Amazing line up of speakers at this year’s Reviving the Islamic Spirit convention in Toronto, Ontario, Canada during the weekend of December 25 to 27, 2009. I wonder if the big names will be at the RIS Retreat which is a week-long program. I went to two of them and highly recommend it.
Video:
Related posts:
- Shaykh Abdullah Bin Bayyah on Group Dhikr
- “Independence Day” – Sh. Abdullah Bin Bayyah
- A Letter From The Eminent Scholar ‘Abdullah bin Bayyah to the Muslims in America For the Assistance of Imam Siraj Wahhaj
- Celebrating the Prophet’s (s) Birthday – Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah
- Where is Allah? Answered by Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah
54 Responses for "RIS 2009: Salman al-Oudah (Awda), Abdullah bin Bayyah, Habib Ali and others"
whoa, al-awda in toronto? i didn’t know that.
does he speak english by the way?
@al-suyuufi – I think they’ll have a translator.
I wish I could go – I would like the opportunity to meet Shaykh Abdullah Bin Bayyah.
Although, I find it strange that Amir Khaled would be invited, since he’s simply a Televangelists who says alot of strange things.
salam amir,
can you send me an e-mail or reply to this comment and let me know how much the 7 day retreat usually costs?
Thanks!
Is zakir naik coming?
whoa whoa whoa, habib ali jifri is in the lineup too? he is known for clear deviation!
how can a “salafi” like salman al-awda share the pulpit with him?
are these people usually live speakers or is done thru tele-link?
Sacrosanct, the knowledge retreat is $140 early bird price and $155 after December 6th.
Al-suyuufi, RIS always seeks to invite speakers from all different madhabs and mahhaj and tries to get them to reconcile with each other.
coolguymuslim, the speakers are live all the time. I think Dr. Suwaidan was on tele-link a couple times but thats about it.
This isn’t an issue of Madhab or even Manhaj akhi, because there is no reconciliation with bid’ah and shirk. there are some things you just can’t have “difference of opinion” about
i went to the RIS website but theres no info about the retreat there, is there anywhere where we can get more info about it?
If the quran calls the people of faith to work toegther in rightoeuness and taqwa then what would stop shaykh salman from doing so even with a so called deviant. The prophet was working with KUFFAR in the pact of virtue and said He would join it even after revelation. This idea of not sitting with the people of bidah or leaving them to themselves only worked in the times of the salaf and to do that when 80% of the ummah is not praying let alone on bidah then how would that approach help. Taken the fatwas from the scholars not understanding their context is a crime according to many of our scholars.
In al-Qur’an we are ordered to help each other in doing righteous and pious deeds and forbidden from helping each other in doing sins injustice and sins (blasphemy and what is less than that). While I agree with [al-suyuufi] that a muslim should not entertain others while they engage in evil (physical or verbal), i don’t agree with his angle. Which is that all the others are misguided and the “so-called” salafi isn’t. All those people on that list who have committed serious mistakes should be called out to publicly recant.
Zaid Shakir says “we are the children of God” he needs to recant from this kufr statement
Hamza Yusuf says “a person can prostrate to an idol while still being beloved to Allah” he needs to recant from this kufr statement
Ali al-Jifri says “you can liken Allah to His creation and still be a muslim” he needs to recant from this kufr statement
Sherman Jackson signed off on the dissertation of Wesley Williams, a person who openly beliefs in anthropomorphism (tashbih), accuses the Prophet Muhammad of it and goes as far as to say that “Allah is a black man” – Mr. Jackson should explain why he signed off on such a thing.
Amr Khaled says “Iblis (Satan) is not a blasphemer” – he needs to recant from this kufr statement
Salman Al-Audah – I don’t know his so I cannot accuse him anything. As far as I know he is a muslim who is better than myself. If however he is a wahhabi (may Allah protect him from that) he also should recant or repent from believing that Allah is “superman” – that is some giant physical being living above the sky who will then come down and put his foot in hellfire.
Sami, was this pact of virtue renewed in Madinah? I don’t think so. Taking examples from the Makkan stage not understanding their context is a crime according to the many changes brought forth after Hijra.
Plus, many scholars of today still reiterate the same thing, especially when the Bidah is in terms of Aqeedah.
In fact even Ibn Taymiyyah (who came after the salaf) supported an anti-bidah position, dissociating himself with them other than for the purposes of debate (and we all know his firmness against them), and Ibn Tamiyyah lived in a time when the Khilafah was sacked, “Muslims” ruled by other than Shariah (the mongols), and the Ummah was in a bad situation. Not too far from tdoay.
Asmarani, you said “Which is that all the others are misguided and the “so-called” salafi isn’t. ”
I never said that people who are not salafi are misguided. I disagree with some “Salafis” and see many non-salafis as perfectly legitimate. Please don’t generalize. And disparaging Salman al-Awdah simply on the grounds of his “wahhabism” (though you admitted not knowing about him). Keep in mind I don’t completely agree with him on everything.
But Jazakallahu khayr for pointing out the mistakes in the other people. Can you maybe give sources (transcripts, book title, video clip) of those quotes though? It’d just help you.
Asmarani
As-salaamu 3alaykum,
I fully agree with you that as Muslims we are obligated to help each other in what is good and beneficial for the Ummah. Similarly, we are also obligated to help each other in avoiding what harms both of us. This is absolutely in accordance with the religion. If a person has a problem with lying, then that person’s fellow brother or sister should tell that person to stop for the sake of Allah and repent from their sin, for example.
However, the accusations you made following that point are not light ones. Could you or someone else post the sources to those statements? JazakAllahu khayr.
@ Al-Suyuufi – Fear Allah brother, fear Allah. Habib Ali is not a regular scholar. If you do not understand something, ask those who know. Please, for your own sake, don’t let your tongue fly so quickly, especially against men of Allah, and who are from the family of the Prophet (peace be upon him). You don’t want your good deeds washed away for an ignorant remark on a blog. I am sure you know better.
Bismillah.
