Adnan Rashid responds to Ammar Nakshawani on defending of the Sahaba
Adnan Rashid – Response To Ammar Nakshawani – Defending Sahaba
AI: Summary ©
The speakers emphasize the importance of history and avoiding harmful media in love and mercy statements. They criticize the media's portrayal of the Prophet and their use of false information. The speakers stress the need for history and avoiding double standards in publicity, as well as the importance of learning to love and kill people. They also touch on the history of Islam and the use of language in publicity, as well as the potential negative consequences of the use of words in relation to actions and events.
AI: Transcript ©
Someone says but how do I know you're not concealing your face? 24 seven me. You want me to conceal my face? You want to debate me come and debate me one law I won't conceal my faith one bit with you and I'll tell you exactly what I think Bismillahi Rahmani Raheem Alhamdulillah wa Salatu was Salam ala rasulillah
Allah Hafiz Sameera Li Min ash shaytani r rajim Bismillahi Rahmani Raheem Omar Sol naka ihlara mata Allah, Allah mean, the friends, brothers and sisters, I will be beginning with a message of love, mercy, compassion, according to the verse of the Quran that the Prophet sallallahu Sallam was sent as a mercy for the world. I'm going to talk about a video which was put out recently by one of the most famous and well respected lecturers called Dr. Amar Shivani. Dr. Amar Nakasone is a well respected lecturer, scholar talker within the Shia community in Britain in particular, and globally in general. He put out a very disturbing video recently, and I was shocked to watch his rhetoric or
to come across his rhetoric. In this video, he has attacked directly, some of the early companions of the Prophet sallallahu sallam, and he has made certain claims about the early history of Islam, and all he sees is disturbance, blood and beheadings and burnings. This is what he has come up with. In this video, I was really, really shocked to hear this kind of rhetoric from an academic, who is a well respected scholar within the Shia community who was who was seen as a moderate, not as an extremist. There have been individuals in the past who have made very, very controversial videos within the Shia school. But Dr. Amar Shivani was seen as a moderate face of Shia thought in the
West. But this video has shocked not only me, many of the people. So what does the video talk about? The video goes into the source of terrorism in early Islam. Dr. Amar is of the view that early Islam or the history of early Islam.
The history of the companions of the Prophet sallallahu Sallam may highlight the sources of terrorism. And Dr. Amar doesn't actually clarify as to what he means by the word, terrorism. What definition of the word terrorism is he applying? Is it a modern definition we see on mainstream media or we come across a mainstream media or is it some ancient medieval or Islamic definition of terrorism? What definition is he actually using the word terrorism? We are not clear. If he if he's using the modern, so called definition of terrorism used by CNN, Fox news nbc, then it is highly disturbing to use such a definition to judge a person in the seventh century. Because if we use
these definitions that every single person throughout history, 19th century, even 20th century backwards is condemned every single ruler, every single government, every single individual who took part in these governments is condemned. So I would like to know what definition was actually being referred to. Having said that, Dr. Ahmad has come up with many many disturbing claims. He claimed that Abu Bakar Omar, Othman and early companions of the Prophet sallallahu sallam, Roger Lowe, I know mine, some of them were terrorists, others were thugs, some were tyrants, some are killers, beheaders burners, all these things came out in his video. And the purpose of my video is not to
spread sectarian hatred. Rather, my purpose is to bring people close by talking by having a dialogue by debating ideas. And Dr. Omar has already put out a challenge as you saw earlier, that he wants to debate he wants to talk he wants to be out he wants to discuss his views, and he wants to discuss them openly. And this is exactly what we want. We promote that spirit of open discussion. We don't want to hide and talk about things. So let's have a discussion and open in person discussion on camera. So that so that the rest of the world can also see what we have to say on certain topics. So Dr. Amar delivered this lengthy lecture in this lecture he made many disturbing points disturbing
because they were non factual, there was dishonesty, there was misrepresentation, and there was bias and prejudice. We will see now in due course as to what I mean, I will do a commentary on Dr. Omar's views, he will see his clips and then you will see my commentary and you can make your own minds up you can judge by what I have to say on Dr. Amaz video and see whether I am
injustice which human being finds it normal to sit back and watch another human being burn, you have to be the worst of the worst for you to sit back and do this because that Jordanian pilot, irrespective of whether you believe is a hypocrite, not a hypocrite and so on. You do not burn him unless there's a tradition or a precedent that was set of burning. Yes. As the lead person when he burns another human being, it doesn't burn him unless there is a vacuum or he hasn't come out of a vacuum it comes from a tradition, there has to be a tradition where he has seen role models who found burning another human being normal. Now, Dr. Amar has talked about burning rightly so. Burning
someone is absolutely appalling. It is. It is to be condemned. And it is not something normal someone taking pleasure. someone sitting and watching someone burn, has to be sadistic, to say the least, or mentally disturbed, but would Dr. Amar say the same thing about Alabama, Vitaly rhodiola, who he mentioned in the lecture later on that there are reports about Ali rhodiola one burning people. One of them is Abdullah bin Saba, who was burnt according to some reports. And amazingly the reports about Ali radi Allahu, and burning people as a punishment are authentic. They are to be found in books like masana of ignoble shaybah and in the literature of Dr. Amar, which he believes
in books like original Kashi, as he mentions himself he acknowledges and then nobody who is one of the greatest historians of the thought Dr. Amar believes it. So these reports are well attested. And they are trusted by authorities on both side and Alibaba Vitaly with the Allahu unrepented because he was corrected by Abdullah bin Abbas. When Ali burned some some people as a punishment Abdullah bin Abbas, the prophets cousin came to Alibaba Vitaly and said to him, this is not something you do the Prophet sallallahu Sallam forbade it. And he narrated a Hadith of the Prophet sallahu wa Salaam that do not punish people with the punishment of Allah, ie burning them because Allah will burn
people in jahannam. Right? those criminals criminals like Hitler criminals, like Mussolini and, and Stalin, people who killed millions of people, they will be burnt and hellfire. So this is the punishment of Allah. So Abdullah bin Abbas said to Alibaba, Vitaly, do not burn people as a punishment. And Ali never did that again. So we defended Alibaba with olive, olive in Abu Talib rhodiola, Juan
ameerul momineen made a mistake, he made an error, and he repented he never went back to it again. But if we were to use Dr. Amar logic, then Alabama Vitaly would be condemned also right? To be consistent, you have to mention these things so that people can hear the truth. Let's go to the next clip. The first answer you see when you are asked, Is there such a thing as radical Islam or defend or try and explain the actions of ISIS or Shabaab or Boko Haram or al Qaeda? In this clip, Dr. Amar mentioned the number of groups by name and he fails to mention others. And I can mention them such as Hezbollah, and some other groups working in Iraq, known as death squads, right? killing innocent
people randomly going into villages, burning them, killing them and burning people. So we will see in due course what who I'm talking about. So why not mention those names to why pick and choose from a bunch of terrorists. We can also talk about Maoist rebels in in India, we can talk about Tamil Tigers, we can talk about FARC rebels in Colombia, we can talk about we can also talk about Mexican drug cartels. And all of these people, I believe are the same family. They belong to the same family. Is there such thing as radical Islam? Of course there isn't. This is how islamophobes speak. This is our people who hate Islam who attack Islam. subjectively, they tarnish the name of Islam.
This is how they speak that there is radical or radical Islam in Islam. Islam is Islam Islam is very specifically defined. Islam is in the Quran. And in the prophetic tradition, that Islam This is what we believe Islam is. There is no such thing as radical Islam, or blue Islam or black Islam or green Islam or yellow Islam. Islam is Islam, you have to explain how do ISIS reach a conclusion? Were they able to burn a whole village of the Shia and the lovers of albanes? How do they reach that conclusion? We don't have to explain that because I say it has nothing to do with. with Islam. They have nothing to do with us. They are doing what they're doing. And they have been many groups in the
past there are groups alive in other places of the world, doing similar
Things, Mexican drug cartels are doing some, some things even more barbaric. The way they kill people the way they behead them the way they chop them up. Videos are out there, you can go and watch them. Okay? There are people doing similar things in Iraq, they're going into Sunni villages, they're burning, they are torturing villages. They are, you know, beheading people, all of these people are a bunch of barbarians, and we have nothing to do with them. So we have to explain nothing. psychopaths are psychopaths, they don't belong to a particular religion, they don't do things because their religion tells them to do. So. If we talk like that, then no one is safe. If we
talk like that, if we start equating criminals with certain religions and ideologies, or because they have certain skin color, then no one is safe on the planet. So let's stop talking like that. So why do you focus on one group of terrorists and not look at others condemn terrorism in total, in totality, okay, across the board, don't just focus on one particular group and ignore others and pretend that they don't exist. They do exist, you just need to come out and condemn them. Like you condemn ISIS, rightly so. So can you condemn others who are doing similar atrocities in Iraq, in Syria and Yemen? Right. And we condemn all atrocities. We condemn atrocities committed by anyone,
whether it's ISIS or someone else, we condemn atrocities, killing of innocent people, whoever does it. Do you guess the question? Let's go to the next clip. A second group admits that there is a plague within Islam. And that's their exact words. Is there a plague within Islam? No, there isn't a plague within Islam. As I said, Islam is a very clear set definition Islam is in the Quran. And in the teachings of the Prophet sallallahu, alayhi wasallam. Are you telling us there is a plague in the Quran? Or there's a plague in the teachings of the Prophet sallallahu Sallam? Of course not I am sure you are not saying that. But let's not say that there is there is a plague in Islam, because
Islam is very clearly defined. Is there a plague in your mind? Is there a plague in your understanding of Islam? Is there a plague in in the way you argue in the way you talk? perhaps maybe so. But is there a plague in Islam? As I understand it? No, I'm sorry, there is no plague in Islam. So let's go to the next clip. We don't want to put our finger on the plague, because the personalities who we may then discuss discussing them may hurt the feelings of other Muslims. So for us, it's better not to discuss the plague. You say? What do you mean? say, well, we get funded by certain countries for our institutes. Our mosques gets funded, our magazines get funded. If we now
say what the plague is within Islam, that's both about a radical Islam. Our $1 million check might not come.
