abul_miswar_zayd's Second Admission of Defeat: More Slander, Still No Refutation
--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--
His second response confirms everything established in the first:
He still has not identified a mistranslation, challenged the authenticity of a quotation, supplied missing context, corrected a historical attribution, answered the distinction between general and individual takfeer, or produced a single scholarly source against anything I wrote.
Instead, he has repeated the same racial projections, sexual accusations, lies, mockery involving mental illness, and irrelevant personal abuse.
His Ignorant Misapplication of the Hadith Concerning Lineage
He claims that my use of the word "allegedly" concerning his projected description of my complexion amounts to doubting or abandoning my lineage.
This is pure ignorance.
Complexion is not lineage. Rejecting an online stranger's racial classification is not renouncing one's father, claiming another father, or attaching oneself to another tribe.
In the earlier discussion, I spoke about discrimination experienced by students with darker skin tones and said that I do not happen to have white skin. I did not state that my complexion corresponded to his later description of me, nor did I renounce my lineage. Skin complexions are relative. A person may be perceived as darker than one group and lighter than another. None of this has anything to do with nasab.
Shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr said:
من ادعى إلى غير أبيه يعني انتسب إلى غير أبيه
"'Whoever claims someone other than his father' means: whoever attributes his lineage to someone other than his father."
(Source)
Nothing in that hadith concerns complexion, refusing another person's racial classification, or using the word "allegedly". His attempted application of the hadith is not merely weak. It has absolutely no connection to its subject.
Even if I were exactly as dark-skinned as he claims, it would still have no relevance to any scholarly argument I presented. He introduced complexion because he could not answer the evidence.
His Repeated Sexual Accusations
He repeatedly attributes sexual conduct, promiscuity, lust, and attempts to seduce men to me. What did imam ibn Qudaamah say concerning an explicit accusation that a man commits the act of Qawm Loot?
Whoever accuses a man of committing the act of the people of Lut, whether as the active or passive participant, is subject to the hadd punishment for qadhf. This was also stated by al-Hasan, an-Nakha'i, az-Zuhri, Maalik, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, and Abu Thawr.
(Source)
His statements constitute unjustified abuse and false attributions of disgraceful conduct. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:
سِبَابُ الْمُسْلِمِ فُسُوقٌ
"Abusing a Muslim is fusooq."
It is reported from 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) concerning someone saying, "O wicked person, O faasiq":
هن فواحش، وفيهن عقوبة، ولا تقولهن فتعودهن
"These are obscenities for which there is punishment. Do not say them, lest you become accustomed to them."
(Source)
It is also reported from 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said:
إنكمْ سألْتُموني عن الرَّجلِ يقول للرَّجلِ يا كافرُ يا فاسقُ يا حمارُ وليس فيه حدٌّ وإنما فيه عُقوبةٌ من السُّلطانِ فلا تعودُوا فتقولُوا
"You asked me about a man who says to another man, 'O disbeliever,' 'O faasiq,' or 'O donkey.' There is no prescribed hadd punishment for this. Rather, it is subject to a punishment imposed by the ruler. So do not return to saying such things."
Scholars explained:
Among the matters encouraged by the Shari'ah is guarding the tongue. Whoever speaks should speak only good and avoid every false statement, including insults, backbiting, or mistreating anyone. Some expressions may entail a prescribed hadd punishment, such as words of qadhf. For this reason, it is legislated for the ruler to punish whoever insults or abuses people, even when those expressions do not carry a prescribed Shari'ah punishment.
Regarding this, 'Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "You asked me about a man who says to another man, 'O disbeliever,' 'O faasiq,' or 'O donkey.' There is no hadd punishment for this." Meaning, there is no prescribed Shari'ah punishment for uttering such expressions.
"Rather, it is subject to a punishment imposed by the ruler." Meaning, the ruler punishes him in whatever manner he considers sufficient to deter and restrain him.
"So do not return to saying such things." Meaning, whoever returns to using those expressions after we have clarified this will be punished.
The report demonstrates the gravity of insulting others.
It also shows that the ruler may impose a punishment in matters for which no specific textual punishment has been prescribed, according to what he considers sufficient to deter the people under his authority.
It also shows that a person should be warned and informed before the punishment is imposed upon him.
(Source)
This is precisely what the warning, "Do not say them, lest you become accustomed to them," exposes. Their tongues have become disturbingly accustomed to foul speech, to the point that accusations of homosexuality and similar obscenities emerge almost reflexively whenever they are unable to answer an argument. This is no longer an isolated lapse, but a reflection of what their tongues have become accustomed to and of the thoughts that occupy them.
His Fujoor in Dispute
He previously resorted to racial remarks, invented sexual narratives, and mockery involving mental illness. After those characteristics were exposed through the hadith concerning hypocrisy, he repeated and intensified them.
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:
وَإِذَا خَاصَمَ فَجَرَ
"And when he disputes, he resorts to fujoor."
That description precisely fits what occurred here. He was presented with quotations, references, historical evidence, and scholarly principles. Instead of answering them, he deviated from the disputed subject and fabricated allegations.