As-salamu alaykum wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh . . .
“Asmarani”, first of all, you need to validate your claims and give references. Secondly, you need to check your heart, mind, soul, and what you are actually saying.
As for Imam Zaid Shakir’s comment about people being the “the children of God”, that is based on an authentic prophetic hadith that says: “Al-khalq ‘iyalullah”, namely, that the creation are the “dependents of Allah”. When you meet an Arab and you ask him about his family and kids, you say, “Kaif al-’Iyal?”, “How are the kids?”. The same word that is used in the hadith. It was just a translation issue, that’s all. Imam Zaid Shakir does NOT believe that Allah has actual sons and daughters! COME ON…
Speaking of repentance and recanting… I think you need to repent from your accusations of kufr! As the Prophet of Allah, Sayyiduna Muhammad (blessings and peace be upon him) said: “Whoever says to his brother, ‘Oh Kafir’, then it has landed on one of the two”, i.e., either it is as the person has claimed, or it falls back on the one who said it! So watch out…
Finally, the great Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) was reported to have said once: “I would rather mistakenly consider 1,000 people to be Muslim than mistakenly consider one to be a Kafir.”
Reflect and check yourself…
@Unfortunate:
1. Being from a certain family doesn’t give you a free pass to righteousness.
2. I’m saying what has been established, and reflecting what scholars have said about him. If you want to argue that the things he says aren’t bid’ah or borderline shirk, then fine. But don’t deny that he has said those things.
@Khalil:
I don’t know if Asmarani was calling those people kafir. He said that their statements are kufr statements, and there’s a difference between labelling an action/word/belief to be kufr, and the person doing it a kafir. The latter needs more proof to be established against him.
=====================================================
Even though I’m not a huge fan of Rabee’ al-Madkhali, I’ve gotta agree with him on this:
“Jifri is known to be a caller toward Shirk and he lies upon the Messenger (Salallahu alaihi wa sallam) and he narrates superstitious stories and he calls toward putting worship toward the dead and he speaks ill about the people of Tawheed and Sunnah and jokes about them.
And in his website he said: “After much research I have realised that a Wali can create a child without a father but we cannot say this in front of the people so that the adultress claims that what is inside her stomach was created by a Wali”.
This is what he revives and corrects the people upon, he works hard to spread Sufism in the Arabian Peninsula when it is about to disappear and its fire is about to be extinguished, and he has many serious errors which the people of the Sunnah know of and this made them warn against him, as for the Rafidah Shiah and the Sufis he has made them happy and as for the average Muslim he has become a fitnah for them and he has fooled them.
And from his Thikr that he does in his Tareeqah :
Hee Hee, Huu Huu , Haa Haaa. This is Jifri’s way….
Inshallah ta’ala everyday I will make sure to put one fatwa of the scholars to make his condition known.”
@ al-suyuufi:
You know what is funny, I knew that someone would bring up the issue of there being a difference between calling someone an actual “kafir” and saying that they such-and-such is an act or statement of “kufr”, etc., but I thought that we would be mature and educated enough to know that such is obvious, so I didn’t mention it (but I almost did right before I pressed “send”).
Making a statement like you have in deference of this foolishness is a serious copout dear brother. The issue here is that when we take this approach you have mentioned we have now made light of saying that so-and-so has said a statement of kufr, without having a proper understanding of the issues and or evidence (which was CLEARLY the case with the statement by Imam Zaid Shakir). So are you saying that it is ok to just throw around such accusations, without knowledge, understanding, context, or evidence? Is it “no big deal”, as long as we are not calling the person an outright “kafir” to just hurl accusations of “kufr” at them? Wow, what has the world come to… Oh, yeah, it has come to the same thing that has always been around: kharijite-like thought and attitudes.
Finally, I would like to see addressed what I brought up about Imam Zaid’s alleged statement (if he even said that!)… Does the allegation of him making a “statement of kufr” still stand, or does someone need to make a sincere repentance here???
May Allah guide us all…
Since what I posted about Zaid Shakir has been singled out, I’ll focus on his issue.
@Khalil,
Which Hafidh of Hadith narrated that hadith? Who said it is Sahih?
Al-Bukhari said that hadith is munkar (a type of weak hadith). Even if it was an authentic hadith, the term “3iyaal” does not carry the meaning of “awlaad” (children) in the arabic language (at all). Al-Munaawi said “if this hadith is authentic then “3iyaal” means “fuqara’” (dependents). So translating it to mean children only shows ones ignorance of the arabic language.
Furthermore, Zaid Shakir said the following in 2007 at the ISNA Conference as well as 2006 during a speak entitled “Love for Humanity”, while speaking about muslims only: “…only then will we [muslims] truly be the children of God”. The video of these two conferences were posted on youtube but have since been removed after muslims objected to Zaid Shakir’s statement.
It is obvious that Zaid Shakir was not referring to that hadith you (Khalil) mentioned. The context does not fit, therefore the excuse does not fit. Furthermore, one cannot claim that it is not blasphemous to say “we are the children of God” if one means figuratively. The great Maliki scholar Ibn Atiyyah said in his tafsir that the one who says “Allah has children” is a kafir even if they mean figuratively. The context in which Zaid Shakir used it (twice), he used it in the same manner that the christians and jews use it about themselves. Allah called such a statement blasphemy in Al-Qur’an. So who is anyone to cover up for Zaid Shakir simply because they like his style or what have you?
As for that saying of the Prophet, I am well aware of it. I did not call a muslim a kafir.
Those who wish to eliminate the chapter of apostasy from the books of the scholars will always fail. They like to say “Abu Hanifah said such and such” yet they conveniently neglect to mention all of the takfir that is included in books like Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar, Al-Wasiyyah, Al-Alim wal-Muta’allim, Al-Fatawa Al-Hindiyyah, Al-Hashiyah, Al-Minhaj, etc… Such people want us to all hold hands and sing kumbayaa…
Everyone can find Zaid Shakir’s statement here:
http://www.halaltube.com/upholding-faith-serving-humanity-isna-2007-4
All you need to do is go to minute 16 and listen from there in order to get the full context. they took this down from youtube so I would not be surprised if they remove it from this site to in order to cover up his ugly mistakes.