Every year, we expect a cheque from somewhere in the Middle East, where a certain King somewhere will give me a check of $1 million. As long as I show the line. Yes. While this was a very cheap shot on the part of Dr. Omar Maccioni, no one receives any money, especially a million dollars check. To my knowledge. In Britain, I don't know of any mosque or any mosque leader or any Muslim leader in this country who receives a check from one of the Gulf countries. This is just rhetoric, this is just false claims without any evidence. Okay. There are people there are scholars, there are speakers who have made their points very clear. They have discussed these topics, topics of
terrorism, and they don't say that is a plague in Islam. Now, Dr. Amar wants everyone to come out and say there is a plague in Islam. No, there is no plague in Islam. There's a plague in people's understanding. There is a plague in people's minds. There is a plague in people's actions. No doubt about that. That's the plague we need to highlight when people start to misuse, abuse texts, and start to apply them randomly, just like you are doing Dr. Amar nutshell, and actually in this video, so there is no plague in Islam. And, you know, just because people don't say what you want them to say. you accuse them of receiving money from Saudi Arabia, from Bahrain, from Qatar, this is a cheap
shot. I think you're an academic and you should know better. People don't agree with you. They don't see the way you see things. Okay. You see a plague. We don't see a plague. Okay. The plague is in one's understanding, not in the text. next clip, please. They're saying that it's foreign policy, because they want to deflect the attention away from the fact that Islam as a religion, had terrorism as part of it from its very beginning. Yes.
That Islam as a religion from the very moment that the Prophet Mohammed passed away was the religion that had a terrorist element that continues until today. Firstly, what definition of the word terrorism we're using here? We don't know what definition isn't the fox news, NBC Sky News or these channels, their definition of terrorism, because they themselves haven't defined the word terrorism clearly. What definition of the word terrorism are you using? Okay, that's the first question. Second question. No one is deflecting anything, all the literature, every single thing has been documented in our books. And it is there you just to go and see it. You have to go and see it
objectively and you will see the reality. Our scholars have written books from the day one to the day last. Okay. You have to start picking up books written by people like Mr. McCarthy, Roger Escalante, Mr. masabi. Okay. There are people like him to tell me there are people like even as late as the 18th century shower you law, okay. There are people like shark disease, there are people and the scholars list goes on and on and on and on. And they have discussed the issue of a mama, they have discussed, the they have discussed issues like early history of Islam, Mr. Abrams, you read it properly. You mentioned him clearly in your video, he has also talked about these issues. So you
want to see the plague, but they haven't seen a plague they have actually defined clearly described what happened, and they have left the judgment to the reader. So now you take one judgment, we take another this is where the differences you said Islam had a terrorist element from the very beginning. After the Prophet sallallahu Sallam passed away, there was a terrorist element. In the very beginning, beginning and you accused the other son of deflecting this topic. We don't agree with you. We don't see any terrorism. In Islam, you see it, you see the companions as you see them. We don't see them the way you see them. So you are actually being dishonest as we will see that
these very companions, whom we follow proudly, are the ones we follow in condemning terrorism. They are the first people to condemn terrorism. They are the first people to fight terrorism. They are the ones who went out of their way to make sure there is no terrorism in the world. They are the ones who upheld versus like Marshall naka de Khalid al amin, there is no way that people can go and oppress others, you know, they came out to spread the mercy of Allah, the mercy of the Quran, the mercy delivered by the prophet sallallahu sallam, they were the torch bearers of the Quran. They were the torch bearers of the mercy of Islam. So how can you actually accuse them of being
terrorists? This is very, very disturbing. And we will see in due course, how you completely ignore important facts, which actually prove that these people are anything but terrorists. And again, you don't explain as to what definition of terrorism you use to tarnish some of the greatest people in the history of Islam. This is very, very disturbing. next clip, please. You find that when a Muslim says there's no such thing as radical Islam, there is one particular purpose underlying that statement. And that is that they don't want people to critically engage their source literature. Because the moment you critically engage the source literature, you realize that ISIS and Boko Haram
and Al Qaeda and Al Shabaab did not begin in 2001 or 2003. But rather, the roots of their terrorism began the day the Prophet Muhammad died. Yes. Now, you mentioned again, four groups with the exclusion of others. I wonder why you don't mention other groups and their names? Do you? Do you think they are not terrorists? People who are actually killing innocent women and children in Iraq, and in Syria? Do you think they're not terrorists?
Aleppo is being bombed right now the civilians are being bombed? Or do you don't don't? Don't you think they are terrorists, people who are involved in that bombing in that campaign? Don't you think they are actually terrorists? You know, over a million close to a million people have died in Syria, and many millions have been displaced. And who are these people? Who are these people? They are on a certain level Jamal, and the people who are driving them out killing them bombing them from the skies, or they're not terrorists. I wonder what your view is on that point. With regards to not discussing or scrutinizing our sources, or critically engaging with our sources you have no idea Dr.
Amar. You have no idea either you are ignorant or you are lying. I am sure you're not lying. Because you have studied right. You have a PhD doctorate in history of Islam. I am sure you know what critical engagement means. Okay, our magazine. Our scholars for the last 14 centuries have been every single day.
critically examining their sources, they are the ones telling you what is authentic, what is not. They are the ones who are who are telling you what happened with Ali. What happened with Amr what happened with Abu Bakar? What happened with of man? What happened with manomaya? What happened with barabas? What happened with others? They are the ones who have documented all of this for us. They are the ones who have authenticated this information for us. They're the ones who are asking us to critically engage, engage, no one is stopping anyone. We all critically engage, do you want to critically engage in public? So here's the challenge. Dr. Mr. Matt Shivani comm and critically
engage in public with us in a discussion and we will see whether you are actually honestly truly engaging our sources critically, critically enough to be objective. next clip, please. Are we able to critically engage our own literature to see whether there is a terrorist on the link whether there is an actually terrorist teachings within our own literature? Whether when the Prophet Mohammed died, there was actually a movement of people who burn a movement of people who massacre movements or people who actually want to destroy? Because you will find that either and ISIS and Boko Haram and Shabaab, all of them say one thing that we want to return to the ideal world of the
Salah? Yes. Okay, all of them. They say they want to return to the ideal world of the sort of, shall we go back to the ideal world of the self. Let's see whether the claims of Boko Haram ISIS, Al Qaeda and others you mentioned are actually in line with the earliest generations and the teachings, right. Do you want to see that? So we know we all agree that these groups kill innocent people indiscriminately? Is that true? It is true. You would agree with me Dr. Omar, I am sure you would agree with me. So let's go to the earliest teachings of our Prophet sallallahu Sallam transmitted by his companions. So in Buhari, we see the progress on the lights on them walking in a battlefield.
And he saw a woman who was killed, and he specifically stated Salallahu alaihe salam Do not kill women and children even in war. It doesn't stop there. We go to Mata of Imam Malik Mata of Imam Malik which you have deliberately ignored I am sure you know who Mr. Malik is I am sure you know who wrote the Mata of Imam Malik, I am sure you are aware of reports there in and we go to the book of jihad Kitab al jihad, the book of fighting, okay, the book of war, if you want to call it that. And there are rules of engagement, and who amazingly gives these rules of engagement. It is none other than Abu Bakar the one you call a terrorist in this very video. Amazingly, you are accusing a man of
instigating terrorism or groups like ISIS, Al Qaeda and Boko Haram and Shabaab. You're accusing abubaker of being the main inspiration in this video. Let's see what Abu Bakar had to say. in wartime and Malik in one of our most authentic sources. We have reporting Kitab al jihad, where Abu Bakr radi Allahu Allah commanded one of his generals who was he jazzy demeanor be soufiane Okay, I'm sure I know you don't have any love for us. He'd been a bit of fun. This is not used to be mafia. By the way. This is used to be a piece of yarn. Okay. So he was one of the generals. So what instructions did Abu Bakar give him? What instructions they go as follows? When you go to war, Abu
Bakar told us he'd been a whistle fan. Do not kill women. Do not kill children. Do not kill old men. Do not cut trees that are fruitful. Do not destroy crops. Do not demolish buildings. Do not kill monks in the monasteries do not. Are you listening Dr. Amar do not burn beehives do not burn beehives and do not betray and do not be cowardly. These are some of the instructions given by Abu Bakar to his general yazeed bin Abu Sufyan and this is what the scholars of Islam use to condemn all forms of terrorism on the planet. This is why when we go to the commentaries of Surah Baqarah, for example, all commentators unanimously from the School of Assam navall, JAMA, they, when they're
commenting, when they are commenting on verses 190 292 of Surah Baqarah surah two chapter two of the Quran, verse 190 191, and 192. When they comment on these verses about self defense, they state explaining the words of Allah
Voila do do not transgress limits, do not be extreme. So when you are attacked, defend yourselves as the Quran says, and do not go to extremes Do not be extreme. So, when the scholars are commenting on the word extreme, what is extreme, they bring in this report on multimer Malik and report a consists of instructions given by Abu Bakar of the law one to one of his generals. So, having seen the report and multiman Malik, which is very, very clear, it comes from abubaker, which clearly documents your behavior, how are you to behave in conflict? Do Boko Haram ISIS, Al Qaeda and Shabaab and others follow these instructions? They don't? These instructions are so categorical to the follow them. So
how can you actually link these groups with the earliest generation of Islam? The first three generations of Islam? How can you link these people with them? When you know these teachings are there and you deliberately do not put them out? Either you do not know that these teachings are there? Or you are deliberately hiding them? Which one is a doctor? Mr. So we will go to the next clip and see what's coming next. a selfie is someone who believes that the greatest periods in the religion of Islam history was the period of the Prophet, peace be upon him his family, the companions and watch and the pious predecessors, the generations that followed them. In Arabic We
call it the period of what the prophet Sahaba etc in and it's a barbarian.
