The End - 2000 to 2009

yes-i-care-shaykh-hamza-yusuf-isb-al-rahmah-school
Register here.


  • RSS feed for comments on this post

  • 33 Responses for "Baltimore Islamic School Fundraiser with Shaykh Hamza Yusuf – 11/7/09 – 1:30 PM"

    1. Muhammad November 6th, 2009 at 8:38 pm

      Aslamolakum everyone.

      I’m writing a paper on Islam and my question is. Do you know any movies or television shows that stereotypes Muslims? PLEASE help me out inshallah. I would prefer if you can name a movie, but a television show would do as well.

    2. MR November 6th, 2009 at 8:58 pm

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Siege

    3. Muhammad November 6th, 2009 at 10:53 pm

      THANK YOU SO MUCH!!

    4. 骨头软件工作室 November 7th, 2009 at 3:35 am

      我换新域名了,换下新链接!

    5. al-suyuufi November 7th, 2009 at 1:57 pm

      ^ That just cracks me up every time

    6. The Ghazzali Blogger November 7th, 2009 at 6:02 pm

      @muhammed

      also check out little mosque on the priaire..it overexagerates soem thing we muslims witness everyday

      DO NOT LEARN ISLAM from it..just stereotypes of what w eMuslim have toward ourselves and white people.

    7. Harris November 7th, 2009 at 6:26 pm

      Salafi God Part-1
      http://salafiaqeedah.blogspot.com/2009/11/salafi-god.html

      Salafi God Part-2
      http://salafiaqeedah.blogspot.com/2009/11/salafi-god-part-2.html

    8. The Ghazzali Blogger November 7th, 2009 at 10:53 pm

      Waiting for Swarth to reply to Harris lol..get ready for copy and paste MANIA!!!

    9. Swarth Moor November 8th, 2009 at 12:42 pm

      Blogger,

      For the record, i don’t cut and paste. I ONE TIME cut and pasted my own post on to another post here on this blog. The rest came straight from dome to the keyboard to the blog. You actually drew my attention to the links–i didn’t even notice them, and i didn’t feel like getting into mentioning the deviances of Hamza Yusuf (such as, his denying the Qadar of Allah, claiming you can’t call an open kaafir a “kaafir,” or claiming that the Hurul-`Ayn are figurative and not literal beings). Well, i did flash to the page for a second–it looks pretty much like what the Wahhabis say:

      The Wahhabis (quasi-salafis) pray to a (imaginary) smiling faced corporeal entity sitting on (or hovering above) the `Arsh–but is some how below Prophet Jesus’s location in the Second Heaven–that has fingers, ocular organs, and a pair of feet but one shin. And they say you have to believe that LITERALLY!

      I’m not vouching for the whole page–i don’t have time to read it now (the bass are calling me at the local pond)–but it is exposing the ludicrous nature of the Wahhabi doctrine. The fact is that Allah is ONE and there is ONE correct belief in Allah. Muslims, afterall, aren’t polytheists or moral (or theological) relatavists. A person who dies while believing the Creator of space, time, directions is in space, time, or direction will NEVER smell the fragrance of Paradise. His everlasting abode will be the Naar! May Allah protect this Ummah from becoming infected by the disease of resembling the Creator to the creations.

      With Allah is the success.

    10. MR November 8th, 2009 at 12:46 pm

      @Swarth Moor – How big is your religion?

    11. Nasser November 9th, 2009 at 2:44 am

      MR

      You didn’t even address the points that Swarth Moor brought up. Don’t dodge the issue with a condescending question such as “how big is your religion?” Why don’t we all look at the content of what is being said as opposed to abusing rhetoric?

    12. Swarth Moor November 9th, 2009 at 10:57 am

      Let’s just make my position clear:

      There is ONE correct belief in Allah, and there are MANY incorrect beliefs in Allah. If a person has a bad belief about Allah, then he is a kaafir–even if he claims/or thinks himself to be a Muslim. It is incumbent upon every Muslim to be absolutely pellucidly crystal clear about what that correct belief is. It’s not hard to comprehend:

      —Allah is One (that is, Allah alone is the God and Creator, and Allah is not divisible; hence, Allah is not composed of pieces, parts, or dimensions).

