tell me if you accept the conditions of this debate.
Speaker 0: The first is that you presented the Space by saying that it is a response from the brother Mohamed Hora to the ambiguity.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: And then the few things I mentioned were passed on to my brother Mohamed Oura, who tried to bring the answers I found useful.
Speaker 0: So it wasn't everything I had to say, it wasn't even the most important thing I had to say.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: So there will be what I mentioned yesterday, but there will also be other more important things.
Speaker 1: First of all, I would like to remind you that the debate was first proposed by Abdul Hayy himself.
Speaker 1: And in what he proposed, he said that it will be on all the points that I mentioned in my intervention.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: But today, I want to know about the stupidities, that I told in my refutation, as Abulhay had to say.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: Abdul Kheir shows us, doesn't he, that it was nonsense, and then we'll see what happens next.
Speaker 1: He must start with what was mentioned, what was refuted, and what he called nonsense, in fact.
Speaker 1: I would also like to remind you that brother Zaid will be there to coordinate in case someone exceeds the number of minutes.
Speaker 1: For example, if I am talking and I don't realize that I am exceeding the minutes, he stops me.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: You based your answer on a base that was false, and therefore everything you said could only be false.
Speaker 0: The topics that will be mentioned, we will not talk about chemistry, we will not talk about that.
Speaker 0: We will talk about what you have followed, what I hear about Madakhila, what I blame them for.
Speaker 1: To say that what I said is based on a false basis, and therefore everything I said is false, that doesn't make sense.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 0: When you answer to something that you don't even know the author's definition of, I'm sorry, you could only be wrong.
Speaker 1: Like me, I say, the materialists, for them, Wait, I prefer that we start the debate and start timing on this point.
Speaker 0: Everyone will do what they want in these five minutes, provided that we stay on the main topic.
Speaker 1: no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: We say every day the Alawis, the Fatimis, Yet, they are Shiites, and of course, we have a whore, neither Ali nor Fatima.
Speaker 0: So, the Madkhalis are not Sheikh Rabbi, they are the people who have the characteristics that I will begin to name.
Speaker 2: 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.
Speaker 2: 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.
Speaker 2: 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.
Speaker 2: 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.
Speaker 0: I can't talk about materialism without citing it, and I'm going to cite its foundations, including those I cited yesterday.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: And I told him earlier on Twitter, I told him earlier on Twitter that no, I accepted all these conditions.
Speaker 0: He designated the place, he designated the height, he designated the platform, he designated everything.
Speaker 1: 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?
Speaker 2: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 2: And then, when he has said what he has to say about matriarchalism, he will come back to the complaints of brother Wara.
Speaker 0: So, those who are designated by madralism are the people who have the Sepahs that I will quote.
Speaker 0: The first of the Sepahs, an exaggeration, on the person of Sheikh Rabbi, an exaggeration worthy of the greatest groups of Sufis.
Speaker 0: Among the evidences of this exaggeration is the fact that they call the Imam Rabbi al-Madkhali.
Speaker 0: Sheikh Ibn Baz and others say that an imam is someone who can be taken as an example in all the chapters of religion.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: Sheikh Rabi' is someone who has grudges against the foundations of the people of the Sunnah.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: Another thing, Sheikh Rabir is someone who walked with the Ikhwan for more than 15 years.
Speaker 0: He also admitted that he was someone who said a lot of good things about Sayyid Qutb before going back.
Speaker 0: Among the points I mentioned yesterday, I mentioned the fact that Sheikh Rabi's wound In the Madakhila, it is no longer negotiable.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: Falah al-Harbi, at first he called it Mount Uhud, the mountain of Uhud, then he called it the ignorant.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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?
Speaker 0: Give us a definition of all these groups that you are citing, give us our foundations, as I am doing with you.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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?
Speaker 0: You don't accept the words of Sheikh Rabi' in an injury, it's enough for him to make Hajar and call you.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: 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?
Speaker 1: And then I come back here to say that when you said that I was based, in fact, my base was false.
Speaker 1: 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?
Speaker 1: These people who call themselves Mada Akhila, it is obvious that they follow several scholars, they do not follow only Sheikh Robin.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: No, it is not a new rule invented, it comes from the Salaf, it is what is known to the Salaf.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: He is saying, he said very well in Arabic, he said, the bid'ah was given to the one who committed it.
Speaker 0: By the way, I think that Sheikh Fauzan and all the others say that Abu Hassan Al-Ash'ari made a Tawbah.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: And I gave you the example of Al-Alawiyin and Al-Fatimiyin, which should normally have been enough not to have addressed this point.
