Hisham the Whataboutist Lies to his gullible audience

The Moroccan infidel is a popular Moroccan atheist channel, the reason why I decided to specifically all the sudden go after him is because of how we as Muslims suffer from imperialism, and to see an ignoramus like him claim that sharia law on its own is imperialist is outlandish, here we will point out his inconsistency and lies when he respond to Dr.Haitham Tal’at, a prominent Egyptian Islamic scholar, where this atheist slander his character and go on and even misquote his own source that we will use against him, even going so far as to call him terrorist and Imam Tabari as Da’ishi (ISIS member) yes this is how insane this atheist is, going so far as to call Imam Tabari a terrorist, I’ve seen worse though, but we shall see if Imam Tabari is indeed advocating for ISIS and any doctrine similar to theirs

He shouldn’t carry the title Moroccan in his name as he doesn’t represent Moroccan people by any stretch of the imagination if he or any of his supporters are reading this, next time try and bring sources that don’t debunk you Hisham

first Dr.Haitham start by criticizing Atheist who read Quran like ISIS does, and criticizes how they force someone to read Quran like ISIS instead the correct salaf interpretation

@00:52 Hisham reply with at first mocking tones then said: ” are you trying to tell us Muhammad was an ISIS member?”
oh wow Hisham, you discovered a tafsir written by Muhammad (PBUH) explaining quranic passages? care to show us that tafsir? oh, that is correct I forgot, that is the same cliche argument “ISIS follow Muhammad” that new atheist so pathetically barrage all the time

“that Sahaba are ISIS members?”

now Sahaba have their own tafsir? all thousands of them? Hisham drop your pathetic new atheist rambling (ISIS follows Muhammad) and provide one source for any of the above claims

“that Tabari is an ISIS member?”

now that is insane, we do have tafsir Tabari care to provide one passage from his tafsir where he says the blood of a nonbeliever is halal even if they are not aggressors?

funny that Tabari replied to people who claimed 9:5 of Quran allow for killing nonbelievers even those who are in contract and called that interpretation”corrupted” see Hisham? Tabari the man you called ISIS member calls your interpretation corrupted (we will show with evidence from his tafsir later on)

“that bukhari and muslim ISIS memebers”
Bukhari and Muslim have their own tafsir now? new atheists never sease to amaze me

“that Hafith ibn Hajar and nawawi ISIS members”

hafith and nawawi have Quranic tafsir? 

nither hafiz nor nawawi have dedicated books for tafsir Quran, Nawawi only have one book for students of Quran hadith and fiqh explaining basic rulings for each branch of Islamic science, no Tafsir book was written by Nawawi, stop pulling nonsense out of your mouth Hisham

so far all rhetoric nonsense no source no citation no footnote no logic, just you and your emotional response because Dr.Haitham called your interpretation of Quran ISIS toned, so you decided to commit red herrings one after another and say “what about Muhammad and his companions what about this and that” great job Hisham, instead of directly addressing Dr.Haitham objections you resort to Whataboutism.

I’m expecting the same old argument that we will see later “all peacefull verses are meccan verses abrogated by madinan verses” but when you ask them evidence for that, they go silent

now after Dr.Haithm provide hadith from the prophet saying

“The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Whoever killed a Mu'ahid (a person who is granted the pledge of protection by the Muslims) shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be smelt at a distance of forty years (of traveling).”¹

@01:50 Hisham reply “it’s nice that brother Haitham brings us examples, but who ever defend the crisis of islam falls into another crisis, the hadith he cited in a cherry picking manner, because he won’t mention the stright forward hadiths and verses as we know in islam chosing what ever you want, like if you wanted a peacefull verse to go back to meccan verses (ah now we are getting that same old argument) and if you want verses of war and fight go to madinan and so on (Hisham proceed to cite the hadith Dr.Haitham cited) and in other sources it’s 70 years and the hadith is found in bukhari chapter : who killed mu’ahid, muslim speaks about the dhimmi as a beautifull thing for islam the opposite is true all that you have to do is read book Ahkam Ahil althima by ibn Qaim al jozi, i pledge that who ever read this book or looked at several chapters, will have his thought changed on islam, an immoral book by far, it shows us the relations between people who are Dhimmi, at tope of inhuman, we retuen to the hadith (dear god all that ramble about how immoral a book is had nothing to do with the hadith? how sad)the question here is, what is the punishment for a muslim if he killed a mu’ahid, what is his punishment if he killed a mu’ahid, is that a religion or mafia”