Ibn Taymiyyah was once asked how does Allah descend from His throne, and he responded by getting up from the chair he was sitting on and taking two steps down. (Can be found mentioned in Abdullah bin Hamid Ali’s translation of al-Jawzi’s Daf’ Shubah al-Tashbh, entitled ‘The Attributes of God’) For this Ibn Taymiyyah was cast into prison where he later learned the error of his ways and repented.
The (majority of the) Muslim ummah as accepted his repentance. So why are we hating on Imam Zaid if he slipped in a similar fashion?
And I don’t see how claiming a Wali can have a child without a father is an act of kufr…
Anyway this debate is getting off topic, RIS looks great masha’Allah all those scholars are amazing, I wish I could go. In the UK we have similar things but they’re nowhere near as good.
@Khalil – There IS quite a distance between labelling an action/statement kufr, and calling a person a kafir. All you need to label and action/statement kufr is a Daleel, but for takfir on a person, you need much more Hujjah involving situation of the person. It takes more to make takfir on an individual than an action, and that’s a clear principle in the usool of takfeer if you’ve ever looked into it. Whether you like him or not, even Muhammad ibn abdil Wahaab would clearly say that grave worship is shirk, though he never said that every graveworshipper is a mushrik who has committed kufr, because you need more hujjah to make takfeer on a person.
Mohammad Khan, I remember somebody brought up this incident slandering Ibn Taymiyyah, and I remember researching it and finding proof that this is a fabricated story. I honestly wish I could retrace my steps and show you the same proof, but I don’t even have the time unfortunately.
I have to admit, Asmarani does make a point. What a horrendous statement Zaid Shakir made. No wonder people wanted the video removed. How could he say such a thing? It makes no difference if the usage was figurative – why would he use those words? This is not something that is part of the religion AT ALL.
Just for the record, Zaid Shakir (according to a video interview) in addition to claiming that Muslims are the “children of Allah” (a`udhu billah, what an ugly statement), also outright rejects at least one Verse of the Qur’an (regarding how a man should handle his disobedient wife). The problem here is essentially threefold. One: perhaps, he (and the characters of his ilk) are simply ignorant of some basic Shar`i rulings, which would make them unqualified for the work they are doing. Two: they are cowardly, and willing to lie and distort the Deen, so that they can (in their minds) “save face” with the kuffaar. This cowardice, besides belying the Deen, which is kufr in itself, opens the door for various so-called modernist/apologist agendas. Three: it seems that these characters are part of a bigger scheme (read: Benard: Rand Report). I’m not convinced that the video statement ascribed to Shakir: “children of Allah” (yuck!) and Obama’s use of the phrase in the Cairo Speech were coincidental.
Another point: these characters seem insistent on expunging the “Chapter of Apostasy” from the books if Islamic Jurisprudence. You actually have Hamza Yusuf writing a 21 page document where he can’t clearly and unambiguously define what a kaafir is and what his condition is in the Hereafter. I’ve been saying this for a while–Muslims need to study this issue of apostasy, and get clarity on who is who. It is a grave disservice that these alleged “sheikhs” are not educating their followers in the matters of apostasy when there is SO MUCH KUFR out there, whether on the web, in books, or coming out of the mouths of the folks on the “Circuit.”
It should be seen as a fact of the matter that the opponents of Islam wish to alter the Deen and make it conform to secular/hedonistic corpoorate consumer standards. They are obviously going to hire (bribe/manipulate) some Muslims to do their bidding, and some Muslims are going to sell their Deen and apostate for a trifling earthly gain–and that includes those Muslims (or those masquerading as such) in positions of influence. That’s just the way things go.
For Muslims, we need to hold those who are appointed(?) positions of leadership to a HIGHER SET OF STANDARDS than the guy who said his Shahadah last week. We need to get out of this cult of personality and mind set that the numbers of people who listen to a given speaker indicates his level of taqwaa and guidance. The haqq is not based upon popularity or democracy. It’s based upon abiding by what the Prophet came with. We also need to stop calling the likes of Zaid Shakir and Hamza Yusuf “scholars.” Aside from their horrendous errors, they are in no ways Islamic scholars. We need to stop being intellectually lazy; we need to learn, and we need to ask the RIGHT questions regarding those who are suppose to be representing the Muslims. May Allah grant us that.
With Allah is the success.
@al_suyuufi
you said “It takes more to make takfir on an individual than an action, and that’s a clear principle in the usool of takfeer if you’ve ever looked into it.”
Where did you get this from? Can you give me a reference? I can think of 10 scholars from Ahl At-Tarjeeh and above off the top of my head to say other wise from all 4 schools.
I mean things like you need to establish that the person is not doing/saying it out of coercion, insanity, and a few other conditions before saying that the person is a kafir for doing some kufr.
i haven’t looked into the issue as much as you, so feel free to correct me. but I was of the following understanding, copied from above: “Whether you like him or not, even Muhammad ibn abdil Wahaab would clearly say that grave worship is shirk, though he never said that every graveworshipper is a mushrik who has committed kufr, because you need more hujjah to make takfeer on a person.”
@al-suyuufi,
Now I see what you were trying to say. Let me just clarify a few things but first me just say that anyone who worships other than Allah is not a muslim period. Whether that person worships a grave, a tree, a stone of a pile of bat poo, worship is for Allah alone. Take note that worship is defined as the “ultimate and extreme submission and humility to something else”. This is the definition given by scholars like Ar-Rajib Al-Asbahani and Taqiyud-Din As-Subki. Worship is not calling or seeking help or asking for something unusual in it self.
Now back to the topic at hand…
The rule is: Every saying, action or belief containing belittlement of Allah, His messengers, His books, His angels, His rules, His promise, His threat, His rites, the well-known practices of His religion or His verses is blasphemy. Examples of that are cussing Allah and mocking the Qur’an.