      —Allah is Perfect and Beginningless, and Allah does not change: Allah was [before the creations] and there was nothing else. Allah was before time, place, distance, and direction. After Allah created time, place, distance, and direction, Allah did not transform and materialize into a time, place, distance, or direction. Again, Allah is Perfect and does not change.

      —Allah is Absolutely Incomparable. Whatever one can fathom in the mind, Allah is different than that. Allah is not a form or an image or a size; Allah is not a material or spiritual body. Allah ABSOLUTELY does not resemble the creations.

      –Allah is the Creator of EVERYTHING. That is, everything that exists other than Allah, whether it be the entities or their actions or their attributes–the happiness, the misery, the pain, the pleasure, the wealth, the poverty, the guidance or misguidance, the good the evil, the voluntary or involuntary deeds–are all created by Allah. Afterall, the first Kaleemah means: “There is no Creator except Allah.”

      Whoever does not believe the above is a kaafir (non-Muslim), for they are claiming that Allah has associates, or is originated, or is in need of or similar to the things He created. Such a person needs to fix himself. That is, be humble, recognize his (or her) kufri mistake, reject that kufr, and say the Shahadah to become a genuine Muslim. Islam is not based upon a “culture” or attending conferences–Islam is based upon HAVING THE CORRECT AND INTELLECTUALLY INVINSIBLE `AQIDAH that the Prophet came with.

      The problem here is that many folks have not learned traditional `Aqidah. I’m not making stuff up. This information is a STANDARD part of the Islamic doctrine that can be found in numerous treatises on `Aqidah (cf. An-Nasafi, Al-Ghazali, An-Nawawi, At-Tahawi, Al-Bayhaqi, Al-Juwayni, As-Sanusi, etc.). It’s knowledge that back in the day the little kids memorized in the kutubs.

      In the States, the Wahhabis intentionally tried to keep these books away from people (for the Wahhabi doctrine doesn’t match up with the Sunni doctrine). And more recently, the quasi-sunni tradtionalists, because they have an agenda of making filthy faloos and watering down the Deen for the non-Muslims, will not discuss openly with their followers the matters of apostasy. This is why you find characters like Hamza Yusuf embracing open Wahhabi body worshippers, like Yassir Qadhi. HY claims to be a Maliki/Ash`ari. The Malikis/Ash`aris consider those who claim Allah is in a location to be kuffaar. It is an OBLIGATION upon HY to warn against–not join–the Yassir Qadhi and those of his ilk. You wont see HY do that. I don’t know if these quasi-sunni traditionalists even say–unequivocally–that the Christians, Jews, and secularists/atheists are kuffaar, and if they die as non-Muslims they will be condemned forever to Hell. These quasi-sunnis are playing games with people’s Aakhirah.

      Straight up: BE WARNED!

      With Allah is the success.

    13. Asmarani November 9th, 2009 at 1:23 pm

      I wonder how much they paid HY to speak…

    14. MR November 9th, 2009 at 4:10 pm

      @Asmarani – It was free since he was already in town in Virginia for a retreat.

      @Nasser – Your a pretty new commentator, SwarthMoor and myself have gone back and forth a few times and he’s been commenting pretty often. Pretty much every scholar is wrong. All the sufis and all the salafis. Just do a search for “Swarthmoor” and you’ll see.

      Swarthmoor is a one man religion. It’s clear just read his comments and his site.

      He has yet to answer my original question of who are his teachers.

      And Allah knows best.

    15. Asmarani November 9th, 2009 at 4:21 pm

      @MR

      Thanks for correcting my wrong assumption.

      @Swarth

      You have a problem with [real] sufis? I can understand being against the so-called salafis – I’m totally against them. They are “off the chain”.

