Okay, let's look at some of the examples they bring forth then. The first one is, we mentioned Imam At-Taghawi earlier on, in Aqidah At-Taghawi, he mentions, in point seventy-eight, we don't make takfir based on sins as long as the people don't make it halal. In point ninety-four, he then goes on to say, we do not seek permissible to use the sword against anybody from the Ummah of Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, except the one who is obligatory to raise the sword against. Do you see the funny joke here right now, the irony here? Seventy-eight you mentioned, and then ninety-what? Ninety-four. What about the middle? Let's look at what's in the middle. That's seventy-eight, right? Yes. And that's seventy-eight, right? That's ninety-five, right? Point ninety-five is the one. That's the point. Ninety-four is the one I mentioned, ninety-five I haven't translated it yet. I'm coming to that. I mean, when it was portrayed, I need to explain it. We do not do khuruj on our leaders. And the leaders in charge of us, if they do transgression, we don't make dua against them. That's the correct translation. What I really want people to understand is that if a person can't read information in front of them, we have to really ponder and contemplate here. And it's not because they've been deceptive. I don't believe necessarily. But the ignorance has reached that level that a person can't even translate something in front of them. So they did, they translated. We don't see it to be permissible to do khuruj against our imams and our leaders. And even if they are oppressive, we don't call to this and we don't... Just say what we don't call to this. That's my point. Okay, they said we don't call to this and we don't relinquish our hand from the obedience. But the point I'm really trying to draw home is that you spoke all of that Arabic that you mentioned between seventy-eight, point seventy-eight and point ninety-four, which is talking about or point ninety-five is talking about the Masala of Khuruj. And obviously there's a lot of English speakers at home. We don't really fully understand what you said, but you talked about Iman in the six pillars.  Do you know how many pages Ibn Abul Izzal had if you explained all of that? How many? More than forty pages. Just what comes between point seventy-eight and point ninety-four? Of course. It's a lot of points. And in English, just for the English speakers at home, you spoke about... Can I just quickly look at Ibn Abul Izzal, exactly how much number is Safa to be more accurate? You can. Just for people to know how many Safa had between that. I think let me just give some context for the people at home while you're doing that as well. So the argument was that the put forward is that point seventy-eight is linked to point ninety-four, ninety-five. And to say that, like I said before, when I was coming across this research, I genuinely don't believe it's through inciscerity or intentionally trying to misguide people. But when I came across this, this really upset me because I don't really believe anybody can really think that and be saying on that. And actually, you know, especially when you just read out all the points that came between seventy-eight, ninety-four, talked about so many different topics that I just don't believe anyone can really believe that point seventy-eight. I can't say I was point seventy-eight connected to point seventy-nine. No, I can see where you're coming from. But to say point seventy-eight is connected to point ninety-five. And there's nothing wrong with doing the khuruj unless you make tech-field because that's what point seventy-eight mentioned. And you know what's funny? That's upsetting. Even Arabic, like al-Lughatan, the waaw is wa'at. It's connected to everything that was mentioned before. I mean, for me personally, both of them are as bad as each other. If you're deceptive and if you're ignorant, both of them are as bad as each other. And I honestly, this is my sincere, honest, brotherly approach on all of this. Is that some people, when they look at these issues, they think to themselves, you can't respond, you don't have the answers for all of this. Well, sometimes it's not just about the answers. It's just you don't know. I'm talking about myself. I don't like in any way, shape, or form to really embarrass somebody and just bring this out like that. I mean, no one's free from errors and mistakes. But I never seen in my life, in my life, my course of my life of da'wah and studying and teaching this level of jur'ah. And jur'ah person is adamant like that. And when you listen, you find saqatahat, ta'shaifah, ta'haifah. You can't even listen to one minute. I haven't watched the opponent's what they have to say on this issue. Well, I haven't sat down and listened to anything. I asked you to get the shubahat for me and we go through it like that. My heart can't give it to me because I just see the scholarly, what ulamad put behind, just being played around with. But let's look at Ibn Abil Aziz and Hanifi. He said, I'm just waiting for it to download and for it to come. And we're talking about pages after pages after pages of information. Do you remember what number it was the first part? 78.78 up until 0.95 is the one that mentioned khuluj specifically. And this is the reason why we specifically choose Ibn Abil Aziz and Hanifi. We believe it's one of the best shubahat. Okay. So I'm using the tahqiq of Mu'assistur Risaleh by Abdullah bin Abdul-Mahsin of Turkey's one. It's the one of the best shubahat not old on him. Did it together. It's the best tahqiq to be honest. So we go to that particular point. So what number is it again? 0.78. So point number is 78. And just what they say is that this doesn't mean that khuluj against a Muslim mule is wrong. It's only if it comes with this belief. Even as I'm repeating it, it's just shocking. So what was the point 78? 78, yeah. So what was the point 78 talking about again? Making teqfir based on sins. Sahih, right? Yeah. And then you have to find 0.95 which mentions khuluj. And I have the Kitab in two mujalat so I just need to check this one. Okay. Or just go to 0.94 with that because that's the first one that they mentioned. Okay. So it was talking about. So the first one is teqfir of major sins. Second one is we don't... 95 mentions khuluj but they mentioned 94 before that to do with... We don't raise a sword against anyone for the ummah of Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. Unless it's obligatory to raise it again. So something along those lines but it's basically 94.94. So it's 16 points later. So what was the... It was when the imam mentions the issue of teqfir. Yeah, issue of teqfir is 0.78. To 539 if you go to 0.97. If you go by 0.94. 94. If you go to 95. So 107 pages. Which is the khuluj, yeah. 107 pages between 432 to 539. That's how many pages between the two points. Shahrah. And they all connected. To say that the only reason that they mentioned 0.94 is because of 0.78. And otherwise it doesn't stand on its own. Of course they can't butt their heads with all these books of Aqidah that mention these points.  In between it is the issue of the... Okay, I have to be fair and just. And there are other times where they do mention again the books of Aqidah. That's the topic that we're on. There are other times where they do mention not making teqfir based on sins. And then the issue of khuluj and they are next to each other. So again, like I've been doing all through the podcast, I've been everything. What does that show if something is next to something? What does it really show?  So if we don't make teqfir based on sins and we don't do khuluj, you have to believe in both. Anyway, let's go through it. In the book Masayel of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, a man came to Imam Ahmad and asked him about the head of the matter of ajma'a amongst the Muslims. So these are obviously extremely important issues that are going to be mentioned here. He starts by mentioning the importance of iman in the qadr, the good of it, the bad of it. He mentions iman, his speech and action. It increases and decreases. He mentions we pray Salah behind an imam even if he's a sinna. He mentions jihad with the Sultan, i.e. the Muslim Mullah. Then he mentions that we have patience under his banner and we do not rebel against him with the sword nor the stick. And immediately after that he mentions and we do not make teqfir of anyone based on sins. So they say these things are connected together. Look, if the person is saying that the reason why these things are mentioned next to each other is because medhab al khawadij is to go against oppressive Muslim leader. I'm going to be like, yes. And you know, you're right. That may be a reason why they put it there. Because medhab al khawadij is that they go against oppressive Muslim leader. With on top of that, the khawadij have a belief which is that they make teqfir on things which are what? Laysa bi muqaffir. It's not, i.e. Ma laysa muqaffiran. That which is, you know, that which is not kufr. Teqfir. That teqfir bi ma laysa muqaffiran. I can see where the base of it. But if you say that the only people who see khuruj are the khawadij because the ulama mentioned this next to each other, I'll be like, no. Imam Ahmed you're using here. I mentioned the ijma'ah that he brought. And what did Ahmed say when the ijma'ah he brought? He didn't say, he said, Fa man fa'ala daalika. Anyone who does this. Fa hua muubitadu'un ala ghairi sunnah. That this person is a muubitadia. He's not upon the path. He's not upon the sunnah. He said, muubitadia. Ahmed made tabdee of the person who does what? Khuruj, right? I want you to understand. I believe and I'm going to prove as we go on that the person who goes against the oppressive Muslim leader are three types. I'm going to prove that insha'Allah. The first one is the khawadij. Who, yes, they do takfir to the Muslims in things that which are not kufr. Yes, that's true. And there's another group who don't do takfir. But they see the permissibility of going against the oppressive Muslim leader and they are who? They are? The muubitadia. The muubitadia. The muubitadia are the innovators. Because I want to tell you something. The early khawadij that came out at the time of Ali bin Abi Talibin, they didn't do takfir of every major sin. That wasn't a bit. They just made takfir on one thing. They didn't do takfir of Zina and Qamal. That came after as a belief creeped into them later. They started to make principles for their belief. That's not my point. So, to say that this is the only khawadij. Then the third group, you said there's three groups. You mentioned the first two. And the third group is the bugat. Who, yes, without a shadow of a doubt, they are not khawadij and they are not muubitadia. But they are rebels who do khuruj. All three of them do khuruj. But they're rebels. They're forts. When I talk about the differences in great details, but I just need you to understand, khutub al atikhad are dealing with the first two types. They're dealing with the khawadij and they're dealing with the muubitadia. Which shows there can be a difference between the two. There is a difference. And that's important to know. The way these are being used are basically saying that khuruj is not impermissible. The only time it becomes impermissible is if you make, if you have this belief of making take fear of major sins because they're mentioned together and we've dispelled this. This is where I start questioning things. I start thinking, this doesn't make sense. And that is, you mentioned at the beginning of your discussion, you said to me, I believe you're not allowed to do khuruj. So these statements that you're reading from these ulama, you need to be reading them and understanding that you're not allowed to do khuruj. All the evidence I brought, all the akwal of the ulama I brought, you should be saying, yes, you're right. I believe that. You shouldn't be questioning them. True. Because you believe khuruj is not allowed. You're only going to dispute one thing in the whole podcast. That is an ijma. That's all you... But if I see you questioning the ahadiths, weakening the ahadiths, if I see you saying that this hadith is weak, or if I see you saying this scholar didn't say this, or that scholar didn't say this, or Imam Ahmad's statement meant this, and you dismantle all of the evidence that prohibits khuruj. Then why do I... And how did you come to the conclusion that you can't do khuruj? Unless really, unless really, you don't believe khuruj is not allowed. Okay. Coming on. In Sheikh Khurabi, Al-Mad-Khaliz Sharikh of Aqid Al-Razian, point 21 mentions, we don't make takfir of the people of the Qibla based on their sins. Point 23 mentions, we don't see khuruj to be permissible against the imams. I'm just bringing them all, even though it's repetitive, and we've mentioned them all. The statement of Imam Ahmad in the Surah Sunnah, he mentions the issue of khuruj, and how it is in opposition to the narrations from the Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, and the Ijma'a of the Muslims. This is the narration that you're bringing, I think. He says, it is not permissible for anybody to fight the Sultan or do khuruj against him, and whoever does, this is a mubtadir, and who is upon a path other than the Sunnah. So what did this put? So what's the... This is... Immediately after this, he says, fighting the khawarij and the thieves is permissible. So what does that show? It shows there's two parties here. It supports my argument. There's mubtadiyah, and there's a khawarij. They say the fact that the word khawarij was mentioned straight after the mubtadiyah... Because they can do khuruj as well. ...means that it's connected. It means that the khawarij, they do khuruj, but they don't only just do khuruj. They make, they do khuruj with takfir. That's their premise. But there's another party of people who do khuruj without making takfir. And then the mubtadiyah, again, Al-Hassan ibn-u-Sualia ibn-u-Hai. The final one I've got. Ali Al-Madini also has erased him in the narration. The one we just mentioned. He says, we do not rebel against the Muslim mula and anybody who does that has opposed the aathar of the messenger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam and dies the death of Jahaliyah. It is not permissible for anybody from the people to do khuruj. Anybody from the people, he says. Not possible for anybody from the people to do khuruj. It doesn't say that. It depends on their attention on that. And whoever does that, he is an innovator in opposition to the sunnah. An innovator, that's a group. And then right after he mentioned that, it is permissible to fight the khawarij and the thieves. Yes. The khawarij are the ones who do khuruj with what? The takfir. The khuruj is not just, he's a valim, I'm going against him. For example, I believe the opponents right now, their view is not the view of the khawarij. Because they're not saying I'm leaving this ruler because they're not making takfir on him by saying he did a major sin. That's not the khawarij opinion. The khawarij, they make takfir be them be with sins that are not khufr, that haven't reached the level of khufr. And then they do khuruj. This is their base. But the innovators that Ahmed mentioned at the beginning and Ali ibn al-Dini mentioned, they're the ones who say what? It's permissible for you to go against oppressive Muslim leader. That person is not a khawarij. And you know, he's not. He's a mobitadia. Because he's not doing takfir aslan. And I'm going to expand on that insha'Allah. I'm going to bring the scholars who said this. Yeah, it's coming very soon, insha'Allah. Finally thing that they say, which is strange because when I went through the material, it's pretty much full of quotes from scholars and nothing else as we've seen. Quotes from scholars, quotes from scholars. That's all I've been bringing