The Followers of Pharaoh Were Worse Than Polytheists | Explained by Shaykh Sālih al-Fawzān

The Followers of Pharaoh Were Worse

Than Polytheists 

Explained by Shaykh Sālih al-Fawzān

Question: Are the followers of Pharaoh considered polytheists with regards to the Lordship of Allāh because they followed Pharaoh in his claim that he was the Lord?

Shaykh al-Fawzān: They were Mu’attilah (those who deny the existence of a Creator), they were not polytheists. They were Mu’attliah. They did not affirm the existence of the Lord. Pharaoh said:

"I am your lord, most high"
(sūrah an-Nāzi`āt 79:24)

Pharaoh said:
I have not known you to have a god other than me.
(sūrah al-Qaşaş 28:38)

He denied the existence of Allāh the Exalted and they believe him in his denial. Thus they became those who deny the existence of the Lord.

All atheists are like this; those who do not affirm the existence of Allāh. And they say everything comes from nature. They say nature is what brings everything into existence.

And they say, "There is not but our worldly life; we die and live, and nothing destroys us except time."
(sūrah al-Jāthiyah 45:24)

They don’t attribute these matters to Allāh the Exalted. These people are called atheists. They are not polytheists. They are those who deny the existence of the Creator. The polytheists are better than them because the polytheists affirm the existence of Allāh but they worship others along with Him. As for atheists, they do not acknowledge the existence of Allāh. And how many of these people are present today!

Translated by Rasheed ibn Estes Barbee

Taken from mtws - http://mtws.posthaven.com/the-followers-of-pharaoh-were-worse-than-polytheists

My aunt is a witch

My aunt is a witch

Answered by Shaykh al Fawzaan

Do the awliyaa’ have the ability to answer one’s prayers? By Shaykh al Fawzaan

Answering a Doubt from the Grave

 Worshipper​s by Shaykh Fawzan

Do the awliyaa’ have the ability to answer one’s prayers?

 Q: He says: Noble Shaykh, may Allah give you success. Some of the grave worshippers say, we pray to the wali (saint), and he answers some of our prayers. So because he has the ability to do this, this means it’s permissible to pray to him. So how do we respond to this?

A. (Shaykh Fawzan)

My brother, the achievement of a goal by way of shirk does not prove that it’s permissible, because this is a test and a trial, and gradual punishment from Allah azza wa jall. He may be punishing you gradually with this.

Or the devil who is present at the grave or tomb is answering your needs in order to mislead you from the path of Allah, because he may have the ability and he can’t be seen. He might respond to your need and bring this to you from somewhere far off.

This is either a gradual punishment from Allah, or it is from the devil, intending to mislead you, or it happened as a decree and a due measure. It was already decreed for you to obtain this need at this time and this place, by the decree and due measure of Allah, not because you called upon this dead person.

And the point is that Allah has forbidden this. That’s enough. It’s enough that Allah forbade this. “So don’t call upon anyone other than Allah.” (Qur’an, 72:18) This is enough. So if they say, “This is not enough for me, and I will call upon other than Allah”, then say, “Then you have destroyed yourself.”

Taken from the explanation of تنظيف الاعتقاد من ادران الالحاد on 1432-03-26

Translation: MTWS

To read this in spanish click here

Listen / Download mp3 : (arabic only)

Presented to you by Markaz Tawheed was-Sunnah in Durham, NC

http://salaf-us-saalih.com/2012/08/24/answering-a-doubt-from-the-grave-worshipper%E2%80%8Bs-by-shaykh-fawzan/

A remarkable statement relayed by Aboo Uways رحمه الله from Hasan al Basri رضي الله عنه on the value of brotherhood

A remarkable statement relayed by Aboo

Uways رحمه الله from Hasan al Basri رضي

الله عنه on the value of brotherhood

Source: http://maktabah-alfawaaid.blogspot.com/2014/01/a-remarkable-statement-relayed-by-aboo.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FCBveqT+%28%D9%85%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A8%D8%A9+%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%AF%29

The Mufti of Saudi Arabia about al-’Arifi’s view of the injustice of the leader

The Mufti of Saudi Arabia

about al-’Arifi’s view of the

injustice of the leader

Scholar: ´Allâmah ´Abdul-´Azîz bin ´Abdillâh Âl ash-Shaykh
Source: http://www.sahab.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=129141
Reference: Darulhadith.com
http://aFatwa.com

What was said by al-’Arifi:

Host: How do we combine between the command of the prophet (sallâ Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) to hear and obey the leader even if he flogs your back and takes your property1 and what the people are doing today? al-’Arifi: “There is of course a difference if the ruler attacks one individual. Muslim reports that the prophet (sallâ Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: “Hear and obey even if he flogs your back and takes your property.” This is regarding if the ruler attacks one individual that he has a problem with. Otherwise the ruler is good. But in this case he comes to one person and flogs his back and takes his property. It should be said to this person not to rise up and incite towards rebellion or rebel with armor against him. For the disadvantage of this deed is greater than him having flogged you. Look whether you can take your money from him in a different way. What we are speaking of is if the ruler takes money from the entire population. 1: “…You should hear and obey the ruler, even if he flogs your back and takes your wealth, then still hear and obey.”” [Reported by Muslim (Eng. trans. 3/1029/no.4554).]