Exemptions to that rule are (meaning when would a person who does such a thing not be judged as a blasphemer):
1.) The person who is threaten with being killed if they do not utter words of blasphemy and when he utters the statement he is not hates the blasphemy. If he is happy about the blasphemy then the exemption does not apply and he would be judged as a blasphemer.
2.) The had the slip of the tongue. An inadvertent mistake in speaking (or writing).
3.) The conveyance of the blasphemy of another. For example for one to say “the jews said that Uzayr was the son of Allah” or “Uzayr is the son of Allah is the saying of the jews”. If a person repeats the blasphemy of another without using a quoting statement “hikayah” nor did they intend to use one at the end of the statement but forgot about it then the person blasphemes.
4.) Insanity – the explanation of this is obvious.
5.) Ijtihad (in essential: misinterpretation ). This requires some details so I will try keep this brief. If a person misinterprets something in the Religion which is not from the foundation of the religion nor is it a clear cut matter (Qat’iyyah) then such a person does not blasphemy. An example of that are those who refused to pay Zakah to Abu Bakr after the Prophet died. The companions did not judge them as blasphemers. This exemption does not apply to those who said “the world is eternal without a beginning” because they deny what is Qat’iyyah and what is from the foundation of the religion (namely: only Allah exists without a beginning and everything else is created). This exemption also does not apply to the Qadiyaniyyah (Ahmadiyyah) who claim there is a prophet after Prophet Muhammad nor does it apply to those who believe is tashbeeh or tajseem (those who believe Allah has physical attributes).
This is a very brief summary of this issue. Now the question one must ask is “does any of these exemptions cover Zaid Shakir?” When I first heard the statement I would actually lean towards saying that it was a slip of the tongue. However, once I found out that he said the statement the following year at another ISNA conference that I simply could not make any reasonable excuse for him. Not to mention the fact that once I investigated this matter further, I found that people wrote him (Zaid Shakir) letters seeking an explanation of this statements and Zaid Shakir either never received the letters of he refused to respond to them.
References concerning blasphemy/apostasy:
1. “Rawd At-Talibin” by An-Nawawi Ash-Shafi’i
2. “Usul Ad-Din” by Abdul-Qahir At-Tamimi Ash-Shafi’i
3. “An-Nukat” by Abu Zur’ah Al-Iraqi Ash-Shafi’i
4. “Tashnif Al-Masami’ ” by Badru-Din Az-Zarkashi Ash-Shafi’i
5. “Jama’ Al-Jawami’ ” by Taj As-Subki Ash-Shafi’i
6. “Al-I’lam bi Qawati’ Al-Islam” by Ibn Hajar Al-Haytami Ash-Shafi’i
7. “Nihayah Al-Muhtaj” by Shamsud-Din Ar-Ramli Ash-Shafi’i
8. “Al-Hashiyah” by Ali Ash-Shabramallisi Ash-Shafi’i
9. “Radd Al-Muhtar” by Ibn ‘Abidin Al-Hanafi
10. “Sharh Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar” by Abul-Muntaha Al-Maghnisawi Al-Hanafi
11. “Risalah fi Alfadh Al-Kufr” by Badr Ar-Rashid Al-Hanafi
12. “Ash-Shifa” by Al-Qadi Iyad Al-Maliki
13. “Al-Anwar li’Amal Al-Abrar” by Yusuf Al-Ardabili Ash-Shafi’i
14. “Al-Kawkab Ad-Durri” by Abul-Huda As-Sayyadi Ash-Shafi’i
15. “I’anah At-Talibin” by Ad-Dumyati Ash-Shafi’i
16. “Sharh Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar” by Mulla Ali Al-Qari’ Al-Hanafi
17. “Al-Hashiyah” by Ad-Dusuqi Al-Maliki
18. “Sharh Muntahi Al-Iradat” by Al-Buhuti Al-Hanbali
19. “Fath Al-Ali” by Muhammad Ulaysh Al-Maliki
20. “At-Tabsir fi Ad-Din” by Abu Al-Mudhaffar Al-Isfarayini
21. “Sharh Ar-Rawd” by Zakariyya Al-Ansari Ash-Shafi’i
22. “Al-Kharaj” by Abu Yusuf Al-Qadi Al-Hanafi
23. “Tabsirah Al-Hukam” by Ibn Sahnun Al-Maliki
24………………………………
May Allah have mercy on us!
cool, thanks for the explanation!
Wait, are those books sources of knowledge or are you saying they have blasphemy/apostasy in them?
All of those books are books of classical scholars who have mention numerousn examples of blasphemy as well as explained the basic rules of what constitutes blasphemy and what does not. They are all reliable books.
“Risalah fi Alfadh Al-Kufr” by Badr Ar-Rashid Al-Hanafi, the entire book is about the subject of blasphemy and the same for “Al-I’lam bi Qawati’ Al-Islam” by Ibn Hajar Al-Haytami Ash-Shafi’i.
Here is an example to show you how thorough the old scholars were: Imamul-Haramayn Abdul-Malik Al-Juwayni said in his book Al-Irshaad: “The scholars of usul agreed that the one who utters a statement of blasphemy, and he claimed to mean a different meaning he is still judged as a blasphemer. And for him to claim a far away meaning does not help him. Like the one who said “Yal’anu Rasulallah,” which means “May the Messenger of Allah be damned,” and he said “I meant the lightningbolt.” He is still judged as a blasphemer.”
What al-Juwayni is saying is that if a man utters an explicit (sarih) blasphemy, he is judged as a blasphemer, even if he claims that he intended in his heart a meaning other than the real meaning of the statement. This is because this statement bears only one blasphemous meaning. However if the statement was not explicit but rather implicit/apparently blasphemy (dhahir), then if he claimed to mean a non-blasphemous meaning, it is accepted from him. But as for the explicit statement, if he claimed to mean other than the only one meaning which is blasphemous, it is not accepted from him. Like the one who curses the Messenger of Allah and he claimed that he meant the lightning. He is judged as a blasphemer. This is by consensus (ijma’) of the scholars.