so far. They say finally, even if these imams did make these statements, they are not binding upon the ummah. They're not khudja, which we agree with. We've said many times, but it's very ironic. Okay. That is the issue of the books of Teqad that we went through and the different statements there. Now I want to go on to the topic of whether anybody who rebels is by default a khawarij, mobitadia. What is your belief about this? You mentioned it a little bit. Go into it. Okay, now I'm going to go on. There's three groups. Okay. Let me start with the first two main groups that we've been discussing mainly. The first one I know is the bugat. The bugat are the people who are rebellious. By the way, all of these groups, they do khuruj. Okay. But they do it in different ways with different motives and different mindsets. The bugat, they have two things which are distinct for them. I'm going to mention what is distinct and I'm going to mention what they all have in common. Fine. So the first group are the bugat. Okay. The bugat are those who are and know them Ahlul Haq. They are Ahlul Haq. And they state and approve Ahlul Haq, meaning they are asking for what is their Haq. That's what it means. Ahlul Haq. It doesn't mean they're the people of the truth. No. That they're doing a good thing. Ahlul Haq. Ahlul Haq doesn't mean they're upon the truth. It just means what they are demanding and what they want is right. They've been wronged. They've been oppressed. They're asking. They want their rights. That's what they are. They are Ahlul Haq. But I have to ask you how do you understand that? Because Ahlul Haq can also mean the people of the truth. Can it not? No. What do you mean like that? Ahlul Haq. So why does Allah tell us to fight with them? Why does Allah, Tabarak and Ta'ala and the messengers of the Ummah and the Ummah and scholars is that we fight with these people. I'm going to go into this. Okay. They are Ahlul Haq, inshallah, meaning what they are asking for is legit. It doesn't pose what the sharia. For example, the government is just cutting their electricity. They're not giving them their rights. They're being starved. They're... Etc. That's the first thing. Okay. The second thing... The second reason is that the reason for this is dunyawi. They're worldly reasons. They don't have those. Allah says, the messenger says. These are bugs. Okay. The first reason that Ahlul Haq, Ibn Qudamah mentions it, Rahimah Allahu Ta'ala, the 10th volume, page 46, he mentions it. The second one which is that the reason for this is worldly reason. Ibn Utaymah mentions it in his Kitab, the fifth volume, Rahimah Allahu Ta'ala. Page 153, I think. Okay. And Ibn Hazmin also mentions it in his Muhalla, the 11th volume, page 333. That's the bugat. And then we have the khawarij. What are the khawarij? I want you to understand this one. The khawarij, they believe with conviction the Aqidah to the khawarij. They have the belief of the khawarij, which is the main view of the khawarij is they believe a takfir to label and dispel and disassociate a person from the religion of Islam by malice and muqaffir. And that which is not kufr. Ibn Quddamah mentions he says they make takfir based on sin. Also, he mentions in his Kitab, he said Khawarij Zarkashi, he mentions the khawarij So they made Nauwi, Rahim, and Allah said Khawarij are a type of the innovators. And Ibn Timmy has a long discussion regarding them.  The harm is directed towards the Muslims. ISIS and Boko Haram and El Shabaab and all of these are khawarij. That's the first belief they have. Second thing is They make halal for themselves as I mentioned the hadith. They make halal for themselves the blood of the Muslims.   I have to deal with you first. Okay? The fact, this belief go to Sheikh al-Islami ibn Utaymez minhaj Sunnah Nabawiyah a majumu'u al-Fatawa specifically go to ibn Utaymez majumu'u al-Fatawa the 19th volume of the Hadith of the Muslim and the Muslim and they leave the disbelievers.  The 19th volume page 73 the 12th volume page 285 That's what they have each one has separately the Bughat this is what they are and the khawarij What about the mubtadiyah? The mubtadiyah are those who do khawarij They may physically go and do khawarij and they may not do it but the brace is not the view of the khawarij. They don't believe what the khawarij believe They don't make the fear of these leaders and they don't make the fear of the people and they don't destroy the Muslim and they don't believe that They just hold the opinion that going against an oppressive Muslim leader is permissible religiously permissible Does that make sense? religiously is permissible and they come with kalam here or there these are the mubtadiyah This is the ones that sheikh al-Islam ibn Utaymez ibn Utayme Sorry, Ili Mahmou Muhammed Ibn Hanbal they come to what they said the Bughat. Khawarij. Shia Also, the mubtadiyah in the sense they're all rebels, they're all going out. Second thing is all of them are doing Khrujh. Third, would you... Not just do Khrujh, but see the permissibility of Khrujh. Of Khrujh, yes. Because even the Khawarij may not do it. Yes. Because as Khawarij Al Qa'adiya, they might sit back. The, like in the Bugat, they will do it. They will do it, yeah. The Bugat can't just... Because it's not a religious thing for the Bugat. It's not a religious thing. The Bugat will do it. Okay. The third type is Wujudu Ta'wil. Interpretation is there. Everyone has his interpretation. One is a religious interpretation. One is a world-different interpretation. The Bugat, they have a Ta'wil, which is Sa'ikh, a valid interpretation. Then you've got the fourth type, which is a Hamlus Silah. They take weapons. I'm sorry, just because you say they've got a valid interpretation, doesn't mean the act that comes after that is false. Yeah, they're going to be fought. Yeah. They're going to be fought. Yeah. The fourth thing that is Hamlus Silah, they all take weapons. And the fifth one is Al Imtinaa Al Ba'atil Imam. They refuse the obedience of the Imam. These are five things they all have in common. Okay. All of them are fought. Fighting with all of them is... So now I want you to understand something. When we look at this issue of Bugat and Khawarid and the Muqtadiah, there's two things that we need to look at. The first thing is we need to look at the Sifat, the characteristics. And I mentioned that to you now. Characteristics of each one, what they unique in and what they share. I've done that for you. There's something else that you need to know, which is Shorotu Qitalihim. What's the condition of fighting them? Okay. When you see the Ulema talk about the Bugat, those are the two main points they're focusing on. They try to distinguish and identify one from the other. Okay. If you want to read more into this issue, you can go to the Fatwa al-Qadir, the sixth volume, page 99 to page 100, Bahru al-Ra'iq, page 5, the volume, the first fifth volume, page 151. You can go to the Dakhira, which is the 12th volume, page 5. You can go to Tajr al-Iqlil, which is the sixth volume, page 378. You can go to the Ra'udat al-Qalibin, the 10th volume, page 50. You can go to Minhaj al-Qalibin, page 1, 131. You can go to the Mughni by Ibn Qudama, the 10th volume, page 46, and you can go to the Muhalla Ibn Hazmin, the 11th volume, page 33. Page 333.  All of them I've given you a book or at least two. You can go to at least one book in each madhab that you could go to Hanafiyah, Malikiyah, Shafiyah, and Hanabinah. And then I told you Ibn Hazmin, who's a Zahiri, where you can find what he said. In others what I'm trying to show you, this is the view that's been mentioned by them. So what did I just tell you now? I told you and I explained to you and the netijah that we reached here is that there are sifat, which are khas for the bogat, and there's characteristics, which is khas for the khawarij, and there's characteristics, which are khas for the mubtadiyah, khas means specific. I mentioned that, right? And I also mentioned the sifat, which are yashtariquna fi sifat. They share a few characteristics The question here is, so we now finish the characteristics, right? Now we're going to go into what are the shorot for us to fight them. Okay. It becomes permissible to fight them. Let's talk about this. This is the second thing. They mentioned characteristics, which they all share for us to fight them. First of all, it has to be, the land has to be Daru Islam. It has to be a land of the Muslims. Okay, that they go in, they do this in. Number two is ayakuna lahum man'ah, that they have force, they have power. Now, kathara, obi quwa, this is not agreed upon. The malikiya don't believe all of that. The kathara and the quwa and all of that, and it doesn't, if it's a law, if it's lituha, malikiya don't, that's a sharda, they don't take it like that. But jumuhoru, they distinguish. The fourth one is ayakuna lahum man'ah. They have to leave the grab of the imam, they rebel out of, they go outside him. Okay. That's the fourth. These are characteristics. The fifth one is ayakuna lahum ta'uil. It has to be interpretation they have. Okay. Those five is a condition they mentioned, where it makes it permissible to fight them. Okay. There's conditions that are specific for the khawarij, shurut that are conditioned for the khawarij, dunal bugat, not the bugat. Okay. And there's also characteristics, sorry, conditions that are specific for the bugat, not necessarily for the khawarij. I mean, there are characteristics which we say, this is specific to them, and this is, now that's not agreed upon by the ulama. I mean, all the ulama don't take those characteristics as binding. So you can find if imadani l-kutub in the books of fiqh and bukutul khadar, I mentioned in the references that I gave now. Okay. So to summarize then, what you're saying is that anybody who makes khawarij, or in the case of the khawarij and the muptedi'ah, who sees the permissibility of khawarij, even if they don't do it themselves, they're actually broken down into three groups of people. One is the khawarij, and this group, they actually make takfir of the rulers based on sins, and then as a result, they do khawarij based on that. The second one is muptedi'ah, who don't make takfir of the rulers. They say they're Muslim oppressive rulers, but they still believe it's permissible to do khawarij against them. And the third group is the bukut, who is not even a dean issue. It's not even like a religious issue. They just want to get their right for the dunya, dunya things that they're after. And as a result of that, they do khawarij against the ruler. Okay. Have you ever said that by default, the one who does khawarij is a khawarij? No, not always. I just mentioned it now. But in previous lectures or anything, I don't know if you... No, I do say that because a lot of the people I've come across, I say it because of the fact that I met a lot of people who basically say it's takfir. But in the taqir, you see, there's things that you say when you're teaching the khutub al-atikad, because a lot of the people, they're saying they're khufar, so we can go against them. I've honestly speaking, I haven't seen this mindset, this jur'ah that I've seen now. Somebody saying, I'm not saying they're khufar. But still believe it's Muslims. And you do khawarij on them. For me personally, in the course of my life in da'wah like this, in the English language I'm talking about, I've seen it in the Arab world, but in the English language, I haven't seen someone come out like this to say that you can do khawarij against an oppressive Muslim leader on the ground that he's a Muslim. I'm not even saying he's a kafir. So when I'm talking to that person, I'm going to be like, okay, now we have to break this issue down. So you're not doing, no, I'm not doing taqfir. I've been over the years, I've been dealing with people who are making taqfir of the Muslim leaders, saying kafir, kufar, all of them, qatiba, they're kufar. People like that. So those type of people, we know that their belief is in line with the khawarij. In line with what? The khawarij. So we dealt with them as we deal with the khawarij. We mentioned those evidences to them and we will label them as khawarij. But there's this new movement, which is not only are they saying that you can go against an oppressive Muslim leader, they're saying it's a valid difference of opinion. I'm seeing a group of people actually saying that you can. There's also a group of people saying, no, you don't. You can't do khuruj with an oppressive Muslim leader. But it's valid. We shouldn't go and go against an oppressive Muslim leader. So those people, I will say, calling the khawarij and the taqeeq is not valid. What seems to be strong with knowledge is that you say these are muptada'ah. Their views are if ta'ah. The good thing is we don't need to go through. I mean, I've got a lot of statements here. But what's happened is that the other side who are holding the position that I'm representing today, they actually didn't realize that you separated in three different groups. They just assumed that you are saying that anybody who believes khuruj is misbual, I think they're saying one of two things. I'm not 100% sure myself. Either they're saying you believe he's an automatic khardij, or they're saying you believe he's an automatic innovator, which might be true if you're talking about the context of the Deen. But they brought a lot of statements about the same statements you brought, mentioning the bur'at and saying how the ulama actually made a difference. But of course, and this is why a conversation is almost better to have these kind of things, because you can clear these things up in minutes. Whereas what's actually happened is that our long videos have been made based on this. That statement of their being that group is Clayton Ahmed's statement when he said, The first people are those, who religiously believe that it's permissible to go against an oppressive leader because of his fisk. Without any takfir, for you baddaa wa yudallal. Those are considered mubtadi'a and misguided people, they warned against, but they are not khawarij. Al-Hassan Ibn Salih Sufiyan and Thori did that to Al-Hassan Ibn Salih. He wasn't a khawarij to them, he was a mubtadi'a to them. And there's that third group which is these are the, when they go for worldly reasons, butter and bread, they strike because they want the salabi, they're busting, they're striking and everything and they do khuruj and they rebel and they weapon, they fire, they loot and these are buqat, rebels. Those are the three types of people. And it's still wrong just to clarify, when we say they've got a valid thing that they're fighting for, for example, let's get rid of racism, it doesn't mean that khuruj as a result of that is valid, it's still wrong, they should still be poor. So don't you think to yourself that the fight is restricted to the khawarij? All three parties are fought. I've got an interesting question, what do you say about the fourth group? Because you mentioned three groups, the one who's believes makes tech-field based on sins and then there's khuruj, the one who believes khuruj is permissible, the one who is not really related to the Dean is just dunya issue. There's a fourth group now that's one I'm representing on this podcast. They don't believe khuruj is permissible, but they believe there's a valid iqtilaf. They're mubtadi'a or what would you say about them? You see, when I mention these issues, I'm first of all speaking generally. I'm not doing that. I'm just mentioning general ruling that any single person who believes general, like I say, anyone who leaves the Salah is kafir. I know many people don't pray at the Salah. They don't do sujud unless they fall on the floor. They don't frustrate to Allah. Now, am I doing tech-field? No, I'm not tech-field on them. Hukum am and hukum khasir. Specific, you are mubtadi'a, I said another discussion for them, plus it's not even my place, so I don't entertain the idea, I want to entertain it. Because I don't need to go around and say tech-field mubtadi'a, kafir mubtadi'a as-salam. Like when I generally speak, I'm speaking like Ahmed spoke.  