0:21 [Music] I like it when people call me Wahhabi. It means I'm on the right track. We don't know what his is. I'm back Obama and I'm back because of your arrogant form. This is Islam that if you're not upon the way of the salah, I will say in anybody's face, I'm upon the truth and you're upon falsehood.
1:18 Jew, the flag bearer of apologies. which is a fancy way of saying that's not what we believe at all when it comes to Apa.
2:09 [Music] The most beautiful aspect of Islam isahill. There is no God except Allah. But imagine if I told you that the true meaning ofahill is to hate other Muslims. What if I told you the true meaning of laahil law is to kill other Muslims and take their property and enslave their women? If I told you that, you'd think that I've gone insane, that I'm being a lunatic. You might even accuse me of being an ISIS terrorist. What may shock you is that historically there have been Muslims who believed the central meaning ofahill is to hate and kill Muslims. This was actually the first deviant
2:56 group in the history of Islam. They were known as [Music] the what made the so bad is that they declared the companions of the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam to be disbelievers. They also fought and killed the companions of the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam due to their extreme fanaticism. What's interesting is that the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam warned us of the danger of this group. One day the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam was distributing gold to different tribes. One man named was not happy with the prophet's distribution. So he told the prophet sallall alaihi wasallam to fear Allah. Imagine this is a person who thinks he's more just and more moral
3:44 than the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam. The prophet foretold the future of that man. The prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam told us in a sahi hadith among the offspring of this man will be some who will recite the Quran but the Quran will not reach beyond their throats. Meaning they'll recite like parrots and will not understand it nor act on it. And they'll renegade from the religion as an arrow goes through the body of a hunted animal. They'll kill the Muslims but will not disturb the idoltors. If I should live up to their time, I'll kill them as the people of Ad were killed. Meaning, I'll kill all of them. Now, that's a dire warning from the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam. But who are these people? Scholars have identified
4:29 them and labeled them the now fast forward 1400 years post October 7th. We've seen the strange rise of the Muslim Zionists, also known as the Medalis. These are Muslims who shockingly have again and again sided with Israel against the Palestinians. While the entire Muslim Ummah is shedding tears of grief for Palestine, these medalies are calling for normalization with Israel. While the entire Ummah is boycotting pro-Israel companies like Starbucks and McDonald's, you know, I love Starbucks today. Starbucks. No Starbucks. No McDonald's. That's why many of the they said boycotting is haram. These people
5:16 have declared boycotting Israel is haram. Boycotting is haram. But the most offensive claim that they've made is this. If the choice is between Israel and Palestine, Muslims should not prefer Palestinians and maybe even they should side with Israel. Why? Because the Palestinians don't have the correct aid or creed. They've fallen into devian and even polytheism. Jews as people of the book are comparable or perhaps even better than these grave worshipping Palestinian polytheists. Open they do shik but don't say they did. So other Palestinians commit to shik them. Yeah. Muslims doing shik doing graves. They worship graves openly. There's a graves about the normalization the treaty that happened
6:02 between the UAE and Israel. Treaties and relationships political relationships with one country to another. This is the responsibility of not us of the ruler. How do Palestinians handle betrayal of Saudi and UA with Israel? There's no betrayal. We're supporting Palestinians all the way. The betrayal is happening from the Palestinians themselves. Hamas is a is a is a cult of people uh that that conspire and work along with the Shia and they work along with Muslim and they work work along with with any type of
6:52 nonsense. Now, most of you will immediately be repulsed by all this, and you'll wonder, how could any Muslim have this much animosity towards his fellow Muslims? How could any Muslim side with non-Muslim oppressors against other Muslims? But this is nothing more than the ugly horns ofism once again stabbing the ummah in the back. Once again, this is the mindset that believes that truly accepting means hating other Muslims, in this case the Palestinians. What's the source of this neocarism we see today? The most shocking thing that I found out while looking for that answer is that it all
7:38 comes down to just one man. How is that possible? How does one solitary man who lived over 200 years ago radically distort the religious understanding of so many Muslims today? In trying to find the answer to this question, I realized that it's not just Medalis who are the problem. Medalis are just one group of this man's followers. Maybe the best way to visualize this is like a tree. Let's call this the Salafi tree. To simplify things, let's just understand Sarafi as Sunni Muslims who generally follow the school of thought of Imam Ahmed whether in terms of ora. Yes, I know that's very simplified but bear with me. Needless to
8:25 say, I have a lot of respect for Imam Ahmed as do all Sunnis. A subbranch of Salafi adhere closely to the teachings of one particular Hali scholar named Ibent Tamia. Most Sunnis and Salafies also respect Ibent Tammia even if they don't 100% agree with all his opinions. But stemming from this Ibent Tamia branch, this is where our main character comes in. His main beliefs, however, diverge dramatically from those of Ibent Tamian Imm Ahmed in particular regarding sectarianism and hatred towards other Muslims. It's out of this branch that you get not only the medkalis, other sectarian cafes, but also ISIS. My goal by the end of this video
9:12 is to show you why we need to cut off this rotten branch from the rest of the Salafi tree so that we can purify Salifism and the legacies of Imam Ahmed and Ib Tamia as well as rid the um as a whole from the cancer of these neoarage. So, who is this mystery man? It's none other than 18th century reformer Muhammad Ib Abdul Wahab. Ib Abdul Wahab is a very polarizing figure. Many hate him and consider him ai deviant and the forefather of ISIS. Many others consider him al-Islam. But what is the truth? Before we go any further, I have a confession to make. I never took hate against Iban Abdul Wahab seriously. I