    16. Swarth Moor November 9th, 2009 at 6:44 pm

      Salafis are Wahhabis. Wahhabis pray to a (imaginary) smiling faced entity they think is sitting or hovering above the `Arsh. They think Allah has real-actual hands with fingers, two real-actual feet, and a real-actual tibia. They aren’t Muslims–they are merely a more recent incarnation of the musjassimah (“corporealist”–those who believe Allah is a spatial entity). We can’t doubt that such a gross belief in God is kufr.

      Regarding Sufis, well, i mentioned As-Sanusi, and An-Nawawi and Al-Ghazali. Everyone knows these were scholars of Tawheed and genuine masters of Tasawwuf (Sufism). i have no problem with Sufis. I have a problem with PSEUDO-sufis. The pseudo-sufis have certain kufri beliefs common amongst them, such as, believing Allah is everything/everything is Allah (the correct belief is Allah is the CREATOR of all things). Other pseudo-sufis blasphemously claim that Allah is a light; some claim that one can “unite” with Allah; some claim that they reach a station of spiritual “purity” wherein the Sacred Law is no longer incumbent upon them, ad nauseum.

      Another school of pseudo-sufism teaches that Sufism is actually not exclusively an Islamic science, but that Sufism is the “perrenial religion” and is at the heart of all religions. It’s reported that this is what Martin Lings claims–and another character who was popular amongst the hippies back in the day, Idries Shah, said something similar (according to the books ascirbed to him). The Wahhabis use these deviants as an excuse to attack the science of Tasawwuf itself (while failing to mention that the very scholars they quote from, such as, An-Nawawi was a Sufi).

      The danger is, as was laid out in Cheryl Benard’s Rand Report, that the opponents of Islam would promote a (so-called) “gentler and kinder” form of “Islam” that would be more compliant to the secular-atheist consumer agenda of the corporate globalists. They mentioned that they would use “sufism” to do so. (They meant pseudo-sufism, for many of the Mujahideen who fought Western imperialism thru history were Sufis.) We see today HY and the crew using ambiguous phrasing on matters of Aqidah (such as, the condition of the Christians in the Hereafter) along with out right altering the Religion to indicate what camp these people are in. They’re a grave danger because obviously many people can’t detect their deviance. In-sha’ Allah, the solution is to teach folks the right `Aqidah and the matters pertaining to apostasy, because once they learn, it is A LOT easier to detect the errors of these deviants.

      With Allah is the success.

    17. Swarth Moor November 9th, 2009 at 6:53 pm

      @ MR

      I asked before, to point to something that i said that opposes the Religion. I have listed some of the HORRENDOUS ERRORS of HY/Zaid and Yassir Qadhi, and i don’t think any of their fans deny that they actually said those things. It’s just that somehow since they are suppose to be “Sheikhs,” that somehow they are somehow “infallible” in the minds of their groupies. The fact is that these guys have erred in elementary matters of `Aqidah. Now, you have posed a fair question, but i know how things go–folks want to get into ad hominem arguments while ignoring the issues themself. I am willing to defend myself–but if i have made a mistake, i am also willing to stand corrected.

      With Allah is the success.

    18. Mn November 11th, 2009 at 11:26 am

      @SwarthMoor

      First your name sounds HORRIFICLY funny. Second of all, Hamza Yusuf has done WAY more service for the deen then you will ever have. So stop hating and get with it. The Prophet peace and blessings be upon him told us the ulema is our light. Go down to California where he lives and debate with him. You sound so very eager, and since it’s concerning deen it’s almost fardh upon you to do so. Why? Because your falsely accusing a righteous man without getting a proper response by the accused. So ironically you are the one getting the sin. Which silsila are you from anyways?

    19. Swarth Moor November 11th, 2009 at 3:53 pm

      MN,

      You don’t like my name? I’m a swarthy kinda guy and the Muslims used to be called “Moors” by the Europeans. So there you have it: Swarth-Moor. ‘Nough ’bout me–now on to yourself: you don’t know the future–so watch yourself. Let’s walk folks thru this again:

      1. In an NPR interview HY says there is nothing anti-Jewish in the Qur’an. The statement is sarih (explicit) kufr. The only issue is did NPR alter the audio in the interview. I don’t see his groupies making that claim. (Furthermore, he’s said similar statements on other occassions.)