So this view that has been pushed, that there's valid difference of opinion, I'm very skeptical of this view personally. I'll be honest with you. I'm very skeptical of this whole push. Because you can't be insulting the people who are saying on the other side, there's no valid difference of opinion. If you believe what they believe, like the end result is the same, you believe what they believe. Yeah, because what you're doing is you're saying these oppressive Muslim leaders should be, we have to be patient on them and let us accept the oppression by being patient. But then you're insulting those people by saying you're taking, and do you understand my point? You're slaves of the rulers. So I'm questioning whether the view is validly held on to. It's very questionable. You're weakening all the narrations or you're weakening this story. You're dismissing the Akhwal of the Ulama. You're bringing this to the Ahmed to Nass. And even if I believe today there's a valid difference of opinion for Nekhab not being wajib, I can't really argue for it because I don't believe it. And even if I do believe that Nekhab is a valid difference of opinion, right? But I don't even know how to start debating for it. Because every time I'm going to feel my head, yeah, it is this much strong. Because I don't believe it to be valid. Okay, so I'm just going to go through these skip through statements. Some people, so these khawarij who, Imam Malik used to believe that the khawarij, Malik, he held a belief regarding the Ibadia type of khawarij. He believed they will ask to be repented. They would be told to repent. If they don't repent, Imam Malik believed that they will be killed. He used to say, Okay, I'm just going to skip through these statements because these are the statements that they bring forward. But of course there's no contradiction between what you're saying and really it's just a misunderstanding. And as a result, there's a huge mess occurred. But they say, They're both going out against the ruler, but the ulama make a distinction. And this was known amongst the Sahaba and the imams from the people of Hadith. No issue, you've already said that. Imam Khuddam al-Maktisi mentions this in the Mughni. This is a statement I think you were bringing in. Those who rebel against the ruler are broken down into four groups. So he said four groups, actually. The first group is the highway robbers who commit corruption on earth. The second group are those who rebel with ta'weel, i.e. based on interpretation. The third group is the khawarij who make taqfeer based on major sins. And they may take fear of Othman, Ali and many of the companions. And they make the blood and the wealth of the Muslims khalal. And then the fourth group are a group from the people of truth, they rebel against the imam. So these ones he's saying, which is what they say about the four groups. Yeah. Then after he said, So this is exactly what I was mentioning. That the bugat awat ahlu l-haq. Yeah. Second thing is that the reason for the khawarij is what? Worldly reasons. Now he didn't mention that they're worldly reasons. But I already told you who? Who mentioned that the call is wrong? Muteimei mentions it. And also Ibn-u-Hazmin in Ibn-u-Halla. Yeah. And if they're trying to cling on to the statement, the ahlu l-haq, the people of truth, then it obviously can't be the people of truth because we've been told to fight them as well. Okay. So what it means that the ahlu l-haq is meant, what they're asking for is their rights. Yeah. And that's another huge misunderstanding. But the khawarij and the mubtadiyah know. Their premise is wrong. Yeah. They're not haq, how they put haq, but the taqfeer of the Muslim, be them bin. They're not upon haq. The mubtadiyah, they're not upon haq. You're not allowed to do khawarij on a person being fasq. So it's really, ahlu l-haq here is actually a proof against the people who believe that it's permissible. But they actually use it as a proof for them, saying how can people do khawarij be from the people of truth? I know. Okay. Okay. After that, we have Imam Anoui in his role of the Taliban. The Bahri is the one who opposes a just ruler and disobeys him by staying away from what is obligatory upon him or other than him. He goes on to say, the Bahri is not to be criticized and he is not sinful. And you don't mention them with any kufr because they are mistaken in what they do because of their taqweel. So they're not kufar, of course they're not kufar. Yeah. Okay. So neither of the three groups are kufar or they're not Muslims. Yeah. Khawarij do you believe that, yeah? Strongest opinions that they must have. Okay. Okay. So again, that was just really a misunderstanding that occurred. I believe that they thought that you were saying every person who opposes automatically a khawarij and you didn't even recognize the book art out there and they wanted to show you that. But again, it could have been very easily cleared up if a conversation took place between the two parties. But that's where we are now. Next thing I want to talk about is protesting in a Muslim country. Okay. Is this allowed? No, it's khawarijat. So protesting is part of khawarijat. What if someone says that I'm not trying to overthrow the Muslim mula. I'm not even trying to make khawarijat disobey him. I'm just raising awareness. I'm just letting him know that this law that he's made, I'm not too happy with it. And what other way can we let him know? So what was the prophet, So I'm going to respond in four ways. The first one is that it's So it goes against the idillah that I mentioned before and the idimah of the salaf, which was what? To be patient upon the oppressive Muslim leader. That statement was used, patience. And what is the word patient means in the Arabic language? It means al-imsaq is to withhold.  That's number one. Number two, it is that there is a, I already spoke about, there is a There's a sanctioned way to give advice to the leader. Muzaharat is not from those things. To go out there in public and then speak about him and mention his faults and mistakes. We already mentioned the hadith that we authenticated the hadith. Which was Hadim, I've asked him mentions in his Kitab al-Sunnah, we authenticated it, right? That anyone who wants to advise the leader go and advise him privately. And Alhamdulillah, there are many channels now. You can send the letters to them. And if they read Alhamdulillah, if not, Qadamullah, Masha'Allah, the date on which the Prophet said, if you've done your part. The third response I want to give is that this is a path that the Salafi did not take. When there was the need for it to do Muzaharat, they never took that path. So it's not like someone who says, there's a in here, if you're going to be consistent and take what the Salaf did, there is no Salaf made doing protests or anything like that. At all. And rather these people who are asking this question or arguing this, they're already using religious reasons. So they're trying to get closer to Allah by doing the protests, it seems from their discussion. So this falls under bid'ah, which is you're doing wasila, that the Prophet did not sanction, the pious predecessors did not do it, do wa wududul muqtadi, the need for it was there, when tafal mania and the preventive factor is absent, so the sahabs could have done it. It's not like microphone, they couldn't have done it, something they could have done. The need for it, you're saying was also there at that time. But they chose not to do it, if you do it, it's innovation. Yeah. And that is a very important point to understand. Last but not least, it's a means to corruption and anarchy and you know, za'a za'atul amin, it's really bring stability in the land and cause havoc, which happens in many lands. When the Muzaharat started, I don't need to go into the supposed Arab Spring that was done, how it all started off and how many people were killed.  Yeah. And the fifth thing I'd like to add onto that is that there are certain things that are connected to protests that can't be removed from the certain things that go against the Sharia. And we talked about this and we spoke about it in great detail. I think, if my memory serves me correctly, the podcast was called How to rectify a society. We were talking about protests in a non-Muslim land. So yeah, I went down and said, a non-Muslim land, we can't use the Hadith of Sabr and the Ijmaa. Yeah. We don't, in the land of the non-Muslims, that doesn't exist. We want a command to obey a sum of wata'a to a non-Muslim where they're only in those countries with a contract, a hud, a mawafiq. And that's what we come from from that perspective. You sign a contract, the contract is the visa that you use when you come into the country. So be a law abiding citizen by doing what is, you know, in this country as long as it doesn't go against your religion, if it does, just ignore it.  And if the person is trying to get closer to Allah by these buzaharat in a shaka, it's an innovation. Yeah. Like in the land of the non-Muslims, in the land of the Muslims, there's many reasons why it's haram. Number one, it goes against the evidence that command us to be patient. As Sabr, this was the statements that the Prophet said to be used to be patient and this goes against patients. Yes. Naturally being patient upon something, a law that's passed, you don't like. Patience means you don't try and change it, you don't try. And then after that, the sharia'ah sanctioned how to advise him.  This path is not from the path of the sharia'ah sanctioned for you. I'm only just saying to follow Allah and his message is sanctioned. It's as simple as that. And if you feel like you're going to do this to try and get closer to Allah, then it becomes innovation because it wasn't done by the Salaf al-Saleh and it had the ability to do it and the time called for it as well. Okay, the next thing I want to mention and again, many of these that we've mentioned today are actually things that have not even bought out in the English world. You actually, these are actually things that have been bought out in Arab world or in other books, but we mentioned just in case people start to mention them. We want to make this as comprehensive as possible. The companions, radiallahu anhum, said to Amr radiallahu anhu by Allah, this is when he was taking that khilafa by Allah if we see from you an issue that we reject, we will stand against you with our swords, to which I believe Amr replied, all praise for Allah, the one who made in the ummah of Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, the one who will straighten Amr with his sword. So this indicates that the companions believed that we could straighten the ruler with our swords and Amr approved it. So this narration that you mentioned where he says, I entered upon Umar, he was sitting on a chair in his house, and he was like this, the one I came across was that, but the one they mentioned is that they said to him, if we see from you an issue that we reject, we will stand against you with our swords. So this statement which is, with our swords, we would strengthen you, we would, Amr, we would strengthen you by the edges of our swords.  Straighten you, we will make sure you're upright by the end. I haven't seen that particular version. I haven't found it, Sahih or Da'eef, that wording. So if the other people can prove it will be nice. And I haven't come across this, Sahih or Da'eef. I haven't seen it, Sahih or Da'eef. But what I've seen is the Hadith of Hudayfah where he said, I entered upon Umar, okay, Hudayfah is one, where he said, I entered upon Umar, and when I entered upon him, he was sitting, and I said to him, where he said to him, and then after that, he said to him, Umar, he said to him, Qultu, Alladhiyahu muqawallahi lawra'ina minka amran nunqiruhu laqawwamnaka. That's it. It's not bihaddi suyu'fiina, that word is not in there. Okay, what does it mean, English? It just means we're gonna, we're going to make sure that we keep you upright, Umar. The one that you mentioned is that bihaddi suyu'fiina with our swords was mentioned. Like he just says, laqawwamnaka, we will just keep you upright, Umar. So this is a bit different from the other one because now it's not sword, it can be nasiha. Nasiha, taqweemo bin nasiha and we take a short way to correct you. So that's a point that I, insha'Allah, ta'ala and want. Also, the Rewa'ya that says, haddi suyu'fiina, amal lawa ajajta laqawwamnaka bihaddi suyu'fiina. Okay. Nam, that's what I think of now, yeah. Okay. The next one is, it is permissible to rebel with the swords due to the hadith, whoever strives against them with his hand, this is fa man jaa hadahum biyadihi fahu wa mu'min. This is part of a hadith, whoever strives against them with his hand, is a believer. Maybe you have the full hadith with you, I'm not sure. So the, you're talking about the hadith of Abdullah ibn Suud, radiallahu ta'ala anhu, may Allah be pleased with him. Ibn Batta mentions it right in Ibn Al-Baniat Al-Kubra. And inna, it says, lam yakun nabiun qattun illa kana lahum min ummati hawariyuna wa sahabun i'ttabi'un a'amrahu wa ihtadun bi sunnatuh. Tham yati min ba'di dalika ummaraa yakuluna ma la yaf'aluna yaf'aluna ma la yawmarun.  So the part that you want from it is fa man jaa hadahum biyadihi anyone who does jihad with these ummaraa Yeah, I can give the context to read the English translation if you want me to. Never has a prophet been sent before me by Allah to his people but he had among his people disciples and companions who followed his ways and obeyed his command. Then there came after them their successors who proclaimed what they did not practice and practiced what they were not commanded to do and whoever strove against them with his hand is a believer and whoever strives against them with his heart is a believer and whoever strove against them with his tongue is a believer and beyond that there is no grain of faith. So here what we can take from this is that the hadiths they explain one another and the evidences and the proofs they meant to support one another and we mentioned the ijmaat that the ulama transmitted that it's haram to do khuruj ala sultan So this hadith we will take it as doing inkar in that which the leader brings the muharramat such as musical instruments that you find somewhere you go and you break it or you see alcohol somewhere and you break those alcohols or you see alcohol somewhere and you break those alcohols Ibn Raje bin r-Rahim allayhe mentions the understanding he says and he doesn't mean fighting with the leader Whatever the leaders have made and done, you go and you remove it with what? With your hand.  For example, you destroy the instruments that they put out there and also the alcohol they put down there. Or what he does is that he destroys with his hands that which they command in terms of the oppression. So you're able to do that. For example, the family, you know that tomorrow they're going to be harmed.  You take them to save heaven. And he said, This doesn't mean that you fight with them. Ibn Rajab said, this hadith doesn't mean that you do Khruj on them. Which the prohibition came. Why?  