10:00 had thought it was all an exaggeration. It seemed to me that liberal Muslims use the word Wahhabi to unfairly smear anyone who's a conservative Muslim. If you think drinking and going to the club to dance and have fun with girls is bad, you must be a Wahhabi. It seemed like the people who are most critical of Iban Abdul Wahhab were themselves. these liberal Muslims who were just watering down Islamic beliefs and didn't really care about important things like preserving Islam and preventing bida or blamew worthy innovations. So I never took their criticisms very seriously. But then I started noticing something. The Muslims most closely affiliated with the legacy of Iban Abdul Wahab today were some of the most sectarian Muslims I knew including the
10:46 Medalis, ISIS and other Salafi sectarians. These were the people who focus all their attention on nitpicking Muslims on what are ultimately secondary or tertiary matters of the religion. Meanwhile, they completely ignore the biggest problems that are destroying the and faith of Muslims around the world. Things like liberalism, feminism, and atheism. They claim that these issues are not really a problem. They claim that the real problem is the fact that Muslims haven't studied the books of Im Abdul Wahab and haven't adopted his position on the correct meaning of and shik. Rather than joining with other Muslims to fight back against Zionists or Hindu faascists who are oppressing Muslims around the world, the followers of Iban Abdul Wah prefer to take
11:33 advantage of the situation and stab Muslims in the back to mass tear Muslims and create as much division and internal strife as possible. As we'll see, backstabbing is a recurring pattern with this group. And again, it's not just the Medalis who do all this. Medalis are only a symptom of a much deeper destructive problem. If we want to get to the root of the problem, we have to go directly to the source and that is the teachings of Ib Abdul Wahab himself. Iban Abdul Wahab was born in 1703 in the city of Oya in the Needged
12:18 region of central Arabia. He was born into a scholarly family and his father Abdul Wahab taught him the basics of the Hambi school of Islamic law. At age 20, Iban Abdul Wahab left Arya and traveled to Mecca and eventually settled in Medina. As the young Iban Abdul Wahab was maturing in this time, he became increasingly disturbed by certain practices he saw around him that he considered innovations that were contrary to correct Islamic belief. Practices like building large tombs for the dead and visiting those tombs in order to venerate saints or a one of the main teachers who influenced Iban Abdul Wahab's understanding of these innovations was Muhammad Hayet Asi. As
13:05 Cindi resided in Medina and was part of the Nakshbendi Sufi order, he was part of a broader network of 18th century scholars who opposed grave veneration including soni and these scholars are very important. So just remember their names and we'll talk more about them later in the video inshallah. So what are the problems with Iban Abdul Wahab's teachings? Followers of Iban Abdul Wahab claim that he was a traditional Hali and everything he taught is faithful to the Hanali school and the teachings of the great scholar Ibent Tamia. Ibent Tamia himself died in
13:53 the year 1328 about 400 years before Ib Abdul Wahab. While Ibent Tamia was one of the most influential scholars of Islamic history, he was also very controversial. Some of his views diverged significantly from the positions of the Hamali school of law and the Ether creed of theology. First, let's talk about the similarities between the teachings of Ibamian and Ibah. Both of them divided into two main categories. Tohed means the oneness of Allah. Ibia claimed that really has two distinct components called and means a person must believe that Allah is one in his lordship. Meaning
14:39 Allah is the only creator. He's the only owner and sustainer of the universe. No other being shares with him in these roles. Means a person only worships Allah alone and refrains from directing any act of worship to any other being. Ibia also claimed that the problem with the pagan idol worshippers at the time of the prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam was not that they disbelieved that Allah was the only creator and sustainer. They did believe in him as Lord, but they were directing their acts of worship to idols and viewed their idols as partners with Allah. In other words, these polytheists accepted but failed in upholding
15:27 al-Uba cited the Quran to justify this conclusion. For example, we read in the Quran, and if you ask them, meaning as the polytheists, who created the heavens and the earth, they would surely say Allah. So the polytheists know that Allah is the creator, but they insist on worshiping other gods as partners to Allah. According to Iben Tamia, this is the essence of what makes them mushri or polytheists. It's their violation of aloha. Ibent Tamia writes, "The polytheists from among the Arabs whom the messenger of God condemned as disbelievers and fought and whose blood and property he deemed listenit did not say that their gods shared with God in creating the heavens and the earth and the universe. Rather, they affirmed that
16:12 God alone is the creator of the heavens and the earth and the universe. What their worship of them consisted of was supplicating them and taking them as intermediaries channels and intercessors." According to this logic, the polytheists in the time of the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam believed that there is no god except Allah. This means that the polytheists were actually monotheists when it came to knowing that there's only one supreme god. Their polytheism was only due to them thinking that god has intermediaries. The follower of Iban Abdul Wahab, the infamous Rabbi Ferris Hamadi expresses this point succinctly. Even Abu Jahal said there's no god but Allah. The overwhelming majority of
16:59 Sunni scholars historically have disagreed with Ibia and they argue that this distinction betweenhed and is not that hard and fast. For example, Allah says in the Quran, the polytheists have taken other gods instead of Allah seeking strength and protection through them. Also still they have taken other gods besides Allah hoping to be helped by them. Or do they have gods other than us that can protect them? They cannot even protect themselves nor will they be aided against us. These ayat indicate that the problem with polytheists is not only that they direct worship to other than Allah. They also believe that their idols help them, protect them, strengthen them and provide for them.
17:45 These are things that only a lord can do. So this is clearly that is contrary to not just there is much more that can be said about this debate but the point is that IB's categorization of is to say the very least a contested issue among Sunni scholars. Let's put that aside for now. What's relevant for this video is that Iban Abdul Wahab adopts Ibent Tamia's categorization of Tohed and he places it at the core of his teachings. Also like Iben Tamia, Iban Abdul Wahab takes this categorization of tohed and applies it to Muslims practicing saint veneration or going to the graves of saints or od.