      2. He claims that you can’t call an open non-Muslim a kaafir. Again explicit kufr–every non-Muslim is a kaafir (and i am not talking about takleef).

      3. He claims that murder alters the predestined lifespan of a person. Again a statement of explicit kufr.

      4. He claims that the Hurul-`Ayn are not mentioned in the Qur’an and that they are not literal beings–but merely allegorical.

      No Sunni Muslim denies that such matters are kufr. The context of these statements is clear and unambiguous (i am not including all the equivocal/ambiguous statements HY has made on matters of `Aqidah, for y’all will start claiming i am pulling things “out of context”). The only argument that people can potentially make on his behalf is that somebody is playing with the audio in his videos (or the text of his Season’s article). I don’t know of HY claiming that someone is trying to play around with the audio/articles. What i have seen over the past 4-5 months is that those videos that HY (and Zaid Shakir) made those deviant statements have started to disappear from the web (without comment). I’d like to think, humbly, that exposing him has contributed to that.

      Regarding having a debate with him, i SERIOUSLY doubt he would be interested in doing so. It’s not in his interests to get exposed. Afterall, he’s too busy clockin’ the loot. And his agenda is to alter basic Shar`i judgments. He’s an unctuous kind of guy–so you won’t get a straight answer out of him. Will he say clearly and unequivocally that Ghandi, Martin Luther King, John Paul II, and (the so-called) Mother Theresa are kuffaar and Hellfire fuel? Believe me, i understand the matter of being politically tactful when answering questions in a mixed audience… but you DON’T LIE about the Religion to appease non-Muslims.

      With Allah is the success.

    20. Mn November 11th, 2009 at 4:16 pm

      Swarthmoor, please show us evidence that he said this.

    21. The Ghazzali Blogger November 11th, 2009 at 4:58 pm

      @SwarthMoor

      You Say,
      2. He claims that you can’t call an open non-Muslim a kaafir. Again explicit kufr–every non-Muslim is a kaafir (and i am not talking about takleef).”

      That is the Ashari view…Ghazzali and many other Asharis claim that. (not saying if it’s right or not just saying because you tend to quote a lot of Ashari aqeedah on the whole “hand” of ALlah thing..might as well know this is also fromt he Asharis.)

      you said,
      1. In an NPR interview HY says there is nothing anti-Jewish in the Qur’an. The statement is sarih (explicit) kufr. The only issue is did NPR alter the audio in the interview. I don’t see his groupies making that claim. (Furthermore, he’s said similar statements on other occassions.)

      Where is the Quran anti-jewish. Yes it does say when the dajjal comes they will side with him but that is the future. And it does say they killed their Prophet and did many bad things but that is history and the truth. If that is what you consider anti-jewish then yes the quran is anti-jewish. But to me that is just history and a warning for us Muslism to NOT do what the jews do. Unfortunately muslims took all that to mean we should take RPG’s and destroy synagogues in the bronx.
      Maybe HY’s definition of the quran not being anti-jew is that the quran doesn’t tell us to attack them.

      As far as his whole Jihad not meaning to fight in the Quran. Well in his CD-set “the vision of Islam” he says that Jihad in terms of actually fighting IS in the Quran. And the cd-set is recent and we judge by the LAST thing he said.

    22. Mn November 11th, 2009 at 5:07 pm

      @The Ghazali Blogger, exactly. Couldn’t have said it better. @SwarthMoor, You almost literally take the Islamophobic interpration of the Quran as your means of debate. Anti-jew is an old trick in the book zionists and Islamophobes have used for years. Haven’t you read the hadith where there was was a Jewish funeral passing by the Prophet peace and blessing be upon him and the Sahabas? When the funeral passed by, the Prophet (saw) stood up out of respect. The sahaba’s surprised, asked the Prophet (saw) “Oh Prophet of Allah, why did you stand up?! He was a Jew!” The Prophet peace and blessing be upon him replied “But was he not a human?” This right here is clear example that we do not hate the Jews. They may be non believers, but that absolutely gives us no right to kill them or wage war against them unless we are attacked first unjustly.