Speaker 0: So, I repeat it to you, Al-Alawiyun, Al-Fatimiyun, we don't even finish the names, the Asha'ira, whatever you want.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: The global Tabdi'a, for example, the Madkhali will say, there are no scholars in Morocco.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: you have innovated a foundation called general tabdi' and the madakhila are in this second case of general tabdi'.
Speaker 0: when I took back at-Shalabi to have said tibia no one among the madakhila dared to take it back.
Speaker 0: they didn't even force him to do a tawbah when he said that Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala had a tibia.
Speaker 0: While Imam Ali Ibn Madinah, when he was asked about his father in the transmission of the Ahadith, he said, my father is weak.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: Since when did the Salafi designated a country under any pretext, even Baghdad, when there were thousands of scholars, incomparable with Saudi Arabia today.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: Among the innovative foundations of the Madahila, the exaggeration in the question of obedience to the governor.
Speaker 0: They have transformed the foundation of not going out on the governor to a second completely innovative foundation, which is to love the governors.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: They bring you a word from a Salaf and they draw judgments that they apply to Muslims, and I stop there.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: He says that we don't give the name of a Darwa to a person unless that person contradicts the messenger.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: If you want to attribute, if you want to give this name of Madar Hila to a group of people, N'est-ce pas?
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: Mais si le Cheikh Robin n'a rien à voir avec ça, comment tu vas filier ces gens au Cheikh Robin?
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: Because if you tell us that you are not talking about Cheikh Rovien, you are talking about the behavior of certain people.
Speaker 1: 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?
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: Because first of all, Abul Hassan, the Ash'ari, When some scholars say that he repented, it is not in a total way.
Speaker 1: Secondly, if the people of science say that the H1A1 is wrong, it is because it was known.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: Now, if after himself he repented, if some scholars continue to say Ash-Shah-I-Ran, it is in relation to the basis.
Speaker 1: And knowing that Abu al-Hassan did not repent on all the points, on all his mistakes or his mistakes.
Speaker 1: When you say the Fatimiyun there, it's not here, are the Salaf who called those like that?
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: Well, there is no precision in this word, because there is not a savant that we will follow in everything.
Speaker 2: I've been told that the exchanges are quite long, and I don't know if the audience wants to go for direct exchanges.
Speaker 2: Of course, everyone should let themselves be heard, and let time define the other, and let it be two sides.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: According to his own rule, which says that in order to be given a name, you have to contradict the Prophet.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: If for you, Sheikh Arabi, it's just a savant among others, you don't like him, you put him aside.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: Sheikh Rabi''s jarhs, I never take them... I never take them... Like that, in the absolute.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: And he says, Wallahi, I swear by Allah, that he read them in high school and that he knew them, and so on.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: All of this makes Sheikh Al-Abir someone of whom we can consider the opinions, but never.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: And really, the one who is humiliated is someone who has not really read the books of the scholars.
Speaker 1: Although it is true that at the time of the Salaf, there was a slander in the case of Imam Abu Hanifa.
Speaker 1: But of course, in everything that happened, there were additions, there were people who added things, etc.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: But still, what I listened to, you talk about, and you mentioned that again, Cheikh Rovien denigrated his companions.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: But in short, concerning the denigration of companions, First of all, Sheikh Rami Zakaron is known for his companions.
Speaker 1: He defended the companions of the Prophet when Sayyid Qutb had to denigrate certain companions.
Speaker 1: Sheikh Robin has written a whole book where he defends the companion Abu Bakr and other companions.
Speaker 1: And in his explanations of books like Surah al-Sunnah, we clearly see the respect and love that Sheikh Robin has for his companions.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: In this book, the Sheikh comes back and makes tauba about what he had to say about certain companions.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 2: So, you said 5 minutes, 5 minutes again, and now we're going to have some direct exchanges.
Speaker 1: Yes, so I was saying that Cheikh Robien actually repented of his mistakes, and Cheikh Robien is known for that.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: But those who have been criticized, or those who have been criticized by Cheikh Robien, have these people come back to their mistakes?
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: 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?
Speaker 1: So they gave the population precisely because they see that these people contradict the foundations and the world is fanatical about them.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: So when the sheikh says that, he means that the person has something new, foundations, novelties, which are opposed, isn't it, to religion?
Speaker 1: 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?
Speaker 1: 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?
Speaker 0: 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,
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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
Speaker 1: I made you understand that you can't call these people Mada Akhila, while Cheikh Robie is innocent of the foundations they follow.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 0: No, but actually, bringing someone into the circle of people of the Sunnah is not the choice of the Madakhila.