18:32 Their critique of saint veneration is that it violates. How so? Well, one of the main practices both Iben Tia and Ib Abdahab condemn is called linguistically means asking for help. One of the practices that was common in different periods of Islamic history is to the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam as well as saints. Muslims go to the graves of the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam or a saint and ask him to help them with some need. According to Ibamianb Abdah, this practice is shik. This is because making dua for help is itself an act of worship and therefore it should only be directed to Allah. If you seek help from the prophet
19:18 sallallahu alaihi wasallam or saints, this is a violation of you should only ask Allah directly for your needs. Isn't this what Allah says in the Quran in fat? Indeed, it is only you we worship and indeed it is only you that we ask for help. Both Ibamia and Iban Abdul Wahab make an analogy with the polytheists in the time of the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam. The polytheists of that time believe that their idols brought them closer to Allah and therefore helped them with their needs. This is referred to in the Quran and they worship other than Allah that which neither harms them nor benefits them. And they say these are our intercessors with Allah. According to Abdah, this is
20:07 exactly the same thing as if you tell the person doing that he's committing shik, he'll tell you, "No, no, no. I only worship Allah, but I'm calling to the prophet sallall alaihi wasallam or this saint as an intermediary to help me get closer to Allah." According to Ibamianb Abdah, this is exactly what the mushri said when they refuse to abandon their polytheism and Allah condemns them in the Quran as committing shik. In the same way, we should consider the Muslims who do as committing an act of shik. Side note here, you might be asking, well Daniel, what's the correct position on? Throughout Islamic history, many scholars have prohibited. They saya is a terribly sinful act
20:54 comparable to adultery and they give their reasoning for this. Other prominent scholars permitted certain types of for example ibar. The topic of is actually complex and has many details beyond the scope of this video. But unfortunately ignorant sectarians today pretend like it's a straightforward and clear-cut issue. On this basis, they want to quickly attack any Muslim who has even a slightly different perspective from them, even if it's an established position that a large number of Sunni scholars accepted historically. Some of these sectarians even go so far as techaring great scholars like Teadin Aubki and Suyuti on the basis of this
21:40 issue. But it's very easy to point out how these sectarians don't know what they're talking about. For example, here's a pop quiz for you. Today, many people assume that it's not only shik to call upon dead people for help, but it's also shik to call upon other unseen beings for help like angels and jin. People also believe that such a view can be traced back to Imam Ahmed and Ibent Tamia. But this is false. For example, there's a famous hadith which legitimates calling out for help to angels as the slaves of Allah. Although the authenticity of this hadith is questioned, it's clear that some major early scholars like Imam Ahmed accepted
22:25 it. This is famously reported by his son. Abdullah, the son of Imam Ahmed said, "I heard my father say, "I performed Hajj five times, twice riding and three times walking. I lost my way during one Hajj and I was walking. So I began to call out, "Oh slaves of Allah, show me the way." I kept doing that until I found the road. So Imam Ahmed called out to angels for help. Now does this mean that Imam Ahmed committed shik? Furthermore, Imam Ahmed said that using jin is makru, not shik. Imam Ahmed said regarding a man who claims that he treats a possessed person for epilepsy using incantations and charms and
23:11 alleges that he speaks to the jin and that some of them serve him. I don't like anyone to do this, refraining from it more beloved to me. Ibentamia also believes that it's permissible to call to jin for help. He says, "One who employs the jin for permissible matters is like someone who employs humans for permissible matters. For instance, if they command the jin to fulfill their obligations or prohibit them from doing what's forbidden, using them in lawful ways, this person is akin to a king who governs." Similarly, according to Ibent Tamia, it's permissible to call to the jin to help you as long as you don't employ the jin for something haram and you don't ask them to perform any miracles. Other
23:57 than that, you can call on them to do things for you just like a king calls on his servants. So, imagine this scenario. You're walking in the forest by yourself at night and you feel very cold as the chilly night air fills your lungs. Do you call to Allah for help? After all, in one hadith, the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam tells us to make dua to Allah for all our needs, even seemingly small and insignificant things. Let one of you ask his Lord for his every need until he asks for him for salt and asks him for the strap of his sandal when it breaks. But instead of calling to Allah for your needs, maybe you think, "I'm in this dark forest. Maybe there are some good jin around that can help me." So you call out, "Oh Jin, bring me a warm
24:43 blanket. Bring me a warm jacket." According to Ibia, calling to the jin instead of Allah is perfectly fine. There's no problem with this and it's certainly not shik because this is just like a king calling to his servants. Of course, many people listening will be shocked to hear that Imm Ahmed and Iben Tamia did not necessarily consider it shik to call upon angels and jin for help. There's a reason for this shock. It's Iban Abdul Wahab who considered calling upon angels and jin for help to be clear-cut shik. Iban Abdul wahab says, "And just as they," meaning the mushri used to also call upon Allah day and night, then amongst them were those who would call upon the angels for intercession on account of their righteousness and
25:29 nearness to Allah. They also called upon the righteous people such as Alat or to a prophet such as Isaam. And when you have come to know that their mere affirmation of did not enter them into Islam and that their seeking the angels or the prophets or the righteous, seeking their intercession and seeking nearness to Allah through all of that was the reason that made their blood and wealth lawful. When you have come to know all of these affairs, then you will have come to know the true nature of the which the messengers invited to and which the mushri refused to affirm and accept. And this is the meaning ofahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahillah for for a deity in the view of the mushri is the one who has sought for the sake of these affairs whether it be an
26:16 angel a prophet a tree a grave or a jin ibd wahab and his followers make the false claim that his views go back to Imam Ahmed and Ib Tamia in doing so they've distorted the actual views of Imam Ahmed and Ib Tamia while claiming to follow them in reality Ib Abdul Wahab's position implies actually that Imam Ahmed and Ib Tamia endorsed the permissibility of Shik and therefore their mushri. Obviously Ib Abdul Wahab never said this about them but this is because he was famously ignorant and likely not aware of all the writings of Imam Ahmed in Ib Tamia. So here's a question. is calling to angels and jin shik like Iban
27:02 Abdul Wahab says or is it not who's right giant scholars like Imam Ahmed and Iban Tamia or Iban Abdwahab in any case the question remains what position do I think is correct well some have accused me of having the same position as Yasi this is not true from what I understand believes is haram but it's not that's Not my position. I also think it's haram. But I think in many cases is also shik. But the question is is it known with certainty to be shik? This is a crucial crucial distinction and this is what all the ignoramus wahhabi YouTubers simply cannot understand which is why they have spent
