Archive of Tawheed

https://youtu.be/4JMQXMRyj50

Sheikh Faris Al-Zahrani (may Allah accept him) was executed in Saudi Arabia because of his oppositional stances against the Saudi government, while those who insult the Prophet (SAW) are pardoned.

The Saudi tawaghit don't tolerate criticism against themselves but they will tolerate INSULTS towards the Messenger of Allah.

Isn't It Unjust If The Ignorant Are Punished For Major Shirk?

One of the main reasons why those who attribute themselves to Islam consider ignorance a valid excuse for major shirk is that they inadvertently:

-Attribute absolute innocence to those who are ignorant.
-Believe if Allah punishes the ignorant that would be unjust therefore ignorance must be a valid excuse for major shirk.

Both of which are false assumptions as we will read below insha'Allah.

Examples of people finding tawheed even before revelation:

Abdullah ibn Umar (RA) narrated:
“One day, when the Messenger of Allah (SAW) had not yet received revelation and had not yet become a prophet, he met Zayd ibn Amr ibn Nufayl at the foot of Mount Baldah. While they were there, some food was offered to them...Zayd said to those who had offered the food: ‘I do not eat meat from animals slaughtered in the name of your idols. I only eat meat from animals slaughtered in the name of Allah.’”

Zayd ibn Amr would rebuke Quraysh for slaughtering animals in the name of their idols. To condemn their actions, he would say:
“Allah created the sheep and sent down water from the sky for it, and caused vegetation to grow from the earth for it. Yet you slaughter that sheep in the name of someone other than Allah.” [Bukhari 3826]

In his search for the truth, Zayd ibn Amr visited Christian and Jewish scholars to investigate their beliefs. When he found that all of them contradicted tawheed, the religion of the fitrah, he raised his hands towards the sky and said: “O Allah, I call You to witness that I follow the religion of Ibrahim.”

He would lean against the Ka'bah and say:

“O gathering of Quraysh! By Allah, none of you follows the religion of Ibrahim except me.”

All of this happened before Muhammad (SAW) had even received prophethood.

Likewise, Amr ibn Abasah al-Sulami narrated:
“During the Age of Ignorance, I realised that the people were not upon the right path because they worshipped idols.”

When he heard that someone in Makkah was claiming prophethood, he became one of the first people to follow the Prophet (SAW).

Examples of major shirk not being accepted as an excuse even before revelation:

The Prophet's (SAW) own father & mother who lived during that same period became inhabitants of the Fire. A man said to the Messenger of Allah (SAW):
“O Messenger of Allah, where is my father?” He replied: “In the Fire.” As the man turned away to leave, he said: “My father and your father are both in the Fire.”

We can see that during the period in which no messenger had yet been sent to them, some people found tawheed before revelation whilst others became inhabitants of the Fire.

Isn't it unjust if an ignorant person is punished for major shirk?

Those destined for the Fire imitated their forefathers. They said, “This is how things have always been, and this is how they will remain.”

They did not pursue the information in their fitrah. They had no interest in it. Had they searched for it, Allah, the Most Merciful, would have come ten steps towards them in response to their taking one step towards Him, enveloping them in His mercy. Just as He guided Zayd, Amr ibn Abasah and the other hanifs amid the darkness, He would have guided them too.


There is no human being whose fitrah does not incline towards tawheed. Rather, there are people who numb their minds, follow the ways of their forefathers, make entertainment the purpose of their lives, and surrender their intellects to authority without question.

Instead of thinking: "If the ignorant is punished that would be unjust, therefore ignorance in major shirk must be excusable" and deny the clear verses of the Quran, one must think: "Had they been deserving of guidance, the Most Merciful, Allah, would surely have granted them the ability to accept tawheed. Allah knows best who deserves guidance."

What Does It Really Mean to Love the Messenger ﷺ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=my9ThoPKICw

Not Everyone Is Qualified To Give Dawah!

Recently a right wing podcast had featured a Muslim, explaining some views that are in alignment with ours and others that are very far off.

In the podcast he talks about the takfir of the madkhalis, which is correct. But he uses profanity, makes grave mistakes, gives out some rulings that are unislamic, even though he admits later on that he doesn't know if those rulings are correct, the damage is done. The kuffar already have their 15 second clip. This is a perfect example why not everyone should go on public platforms to give dawah. Allah (SWT) does not leave the method of dawah to us:

"Invite ˹all˺ to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and kind advice, and only debate with them in the best manner." [16:125]

How does one invite to Allah upon basirah? By trying to build rapport with the kafir by using profanity like he does?! Authubillah. To call with wisdom and insight requires learning your religion, refining your character, and only then calling others. If one is unable to do that, then refer the matter to somebody else who can.

Choose the right person who can give dawah!

