اللهم صل على نبي الملحمة || شامي
مكتبة السمسمية 📚
Joined June 2022
- Tweets19.5K
- Following52
- Followers6.2K
- Likes32.9K
Simsim al-Manṭiqī retweeted
Funny that this is only required if directions are monosemic - but their scholars coped on at Tahawi saying that there are created and uncreated directions - so the argument fails even in their view...
Unless they admit their scholars waffled
Simsim al-Manṭiqī retweeted
TaymiFawaid logic be like:
-Rape within marriage is bad
-Rape is the usage of force to acquire intercourse
-Shaykh al Islam say you can beat your wife if she refuses sex to "discipline her"
-To discipline someone is to make them fall into what is acceptable - i.e. accepting to have intercourse
So...
>Rape bad
>Beating to make someone accept sex good.
Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah said:
“The husband is obligated to have sexual intercourse with his wife in a manner that is recognized as proper (bi'l-maʿrūf). This is among her most emphasized rights over him, indeed a greater obligation than providing her with food.”
📚 Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, 32/271
And he said about a wife who refuses intercourse without a valid reason:
“Her maintenance and clothing allowance are forfeited if she does not make herself available to him. He has the right to discipline her by striking if she persists in nushūz. It is not permissible for her to refuse him when he requests this from her. Rather, she is disobedient to Allah and His Messenger. In the Ṣaḥīḥ (authentic narration): ‘When a man calls his wife to his bed and she refuses him, the One who is in the heavens remains displeased with her until morning.’”
📚 Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, 32/278
So there’s no marital rape in Islām. If a wife refuses intercourse without a valid reason, her husband is commanded to follow the proper procedures outlined in the Qurʾān for disciplining a disobedient wife.
Simsim al-Manṭiqī retweeted
Most responses to this fail to counter or refute him, resorting exclusively to ad hominem attacks, genuinely believing they are cerebral human beings. And most of their profiles coincidentally check out as effeminates.
Simsim al-Manṭiqī retweeted
This doesn't phase me because I can't be more racist than I already am towards subcon dwellers.
Sorry but I'm not sorry. It's your fault that I am this way
unavailable
Simsim al-Manṭiqī retweeted
I wish people would stop taking their own positions without thinking about the consequences entailed by them, whether it be in fiqh or 'aqeedah. People overestimate the level of reasoning they have, thinking they can just pick 1 different thing and be done... it simply does not
Simsim al-Manṭiqī retweeted
“Dr. Salāh al-Dīn al-Idlibī” who is “the premier living, contemporary shafi'i scholar...” claims offensive Jihad isn't a thing and that Muslims are prohibited from fighting those who didn't initiate war against us.
This quoted post is unavailable.
Simsim al-Manṭiqī retweeted
Generally correct, so if anyone wants to do a bit of ontology regarding IT he can read this.
I'll just bw commenting a few matters:
With regards to space, he's correct in everything he says. However this causes an issue, which is that it's a useless distinction.
There's strictly
A Summary of the Taymiyyan Understanding of Space, Direction, and Time
According to Ibn Taymiyyah, space can be divided into two types: makān wujūdī (existing place) and ḥayyiz ʿadamī (non-existent space). Something is said to exist in a makān wujūdī when other created things surround it. For example, a pencil on a table is surrounded by the table that exists under it as well as the created space with air, atoms, fields, etc that exist around the rest of its surface.
Contrary to this, something is said to exist in a ḥayyiz ʿadamī when it is surrounded by absolute nothingness. Ibn Taymiyyah did not believe in the existence of a void, so this ḥayyiz (space) is a purely imaginary boundary inside of which a thing exists. This is key to understanding what we mean when we say Allāh exists in a place. What we intend here is that Allāh exists in a ḥayyiz ʿadamī. When we understand this, many objections to the Atharī belief, such as the claim that it necessitates that Allāh exists within the creation or that Allāh is encompassed by the creation, falter.
To understand this better, the universe — being the sum of all created things — cannot be infinite in extension. Believing in this would entail kufr. The universe thus has to be spatially finite. What exists outside the universe then is absolute nothingness except for Allāh سبحانه وتعالى, who exists above and beyond the universe.