Indeed, as Salafis we are supposed to be following the earliest generations of Islam because the Prophet himself salatu salam taught us to do so the Prophet tells us in an authentic report highroad nasya corny Samba la Vina yo Luna home Samba la Vina your Luna home, that the best generation is my generation, and the one that comes after and the one that comes after. So these are the three first
generations after the Prophet salallahu alaihe salam and we are taught by the prophet to follow them. So we are following the Prophet sallallahu sallam. So as Salafis, we are very proud to follow these regenerations and the teachings and we do not find anything wrong with the teachings, the teachings are great, the teachings are noble. And there were some of the best people to walk the planet because of the noble characters. And we put the exceptions aside because we do not follow exceptions. We follow the norm of that time, the norm of that time. were people who taught religion, people who practiced it, okay, you will point out many, many problems from the early time, for
example, several wars, there were disturbances, there were differences. We don't look at these things for inspiration. We look at them as mistakes as errors. So we don't follow them. We don't focus on them. We focus on the good teachings of the Prophet sallallaahu salam delivered to us by these early generations. So that's why we follow them proudly, and they teachings are great. So we go to the next clip. We must be willing to engage our own literature to see where did this radicalism and ISIS begin? Someone comes to me and says it began with Mohammed bin Abdul Wahab No. Hamad bin Abdullah was only a couple of 100 years ago. Can it be gone with him? Someone came to me
and said Eben tanea. No, been
a good few 100 years back. Someone comes and tells me someone like me AML Josie Yeah, yes, no. Someone comes and tells me that the roots of terrorism and Islam began with the Hawaii bridge. No, all of these are being used to cover the original terrorists in this religion, and you are trying to claim or you are insinuating that those original terrorists are the earliest companions of the Prophet sallallahu sallam, do you not see what you're doing? You're actually condemning the Prophet himself. salatu salam, they were following the teachings of the Prophet and they are they were very categorical in their condemnation of killing of innocent people. Hi, I have already given evidence
that the Prophet firstly the Koran teaches, do not kill innocent people. Do not even kill one person killing one innocent human being is like killing the entire entirety of humanity. Have you seen these verses in the Quran Chapter Five. Then the Prophet explained, that do not even in conflict, even in Congo, even when you are attacked, do not kill women, children and innocent people write even when you're attacked, right? And then the companions of the Prophet sallallahu Sallam people like Omar, people like abubaker they thought exactly the same things. So how can you equate
This later fitna called terrorism with what they were teaching in the beginning, there is no correlation. There is no link between the two. You are trying to forge a link. You're trying to impose a link in the minds of your audiences. I feel sorry for the people who listen to you, by Allah Dr. Amar, I don't mean any harm to come from this video. I am sympathetic towards people who listen to you. I actually sympathize with them. I sympathize with people who listen to you and follow you. And this video is for them primarily not for Dr. Amar, Dr. Amar can take benefit he can accept a challenge of a debate of a discussion of a dialogue if he wants, but I am talking to his
followers. Do you actually believe that the source of recent terrorism can be found in the early generations of Islam when the teachings are categorical? I've already given you evidence that they condemned categorically condemned any form of the killing of innocent people. So how can you equate them with those early generations? Dr. Ahmad has a very, very, very strange view of history, a very biased, a very narrow view of history, he has completely ignored some of our authentic forces. I'm the one who has to see our brothers and our sisters in Iraq getting butchered. Our brothers and our sisters in Syria getting butchered. Our brothers and our sisters in quota and production are getting
butchered our brothers and our sisters imprisoned in Bahrain with no one to speak for them. And all because of what because of a school that claims that has nothing to do with terrorism when it was built on terrorists. Yes. And I condemn all of these atrocities taking place against the Shia people in Pakistan, pushing against the Shia people, anywhere in the world, Iraq, Lebanon, wherever the Shia people are. I condemn any indiscriminate violence against them. I condemn all of that we condemn, our scholars have condemned. So when you say our brothers are being killed in Syria, our brothers are killed in Iraq. Our brothers are killed in production are I agree with you? A lot of
these atrocities have to be condemned. They must be condemned. But what about your own brothers, Muslim Brothers
being killed in Syria on the other side? Do you not talk about them? Why don't you see what's happening in Aleppo? Why don't you see what's happening in Syria? Why don't you see what's happening in Iraq in so many villages? Why don't you see what's happening in Yemen? Do you not see what's happening there? So can you condemn all those atrocities too? Can you please Dr. Amar,
next clip, please. When the Jordanian pilot was burned, which people started the act of going around burning anyone who oppose them? And how did their movement begin the method of executions, beheadings and burnings? Okay? That's a very good point. How did this tradition come into Islam from authentic reports? We know the first person to do that, in the history of Islam was Alabama with Pilate, we have authentic reports, in your literature in and in our literature, we have a precedent in the Bible. Now there are verses in the Bible, that state that prescribed burning as a punishment for certain crimes. So in the book of Leviticus, chapter 20, and 21, we find these verses punishing
people with fire are burning them with fire. This was in the Bible. And that's why throughout the Christian history, we see witch burning, okay, because it's in the Word of God. It is.
Wisdom. As far as some Christians were concerned in the past, of course, things have changed. Now, Christians have abandoned that way of punishing criminals, whoever was seen as criminals at that time. They have abandoned that method of punishment. But it was there it was used throughout the Middle Ages. Even in the early modern period, in Europe, and in other places, who witches were being burnt at stake, heretics were being burned at stake. And hundreds of 1000s of people were burned from the year 1450 to 1750. In fact, the last which to be burned alive in Scotland, was in 1726. He was burnt alive in 1726, and the last wish to be burned alive in Europe. It happened in the year
1782 in Geneva out of all places, so which burning heretic burning had taken place in Europe for centuries, because they could find a precedent in the Bible. In the Bible. There are verses in the book of Leviticus chapter 20 and 21. That prescribed burning as a punishment. Now, the question is, why do we not find that pattern in the history of Islam
Okay, you are trying to argue that in the early period of Islam, a precedent was set. And then I certainly woke up to that precedent. And ISIS is now using that precedent. Firstly, there is no precedent in the early history of Islam, you're wrong, you are plainly wrong, as I will clarify, in due course. Secondly, ISIS is not the only one doing burning. There are others who are burning, but you cannot see them. You cannot see them. And in this clip, you will see that there is this man called abou Israel, a very, very famous character in Iraq. He's a hero in Iraq. And you will see in the clip that follows how he is recovered in Iraq as a hero. He can be seen in this clip, burning
an ISIS soldier, okay, he's burning an ISIS soldier and not only burning him, he is cutting him like schwannoma you know, how do you cut shwarma how you cut meat from shwarma or cut kebabs. He is using a sword to cut this man not only burning him, he's cutting him like kebab and he's taunting ISIS.
So what is the difference between this man an ISIS and he's a hero in Iraq. So the clip you will see that follows. You will see how big a character he is and how big a celebrity he is. Can you not see him? Can you not?
See what he's doing? And have you got anything to say on that? Whenever he steps out of his car, it only takes seconds before people crowd around otherwise rain. These big daddies all want their picture with the man who many see as a national hero.
I'm ready to do anything for him anything. I swear.
You're everything to me.
People worship up was right. The Shiites coalition is the most renowned fighter in Iraq. Abu Azrael is a regular this gym, he comes to work out, but more importantly, to meet up with his brothers and arms.
The atmosphere is light hearted. Yet these bodybuilders all belong to a Shiite medicine group backed by Iran.
We belong to the Mr. Maliki Brigade, been training in Lebanon with Hezbollah, and in the Islamic Republic of Iran. This training has been going on for a long time. We've been practicing for years on the streets of Iraq. So in this clip, you saw how popular our boy Israel is for his deeds against ISIS. And he is seen as a hero. He's a celebrity is walking around in the streets of Baghdad in Iraq, and he's being hailed as a hero. And he is burning people alive and he's not only burning them, he's cutting Allah kebabs. So Dr. Amarna Shivani Do you have anything to say on a hero? Like hero like Abu Israel? Can you not see what he's doing? You are crying about ISIS burning a pilot
rightly so no doubt we agree with you on that. But can you not see what's happening otherwise? And in this clip, which will follow right now, you can see another burning done by militias in Iraq and another ISIS soldier is being burned alive, not my words, he is being burned alive in this clip, as you can see, and it was well documented reported by global media.
Can you not see what these people are doing on the other side? Who is the inspiration? Is it aboubaker? Are you going to tell me now aboubaker inspired these people? Okay, fine. You arguing? ISIS is burning, because there is a precedent in the actions of Abu Bakar which which it is not, as we will see in due course. But who is inspiring these people, people like Abu Israel and other militias burning ISIS soldiers alive. Is it Abu Bakar inspiring them? are they following Abu Bakar? Is that what you want to argue? Or are they following some precedent that can be found in your books? I can argue the same way. But I don't believe that. I don't believe that Dr. Amar. I'm not
going to do what you
are doing with our sources and your sources. I am not going to accuse you of having a precedent in your actions or in your predecessors or in your books. That's why these people are burning people alive in Iraq. Okay, I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to pull these cheap shots on you. Because I know better. I know, decent. Shia listeners out there disagree with this, they disagree with this behavior. This is why I want the decent people from both sides to come forward and have a discussion, have a dialogue, overcome these extremely devastating sectarian divides and come together as human brothers and sisters. If not brothers and sisters in faith, at least we can
acknowledge that we are humans. And we can come together to overcome our troubles and condemned terrorism from all sides, whether it's ISIS or other Iraqi militias doing the same thing there. They are no different. As you have seen the evidence, they are no different as far as as far as I'm concerned, they are committing atrocities and these people are committing atrocities. So we need to condemn them both equally and not have double standards with regards to precedent on abubaker whether Abu Bakar does something like this or not? We will see due course when you will talk about aboubaker we will address this point. next clip please. Whether generations of the companions of the
Prophet who also harmed his own family and continue this terrorism. No, there were no such incidents, you are being very dishonest. If you want to talk about history properly objectively. This is why Dr. Amar, we invite you to a public discussion where we can actually challenge these views and show your audience how misrepresenting you are as far as our sources of concern. You know, you are very, very unfortunately dishonest about this. There were no companions, the professor lice alum who wanted to harm the debate, there were no companions, I am saying categorically there is not one companion who truly believed in the Prophet sallallahu Sallam
who wanted to do harm to RL but in fact, Arnold bate clearly worked with the companions of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu sallam. When you are condemning people like Abu Bakar. When you're condemning people like Omar, what you don't realize is that Ali bin Abi taalib was actually working with them. Okay. There are many more examples I will share in due course. So you are completely misrepresenting history and our sources and your sources, because there is no evidence where the companions of the Prophet salallahu Salam companions directly hurt the ahlulbayt you cannot bring the examples of the Battle of Jamal or Battle of Safina and when Hassan only allowed and gave his
khilafah to Mahavira de la Juan. And this in itself is a question as to why would huson give
khilafah to a man like more of your of your loved one as you claim in the talk later on, that such a man How can Omar trust him? The question is how can how can trust him to give khilafah into his hand? Okay, we will talk about these things in due course, I want you to highlight that there is no evidence as to
the suggestion you have made that there are people among the Companion of the among among the companions of the Prophet Muhammad Ali Bey. This is a lie we categorically denied it is not there. And if you want to have a discussion on this, we invite you to have a public discussion in front of everyone recorded on camera and put out for the public to watch. We invite you to such a discussion. And the purpose of this discussion wouldn't be to escalate sectarian divide between the Shia and the Sunni thought, No, that's not the purpose. The purpose is to bring us closer as humans so that we can appreciate each other. Our purpose or my purpose is not to refute a particular school out there.