Calling to the truth with wisdom and insight requires selecting the right person to deliver the message to an individual or society. We see that the imams of guidance paid attention to this in their dawah. For example Musa (AS):

“And my brother Aaron is more eloquent than I, so send him with me as a helper to support what I say, for I truly fear they may reject me.” [28:34]

When Allah sent Musa (AS) to give dawah to Pharaoh, he asked that Harun (AS) be sent with him as a helper. His reasoning was that Harun spoke more fluently and was more articulate. But why did Musa (AS) make such a request?

The Pharaoh was a vile and lowly person, just like every taghut. He was the type to mock Musa (AS) for his speech impediment and ridicule him for not being an eloquent speaker.

“And Fir’aun (Pharaoh) proclaimed among his people, saying, ‘Does not the kingdom of Egypt belong to me, and these rivers are flowing right underneath me? Do you, then, not discern? Or (do you not see that) I am much better than this one (Mūsā) who is worthless and can hardly express himself?’” [43:51-52]

We see that Musa (AS) was right to be concerned. Pharaoh mocked him for his inability to express himself and belittled him. For this reason, Musa (AS) asked Allah (SWT) for a more eloquent helper. He considered the nature of his audience and requested someone more suitable.

Another example. When the first converts in Medina asked the Prophet for a caller, the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) sent Mus’ab ibn Umayr. He did not send some of the older, well-known Companions such as Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman; rather he sent a young Companion like Mus’ab (may Allah be pleased with him). Undoubtedly this was not a casual choice. The reason for this selection was:

– Mus’ab was the child of a noble family. He was well-mannered and refined. His appearance impressed people; he had an elegant presence and a manner of speaking that matched it.

– He had taken part in both migrations to Abyssinia and was experienced in matters of migration.

– He was a man who had been tested with hardships; he knew both wealth and poverty.

So for that specific scenario, Mus'ab was the most suitable person to give dawah.

For example, if the person you invite to Islam is an enemy of Islam and knows Islam better than you, your dawah may turn into a comedy. Imagine the man says, “You are reciting the verse incorrectly; this is the correct wording.” If the person you are speaking to is a socialist, and you confuse socialism with sociology, or leftism with right-wing politics; or if you have memorised America’s lies about communism while calling America taghut, then that dawah also becomes a comedy.

That's why, we must observe the dawah method of the prophets, otherwise our dawah can do more damage than good.

[Contains excepts from the book: After becoming Muslim by Abu Hanzala]

Ahead of us, is the season of shirk and kufr. When sickening images of Christmas and Halloween celebrations will no doubt surface from the UAE, Saudi Arabia and other lands of disbelief.

As usual we will see sell outs advocate that there is nothing wrong with Celebrating Christmas/Halloween, or they’ll downplay it, take a more sly approach like Yasir Qadhi, and claim “B-but this may be the only time to give your family dawah out of the 364 remaining days!” And other so-called scholars like Faris al Hammadi and the madkhaliyyah will react by remaining silent. As usual, the tongueless devils. May Allah humiliate them.

For the believer, this is a time of seclusion from the world steeped in shirk and kufr. Even if the whole world was to denounce tawheed it would not diminish Allah in any way.

Advice To A Police Officer | Abu Hanzala

When we look at the history of tawheed, we see a common pattern:

A handful of ghuraba start calling people to Allah. They resist the disbelieving authoritarian system. They proclaim Tawheed. The disbelieving authoritarian system first mocks them. When they see that their voice gets louder they begin to issue threats. The threats are followed by oppression.

A battle of words begin between those who call to tawheed and the disbelieving authorities in front of the eyes of the people. Through this battle, people are exposed to the reality of tawheed.

After this stage, it's up to the individuals. Whose side will they take? Will they affirm tawheed or will they side with the tawaghit?

When we read the stories of the prophets, this is the exact pattern we see.

So when the batil imprisons our scholars and oppresses them...this is Allah (SWT) exposing the tawaghit. People are witnessing the battle of truth and falsehood.

The final stage of this pattern is always Allah’s punishment of the oppressors. Where do we stand right now? If the punishment of Allah decended today, would I be on side of the oppressors or the believers? Would you be on the side of the imprisoned believers or would you be on the side of the rulers who imprisoned them?

This is the Telegram channel of the YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/@ArchiveofTawheed Other channels shared here does not mean endorsement, or agreement of all of their views. Back up: https://t.me/kufrbittaghut2 Videos that can't be shared on YouTube…

Praying Behind Imams in Darul Kufr Whose Aqeedah Is Completely Unknown

Voting is major shirk. Whoever commits major shirk is a mushrik, and there is no exception to this principle except in the case of ikrah (duress). Given that a large majority of the population, including a large majority of those who claim to be Muslims, commit acts of shirk, it is not the position of our madhhab to pray behind an imam whose aqeedah is completely unknown.

When the fitnah concerning the claim that the Qur’an was created became widespread, Imam Ahmad (rh) advised his friend Suhaib to refrain from praying behind those whose aqeedah was unknown.