I have never seen such red herring fired from moon straight to mars, goodness did you actually addressed the hadith Hisham? let me see your response, in short, Dr.Haitham rationally and logically shows that killing a nonmuslim who didn’t fight you don’t grant you paradise, and Hisham respond with What about his punishment? as if that is what this hadith address, infact in the very screen you provided you accidentally (or deceptively) forget about the title of the chapter of the hadith

as you can see it says “chapter the sin of whoever killed a Dhimmi without charge”

this hadith addressed the “sin” nature of whoever kills a Dhimmi without charge of crime, it says it right there in the title of the chapter Hisham, do new atheist suffer weak vision or something? it’s right above the hadith, killing a Dhimmi without charge is a sin

your reply to Dr.Haitham citing this hadith is a Whataboutism? this is my first response to you and I’m greeted with this? plus you said Dr.Haithm Cherry picked this hadith? care to show the context that he omitted? no, of course, you won’t, also Meccan and Madinan verses? how is that related to the hadith?

your excuse is “read this book and see how immoral it’s” is the response to the hadith? are you joking Hisham?

Muslim doesn’t just get away from killing a mu’ahid without any form of punishment

أن يقول الحنفي في قتل المسلم بالذمي: قتل عمد عدوان، فأوجب القصاص

Hanafi says if a Muslim kills a Dhimmi intentionally and out of aggression, then Punishment is required²

What comes later is the most shocking display of ignorance in Hadith science

Dr.Haitham tal’at responding by citing an authentic hadith (which does exist in Sahih Bukhari) but wait until you see the pathetic attempt by Hisham to try and discredit the hadith since it refutes his arguments

Dr.Haitham cites hadith“Narrated A number of Companions of the Prophet:

Safwan reported from a number of Companions of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) on the authority of their fathers who were relatives of each other. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: Beware, if anyone wrongs a contracting man, or diminishes his right, or forces him to work beyond his capacity, or takes from him anything without his consent, I shall plead for him on the Day of Judgment.”³

Contracting man is the mu’ahid and the Dhimmi, now just watch and see how deceptive Hisham is

@04:30 Hisham state “ this hadith have some issues, it its sanad has some unknowns thirty of sons of messenger companions, Abu sakhir al madini was singular in narrating it, let’s accept the hadith that it’s Sahih, same problem, what is the punishment of a Muslim who wrongs a Dhimmi, or forces him to work beyond his capacity, or who take something from him without his consent, what does the Dhimmi benefit from this Hadith, all of these are afterlife warnings and has nothing to do with current life, where is the law that prevent diminishing rights of another human, of course you won’t find it in a law that kills someone for merely leaving the faith, one thing I forget in this hadith, is that you take something without consent, and what about jizyah that Dhimmi gives while he is humiliated he gives it with consent?”

the same nonsense as above (whataboutism) maybe I should call you Hisham the whataboutist, the punishment for wronging the Dhimmi is mentioned above

but for the sake of argument let’s assume that the hadith doesn’t explicitly cite that there is a punishment for harming Dhimmis (let alone kill them) does that mean there is no punishment at all? as we saw that is not correct, now it’s correct that generally, Islamic scholars agree that a Muslim must not be killed for killing a Dhimmi as majority of scholars agree, this is similar to the death penalty that many protesters in western countries try to rebuke, but a Muslim will receive lashes and will be locked in jail for years for his crime, basically a Muslim doesn’t get away from this crime, if he does why even invoke it as a sin, why even state time and time again that a Muslim is not allowed to kill or treat a Dhimmi unjustly? as noted by the scholars of Islamweb the most authentic source of Islam in the web

“فمن كان من أهل الكفر بينه وبين المسلمين عهد أو أمان أو ذمة فإنه لا يجوز قتله، بل ولا يجوز الاعتداء على ماله ولا على عرضه، ولا فرق في ذلك بين المسيحي واليهودي وغيرهما”⁴

Translation:

and among those of infidels who had the treaty of safety or Dhimmi between him and Muslim he is not permitted to be killed, even so, it’s not permitted to assault him and his money or his honor, and there is no difference in that between Christian or jew or others

they proceed to later cite the same hadith cited by Dr.Haitham that a Muslim won’t enter heaven for unjustly killing Dhimmi

“فإن قتل النفس التي حرم الله إلا بالحق كبيرة من أكبر الكبائر وجريمة من أعظم الجرائم، فقد قال الله تعالى: وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا النَّفْسَ الَّتِي حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ {الإسراء:33}.”⁵