Like his friend, who declared takfeer upon me, he now ardently seeks to imitate him by blindly declaring me a kaafir and attributing to me the falsehood and filthy ideology of Qawm Loot. This only shows that they have no scholarly substance with which to engage what I have clarified, corrected, and exposed.
His Ignorant Sneering at the Works of Imam as-Suyooti
He now claims that my posts are unworthy of refutation because I am supposedly "too invested in Suyuti books".
This only exposes another layer of ignorance.
No one claims that imam as-Suyooti was infallible or that every statement in every one of his books must be accepted. His statements are examined like the statements of other scholars. However, sneering at someone merely for benefiting from the works of imam as-Suyooti is not scholarly criticism.
Among contemporary scholars, shaykh ibn Baaz said regarding al-Itqaan:
لا أذكر في هذا الباب أحسن من كتاب الإتقان للسيوطي
"I do not recall anything better in this field than as-Suyooti's al-Itqaan."
He further called it:
كتاب جيد مفيد
"A good and beneficial book."
(Source)
Shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr similarly recommended Tadreeb ar-Raawi, describing it as a comprehensive work that collected much of what a student of knowledge requires. (Source)
Therefore, his attempt to dismiss a person merely for using the works of imam as-Suyooti is worthless. The scholars benefited from, praised, taught, summarized, and recommended those works while still identifying particular mistakes when necessary.
Contemporary Ahlus-Sunnah scholars have endorsed and recommended particular works of imam as-Suyooti, including:
- Shaykh 'Abdul-'Azeez at-Tareefi
- Shaykh 'Abdullah al-Jibreen
- Shaykh 'Abdullah al-Ghunayman
- Shaykh Muhammad Adam al-Ethiopi
If he believes that I cited as-Suyooti incorrectly, he must identify the precise quotation and prove the error. Merely repeating "Suyuti books" with contempt proves nothing except his inability to engage objectively.
Shaykh Husaam al-Humaydaah's Remarks on shaykh ad-Daddu
As noted, scholars are not infallible. However, what must be upheld are the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah and how they differ from other misguided sects, such as Ahlul-Kalaam. Notice the great contrast in how the Hanafi scholar, shaykh Husaam, addressed shaykh ad-Daddu. His video title is: "A Message to al-'Allamah al-Daddu Regarding His Division of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah into Ash'aris, Maturidis, and Ahlul-Hadith."
The title al-'Allaamah is very significant, as it signifies shaykh Husaam's respect for shaykh ad-Daddu. Yet the Haddaadi wrote: "Even if you're Mauritanian, this isn't the reason Muslims offend Dedw the ChatGPT cocktail scholar." It is interesting that the Haddaadiyyah succumb to this lowliness and show no taqwa or decency.
Dear readers, notice how vile they are in their disparagement of the imams, even imam Abu Haneefah and his madhhab, while throwing allegations of homosexuality left and right. But how did shaykh Husaam address all of this and shaykh ad-Daddu?
I want you to pause with me here carefully and comprehensively, without being biased by emotion, partisanship, or group loyalty. Leave aside labels such as "Wahhaabi," "Jahmi," or whatever else people may use, and consider the clear facts.
Did not the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah, including the major scholars of hadith, tafseer, and fiqh, beginning with Abu Haneefah, may Allah have mercy upon him, his students, Maalik, ash-Shaafi'ee, who was a leading imam in responding to them, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal, may Allah sanctify his soul, the lion and supporter of the Sunnah, respond to the Jahmiyyah and the Mu'tazilah?
Later, shaykh Husaam said:
My words are now directed to whoever accepts or is convinced by this division. They are also directed to the shaykh, the 'allaamah, the haafidh, and the man of piety, Muhammad al-Daddu. I do not declare him pure before Allah, but I consider him, and Allah is his Judge, to be from the people of piety and righteousness and to love Allah and His Messenger.
However, this is advice from one lower to one higher, and from one of lesser virtue to one of greater virtue.
The Haddaadiyyah attempted to claim shaykh Husaam, yet his own manner of scholarly criticism is clearly far removed from them and their misguidance. More beautifully, shaykh Husaam concluded his message:
Ahlus-Sunnah are only one group, with one foundation and one conclusion. Whoever differs from us in the path, the foundation, and the conclusion is not from Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah.
This is true, and the same applies to the Haddaadiyyah sect, to such a degree that there is now an entire book refuting this sect, especially the man after whom it was named: Mahmood al-Haddaad.
"I Would Refute It, but It Is Too Irrelevant"
His statement that he would "love to refute" my posts but considers them too irrelevant is another transparent admission.
He considered them relevant enough to publish multiple responses, tag other people, repeat personal allegations, investigate comments from unrelated threads, and construct an entire racial and sexual narrative around them.
Yet he somehow considers them too "irrelevant" to identify one scholarly error.
His second response contains no scholarship, no evidence, no correction, and no defence of his original post. It contains an irrelevant hadith misapplied to skin complexion, repeated accusations of sexual immorality, personal abuse, and ignorant contempt for the books of a major imam.
He has still not refuted anything.
He has merely provided further documentation of his repeated falsehoods, the abusive speech described in the hadith as fusooq, and his fujoor in dispute.
Posted Jul 15, 2026, 9:43 PM UTC