27:49 the past months tech fearing me. We don't know what his is. The problem was that Daniel wouldn't openly defend his. So I said the hell with it. Get your own mind right, Dan. Get it figured out. Stop with this foolishness. Stop spewing your kufur and if you would just close your mouth and stop talking about these issues and stop spreading your kufur and shik then we wouldn't have to warn against us. So without further ado I present to you Jew the flagbearer of
28:36 shik apologists the underminer of shik. Ifatha is known with certainty to be shik that means that not only is the person doing a a kafir but on top of that whoever denies that it's shik is also a kafir and this means that the vast majority of scholars of Islam are kafir including Imam Ahmed and Ib tamya since they didn't consider calling to angels and jin to be shik this is what Iban Abdul wahab's position entails but this is not justified Because determining whether an act of calling to the unseen is shik or not requires it. It's not clearcut. It is something that is vi and the examples of Imam Ahmed and
29:22 Ibia are indicative of this fact. So again I agree that in many cases let me repeat that in many cases is shik. No way am I saying that it is not shik. But the problem with Iban Abdul Wahab and his followers is that they go the extra step of saying is known with certainty to be shik and that extra step is what triggers mass fear of Muslims and scholars which is simply Islamically unjustified. In any case, we'll talk more about in an upcoming video inshallah. So make sure to subscribe to the channel so you don't miss it. But back to the topic at hand, Ibent Tamia
30:09 and Ibn Abdul Wahab. In everything we've discussed so far, Ibent Tamia and Iban Abdul Wahab have pretty much identical views, you know, except for the to Jin issue. But here is where Iban Abdul Wahab starts to significantly diverge from Iben Tamia. First of all, Iban Abdwahab declared that he discovered the meaning of and that no one else in his era and no other scholars understood its meaning. Wait, what? Yes, you heard me right. He says, "I will tell you about myself. I swear
30:55 by Allah, the one besides whom there is no deity worthy of worship. I sought knowledge and those who knew me thought that I had understanding. But at that time I did not know the meaning ofahillah nor did I know the religion of Islam before this blessing that Allah bestowed on me. Likewise none of my teachers knew it. Whoever among the scholars of Alid claims that they knew the meaning ofahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahillah or understood the meaning of Islam before this time or whoever claims that one of their teachers knew it has lied, fabricated, deceived the people and praised themselves for something they do not possess. Imagine how arrogant you
31:41 have to be to think that no one in the world understandsahill or understands Islam until you come along. But Abdah swears by Allah that this is the case for him. He also implies that even before his time, no one really understood to because he says that none of his teachers knew the meaning ofhed either. Remember Ib Abdul Wahab's teachers were in cities like Mecca and Medina. So he's saying that the scholars in Mecca and Medina also didn't understand. Furthermore, if he thought that his own teachers were ignorant in knowing the shahada, i.e. scholars who were hal like him and were equally opposed to like him and saint veneration
32:28 like him. What do you think he thought of nonlies outside of his region? scholars in the rest of the Muslim world. He thought they were even more ignorant. This is why he says this shik that Allah has mentioned has today spread across the eastern and western parts of the earth except for the estranged mentioned in the hadith and they are very few in number. He also says indeed Islam today is estranged and most people cannot distinguish between it and disbelief. This is the kind of ruin from which there's no hope of success. As far as Abdul Wahab is concerned, the entire globe from east to west from Muslim
33:13 lands to non-Muslim lands is drowning in shik. But thankfully he's that sole beacon of light who actually understands to who can bring guidance to the whole world. Now Wahhabi apologists will claim that I am uncharitably reading Ib Abdul Wahab's statement. But consider the words of Abdman Ibn Hassan. Abdman was the grandson of Ib Abdul Wahab and was the highest ranking Wahhabi religious authority during his lifetime. He was raised and educated directly by Ib Abdul wahab and wrote the first commentary of ibdwahab's kabed known as fat majid. Abdman says around the 10th century and
33:59 beyond there was no one among the scholars who spoke about called to it recognized this shik or prohibited it until Allah raised up she Muhammad ib Abdah. Listen closely. He's saying there was not a single scholar anywhere in the world who spoke about and shik until Allah blessed all of creation with Ibdwahab. Abdman continues Abdul Wahab traveled to Basra then to Ara and the two holy cities Mecca and Medina hoping to find someone who could help him with what he had understood of the religion of Islam. However, he found no one. All of them approved the customs and practices that most people followed in
34:46 these later centuries up until the middle of the 12th century, meaning after Iban Abdul Wahab came to teach them. It's not known that anyone there called forhed in worship or denied the shik that contradicts it. In fact, they believed it was permissible or even recommended. This widespread affliction involved the worship of idols of all sorts, graves, jin, trees, and stones in all the villages, cities, deserts among other places. They continued in this state until the 12th century, which is when Ib Abdul Wahab started his da'ah. And just to make sure we got the point, Ib Abdul Wahab's grandson Abdman concludes, "It is not known that any
35:31 scholar during the time of our Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab, may Allah have mercy on him, or before his time denied Shik in Uluhia or called people to worship Allah alone." Iban Abdul Wahhab apologists will try to deny that their sheh claimed to be the only one to understand. But as we see here is his grandson saying exactly this. And Abdul Aman wasn't a random grandson of Im Abdul Wahab. He not only studied directly with his grandfather, he was raised by his grandfather and was his closest student. So again, let it sink in that someone could ever claim to be the only person in the whole world who
36:19 understands. This is the type of delusional arrogance that defines Abdul Wahab and his deviant teachings. The second shocking thing that's unique to Iban Abdul Wahab and distinguishes him from Ib Tami and other Hami scholars is how he declared that the people of the entire Muslim world including Mecca, Medina, Egypt, Iraq and Syria had become cathar mushri. Why had they become kafir mushri? because they didn't understand as IB Abdul Wahab had defined it. Again, compare this to Ibamia. Nowhere does
37:06 Tamia make such sweeping statements condemning entire Muslim regions for being mushri. Many of Iban Abdul Wahab's contemporaries criticized him for mass techfeing Muslims basically claiming the Muslim masses had apostatized from the religion. For example, his own brother, a hali scholar in his own right, manb Abdul Wahab, who we'll discuss in more depth later, said of his brother, "The fact is that you have taken this understanding of yours and opposed the consensus and declared the ummah of Muhammad in totality to be disbelievers." The great Hanafi jurist Iban Abedin was another contemporary of Ibatwa. Ibn Abedin has a very interesting
37:51 comment comparing Abdwahab to the in the time of the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam. He says the tear the companions of our prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam. This is similar to what occurred in our time with the followers of Muhammad ibn Abdwahab who emerged from neg took control of Mecca and Medina and claimed to follow the ham school of thought. However, they believed that they alone were the true Muslims and that anyone who disagreed with their beliefs was a polytheist Mushri. Based on this belief, they deemed it permissible to kill a Sunnah and their scholars until Allah Almighty broke their strength, destroyed their lands, and the Muslim armies defeated them in the year 1818.