Among such explicit statements of blasphemy is the saying of Sayid Qutb about Allah. He calls Allah “Ar-rishah al-mubdi’ah,” which means “the creative feather.” This is explicit blasphemy because it is a name which reflects imperfection, and Allah is Exalted above that. “Wa lillahil-asma’ul-husna, fad’uhu biha,” means “Allah has Names that show perfection, so call Him by His Names.” And it is not permissible to make a ta’wil for this statement of Sayid Qutb. The scholars said “As-sarihu la yu’awwal,” which means “It is not permissible to make ta’wil for the sarih statement.” Al-Juwayni mentioned this. Shamsud-Din Ar-Ramli conveyed this from Al-Juwayni and he agreed with him.
Likewise, Al-Qadi Iyad mentioned a similar statement. Also Habib Ibnur-Rabi’, the famous Maliki scholar who lived before Al-Qadi Iyad and many other scholars.
…We need to know this rule very well to differentiate between the implicit/apparent and the explicit. In the first case (when someone says an apparent statement of blasphemy), the judgment depends on the intent of the person (because the several linguistic meanings). As for the explicit statement, his intention has no bearing, as long as he knows the meaning of this word in the language, he is a blasphemer.
Subhanullah… the muslims are SO wise in the comments section of this blog.
Who needs shuyookh when we have gems like these teenage commentators – who are clearly much better then these kaffir shaykhs engaged in bidah.
Shaykhs who spend years of their lives studying abroad…..pssshhhht – so overrated. What we need is INTERNET SHAYKHS!!!
People who are so wise they don’t actually need any islamic teachers, and instead of learning from kaffir shaykhs like these, they do something MUCH better! They guide us with their WISE comments on very important platforms of islamic discourse called blogs which anyone can start for free (no disrespect MR).
out of the generosity of their hearts they spend hours a day letting the general muslim population know which shaykhs are clearly going to hell.
Usman, the number of years and degrees under one’s belt aren’t qualifying factors. Ulama are not made in x amount of years, but in a lifetime of practicing their knowledge.
And I swear by Allah that I am not claiming to be a scholar or even a student of knowledge!
Do you assume that the people who enjoin good and forbid evil even if it goes against a handful of ’scholars’ are people who reject scholarship and think they don’t need teachers?
And who said that anybody is going to hell? Last I checked Asmarani was pointing out what is clear, and that is statements of these scholars.
@ Asmarani
Thanks for the info. It astounds me how it is that these folks on the Circuit are virtually silent about the Chapter of Apostasy (well, not really–’cause people are into makin’ that loot). We live in a time when there is TREMENDOUS amount of confusion about some of the most elementary matters of Doctrine, but you don’t see many of these so-called Shaykhs–especially, these quasi-traditinalists–speaking out and warning people about the types of beliefs that would nullify one’s Islam. It’s enough to do a brief tour at the ISNA Bazaar and see all kinds of titles for sale to realize that many Muslims are in jeopardy of getting confused by–if not adopting–heretical or outright kufri beliefs. Sadly, about the only folks i see on the web discussing the subject of Apostasy are the Wahhabis; they have a notion of apostasy–but they got their own jacked up beliefs they need to fix.
@Usman
Simply because someone went overseas to study does not mean that the person is guided. It’s possible that a person may have devoted years of study to various Religious sciences and still be critically ignorant of certain pertinent matters that the Muslims in the West are confronted with. The Chapter of Apostasy is certainly one of those matters. Either these folks on the Circuit are ignorant of this topic–or they are intentionally silent about it. It’s not like we live at a time when we have a Caliph who would suppress heretical ideas and groups. Instead, we live at a time in which there is not only the printing press–but the internet. An ignoramus or a human devil can spread a blasphemous idea all over the earth in a matter of seconds, and many Muslims would be defenseless against such an idea (and possibly adopt it), because the so-called “Sheikhs” are not fortifying the Muslim masses with the knowledge to protect themselves against kufr/apostasy. May Allah guide us.
With Allah is the success.
Salamun `ala man ittiba al-huda:
To Amsarani and all the other Wahhabis commenting on this website:
Your statements on Sayyidi Habib `Ali al-Jifri, may Allah preserve him, are outright slander. You still have not proven that it was stated by Sayyidi Habib `Ali, may Allah preserve him. In addition, you openly follow the kafir, Muhammad bin `Abd al-Wahhab, who committed blasphemy against the Prophet sal Allahu ta`ala `alayhi wa salim, and Ibn Taymiyya, who was a mujassim and a deviant, as per Imam al-Subki. Thus, neither you (Amsami) or the other Wahhabis reliable and you have no right whatsoever to lecture us on blasphemy when you’re own ilk are guilty of extreme blasphemies.
As for Zaid Shakir, I have heard his statement and I am preparing a letter upon this issue to him and the Zaytuna College.
Wasalamun `ala man ittiba al-huda
@al-Nurani,
I am not now nor was I ever a wahhabi. I am Ashari Hanafi Qaadiri. I am firm on the position that those who liken Allah to the creation are absolute blasphemers as well as those who claim that tashbeeh or tajseem is not kufr which is what has been reported about Ali Jifri.
Are you accusing me of extreme blasphemy? If so, point it out and I will repent.
As for the proof of what I accused Ali Al-Jifri of – I have heard from more then a half dozen people who attended Darul-Mustafa in Yemen and who have heard Ali al-Jifri on satellite TV claiming that “those who believe in tajseem (ie wahhabis) are not kuffar. Now, if this is not his true position then, please clarify for me what is al-Jifri’s position on those who liken Allah to His creation.
As for what I posted above regarding blasphemy, if you see any mistakes then point them out and I will make corrections.