My purpose of making this video is to defend the honor of the companions of the Prophet sallallahu sallam, I was compelled to make this video to defend the honor of Abu Bakar the honor of armor and the honor of Alabama methodic. They honor collectively, which you are attacking unfortunately, in this video. So this is the purpose of making this video. My purpose is not to attack your school or your people. In fact, I have sympathy, compassion and love for the people of the Shia school of thought I am inviting them with humbleness with humility, with compassion and love to come and have a discussion or Dr. Amar, if you want to have a discussion, please have a discussion with us an open
friendly, compassionate discussion so that we can come to conclusions. next clip please. Let's discuss as an Yamini when I see the wife of the Holy Prophet and the son in law, the holy prophets are in a civil war with each other. Let's discuss it as an I'm not saying to you that you have to take sides let's discuss no
stay silent on this area. Allah knows best. Okay? When I see the Son in law, the Prophet and the Khalifa and also have young children fighting him, let's discuss, let's see no, from a young age inculcated is the epistemological theory that you cannot discuss history. Yes, Salahuddin you can discuss there's no harm. Yes, you want to discuss further ideas you can discuss. You want to discuss it.
There is no harm, but you want to discuss the first generation you can't. Why? If it's the golden generation, it's the generation made up of wonderful personalities, then what's wrong? It's something I would be proud of. I want to see the men who walked alongside the Prophet Mohammed who met him who talked to him I want to discuss their lives. No, you're not allowed. No, we are allowed we do discuss them. They are discussed. These topics are actually discussed in our books. Bukhari Muslim, Timothy Marja and Si,
Muslim 100 reports are they're probably all the love of the debate for the companions, and vice versa is there and all the disagreements are there? How do we know about these disagreements? Otherwise, we know about them because they are well documented, and our children are encouraged to read read them. What we do not allow our children to do is to curse to insult. This is what you mean, I think by Let's not discuss, if you want to curse the companions of the Prophet sallallahu sallam, of course we wouldn't I wouldn't allow our children to insult the best people to walk the planet. I wouldn't allow my child to insult anyone on the street, let alone someone like the
companions of the Prophet sallallahu sallam. This is what we don't allow. We do not allow our children to curse some of the greatest people on the planet. But do we allow them to study do we teach them? Do we encourage them to learn about the companions of the Prophet sallallahu Sallam? Of course we do. How do I know this? All our books from the day one to the day last, pick up all the hobbies literature, pick up all the books of history whether it's poverty, whether it's you know, coffee or whether it's even a call don't whether whether it's the history of empathy or whether it's the history of all the other historians of Islam till this day up to this day even the histories of
a Salah be very popular among Muslims nowadays go and pick them up and read he has written a volume on Alibaba Vitaly, he has written over volume on hasn't been Ali, okay. There are volumes written on the Arabic you cannot see them. You are for some reason blind to this literature and these discussions, we discuss these things in our mosques in our gatherings, go on YouTube and put the word Karbala you will see lectures by people lectures by by people like yasir Qadhi, you will see lectures by myself, you will see lectures by other people on the issues of debate and the early history of Islam and what happened and where the disagreements came in. And what was the outcome was
the result. So you are being very dishonest to your audience, you are actually lying to your audience about what we do and what we do not. So Dr. Amar again, to highlight the point come in public and have a discussion. So this is a discussion between you and myself. Okay? I am a Salafi. You are openly challenging selfies and you're accusing me of selfies of being like ISIS, we are not. We are the first people who who condemned people like that any terrorism on the planet. We have condemned it. Okay, so I'm Salafi. I'm a debater, I will have a discussion with you. I am inviting you to a discussion and open discussion so that we can show you and your audience that we do not shy
away from these discussions. Are you willing to come and discuss openly is the question let's see what happens in due course. next clip, please. That person when he's in a school that doesn't allow him to discuss the first 60 years of the religion of Islam, not the first 100 not the first 300 not the first 1000 the first 60 years of the religion of Islam not allowed to discuss it. That person when you therefore mentioned something to them, they look at you and they're like, Are you serious? You're like, Yes. Have you read these books? says no, we weren't allowed to go far to drama. The molana would rant about slept for about an hour. He'd say that Bokhari said this Muslim said this
Bukhari said this Muslim said this okay. molana Why don't you discuss with me molana what's happened to Jamal and Sabine and Cara Bella, what's happened in the riddle was after the Prophet died, why what people for example, let's act on this occasion. No, no, that's an area we can discuss. Again to correct you Dr. Amar, we can discuss we have discussed these topics, we discuss them every Muharram we discuss these topics. Why? Because there is a lot of activity in the month of Muharram. And that's why we discuss these topics, the issue issues regarding our debate, therefore the elder virtues and how
chandogya Lahore on what barbarically killed by a bunch of hypocrites we discuss these things I am the one telling you now on camera that we believe people who killed Hussein radi Allahu and whether they were the people of Kufa whether it was shimmer, whether it was always a little bit Zod or even Jay Z, who was if he was directly responsible if he was directly responsible, we condemn them all. They were a bunch of hypocrites, right? Anyone I'm saying anyone directly or indirectly responsible for the murder of Hossein rhodiola, who is a hypocrite? I am saying to you, okay, now, you accuse us of not discussing these topics we do. Of course we do but you cannot see it. What we don't do
however is discuss them throughout the year. This is something you may be doing in your yard, in your places of worship, where you have your audiences and all you talk about is the Battle of GMO. All you talk about is the Battle of Safina all you talk about, is the Battle of marijuana or the Battle of Karbala. And we what we do is we discuss all of these things and other things in Islam. So your caricature picture of a molana only talking about fake and Buhari said this Buhari said that in the mosque is actually not quite accurate. I would like you to go around in London in the City of London go to different mosques and see the kind of topics we are discussing. In mosques. We are
talking talking about different discussions, different topics affecting our society at large. So there are a number of issues we discuss when the time is right for them. Okay, so please stop accusing our mosques, our Imams, our scholars of not discussing issues like the lives of other debate or the early history of Islam or even the first 60 years of Islam. We have documented histories on these topics, students of knowledge, actually study them. So if you go to a Sunni person on the street and ask him Do you know what happened in Karbala you may not know because he hadn't studied okay, but if he listens to a lecture, he may have some idea every single Sunday on
the planet knows that Hussain Radhika Lohan was killed in the Battle of Karbala and you will not find one person unless he is insane unless he's insane. You will not find one person who agrees with what happened in Karbala. rather he will condemn
those who killed Hussein or your loved one on the grand son of the Prophet sallallahu Sallam Jordanian pilot gets burnt. We all agree he got burnt. Where would people get such precedents from about burning? Were from the hawara at Nara one to get the courage. They came much later. Where would you get a precedent about beheadings? Where would you get a precedent about assassinations? Where would these come from? You would find they came from the very day the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him and his family died. Right so you are now suggesting that the only source of inspiration for terrorists is the prophet SAW the light of Solomon's companions earliest companions that will
walk out on earth man. So you are now suggesting that the Sicilian Mafia got these other ideas of assassinations and spraying people in streets from Abu Bakar for example, or you are now suggesting that Mexican drug cartels got their methods of killing from the companions of the Prophet sallallahu sallam. Now you may be suggesting that other death squads functioning around the world killing innocent people have got the ideas from the companions of the Prophet sallallahu sallam.
You see how absurd all this seems, you see how absurd it sounds. You are putting all the blame on the companions of the Prophet sallallahu Sallam because this is how you see them. I don't blame you because you see, or you look at them
through a dirty lens, the lens is already corrupted, it is already
you know dirty. So when you look through a dirty lens to someone else, or at someone else, you will see dirt all you will see is dirt. So you need to clean the lens. You need to start objectively and start looking at some of their teachings like earlier mentioned that Abubakar de Lago and condemned
the killing of any How did he condemned by teaching otherwise, he said when you go to conflict zone, do not do these 10 things and we mentioned them right. So we will keep coming back to you with that report. And similar reports from other companions, the profits or loss of them. So what is the Treaty of carbon copy of the law on the Treaty, which was agreed upon between Amr and the Christians of Jerusalem? Have you read the document? Have you seen the terms of the treaty, the lies the property, the cross, and the religion of Christians is under the protection of a lion is messenger and no harm shall come to them. They are
Free to practice their religion. They are free to do what they want. And there was so much peace throughout the world after the companions of the Prophet sallahu wa salam took this land. Have you seen the Treaty of Damascus, which was struck between Khalid bin Walid or the the leaders of American Qatar were sent
to take the city of Damascus. Have you seen the Treaty of Damascus? Have you seen the Treaty of Spain between Abdul Aziz bin Musab Nasir and one of the kings of Spain? Have you seen that treaty? Have you seen the Treaty of Iran? So the behavior of the Prophet sallallahu sallam, and the behavior of
the first companions of the Prophet Allah from the earliest companions, and later generations is consistent, they treated others with utmost tolerance, and justice. This is what we see in the history of Islam. I've actually written a document on this very topic, Islam was one of the best things that happened to humanity. If you don't believe me, go and pick up a book written by Professor Thomas Arnold. It is titled the preaching of Islam. In this book, the preaching of Islam, you will find a lot of this evidence I just mentioned and more and Christian and Jewish testimonies as to what they felt when they were put under the protection of Islam, Allahu Akbar, Thomas honored
argues that some of the minor Christian sects, which existed in Syria, which existed in Syria, such as nestorians, Jacobites, monophysites, and Orthodox Christians living in Syria and Egypt, they only survived because the Muslims came and protected them. This is what Thomas Arnold is saying in his book, it is called the preaching of Islam, I invite you to go and read it, and you will see a completely other view of history, unlike yours. So Dr. Amar, please stop seeing black or stop seeing darkness in the history of Islam. Because you have now put on a lens used by Fox News, NBC, people like Robert Spencer, and all the other islamophobes on the planet, you have not put on that lens,
and all you will see is evil because you want to see evil. You don't want to see anything good. So we will go to the next clip and see what you have to say there. What's happened after the Prophet Mohammed died is fundamental. Why? Because it's a root of terror, which we see in Islam until today. Firstly, the ruling authority, the California time, decides what the California time decides that he's going to send out his henchmen. his henchmen Who are they? They are a group of people who a few years earlier had been the biggest enemies of the religion of Islam. People like Khalid al Walid Maria Robyn shaba. These originally were thugs who were enemies of this religion, they had a hatred
for the Prophet peace be upon him and his family. Some of them converted towards the religion of Islam as in some of them came towards what they were freed on the day of Mecca. And they will now the henchmen for the first time I repeat, most of this will not be told to our brothers, and for them this sometimes comes as a shock. Most of this won't be told to our brothers because this is not true. What you're saying is not true. They were thugs. They were henchmen. And these this language will not be taught in our circles because we do not agree with this language. We don't accept this language for people I call it the religion Madeira beach. Oh, and by the way, that did not come to
Islam. After the conquest of Makkah. Both of these individuals came to Islam. Before the conquest of Makkah. Movie Robin Sharma came to Islam after the Battle of conduct, and Khalid bin when it came to Islam in the year seven after the Battle of hiber. So you are actually mistaken Madeira beach raba and Hollywood really did not come to Islam after the conquest of Makkah. To the contrary, Khalid bin Walid actually fought Nkrumah, the son of Abuja Hall
at
Mecca, and this was the only battle that took place on the day because the rest of the city or everything else was peaceful. There was a skirmish between Khalid bin Volleyed and Nkrumah bin Abidjan, and Khalid was fighting on the part of the province of the Muslim on the side of the Prophet sallallahu sallam. So how can you say that these people came to Islam after the conquest of Makkah? I don't know what you're talking about. So they are not thugs. They're not henchmen. And if you say that these are the people who are henchmen of Abu Bakar What do you have to say for Alabama? Vitaly radi Allahu Allah subhanaw taala was working with Abu Bakar not only for him with him, I live
in la palabra de la who was given
spoils of war from the Battle of yamamah. I am sure you are aware of a son of alumina Vitaly called Muhammad, bin hanafy. Mohammed bin Hannah Thea, Mohammed, the son of Hannah Thea, where did Hanafi come from is the question and a fear came from the tribe.