Translation:

whoever kills a soul that God forbade unless it’s for just reason is one if not the biggest catastrophe and among the biggest crimes, god said {And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden, except by right.}17:33

let’s go back to his accusations that the hadith is weak because there are “unknown” narrators, the unknown narrators he alleged are “number of Companions of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) on the authority of their fathers who were relatives of each other” it’s basically narrations from the sons of prophet companions, Now how is that unknown, we know who they are, they are the sons of the companions of the prophet that their fathers narrated from them, so no Abu sakhir al madini was not the singular narrator, it was him and the sons of the companions of the prophet

Dr.Haitham tal’at later cites verse 8:61 {And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.}⁶

and state it was the last phase of what is revealed (madinan) of course as you guessed it Hisham disagrees, but more astonishingly claim it’s abrogated, which it’s not and we will see that from Imam Tabari who he called ISIS member

@06:03 Hisham state “no darling sura alanfal was not the last of what is revealed of quran, surah anfal was revealed after battle of badir meaning at the start of the madinan phase, and i corrected these errors for you in the chronological order of verses but you insist to add other errors the verse says {And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing} did Haitham look if he looked and said that then he is deceptive and if he didn’t then he better look it up before he put himself in bad spots, Muhammad ibn abdul a’la told us : muhammad ibn thaor , from mu’amar from qutada : {And if they incline to peace} said : to peace said it was abrogated by {and fight the disblivers where ever you find them } 9:5 (what makes this so funny is that Hisham is using Tabari, the Very man he called ISIS memeber, but let we will see that Tabari his own source slap his claim) and even of those who say that it’s not abrogated then it’s no better and what god said in Barah (the other name of chapter 9) {kill the polytheists where ever you find them} is not contradictory to {And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also]} because what god says {And if they incline to peace} is meant by bany qurayza, and they were the jews of the people of the book, and god permitted for muslims to make contract of treaty with people of the book and not fight them by taking jizya and as for {fight the disbelivers where ever you find them} it meant the polytheists of those who worship idols, those who should not be taken jizya from them, no jizya is taken from them, so what is taken from them? islam or be killed, then a Muslim will claim Islam is neither religion of murder or blood”

the more I dive into your video the more dishonest you appear and this is my first reply to you

let’s disect this, so you try and respond to Tabari who says that your claim of abrogation is nonsense by saying it’s worse and you go and say that 9:5 allows for either convert or die (we will address that from Tabari himself later) this won’t be the first time Hisham misquote his source, we will see later how he took a Ph.D. Thesis book about sharia law and misquoted it to make Islam look imperialist

first let’s address it, what Dr.Haitham meant by “last revealed” is that it’s in the last phase, not the final surah, nowhere did he say this is the final surah, he was referring to its nature as madinan verse, there is another example verse 60:8-9 which neither any commentator no Tabari state it’s abrogated, and it’s a madinan verse

anyways

فإن ظنّ ظانٌّ أن قول الله تعالى ذكره: فَإِذَا انْسَلَخَ الأَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ فَاقْتُلُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدْتُمُوهُمْ ، [سورة التوبة: 5]، يدلُّ على خلاف ما قلنا في ذلك, إذ كان ذلك ينبئ على أن الفرض على المؤمنين كان بعد انقضاء الأشهر الحرم،  قتْلَ كل مشرك, فإن الأمر في ذلك بخلاف ما ظن, وذلك أن الآية التي تتلو ذلك تبين عن صحة ما قلنا،  وفسادِ ما ظنه من ظنّ أن انسلاخ الأشهر الحرم كان يبيح قتل كل مشرك، كان له عهد من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، أو لم يكن له منه عهد, وذلك قوله: كَيْفَ يَكُونُ لِلْمُشْرِكِينَ عَهْدٌ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ وَعِنْدَ رَسُولِهِ إِلا الَّذِينَ عَاهَدْتُمْ عِنْدَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ فَمَا اسْتَقَامُوا لَكُمْ فَاسْتَقِيمُوا لَهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُتَّقِينَ ، [سورة التوبة: 7]، فهؤلاء مشركون, وقد أمر الله نبيه صلى الله عليه وسلم والمؤمنين بالاستقامة لهم في عهدهم، ما استقاموا لهم بترك نقض صلحهم، وترك مظاهرة عدوهم عليهم.