38:37 So Ibn Abadin also claims that Iban Abdul Wahab had declared the entire um as mushri and believe their blood to be halal. Now maybe these critics of Iban Abdul Wahab had a grudge against him and they exaggerated. But let's look at what Iban Abdwahab says himself. You have also heard the polytheists say Shik is the worship of idols but not the worship of the righteous. And you've heard their claim, "We seek only from Allah, but we use their status as intermediaries." You've also heard what Allah has mentioned in response to all this. Allah has blessed you with the acknowledgment of the scholars of the polytheists, i.e. scholars of the apparent Muslims. Regarding all of this, you've heard their admission that the practices taking place in Mecca and Medina, Basra,
39:25 Iraq, and Yemen are acts of shik, i.e. associating with Allah. They have admitted to you that the religion whose people they support and who they claim are the great majority. They have admitted to you that their religion i.e. that of apparent Muslims is in fact shik. They have also admitted to you that the strive to extinguish and strive to kill and imprison its adherence is the religion of Allah and his messenger sallallu alaihi wasallam. Wow. It's insane what he's saying here. Iban Abdul Wahab says here explicitly that in Mecca and Medina, in Basra, in Yemen and elsewhere, these Muslims claim to be practicing Islam, but actually they're
40:11 practicing a completely different religion. And it's the religion of shik. Focus on this sentence. They have admitted to you that the religion whose people they support and who they claim are the great majority they have admitted to you that their religion i.e that of apparent Muslims is in fact shik. He says explicitly that the religion of the great majority of the people in these regions is by their own admission shik. They're all just a bunch of mushri pagans pretending to be Muslims. Furthermore, he depicts these Muslim regions as trying to destroyed and kill the followers of his tohed in order to extinguish Islam. This is an absolutely insane depiction of the
40:57 Muslim masses. There's nothing like this from Imam Ahmed or Ib Tamia or even later Salafi scholars like Shehikh Ibname or Sheikh Al Bani. Ibn Abdul Wahab is totally unique in this hypert of the world's Muslims and portraying them as evil enemies of Islam simply because they don't follow his understanding of Iban Abdul Wahab also declared that the vast majority of Syrian Muslims are ke mushri who worship the scholar Ibn Arabi he says and their leader is Ibn Arabi do they think that the Syrians do not say there is no god but Allah but he came from Syria where they worship Iban Arabi placing an idol on his grave that
41:44 they worship I don't mean all the people of Syria far be it from me to claim that rather there will always remain a group upon the truth even if they're few and become strangers well thank God he doesn't take fear all of Syria just most of Syria only a handful of Muslims in Syria everyone else is a kafir mushri. For those of you keeping score, so far Iban Abdul Wahab has mastc feared all of Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Mecca, Medina. Well, what about Neg, his own region? Are they Muslims at least? It is known regarding the people of our land, meaning nudged, and the land of all of hij that those who reject the
42:29 resurrection are more than those who believe in it. And those who do not know the religion are more than those who know it. And those who do not pray are more than those who pray and those who refuse to pay zaket are more than those who pay it. Guess not. He says even in neg not to mention hij people reject the resurrection obviously rejecting the resurrection and therefore the afterlife is rejecting a pillar of im so he's massfearing even the Muslims of his own region at this point an easier question to ask is who hasn't abdah teared as we saw the answer is just himself because as he said only he understands the meaning ofahillah This is why it's easy
43:15 to see how Iban Abdwahab had the goal to willy-nilly throw the entire ummah outside of Islam. It wasn't enough that Abdul Wahab claimed that the entire Muslim world had fallen into shik. Iban Abdul Wahab also claimed that the Muslims of his era were worse mushri than the mushri who had explicitly rejected Islam and made war against the prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam. For example in his famous book keshhatb Abdul wahab says if you understand that what the adherence of shik in our time i.e. The apparent
44:03 so-called Muslims call belief is actually the same polytheism that the Quran was revealed about and for which the messenger of Allah sallallahu alaihi wasallam fought against the people then you should know that the polytheism of the earlier generations is lighter than the polytheism of our time in two ways. The first way that the polytheism of the earlier generations is lighter according to Ibn Abdul Wahab is that the Mushri Quresh prayed to idols in times of ease. But in times of hardship, they would only worship Allah. His proof for this are several ayat like and when adversity touches you at sea, lost are all those you invoke except for him. But when he delivers you to the land, you turn away.
44:50 And ever is man ungrateful. It's not clear why Iban Abdul Wahab thinks that this ayah is specifically referring to the polytheists in the time of the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam rather than polytheists generally. There's nothing in any of the ayat he sites that indicate such specification. In fact, this particular ayah mentions the ingratitude of mankind in general. Nonetheless, Ibnb Abdul Wahab insists that these general ayat are specifically referring to polytheists of the past and this somehow proves that the polytheists in the time of the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam were clearly better than the polytheists of his own time. This argument is dubious at best. The second
45:37 argument that he gives is that the polytheists in the past in the time of the prophet sallall alaihi wasallam worshiped angels, prophets, saints as well as trees and stones. By contrast, the polytheists of today worship corrupt people. Obviously angels, prophets and saints are better than corrupt people. So that means the old polytheism was somehow better. This is another bad argument because Allah says in surah yin, "Did I not enjoin upon you, oh children of Adam, that you not worship Satan? For indeed he is to you a clear enemy and that you worship only me?" Polytheists past and present worship Satan. So how can it be said that the polytheists of the past are better or
46:24 worse than polytheists of any other time? Inah Allah says and likewise to many of the polytheists their partners i.e. false gods have made killing their children seem pleasing in order to bring about their destruction and to cover them with confusion in their religion. In this ayah Allah connects polytheism with the practice of killing children where false gods make such killing of children seem pleasing. This is the worst immorality. And of course, the Qurayshi pagans were doing exactly this. They're burying their own daughters. So on what basis are their polytheism and their idols better than the alleged polytheism and the alleged idols of
47:10 later times, especially since the Sufi practitioners of IstA didn't do things like bury their own daughters. So Iban Abdul Wahab's arguments are not very compelling to say the least. And when you step back and think about it, his claim is actually ridiculous on its face because let's just grant that is similar to worshiping idols like and fine but how can a Muslim who does but also proclaims that he's a Muslim proclaims the shahada a Muslim who's praying and fasting and observing halal and haram. A Muslim who loves Allah and his messenger sallallahu alaihi wasallam. How can such a Muslim even if he's judged to be a mushri, how could he be worse than
47:58 Qurayshi mushiks who not only rejected the prophet and the Quran but also waged war against the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam and the Sahabah. How could doing is and venerating saints make you worse than Abu Lahab and Abu Jahal? This is a crazy claim from Iban Abdul Wahab. But this mentality that believing that Muslims are even worse than the mushriicks who waged war on the prophet sallall alaihi wasallam is the kind of extremism that plagues the entire Wahhabi movement up until this day. It's exactly this mindset that creates the most toxic sectarianism where the followers of Ibn Abdul Wahab view their biggest enemies as other Muslims rather than clear-cut
48:43 disbelievers who are literally genociding Muslims by the millions.