of Bhanu hanifa. It is this very tribe, which fought against the Sahaba because they were backing a false prophet called Mozilla Alka dub. So Mozilla Malka dub had the backing of Bono hanifa. And one of the capitals of this particular battle the Battle of your mama was Hannah fear the mother of hammered the son of alumina without him. So why would Ali accept spoils from a war which is illegal, as you already claimed in this video, that this war was waged by a terrorist call Abu Bakar. If a worker is a terrorist, people working for him willingly working for him, and not only that, accepting, accepting spoils from his incursions and his expeditions,
are they not terrorist is alumina, Vitaly rosabella from out of Belarus, I don't believe this. I'm only giving you giving you a response to your erroneous claims is eliminated by that standard, not a terrorist for working for a terrorist and accepting spoils from a terrorist establishment and being part of a terrorist establishment. You may come up with arguments now Ali was much bored Ali was forced Ali wants you to do good for Islam. Ali wanted to do favors to Muslims. He didn't want to cause fitna he was, and you may have may come up with many reasons as to why he did what he did or he was doing Takia some people are crazy enough to come up with that argument as well. The point is
how did Ali's action benefit Islam if aboubaker remain the case if Omar remained the Calif man remainder Calif. And then the outcome of these caliphates was, in your view devastating for the history of Islam? How did do you have more wisdom than Ali? Did Ali not know what he was doing? So I live in a metallic willingly, lovingly, compassionately worked with his brothers to spread peace and justice in the land. This is exactly what aboubaker was doing. This is exactly what Omar was doing. And Ali, amazingly, worked for the second biggest terrorist in your eyes on Marvin Katara de la when I was mildly Bella, I'm sorry that I have used these terms because you're using them. Right. So to
you Amr was one of the biggest terrorists in the history of Islam. But Omar appointed Ali as his deputy when he went to Jerusalem, to strike a deal with them of surrender. So when the city of Jerusalem was surrendering, they requested that they want to see the ruler of Muslims. So Omar went to Jerusalem, to agree to terms already mentioned the Treaty of Jerusalem. Who did he appoint in his place, as his deputy, it was Ali benefit. Why did Ali accept this post from a terrorist? Why? Now you may come up the reasons against that Ali? Ali was much more he was forced. He didn't know what to do. He was very weak. If Gandhi for example, you know, Gandhi, if he can reject provisions from
the British Empire, being in prison, someone like Gandhi, Gandhi, you know, is not a Muslim. He was a non Muslim. He was a man of principles. He went offered things from the British Empire he rejected them he said I don't want to provisions I don't want your offers I don't want your
your money and land and whatever they had to offer. Gandhi rejected and then he chose prison over it. Are you telling me I live in a Talib is
less than Gandhi. He is less wise, less brave, less
upright than Gandhi aldub in Lhasa Moussa Bella, so you see what your conclusions lead to what your claims lead to. I live in a Vitaly was working with Marvin Khattab, willingly happily supporting him as his leader. Your view is wrong. Not only that, Ali Baba Talib gave his daughter to Omar bin Khattab in marriage. So some people of course deny this fact which is well attested in both sides of the literature. It is in Dr. Mr.
Your books it is in your books. And it is in our books that are live in a bit Talib gave his daughter omocha thumb to honorable hottub in marriage. It is well attested and some of your scholars Dr. Amar argue that Allah was forced to give his daughter to Omar he was not happy about it. He was forced, others completely denied. They say oh, this match never happened. It never took place. Which is of course absurd. Historically, it is well tested in your books. And in our books. My question is Dr. Omar was Ali so weak that he gave his daughter in marriage to the biggest terrorist on the planet as you claim to be lots of miles Bella. I I asked for a last refuge ally for even mentioning
these words. You
We're talking about some of the best people who walk the planet with some of the best principles on the planet
was Ali rhodiola who unforced Okay, would you give your daughter? Would you give Dr. Amar Shivani would you give your daughter in marriage to Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi? That's the question. Would you give your daughter? Would any of your imams give their daughters to Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi, even when they were forced, even when they were forced?
upon a lie? I'm sure the answer is no. The answer is no. If the answer is no for you, was Ali weaker than you was only weaker than you. So upon Allah, may Allah guide you Dr. Ahmad Not only that, in the time of man, man it was man was besieged from the law. And, again, this factor is well documented in both sides of the history. In both sides of the history of man was guarded, protected by Alabama with Khalid Ali put two of his sons, two of his most beloved sons, Hassan and Hussein at the door of was man. And he instructed them to make sure that no one enters to harm of man. And the day with man was killed. There was a skirmish at the door. And Hassan rhodiola one was struck on the
head he was injured defending us, man. So it was man was a terrorist like a worker and Omar, then why would Hassan and Hussein both stand at his door defending and protecting him? If he was a terrorist, it could have kept his sons at home. And he would have said to the rebels go and kill this terrorist. But Ali to the contrary, put his sons to God, this terrorist I would have been lost somehow Isabella, these are some of the questions we would like to discuss with you in a public discussion. Please, Dr. Amar, do not send a video of my way because videos don't respond. videos don't respond. I am responding to your points so that you accept our humble invitation to our
discussion in public. Have a dialogue of a debate have a friendly discussion, over dinner over tea, which is filmed for the rest of the world to see. Let's see if you accept this discard this this invitation or not. next clip please. You know where he leads myleague vinuela companion Rasul Allah, peace romanzo Malik bin Noah was the tax collector for Benny hamdulillah. Malik was from many of the Tamim tribe. Yes. Between the niche and the Bahrain area. Mali Casa Sahabi of the Prophet peace be upon him and his family. This person used to collect taxes on behalf of the Prophet peace be upon him and his family. You imagine if a school of law asks you to collect taxes, how highly does he
value you? Do you agree? As and he trusts you that you're a tax collector, you will take this account of the people you will not be unjust. He sends him whom Abubakar sends Khalid al Walid, with 4000 soldiers. And that's why many people will say to me, that if Alabama had 100,000 people who knew that he was chosen on the day of the idea what's happened to some of his people? Well, you know what's happened? Those who rejected Abu Bakar and that movement were beheaded. Anyone who did not believe that Abu Bakar was the Calif Oh, who made a stand publicly? Why the banished, or they were beheaded comes from Alec Benoit.
comes from Alec binoy era. Malik was known for his hospitality, a wonderful man he used to have the chimney the smoke coming out of the chimney, anyone who had no food would come into his house and eat. You found that he comes to him. He says pay your car to the Khalif of the time. And by the way, if you want to go and read all of these that I'm telling you, I'll give you the references you can go and read them. It's not in our literature. You can read them in the literature of others. So Dr. Amar, you have mentioned Maalik dinnerware and how hard it been volleys rhodiola. who and who you think was a thug cosabella Madhubala sent by the biggest terrorist on the planet abubaker outwell.
Lhasa Moussa Bella, using your words to kill Malik burnaware so Malik Bina, where are you think was a very generous man who was a very trustworthy man? Why would the Prophet sallallahu Sallam choose him if he was not trustworthy? This is the same question I asked about mafia, mafia rhodiola, who was chosen as a cotton as a writer of the ye as a as a scribe of the Quran? Why would Rasulullah sallallahu Sallam appoint him as a scribe if he was not trustworthy? Okay, if you You're the one who used this argument that Moloch was chosen
because he was trustworthy, to collect taxes, which is more important collecting taxes, or writing the way the Quran itself which one is more important. Now you decide whether you want to be consistent with that particular argument. You use that rule of law, some children will
Because he was trustworthy, and why would probably choose him? We argue the same way from the logo on why would the professionalism choose him as the scribe or why, and if you were to bring up the case of Abdullah Bin Saud bin avisar, who had,
who had who had written the way, and then later on, went back and then came back into Islam. Well, he actually supports our case, because he did come back to Islam, and he became one of the biggest servants of Islam later on in Egypt, as we know from his services. Okay, so we use this argument for your argument. With regards to aboubaker, executing anyone who didn't agree with him or didn't listen to him, I didn't follow Him, you are absolutely wrong on this point, as well. Abu Bakar did not execute anyone for not accepting it is khilafah. These words you are talking about what we call horrible renda, or the ward or apostasy or raised because these people were rebelling, they were
threatening the Muslims in Medina, they were actually threatening the Muslims of the era. That's why the the the armies were sent out to protect preemptively to protect the Muslims. So these wars were called horrible read, and you know, you're an academic,
you know, how academics have written on horrible rinda why they were conducted, why people were sent out go and read the works of Montgomery wat, or people like
Howard Johnston, you know, has written recently for the Oxford University.