Only you. But if you do Khruj, they're going to fight back with not just you but all the other people. The second response to this, that's one response. The second response is that this hadith is talking about the early nations. And it's not actually referring to our Sharia. And this is the view, by the way, of Ibn-ul-Salah and Ibn-ul-Salah. Now we actually took the opinion that this is the early nations. He said, This is the statement of Nauwi. He says this is what it appears to be. And this is also a view attributed to Ibn-ul-Salah. The third response is that That it's in a position to the many hadiths where the Prophet talked about being patient with the oppressive Muslim leader and to be patient upon the Muslim leader, Ahmed weakened his hadith. Just based on that reason? Yeah, because he said there's a illa, of course, there's a mutawatir. There's a reason why this hadith is saying. And not only did he just do that as well, Al-Athram did the same. And it's one of the reasons why scholars weaken hadiths. Ahmed said It's not praiseworthy. Because he said this hadith is narrated by Ibn-ul-Salah, right? Yeah. Which the Prophet said be patient until you meet me on the fountain. And that hadith he's saying is more stronger and better. Okay, it's more stronger and better. Al-Athram, who's a student of Ibn-ul-Mahmoud, he said This was narrated by Ibn-ul-Salah and this was narrated by Ibn-ul-Salah. This one is more stronger in his chain. And it's also in line with all the other hadiths. And this was in opposition. This is the view of the haruqriyah. Haruqriyah or the khawarij. So weakening, by the way, is just one of the responses. Another view is that it's what? The early nations. Another view is that it's not actually even talking about Khuruj Ibn-ul-Rajab as I mentioned, which is that it means whatever Haramat that they put out there with looking at the Masali, Hamd al-Mafasid, you can go and destroy it. And do jihad with your hand. Okay, the next one I have for you is that they say it is permissible to rebel against the ruler with a sword due to the Khuruj of Musa Ibn-Uqba.  Okay? If he basically is oppressive, if he goes away from the right path. So, T'alha actually said to him, why do you just say remove him? I mean, that's enough. Umar said no, kill him. Because that is, it's a strong message to those who come after. It's going to be a reminder for them. This is what's going to happen to you. So this we say it's Mursal. Musa Ibn-Uqba never heard from Umar. Is it Musa Ibn-Uqba? Sorry, Musa Ibn-Uqba, he never heard from Umar. And he didn't even reach the time of Umar. So this is a disconnection there. Okay? And also the hadith of this statement, it's actually mukhalif when it's in opposition to that which has authentically been transmitted from Umar, al-Radi, al-A'anu when he came to the advice that he gave to Swedeb Nugafana. When he said to him, Ya'aba Umayyah, I don't know, maybe I won't meet you after this.  Ibn-Abishayyiba narrated this. Imam Sana'ani narrated it in his Musannam and Adurri narrated it in Shari'a Qalal, also narrated it in his Kitab, as Sunnah, using as a proof. And the authentic chain is authentic from Umar. And we mentioned this before. Umar said, if he beats you, be patient. If he prevents you from what's your right, be patient. If he even tries to do something related to your religion, then also listen and obey him in other things. As for this issue, say to him, deen-i-duna demi, my blood comes first before my religion.  But then he said, falatu fariq al-jama'a, don't also go against the jama'a. The third response is that this is muqaliful li al-adillah al-mutawah tiraah. It goes against the multitude of narrations that we mentioned regarding going against the oppressive Muslim leader. And the fourth one is, it's also in a position to what? li ijma'i ahli sunnati wa mu'ataka dihim. It's in opposition to what? the ijma'a of ahli sunnah and the aqeed of ahli sunnah that we mentioned all through the podcast. The next one I'll have for you is, again, an ather from Umar, radiallahu anhu, where it's narrated that he said, do not be witnesses on earth until you take your rights from your leaders the way they take it from you and that you smack their necks in truth the way that they are smacking your necks. So this Ibn Shabba, Hafiz Umar Ibn Shabba, al-Basri who died here in 262, his name is Abu Zaid, he narrated this. He is a Kitab in Tariq, which he mentions in there. And he mentions that al-ash'at and with him a jama'a from the people of Kufa, they went to Umar requesting him from removing Sa'ad Ibn Abi Waqas, who was the Amir of Kufa. And it was also one of the, you know, the courageous people of Qadisiya. And he was also the Qalu Rasulullah, peace be upon him, the Prophet's maternal uncle. Umar removed him because of their want and what they wanted even though he believed in Sa'ad Ibn Abi Waqas. And then he said something to them, which is what they try to mention from the narration, is that part that you mentioned, which was an accurate translation in English. The translation I've got is, do not be witnesses on earth until you take your rights from your leaders the way they take it from you and that you smack their necks in truth, the way they are smacking your necks. So they say this is basically the permissibility of doing al-Khruj with the sword So we say the first one quickly and easily the Hadith is da'if, the Qissa is da'if in the chain is a man by the name of Harun Ibn Abdullah Abdullah al-Hadrami. No one graded him Thiqah other than Ibn al-Hibban in his Kitab al-Thiqat and you know the Tawthiq of Ibn al-Hibban is mutasahil. And Ibn al-Hibban makes Tawthiq of the Majahil, people who are unknown and I haven't come across anyone who made Tawthiq of him other than Ibn al-Hibban.  Also in the chain is a man by the name of Afeef Ibn Maadi Karibin Abu Hatim Ibn Abdul-Barr All of them they mention that he is not a companion and those who say that he is a companion Afeef Ibn Maadi Karibin they actually didn't bring a proof for it. So if a person has been a companion he is actually not established then he becomes what? Majul unknown, Jahlatu Halil and also the fact that Al-Adjali gave Tawthiq to him we don't also rely on it this causes a reason because Al-Adjali in his Tawthiq when he prays and he does Tawthiq of a Majahil from the tabi'in he is more mutasahil than Ibn al-Hibban and al-Mu'allim pointed this out in his Kitab al-Tangil bima fi ta'nib al-Qawthari ibn al-Abaatil he said he might mention in his tzik'at who found Al-Bukhariya in his tariqih from the Qudamai and if he didn't know what he saw and what he saw and what he saw from him but Ibn al-Hibban he may be shocked by what he found in his story that he didn't deny and if the man is known by many Al-Adjali he said Al-Adjali is close to him in the Tawthiq of the Majahil from the Qudamai and also Ibn Sa'din and in his Kitab al-Anwar Al-Kashifa he says so he's like the Tawthiq of Ibn al-Hibban or probably even bigger so that weakens that also again it goes against the ether that we mentioned from his advice to when he said Al-Adjali also it goes against the evidences which were mutawatir that command us to be patient upon the oppressive Muslim leader and the fourth response is that it is also and the belief that has been mentioned in the books of Aqidah okay the next one I have for you is that Al-Adjali is close to him and Al-Adjali is close to him and Al-Adjali is close to him and Al-Adjali is close to him and Al-Adjali is close to him and Al-Adjali is close to him and hefelt Ibn Nasser al-Khuzayi from the imams he was from the imams who rebelled against Al-8wa-tik because he's an innovator and Ibn Xbox was saying he sacrificed his soul for Allah's path so, this is your saying it shows that it's permissible to do a Khuruj on an oppressive Muslim leader or an innovator so this first of all we said that death or the reason why he was killed, this great Imam, Ahmad ibn Nasr al-Khuzai, it was because of Khuruj. And Ibn Khatib al-Baghdadi, he mentions in his tariq from the tariqa of Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Suli, okay, and he mentions the story. And in that chain, Khatib al-Baghdadi was one, in the chain is Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Suli. And he never met Ahmad ibn Nasr al-Khuzai, because Ahmad ibn Nasr al-Khuzai, he died in a 231 Hijriah. And Al-Suli passed away with 336 Hijriah.  And there's no mentioning in the tarjama of Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Suli that he lived for a very long time. Rather, what is mentioned in his biography is that he narrated from Abu Dawud. This is considered from the student of Imam Ahmad ibn Nasr al-Khuzai, okay, because Abu Dawud is considered to be like a student of Imam al-Bukhari, right, and Bukhari is considered to be a student of the Tabak of Imam Muhammad, right? The third way of responding to this is that this goes against the Ijma'u Ahli Sunnah. Because Ahli Sunnah, they made Ijma'u that you're not allowed to go against oppressive Muslim leader. And they also mentioned Tabdiya of the one who does go against oppressive Muslim leader. And from the people who transmitted an Ijma'u that the person is a Mubi Tadir who goes against an oppressive Muslim leader is none other than who? And Imam Muhammad ibn Hanbal. So it's very far-fetched. Ahmad would praise someone for something he transmits an Ijma'u for. Not only does he just transmit an Ijma'u, but he also transmits Ya'ani that that person is a Mubi Tadir for going against the oppressive Muslim leader. Also, that which it seems like that Ahmad ibn Nasr al-Khuzai was actually killed for was his patience on the issue of the Quran being the speech of Allah, and that he wasn't created. And that is why the Scottish praised him for. And Imam ibn Dahabiyu, he mentions, he says, Khatam Allahulahu bil-Shahada. Allah Almighty ended his life based on Shahada. He died upon Shahada. About Ahmad Nasr al-Khuzai, he's saying, Ya'ani he sacrifice his life here. It seems like is that because of the issue of Khalkul Quran, the people being tested. He wasn't the only person who was killed. Ibn Ya'ani, great other Imams, Abu Yaqub al-Buwaiti was killed. Ibn Anuh was killed. Other people were murdered and killed by the leader because of this issue of the Khalkul Quran. And everyone knows the issue of Khalkul Quran was being tested on the people. It wasn't that the Ulama were hiding. They were really to be silent, but they were being tested. They were like, no, no, no. Come forward. What do you believe regarding this? Okay. Also, what we also have to remember is that Ahmad Nasr al-Khuzai, if he did do Khruj, he's not a proof in and within himself. Remember, we said that the Ijmaa precedes him, the Ijmaa before him. After the fitna of Ibn Ajaad, Ijmaa came and that the statement of a great Imam like this and other than him cannot be used as a proof because Ahmad Nasr al-Khuzai said, so because of it is a proof. Okay. And Allah knows best, subhanahu wa ta'ala. Okay. Do you believe that the Muhammad Ibn Sa'ud and Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab rebelled against the Ottoman Empire? Can I just go back to one thing that I just remembered about Ahmad Nasr al-Khuzai? Okay. Abul Abbas Ibn Sa'adin as Imam al-Khaztibi al-Baghdadi mentions in his tariq. He mentions that the fifth volume, page 177, that Abul Abbas Ibn Sa'adin, he said, of course, Ahmad Ibn Hanbalin, Abu Abdullah, Ahmad Ibn Nasr Ibn Malik al-Khuzai, Muhammad Ibn Nuhin, Ibn Maimun al-Madrub, and Nuaim Ibn Muhammad al-Khuzai, and he died in the prison in a special way. As for Ahmad Ibn Nasr al-Khuzai, his neck was struck. This shows that the issue of the death of Ahmad Ibn Nasr al-Khuzai was mainly because of the fact that he was more patient upon the issue of Khalkul Quran. That's what he mentions. He doesn't mention that he was a Khardij al-Sultan. He doesn't mention that in the narrations. So again, these people are not the Prophet, they are not proof in and within themselves. So as important that we understand, we believe, I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. The Prophet is the one who obeyed his commands and obeyed his commands. Complete and utter obedience is for the Prophet, if Ibn Abdul Wahab, Ibn Taymiah, Ibn al-Qayyim, anyone goes against an oppressed Muslim leader, doesn't make it a proof. It's not a proof that you brought to the table. The proof is in the Quran, the Sunnah and the Ijmaa. And that stands here. But let's respond to this issue. I already mentioned before, if you recall properly that Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab, he's from the scholars who transmitted Ijmaa of not going against an oppressed Muslim leader. And that's something that's present in his Aqidah. If you go to a Risaleh known as Risaleh too, the Ahli al-Qasim is called. He said, Abdul Wahab mentions in there Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab, he mentions his Aqidah. He says, I see. I see that it's obligatory to obey the leader, the Muslim leaders, whether they are righteous or whether they are transgressors. As long as they don't come on the people to do what? Sins. And anyone who takes Khilafah and the people come together for him and they please with him, and he takes over them with his sword, and he becomes the leader, and he takes over his leader, i.e. he's a debilist obligatory for him, and he's forbidden to go out on him. He also said, in his Asul al-Sunnah, he said, that from the complete community of the hearing and the obedience of those who were commanded to us, and if they were worshippers, Allah showed us this clear and clear statement with the faces of the clear and clear statements, and he says this in his Asul al-Sunnah, and he's also mentioned in his Ad-Dur al-Sunnah, in Ad-Dur al-Najdiya, the first volume, page 173, where he affirms this creed. So that's the first response, insha'Allah. The second response is that you can't say someone done a Khuruj if he's not under that leader. Which we spoke about before, about what he's saying in Ad-Dur al-Zubayn. And this is the reality that Dawla Uthmaniyyah, Muhammad ibn Abdul Habib and Muhammad ibn Su'ud, both of them were not under it. We want to know, prove it. The Aziz ibn Abazin, he said, the Ottoman Empire. Naged was run by tribal leaders. Everybody had their lower place. Every poor part, they had their own leader, however smooth they were. And between them there were fights, and quarrels, and he did Khuruj on people's wrongdoings and crimes. He got out on them and that. And he was patient because of it. And this is, insha'Allah, something I want to go on and discuss more, and I want to speak about if Allah allows me in the future. Which is the difference between Muhammad ibn Abdul Habib and Ibn Taymiyya is not different. They're both the same. The only difference is that Ibn Abdul Habib was able to execute the things. A lot of the people who have things against Muhammad ibn Abdul Habib, insha'Allah, I'm going to spend quality time talking about it, and I'm going to do a lot of series about it. Or even maybe a hodsi podcast once, if Allah gives us the chance, which is. The problem with Ibn Abdul Habib, we have to divide into two. Is it taqseel? Do you have theoretical problems with him? Are you indifferent with him in terms of Aqeeda? Okay, that makes sense. And those people are either Qubouris or liberals or things like that. The second group of people who have things against Muhammad ibn Abdul Habib, are people who have a problem with him in terms of application. They don't have issues with him in Aqeeda. They believe in tawhid, they believe in shirk, they believe in all of the things that he mentions in Kitabi Tawhid, but they differ with him in his application. Those people insha'Allah, we can talk to them about the historical events and how it took place. Okay, and the eyewitnesses that were there. Okay, we're not going to be using people who were there, who were secondary resources sources. We're not going to be talking about people who were informed about what was taking place. We'll go to the primary sources and I won't go into that now, because that wasn't the question we're doing. We're speaking about Khuruch. But in essence, the first group, they would disagree with Muhammad ibn Abdul Habib based on his Aqeeda, as well as Ibn Taymiyyah. And the second group say, we like Ibn Taymiyyah, we agree with him. But Muhammad ibn Abdul Habib, we disagree with him because of the application. It's just that he had the ability to