Here is an aqida test that I will now administer to the Wahhabi postal workers of the world.

Any Wahhabi postal worker who does not answer these questions is hiding his aqida and should be denounced as a deviant.

(1) What is your position on the view that it is permissible (or correct) to believe that the hellfire is not eternal - and that a idolater who rejects Islam and fights the Prophet ﷺ will not be punished forever? Is this view acceptable, or deviance, or kufr?

(2) What is your position on the view that the Quran is uncreated (ghayr makhluq) but its recitation is created? Is this view acceptable, or deviance, or kufr?

(3) What is your position on Abu Hanifa? Do you consider him a legitimate scholar, a deviant, or a kafir?

(4) What is your position on ISIS? Do you consider their views to be legitimate, or deviance or kufr? How exactly do their views differ from those of your shaykh Ibn Abd al-Wahhab?

Remember, according to the Wahhabi postal workers, it is essential that people clarify their aqida in a precise manner.

This is what they have nonstop demanded of me. It is also what I demand of them, given the fact that they are showing increasing signs of deviance.

It would have been easier to clarify these points of aqida in a debate or a discussion, but fear and cowardice is a big problem with Wahhabis.

I don't expect them to answer these questions because taqiyya is the central pillar of their cult.

Possible Haqiqat Show today in about 6hrs with special surprise guest...

InshaAllah on today's show, I go toe to toe with our Brother Mohammed Hijab. Watch LIVE in about 3 hours and join the chat.

https://www.youtube.com/live/DqzGvP_DKbg

No exaggeration: They want to turn Mecca and Madina into Las Vegas.

Reminder

A million checkmates are meaningless if your opponent doesn't understand chess.

Sigh

Technical difficulty, stream will resume shortly inshaAllah

Did Farid claim he shows respect to non-Salafis?

Were you showing respect when your Madkhali Wahhabi friends declared Imam Ghazali a deviant?

Or when they were calling Sh Dido & Mufti Taqi as deviants? And saying all Asharis & Maturidis are devaints?

No, Farid, you boost these people and cheer them on and then play innocent when you're called out on it.

No one heard Farid cry about sectarianism when his mailman friend was making video after video calling me a deviant, a shaytan, a liar, "go to hell." Farid actually piled on and said the attacks on me were legitimate.

Then when I respond and give him and his friends aqida tests that they can't answer, now he's suddenly concerned about sectarianism.

It's all very transparent what's going on here.

And let's not forget how Farid has given cover over the years to Madkhalis. If he had stayed quiet about others, we could overlook his silence. But he only opens his mouth to attack whoever the Madkhalis happen to be attacking at a given time, including me.

Is it permissible to believe that the Hell-Fire is not eternal? Or is this deviance? Or kufr?

I asked this in a recent aqida test, and many overly confident Wahhabis in the replies said it is deviance and kufr without any doubt.

The poor fools did not realize that this was the position of Ibn Taymiyya.

One of the most basic Islamic beliefs is that hell is eternal and that those who reject Islam will be punished there forever.

Many have argued that it is kufr to deny this eternality of Hell since it is mentioned explicitly in the Quran.

However, a small number of scholars have questioned this belief.

Among the most famous are Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim. Both figures hold that it is permissible (or even correct) to believe that Hell will eventually pass away (fana' al-nar) and that the punishment of polytheists will cease.

In the view of fools like Jake, this would make Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim the ultimate "aqida liberals," because Ibn Taymiyya's position amounts to the idea that aqida ultimately does not matter for salvation. In other words, one can attain salvation from hell while explicitly rejecting tawhid, worshipping idols, and even making war on Islam, since the hell fire will not last forever.

For their opinions, Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim have been subject to strong criticism form figures like al-Subki, al-San'ani and others. Indeed, those who oppose Wahhabism and Salafism (which is not the same as Wahhabism), frequently cite this matter as indication that both groups are heretical insofar as they claim to follow Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim.