    23. Swarth Moor November 11th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

      @ Blogger

      You judge a person based on his current condition and not what he MIGHT become.

      Regarding the Jews: when one says Al-Maghdubi in the Fatihah, he is referring to the Jews. Saying that they are the people deserving the severe torture of God is not praising them. The Jews are censured for: rejecting Prophet Jesus/Muhammad, claiming God is stingy, claiming to be superior to everyone else, for killing their Prophets, for altering the Law of Moses, mocking the Deen of Allah, for their greed and lust for this world, being the greatest enemies of Islam, etc. And what you mentioned about the Dajjal or the hiding behind the rocks and trees. I am confident that the VAST majority of Jews would consider such statements “anti-Jewish.” (And i am sure you’d consider it anti-Islamic if some Christians said similar statements about Muslims.) The Qur’an is not neutral–and certainly not positive about the Jews. To claim that there is nothing anti-Jewish in the Qur’an is an OUTRIGHT lie. But then we know that HY is a master of equivocation. Ya, he’d probably try to explain his statement away, like what you are doing (knowing that he’d be deceiving non-Muslims and confused Muslims).

      You can say: “Unlike in Judaism, in Islam salvation is not based upon ethnicity or race. The Qur’an invites Jews to abandon their erroneous notions about God, to believe in all of God’s Prophets, and to embrace Islam. Yes, the Qur’an condemns the Jews for their rejection of God’s Prophet, Muhammad, who was named as a Messenger for all of humanity; NONETHELESS, this does not justify acts of terror commited against Jewish people.” There i answered the question honestly and clearly. I didn’t lie and say something like, “There is nothing anti-Jewish in the Qur’an.” (A`udhubillah, what a lie!) If HY is too cowardly to speak the truth, then he should step down as a spokesman for (what he considers to be) Islam.

    24. Asmarani November 11th, 2009 at 6:18 pm

      @The Ghazali Blogger

      What you have uttered against the Ash’ari scholars is an outright lie! This issue exposes Hamza Yusuf for what he truly is. People have exaggerated what he learned from scholars like Marabatul-Hajj (may Allah have mercy on him). He is a book reader.

      The Ash’aris never said what you and Hamza Yusuf claim! This just shows his ignorance about the Ash’ari Creed.

      This is what the Ash’aris said regarding the “Sa’eed” and the “Shaqiyy”:

      The Sa’eed refers to the person whom Allah Willed Eternally to die in a good state. Therefore while a person maybe currently in the state of blasphemy, if Allah Willed for him to die as a muslim, this person is a Sa’eed.

      The Shaqiyy acording to the Ash’aris is the opposite of that. Meaning, it refers to the one whom Allah Willed Eternally to die as a blapshemer even if they are currently in the state of Islam.

      So for the Ash’aris, these two terms refer to the situation of the person when they die regardless of their current state of belief or disbelief.

      The Maturidis say that these two terms refer to the current situation at any given time. Therefore, for them, the person would be a Sa’eed and then a Shaqiyy or a Shaqiyy and then a Sa’eed.

      This is a case of semantics and not a substantive difference. They are using the same term to refer to two different issues.

      If Hamza Yusuf was truly a scholar he would have known this and understood it properly. But the fact of the matter is that he doesn’t understand well because he learned a little bit then went on to reading alot. That’s why he says “he reads al-Ghazzali and Ibn Taymiyah…” He likes them both.

      You people need to wake up and smell what Hamza Yusuf is shoveling! He mixes truth with falsehood. He is a pluralist who wants to hold hands with the wahhabis and sing “cumbaya”.

    25. Mn November 11th, 2009 at 6:34 pm

      Mashallah look at what this ummah has come to. The end of times is truly very close. Shame on you Asmarani and SwarthMoor. You people cannot even comprehend who Shaykh Hamza Yusuf has studied with. Listen to yourselves? Wallahi do you think the Prophet PBUH would just sit there while you guys kept bashing the ulema and saying bad things about jews? Yes they have made great sins, but to say that my Quran, the kitabullah, is a book full of hate naubillah? This is what you ignorant people are inciting. Ya Allah please protect us from the day when all knowledge will be lost in the end of times just as your Nabi warned us about. Ya Allah please guide these ignorant people and protect us from the day when we will have no Shaykh to guide and the ummah starts turning to people like Asmarani and SwarthMoor. Ameen.