If, even in an Islamic state, during the era of the Tābiʿeen and those who followed them, Imam Ahmad (rh) refrained from praying behind imams whose beliefs were unknown when deviations such as the Qadariyyah, Muʿtazilah, and Jahmiyyah were widespread, and when some of these matters were not as clear as they are today, with shirk and kufr being hidden in matters of belief, unlike today when they are outwardly apparent, then consider what Imam Ahmad’s fatwa would be concerning the situation today.

Today, our lands are governed by man-made laws, all forms of shirk are openly committed. People pray to graves, and the right to legislate is given to members of parliament.

And in so-called masjids in the West, politicians are invited to solicit votes, and in some cases, even ballot boxes are placed inside the masjid.

It's not hard to imagine what Imam Ahmad's fatwa would be in such circumstances.

Some Muslims in the West go to a random masjid with good intentions, where they pray behind an imam whose beliefs are unknown.

Time goes by and eventually they start talking about the deen and they realise some people in the masjid need dawah. They mention things like democracy being shirk, voting being shirk etc. Or they ask the imam about these things to know what they believe. What happens next is even though the Muslim has no association whatsoever with any organisation, the imam reports them to the government, just because they spoke about kufr bit taghut. At the very least they kick them out of the mosque and tell them not to come again.

Additionally, many of these masjids are built for the purpose of spreading democracy, support for the tawaghit or interfaith dialogue. They are masjid al-Dirar. For these reasons, we advise Muslims to avoid praying behind imams/jama'ah whose aqeedah is completely unknown.

#Aqeedah@kufrbittaghut1

Answering the doubts of Irja: The Dhat Anwat Incident

What is the 'Dhat Anwat Incident'?

Dhat Anwat was a tree which the polytheists of Mecca hung their swords and sought blessings from the tree prior to war. This was their tradition.

In a hadith one of the companions asked the Prophet (SAW) to build one like it, to which the Prophet responded:

“Allahu Akbar! What you have said is just like what the Children of Israel said to Musa: ‘Make for us a god just as they have gods’ [Al-A‘raf 7:138]. You will indeed follow the ways of those before you.”

The companions who requested this were new Muslims and they claim that the request was major shirk, but the Prophet (PBUH) didn't make takfir of them [i.e. excused them]. Therefore those who pray to the dead, vote in democratic elections, join the armies of the tawaghit etc. can also be excused because they are ignorant.

Answer:

➡ The scholars unanimously agreed that the request made to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was not major shirk because they did not request to worship the tree itself. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned this narration three times in his work Majmu‘ al-Fatawa and twice in his work Iqtida al-Sirat al-Mustaqim. In particular, when discussing this hadith under the subject of “the prohibition of resembling the disbelievers,” he was once asked about the ruling on people visiting specific places to supplicate to Allah there or performing similar acts. He cited this narration as evidence and said:

“All of these are innovations. They are from the practices of the people of Jahiliyyah, and they are paths that lead to shirk.”

He also mentioned the same hadith and said:

“As can be seen in this hadith, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) rejected the Companions’ request for a mere tree under which they could rest in its shade and upon which they could hang their weapons, on the grounds that it was imitation of the disbelievers. So how could it be permissible, then, to imitate the polytheists in matters of far greater importance, or to show admiration for shirk itself?”

Likewise, when explaining the issue of venerating places that are not to be venerated, Imam Suyuti, while speaking about the innovations committed in this regard, used the exact same words as Ibn Taymiyyah:

“Take note of how the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) rejected their mere desire to imitate the disbelievers.”

➡ The people of Irja to equate a group who had newly entered Islam and went out to jihad alongside the Messenger of Allah with a people who have for years claimed to be Muslims (the tawaghit and their helpers) yet do not give the slightest importance to even a single ruling of Allah, let alone go forth to jihad. This must surely be among the most corrupt of comparisons.

➡ Lastly, the evidence put forward by the contemporary Murji’ah is not a decisive text regarding the dispute between us. In this narration, was the request made by some of the Companions an act of major shirk that expels from Islam, or was it minor shirk that does not expel its doer from Islam? The ambiguity here, the fact that the indication of the report is speculative (zanni) and that it accommodates more than one possible interpretation, shows that this narration cannot be taken as a clear and definitive proof on the matter.

Therefore, what must be done before anything else is to evaluate the issue in light of the definitive, decisive texts. Allah (SWT) has declared that He will never forgive those who commit shirk, and He has named those who commit shirk as mushriks in His Book. The specification of these decisive texts with the claim that “if a person commits shirk out of ignorance, he cannot be named a mushrik” can only be done with other texts that are themselves equally decisive.

To abandon the clear and explicit verses on this subject and instead deduce rulings from a narration, the indication of which is entirely speculative, is nothing short of the peak of ignorance.

✒ Murat Gezenler