In terms of direction, there are absolute directions and relative directions. According to Ibn Taymiyyah, there are only two absolute directions: above and below. When we point downwards, we are pointing towards the centre of the Earth. When we point upwards, we are pointing at the direction of what is above and beyond the universe, which can only be Allāh سبحانه وتعالى.
This is different from relative directions that exist within the created universe. For example, if I were on a different planet and my head were facing the Earth, the Earth might appear above me from that perspective. If I point up, I would be pointing at the Earth. However, this is only from the perspective of a relative direction. In terms of absolute direction, I would actually be pointing in the direction below, because I’m pointing at a direction that leads to the centre of the Earth.
This deals with the objection that the Atharī belief in Allāh’s aboveness necessitates believing that because the Earth is spherical, we would be pointing at Allāh when we point downwards. This is only true in terms of relative directions, not the absolute directions of above and below established in the Qurʾān and Sunnah.
Like space and direction, Ibn Taymiyyah also believed that the word “time” is ambiguous and can refer to different things. In philosophy, time is usually understood in the Aristotelian definition, which is a measure of movement. This includes non-spatial movement like a change in loving a person to hating them. According to Ibn Taymiyyah, time in this sense is dependent on the existence of movement and doesn’t exist external to the mind.
A common objection to the Taymiyyan position on tasalsul al-ḥawādith (infinite regress of events) is that it necessitates time being eternal alongside Allāh. The response to this is that there are two types of time: created time and uncreated time. Created time is the time created beings form in their minds and refers to the measure of the movement of created things. In this world, time is the measure of the movement of celestial bodies like the sun and the moon. In the Hereafter, time would be a measure of the movement of other created things. This type of time is created within the created mind.
The second type of time is uncreated time. This refers to the measure of temporal acts of Allāh that subsist within His essence and are eternal in genus. Since time exists only in the mind and the minds of created beings are created, this type of time is uncreated and eternal only as part of Allāh’s uncreated and eternal knowledge.
Simsim al-Manṭiqī retweeted
This thread was going fine until emotional appeals and moralism was invoked. It's already bad enough that no citing was made, but I already addressed this, the one representing Islam isn't relevant, a Qadiani, even a Hindu or a Christian, can be a medium for dawa,
Shaykh has not said anything incorrect.
First off, he began by saying this is according to the Ashaa’irah — he is teaching a Madhab which does not always equate to following or believing such. For example, on this specific issue, the Maturidi school differs and holds that even if they did not get the correct image, but they have simply heard of such a thing called Islam, then they don’t become Muslim, they are Kaafir (would apply to most people of the west).
However, the Ash’ari Madhab needs to be clarified for the people, as well as the individual I am quoting my tweet to, that the Madhab does not say such a statement without evidence from the Qur’an:
“And We (Allah) are not to punish until We send to them a Messenger.”
This is a clear-cut general verse: Allah does not enact His punishment whatsoever, no matter who it is or the crime committed, unless He sends a messenger to that individual prior to that.
A messenger’s job is to CLARIFY Tawheed — by eradicating clear polytheism or unclear polytheism (such as with Christian’s who claim monotheism).
If a person who is to CLARIFY this, that they are WRONG in their way of life, has not yet come to that individual, then Allah will not hold them liable. As simple as that.
So, a lot of people in the west see people blowing things up, they are told “that’s Islam!” and they never learned or heard anything beyond that.
Be honest with yourself: did a clarifier come to them to explain why they’re wrong? Can the guys doing crazy things highlighted in propaganda against Islam media, be considered ‘the ones who called and invited them to Islam’ ?!
No of course not. They don’t represent Islam & if that was truly Islam then they are justified in not wanting a part in it!
So this is the issue from the Ash’ari perspective.
BUT.
Note that this is just a condition to the real determiner of a person’s Kufr or not, which is:
If the mere thought comes to a person: “what if I’m not currently following the truth?” OR “what if Islam is in fact true?”
and he or she ignores that thought — coupled with hearing of the correct image of Islam — then he or she is a Kaafir. They have REJECTED guidance.
But if they think “what if I’m not upon the truth?” and they begin searching, but don’t stumble across the correct image of Islam prior to death, then they have not committed Kufr.
And if they hear of the WRONG image of Islam, but the MERE THOUGHT comes to them: “what if there is some truth to that religion and it actually being misrepresented??” — then;
If they ignore that thought, they commit Kufr.