Translation:

For those who think {And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them} meaning proves in differ to what we mention, that this implies that permission to the believers after the passing of the months to kill polytheist, then this is in contradiction to what we said, and that this verse that is mentioned shows the authenticity of what is we said , and it’s wrong and corrupted for those who think that the passing of the holy Months, that it’s permissible to just kill every single polytheist, even those who had treaty with the prophet ﷺ or even those who didn’t in accordance to { How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].} (9:7) those are polytheist, and god ordered his prophet and the believers to be loyal to them in treaty, so long as their loyal (in reference to polytheist aswelll) by not breaking the treaty, and leaving their proclamation of animosity and hate to the believers

Oh, Tabari now sounds so much like ISIS now does he Hisham? that is the most violent verse in the Quran? the so-called verse of the sword Hisham? take a look at the text above, see how Tabari just slammed over 50 years of Islamophobia propaganda in just 7 lines, so much for “religion of murder or blood”

Dr.Haitham later state that preemptive jihad is for those who fight us when we spread the religion of god he states that there are 42 verses on jihad 40 defensive and 2 offensive

but later Hisham will do one more irrational thing, he will cite a Ph.D. thesis of a scholar on Jihad and political violence to make Islam look imperialist, but we shall see how he misquote this author on the same work

@10:04 Hisham state “there are more than 2 offensive verses on jihad, but that is all right, there is defensive jihad, and there is offensive jihad in Quran, Beautiful, what did sheikh of Islam said? brother Haitham doesn’t cite sources, doesn’t cite tafsirs nor does he cite explanation (accusing him of something you did yourself Hisham?) this is mentioned in book Majmu’ fatwa vol.28 page.354 and if the bases of jihad is fighting and based on that religion is for god, and god word is the highest , so whoever not commit to such duty is fought as agreed by all Muslims, those who are not among the groups that should not be killed like women and children and monks and elderly, and blind and sick and others like them are not killed by general consensus of scholars, except if he fight by words or actions , and some interpreted it even if some allowed killing of everyone just for disbelieving except women and children for them being money like property for Muslims, but the first interpretation is correct, because fighting is only for those who fight us if we wish to bring the religion of God as god said {Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.}2:190 and in sunnah so the context is not like how Haitham want us to know, that who doesn’t fight you you don’t fight, that is defensive jihad, this is defensive jihad, someone fight you you defend yourself , here it’s about offensive jihad, and offensive jihad is mentioned here (highlight portion of the book) meaning when you try and bring religion, but i won’t explain Ibn taymiya, so one one say i explain as i want, explain as i wish, i leave for you the words of Dr.Muhammad Khair Haikal in his book Jihad and fighting in sharia politics, the book is a PhD thesis page 1262 we read, and he mentions what Ibn Taymia mentions, and he says that in page 1261, and here in page 1262 he says “this is what ibn taymiah said as it’s made clear that Jihad is obligated to spread the rligion of god against all those who prevent it from spreading, and it’s obvius that we realize the idea that spreading the religion of god spread to other countreis , is the application of the system that god religion was built upon on these countries , and ruling will be by the hands of muslims on these countries to make that religion, and after that who remained in desbelive among the disbeleivers from countries of the infidels , and their hands was removed from goverment, no harm comes from his disbeleife , no in muslims and no in the counrty in that matter, but the harm of his disbelife comes back to him alone , and that is opposite of what will happen if the ruling remained in the hands of the infidels in infidel country, they apply the systems of disbelife , there is no space in saying here that muslims will apply the religion of god there and they see the religion of god is being ruled , and the religion of disbelife or it’s goverment is the ruller and in that case, if the men on goverment never handed over the goverment to muslims , by means of peace to apply the religion of god , then jihad is obligated on all those who prevented it from Kufar even if they didn’t start by attacking muslims that is the offensive Jihad , you ask the other countries to hand over the goverment so you rule by god sharia

well that seems damning isn’t it, in case you missed it the author gives us a hint that Hisham the Whataboutist walked over because he knew his audience are too stone headed to see it, infact the basic thing is to go the the dedicated chapter in that book regarding invasion of other countries where the author gives us the reasons to why Muslims should fight, read the following

“no harm comes from his disbelief , no in Muslims and no in the country in that matter, but the harm of his disbelief comes back to him alone, and that is opposite of what will happen if the ruling remained in the hands of the infidels in infidel country”let’s read carefully, the first sentence speaks about the harm of individual belief, where it states no harm to the belief of the disbeliever will come when he live in Muslim lands, but the opposite is true, that if a Muslim lives in nonmuslim land his life will be harmed directly

this gives us a hint at the chapter of vol.1 that Hisham glassed over

in Vol.1 Chapter 3

the author gives us on page 130 3 conditions where rebellion or overthrowing a regime based on disbelief is required or not where he details rogue rulers that also applies to Muslim ruler.