And there are other scholars who have written extensively on this very, very question as to why horrible render took place in the first place. Right. So you are actually misrepresenting the history of Islam again, claiming that Abu Bakr sent these people out because people refuse to accept him as a leader. What about Alabama with polyp, according to your view, and I report in Sahil Bukhari, in our books, I live in a bit Olive did not give his buyer for six months to a broker, and you always raised this point, you have made a big deal out of this point occasionally, right that Ali did not give his buyer to broker for six months. Why that? Why is that the case? So what was
abubaker waiting for? Ali did not give his bio, he did not pledges allegiance to Abu Bakar for six months as you claim, as you claim, what was abubaker waiting for? Why did Abu Bakar not execute them? And you already believe that Ali was suppressed, oppressed, he was much more he didn't know what to do, or he was trying to do favors to Islam. He was silent because he had a bigger agenda. You claim all these things, right? But why was he left alone for six months? If it was so easy to threaten? ahlulbayt it was so easy for Abu Bakar to send armies out and behead people execute people. Why did he not execute Ali for not giving his pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakar for six
months? This is a question you have to answer. And I hope you can answer this question. So this story you have made up about Mario Malik munawwara By the way, Malik munawwara. According to your literature chef Mofeed shepherd's pie is one of the greatest historians and in your school of thought he has documented him among apostates By the way, go and read your own literature and come back and talk to me in sha Allah tala about this in future when we have a discussion in person. And this is why I'm inviting you again and again to have a discussion so that we can talk about these things, share ideas and challenge each other's views in public in a friendly setting in a
compassionate setting. Not nothing hostile. I don't want to be hostile to you. You shouldn't be hostile to me. We can sit as human brothers we come from Adam, both of us. We descend from other Malays alone, we both believe that less, let's sit as children of Adam as human brothers and talk to each other, talk to each other and resolve these issues, instead of trying things here and there and accusing people of all kinds of things. So the question is, why would aboubaker not execute early if he was sending people out to execute others?
For not submitting to his philosophy? These are the question we should discuss.
We'll go to the next clip and see what you have to say there. He sends salad with photos and then it comes to money give you as the catch Ababa car. I don't believe I'll
give you a socket. I don't believe Abubakar shows. I don't believe in that election. Yes. I believe that Alibaba was announced on the day of guided by the Holy Prophet peace be upon him and his family. Also, you're rejecting what we're doing? Yes, we're rejecting sawed out beheads the Shia Valley in that area, beheading one after the other. This is an absolute lie. There is no evidence no authentic or even weak evidence to prove this point that Malik mineira had claimed Caliphate for Alabama with Talib and Khalid been relieved and other companions started to behead people just because they were shut off early. This is a lie. This is an outright lie. This does not
existed in the history of Islam and I challenged Dr. Amar to bring any authentic information. Listen carefully, any authentic information.
In this regard, there is no such a thing. Maalik been aware of arguing for aluminum Italia Moloch never claimed historically that I will not give a card just because of Obamacare is the case. This is a lie. This is an outright lie. In fact Moloch went nowhere I was one of those people who had collected taxes on behalf of the progress of the Lyceum earlier when the Prophet sallallahu Sallam died. We are told in reports in authentic reports in some cases that Malik bin Nomura actually celebrated the death of the Prophet sallallahu Sallam he had a party within his village. When I say the word party I don't mean the party we know nowadays, but he had a celebration, and
Khalid bin Volleyed was told from trustworthy sources that this is what happened after the prophet SAW Selim passed away. And when Khalid went to Moloch mineira he interrogated him, he talked to him, there was a case there was a discussion there was no indiscriminate, blind, wild killing. This is a lie, attributed to Khalid and to aboubaker, and to other companions of the Prophet sallallahu sallam, anyone who goes and reads the history of Moloch mindware and Khalid bin valine as to what happened between them objectively from Islamic sources will come away from a very different conclusion because myleague been no era or the highly controversial figure, no doubt, no doubt, and
we don't read on a Sunday. Well, Gemma, we don't hide anything from anyone. Okay. Abu Qatada was a companion who disagreed with Khalid bin Volleyed for doing what he did. Then Omar bin Khattab amazingly, Dr. Amar does not mention this point. I wonder why? Because, you know, if Caliban really did something wrong, who was the first one to confront him is the question, who was who was the first person to confront him? Amr wanted to execute Khalid for executing Malik bin Nomura? Because these people believed in justice Omar bin hottub said to Abu Bakar, that Khalid should be punished for executing Moloch been nowhere because he did it wrongfully. But then Abu Bakr rhodiola one
invited Khalid bin really to come and clarify the picture. Khalid bin relief came and gave his reasons as to why he believed that Malik bin nowhere was a hostile enemy who was planning to instigate further rebellion. In fact, not only that he refused to pay the Zakat, he told his people, he told his people not to give the cart to Abu Bakr radi Allahu Akbar, not because he's the believer, because the Prophet is dead solid water. So profit is gone. And we don't need to be giving the car to anyone for that matter. So this is the real story Maalik bit nuvera had actually rebelled against the Muslim authority. And he was instigating rebellion by telling his people not to give the
card to the central government. And he was trying to spread this rebellion and other regions as well. Consequently, so that's why Khalid bin really took his action. And what he did, of course, other companions disagreed with him. But when he put his case, to obok of Sadiq now, this was not blind, wild jungle justice. When we read the sources, we see that college was asked by Abu Bakar to come and face the case. What happened there? Why did you do what you did? Khalid came and he actually explained what happened, and Obama accepted his explanation. Eventually, you have people like Abu Qatada, and you had people like who even the narration mentions, that's what took place.
Abu Qatada was angered by his action when he beheaded Malik. Not just he beheaded Malik. He then sleeps with his wife, Laila the widow the same night. Yes. And Islam. She said if we say for example, choose a widow that I default a widow let's say it's four months on 10 days. He straightaway sleeps with her that same night, the traditions mentioned abakada going to Abu Bakar complaining about the behavior of harlot now you told me if saddam and Gaddafi and the rest of these did this, what would we say about them Honestly? Or if any thug if any stylin Matsu Chong, Mussolini, Hitler, Sri tearaway, the world would be an uproar, and they would call them radicalist.
Do you agree when Abu Bakar sends a group of henchmen and the historians cover it up by saying that this person was a supporter on the Salem Al Khattab? masala was the man who said that he believed he was a prophet so they said the smiles are more Ted. And that's why Abubakar fortune. What do you mean? That's why abubaker fortune Abubakar ordered the beheading of the person, because the person would not pays the car. Do we agree? How can the historians cover up a story which they themselves document is the question. Dr. Amar, you just mentioned that
That debris, documents the whole story. If somebody is documenting the story and poverty is a Sony historian, how is he covering it up? I mean, I don't understand how can you cover something up by documenting it publicly so that people can actually read about it? Okay, so this is a misconception on your part, you are being very manipulative in this regard. And Abu Qatada went to Abu Bakar complaining about it. Now, amazingly, you don't mention the name of Omar, because Omar was the first one to stand up and say, Oh, aboubaker ameerul momineen. We need to punish harlot for something he has done. He has done something wrong. And that's when a walker invited Khalid to come and face the
trial. And when Khalid came, he gave his explanation and he was acquitted. He was acquitted because he was not found guilty because maliwan New Era had definitely rebelled against the party. And as for his wife, again, this is a very crude picture painted by Dr. Amar, because Holly had been released, according to some reports, actually married a Malik Benares wife, not only married a mulligan, Nomura had divorced his wife Leila, and he had kept her by force in his house, as was the case in Giulia as was the case in the days of ignorance or the days before Islam in Arabia, okay. There will be people who would divorce their wives and they would keep them in the home forcefully.
And there's a verse of the Quran in this regard that do not keep Women Against a will in your homes after you have divorced them. Let them go. Let them go once you have divorced them, let them go. So Pamela, there's a verse in the Quran. So myleague been nowhere according to some reports, which Amar does not mention. Amazingly.
He had divorced his wife, Laila, and he had kept her against her will in her house. So she was free. She had had her agenda already. So Khalid married her, Khalid married her according to some reports, so why don't you mention these details? Dr. Amar Maccioni. So these are some of the details we must discuss in public. Again, don't throw videos at me responding. Rather Come and have a discussion in public so that we can respond to each other, have a decent discussion face to face, so that we can challenge each other's views and save time. Save time. So Dr. Amar, this story of painted or malignant, aware of being a great companion of the Prophet Solomon was wrongfully barbarically
killed. My husband really is a false story. It's a fault because Molly munawwara was a rebel. He was actually instigating rebellion. And not only that, when Khalid bin Walid interviewed him, he used language or words for the progress on the line from like Sahiba, calm, saw Hippo calm. Yani, your companion said this, your companion said that and and Khalid bin Walid became very angry when he heard that. So, he is our Sahaba is you know your side, because Malian nuvera use this language, it is in the sources. It is there in the reports, which are Marvin, sorry, Dr. Amar, does not mention amazingly, so Maalik, mineral land is used language like cybercom. Your companion said this Jenny,
talking about the Prophet sallallahu sallam. That's why Khalid manolito became very angry and also was convinced that Malik bin Navara has instigated definitely instigated this rebellion. That's why he was fought and killed. So
this is what happened. And you know, Dr. Amar, unfortunately, again, is looking at history very narrowly, and he is seeing what he wants to see. And he doesn't want to see what comes before and what comes after in these histories. Yeah, and he doesn't want to do the context. We go to the next clip. When the news reaches abubaker. You know, who says How can I punish someone who Allah praised his sword. Now you tell me when you have a thug walking around, who's just beheaded someone in broad daylight. his soldiers have gone round beheading you allow this thuggery as an it's normal to massacre a whole village and you turn around say, well, Allah sprays a sword. I can't do anything
about this. The first movement of terrorism, the beheading of Malik Benoit are number one. Number two, forget beheadings. Let's burn people.
