🧵THREAD 1/7 𝗦𝘂𝗻𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗺’𝘀 𝗳𝗶𝗾𝗵 𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝗻-𝗔𝗿𝗮𝗯 𝗠𝘂𝘀𝗹𝗶𝗺𝘀 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱 (𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻)! Sunnism’s Maliki madhab openly preaches sharia apartheid against non-Arab Muslims by giving superior rights to Arabs that are deliberately not given to non-Arab Muslims. The following 5 posts in this thread cover Imam Malik’s racist rulings stating that: (1) It’s a crime in Sunnism to call an Arab any of the following and to do so is brutally punished by 80 lashes: ⁃“𝘢 𝘯𝘰𝘯-𝘈𝘳𝘢𝘣” ⁃“𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘰𝘳” ⁃“𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘤𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘳” ⁃“𝘢 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘦”. (2) It’s not a crime in Sunnism to slander or racially abuse a non-Arab Muslim, unless he’s a white man who’s been called “𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘉𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯”! (3) It’s a sin in Sunnism to travel to “𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘶𝘥𝘢𝘯”! This is ironic given that Sudan is a Sunni country that follows the Maliki madhab. So, Arabs (and Whites in certain cases) are given a privileged legal status by Sunnism’s Maliki madhab. The Maliki madhab’s anti-Islam racist hypocrisy is bad news for the majority of Sunnis following the Maliki madhab, being non-Arabs such as Berbers, West Africans and Sudanese. 𝗦𝘂𝗻𝗻𝗶 𝗠𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗶 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀 - ‘𝘈𝘭-𝘔𝘶𝘥𝘢𝘸𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘢 𝘢𝘭-𝘒𝘶𝘣𝘳𝘢’ by Imam Sahnun (d.240 AH), Vol.4, p.497; pp.500-501 - ‘𝘈𝘭-𝘙𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘩 𝘢𝘭-𝘍𝘪𝘲𝘩𝘪𝘺𝘺𝘢𝘩’ by Imam Al-Qayrawani (d.386 AH), p.318 For more info on these key Maliki texts and their authors, see seventh post at the end of this thread.

2/7 𝗦𝘂𝗻𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝘀𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝗮 𝘀𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝗿𝗮𝗯 “𝗮 𝗻𝗼𝗻-𝗔𝗿𝗮𝗯” 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 80 𝗹𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗲𝘀 ‘Al-Mudawwana al-Kubra’ (Vol.4, p.497): “𝘐 [𝘐𝘮𝘢𝘮 𝘚𝘢𝘩𝘯𝘶𝘯] 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥: ‘𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘧 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯 𝘈𝘳𝘢𝘣 𝘮𝘢𝘯, ‘𝘖𝘩 𝘌𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘢𝘯!’ 𝘰𝘳 ‘𝘖𝘩 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘯!’ 𝘰𝘳 ‘𝘖𝘩 𝘙𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯!’ 𝘰𝘳 ‘𝘖𝘩 𝘉𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘦𝘳!’? 𝘞𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥𝘥 [𝘪.𝘦. 𝘱𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 80 𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳] 𝘣𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘐𝘮𝘢𝘮 𝘔𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘬?’ 𝘏𝘦 [𝘐𝘮𝘢𝘮 𝘈𝘭-𝘘𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘮, 𝘐𝘮𝘢𝘮 𝘔𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘬’𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 20 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴] 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥: ‘𝘠𝘦𝘴 [𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘩𝘢𝘥𝘥]’.” “.. 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘪𝘮 [𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘳𝘢𝘣] 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘩𝘪𝘴 [𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘳𝘢𝘣’𝘴] 𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘢𝘨𝘦, [𝘢𝘯𝘥] 𝘵𝘩𝘶𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘮.” “𝘐 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥: ‘𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘧 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯 𝘈𝘳𝘢𝘣, ‘𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘴’, 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥𝘥 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘐𝘮𝘢𝘮 𝘔𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘬?’ 𝘏𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥: ‘𝘠𝘦𝘴 [𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘩𝘢𝘥𝘥]’.” ‘Al-Mudawwana al-Kubra’ (Vol.4, p.501): “𝘐 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥: ‘𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯 𝘈𝘳𝘢𝘣, ‘𝘖𝘩 𝘯𝘰𝘯-𝘈𝘳𝘢𝘣!’ 𝘐𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥𝘥 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘐𝘮𝘢𝘮 𝘔𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘬?’ 𝘏𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥: ‘𝘠𝘦𝘴 [𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘩𝘢𝘥𝘥]’.”

3/7 𝗦𝘂𝗻𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝘀𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝗼𝗸𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝗻-𝗔𝗿𝗮𝗯𝘀 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝗮 𝘀𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗮 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗻 “𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝗕𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻” ‘Al-Mudawwana al-Kubra’ (Vol.4, p.497; pp.500-501): “𝘐 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥: ‘𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘧 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘔𝘢𝘸𝘭𝘢 [𝘪.𝘦. 𝘯𝘰𝘯-𝘈𝘳𝘢𝘣 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮], ‘𝘖𝘩 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘯!’, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘙𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯? 𝘖𝘳 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘉𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘦𝘳, ‘𝘖𝘩 𝘌𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘢𝘯!’ 𝘰𝘳 ‘𝘖𝘩 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘯!’? 𝘖𝘳 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘯, ‘𝘖𝘩 𝘙𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯!’ 𝘰𝘳 ‘𝘖𝘩 𝘕𝘢𝘣𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘯!’? 𝘞𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘐𝘮𝘢𝘮 𝘔𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘬 𝘰𝘳 𝘯𝘰𝘵?’ 𝘏𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥: ‘.. 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘥𝘥 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘮 [𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭] 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘪𝘧 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘮 [𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮], ‘𝘖𝘩 𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯!’ 𝘪𝘧 𝘩𝘦 [𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮] 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦’.”