Speaker 0: The imam Hisham Ibn Rahimahullah, and others have established rules when we take someone out of the circle of people of the Sunnah.
Speaker 0: These are stories that have been settled by At-Tarqoshi Rahimahullah, by Al-Ash'hatibi Rahimahullah.
Speaker 0: 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
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: Now I ask you the question, that the Madakhilas, those who call themselves Madakhilas, do they consider these people as Sunnis?
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: And the name you give him, the author of that name, he himself must have committed that sin.
Speaker 2: I see that the debate... In fact, there were points that I could have noted because I wasn't busy.
Speaker 1: In fact, what you wanted... In fact, what you had to do... I'll explain what you had to do.
Speaker 1: Now I'll answer you, and then you'll say, why don't you consider them as people of the Sunnah?
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 2: 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.
Speaker 2: So we must at least specify, Allah knows, in any case, we must return to the basis a little on the points announced.
Speaker 2: Wara mentioned the point that the Madakhila... In short, sometimes you cite the Madakhila followers and sometimes you cite Sher Abel.
Speaker 2: And you, my brother Wara, my brother Abdelhaid, he mentioned a point about the Fatimids and Aisha.
Speaker 0: In fact, I don't know of any examples that interest me, but a rule is supposed to... apply to everyone.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 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.
Speaker 0: So I want to see if this rule is applied all the time, or is it applied just to defend the Madakhila.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: The first problem, and it's the least important, is that these Tawbahs of Sheikh Rabi' don't exist anymore on his website.
Speaker 0: Secondly, from the moment that someone denigrates several companions, what do we conclude?
Speaker 0: 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?
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: Despite this, Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, The problem, Abdelhaid, is that you went into too many subjects.
Speaker 1: When you talk about, how do you call it, You say a rule, if we have a rule, it applies to everyone.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't mean, because you can't reason here according to mathematics as you say there.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: So, this is the fact of taking this principle and saying that it should apply to everyone.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: 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?
Speaker 1: Someone who repents, especially if the person is known to follow the truth, we accept his repentance.
Speaker 1: 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?
Speaker 1: Yes, so that's actually one of the things that Sheikh Robin mentioned when he was talking about the foundations of Haddadiyya.
Speaker 1: The person will come back to his mistake, the person will repeat that, that I came back, etc.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: You said that I said stupid things, so I want you to demonstrate that I said stupid things in this duo.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: You explain to me these nonsense, what you consider to be nonsense, and then I want to respond to that.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: It's not like, we're going to apply it, but we don't want to apply it with him because we like him.
Speaker 1: It is possible that he said something, and you thought it was not good, but in reality it is not.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 1: Ok, so here you are making us understand that the Sheikh is saying that the scholars of Iraq, what did he also say?
Speaker 2: 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.
Speaker 0: So every time we quote a word, we have to stay here until next month, we have to quote two pages.
Speaker 2: In fact, you are debating all this, but there were a lot of subjects announced in one hour.
Speaker 1: If you wanted us to talk about the so-called mistakes of Cheikh Robien, we could have a debate about that.
Speaker 1: What was said in my intervention, that you described as stupidity, explain to me why it is stupidity, and then I'll answer.
Speaker 0: I didn't quote you when he denigrated Sheikh Benbez, when he denigrated Sheikh Admochi Rabbe, when he denigrated...
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: When he says, Ibn-Ubaz, he stabbed the Salafis of Ta'anad Khabit, you don't know who he is?
Speaker 0: When he says that Sheikh Abdel-Mahsel Abad defends the Popes... Abdel-Haye, Abdel-Haye, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: It's not a debate, you're not going to come and say, yes, well, Sheikh Robin said that in this book, for example.
Speaker 0: Okay, on Saudi Arabia, yesterday you said, we are right to call it the land of Tawheed, right?
Speaker 2: So the first point of yesterday's conference was, So, the life of Sheikh Rabbi... So, wait a minute.
Speaker 2: So, the life of Sheikh Rabbi is prevalent all the time, even when he contradicts a consensus.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: SubhanAllah, Sheikh Mukbir Rahimullah says in Qurrat Al-Ayn in the answers of Qaid Al-Allabi and Saheb Adyan.
Speaker 0: He says, Abdullah Ibn Umar was denied and he says that he prays as in Musa Ibn Abi Shaybah.
Speaker 0: 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,
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: Yes, the problem is that he has no problem refuting the words of Aïmé Madjouche Ouattadil when he likes them.