execute his beliefs and Ibn Taymiyyah but there's really no difference between the two. Okay. Also, it proves that Nejd al-Yamama in general and Dawla al-Su'ud, which was in Diliyyah specifically, was not under the Ottoman Empire, is what Dr. Salih al-Ubudz mentions as well. He said, and he mentioned the year 1818 Hijriya, which was in line with the Gregorian calendar, which was 1609. Okay. When you look at their own documentations, that they state and they mention the places that the Ottoman Empire was controlling, they don't mention in their Nejd. They mention in their Al-Ihsa, if we consider Ahsa to be from Nejd, which is not the case. Okay. So the Ottoman Empire didn't want that desert. Why would he want to go to that desert and be there? There was nothing there, there was an oil, there was nothing to be there for. So we have Muhammad Abdul Habib's works, that which he mentions in his Kitab, he doesn't mention all of that. So, and historically, there's no Ottoman Empire, which he did go on. Okay. The next thing I want to go into something that we actually discussed previously, but since we actually brought it forward, but I've got in my notes here, let's mention again, see if there's anything else you want to add. But it's important that the viewers go to the full discussion that we had previously, obviously now it's going to be much more summarized. And that is, can there be an Ijmaa that forms after an issue of Khilaf, especially that Khilaf took place at the time of the Sadaf? So yeah, this issue we spoke about, the Shubha they tried to bring, and scholars have actually mentioned and stated, an Ijmaa for the issue of Khuruj upon the oppressive Muslim leader that is not allowed. And as I mentioned to you, that this Ijmaa is between two, what? Sorry, this Khilaf that we see is between two Ijmas, the Ijmaa of the Sahaba and the Ijmaa of the Taba'a of the Taba'a of the Taba'a of the Taba'a. And if it was after it, there was an Ijmaa that happened, and also the Ijmaa of the Sahabas. Have, let's just say for the sake of argument that there wasn't any Ijmaa at the time of the Sahabas and there was only Khilaf, and then there came an Ijmaa. Okay. According to the strongest opinion or even the view that the early Imams of Islam had from the Salaf was that an Ijmaa can take place and it is considered an Ijmaa, even if there is a Khilaf before it. Okay. The second response I want to give is that if we do say that, okay, you know what?  For example, sheikh Ibn Uthimi, Rahimah of Allah, he believes that there is an Ijmaa in the Mas'ala of Dhun Khurood on al-Hakimi al-Fasik, and he doesn't believe that this Sura can be used as in that argument. I already responded to the mistake of Abu Ya'ala when he attributed this to a Rewa'a of Imam Muhammad, and the first person who didn't agree with him, his own student, Abu Al-Khattab, and even if you go to the Kitab, Rauda, Rauda Tunnathir Ibn Qudama, he doesn't take Abu Ya'ala's attribution of this to Imam Muhammad, and he's a great scholar of the madhhab. Ibn Qudama is Min A'imati al-Madhhab, he has a big shara'ah on the Kitab, Muqtasar al-Khiraqi, which he called al-Mughni. So, this view of being attributed to Ahmed, it doesn't exist. So, if Ahmed never said this, Wala Shafi'i never said this, Wala Malik didn't say this, Wala Abu Hanifa did not say this. The Salaf al-Saleh, Rizwanullah al-Major, they did not say this. Does that make sense? And late Mut'akhirin, usuliyinah mentioned this, we'll say, we won't look at this Qaeda that they brought, that they mentioned now. And even if we do, we will say that this Sura, it doesn't fall under it, because this type is the Ijma'a, which is Qata'i, and it's the Ijma'a from two perspectives, it's not just one. It's an Ijma'a from the issue of not going against the president-muslim leader, and then Ijma'a on the issue of if there's an evil that will come from something greater than the current evil that's there, then you're not allowed to repel the evil with a greater evil. And that's the Ijma'a itself. There is the statements that we mentioned earlier, Shekhar-e-Sameh Ibn-Hajr as well, when he said about Al-Hasni ibn-Saleh, Istiqr-al-amr, like the matter became settled. Does this, some of us suggest that they don't believe the Ijma'a of the companions, they believe that there was a Khilaf, and then the Ijma'a came? No, they're just saying that there was an Ijma'a, it doesn't. It's just that the Khilaf that came, of course it changed. The issue wasn't Istiqr-al, it wasn't firm. Yeah. But then after the fitna ibn-Ash'ath, Istiqr-al-amr, meaning the matter became solidified, and that was the only view that was taken. And this is something I want, insha'Allah, to allow people to understand. Why is it that all of the Qutb-ul-Aitika dismissed this other view, and only stuck to one view? The reason is because that view is invalid. That view was invalid, they saw it to be wrong, as important. Also another thing is that the Prophet told us, alayhi sallam, he said, la tazaloo ta'ifatu min umati zahirina ala ala ala ala ala ala ala ala ala ala ala man qadala man qadala man qalafum ha'tayati amrullahum ala ala ala ala ala ala. That there's always going to be a people, who are going to be holding, ayyidah, onto the truth. There's always going to be a ta'if, holding onto the truth. So why has it happened, that from the time of Ibn al-Ash'ath onwards, after that, everybody who wrote Qitabi al-Aqidah, documented the issue in Al-Aqidah, they dismissed this view, and this view literally perished. It went until Ibn al-Hazmin comes. Why did it die for that short period of time? Did you see my point? Yeah, yeah, totally get it. All that time, all that time, this opinion was not there, the fact that it is permissible to khuruj. And if this opinion was not there, and the Prophet sallam said, there's always going to be a group upon the truth, it means it couldn't be the truth. Ibn al-Hazmin, he's an individual, that the scholars, Rahmanullah, they, Ba'a jalalati wa imamati, with his knowledge and his understanding of the religion, and how powerful his knowledge was, no doubt he was. With that being said, like he had shawad, many strange things that he came with, many strange things that he came with. From them is his criticism, on Ibn al-Tirmidhi, and considering that Tirmidhi is an unknown person, for example. And the scholars, they said that, this is not a criticism to Tirmidhi, rather it's a criticism to you that you don't even know who Tirmidhi is. So you can imagine, this is, he has a lot of issues with shawad, that he came with.  So, you know, he's no way the same Calabah of Ibn Utamia, or someone who's, you know, grounded himself in learning Madhab al-Salaf and Qutb al-Hadith, and etc. Well, I even know, if I'm a Nauwi, and he's Calabah, or even Ibn Ibn Abdul-Barr, and he's Calabah. No. Okay. The next one I have for you, is that rebellion, Khuluj is not called Khuluj, unless it is with a sword. This again as well, it's sort of, from there, they want to take the issue of Mubaharat, for example. It's, you know, what we say first of all, it's not Mubaharat, it's Muharram, we already mentioned it, right? And that's the bare minimum that can actually be said about Mubaharat. And the person who does Mubaharat to the leader on the ground that he believes is a kafir, now that's a khari tree, right?  Yeah, yeah.   And anyone who's going against it for worldly reasons, now he's a mufti on the ground. So that's the levels of the people who do Mubaharat, if we look into it in that way. Okay. Also somebody can actually be a khariji without having, she's his sword. It could be still a khariji, just by believing the belief of the kharij. Okay. Even if you don't do Khruj, we all know about the kharij of Qa'diyah, who just, let me sit back and they believe it. Okay. And speech already we mentioned about the leader is haram, you're not allowed to. And we mentioned the statement of Abdullah Ibn Uruqaymin, when he said, from this day on which today I'm not going to aid in the blood of the Khalifa after Uthman. And they said to him, did you aid in the blood of Uthman? Then he responded saying, I consider mentioning his faults, aiding in his blood. Ibn Sa'd mentioned this in his kitab, in his tabaqat. So this shows you that just speaking, he's considering it to be what? He say that, just by speaking, without even me shedding, you know, going out there shaking my sword. Just by speaking, I believe that I'm helping in his blood. So, it's dangerous. On that point then, we're talking about speaking, I want to go to the incident of Dhul-Khuwa-Isra. If you believe that speaking against the ruler, and obviously the ruler at that time was a prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, can speaking out against the ruler make someone a khardijee? So, this hadith that you mentioned, that the prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, he said, a man came to the prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, whilst the prophet was given spoils of war. And his name was Khudduh Khuwa-Isra. And he was a man from you know, the people of Ben-e-Tameen. And he said, the prophet then said, Who's going to be just if I'm not just? The prophet said, And you're destroyed and you are in a state of loss if I am not just. Then the umri sallallahu alayhi to slice the neck of this man, then the prophet responded to him, he said to him, leave him. This man's got followers.  And you belittle your fasting in comparison to his fasting. He, they read the Quran. It doesn't pass, they're callabown. Bukhari and Muslim both narrated this. They will exit Islam the way that the arrow exits. Ibn-e-Tameen used this hadith. And he used this to say that this is the first khariji. Dhukh wa-sirah. Shaikh al-Islam ibn-e-Tameen, he said, and his Majmu'u al-Fatawa, the 28th volume. He said, This is the part that I won. The first khariji were against who? The Prophet. The Prophet, alaihi salat al-salam. Now I want you to understand the Prophet said Ibn-e-Tameen is saying bal awwaluhum kharaja fi hayati the first one came out at the time of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. And the first kharij came out. But what did, did Dhukh wa-sirah atamimi, did he take a sword? No, but he also didn't make takfir based on sins. That's not, that's not only what he makes your kharij. You remember the beginning of the kharij were different from the ones after it became, I'm going to mention to you the statement of faqihu zaman al-alama Muhammad ibn-u-salih al-u-Tameen. And if you were a critique of Ibn-u-Tameen, you want to say something about him? Is he totally up to you?  He said, This is the strongest evidence to show that the khuruj on the Muslim leader can be by the sword. Okay. It can also be by what? By speech and statement. This one, he didn't take the sword so he didn't do that. What did he do? But rather what he did what he anchored on him, he rejected what the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam he rejected what the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam was doing. This is important. I want you to understand he is saying Ibn-u-Tameen, oh this is what he did. And Ibn-u-Tameen went on to say and that which he found in some of the books for Ahl-e-Sunnah that the khawarij they do khuruj on the Imam that they do khuruj to the leader by the sword. What they mean by this is that this is the final form of the khuruj. But the beginning is what? The beginning is the speech and then later it becomes a final one is the sword. Ibn-u-Tameen is talking I'm not he's not me this by the way. Ibn-u-Tameen said Az-Zina yakunu bil-a'een Az-Zina can be with the eye wa yakunu bil-u'uduni can be with the ear wa yakunu bil-yadi can be with the hand right yakunu bil-riji can be with the legs lakin Az-Zina al-A'ram is which one al-Zina al-Haqiqiyu al-Farj is one the private part does it. That's why the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam he said wa al-Farj yusaddiqu daliqa oh you qadhibu then he says rahima wallahu ta'ala rahmatan wasya'a he said fa hadil ibarati min ba'zil ulama'i haada hua muraduhum wa nahnu na'alamu ilm al-yakini we know by knowledge certain knowledge certainty bin muqtada tabi'atil halih annu la'yumkinu l-khuruj bis sultani illa wa qatsabaqahu khuruju bil-lissani wal qawli no one's gonna go and just she the sword and go out to the lead and fight with him with the sword unless they've done what spoken out spoken against him for a bit yeah and then he goes into the issue of that the statement is a means to what the major khuruj and he mentions this rahima wallahu ta'ala in his explanation on the great book of shoukani known as raf al-asaltin fi hukmini tisali bil-salatin now insha'Allah ta'ala I want to mention sheqh salah al-fawzan hafidhu allah who's still alive fi qaidi al-hay'a when he was explaining his kitab al-safariniyah he says al-khuruj yakunu bi-saifi wa hada ashadu al-khuruj it can be by the sword and that's the greatest form that's the what greatest form wa yakunu bil-kalam fozan he says and it can also be bespeech besabbihim wa shattimihim by insulting them the name calling them wal-kalamu fi im fil majalis wa al-al-manabir and speaking about them on the pulpits and on the your gatherings until he said fal-kalamu khurujun he said rahimahu allahu ta'ala so he's not the only one I already mentioned the statement of Abdullah Ibn U'uqaymin and what he said law-u'irinu al-adami Rusman I will never help anyone in the blood of who? Rusman and the khawarij al-qaidiya who didn't even do khuruj what were they doing? if you look at a statement that was mentioned by Ibn al-qayyim Ibn al-Hajr sorry in his kitab had you said he paged 483 when he was counting the types of firakul khawarij he said wal-qaidiya the qaidiya who are a type of khawarij which they don't they don't go out and do khuruj okay what do they do? alladina yuzeyinuna l-khurujah they beautify khuruj by speech ale al-a'immati wa la yubashhiruna dali but they don't physically do it rather I'll give you a clear example al-hasr ibn al-sareh Ibn al-Hajr has he ever done khuruj to anyone? actually didn't do it it's actually transmitted by khallanil kitabu sunnah page 94 from yahya ibn ad-Darisad ha-huna qawmun yantahiluna qawla al-hasr ibn al-sarehin qad halakuda yaa destroyed wa sumi'atu aihad al-hasr ibn al-sarehin sayin la akhruj wa imamun qaimun I'm never going to go against when there is an imam wa la akhruj illa fee furqatin and I'm only going to do khuruj when there is disunity wa la akhruj illa fee jundin yuazi a'adui and I'm only going to do khuruj okay with an army that is equal to my enemy la ulqi biyadi illa tahluka I'm never going to throw myself into destruction wa la akhruj and I'm also not going to do khuruj he's saying wa la akhruj I'm not going to do khuruj who's saying this? he gave conditions one after the other that's what I'm going to do khuruj in other words al-hasr al-bisaal al-shurut of khuruj is actually stronger than the Allah of these people ba'adali qad ahlu lil'iln they considered him to be what? from the from the mubtadiyah they considered him to be from that mubtadiyah then because he believed in khuruj by statement he was saying it he was purifying it to the people so what I mean is that yes of course it can be so of course these noble scholars that live in our time and sheikh al-nathay mean obviously a recent scholar as well rakhimah allah okay fine last question having that is the prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said along the lines of if I was to be around the time if I was to meet his lineage I would kill them if he said that then why didn't he kill those brothers sallallahu alayhi wa sallam so the prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam did mention that la inlaqi tumuhum la inlaqi tumuhum if I meet them laaqtul annuhum qatla a'ad the prophet said that alaihi sallam I'll kill them like the people of a'ad and we know in the Qur'an Allah he spoke about the