    26. Asmarani November 11th, 2009 at 6:38 pm

      @Mn

      All you have is your “Straw Man Argument”. That’s it! This is why none of the people like you can argue with facts. Had I attributed those statements to that blasphemer Ghulam Ahmad Al-Qadiyani, you wouldn’t have lifted a finger to defend him. Why is that? You don’t care about defending the Religion! All you care about is clinging onto your favorite personality. That will not benefit you on the day of Judgment!

    27. Swarth Moor November 11th, 2009 at 6:43 pm

      MN,

      The Muslims aren’t “pro-jewish.” The Muslims are pro-Jews embracing Islam. I do wish the best for them, but i am not going to lie and distort my Deen and confuse other Muslims (many of whom i know are not clear about these issues). What i mentioned is not a neo/Zio-con misinterpretation of the Qur’an. It’s the standard position of Ahlus-Sunnah: Jews can live in the Islamic state as dhimmis. Dhimmis do not have the same status as Muslims. Jews/secularists would consider dhimmitude “anti-semitic” (cough). The problem here is confusing the position of apologists (like HY) and the extremists (like those who blow up random Jewish folks). I can be kind to my Jewish neighbors (or fellow citizens), offer them assistance in their times of need, and i can keep my Deen and say that if such a person dies on his `aqidah, he’ll be in Hell forever. There’s no contradiction.

      References:

      If you can find the video with HY on the BBC with Michael Enright, it’s there that he claims the Hurul-`Ayn are figurative (and calls the firefighters on 9/11 “martyrs”)

      This is a quote from the interview:

      Now, there are some Hadeeths, it’s not in the Quran, there is mention of beautiful youths as well as beautiful women, and that’s more metonymy in rhetoric.

      Michael: It’s an allegory.

      Hamza Yusuf: Exactly, it’s an allegory, exactly.

      [This is a lie 2x over. The Hurul-`Ayn (Maidens) and Wildaan Mukhalladoon (Paradisical Youths) are both mentioned in the Qur’an. And they are not understood “allegorically.”]

      It is also in the same interview that he says that murder is such a heinous crime because it interupts a person’s appointed time of death. This is the Qadar-denying doctrine of the Mu`tazilah.

      The handshaking “sheikh”:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0AA0DkNOqY&feature=related

      I tried accessing some of the audio archives of HY on NPR, but i am only getting the latest interviews. I’ll try to do a more comprehensive search later.

    28. Swarth Moor November 11th, 2009 at 7:14 pm

      MN,

      When the Qur’an mentions that multitudes of people will be tortured FOREVER in Hell with the likes of drinking boiling puss, eating thorny bushes, having molten metals poured down their throats, being dragged upon their faces, having their flesh being burnt off their bodies and then recreated only to repeat the process again, etc., is that showing love or is it showing hate?

      The Prophet ordered that the Muslims should love and HATE for the sake of Allah. Hating does not mean necessarily cutting someone’s head off. But it means to have disdain for disbelief and disobedience. AT THE SAME TIME one can be magnanimous, patient, and wise in the process of striving to order the good and forbid the evil among non-Muslims. By tolerating (as in enduring–not accepting) misguidance with good manners, in-sha’ Allah, that will persuade some people to embrace Islam. But AT THE SAME TIME, we do not alter or distort what the Prophet came with.

      This is where HY is trying to confuse people. Yes, we can be kind to non-Muslims. We can be generous with our time and possessions with them. We can work together for the improvement of the society (in matters that don’t entail sinning)–AND AT THE SAME TIME, we do not deny the status of the disbeliever. As the Prophet said:

      “Any Jew or Christian who hears about me and my Message, but does not believe, then he is a denizen of Hell.” (Muslim related)

      With Allah is the success.