Speaker 0: And when someone does the same thing, when someone does the same thing, okay, who is today?
Speaker 1: In what you quoted, Sheikh Rabbi tells you well, even if some people of Hadith have said this and that.
Speaker 0: No, no, but I'm going to give you... Look, if you stop me at every sentence, we're not going to finish.
Speaker 0: 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?
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: You translated the first part without understanding the second part, now you want to quote this part?
Speaker 0: Then he says, regarding the opinion of Ibn Hajar that he is truthful, it is a word that is not good.
Speaker 1: The fact that he has chosen a position between the positions of the people of the Sunnah here, or the scholars of Hadith.
Speaker 0: The Ijkal is that the imams of the Qutb ad-Din are classified into Mutashaddid, Mutasahin, and Mu'taddin.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: Shuyukh, but also, the third element that we will consider, we will consider their number.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 1: 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,
Speaker 0: 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
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 1: In the end, the points that we wanted, that is, that we wanted to treat, we couldn't treat that?
Speaker 0: 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,
Speaker 1: 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,
Speaker 0: When the Prophet Ibn Hazar said to someone, for example, that he is a Saduq, he didn't take it out of his head.
Speaker 0: He saw their numbers, he looked at who among them knew the best the reporter in question, and then he drew a judgment.
Speaker 0: You don't classify them by who knows them, who lives in the same city as them, and who doesn't.
Speaker 0: And you draw a conclusion, and you don't have to say anything, again, because it's... You're exaggerating, actually.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: No, I thought for years like you, but in fact, Imam Ahmed is classified as a god and not as a god.
Speaker 0: He has the right to cast his opinions, and you're saying, no, no, Imam Ahmed, no, we really need to calm down.
Speaker 0: I could have said everything I had to say in one minute, but he doesn't want me to finish.
Speaker 0: The first point he mentioned is the fact that as soon as you pronounce something, you follow it.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 0: 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'.
Speaker 0: 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.
Speaker 1: In relation to Imam Shihafiri, Imam Shihafiri did not say that whoever abandons all acts is no longer a Muslim.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: Ensuite, le même chef est connu qui ne rend pas mes crayons, celui qui délaisse la prière.
Speaker 1: 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?
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: 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?
Speaker 1: He said that it has been proven that the one who leaves zakat, by negligence, does not leave Islam.
Speaker 1: And the Sheikh said that if the one who leaves zakat does not leave Islam, the zakat is greater than the fast, the hajj.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: Another thing, if you leave this out, it is not disbelief, but if you leave the two together, it becomes disbelief.
Speaker 1: This word of Imam Shafi'i, the word that is reported by Imam Shafi'i, Sheikh Robin, when you say that Sheikh Robin contradicted the Hijma and you quote this word, no.
Speaker 1: And knowing that the same old sheikhs do not make me believe in the one who says his prayer, which further reinforces the doubt of Sheikh Rabbi, or the fact that he questions this word.
Speaker 1: It's because the Cheikh Robin also understood from this speech, in fact, he understood from this speech, from the one who leaves the apparent acts.
Speaker 1: But does this speech already, even if we assume that it is authentic, does this speech really prove that the one who leaves the apparent acts, he leaves Islam, you said it is a consensus?
Speaker 1: Because in this speech, we are told, la yujzi, la yujzi wahid minas thalasa illa bil akha.
Speaker 1: We know very well, as reported by the Sheikh of Islam in the Majmu' al-Fatawa, in volume 7, page 193, he mentions that Salaf refuted the Murji'ah who said that al-iqrar yujzi, ani l-amal.
Speaker 1: Et on sait tous que les murjias voient que celui qui délaisse les actes ou les actes apparents, sa foi est quoi?
Speaker 1: Donc, lorsque ces salafs-là ont réfuté ici, les murjias qui disaient que le ikhrar yudzi, c'est-à-dire que ça ne suffit pas pour avoir une foi complète.
Speaker 1: So when Imam Shafi'i says here, we can very well understand that he is speaking here because this is not enough to have complete faith.
Speaker 1: So it's not a word, in fact, that we can take to say that it is a clear word that shows here a hijma.
Speaker 1: Then, even if we still assume that he aimed here at the takfir, the takfir of the one who leaves the apparent acts, here we are talking about a consensus of companions and tabi'aim.
Speaker 1: So if we see that among the tabiayin, for example, or even among the compagnons, there is one who contradicts that, or some who contradict that, we can no longer base ourselves on that here.
Speaker 1: If a scholar speaks of a consensus, we realize that before him, there were scholars who said the opposite.