people of a'ad he said do you see any remaining of the people of a'ad I mean I would I would annihilate them I would nuke them off the face of this earth that's what the prophet is trying to say and the khawadij are the type of people that you fight them you don't take contracts with them you don't take contracts with them and you don't take them as spoils of war you kill them it's an ideology you fight okay the prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam he said every time a group come out qatla until the last of them will be with the jan sallallahu alayhi wa sallam now what I want you to understand here is that the prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said that alaihi sallam it's established from him authentically sallallahu alayhi wa sallam here on the other side he's saying why did he choose not to kill him? the reason why the prophet chose not to kill him he said because the people yet to haddatun and the muhammad yakhtu l-ashabaw that the people will say that muhammad is killing his what? his own followers yeah I mean if the prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam turned around and he killed abdullahi min al-abdullahi min al-sallam and he went and he killed what you call it adul khwaisila and tamimi and he killed all of these people the prophet was looking at the bigger picture what are the people going to say they're not going to be like oh these people were hypocrites no he just said muhammad felt like killing his own followers actually mentions the reason in the narration he gave himself okay next thing i want to mention which is actually a hadith also another thing that scholars took from it is that the khawarid if they believe what they believe they don't go out and do physically anything okay they're not killed it's another hikmah that scholars mentioned because some of the scholars they mentioned the narration that muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam does not he's not going to kill his his own followers he was some scholars they mentioned that the narration is specific to abdelaym not obey him sallallahu alayhi wa sallam abdelaym no abdelaym no obey he's not going to the prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam is going to kill not kill him that muhammad kills his own followers what we say is the reason why the prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam whatever the case may be the reason why the prophet didn't want to kill him sallallahu alayhi wa sallam is the same as the munafiqin that's one number two is that the khawarid are not fought unless they are what unless they are acting upon their belief they just believe it and they're just to nobody would touch them they can save your khawarid but we ayin'a'am that's the strongest opinion when ilayk alibna bi-talibina in the masjid while he was doing khutbah while he's standing on the pulpit they would say to him laa hukuma illa lilaa laa hukuma illa lilaa in the masjid kufa and then the prophet alib would say kaleema to haqq al-ulida biha baatilul and they would stand up after him and scream and shout are you there and he didn't fight them until they did what until they went to haru'ra they cut off on the people they made themselves followers and they then they went against him that's what alibna bi-talib fought them so nabila Muhammad is going to fight somebody who's just keeping his view to himself okay the next one is also something that I've brought up before so naturally things have been brought up before in the discussion but I also have them in my notes here and let's cover it insha'Allah the hadith man kutla aduna mali hefa huwa shahid how do we understand this because is this not applied to fighting with the rulers as well and I think we discussed this before but if you have anything more to add you can add it here insha'Allah I'm sorry the English translation whoever dies while defending his property is a martyr okay Ibn al-Munti I mentioned the statement that he said al-Rahim allahu ta'ala that the scholars are unanimously in agreement that is not permissible for you to do what and the scholars are unanimously in agreement sorry that this hadith man kutla aduna mali it does not apply on the leader there's an exception for the ruler yes the rule is an exception in this issue and there's two issues one is the statement of Ibn al-Sirel that Abdul Rizaq ibn hamamsan Ali mentions ma'anim tu ahad an kariya taharraju min qatli ha'ulai ta'athuman wala min wala min qatli man a lada malika illa sultana inna li sultani haqaa and the statement of Ibn al-Munti he transmits a ijma'a he said wal ladi a'layhi ahlu l-ilm that which the people of knowledge are upon an lir rajuli an yadda fa'a amma duqir that he's allowed to defend himself in that which has been mentioned idha urida dolman begayli tafsilin if someone would suppress you and wrong you you are given the rights to go you have the rights to go and defend yourself illa anna kulla man yuhfad wa anhu min ulama'i al-harith but the scholars of harith that knowledge has been taken from they mentioned that the leader is an exception and they use what evidences the evidences that come on us to be patient upon his transgression and leaving of standing against him ibn al-Munti says that in his and ibn al-hadr transmits it in his fatah al-bari the fifth volume paid 124 ibn al-Battal also transmits it in ishar al-Sahih al-Bukhari the sixth volume page 608 and i'm mentioning two great scholars ibn al-Battal transmits it and infams it ibn al-hadr transmits it and infams it that this ajma'a exists so these are three great scholars that are there insha'Allah yeah the other side uses hadith quite a lot but maybe they weren't previously aware of the ajma'a but now they are insha'Allah okay next one again is an issue we've discussed before is the hadith narrated by ibn al-Khabban on the authority of Abad ibn Salamud so you obviously have a hadith on your side that you say that we are not allowed to rebel against the muslim moon or against the oppressive ruler unless we see kufr al-Bawakhan clear kufr they say that there's another hadith another narration with the wording and again this is something we called before ma'asiyatan lillahi bawakhan which means that unless we see a clear sin from him and therefore oppression and fisk and everything now becomes something we can do khurujaan so i really responded to this hadith hadith ibn al-Khabban and it is funny because if they take this hadith alhamdulillah it actually makes the hadith in hadith the limam muslim ibn al-sahih in which they rejected because of the disconnection that they mentioned adaraqutni an-nawi mentioned then that means this hadith would be used as a a shahid for it and adaraqutni an ibn al-Hajr al-Haythami was it was annawi? no i'm talking about the hadith ibn al-Hajr al-Hajr al-Hajr al-Hajr al-Hajr and aahad rumor would strengthen it with a hadith adaraqutni aahadiyyad ibn al-islam because they say it's authentic they're the party have Shiq So if the other party accepts this hadith, Alhamdulillah, I like it because of two things. Number four, one is that in it, it mentions that your wealth is taken and your, he beat, he lashes your, your, your back. I would use the hadith as a, even if we can most of no problem, we'll just use this one, this part from it. Second thing is that this hadith has two meanings. I already mentioned it. The first one is leaving of obeying the Imam, the time when he's commanding you to do that, which is a sin. That's what the hadith shows because the other Rewire of Al-Imam Ahmad is clear in that matter where it says مَا لَمْ يَا مُرُوا بِإِثْتِ مِنْ بَوَحَانَ As long as he doesn't command you, what? A clear cut sin. It's to bring with the Rewire. That's what, that's talking about something different. Yeah. And we already mentioned that Of course you don't obey the leader in obedience or disobedience of Allah. Yeah. That is enough for me to respond. That's it. I can stop there, but I'm going to add a second meaning to it. Which is that this issue, we have to distinguish between the chapter of Al-Amr bin Ma'ruf والنهي علي المكر which is one thing and the issue of Al-Khruj على الحاكم الفاسق going against the oppressive Muslim leader, they're two different things. And Al-Imam al-Nawwi in the Shar'ah of the hadith did that. He distinguished between the issue of Al-Amr bin Ma'ruf and the issue of what? Al-Khruj. He says, as for Al-Amr bin Ma'ruf, Nawwi mentions, let me read his Kalaam. He says, Don't go against the leaders. Don't hug with them in a willaya. And don't go against them unless you see what? Unless you see a monk which is known established at his monk. How do you know it? You know it from the principles of Islam that this is a monk. If you see this, what would I do?  We already spoke about that. Correct? Yeah. That's that. Look what the news says after that. Alleyhim going and appraising and growing against these oppressive leaders Waqitaluhum Faharamun Bi ijma'in muslimina by unanimous agreement of the muslimin Wa'in kanu fa saqatan valimina even if they want transgressive oppressive leaders Waqat tadaharatil ahaditu bima'ana madhikartuhu So now we're saying, okay, the hadith is saying to you, hadith al-Radizm al-Sahmit, that part where he says, illa antakuna maasiyatil lillahi Bawaha, it means when you see that, you gave him bay'a, listen to him in the times of ease, times of hardship, be a good martyred slave of Allah, obey your leader, but when you see sins from him, advise him. Correct this mistake. Rectify this situation. Call to the good and prohibit the evil. But as for khuruj, no, no, no. As for fighting them, by unanimous agreement, you're allowed to do that. That's what now we said to you. So whichever of those two understandings that you take from the hadith, none of them support the person. None of them, what? Support the person. It doesn't support the person. What was the narration by Ibn Khambe? And finally, I just want to say a second point, which is that to say, al-maasiyah is a kufr, is madhabu luh, al-khawarj, as it's well known. So I don't think to see believe that kufr is a maasiyah because the hadith is madhabu luh, al-khawarj, al-maasiyah is madhabu luh. No, I think they're saying it's very separate. They're saying if you kufr it, you can go against him. If you see maasiyah, you can go against him. They're two separate things. They're not saying it's the same thing. But the hadith in Ibn Khimban, what was it in? What was it? Hadith again? What was the narration remind me? The one we're just talking about now. You mentioned it before. Hadith of Adid bin Oswami. Yes. When the Prophet ﷺ said to him, He said, I'm here to obey your message of Allah. The Prophet ﷺ listened and obeyed. And after that? There are times of hardship, times of ease, when you're enthusiastic, when you dislike it, when you see favoritism, when you see even when it takes your wealth, when it takes your wealth, when it takes your wealth, this is the time you don't listen to him. Listen to him. Listen to him. Can it not be said that taking your wealth and beating your back is a sin? Yes, it is a sin. So the Prophet ﷺ said listen and obey. Even if you... So why would he say even if he and then right after that say unless it's a sin? It doesn't make sense of conversation. And to bring Bihak in and they like to try to do again has no evidence we already spoke. So what about that? The next one is the rulers are opposed and stood against due to their sin. As the Prophet ﷺ said, there will be leaders. You'll recognize them and you'll dislike them. Whoever opposes them will be successful and whoever stays away from them will be safe and anyone who mixes them will be destroyed. He'll weaken them in terms of its chain and its authentication and the way it's being transmitted and also weaken them in terms of its meaning. That's the first response. Also, this Hadith is in a position to the the multitude of narrations that we mentioned to be patient upon the oppressive Muslim leader as we mentioned previously. Also, it's in a position to the what they mention in the also even if we say the part that they want to use from the Hadith is they want to say that the person he does we say means by speech. It means on what's in shara'il in a shara'i way, he goes and he corrects him. And Abdul Rauf Al-Minawi mentioned that in the Fajr Al-Qadir, he mentioned it in the 39th page he says He says In the the one who does and this means No rejects it with his tongue. When it's not in line with the sharia'a be saved from So here it doesn't mean it rejects it with the sword, it means it rejects it with the tongue. That's if we accept this authenticity. The next one is the people of Medina sort an Islamic ruling from Imam Malik Ibn Anas regarding the rebellion, regarding rebellion with Anafs al-Zakiyyah and Malik ruled that it is permissible. So the first response to this inshallah is three responses. The first one is that this fatwa Ibn Al-Jarir al-Tabari mentions it in his tariq. Ibn Al-Jarir mentions it in his tariq, the 7th volume page 560. And what we say is that in the chain there's a man by the name of Sa'ad ibn Abdul Hamid. Sa'ad ibn Abdul Hamid now, even though he's acceptable in Harith, there's also weakness in him. Especially if he narrates something that he's single and alone in. And that's why Ibn Hibban, because of him, he would mention narrations which are from more known scholars. He said in his Kitab al-Takheeb that he is a truthful person, and he has many mistakes. Also this man Sa'ad ibn Abdul Hamid narrates from who? He narrates from someone who's unknown. This is another point. The person he's narrating from, he said, We don't know who he's talking about here. So in terms of the chain, it's not authentic. Also if Al-Imam al-Malik was in a position in the issue of If he was against the idea of a leader who came by force He believes that that bay'ah doesn't exist. If Malik was to believe that, A'ima Tussuna would have clarified that for us, right? And they would have mentioned it from his strange views that he holds. Especially when they are mentioning as Mas'al ijma'iyah. They would have clarified it for us. And the scholars that actually transmitted ijma'a that we still have to listen and obey a leader who took by ghalaba is none other than Ibn Abi Zayt al-Qayrawani His name was, by the way, Malik al-Saghir. Al-Ibn Battaal al-Malik. He's a imat of the madhab of Al-Imam al-Malik. And we already mentioned it. The Kitab al-Risala, that Ibn Abi Zayt al-Qayrawani The part of Aqeed at the beginning, He mentioned that this is the view of who? Al-Imam al-Malik. This is the view of Al-Imam al-Malik. And I mentioned that before. Also another response is that The reason why Malik was beaten, There are many views regarding it. Al-Imam al-Malik. What was the cause of his hitting? They're trying to say that he gave fatwa Al-Imam al-Malik to do Khuruj upon the Nafsi Zakiya. He gave that fatwa. And because the ba'a of it for Abi Ja'far al-Mansur, it was ikrah. And they mentioned that and because of that Malik was beaten for it and he was punished because of it. The reason why Malik was beaten, by the way is not a matter that the ulema have agreed upon. The reason why Malik was hit. And that's why Qadir Iyad, when he mentions the reason he says it was mentioned from him He says He says Look at what he mentioned at the beginning Qadir Iyad, he says Qadir Iyad is not even 100% for it. So the reason why Malik was beaten is a matter which is not clear. There's many views. Rahimahullah. Rahimahullah. Okay, you'll be pleased to know this is the final question the final statement of a scholar that I've got for you before we move on to something else which are the hypothetical scenarios and going on to some of the statements that you've said before. So this is a scholar that I know you respect very much Rahimahullah. Rahimahullah. He said in his book at Tenkil, Abu Hanif used to obligate or recommend rebelling against