49:34 Some of the apologists for Iban Abdul Wahab will claim that Im Abdul Wahhab was not unique in considering the Sufi saint veneration of his time as worse than the shik of the Qur. But the difference between Iban Abdwahab and these other scholars is that these other scholars are not mass tech fearing these Sufis and mass tech fearing anyone who doesn't techar them. This is the unique hypert doctrine of Ib Abdul Wahab that we'll discuss next inshallah. The most problematic thing about Iban Abdul Wahab's teachings is his hypertfeir doctrine. Many scholars
50:22 accuse Iban Abdul Wahab of being a deviant karaji and it's primarily due to his extremism in techir. His tear doctrine is deviant for several reasons that we'll discuss. But we first have to recognize how much of a divergence Iban Abdahab's tear doctrine is from the rest of Sunnism. Te means declaring someone a non-Muslim. Te is a serious matter because the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam said if a man says to his brother, "Other then surely one of them is such meaning one of them is a kafar disbeliever." So calling someone kar is potentially dangerous. If you're incorrect, then the accusation returns back to you. Given this, Islamic
51:07 orthodoxy sets a very high bar for tear. Let me be very clear here. Te is an important part of Islam. You have to be able to draw clear boundaries between what is Islam and what is disbelief. Who are the Muslims and who are the non-Muslims. Without tear, you cannot draw clear boundaries. And without clear boundaries, the very concept of Islam itself becomes murky and undefined. However, tear is something that requires extreme caution precisely because of the warning given by the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam. The problem with Iban Abdul Wahab's tear doctrine is that he throws caution to the wind and elevates to being a pillar of Islam. Furthermore, he applies tear in ways that no Muslim
51:55 scholar of the past ever has. If you want to learn more about the fik of tear, you can watch my recent debate on the issue. But for the sake of time, let's just look at the tear doctrine of one scholar that Iban Abdul wahab claims to be following, Ibent Tamia. By reading Ibamia we see immediately that his views of tear are completely different from ibdwah for example Ibentia does not believe in auto tech just because someone holds a kufur belief this doesn't automatically make that person a
52:40 kir he says declaring a specific individual from among these ignorant people and their likes to be a disbeliever such that he's judged as being among the disbelievers is not permissible unless evidence from the messenger sallallahu alaihi wasallam has been established for him making it clear that his view contradicts the divine messengers even if it's indisputable that his view is kufur. Therefore, no one should declare any Muslim a disbeliever even if they er and go astray until the evidence is established for them and the right path is made clear to them. And whenever it's known with certainty that a person has faith, that faith is not negated where
53:26 there is doubt. Rather, it can only be negated after establishing the evidence for him and eliminating specious arguments he has for his mistaken view. So, Ibentamia makes it clear that simply having a kufur view doesn't automatically make someone a ker because that person may be ignorant. This is known as the excuse of ignorance or or sometimes a person might not be ignorant in the sense of not having information but in the sense of being deluded by an illogical argument or incorrect interpretation. In either case, requires an extensive process of what's called or establishing the proof before any tear can be made of any single
54:14 person. If a Sufi for example goes to a grave to do according to Ibentia that action is an act of sh and therefore kufur but that doesn't automatically mean the person is a mushri kathther he may simply be an ignorant person who may be deluded by a wrong interpretation. Ibentia says this explicitly this shik if the proof of it presented to him i.e. the one who's committing it and he does not desist. Okay, then he must be killed as the likes of him among the polytheists are to be killed. But if he's ignorant knowledge not having reached him and he doesn't know the truth about the shik that was the basis upon which the prophet sallall alaihi wasallam fought the polytheists then he's not to be judged a kathther
55:00 especially since this shik has become widespread amongst those affiliated with Islam. Notice already that Ibent Tamia acknowledges that the practices he considers to be shik are widespread in Muslim lands. But unlike Ib Abdul Wahab, he doesn't claim that the masses have all become k or mushri. Again, this is because Iben Tamia believes that any given Muslim who practices could be ignorant. Therefore, he should not be automatically considered a what's required is or establishing the proof that is shik for that specific person individually. This could be quite an involved process. In Ib Tamia's view, establishing proof for a specific person requires a lot of time
55:45 and effort because you have to sit the person down, show them all the evidence from the Quran and Sunnah, address all possible counterarguments that he may have to a satisfactory level. Only once all this happens and the person insists on doing only then can he be declared a kafir. There is an extensive due process that Imamia requires before making tear on Muslims in real life. Iban Abdul Wahab by contrast doesn't believe in any of this. He says there's no excuse for ignorance and there's no need to establish the proof. When the scandal of Iban Abdul Wahab's mass takir without giving the excuse for ignorance began to spread, he wrote some small texts denying it. One possibility is that he
56:32 was confused and accidentally fell into a contradiction. A far more likely possibility is that he simply wished to conceal his true views from outsiders. So he lied about them. At any rate, later on, some of his followers developed the habit of continuously citing these specific texts to deceive outsiders and preventing them from understanding Im Abdul Wahab's trueike views on Teir. In this way they developed a type of let's look at some of these statements. For example, even I in the past have cited this statement from Ibn Abdul Wahab. As for lies and slander of Iban Abdwahab's critics, it's like when they say, "We declare general tear. We declare tear on those who do
57:18 not declare tear. And we declare on those who do not fight, meaning jihad in our army." Similar claims and countless more like them are all lies and slander through which they divert people from the religion of Allah and his messenger. In actuality, we don't declare takir on those who worship the idol which is on the grave of Abdul Kadalani and the idol which is the grave of Ahmed alawi and others like them due to their ignorance and the absence of someone to alert them. Wow, doesn't this sound exactly like Iben Tamia? In another quote, he says, "As for tech, I only declare as a disbeliever the one who knows the religion of the messenger. Then after knowing it, insults it, forbids people
58:03 from it, and shows enmity towards those who practice it. This is the one whom I declare a disbeliever." As for the majority of the ummah, all praise is due to Allah. They're not like this. These quotes might sound like Iban Abdul Wahab accepts Jah, but he makes many statements that clearly contradicts these. For example, as noted above, Ibn Abdah repeatedly claims that most apparent Muslims in the world are kra mushiks. How is this possible if he gives all of them? But he's even more explicit in disavowing the excuse of ignorance in other texts. And it also teaches you great fear. For