As-Salamun `ala man ittiba al-huda:
If you want to prove anything about Sayyidi Shaykh Habib `Ali al-Jifri, you MUST provide the video and the translation and the entire context of the statement and/or witnesses w/ their name and proof of trustworthiness. Otherwise, your statements are of no value to anyone, much less to me.
As for you saying you’re an Ash`ari, are you from the aHbash, in which case you’re considered a Shi`a Tafdili in my book and your leader, `Abd Allah al-Harari al-Habashi al-Lubnani (who is now dead) is guilty of insulting the saHaba, especially Sayyiduna `Amir Mua`wiya radhiy Allahu `anhu. Thus, your statements, in these cases,
Now, as for Zaid Shakir, I have heard the statement myself and I agree that it is kufr to say “children of God” (wastaghfirAllah al-`adhim). However, we must not rush to takfir and wait until he repents. If it is a long period of time and he still doesn’t repent, then it would be appropriate to make takfir.
Wassalam `ala man ittiba al-huda
`Abd al-Habib al-Nur`ani al-Hanafi al-Baraylawi
As-Salamun `ala man ittiba al-huda:
If you want to prove anything about Sayyidi Shaykh Habib `Ali al-Jifri, you MUST provide the video and the translation and the entire context of the statement and/or witnesses w/ their name and proof of trustworthiness. Otherwise, your statements are of no value to anyone, much less to me.
As for you saying you’re an Ash`ari, are you from the aHbash, in which case you’re considered a Shi`a Tafdili in my book and your leader, `Abd Allah al-Harari al-Habashi al-Lubnani (who is now dead) is guilty of insulting the saHaba, especially Sayyiduna `Amir Mua`wiya radhiy Allahu `anhu. Thus, your statements, in the case of Shaykh Habib `Ali, are not valuable or trustworthy
Now, as for Zaid Shakir, I have heard the statement myself (and it is on video) and I agree that it is kufr to say “children of God” (wastaghfirAllah al-`adhim). However, we must not rush to takfir and wait until he repents. If it is a long period of time and he still doesn’t repent, then it would be appropriate to make takfir.
Wassalam `ala man ittiba al-huda
`Abd al-Habib al-Nur`ani al-Hanafi al-Baraylawi
Allahu Akbar! First you accuse me of being a Wahhabi, now I’m a Habashi – what contrast!
You still haven’t answered the question regarding Ali al-Jifri’s position on those who believe in tajseem. I wonder why. If I was given wrong information then correct me. And the information did not come from the Ahbash. As far as I know, the Ahbash don’t go to Darul-Mustafa to learn.
So I will ask again: what is al-Jifri’s position on those who liken Allah to His creation?
PS: You are a Baraylawi? I find that very hard to believe. Judging from the discontent you seem to have for the Ahbash, I’d guess you’re a Kellerite. Which would explain why you got upset over this issue with al-Jifri considering that Keller holds the same position – at least for the mujassimah of the west.
Oh man! What’s wrong with me??? I just realized that this guy is setting up a classic straw man argument
just saying “i heard” without specific names is not enough. you say half a dozen-people heard it, then give me their names and proof of their sound belief and trustworthiness because by the way you stated it, it seems you have connection to these half-a dozen “individuals”.
It it be noted that you have not answered this question: “what is al-Jifri’s position on those who liken Allah to His creation?”
If this is not his position since you are obviously claiming to know him better than I do, then correct me and I will retract my statement. If in fact that is his position, what really is your problem?
I am not going to share the names of the individuals that I told me what al-Jifri’s position was regarding this issue. Now, if someone says “we’re not going to believe you if you don’t” then that’s fine with me. After all you needs two trustworthy muslim male witnesses to establish the apostasy of another in the event that the person himself did not witness the apostasy.
I personally don’t care whether people believe that al-Jifri actually holds that wicked position or not as long as they follow the rules of the Religion. and the rules of the Religion dictate that whoever claims that a mushabbih or a mujassim is a muslim, blasphemes. Either a person has the belief of the Prophet or not.
You (Nurani) should be ashamed of yourself for claiming any relationship to Shaykh Ahmad Rida Khan. His way has nothing to do with you and you have nothing to do with his way.
Asmarani, Salafis don’t liken Allah to His Creation, because we say that Allah has certain attributes that are easy to imagine as human-like, but i think you forgot that every Salafi also says that at the same time Allah does not resemble His creation.
Abd al-Habib, I haven’t found al-Habib to be any of the 99 names of Allah…so can you please inform me who you’re making yourself a slave of?
Salam `alaykum sidi Amsarani:
Yes, in fact, I am a Baraylawi and very proud as well.And I am a talib of Hadhrat Allama Ilyas Qadiri damat barakatahum, who in turn is a Khalifa of Hadhrat Qutb-e-Madina Allama Ziauddin Madni rahmatullahi `alayhi who in turn is the khalifa of my master, Sayyiduna `alaHazrat Imam Ahmad Ridha Khan Fadil al-Baraylawi rahmatullahi `alayh. Thus, I have everything to do with `Ala Hazrat rahmatullahi `alayh.
As for calling me a “Kellerite”, astaghfirullah. I am not associated with Nuh Keller nor do I ever wish to be. Nuh Keller has committed serious errors in his article “Iman, Kufr, and Takfir”, which I condemn absolutely.
I apologize for mistaking you for being a Wahhabi or a Habashi, that is my mistake. My absolute dislike for the ahbash is based on their insults upon the blessed saHaba including Sayyiduna Mua`wiya radhi Allahu `anhu and their following of the Ghumariyun (who are known Shi`i tafdilis)
As for Habib `Ali al-Jifri, before jumping to conclusions, my dear brother , I recommend that you contact Habib `Ali himself at Dar al-Mustafa. If I may ask, did you hear this yourself or did some other people tell you? To verify, one must know the entire context, the names of the narrators of the statement, and proof of their trustworthiness. In absence of this, I regret to inform you that I can not accept your claims in regards to Habib `Ali al-Jifri
As for Zaid Shakir, you have soundly proven through accurate videos, that he stated the kufr statements that you soundly attribute to him. As I will send him a letter and speak to him in person, telling him that what he said was kufr and it is mandatory for him to repent in letter form as well as on video,. In addition, both videos will be send to Hadrat Allama Mufti Zahid Qadri of the UK (a top-notch Sunni Baraylawi muftI and student of Muhaddith Kabeer Hadhrat Allama Dhiya al-Mustafa al-`Azami damat barakatahum) for a ruling. As such, thank you for informing me about Zaid Shakir’s statement.