The Mufti of Saudi Arabia:

Question: Does the Hadîth of the prophet (sallâ Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam):

“Hear and obey even if he flogs your back and takes your property.”

only apply to individual cases and that it does not apply to the general injustice or does it cover all injustice?

‘Abdul-’Azîz Âl ash-Shaykh: It is general. It is obligatory to obey the ruler even if he is sinful. It is obligatory to obey. Through the obedience, the matters and conditions are managed correctly, even if there were to exist errors. However, this error should be looked at in proportion to the all-encompassing prosperity.

As for rebellion and disobedience against the rulers, then only Allâh knows what tribulation and mess it all leads to. Draw lessons from some Islâmic countries that suffer from revolts and which they call as “The Arab spring”. Just look at the tribulations that have resulted from them!

O brothers! To hear and obey the ruler is a way to reach a stable, secure, safe and good life. Disobedience and discord for the best of the individuals is extremely harmful. We have to hear and obey and believe that we are obliged to hear and obey, strengthen, stand by their side and defend the rulers we have pledged allegiance to in accordance with the Qur’ân and Sunnah and not wish them and our country evil.

Ibn ‘Uthaymîn shuts the door to misused Takfîr upon the rulers

Ibn ‘Uthaymîn shuts the door

to misused Takfîr upon the rulers

Scholar: Imâm Muhammad bin Sâlih bin ´Uthaymîn

Source: Liqâ’ al-Bâb al-Maftûh (78 A)
Reference: Darulhadith.com
www.aFatwa.com

Question: What is the ruling on the ruler who rules by something other than that which Allâh has revealed while he at the same time considers it to be obligatory to rule by that which Allâh has revealed?

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymîn: It is not an easy matter. It is not possible to give a general ruling. If one were to give a general ruling, then some people will misunderstand it. If the ruler does something, which according to this person opposes the book of Allâh, then he will say that he (the ruler) is a disbeliever. This is exactly what some of the groups of today do when they make Takfîr [exclude someone from the religion] upon the rulers because they say that they have not ruled by that which Allâh has revealed. However, they have not studied the matter.

That is why I deem it better to shut the door to this issue. It is better to shut the door to this issue so that people don’t misunderstand the scholar who issues the Fatwâ and take advantage of it in order to revolt against the rulers of their countries. As you yourself know, this matter is a great matter.

The scholars (rahimahullâh) have spoken about this matter in relation to the relevant verses in chapter al-Mâ’idah. You can always refer to the words of the scholars in this matter.

Ruling on backbiting/condemning the rulers, Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymîn

Ruling on backbiting/condemning the

rulers, Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymîn

Scholar: Imâm Muhammad bin Sâlih bin ´Uthaymîn
Source: Liqâ’ al-Bâb al-Maftûh (62 B)
Reference: Darulhadith, Sweden

Question: Who is the one who decides that the sins in the society are to be openly condemned? Is it the scholars or the callers?


Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymîn: As for the decision, it concerns the condemnation of the rulers and not the widespread sins in the society. We have for example widespread sins such as usury and gambling (games of chance, al-Maysir). Most of the insurances that exist today are games of chance. What is strange is that most of the people have accepted them. There is hardly anyone who condemns them even though Allâh mentions them together with Khamr (intoxicants), Al-Ansâb and al-Azlâm (arrows for seeking luck or decision). Even so, there is nobody who is condemning them. You assure your car and your house and give away money [to insurance companies] without knowing if your loss increases or decreases. This exactly is gambling. As for the widespread sins, you should condemn them.


However, we are talking about condemning the ruler. An example of it is a person who stands up and speaks in the mosque about how unjust the country is and how it does this and that. We are thusly speaking about this and that he is speaking about the rulers.


Additionally, there is a difference between speaking about a ruler or leader in his presence and his absence. All condemnations that have been reported from the Salaf occurred in the presence of the leader or ruler. There is a difference if the leader or ruler is present or absent. He could always defend himself and explain his reasoning if he is present. It may be that he is right and we are wrong. What is dangerous is to speak freely in his absence. That which has been reported from the Salaf has always been in the presence of the leader or ruler.


It is generally known that it would have been backbiting if one were to speak ill of an average individual in his absence.

Taken from: http://afatwa.com/

Should I beat my daughter?

HE IS A LIAR!!

Ibn Bâz: Enmity towards Saudi Arabia is enmity towards the truth

Did the Salaf refute Ahlul Bid'ah ?! Shaykh Muqbil

What did the salaf say about Niqab