If they act on it and do not yet conclude anything prior to death, they are not Kuffar.
Hope this adds some insight to this issue.
And again, Shaykh Yasir did NOT say this was HIS view. This is a view WITHIN Ahlulsunnah that he was teaching, and that does not always mean you agree with it. I teach the Maturidi Madhab, and explain it as in depth as if I’m Maturidi myself. But I’m not.
So, between myself and Shaykh, if anyone is to be labeled a name for holding a VALID position, it is myself. Yet applying a name to one person based on a valid belief is, by qiyaas, and provided there are no preventatives, applying it to every other major scholar who held the same belief — and that is nothing short of arrogance from the ignoramus who types behind a screen with absolutely no credentials or qualifications within the Deen.
Salaam!
Simsim al-Manṭiqī retweeted
According to Dr. Usama al-Hamawi, Shaykh Dr. Wahbah al-Zuhayli attested that al-Buti issued a fatwa to Hafez al-Assad permitting the shedding of the blood of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1980s, and said to him: “You are God’s vicegerent on earth.”
Simsim al-Manṭiqī retweeted
You know, I was quite happy to read [at first] that he ascribed himself to what at Tabari says in his tabsir.
Then I remembered that I have yet to see someone who read the book from start to finish with understanding, and what came after confirms it.
At Tabari in his tabsir is
People often ask: what is your manhaj?
In creed, I stand closest to the way of Imām Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī a scholar of the Salaf known for his mastery of the Arabic language and his monumental *Tafsīr*, which remains one of the most influential in Islamic history. He affirmed the divine attributes (ithbāt al-ṣifāt) set out in his work Tabsirah, clearly and in balance, without a polemical edge.
In jurisprudence, I took the Ḥanbalī madhhab as my primary base, yet my approach to uṣūl al-fiqh leans closer to that of Ibn Lubb a method that favours taysīr (facilitation and easing of the law). I adopt this because it is the best way to empower Muslims and provide practical solutions in our time, in line with the Prophet’s practice ﷺ of always choosing the easier option when given a choice.
In sum, I am a centrist Sunni: independent, beholden to no state or faction. I respect mainstream Sunni scholars across the spectrum. I have already voiced my reservations with the Najdi dawah as well as other extremist Shia and Sufi forms in the past and present who were too easy with takfir and committed countless massacres unjustly. Rejecting a figure from that period is not bid‘ah, kufr, or fisq according to any madhhab. Many scholars offered scathing criticisms of it, including Sulayman ibn Abdul Wahhab (the brother of MIAW), Ibn ‘Abidin (Hanafi), al-Shawkani, and even al-Albani despite some praise he also expressed.
To those on the fringes, I invite you to return to the path of balanced, mainstream Sunnis. This is the way of the middle nation: “We have made you a middle and balanced community so that you may be witnesses over mankind”*(Qur’an 2:143). The Prophet ﷺ commanded this moderation, saying, “Take the middle, deliberate course and you will reach the goal” (al-Bukhārī), and warned, “Beware of ghuluww in religion, for those before you were destroyed by excess in religion”(Aḥmad, Ibn Mājah ṣaḥīḥ). Your spiritual and psychological quality of life will increase and you will be able to be practise islam for much longer without burning out. The deen is a marathon not a sprint.
This balanced approach avoiding reckless tabdīʿ and unwarranted takfīr on one side, and extreme grave veneration or beliefs of shirk on the other (such as claiming saints control atoms, that the Prophet ﷺ has the same hearing as Allah, or that one can ask the Prophet for salvation) and uniting with Muslims from different perspectives (I am not calling for uniformity but unity around specific causes like Palestine or whatever else) is the strongest empowerment for all Muslims: men and women, Black and White, Arab and non-Arab alike. This is my conclusion after independent study. You are free to accept it or leave it.
Simsim al-Manṭiqī retweeted
Mar'i al Karmi is fine calling someone a slanderer despite not refuting a single argument of theirs, but he's also fine with ottoman caliphs killing family, children even, granted the political context is tenuous as political law can be other than what islam states.