I bid you farewell
Wassalamu `alaykum
Your brother,
`Abd al-Habib al-Nurani al-Hanafi al-Ridawi
* Note that not only is Zaid Shakir guilty of that statement but is also guilty of holding hands with the Wahhabi sect. He calls for so-called “unity” as shown here: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/sec.htm.
Answered by Shaykh Gibril F Haddad
Is it permissible to take knowledge from the group named the Ahbash, (AICP, Ahbash, Habashis, …)? They state that they follow the Ashari Aqeedah, and the Madhhab of Imam Ash-Shafi’i (RA). That is if pray in the proper direction of the Qibla for us?
Answer:
No, it is not permissible to take knowledge from this pseudo-Sunni group. The Ulema of Syria consider their founder `Abd Allah al-Harari a deviant who misguides others (dall mudill). Among those deviancies, he has authored a book in which he attacks some of the Sahaba, Allah be well-pleased with all of them, and he and his group have made takfir and tadlil of many of the Ulema and Awliya of the past and present.
Gibril Haddad
Note the following:
The relied upon position in the Shafi school, the Mujassim is two types; the Mujassim Sarih (the explicit Mujassim) and the Mujassim ghair Sarih (the non explicit Mujassim). The explicit Mujassim is a Kafir according to them, whereas the non explicit Mujassim is not a Kafir
This is what Shaykh Habib `Ali meant. .
Allah is One. If a person worships something other than Allah, he is not a Muslim. Period. Allah is not a body; hence the one who worships a body [that is, a spatial entity] is not a Muslim. Imam Ahmad said:
“Whoever believes Allah is a body [even if] unlike other bodies blasphemes.”
(And, of course, he is a kaafir if he says: “Allah is a body LIKE other bodies.”)
Furthermore, Ash-Shafi`iyy himself said:
“Al-mujassimu kaafir.”
(The corporealist [body worshipper] is a blasphemer.)
I saw this statement before on the web (about the explicit/non-explicit mujassim). It doesn’t make any sense, for it implies that there are two acceptable beliefs about Allah (which is obviously kufr).
On another note, i am glad to see that folks are waking up to this character Zaid Shakir. Please put the word out on these people. They have an agenda to distort the religion and eliminate the entire notion of kufr/riddah. May Allah guide us and strengthen us to expose those who mislead the Muslims.
With Allah is the success.
@al-suyuufi
Just to be clear, the one so says “Allah has an attribute called Yad (يد) which is an eternal and everlasting attribute that does not resemble any anything among the creations” is following the path of the Prophet. If he however, says that the meaning “Yad” is the literal and apparent meaning then this person is misguided. The literal meaning of “Yad” is the physical hand which is composed of smaller limbs such as fingers, a thumb, etc. This is what muslims reject because Allah is not an alien nor anything other type of physical object.
@Nurudeen Al-Husseini
Where did you get that from? Can you provide a reference to a classical Shafi’i scholar who says such a thing? Also what is “non explicit mujassim”? Can you define it? I have an idea about what you are referring to but I can assure you what some scholars like Abul-Muthna Al-Maghanisawi al-Hanafi said is different from what some people have been implying.
@Shaykh Gibril…
Gibril Haddad doesn’t like the Ahbash because he is in cahoots with Nazim Al-Qubrusi. Look at what Nazim’s shaykh Ad-Daghistani said in his book “al-Wasiyyah”: “Allah does not differentiate between kâfir, great sinner (fasiq), believer (mu’min) or Muslim. Actually they are all equal”. Shaykh Muhammad Al-Hamid al-Hanafi in his book “Rudud ’Abaateel” said in refutation to this heresy: “Will our master Muhammad (sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam) be like Abu Jahl (may he be cursed by Allah ta’ala)? Allahumma no!”
I used to follow along that group, so I have collected a ton of information directly out of thier books exposing their deviance. This is what G.F. Haddad defends, he doesn’t defend the truth!
@Abd al-Habib al-Nurani
As I stated I did not hear this directly from Ali al-Jifri, rather it was conveyed to me by several people, including students of Darul-Mustafa. But as I stated previously, if that is not his position and if was misinformed, I will retract my statements concerning him. The the truth as the truth and I need to adhere to it.
As for what you stated about the Ahbash, while I am sure someone will read this and accuse me of being one of them, I’ll say this anyway. About 3 years ago, I met one of their shaykhs who used to teach in Bangladesh. I set with him for a some time and I asked him some questions concerning al-Fiqh Al-Akbar. During this session, I asked him about Mu’awiyah Bin Safwan (who I believe completely that he will be in Paradise). I asked him do they say that Mu’awiyah was a fasiq (an enormous sinner)? He answer was no, it is not acceptable to say this about any companion. So I followed up by asking, well what about what Abu Mansur in his book Usulud-Din and Abdul-Qahir Al-Jarjani said when they used the terms “fasaquu wa dhalamuu”? He said “fasaquu” meant that they committed an act of fisq but we do not say they were enormous sinners because they are also narrators of hadith and we do not curse or cuss them. Imam Mulla Ali Al-Qari explained this entire issue the fighting between Ali and Mu’awiyah in his book Sharh Al-Mishkaah, anyone who wants, they can go through that book.
Now if what this person told me is not really the position of the Ahbash then can someone please provide me with a book of theirs in which they curse the companions? And please I don’t want anything copied from the wahhabi sites!