the rulers of Bani Abbas after oppression became apparent from them and he saw fighting them to be better than fighting the Qufar. How do you reconcile this with your view? The Muallimah Rahimahullah, he mentioned this statement of his, I read it many is back from his book at Tenkil with what is in the first volume page 288 He says, This is the part that really, to be honest with me, is more of a shubha than anything else. He says, This is the part that really, to be honest with me, is more of a shubha than anything else. He says, He brings it back to a matter that we mentioned before that the issue of Khurud, he goes back to the Mas'ali Hamd al-Mafasid. Abdul-Rahman Al-Halimah is one of the most highly respected people to me after Sheikh Ul-Sami bin Taymi from the mutakhirin. I truly love him. But the response, insha'Allah, to his issue is number one. The matter of Khurud, he mentions that there's two views in it and that is wrong. This Mas'ala, Second response that I want to mention, because I mentioned 33 Imams. Yeah. We'll say the Sheikh did a mistake by saying this. Number two. He doesn't pay the Jama'a. By mentioning Khilaf in the Mas'ala. I'm going to come to it. Let me finish my points. Okay. The second is that attributing the permissibility of Khurud to the muhaqiqin of the people of knowledge and saying that the matter goes back to looking at the Mas'ali Hamd al-Mafasid, that's wrong. That is actually wrong. And I responded to the issue when I spoke about the issue of Mas'ali Hamd al-Mafasid. I spoke about it. Also, why did he not mention who were the muhaqiqin that he's referring to? So we can look at their situation. Does he mean by the muhaqiqin, Ibrahim Hazmin? Is he referring to him? Because if it is, we're responding to that. So we know who he's referring to. That's important for us to know. Or is he referring to some of the Imams of the Ahlu Sunnah? Or another response is it is not permissible for us to use the statement of Al-Nimi when he said the issue of the evidences of to go against oppressive Muslim leader because those are general evidences. And to be patient upon the oppression of the leader, to be patient upon the oppression of the leader is what? Specific evidences. And there are ijma on that matter. Also, Mu'allim is attributing to who in here? Abu Hanifa. And we already responded. Abu Hanifa repented from that and came back from that view. Yeah. We already mentioned that. So I think when he mentions what do you call it? Ibrahim Hazmin is who he's referring to from the muhaqiqin. And Ibrahim Hazmin, as Ibn Abdul-Hadi, he has a Kitab called Ibn Abdul-Hadi is the student of Ibn Utamia. He has a Kitab called Tabaqat ulama'il hadith. I have it on the shelf. It's the third volume, page 355. It's 350. Ibn Abdul-Hadi is Salabah Ibn Hazmin. He said he's jahmi and jallit. He said jahmi. I thought he was jahmi. Last but not least, Mu'allim has another statement in his Kitab al-Ibadah. That opposes what he mentions in his Kitab al-Tanqil wima fi ta'nib al-kawthari min al-Abaatil. Which one came first? Mu'allim is Kitab al-Iman. I think it's a Kitab al-Ibadah. I think it's one of his lost works. Okay. What did he say? It could be possible he's been writing them together shoulder by shoulder. I can't really put my finger on that. But I know for sure the Kitab al-Ibadah was one of his lost works that he wrote. Okay. One of his greatest books that he's written. In there he mentions he says wahaadah waadah waadah waadah waadah waadah waadah waadah waadah waadah waadah waadah waadah waadah waadah waadah waadah waadah waadah waadah waadah waadah waadah waadah waadah waadah waadah waadah waadah waadah waadah waadah waadah waadah waadah waadah waadah And in other words, the going against oppressive Muslim leader is always going to be oppression. As always, it's always going to be Mafsada. Greater Mafsada is going to come if you go against him. So he is not saying where the Masalih had the Mafasid. He's actually saying that Mafsada is connected to going against oppressive Muslim leader and that's why he said that the Sunnah should be excused. Because they realized after the experience that the Netijah, the outcome that comes from Al-Khruj, of the Haqqim al-Zalim, is that it's takoon wa a'adam al-Fasadin, wa shadr'an wa burr'an, that the corruption and the harm and the problem that will come is far greater than his existence. And he's also mentioning clear terms that is not permissible to khruj against the Rulah unless you seek kufr barakh or he leaves the Salah. And he says this in his Kitab al-Ibadah which is known as Rafal ishtiba, page 220. Okay, and if someone says that at Tanki came afterwards, does Abdul Rahman al-Malim break the Ijma'at? It doesn't. I now want to go into some hypothetical scenarios. I want to ask you these questions and I want to hear your responses, insha'Allah.  See, as I told you before, and these are, you know, misa'il-shara'iya, misa'il-ilmiya, we really spoke about what the shari'a believes. That's what really matters. My personal opinion, what I think, what you think personally and how you would deal in a situation, that's not what makes it shara'iya or not. This is the truth of the matter. I feel like people take things very personal and they personalize it, and the thing you have to understand is shara'a and what is permissible. What about if I said I wouldn't, I would fight and I would go out and I would rise and I would revolt and I would... Does it change the shari'i ruling? It doesn't. I'm mentioning shari'i rulings and I'm saying that which is upon us as Muslims to do is what Allah sanctioned and his messenger. What I would do and what I wouldn't do, that's not a personal thing for me personally. It doesn't change the shari'i rule. That's what I think. So all through this, we've been speaking about a shari'i ruling. And what should someone do under that situation, shari'i ruling? A person, as I said to you before, the oppression of a Muslim leader is that we should be patient and we should not apprise against him. We should not apprise against him. If a person can get their family in a way that they don't have to apprise and get their family back, inshallah they can do it. And I just really want to be honest and I have not yet seen... Have you ever met someone who said my wife and children were taken from me? Zulman, Wadwana, they came into my house at nighttime and they took my family. And not that I'm saying it doesn't exist but I'm also saying why do we go to the extreme in order to prove a point that's shari'i? Like, extreme a scenario I bring for you and then I say, look, even, you know, the situation doesn't happen on a regular basis. It's rare situations you're talking about. And that's something I feel like, inshallah, it should be a response to anybody who's smart and is clever. Yep, I think the next one is also going to have a similar response but this is something that Ibn Hazm bought in his book, Al-Fisal, so I think it does warrant asking, what do you say about a ruler who puts the Jews in charge, makes the Christians his army, forces the Muslims to pay the jizya? I mean, that we just have to... Is he a Muslim? And is this ruler a Muslim or not is the discussion? Not that he is an oppressive Muslim leader. He goes on to say, he publicly... So he raises weapons against Muslim children, captures the Muslim women, is publicly perverse with them.  I mean, we just... That should be a discussion about whether he's a Muslim and he's left a religion about Islam. And again, it's not for us, it's for the Ahlu l-Ulm and Ahlu l-Hallu al-Aqde will determine what the situation is. But this is not a discussion of an oppressive oppressive Muslim leader. This is actually more than that, it's actually talking about a a ruler who is Islam can be questioned. Because there's a lot of... I don't have a statement memorized or anything, but there's a lot of things that he said that and he can allude to saying that this leader is not... is he even a Muslim? Again, it's a... It's a... This situation doesn't warrant you doing Khuruj on a Muslim leader, right? Muslim oppressive leader. Taking that situation he mentions and applying on every single ruler by looking at what Ibrahim Hazmi has said, he's describing all the rulers of Islam. You can't take an extreme mix, so now you're just trying to justify everything. Okay, the last one again, like I said, I have to bring everything. The last one on this is kind of hypothetical scenarios. What if there was an Asha Ali government and all of the Salafis were gathered in one place of the land and the Kharkim commands all of the Salafis to be killed? Can they defend themselves? Well, I think this is Turrahat. I just believe that Turrahat and Khuzab al-Ad, to be honest. I don't think this is a ill-me response. It's not a knowledge-based discussion. Araft. If the leader is an Asha Ali, he has to be still obeyed and listened to. Okay, he has to be what? He has to be obeyed and listened to. And you're not allowed to go against him because he's still a Muslim. He has to be listened and obeyed, whether he's an Asha Ali or not. Okay, I want to move on now to something that you said previously in one of your videos, that if the ruler leaves the Salah, this is the only time that we can rebel against him. Do you believe that the only time you can rebel against a Muslim ruler is if he leaves the Salah? Remember to me, the view that I hold is that leaving the Salah is kufr. So if I say to you that the only time he leaves the Salah, for me leaving the Salah is a what? It's an act of kufr. So for me, I'm saying that to you, if he leaves the Salah, he's a kafir and if he does kufr is when you're only allowed to go against him. Because I explained him being a kafir as what? As leaving the Salah. You link the kufr on Bahu Khan with this? With the Salah. So if he leaves the religion in any other way, it's the same. It's the same thing he's left. If he makes a religion, if he makes Halal for himself, which is Haram, or Juhrud, or Takdeeb, or... And the hadith that you mentioned at the time of this statement, just said the Salah. Is that right? I believe the Salah to be kufr akbar. Since I believe the Salah to be kufr akbar, any other actor is kufr akbar like leaving the Salah. I also believe that if you go against him, if he comes with it, it's allowed for the person to go against him in that. I think it's another example where it was a misunderstanding and as a result, again another 45 minute or 1 hour video was actually made out of this. Whereas if you're having a conversation, you could have just cleared that up. No, I actually believe anytime that the leader becomes a kafir, whether it's from the leaving the Salah or otherwise you can rebel against him. So at least we had the opportunity to clear that up. There's something I want to add on to that. Every party believes that if the leader leaves the Salah, that you can go against him. The ones who believe that leaving the Salah doesn't make you a kafir, merely just by leaving the Salah, they believe that you're only allowed to go against the leader when he leaves the Salah, juhudan, which is ijmaa. There's no party's different out of stubbornness. It's not just merely just leaving it. So they would say when the Prophet said until he establishes a prayer amongst you, they would say it means that if he leaves the Salah, juhudan. So then that's what they're going to do and they're going to see the permissibility of juhudan to him. Whereas I on the other hand, and those who are of my opinion would say no, just by merely leaving the Salah warrants disbelief and then his other shurul are going to be looked at to go against him. Does that make sense? Yeah, that's going to be one of my questions in fact. So I've got three questions on this. You linked leaving the Salah to kafir ba'wah. How can something have iqtilaf in it because you admit that it's a khilafiyyah that leaving the Salah whether it makes you careful or not? How can something have iqtilaf in it and also be clear kufr at the same time? It's a contradiction in terms. Both parties is different for them what is clear kufr. Someone would come and say it's clear kufr for me that leaving the Salah merely is not warrants kufr. Okay. In other words I have many other evidences that prove for me that what's meant by he leaving the Salah it means leaving it by coming with juhud. Those of his opinion. Kind of like rejecting the Salah is part of the religion. So they will say that's when I believe it's kufr. Okay. Whereas the one who believes merely just leaving the Salah mujarra did tarq just by merely leaving it even if it's out of laziness that warrants kufr that person would be doing khuruj before you and if you don't believe it's kufr akbarna you should be at the back you're not allowed to do khuruj because you still see him as a sinna if he's leaving the prayer. And the way you interpret the hadith that mentions that you can do khuruj if he leaves the Salah is if he leaves the Salah juhud and because that's what you believe. Yes. There's no contradiction here. How can you not accept the issue of khuruj when you have already accepted the the ruling of leaving the Salah and the two masael are so closely linked again. Not necessarily. It goes back to the issue of what is kufr and what is not kufr some issues whether it's kufr or not because that makes sense. So if I believe that leaving the Salah mainly warrants kufr then I will go against this leader on the premises as well that he's a if you believe and you're of the opinion that mainly leaving the Salah is not kufr akbar you have to do it with juhud. You're not allowed to do khuruj unless you verify that he leaves it out of takasal that he leaves it out of juhud you can't do khuruj. I'm way before you in that regard and by the way when I say me I mean do khuruj or not there's going to be look at the shurod and the mawani and they're going to look at the masalih and the mafasi they're going to do the nasiha and all of that. It's not my but I'm saying the scholars will hold my opinion. Araft? Yeah. Okay, last question on this but that person who believes that person who believes that you can only become a kufr leaving the Salah if you do it out of juhud if the leader leaves it out of laziness he believes he doesn't believe he's a kufr so he can't do khuruj. Okay, that's the exact response to my final question. I have to ask anyway because sometimes you have to really drill at home. If somebody believes that leaving the Salah is not kufr akbar can they rebel against the ruler who leaves the Salah because of this hadith that you mentioned if you say no you are rejecting this hadith and if you say yes then you have conceded it is permissible to rebel against a Muslim ruler. No, I just said to you that the person who believes leaving the Salah merely alone is not kufr akbar against the ruler because he believes he's a what? If he leaves it merely he's just a sinner he doesn't come with kufr akbar yet. Yeah, the person who believes that leaving the Salah is not kufr akbar as in leaving the Salah out of laziness for example he's not kufr akbar then when the ruler leaves it he sees the ruler leaving the Salah he can't just go against him because he says he's a sinner. He's still a Muslim but if he believes that it is kufr akbar then in that situation he can and the one who believes that it's just a sin then if he verifies that the leave has left out of jahud he's saying it's not part of the deen then it becomes kufr akbar and that's when the hadith comes into play. So you have to really take narrations all together. You can't just take one narration or take one snippet out of a video and say this is what was said and this narration just said leaving the Salah what about the other hadith that says because I asked that same person and I said look bro, you just said to me that you don't believe kufr akbar is not kufr akbar merely just leaving the Salah so you believe this