🧵 Be cautious of the YouTube channel “Arabic 101”
﷽
As a disclaimer: “Arabic 101” is a useful channel of benefit, especially for beginners who want to learn Arabic or Tajwīd, and I do not intend that it is a bad channel overall.
As a disclaimer: “Arabic 101” is a useful channel of benefit, especially for beginners who want to learn Arabic or Tajwīd, and I do not intend that it is a bad channel overall.
However, I have noticed major mistakes and errors in some of his videos, which would be presenting misinformation to the masses/laymen, and I have constantly mentioned this in the comments, and I shall also mention some of them here.
In one of his recent videos that showed up on my feed, he said that the reason “إبراهيم” is spelled as “إبرهـم” in Sūrat al-Baqarah specifically is to accommodate the reading of Hishām (which is “Ibrāhām”), which *only happens in Sūrat al-Baqarah*.
And this is obviously false, as Hishām reads “Ibrāhīm” as “Ibrāhām” in 33 instances, only 15 of which are in al-Baqarah. Furthermore, he does read “Ibrāhām” in places where it is spelled as “إبرهىم” as well, so this isn't a very convincing reasoning.
In one of his other videos, he said it is “incorrect” to add “Sayyidnā” before the name of the Prophet ﷺ in acts of worship. While this is the opinion of some scholars, it is not allowed to call the opposing opinion “incorrect” in matters of difference of opinion.
Especially not when the Mu‘tamad of the Shāfi‘ī Madhhab is that it is *recommended* to add it in acts of worship and other than it, which I highlighted in the comments.
And Allāh is a witness that I did not go through his videos to find his mistakes or even click his channel in the first place, but these videos appeared in my feed in the past couple of days alone.
In an older video on Aḥruf and Qirāʾāt, he presented a chart which is supposed to show the 10 Qurrāʾ and their Ruwāh, but it is not very accurate:
Mistake #1: the tenth Qāriʾ is Khalaf, not Khālid, there is no Qāriʾ among them named Khālid.
Mistake #2: the Qāriʾ of Baṣrah is Abū ʿAmr, not Abū ʿUmar as he wrote. Both his spelling and Ḍabṭ are wrong.
Mistake #3: the Rāwiyayn of al-Kisāʾī and Abū Jaʿfar are reversed. al-Layth and al-Dūrī are the narrators for al-Kisāʾī, not Abū Jaʿfar.
In another video, he speaks against hanging verses of the Qurān in cars to seek protection and blessings, which again the majority of the scholars view as permissible.
In the same video, he says it is incorrect to say “صدق الله العظيم” after reciting the Qurān, which is again false. It falls under permissible innovations as it does not contradict any Aṣl of the Sharīʿah.
According to the Shāfiʿī Madhhab, even saying it in prayer won't affect its validity!
He “justifies” what he said by saying that the verse used in favour of it is taken out of context. What he fails to realise is that according to the majority of scholars, العبرة بعموم اللفظ.
And even if we say it is taken out of context and hence an invalid Istidlāl, it would still be allowed as it does not contradict any Aṣl of the Sharīʿah, and is hence a permissible innovation.
He then speaks against kissing the Muṣḥaf, again from his ignorance. Even if the report of ʿIkrimah was weak, it is allowed to act upon weak narrations in other than Aḥkām and ʿAqīdah. Besides, scholars of the Sunnah like al-Imām Aḥmad allowed it based on this.
And even if we completely ignored the narration of ʿIkrimah, it is still allowed, as it is a respect to the Muṣḥaf, and the original ruling in most things is permissibility, and most Fuqahāʾ have mentioned that it is recommended to kiss the Muṣḥaf.
Then, he speaks against reciting Qurān to begin ceremonies, which is against obviously false. The Prophet ﷺ said: “Any important matter that does not begin with the Dhikr of Allāh is void (of blessings).” The Qurān is undoubtedly the best Dhikr.
Lastly, he mentions that specifying a supplication for Khatm al-Qurān is impermissible. Rather it is in fact permissible, as long as he does not believe that it is a Sunnah. Restricting something like supplication which Allāh has left unrestricted is indeed clear deviance.
Loading suggestions...