As for the Ghumari brothers: I have great respect for Al-Hafidh Ahmad al-Ghumari who was said to have reached the level of ijtihad as well as his younger brother Muhaddith Abdullah (a student of Muhammad al-Kawthari al-Hanafi [my hero] and a shaykh of Ali Jumu’ah [may Allah protect him]). I have seen the accusations on the internet that they were shi’ah but I really haven’t paid it much attention. However, I was told once by a person who is actually a habashi that they (al-ghumariyyun) used to curse Mu’awiyah and this was not acceptable. He said that they exceeded the proper boundaries in that issue. May Allah forgive them for that.
Mu^âwiyah radiya-llâhu ^anhu himself who did recognise the reliability of the hadîth which describes those who killed ^Ammâr ibn Yâsir as “the rebel party who was calling him to hell”,
you also question the judgement of ^Aliyy who said “Baniyy Umayyah are fighting me, they claim that I have killed ^Uthmân, they are liars what they want is kingship”,
you reject the fourteen century old tradition of reporting the truth, however embarrassing it can be, you blame extends to people like Al-Bazaar,
and At-Tabaraniyy,
Imam Al-Bayhaqiyy,
Imam ash-Shâfî^iyy,
al-Bukhâriyy who reported the hadîth of ^Ammâr,
Muslim,
Ahmad,
at-Tirmidhiyy,
Ibn Hibbân,
alHâfiz asSayûtiyy,
alMânawiyy,
Ibn ‘Abî Shaybah,
al-Qurtubiyy,
Ibn Fûrak,
‘Abu l-Hasan al’Ash^ariyy,
Musaddad ibn Musarhad,
alHâfiz ibn Hajar al^Asqalâniyy,
^Abdul-Hayy Ibn al^Imâd Al-Hanbaliyy,
Abû Dâwûd who narrated in his sunan from Safeenah, he said, Allâh’s Messenger salla-llâhu ^alayhi wa sallam said: [khilâfatu nnubuwwah thalâthûna sanah, thumma yu`tî-llâhu lmulka ('aw) malakahû man yashâ`]. Which means: the caliphate which agrees with the sunnah with the sharee^ah is for 30 years after that Allâh will grant kingship or the Prophet salla-llâhu ^alayhi wa sallam said, Allâh will grant kingship to whomever He wills.
You blame also Safeenah who reported this,
And alHâkim,
Ibn Khallikân,
Muhammad ibn Ishâq Asbahâniy,
An-Nasâ`iyy,
Al-Laqqâniyy,
al Khatîb Al-Baghdâdiyy
and Al-Hâfiz Ahmad Al-Ghummâriy
May Allâh reward them all greatly for their integrity and service.
And these are just some of the name of our most august ^ulamâ’ all along our history
http://www.masabih.org/showthread.php?t=3203&page=3&highlight=ahbash
Asmarani, I’m pretty sure that Salafis say that Allah has a literal hand that doesn’t resemble creation. But we stop there, we don’t go into the details of the hand. So even though we affirm that He indeed has a hand doesn’t mean we go beyond this saying that He has fingers, etc. This is incorrect because there is no Daleel for this and any Ghayb matter needs Daleel.
Just the other day I was sitting at a talk with a Salafi scholar, and He said that Allah is al-Baseer meaning that He sees and we affirm this, but this doesn’t mean we go beyond that to say, “He has a pupil, iris, cornea, etc.”.
So if someone says He has a physical hand this is resembling creation, but make sure that when someone says “physical” they don’t just mean literal, but didn’t use the best word.
@al-suyuufi
Don’t you see the contradiction in this? A literal hand is a physical hand. Not just that, the heads of the “Salafis” do say that “Allah has two real eyes” and that “his hand has a palm and fingers and it opens and closes”. When they say “we don’t know how”, they only mean they don’t know the exact size and color, etc. This is the statement of Khalil Harras in his Sharh Al-Aqeedah Al-Waasitiyyah “How can ‘hand’ be interpreted to mean power when the text proves mentioning of palm, fingers, right and left, closing, opening, etc. Which can happen only in the case of a real hand.”
They also say that “since Ad-Dajjaal has only one eye, he is not God because God has two eyes.”
What they believe in and describe is something straight out of Greek Methology.
Well by literal hand I meant a HAND that we don’t know of, as opposed to the hand being a metaphor for “power”.
Have any other scholars of salafiyyah confirmed this idea of opening, closing, palms, etc and on what basis?
@al-suyuufi,
What Khalil Harras stated is the official position of the wahhabi ideology. What he said is not isolated. In the city I live in, one of the “salafis” said “Allah will put his foot in Hellfire” then he lifted up his own leg to emphasis that he meant literally. Their basis for saying such things are hadith which they misinterpret. You can refer to al-Asma’ wa-s-Sifaat by al-Hafiz al-Bayhaqi for proper explanations.
If you truly believe that Allah is not a physical/temporal object with limbs and organs then why use the english word hand? If you say that it is because what is mentioned in al-Qur’an is the word yad and yad means hand. It is not 100% accurate. Why? Because yad has different meanings and the literal and apparent meaning it a limb. If you don’t mean that meaning, then why translate it at all? Why not just use the word yad in arabic? The must ignorant ghetto muslim says “I’m gonna make Salah…” – he doesn’t translate it to “prayer”. It is somewhat disingenuous to say the least, to use a word that you know gives the impression of something which you yourself don’t accept. Simply say “Allah informed us in al-Qur’an that He has an Attributed called Yad (يد) which is an Eternal and Everlasting Attribute that does not resemble any created thing.” <—- This is what a TRUE SALAFI would say.
As salamu alaikum
Were any of you able to attend the RIS Conference? If so do you happen to know the name of Habib Ali Al Jifri’s translator, and where he is from?
Asmarani and Swarthmoor make some good points about the wahabis and the rock-star traditionalists but in the end they show their extreme tendencies of takfir due to their Habashi inclinations. How unfortunate.
@Non-Kellerite Nuetral Sunni,
What exactly did I say that wasn’t said by the elites among the scholars before me?
Leave a comment