leader is oppressive and he's just a Muslim but he's an oppressive, tyrannical leader so you're not allowed to do khuruj because all the other hadith come on top of you all the hadith are being patient with him but these other brothers say I don't believe he's a Muslim anymore because he left the Salah and he's clear and I advise him and I advise him and I told him I don't believe him to be a Muslim anymore that individual that individual is what that individual he's going on him on the grounds not that he's an oppressive Muslim leader that he's a kafir and he's using Turkish Salah as evidence 100% okay, last section I've got before I've got some closing questions for you and then I'll give you a chance to summarize the very lengthy discussion that we've had the Salaf didn't like sitting with the rulers and I mentioned this hadith earlier as well or this is another one actually the Prophet SAW said whoever resides in the desert he becomes ignorant and whoever follows the game he becomes heedless and whoever comes to the doors of the rulers will suffer a fitna he also said SAW there will be leaders who will recognize them and you will dislike them, I mentioned this before whoever opposes them will be successful and whoever stays away from them will be safe and anyone who mixes with them will be destroyed and there are many aathars from the Salaf from Sufiyanat 30 for example and other than him that talk about how they don't even like people sitting with or even visiting the rulers and some of them even went as far as linking this issue and do any of these narrations contradict what you've been saying about of being the Muslim not at all not sitting with the leader and avoiding going to the houses of the leaders it's nothing to do with Khuruj the Salaf they differed amongst themselves when it came to the issue of the leaders some of them were close to the leaders like Umar ibn Abdul Aziz Marwan Mahmood ibn Mehran was a writer for Umar ibn Abdul Aziz you know Qadi Abu Yusuf was a Qadi Quldat for what do you call it Harun al-Rashid some were like that some were in high positions Qadi Quldat by the way is today equal to the Ministry of Justice so some of them occupied high seats high positions in the government and a lot of scholars did not like they go into the leaders with that he can it was mentioned that he avoided eating the food of his son because of the fact that he used to take money from the government he used to be part of the government so he never used to take his risk but that's the same Imam Ahmad who said that he's not permissible to go against Wuzin he's an innovator and some scholars whenever the leader would call them or even come they would go they would avoid it and not do it for example for example the king one time visited him in Qasim and he avoided it and he left he left and avoided him and some people are like that they avoid the leader, they don't go to him but they tell the people to listen in a bay and not go against him in a oppressive leader but whether you want to visit him if you don't want to visit him if you're scared for your deen that's your wara and your deen it's an honorable thing to be honest not to enter the doors of the leaders and by the way I spoke about that in my lecture on the issue of the middle path I mentioned in a section of when it comes to the leaders not to enter upon the leaders and to avoid that and I put that into today the people who speak about politics and who are politicians in the UK government and system and MP of this and MP of that and running for offices in the government and if that's been said about Muslim leaders then I'll give you a chance to summarize the discussion I'll also add a summary of Marwan insha'Allah who is the one who is fit to be talking about these kind of issues these kind of big issues you've bought many different sciences of Islam to understand these variations what is the level of knowledge that is required for someone to be talking about these things these issues are big issues they're not a light issue they're a matter of blood they're safety issues of safety they're not a light issue they're not a light issue but they're safety issues of safety they're talking about it's issues of safety what's going to happen is that you're going to be fatwa that it's permissible or it's the difference of opinion to do khurud and a person might be inspired by that and go and uprise in their country and the bloodshed and everything that happens is on your neck your umal qiyamah it's on your neck your umal qiyamah you're causing disunity discord discord bloodshed havoc anaki in a land you need to remember you're going to be fatwa on the day of qiyamah and we're living at that time when we've seen the prophet told us in hadith he said Allah doesn't accept knowledge but He accepts knowledge before the knowledge until if there's no knowledge left for the people of juhala we're at that time when we're seeing people who have no knowledge no understanding of the religion can't read a paragraph struggling in reading they don't know the Qur'an they haven't memorized even juz'a'amna the khutbat al haja cannot be pronounced properly on their side even when they speak about the religion a child a little kid can see the big flaws and the mistakes done by this person and they're not just talking about the religion which they can't even but they're talking about if these messa'il were presented to umar and abi bakr they would've called the people of bedar for this and say what do you guys think what should we do in this matter umar and abu bakr will never just answer it by themselves but these people they even talk about those issues like it's and the poet he said the great imams of al-islam abu hanifa imam umalik all of them they used to run away from this concept of answering everything and speaking about everything he used to try to avoid it and he used to say I don't know he used to avoid speaking about the issues of the religion and don't speak about what you have and don't speak about what you have and don't speak about what you have no knowledge of Allah says they won't find success in this world or the hereafter speaking about this halal and haram I don't believe many people who are talking about these issues should be even speaking about issues of tahara they shouldn't be even speaking about issues of tahara let alone issues of salah and zakat and som and hajj they should not be talking about even the ahkam and wa'u aqsam ul-miyah the types of water or what the Tahara is they shouldn't be talking about that they should not be talking about ta'yamum they should not be talking about al-maswhal al-khuffain they should not be talking about all these issues let alone issues of khuroj, issues of imamah and al-wila'ya they shouldn't be talking about those issues And this really is, as I said to you before, it is a person who would do this, a person who hasn't taken knowledge from his right place. He will be deceived by his own self and those other people are going to deceive him. And I think to be honest, what's happening now and what we're seeing, what's taking place, there's a bigger gender behind all of this. It's not just as we see it from the outer, there's something, it's an agenda. And I believe I am not more passionate about this religion and I am not, I don't have more ghairah for this deen than Allah, Allah will protect this religion. Allah is the one who's going to give this religion. And Allah the Almighty tells us in the Qur'an, فَاَمَ الْزَدِبْ فَاَمَ الْزَبُدُ فَيَدْهَ بُجُفَاءَ وَأَمَا مَا يَنْفَعُ الْنَاسَ فَيَمْخُتُفِ الْأَرْضَ The filthy things will go, inshaAllah, will perish. What will remain is that which is beneficial for the ummah. Before we saw evil people come, where are they now? Many corrupt people came through Islamic history, where are they? Where are they to be named? Today, if you hear about the Jamiyah, there's no book they've written. They mention in the refutation of the Ahlu Sunnah. And that's the same that's going to happen. Everybody who comes after, who tries to play with this da'wah, the Ahlu Sunnah and the Jama'at, Allah the Almighty is going to take it upon himself to destroy them. And I also believe that they will take this knowledge from all the corrupt people.  That there's always going to be people who are going to stand up to defend the religion. They're going to defend it from the distortion of those who want to distort it and those who want to play with it. There's always going to be people, inshaAllah. As the Prophet told us, There are still few people from my ummah who are going to harm those who are against them until they come to Allah the Almighty. So I'm not too worried in that regard. InshaAllah it's upon me and all the other brothers and everybody upon the da'wah. It's just exactly effort and hard work. And everything that's hidden from our eyes and that we can't see and who's really doing this and who's playing with this, all of it will become clear. The Arabs, they say, When the dust goes down in the battlefield, you realize, You know what you're seeing on a horse? What are you seeing on a donkey? When the dust goes down, we'll know what's what. And they also say, When the light comes out, you can see, okay, you're lying. This one's genuinely crying. So inshaAllah, when Allah the Almighty chooses to bring the Deen to light, the falsehood inshaAllah will go inshaAllah and it will say, Do you love the oppressive Muslim rulers and do you approve of their actions? No, I don't. That's why we keep saying at the beginning, We dislike it. We hate it. I hate it.  I don't like to see any Muslim being oppressed and wronged. No one would love oppression. The Prophet told us in the hadith, Allah made the oppression Haram from himself, Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala, and he made it Haram amongst the creation. No one's going to like oppression. What do you say about the one who claims that you actually have a hidden agenda? And you don't really care about these Ahadith and Aathar. Rather, it's all about loving and protecting the rulers of Saudi Arabia because of the Najdi Da'wah that came from that region. Wallahi, that's an answer that a person has to prepare for Yom ul-Qiyamah. They can stick to that when we all stand in front of Allah and Tabarak Wa Ta'ala. The scholars, they say, Wa ila Allahi tajtameul khusumu. The disputes and argumentations will be brought to Allah Yom ul-Qiyamah. And Allah Tabarak Wa Ta'ala will judge between his creations, Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala. Wallahi, my answer is for every government, every government in the Muslim world, every country, every leader who's Muslim is the leader of his country. He should be heard and obeyed. I'm not defending any particular country. I'm not. It's not Saudi I'm speaking for. It's not Turkey I'm speaking for. It's not Qatar I'm speaking for. It's not UAE I'm here, this country I'm here. I'm speaking about every Muslim country. We must listen and obey as long as they are Muslims. Okay, and I don't see how they go far. So we need to listen and obey them. We need to beg Allah Tabarak Wa Ta'ala to rectify their situation.  Like in to say that all of this is directed for one particular country. Maybe that person has come across somebody else that feels that way or is like that. But for me, that's not the case. Okay, final question if I'm going to ask you to summarize the lengthy discussion we've had on this particular topic. After hearing all of the ahadith and the narrations that you've mentioned over the last few hours, do you think anybody can call themselves ethery or celophie and still hold onto the belief that there is a valid difference of opinion on this issue? No, not at all. No, not at all. You can't call yourself ethery and go against the aathar as Al-Imam Ahmad said. It's a false name you're giving to yourself, you attribute yourself to, that which you're not really to be honest. Okay, why don't we close the discussion by maybe you adding a summary. I know it's been a very, very lengthy discussion, but add a summary of what you want to bring forward from the main points or the main argument. And then I'll also summarize it on my end as well and we can close the particles. Inshallah, you do. I've said everything I needed to say on this issue. I don't think I've left it. I think for me that I just want to remind the Muslims that are watching this and listening to this, that we take our religion from the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and the Ijma'ah. And this particular issue, you brought the many Adilah from the Qur'an, from the Sunnah. And within the Sunnah, it's not just random books from the Sunnah, it's Bukhari and Muslim, predominantly the Sakhi of Imam Muslim, which is a second most authentic book after Imam Bukhari in terms of the books of Ahadith. So you have the Qur'an, you have the Sunnah, and you have an Ijma'ah. An Ijma'ah you brought forward, and of course you previously in the discussion you spoke about the proofs for why Ijma'ah is binding upon us, the Ijma'ah that you brought is not just any old Ijma'ah. It's an Ijma'ah of the Companions. Now you have an issue where you have Qur'an, Sunnah, Ijma'ah of the Companions. I don't understand how you can possibly get anything clearer than that. I know what confuses it for a lot of people, two things. Number one is the Ijma'ah that came with the Salaf, and the Khuluj that people did for the Salaf, after that is another Ijma'ah. So even that Khuluj, or even that Ijma'ah that occurred, it sandwiched in between two Ijma'ahs. And each one of these is Ijma'ahs. I'm actually two Ijma'ahs. One of them is that we're not allowed to do Khuluj against a Muslim mullah. And the second one is that if there's two evils, we don't take the one that's going to cause greater harm, and Khuluj is one of those issues where it will cause a greater harm. I said for maybe another situation, a rare situation, but of course, we don't make rulings based on that. So for anybody who's watching this really, when you have an issue in the religion, where you have Qur'an, Sunnah, Ijma'ah of the companions, and then another Ijma'ah afterwards, and you mentioned 33 names, I believe, from the Imam Bukhari, Imam Ahmad, Ibn Utaymir, Imam Nauwi. These are big household names that people have heard of many, many times. Even the layman Muslims have heard of these names. And these Imams did not transmit the view that you should not do Khuluj. Rather, they transmitted a consensus saying that it's unanimously agreed by the scholars that you do not do Khuluj. For someone to hear this, and for it to be broken down like this, to still cling on to a difference of opinion, I'm struggling to find excuses for them.   And you know, you have a difference of opinion in music and all of these issues. And I believe this issue of Khuluj goes into the same bucket as all of these issues. To claim a difference of opinion on this when you've got Quran, Sunnah, Ijmaa of the companions and Ijmaa of the scholars that came after as well, I don't understand how that's possible. What I have seen from the other side, and like I said, I did a lot of research outside in preparation for this podcast. What I have seen is misunderstanding a fundamental issue and building an argument on top of that. For example, when we looked at Hussain and Ibn Zubair, misunderstanding that they're part of Ahlul Khali wal-Aqt. Misunderstanding that the Khilaf of Yazid was not complete Khilaf over all the lands. Misunderstanding all of these issues and then building a lengthy argument based on that misunderstanding. And as I said before, I genuinely don't believe, and I believe that I don't believe that it's something that's done intentionally. There are things that I've seen that have worried me, but as a whole, I don't believe it's done intentionally. I just genuinely believe it's done through ignorance. But as we said before, whether it's done through ignorance o