Speaker 1: And when we go back now to the Salaf, we realize that Az-Zuhri, who is part of the Tabi'aid, he does not return my pencils, he is the one who gives these apparent acts.
Speaker 1: And Sheikh al-Islam has very well explained this word of Imam Zuhri, and he even refuted Ibn Nansur, who wanted, who confused this word.
Speaker 1: He said that there is no difference between this word, Those who say that Islam is the word, and the word is Murdia.
Speaker 1: And the Sheikh of Islam came to refute this by saying that there is a difference, because those who said that among the Salaf, those who said that among the Salaf, I am looking for the reference, it may be better.
Speaker 1: Imam Ibn Nasr says, he says, whoever claims that Islam is the declaration and that work is not from it, he has contradicted the Book and the Sunnah.
Speaker 1: He is the one who says that Islam is the declaration and that works are not part of Islam.
Speaker 1: And those who were in agreement with Zuhri, he says, yaquloun il diz al a'mal dakhilatun fil imani wal islamu indahum juz'un minal imani wal imanu akmal indahum aw indahum akmal.
Speaker 1: il yessasan konfum taklu kitabu al sunnah le shaykh ul islam bin fi.. il yessasan konfum taklu kitabu al sunnah le shaykh ul islam bin fi..
Speaker 0: il yessasan konfum taklu kitabu al sunnah le shaykh ul islam bin fi.. il yessasan konfum taklu kitabu al sunnah le shaykh ul islam bin fi.. il yessasan konfum taklu kitabu al sunnah le shaykh ul islam bin fi..
Speaker 2: il yessasan konfum taklu kitabu al sunnah le shaykh ul islam bin fi.. il yessasan konfum taklu kitabu al sunnah le shaykh ul islam bin fi..
Speaker 0: Aouadane, you addressed this subject without specifying that the Mourji'a are at different degrees and have different definitions of faith, depending on what kind of Mourji'a.
Speaker 0: So you can't say the Mourji'a are said and you know one word from one part of the Mourji'a.
Speaker 0: As for what Sheikh Islam Rahimullah is saying, he is making the difference between the words of the Mujahideen and the words of some Salafis who may look like the Mujahideen, but in reality they are not, because they say that acts are a pillar of faith.
Speaker 0: The problem with Sheikh Al-Abir, precisely, the big problem with Sheikh Al-Abir is this one.
Speaker 0: He says that acts are a pillar of faith, and at the same time, if we remove acts, faith still remains.
Speaker 0: Imam Shafi'i, may Allah have mercy on him, says, He said, there is a consensus of the Sahaba and the followers after them.
Speaker 0: If you say the two Shahadahs and you pray but you don't believe in your heart, All that goes with it is useless.
Speaker 0: First of all, the things, when it is very well that it was in Muta' Malik and that it is not found in all the copies of Muta' Malik or the same thing in many books in Islam, including in Sahih al-Bukhari, the differences between the different manuscripts.
Speaker 0: If we ever follow the rules of Sheikh Rabir, and every time we don't find something in a book, among the Nusar who have come to us, we say, no, no, no, he didn't say it, we're going to remove hadiths, we're going to remove hadiths and we're going to destroy religion.
Speaker 0: He doesn't understand that the rules he puts in place are going to destroy religion if we ever apply them.
Speaker 0: It's indirect, I let you speak for 10 minutes and you cut me off after 3 minutes, it's no longer indirect.
Speaker 0: I don't cut you off, you cut me off, you want to have more time than me, you want to choose the themes, you want to choose the questions, you want to choose the rhythm, it's no longer a debate.
Speaker 0: So... Since Sheikh Rabi' said that there is only one Shafi'i, as he did with Hisham bin Al-Ghaz, he said 3 while there are 16.
Speaker 0: that the Sunnah on which the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, died and that Allah, subhanahu wa ta'ala, has created for his religion, and he continues until he says, and faith is a saying, is a word, is actions that increase, that decrease, and that increase.
Speaker 0: Harb al-Karmani, he brings the consensus, him too, and he says, And he says, look at what he says, he says, the one who claims that faith is just a word and that acts do not enter into it is a morgue.
Speaker 0: It proves to us that in Salaf, the Morji'a is not just a sentence, and you say, that's it, the one who said this sentence, kada.
Speaker 0: And the one who says that the one who leaves all acts is a believer, but who lacks faith, he says that this is one of the worst opinions of the Morji'a.
Speaker 0: The people of the Sunnah say that faith is a belief and a word, and these are acts with the members.