58:48 if you understand that a person can commit disbelief with a single word that comes from his tongue, and he may say it while being ignorant, and he's not excused for his ignorance. Now, of course, no one doubts that a person can commit disbelief by saying a word of kufur. But why would we automatically deem that person a kar? Why is there no possible excuse for ignorance? Elsewhere, Iban Abdul Wahab says explicitly that there is no other. He argues that if you're a Muslim who has read the Quran, then you should already know what's and therefore you have no excuse. As for the fundamentals of the religion, which Allah has clarified and made firm in his book, Allah's proof is the Quran. Whoever the Quran reaches,
59:36 the proof has reached him. However, the root of the confusion lies in your failure to distinguish between the establishment of the proof and the understanding of the proof. Most disbelievers and hypocrites among the Muslims have not understood Allah's proof even though it's been established for them as Allah says. Or do you think that most of them hear or understand? They're like cattle. Rather, they're even more astray in their way. The establishment of the proof is one matter and it's reaching someone is another matter. It's been established for them but their understanding of it is a separate matter. Their disbelief occurs due to the proof reaching them even if they don't understand it. So Iban Abdahab doesn't believe a Muslim can be
1:00:23 excused for ignorance or lack of understanding so long as the person has been exposed to the Quran. actually understanding the Quran is not a requirement for declaring a Muslim to be a Cath apostate. This is a very serious issue because if there is no excuse, this means that anyone who does for example is automatically a kafir mushri and also an apostate. Furthermore, according to Islamic law, that person is liable for capital punishment. This is what happens when you erase alah andb has no problem erasing it completely to promote his doctrine of automatic tear. Following the teachings of Iban Abdul Wahab, high-ranking Wahhabi authorities throughout history have also
1:01:08 taken a dismissive stance toward the excuse for ignorance. In some cases, they reject it completely. In other cases, they hold that it only applies in the most restricted circumstances. A good example is the major 19th century Wahhabi authority Abdullah Abbin. Bhain rejects the excuse for ignorance completely. In one statement he mentions practices like making requests from the dead, slaughtering animals for them and making vows to them. He then says, "Whosoever does that in these shrines today is a mushri and a kether without a doubt by the evidence of the Quran, the Sunnah, and the consensus." And we know that whoever does that from those who ascribe themselves to Islam don't fall into that except due to ignorance. For
1:01:54 if they knew that it distances them from Allah to the utmost degree and that is from the shik which Allah has prohibited, they would not advance towards it. And thus all of the scholars declared them to be disbelievers and did not excuse them for ignorance like some of the astray people say. Indeed, these people are excused because they're ignorant. In recent times, both Ibin Baz and Sal Fosan express views that are heavily influenced by traditional Wahhabism. In some places, they simply reject the excuse for ignorance. In other places, they hold that it only applies under the most restrictive circumstances. Consider the following quote from Iben Baz. Question. Many lay people fall into significant violations
1:02:41 of what's the ruling concerning them? Are they excused due to ignorance? What's the ruling on marrying them, eating their slaughtered animals, and allowing them to enter Mecca? Answer: Whoever is known to call upon the dead, seek their assistance, make vows to them, or engage in similar acts of worship directed towards other than Allah is a mushri and kether. Such individuals cannot be married, are not permitted to enter the sacred mosque mas haram and are not treated as Muslims. This ruling applies even if they claim ignorance until they repent to Allah from such acts. Al Fan admits that the excuse for ignorance is valid but holds that it's only applicable under extremely limited
1:03:29 circumstances like where a Muslim lives in an isolated place without access to the Quran and other basic religious texts. Otherwise, such a Muslim cannot claim to be ignorant. Fosan says, "We say that the one whose excused for ignorance is the one who's not heard anything about Islam. He lives in an isolated place. He does not hear anything. He did not hear the Quran. He did not hear the hadith. The da has not reached him. This one is excused for ignorance. But as for someone who lives with the Muslims and in the Muslim countries, he hears the advan all the time and the people are praying to on his right and on his left. Is this one to be said about that he's excused for ignorance? This one is ignorant on his own account. He has no desire for
1:04:16 knowledge. He has no desire for the truth. He wants to remain on what he is upon. This one is not excused. Yes. Again, what's important to emphasize is that without the excuse for ignorance, it becomes very easy to mass fear large segments of the ummah who may hold kufur beliefs solely due to ignorance. This is why Ibentamia strongly upholds Bel Jah because he recognizes that ignorance must be taken into account before declaring a Muslim a but Abdul Wahab and Wahhabi scholars up to this day have recklessly rejected this crucial crucial principle thus opening up the gates of boundless mass tech
1:05:09 fear. What makes Iban Abdul Wahab's auto techar doctrine even worse is that he elevates auto techar into an obligation that all Muslims have. Some call this secondary tech or chain techar. The idea of chain techar was not actually invented by Iban Abdul wahab. It's something found actually in the sunnah. But Ib Abdul Wahab's innovation is he applies chain tech to other Muslims. Iban Abdul Wahab claims that not only do Muslims have a duty to avoid, they also have a duty to tear anyone who believes in the possible acceptability of and if you fail in that duty that means you're a kafir yourself. Ib Abdul
1:05:56 Wahab says this explicitly in multiple writings. For example, he lists the top 10 greatest nullifiers of Islam. And in that list, he includes, "Whoever calls upon saints or intermediaries, ask them for intercession or relies on them has committed disbelief by consensus, not declaring polytheists as disbelievers, doubting their disbelief or validating their beliefs. Such a person has committed disbelief by consensus. The polytheists he's referring to here includes Muslims who practice. If you have any doubt that a person who says the shahada prays, fasts, loves the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam but also does. If you
1:06:43 have any doubt that that person is a kafar, then you yourself are a kafar. Ib Abdul Wahab further says, "So reflect, oh slaves of Allah, on what Allah has mentioned about the disbelievers. They acknowledged all of this for Allah alone without any partners. Their polytheism only lay in the fact that they called upon the dead prophets and righteous, made them their representatives, made vows to them and relied upon them, seeking from them nearness to Allah. as Allah says about them and those who take protectors besides him say we only worship them that they may bring us nearer to Allah. If you understand this then those false deities in whom people place their beliefs whether from the people of Alj or elsewhere are well