It doesn't stop there. It is very disturbing to hear this version of history, because if you're accusing a government or legitimate government of fighting rebels, then Ali when he fought against mafia laguan he was on the right ma VIERA de la Juan was mistaken. I showed your logo and her when she fought fought eliminated if he was mistaken, like was when Alabama bitterly fought against the Hawaii the rebels who were trying to cause disturbance This is it was Oliver and Talib are terrorists for fighting coverage. Of course not. Of course not. The HVAC, the Hawaii did. You are a rebel, the group they were they were rebellious and they were causing disturbance in the society.
They had killed people that
Why alumina? Vitaly rhodiola one for them. However, he had killed the son of the son of hubbub in Iraq. Abdullah bin kebab in Iraq was killed by the average. And that's why the Battle of number one took place. So are you going to say that now I live in a valley for fighting rebels was a was a terrorist. No. Likewise a walker was fighting rebels, people who were causing disturbance not paying taxes, do taxes to the government. And not only that, the person was actually telling others not to to give the taxes as well. So this was a hostile rebel. So the way you paid Malik mineira is very disturbing. And you know, if you were to read your own books, Chef mo feed shackled pifa in his
book,
documented, malignant nowhere among
most of the dishes, in your books, go and read it. ISIS when they burn that Manasa What do you think ISIS got the permission to abandon Manasa the permission that came was wrong. The permission that came was because Abubakar ordered that those hypocrites who go against them are burned. Someone asked an interesting question, Kashi in his original talks of the fact that Mr. Mallya
orders the burning of Abdullah bin separate for example. So how comes we don't mention Imam Ali is burning and we mentioned Abubakar Abubakar burns, those who go against this leadership, Ali Abdullah Abbey a polyp if we were to take that this is legitimately something that took place are live Natalia is burning someone who was claiming and spreading the idea that he is God. Yes. Abubakar was burning a hypocrite who was saying that I'm not going to follow your leadership. And he went ahead and burned him. Right so it can burn people for believing in certain things. Our worker count that's how you are giving. Firstly, there are no authentic reports about aboubaker burning anyone or
ordering anyone to burn anyone. There are no authentic reports or reports are dubious. There are reports from Alibaba dalip as you have just acknowledged that in regional Kashi in your books, and nobody altra mentions reports about Alia de la one burning people now if I was to argue just like you have that these Shia militias burning ISIS soldiers alive are taking the inspiration from Alibaba Vitaly because in regional Kashi in an and in nobody's works we have reported Alabama Vitale burned people for believing in certain things and for that reason these militias are burning people alive in Iraq if I was to argue like that, would you accept that argument? Would you actually accept
that argument if I was to argue about because these people are terrorists for burning certain individuals alive and they are terrorists because the inspiration comes from a terrorist I want to build a formidable I don't want to talk like this but I am trying to reason with you that look how false your reasoning is. That if I was to use Alibaba Vitaly as their model, would you accept it? You would not you would scream and shout it without a you. Exactly, Mr. Dear Amar Shivani Exactly. That's why we need to have a discussion in public and show you how inconsistent you are how many double standards you have when you attack people like Abubakar and others because every time you
attack point one finger at abubaker three are pointing at alumina Vitaly about your level and we will bring you an example or on top of example, to show you why you are inconsistent for attacking abubaker and Omar and you will find that earlier the other one has done the same thing.
So why this is inconsistency. So if you want to condemn terrorism as you see it, then condemn it across the board. Rather than picking and choosing in your condemnation. If someone doesn't pledge allegiance to your Salif, Baka Khalifa Omar wants to pledge allegiance. If someone doesn't pledge allegiance to you, what do you do in Islam? You know when someone tells me is there a radical Islam what law there's a radical Islam. Voila, there is a radical Islam. There is a radical Islam the beginning there were a group of people that if you don't pledge allegiance to them do not mind coming to burn your house. Right? If that's the case, Dr. Amar then why did he not burn the house?
Because I live in a metallic did not give his allegiance to Abu Bakar for six months you have claimed this. You have claimed it's in Buhari. It is in our sources that Ali bin Abi Talib did not pledge his allegiance to Abu Bakar for six months. Why was Omar waiting for six months and didn't burn the house of Fatima?
And if you want to put this accurate accusation against Abu Bakr and Omar, how about ali ali fought more Avia because mafia was not giving his pledge of allegiance to Ali. Ali was saying you pledge your allegiance with me and then we will punish the murderers of man while you are saying no
you punish the murderers of man first and then I will pledge my allegiance. So this was the dispute between Mojave and Ali. So if Ali fought more Avia for not pledging his allegiance to Ali, then isn't Ali a terrorist just like abubaker is out to Bella Moussa Bella. So your argumentation your reasoning goes against you. Your reasoning goes against your own arguments. So think about these things. Dr. Amar, these are the things we want to discuss. And let's discuss them in public again. So we'll go to the next clip. As you see ISIS is new. This is all parts of our literature. These are all personalities who children in London and Birmingham and Leicester and Bradford, and Lahore and
Karachi in Iraq and Pakistan, and Syria and children who are taught to love these names. Yes, these are the holiest 10 names you will ever hear you it's impossible for you to question even though the history is a history of burnings and meetings. This is again a lie. Our history is not full of burnings and beheadings. This is a lie. This is again a lie. Because I've already stated there are no authentic reports from abubaker that he commanded, or he burnt someone himself. There are no authentic reports, all reports are dubious. There are authentic reports about Ali, he did it and he was corrected by Abdullah bin Abbas and he stopped it. So we have no precedent in the entire history
of Islam. After what Ali did no precedent, no one legally officially burnt anyone as a form of punishment in the history of Islam and we take pride in it. This is something you find in European history. This is something you find in Europe, in the early modern period, where hundreds of 1000s of witches are being burned at stake. There are heretics being burnt at stake. I'll give you names, people like Miguel servito, Michael servetus, who was burned at stake in 1553 in Geneva for disbelieving in the Trinity. He wrote books against the doctrine of the Trinity, and he was burned at stake in Geneva as a heretic. And there are many examples, people have written books on
witchcraft in Europe go and study these books published by Oxford and Cambridge, how witches are being burnt alive in the 1000s. around Europe, in Germany, in France, in
in Britain, and there was the famous case of Joan of Arc, Joan of Arc was a woman who fought against the British. She was a French woman, and she was burned at stake as a witch. Okay, there are so many cases I mentioned, there are precedents in the European history. Can you show me in our precedents, were officially legally people were burnt at stake or burnt alive throughout the history of Islam, starting from the heads up to the time of the Ottomans, up to the time of the Ottomans, show me any dynasty were legally officially, people were burnt. I mean, there were many burnings, of course, people were going around doing all kinds of things. Yeah, I'm talking about legally, officially,
when these burnings are used as a method of punishing your lying, Doctor, Mr. I'm sorry, you are lying. That's all you see. Because that's what you want to see, you want to see burning in the history of Islam. And that's what you will see, because you have superimposed this view on your mind. So this is the disturbing fact. We have to highlight and you have to think about it. As for children, loving these names, of course, we teach our children to love these people, they are the best people to walk the planet planet, they were the most principal, the people to walk the planet, can you not see how?
How opposite our view is to your view? You know, we believe in a different history than you do. We believe in a completely different history based upon the same sources, sources, you read selectively. Sources you read selectively, you're quoting poverty to us a book or theory to us, if not hold on to us. And you, Jacobi to us or Missouri to us and all these historians, but you read them selectively, literally read them objectively, and you will see exactly why we believe in what we believe in. We teach our children to love ashrama Bashara. And as Howard Berger, and as our shutter and the companions, the progress of a sudden because we love them because they were morally
upright people they could not see evil take place in front of the eyes, they condemned they stopped evil. They stopped injustice, they spread justice and peace and tolerance in the land. And this is what we believe in. And I have shown you evidence for this that our banker commanded his generals to not go out and kill indiscriminately even when you are in conflict with your enemy. Do not kill men who are old Do not kill children do not kill women do not cut crops. Do not destroy fruitful trees. Do not demolish buildings Do not kill monks in monasteries do not even burn beehives do not burn beehives. So if a worker is commanding his generals not to burn beehives, you know how can you
command
them to burn humans. Does that make sense brothers and sisters? Does Dr. Amar make any sense? Is he making sense that we have authentic evidence on one side where Abu Bakar is commanding? Do not burn beehives do not burn beehives? Can the same person command his generals to go and burn people? It is impossible, authentic against dubious, authentic against dubious, authentic against dubious. Does that make sense? So how can the same person be commanding his generals to not burn beehives, because these are creatures of Allah and then on the on the other hand is commanding his companions to go and burn people doesn't make sense. And some of these lies are attributed later on to abubaker to
tarnish his name. You know, these lies or, you know, labeled at aboubaker to tarnish his name. So we love these names, for the reasons because we believe they were the most morally upright people. They were the most tolerant people that were the most loving and just people who ever walked the planet. That's why we will continue to teach our children to love the Sahaba the companions of the Prophet Salah Salem, most importantly, the first for a worker, Omar Osman Ali and then comes Hassan that are saying then the debate we love the companions and the debate. And when I say 100 debate, I mean the wives of the Prophet Allah salah and the family of the process and I'm like his cousins and his
children and his grandchildren we love them. When the seller therefore come and tell me that we want to return to the great days of the pious predecessors We are the selfies. I reply back to them by saying sorry which pious predecessors which of the burnings which of the tax and to add insult to injury more our lab in Abidjan sending some Arab and john doe one way, sending mahira bin shaba another sending Ziad bin Abby hanada walleye, they'd go into villages massacre 1000s of people and come back with no hesitation and then you have books published. Amir more Alia Ravi, Allah and more. Are we master of the religion of Islam? More our Ayesha Beulah has a book published it's available
in the bookshop, more Alia, restore the Muslim faith. Dr. Amar, have you actually studied one of these books on mafia? Have you actually seen the evidence as to what he did and why he did it? Okay, we don't agree with everything while we are the olana did we we don't believe that he was Muslim. He was infallible we believe he made mistakes. And one of the biggest mistakes was to fight alumina with olive number one. Number two another mistake he made that he appointed yazeed as his successor, but his mistakes do not making me out to Bella tomorrow to Bella his mistakes do not make him someone worthy of curses. You curse him, you curse him. And amazingly, if Malia were so bad, out of
the mouths of Bella, why would happen? Why would Hassan rhodiola go and put the entire oma into his hands, put the entire oma a lava into his hands khilafah that was according to your view given to him by Allah. Hassan was given khilafah by Allah subhanaw taala. According to your view, if that is the case, how can huson
are an Imam who is Massoud? According to you Imam Hassan rhodiola, who is infallible, okay, how can he being an infallible Imam, hand something given to him by Allah into the hands of a terrorist, heretic or even a disbeliever out of the mouths of bill as you claim? into the hands of mafia? How can Hasson do that? How can us do that? What I'm not aware of these things you're talking about? Whether he was aware or not, is another question. The question is, did he actually believe in what you believe in? Did he see more of you the way you see him today? Did he accused me of these things? Why did he accept stipends from the lawn? We have clear reports in your books and in our books that
mommy or your loved one was sending 1000s of Durham's every month to the Arab bait to Hassan and Hussein and their families for expenses. And these were established stipends for the family of the province. The lesson for the debate was more obvious sending money to Hassan and Hussein. Why were this accepting this money? This is the question why were they accepting these Titans? This money, this model this wealth from a terrorist establishment? So pan Allah Subhana Allah, would you accept money from Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi? If he was to send you their homes and dinars? You know, would you accept them? Being a lover of alphabet as you claim you are? Okay. Would you accept something for
like, mafia in your view was far worse than because he's the inspiration right? He is the inspiration for Baghdadi, right? So how can happen?