Reacting to this situation, Salafi scholars like al-Albani, Muqbil, and Fawzan have insisted that Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim simply made an error in their ijtihad regarding a matter of aqida. And this does not matter or make them guilty of heretical innovation, or decrease their status as Imams of Ahl al-Sunna.

What great wisdom is there in such a viewpoint! What excellent tolerance for the great imams of our tradition!

And how distant it is from some of the opinions on aqida found in the works attributed to the ninth century Ahl al-Hadith like al-Barbahari and Harb al-Kirmani! (although these works have a lot of material of questionable authenticity).

Unfortunately many Wahhabis, and even many ordinary Salafis, have not read or understood Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim - let alone al-Albani or Muqbil or Bin Baz or Ibn Uthaymin.

Some of the loudest are uneducated postmen, fitness trainers, samsung vendors, and ex-convicts and ex-crackheads who masquerade as alims or "tullab al-ilm."

So they become confused if you point out basic facts about Ibn Taymiyya - e.g., that he believed in calling on jinn, or claimed a supernatural ability to see the future (e.g., reading victory over the Tatars off al-lawh al-mahfuz).

They also become shocked when you tell them that figures like al-Albani, Muqbil, etc,, were quite tolerant of errors in aqida - at least from scholars they accept.

For example, Jake, the loud ex-Quranist postman - thinks that ijtihad errors in aqida automatically make one an innovator, such that one should be attacked and denied a place within Ahl al-Sunna.

Lest you think that I'm exaggerating, let me produce the exact quotes from al-Albani, Muqbil, and Fawzan. Since al-Albani's quote is the longest, I leave it for last.

Shaykh Muqbil says:

"My response to Imam al-Shawkani—may Allah have mercy on him—does not diminish his status, nor is he the first scholar to make an error. Indeed, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and his student Ibn al-Qayyim also erred in their belief in the passing away of Hellfire (Fana’ al-Nar).

"Imam al-San‘ani addressed this mistake in his book "Raf‘ al-Astar fi al-Radd ‘ala al-Qa'ilin bi Fana’ al-Nar", in which he refuted their position.

"However, when a scholar makes a mistake, while also possessing immense virtues, his errors are overshadowed by his many merits. No scholar is immune from mistakes—every great scholar has had errors."

وأما الشيخ مقبل الوادعي فلا ندري ما نقله عنه السائل، غير أنه قال في مقدمته لكتاب (بلوغ المنى في حكم الاستمناء) للشوكاني: وردي على الإمام الشوكاني ـ رحمه الله ـ لا ينقص من قدره، وليس هو أول واحد أخطأ، فذلكم شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية، وتلميذه ابن القيم زلت أقدامهما في القول بفناء النار، وقد رد عليهما الصنعاني في كتاب (رفع الأستار في الرد على القائلين بفناء النار). والعالم إذا أخطأ وله فضائل، غمرت أخطاؤه في فضائله، وما من أحد من العلماء إلا وله أخطاء. اهـ.

Fawzan says:

"Our response to this is from two perspectives:

"First Perspective: There has been no unanimous consensus on condemning the belief in the passing away the of Hellfire or classifying it as a [heretical] innovation, as claimed. In this matter there is [simply] a difference of opinion. While the majority do not hold this view, there has been no consensus in rejecting it. It is from the matters in which there are differing opinions, such that one is not [guilty of] innovation [ if one takes a particular opinion].

"Second Perspective: Those who argue for the passing away of the Hellfire rely on evidence from the Qur'an and Sunna. Regardless of whether their interpretation is correct or not, their argument is not considered an innovation as long as they base it on evidence. Innovation (bid‘ah) applies only to matters with no evidence. At most, this belief can be deemed an error or an incorrect opinion, but not an innovation. The intention here is not to defend this belief, but rather to clarify that it is not an innovation, and the principle of innovation does not apply to it. It is [simply] a [legitimate] difference of opinion."

فتعقبه الشيخ الفوزان فقال:

تعقيبنا عليه من وجهين:

ـ الوجه الأول: أنه لم يحصل إجماع على تخطئة القول بفناء النار، وعدِّه من البدع، كما زعم، فالمسألة خلافية، وإن كان الجمهور لا يرون القول بذلك، لكنه لم يتم إجماع على إنكاره، وإنما هو من المسائل الخلافية التي لا يبتدع فيها.

