Zaid Shakir (@ImamZaidShakir) vs Islam. 🧵
Please find attached an image of a recent post from one of the imams of misguidance in California. I have highlighted relevant aspects. He has issue with domestic violence, and no doubt some domestic violence is haram but other forms are halal, like lightly striking your wife to Image
discipline her. We will gave zaid the benefit of the doubt here.

He then goes on to have issue with sexual slavery, calling it a crime, calls to opposing it and eliminating it. We ask Zaid and his followers, what do you say about the salaf? Be clear, what do you say about our
predecessors who engaged in sexual slavery? Do you condemn them? Call them criminals? Forget about them, what do you say about Allah who sanctioned sex with slave girls? He even declared the one who does such an action to be without blame! Image
According to Zaid Shakir it is a crime but according to Allah it is without blame, oh people who will you follow? If you agree with Zaid after this proof then you are from the disbelievers and a painful punishment awaits you! Consider how the Sahaba would enjoy their slave girls
trading in them, and wanting to avoid pregnancy for them (assumedly to prevent their price form decreasing). Does Zaid condemn these noble men as criminals? Does he think they were wrong? Does he have any sense? Oh Muslims, you must stand against people like Zaid! Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Al Mansur Al Maliki

Al Mansur Al Maliki Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AlMansurMaliki

14 Jan
Replying to the nonsense of Hamza Yusuf and Bin Bayyah.

Please find attached a video of Hamza Yusuf, please watch this video.

According to Hamza, Bin Bayyah says that there was a debate about offensive jihad, this is a half truth. The early difference of opinion was regarding
Whether offensive jihad was obligatory or not, it wasn't regarding whether it was permissible or not. The view of all 4 schools is that it's obligatory, the other views (that it's not obligatory) was rejected due to it being of weaker strength. To pretend that the debate was over
Permissibility is a major deception. Further according to Hamza and bin Bayyah, you must now see the debate as over, that it's haram. The issue is the debate was never about halal or Haram, it was about obligatory or not, so I challenge the fans of these two devils to show us one
Read 6 tweets
13 Jan
I won't lie, I did find this thread entertaining. But now to respond. The issue he has is that I have no formal ijaza, this is his issue and this is a common issue people who themselves have no ijaza and haven't studied like to bring up. Just so everyone knows the ijza system
itself is not something initiated by the Prophet ﷺ but a latter thing intended as a safe guarding measure. Those who advocate the system try arguing from narrations where the Prophet ﷺ approves of the fatwa giving of some companions, however this doesn't establish the whole
system where someone can't speak unless given permission to speak. As time went on the ijaza system itself broke down, as scholars would give general ijazas to pretty much everyone. It became more of a ceremonial thing than anything and this is why it is pretty much meaningless.
Read 9 tweets
11 Jan
I don't usually do this but a certain pretentious kid has annoyed me so lets expose the game to everyone. @theultrastrange seems pretty upset that I don't have formal ijaza (I do technically have ijaza in books of hadith I haven't even studied, but that's a separate issue)
These type of people, we all know them, they are angry at us and insist its because we have no formal ijaza. They won't really refute us, well they might try to call us out on a technicality, but besides that its nothing but "where is your teachers heheh". So I thought it would Image
be fun to show who these people mean by scholars. From the attached image we can see an example of someone this guy sees as a real scholar. He, Abu Jafar al hanbali (hasan ibn umar), claims to follow the hanbali school, really hates wahabis, and is an interesting character. Image
Read 10 tweets
4 Jan
Thread on Taqi Usmani 🧵
Taqi Usmani is a deobandi scholar, rather it could be said their most influential scholar today but also he seems to be the go to scholar for a certain reformist bint. But lets take a closer look at this Taqi Usmani guy, is he really a great scholar or yet another sell out?
I will be quoting from this post… if this post is not truly reflective of his views I'd advise someone to get in touch with Usmani to clarify. Note the post has been up for well over a decade, so its hard to imagine its just a big lie.
Read 16 tweets
3 Jan
Problem with this is allegations of rape do indeed require 4 witnesses according to sunni Islam, except in the maliki madhab, but the maliki madhab would not accept an allegations years after the supposed event. This is a recurring theme, ignorant Muslims attack leaders of other
sects or outright kuffar, based on things that could be used against them. So you will get Muslims who try arguing against Judaism based on the Talmud allowing child marriage, but Islam itself allows child marriage. They'll attack Khomeini for his fatwa on deriving sexual
pleasure from a wife under 9 but not being able to have full sex with her till she is over 9, but you find almost exactly the same rulings in mainstream sunni Islam. The real problem with Khomeini's fatwa is the idea that if he did have sex with her and damaged her then she is
Read 5 tweets
29 Dec 21
Replying to the misguided Asrar Rashid. In the attached video he tries to distort what jihad is. According to him jihad is a response to hiraba or war mongering, and offensive jihad was really just preemptive jihad. The problem with this understanding is it flies in open
Contradiction with the Quran and Sunnah, as well as the practice of the Muslims for 1400 years. When you read the latter ayat on jihad they very clearly link kufr to the reason for fighting. Let's look at 9:29, there is no way you can read this Aya and say "yes this is about
Countering aggression", this is clearly about kufr. Asrar doesn't really provide an argument, so I don't see a need to refute "context" here. But just for the purpose of driving the point please find attached an extract from qadi Abu bakr ibn Al Arabi's tafsir: the reason for
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!