1-if the ruler himself announce disbelief

2-disbelief based on individuals of Muslim community like apostasy

3-the disbelief that is based on ruling system (this is our target here let’s explore what the author say)

on page 131

3-و أما دلالة الحديث عن المنازعة حالة قيام النظام على عقيدة الكفر فذلك لان النص الشرعي لم يحصر المنازعة لأصحاب السلطة في الكفر فقط بل قال : (.. الا ان تروا كفرا بواحا) رؤية الكفر تصدق على الكفر الذي يرى من الحاكم و تصدق على الكفر الذي يرى من غير الحاكم كما تصدق على الكفر الذي يرى في نضام الحاكم عندما يقوم على عقيدة الكفر و يجري فرضه على الناس

Translation:

3-for the evidence of hadith regarding the overthrow of a government based on disbelief, that because the sharia never made it exclusive for government in disbelief in what it said : (.. when you see public disbelife} seeing disbelief and witnessing disbelief from a ruler, and witnessing disbelief on others beside the ruler , as witnessing disbelief in governing system of the ruler and when it’s based on the ‘aqida of disbelief, and when it’s forced upon people

ah forced? sounds now like defensive jihad to me

let’s read more

بناء على هذا فبمجرد أمر الحاكم للناس بمعصية

based on that even when the ruler force people to commit sin

all these on the very chapter that address the issue of overthrowing governments and you Hisham glossed over all these statements that clearly state if the ruler forces people to commit sin (people here including Muslims) then he is to be overthrown, imagine if a country like Myanmar that is now oppressing the Rohingya Muslims and committing genocides and mass murder, if a Muslim country with power see this, based on the above statements they are obligated to intervene to save the oppressed Muslims

the same applies when a government forces Muslims to commit sins outside their religion they are then faced with jihad

not if a country or a ruler never prevent Muslims for doing their daily obligations as Muslims, on that case no need for jihad, if that was the case the world will be set on fire and Muslims from 50 countries will wage war

infact the above 3 line is enough to shut that insane rhetoric up

on the same chapter again on Issue six المبحث السادس القتال ضد انحراف الحاكم regarding fighting a roge ruller which also applies on page 117

و من انحرافات الحاكم : ان يسطو على افراد الأمة بالأيذاء من الضرب و تعذيب و مصادرة الأموال

Translation:

and among the deviation of a ruler: that he robs the members of the ummah, by harm or hitting or torture or confiscating money

that sounds a lot like Myanmar

on page 118 the author state that these deviations could also be applied to a Muslim ruler

in chapter 5 the author titled: the reasons for Jihad in Islam, the author get more specific as he differentiate between Dar al Islam and Dar al kufor page 682

Translation:

as for when it reaches harm on Muslims living in nonmuslim lands of nonmuslim countries, then this oppression might come from the government that these Muslims belong to.

and might come from the people of these countries they live in, and might be legislated from a foreign country.. and on all these, if the oppression is on Muslims then rescuing them is required

Jihad sounds that awful to you? why you didn’t read this Hisham? why do you misquote this author to make Islam look bad? how desperate you need to be?

in conclusion:
Hisham took a hadith out of context and strawmanned it, resorted to whataboutism, claimed that there is no punishment for killing a Dhimmi while not providing any evidence for this, proceeded to claim a hadith is weak when it's not while displaying incredible ignorance in hadith science, proceeding to ignoring ibn Taymiah debunking him and used a PhD thesis that if read in context shred his argument, proceeded to call tabari an ISIS member but if we see his opinion on 9:5 he debunks the last decades in Islamophobia in just 7 lines

one of the worse atheists I have ever dealt with, incredibly condescending no sign of humbleness no accepting of defeat in any way shape or form, resorting to strawman after strawman red herring after red herring and quoting sources out of context

I usually never go emotional in my response, but if you have an argument try not to start your video by called muhammad an ISIS members without knowing how close he is to 1.7 billion people let alone not provide evidence for that statement, if you wish for a civilized discussion don't start with a pathetic insult to a prophetic figure

---

¹  https://sunnah.com/bukhari/87/52

²  Shariah Mukhtasar alrawtha fi Usol alfiguh page.581

³  https://sunnah.com/abudawud/20/125 (grade Sahih)

⁴  https://fatwa.islamweb.net/fatwa/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=67113

⁵  https://fatwa.islamweb.net/fatwa/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=205957

⁶  https://quran.com/8/61?translations=