1:07:29 known both publicly and privately for such practices they are chosen for this and they order the people to do it. All of them are disbelievers and apostates from Islam. Whoever argues in their defense or criticizes those who declare them disbelievers or claims that their actions, even if invalid, do not constitute disbelief. Then the least that can be said about such a person is that they are a sinner whose testimony and writings are not to be accepted and who should not be prayed behind. In fact, one's Islam is not valid except by disassociating from these people and declaring them disbelievers. In other words, you don't have sound Islam unless you're constantly affirming that those who do
1:08:17 are ke or mushri apostates. By contrast, nowhere does Imam Ahmed or Ibent Tamia endorse this idea of chain tear on the basis of or other secondary matters. Nonetheless, it's a critical part of Iban Abdul Wahab's teachings. Iban Abdul Wahab even elevates Teir to an individual obligation of Islam at the same level as the shahada. He says the foundation of Islam and its principle are two commands. The first is the command to worship God alone without partner to agitate for this to show loyalty for the sake of it and to pronounce tear on those who do not practice it. The second is to warn against the association of other beings in the worship of God to be harsh in
1:09:04 this to show enmity for the sake of it and to pronounce tear on those who practice it. In other words, Islam has two foundations. One the shahada and two making tear. And not only is a foundation, you also must show enmity. Again, the enmity he is talking about is enmity towards other Muslims. These are other Muslims who don't even necessarily do themselves. They just don't consider to be known with certainty to be shik. In another work, Ib Abdul Wahab writes, "If you're asked, what's your religion?" Say, my religion is Islam. Its foundation and basis are two things. The first, the command to worship Allah
1:09:51 alone with no partner. and encouraging that and loyalty based upon that and the techar of whoever abandons it and the warning against polytheism in the worship of Allah and the severity in that and enmity in it and the tear of whoever does it again makes tear a foundation of faith without tearing all those who do shik according to Ib Abdwahab's definitions then you're not actually a Muslim you're a kafir So here's a question for you dear viewer. Have you ever explicitly disavowed and teared its practitioners? No? Well, sorry. Bad news. According to Iban Abdul Wahab, you're a fullblown
1:10:38 five-star kar and you've always been one. You just never knew it. This is such an extreme distortion of Islamic teachings and unless you're familiar with Iban Abdul Wahab's writings, you would never know. Ultimately, when Iban Abdul Wahab makes the practice of tear literally a foundation of Islam, he's breaking from the rest of the Sunni tradition. Ali and Shawi and others are clear that a Muslim's faith cannot depend onfearing others on the basis of it matters or matters. And many scholars after Iban Abdul Wahab including many Salafi scholars like Shehikh al- Bani have recognized the dangers of Iban Abdul Wahab's auto techar doctrine which is
1:11:24 why there's been a massive effort to try to conceal Iban Abdul Wahab's words or massage them to imply that he doesn't endorse auto tech fear and chain tech fear of fellow Muslims. But as we'll see later in the video, the best proof that Iban Abdul Wahab did believe in auto and chain tech is his leading an imperial jihad against the Ummah, which led to the slaughter of countless Muslims. In all the above quotes, Iban Abdul Wahab makes it clear that a necessary part of sound faith is to show hatred and enmity to the people of Shik. Of
1:12:12 course, what he means by people of Shik are those Muslims who do not accept his definition of shik. He writes the description of disbelief in tut it is to believe in the falsehood of worshiping anything besides Allah to abandon it to hate it to declare those who worship it as disbelievers and to oppose them. The meaning of faith in Allah is to believe that Allah is the only true deity to be worshiped without associating anyone with him and to dedicate all types of worship exclusively to Allah alone. It also means rejecting all worship of anyone other than him, loving those who are sincere to Allah, allying with them, hating the people of polytheism and opposing them. This is the way of Ibraim, which anyone who turns away from
1:12:57 has indeed made a fool of themselves. When you understand that Iban Abdul Wahab teaches how all the Muslims who don't accept his teachings are actually Keith or Mushri, that helps you to understand how so many of the followers of Ib Abdul Wahab are extremely harsh against their fellow Muslims. This is exactly why the focus of the Salafi sectarians is on interrogating other Muslims, subjecting them to Akida checks and then denouncing them. Meanwhile, they don't show a fraction of this energy against the actual enemies of Islam. This attitude didn't just come out of nowhere. This is coming straight out of Iban Abdul Wahab's teachings, including in his famous ated. When you
1:13:46 put all the pieces of Iban Abdul Wahab's Tear doctrine together, the auto tech, the chain tech, and the requirement to show enmity towards Mushri, it becomes very disturbing to read what Iban Abdul Wahab says in his. The fans of challenge people to point to anything mistaken in the book. But the most shocking thing he says is this. Among them is the statement of the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam. Whoever saysahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahillah and disbelieves in what is worshiped besides Allah his wealth and blood are protected and his account is with Allah. This is one of the most significant clarifications of the meaning ofahill. For it does not make the mere utterance
1:14:33 of it sufficient to safeguard one's wealth and blood nor merely understanding its meaning along with the utterance nor even acknowledging its truth. It does not suffice even if one does not call upon anyone besides Allah, associating no partners with him. Rather, one's wealth and blood are not safeguarded until one adds to this the act of disbelieving in whatever is worshiped besides Allah. If one is doubtful or hesitant, then their wealth and blood are not protected. Oh, what an issue of great magnitude and immense significance this is. What a great clarification and definitive argument against any disputer. Iban Abdul Wahab is claiming here that if someone declares the shahada and accepts it with all his
1:15:19 heart and at the same time refrains from worshiping anyone except Allah, this is not enough to make you a Muslim. To be a Muslim, one has to go the extra step of disbelieving in whatever is worshiped besides Allah. What's problematic about this is as we saw from his other statements he claims is clear-cut shik. So to be a Muslim you must disavow and tear its practitioners otherwise not only are you not a Muslim but Iban Abdul Wahab thinks you can be killed your property taken and your wife and children taken as slaves. This of course means that offensive jihad needs to be
…