Simsim al-Manṭiqī retweeted
youtu.be/WmId0nHbUnM?is=i9PT…
@mohammed_hijab
At around 25:50, Mohammed Hijab talks about occasionalism and makes a few but substantial mistakes.
What occasionalism postulates is fairly simple:
God is the efficient cause of everything.
He gets this right, but then says that he finds
Simsim al-Manṭiqī retweeted
It starts exactly how you'd expect from this tool.
"Philosophers have abandoned so you must be wrong"
Glorious. Let's see what actual argument he provides:
I really love when people try to use this trash response in 2026 when philosophers have given up on the idea of ‘now’ being translated into a tenseless proposition. The only people who might be able to do this are B theorists and obviously you wouldn’t want to be committed to B theory of time (or do you).
Now watch how easy it is to show how he fails to answer this critique. Presumably, you believe that Allah knows what is ‘actually’ the case. What is correspondent to reality. Does that knowing differ? Is there variation in that? Is it the case that Allah necessarily knows Wednesday 10th 2025 ‘ that x event would occur? If so, you’re a necessitarian.
However, if that truth value can change then you would have to say that there’s contingency in God. Like I said, I’d hope you believe Allah knows what is ‘actually’ the case, not just what would occur, and you probably believe creation did not always exist, not as particulars nor the genus being eternal. Well, if that is true in your view, then Allah’s knowing that this universe ‘will be actual’ is either necessary or contingent. If it’s necessary > necessitarianism and if it’s contingent, > contingency. Just to get back onto the ‘now’ being translated into a tenseless proposition, the reason why most philosophers gave up on that is because ‘now’ doesn’t just mean that. ‘Now’ means ‘present tense’. Now if you want to twist language that just bloats your view even further. Anyways,
I want an actual response not just some waffle also. You always lose to me so I don’t expect much but waffle and ad Homs anyways.
Simsim al-Manṭiqī retweeted
The Conquest of Sham was not achieved by pure strength alone.
After parts of al-Shām had been opened, ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ رضي الله عنه advanced toward Palestine to face the Byzantines. Their commander was a cunning strategist known as al-Arṭabūn.
So ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb رضي الله عنه said:
“We have thrown the Arṭabūn of the Arabs against the Arṭabūn of the Romans.”
Meaning: the intelligence of ʿAmr was matched against the cunning of the Byzantine commander.
At Ajnādīn, the Byzantines fortified themselves with trenches and strongholds, but ʿAmr used strategy, reconnaissance, and military deception to uncover their plans. He even entered upon al-Arṭabūn disguised as a messenger, narrowly escaping death through his wit.
Then came the Battle of Ajnādīn. The Muslims were granted victory, and al-Arṭabūn fled to Īliyāʾ — Jerusalem.
This event highlights the brilliance of ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ, the organization of the Muslim armies, and the leadership of ʿUmar رضي الله عنه, who reminded his commanders that conquest must not lead to luxury, arrogance, or loss of simplicity.
The opening of al-Shām was not merely by the sword. It was by patience, planning, wisdom, and men whose hearts remained disciplined even when the world opened before them.
Simsim al-Manṭiqī retweeted
Takfir is not a legal ruling. It's a judgement. The legal ruling stems from said judgement being enforced.
Simsim al-Manṭiqī retweeted
The brother is joking, but mind you this:
"They have done so much for the ummah, what have you done?"
This is quite a recurrent statement when it comes to making takfir of someone whose name has some fame.
Just to clarify if someone thought otherwise - it is worthless as a claim
This quoted post is unavailable.
Simsim al-Manṭiqī retweeted
Mujassima will use everything that suits them without checking if it makes any sense to begin with.
Musa(a.s.) already asked to see Allah and he was answered. Asking a second time is rejecting this answer...
That is without considering that this contradicts what is known, that
Simsim al-Manṭiqī retweeted
Irja' is a disease that needs to be eradicated, and it is most unfortunate that most scholars that are easily reachable fight in the opposite way.
Yes such speech is partially their fault, so afraid to clarify this that they lead people into perdition
Simsim al-Manṭiqī retweeted
Takfir is for everyone to make. There is no limitation on who can make takfir, only a limitation on:
-Whose takfir has legal repercussions
-How should one proceed to make takfir
No scholar had, has or will be able to produce a proof to prove takfir is limited to scholars except