Understand accept money and gifts from a terrorist organization. You may argue they were scared, they're scared for the life, then obviously they are better than that you are better than them right? Because you're not scared to to reject the the advances of obaku body. So why was Hassan so scared, he was not scared. He actually accepted maveo as his brother in Islam, and he accepted him as a legitimate ruler, a leader. That's why he accepted his gifts and presents, this is the reality which you are not willing to accept. So if you accuse mafia, accused those who worked with him, people who worked with him and accepted presidents from him, and praised him. So Pamela, why don't
you accuse them as well? They told you that those that was the best generation, a generation that saw burnings, our generation of beheadings a generation of civil wars like Jamal Safina another one, a generation that's after that, even to count its vengeance on the rest of the members of Al Mohammed. Yes. Haruna Rashid puts him on most of the job for how many years in prison, Mr. Mazal column was imprisoned from which year to which year, a man was born 128 after Hitler, he died 173 after Hitler, do you agree that that's very early Islam, Mr. Muscle carbon, son of Masada 15 1618 years in the prisons of our own regime? That's a generation I'm proud of one that puts al Mohammed
in prison one after the other, and no one's allowed to say a single word. In other words, this whole idea that there's no such thing as radicalism in Islam there is Islam has a radical element right from its roots. This is again ally Islam has no radical element. Islam has no radicalism whatever that word means. What do you mean by radicalism? What definition Are you using Dr. Omar to use this word? What do you mean by radical Islam? You have not explained what is radical? What do you mean by radical Okay, so Islam for that reason I reject
that there is any radicalism in Islam. Islam does not have any radicalism in it. Okay, Islam is Islam. Okay. And you mentioned some cases of Arab bait being imprisoned by the whole of our boss and others. Okay. Why don't you mention people like your mama? Well, where did a mama honey Farhatullah die? where and why? Why don't you tell your audiences the mom of Alison novel Gemma, where did he die? He died in prison of Mansoor. Why? Because he was backing the Arnold bait against the claims of Mansoor Imam Abu hanifa died in prison because of the ahlulbayt because he stood up for the other debate and who is remember whenever the a mom of Alison navall Gemma Allah Allahu Akbar, what
happened to Mr. Malik? Why was he tortured? Why was Mr. Malik tortured? Why was Mr. marshman humble for 14 years Porter Why don't you mention these people you think only the old bait were targeted and they were focused on upon by the qualified boss and they were the purpose of a boss or their their mission in life was only to go and punish it's a lie. So everyone suffered a little bit suffered and the supporters of Arnold base such a remarkable and even others suffered, okay, so you see history narrowly you only see what you want to see and you ignore everything else. You put everything under the carpet, Mr. Mohammed bin humble Allahu Akbar, what we call the man with what we call the manor.
Okay, for 14 years, he was tortured by three qualifier. Who were they? sapan Allah maamoun moto Sim. And Wasik three qualified bonobos, the tortured mama has been humble Allahu Akbar. Why don't you mention that? Why don't you mentioned that? So using your reasoning, we have the amount of Allison ojama they suffered. They suffer just like the other bait. Okay. And they suffered for the same reasons, because the authorities did not like challenge, okay, and the other bit were challenging, and they fought battle they fought wars. In fact, Mr mamani for amatola Lee said about a battle that took place between a sham bin Abdul Malik de Khalifa manomaya and Zaid Bin Ali bin Hussein. Zaid,
the son of Imam zainul, Aberdeen, he fought the Calif. He Shang and Mr. Robot hanifa. Delilah said about this battle that this is the Battle of butter. In other words, Imam Zaid bidzina Aberdeen is upon the Huck and a sham is upon battle Allahu Akbar. We have examples like that. Why don't you mention them? So you are the one hiding history not asked Dr. Amar, you are the one hiding history deliberately from your audiences from your people and you're not telling them the truth? Tell them the truth. This is why we want you to come in public and have a discussion with us. So Dr. Amar, I have addressed most of the arguments in this video. It was a very painful video to watch not because
facts are hurting me because lies are hurting me. I see clear lies in your video claim misrepresentation.
LaHood my sincere heart I feel sorry for your audiences, people who are listening to you innocently, and they are taking away this information as truth as facts. I am talking to them. Brothers and sisters. Those of you are listening to Dr. Mr. mazzani asking these questions. Why is he not telling you the truth? Why is he not putting the bigger picture in front of you? Why is he hiding facts from you? facts such as the report of matar mmamoloko, Abu Bakar commanded his generals to not do certain things and one of them was not to burn be highs not to burn behind how can he command his generals then to go and burn people if he's forbidding them for burning even beehives, burning insects? If
you can't even burn insects, how can you go and burn people? Those of you who are watching a monarch Shivani and accept his rhetoric you need to think about this, my brothers and sisters, you know, we believe in what we believe in because of solid reasons. We have thought about the sources we have studied them, we have studied them in depth, and we have conducted our research and we have come to this conclusion that we are upon the heart. We believe what we believe is the truth. And we don't hate our debate or lie. We love the debate. We want to follow the other bait. We follow the other bait There are reports in our literature in Bukhari and Muslim and other books from the other baits
from Alabama Vitaly, there are reports from Hassan and Hussein. There are reports from Imam zainul Aberdeen, there are reports from Mohammed Al Barker and jafarzadeh radi Allahu anhu. All of them we love the word la he will love them. Okay, and the best Hadees on Hajj. The best and the most detailed these on Hajj in our literature is from the ahlulbayt from Imam Jafar of sodic via his father, Mohammed Al Barker, who narrates from Jabir bin Abdullah, one of the companions of the Prophet Allah life Solomon is the most detail Hardys on Hajj to be found in Sahih Muslim it is there we follow them, we love them. Okay. Now the question is,
why don't we follow your literature, your version of our debate because we don't believe it's true. We don't believe it's true. If you can convince us Dr. Amar or anyone else that definitely what you have in our coffee, Mala Mala rocky Alistar.
What you have in these four books is definitely from the alphabet. Wallah he by Allah I will follow it. While ly I have no problem with following the Imams following the family of the progress on live Salaam as you see it because you see the family the professionalism
in few individuals, you have narrowed down the family of the province of Assam to few individuals no problem. We are willing to accept it. But But can you prove to us conclusively that what you have in your four books is actually truly from these imams. What we find is is the contrary because there are reports that are highly dubious reported by dubious dubious people. People like Charmaine hukam he Shamblin Salim zuraida iron. Okay. Andromeda Hill. There are people who are known who report from the Imam, for example, there are reports in your books, and they go as follows Colorado, Colorado, Colorado, a man said that Mr. Jaffer sodic said this, or Mr. Mohammed Al Barker said this, but there
is no mention of the man who is reporting from the Imams. So how can we actually believe that these reports are coming from the Imams? That's number one. Number two, the people we do know people like a shaman, how come a champion silent are they trustworthy? Go and read your own books and see what's written about these people narrating from the Imam, the Imam themselves. According to original Kashi, rajala Kashi, go and read your own book of Rizal. It is giving you reports that imams themselves among themselves. The condemned people like a sham and hukam has Sharman Solomon's urara if that's the case, how do you then claim that you have the teachings of ahlulbayt if you have the
authentic teachings of Alan Bates, then bring them to us and voila, he will follow them. What we do have, what we do have in our literature is authentic. We know it's authentic because it comes from chains. And we can actually scrutinize and see the authenticity in those chains. That's why we follow that view of the debate. Again, we do follow the other baits it's a lie that we don't follow the alphabet we do we love them. We follow them. So finally, Dr. Amar, the purpose of this video was not to be hostile to be sectarian or to condemn your school or criticize your people no one lie that's not the purpose one lie by Allah. I want love and compassion between us. I want closeness
between us on on Islam closeness upon hoc closeness upon Huck. Okay, let's come together and worship Allah subhanaw taala
All together. Okay, let's come to common terms as the Quran states, let's come to common terms that we worship none but Allah subhanaw taala, we want to be close to you upon the Huck. So we invite you to come and talk to us and see whether we have the hug or not. And you can tell us what you want to tell us. And this is
this is an invitation for a discussion in public. And I apologize for any of my words, if my words hurt someone, I apologize categorically, I did not mean to hurt anyone's feelings. This was an academic discussion, this was an academic commentary. And the references can be given in a public discussion, I can bring all the books, all the page numbers, all the scholars and all the names and all the authors can come with us. Okay, this was a quick, rapid response to Dr. Amaz video. And if you want the references for what I said, if you want me to substantiate my claims, from references from books and from authors, then we can come in on a pub in a public platform, and then discuss
these publicly with the books and have a proper discussion or dialogue when you are there to respond. So I hope I didn't hurt any of your feelings. My purpose is friendly, my purpose is compassionate and is merciful. And I ask Allah subhanaw taala to enable us to get rid of all the indiscriminate killing and terrorism on the planet and make this planet a beautiful abode for all humans. A peaceful abode for all humanity. Thank you so much for listening are salaam aleikum wa rahmatullah walkera, Donna and Al hamdu. lillahi Rabbil aalameen.
Me
New Moon
in add, party boom
moon
to moon