4/7 𝗦𝘂𝗻𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝘀𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝗮 𝘀𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝗿𝗮𝗯 “𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝗰𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗿 / 𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗼𝗿” 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 80 𝗹𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗲𝘀, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗶𝗳 𝘀𝗮𝗶𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗮 𝗻𝗼𝗻-𝗔𝗿𝗮𝗯 𝗠𝘂𝘀𝗹𝗶𝗺 ‘Al-Mudawwana al-Kubra’ (Vol.4, p.500): “𝘐 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥: ‘𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘧 𝘩𝘦 [𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭] 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘮 [𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮], ‘𝘖𝘩 𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘤𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘳!’ [𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘤𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘺] 𝘰𝘳 ‘𝘖𝘩 𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘰𝘳!’’ 𝘏𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥: ‘𝘐𝘮𝘢𝘮 𝘔𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘬 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥: 𝘐𝘧 𝘩𝘦 [𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮] 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘈𝘳𝘢𝘣, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 … 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘧 𝘩𝘦 [𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮] 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘔𝘢𝘸𝘭𝘢 [𝘪.𝘦. 𝘯𝘰𝘯-𝘈𝘳𝘢𝘣 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮], 𝘐 𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 [𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭] 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘣𝘺 𝘈𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨-𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘢𝘨𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘥𝘥 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘮 ..’ 𝘐 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥: ‘𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘳𝘢𝘣 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘢𝘸𝘭𝘢?’ 𝘏𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥: ‘𝘉𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 [𝘪.𝘦. 𝘤𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨] 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘯-𝘈𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘴’.”

5/7 𝗦𝘂𝗻𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝘀𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝗮 𝘀𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝗿𝗮𝗯 “𝗮 𝘀𝗹𝗮𝘃𝗲” 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 80 𝗹𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗲𝘀, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗶𝗳 𝘀𝗮𝗶𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗮 𝗻𝗼𝗻-𝗔𝗿𝗮𝗯 𝗠𝘂𝘀𝗹𝗶𝗺 ‘Al-Mudawwana al-Kubra’ (Vol.4, p.501): “𝘐 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥: ‘𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯 𝘈𝘳𝘢𝘣, ‘𝘖𝘩 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘦!’ 𝘐𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥𝘥 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘐𝘮𝘢𝘮 𝘔𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘬?’ 𝘏𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥: ‘𝘠𝘦𝘴 [𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥𝘥]’.” “𝘐 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥: ‘𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘧 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘯𝘰𝘯-𝘈𝘳𝘢𝘣, ‘𝘖𝘩 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘦!’ 𝘐𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥𝘥 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘐𝘮𝘢𝘮 𝘔𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘬?’ 𝘏𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥: ‘.. 𝘐 𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘥𝘥 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘮’.”

6/7 𝗦𝘂𝗻𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝘀𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝗮 𝘀𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 “𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗦𝘂𝗱𝗮𝗻” ‘Al-Risalah al-Fiqhiyyah’ (p.318): “𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘪𝘯 .. 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘶𝘥𝘢𝘯.” Sudan is a Sunni country that follows the Maliki madhab. So, it’s ironic that the Sunni Maliki madhab claims it is sinful to travel to Sudan!

7/7 𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗦𝘂𝗻𝗻𝗶 𝗠𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗶 𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁𝘀 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱 ‘𝘈𝘭-𝘔𝘶𝘥𝘢𝘸𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘢 𝘢𝘭-𝘒𝘶𝘣𝘳𝘢’ ⁃ Vol.4, p.497; pp.500-501 ⁃ author: Imam Sahnun (d.240 AH) ‘Al-Mudawwana al-Kubra’ is the most important fiqh book for Sunnism’s Maliki madhab. It is a multi-volume compendium of Imam Malik’s legal rulings and is referred to as “𝘈𝘭-𝘜𝘮𝘮” (or “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳”) of Sunnism’s Maliki madhab. Imam Sahnun is one of Sunnism’s great Maliki muhaddith and faqih. From 234 AH to 240 AH, Imam Sahnun also loyally served as Qadi of North Africa for the tyrannical and corrupt Sunni Abbasid caliphate, making him then one of the most powerful persons within Sunnism. ‘𝘈𝘭-𝘙𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘩 𝘢𝘭-𝘍𝘪𝘲𝘩𝘪𝘺𝘺𝘢𝘩’ - p.318 - author: Imam Al-Qayrawani (d.386 AH) ‘Al-Risalah al-Fiqhiyyah’ is perhaps the next key aqeeda and fiqh book of Sunnism’s Maliki madhab. Imam Al-Qayrawani is one of Sunnism’s great fuqaha.

Ansar-ul-Dabbat

@ansaruldabbat

In honour of Abu Bakr’s sahaba father and son - Abu Quhafah (ra) and Shaheed Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr (ra) - two great early Muslims who rejected Abu Bakr’s taghut

Follow on 𝕏

twitter-thread.com/t/1696046711712460826

Ansar-ul-Dabbat@ansaruldabbat

Ansar-ul-Dabbat

Ansar-ul-Dabbat
@ansaruldabbat