ـ الوجه الثاني: أن الذين قالوا بفنائها، استدلوا بأدلة من القرآن والسنة، وبقطع النظر عن صحة استدلالهم بها، أو عدم صحته، فإن هذا القول لا يعتبر من البدع ما دام أن أصحابها يستدلون له؛ لأن البدع ما ليس له دليل أصلا، وغاية ما يقال: إنه خطأ، أو رأى غير صواب. ولا يقال: بدعة. وليس قصدي الدفاع عن هذا القول، ولكن قصدي بيان أنه ليس بدعة، ولا ينطبق عليه ضابط البدعة، وهو من المسائل الخلافية. اهـ

Shaykh Al-Albani addresses a number of what he considers to be contradictions and errors from Ibn Taymiyya, including his views on the passing away of the Hellfire and other matters (e.g., that the prophet Khidr is still alive).

Al-Albani says:

"So how can Ibn Taymiyya say: "If it were assumed that punishment had no end, then there would be no mercy at all"? It is as if, in his view, mercy can only be realized if it extends to the stubborn and oppressive disbelievers. Isn't this one of the strongest pieces of evidence for Ibn Taymiyya’s error and farness from what is correct in this serious matter – both for him and those who followed him?

"It is not surprising that a scholar like him would have more than one opinion on certain issues or that he might err in some matters. This is a natural occurrence that no scholar after the Messenger of Allah ﷺ is free from. It is well known that the longer a scholar spends in the pursuit of knowledge and the more he advances in age, the greater his understanding and maturity become."

فكيف يقول ابن تيمية: «ولو قدر عذاب لا آخر له لم يكن هناك رحمة البتة "، فكأن الرحمة عنده لا تتحقق إلا بشمولها للكفار المعاندين الطاغين، أليس هذا من أكبر الأدلة على خطأ ابن تيمية وبعده هو ومن تبعه عن الصواب في هذه المسألة الخطيرة؟.
…
ولا غرابة في أن يكون لمثله أكثر من قول واحد في بعض المسائل، وأن يخطئ في بعض آخر؛ فإن ذلك من الأمور الطبيعية التي لا يخلو منها أحد من العلماء بعد رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم -، فإن من المعلوم أن أحدهم كلما طال به الزمن في طلب العلم، وتقدم به في ذلك العمر، كلما ازداد به معرفةً ونضجاً، وهذا هو السبب في كثرة الأقوال التي تروى في المسألة الواحدة عن بعض الأئمة المتبوعين، وبخاصة منهم الإمامين أحمد وأبا حنيفة، وتميز الإمام الشافعي من

Wahhabi cat is not afraid to call out the deviance of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim (for the belief that Hell is not eternal).

Wait but Wahhabis told me all the scholars of Ahl al-Sunna have the same exact aqida, which is the aqida of the Salaf...

Does this mean Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim are not Ahl al-Sunna???

____

Obviously, I do believe they are Ahl al-Sunna and two gems of our Islamic tradition. But that's because I recognize that there can be ijtihad and ikhtilaf in even aqida matters, while remaining within Ahl al-Sunna.

Wahhabis, however, don't. So they're trapped. Again.

Non-Wahhabi Sunnis: In many cases, istighatha is shirk but not known with certainty to be shirk.

Wahhabis: YOU MUSHRIK DEVIANT KAFIR GRAVE WORSHIPPER

Ibn Taymiyya: Hell-Fire is not eternal meaning mushriks eventually get salvation from Hell-Fire.

Wahhabis: This is a tiny mistake. The only reason anyone would criticize this is for sectarian reasons!

_

Note: I love and respect Ibn Taymiyya. Im just pointing out the double standards of Wahhabis who have one standard for scholars they like and another for Asharis, Maturidis, et al.

Over 15k live viewers on the stream yesterday.

https://www.youtube.com/live/DqzGvP_DKbg