    29. The Ghazzali Blogger November 12th, 2009 at 1:27 am

      @Asmarani
      Imma ignore you because I did not claim that you cannot call a non-muslim a kafir. All i said was Ghazzali said you can;t call nonmuslims kafirs..But hey your so quick to accuse me of things that I do not think. AND FURTHERMORE I have never EVER studied with hamza…I was just playing “the other side’s advocate” Furthermore if you read below you’ll find out whose translations I was reading. (pakistani shaykhs with NO connection to HY)

      @Swarth
      In EITHER volume 1 of ihya ulum id din or deliverance form error (Forget which one I will look it up iA) it says u cannot call a non-muslim a kafir for they are 2 different things. The translation of Ihya I read is from Al-Haj Maulana Fazlul Karim and the translation of deliverance of error I read is from another pakistani.
      The whole nonmuslims are kafir thing is from Athari/Salafi aqeedah.
      Now maybe I’m reading the wrong translation, after all they are pakistanis translatin arabic to urdu then into english.

      As for the anti-jewish thing I guess we both agree..it is on one person’s definition. My definition of anti-jew is taking hostile action against them unjustly and that is no where in the Quran.
      HOWEVER the quran (liek you said) is not neutral and you ay because of that it is anti-jewish. I say it is a warning to the jews and not anti-jewish. (I too say it is NOT neutral) so basically im in agreeeance. I just wanted to make it clear that what soem peopel do (liek attack other unjustly) is WRONG. but you agree with me there so khalas. (because certain salafis think that hating for the sake of Allah is a license to disrespect and kill.)

      But on HY how do u know if he didn’t give that answer in the context of unjust violent action. He was asked about it within that context. And one of the things in an interview speially for th emedia you keep your answers short and precise. If he woulda went on explainin things liek you did they would have cut him off.

    30. Asmarani November 12th, 2009 at 8:04 am

      @The G. Blogger

      You are a liar! Al-Ghazzali never said such a thing and even if he did (which he did not) he would have been belying al-Qur’an!

      Who are the kaafirs in Surat Al-Kaafirun? You are completely lost!

      Qul Ati’ullaha war-rasul fa ‘in tawallaw fa’innAllaha la yuhibbul-kaafirin

      You people would rather pervert the Religion to cover up the mistakes of Hamza Yusuf then defend it????

      Translations are not the words of al-Ghazzali, they are the words of the translator!

    31. Faruq Ibn Khaldun November 12th, 2009 at 1:26 pm

      @ Ghazzali Blogger

      Asmarani is completely right. You have lost your mind if you think that the Mujjaddid, Hujjatul Islam, Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad Al-Ghazzali (may Allah have mercy upon him) ever said or even thought such a thing.

      All non-Muslims are kaafirs. This is unequivocally a part of the religion. Now, if we want to make a finer distinction, we can say there is a difference between the kaafir (non-Muslim) who IS accountable, and the kaafir (non-Muslim) who IS NOT accountable in terms of their state in the Hereafter.

      The conditions of accountability are three: pubescence, sanity, and having heard/read or otherwise come to know the BASIC call of Islam: that is, the testification of faith. If a person does NOT meet one or more of these conditions, and they die as a kaafir (non-Muslim), they will not be tortured in the Hereafter. For example, say a person who wasn’t Muslim was insane their entire life, from birth until death. They did not meet the condition of sanity, so they will NOT be tortured in the Hereafter. Similarly a young child aged 5 who is not Muslim. If the child dies on that state, he/she will not be tortured because the condition of pubescence was not met.

      Notice, however, that the stipulation of accountability does NOT mean that the person who is a non-Muslim is not rightly called a kaafir. A person who is a kaafir is one who does NOT believe correctly in Allah and Prophet Muhammad. A person who does NOT believe correctly in Allah and Prophet Muhammad is by definition a non-Muslim. Therefore, all kaafirs are non-Muslims. It is that simple.

    32. The Ghazzali Blogger November 12th, 2009 at 8:39 pm

      @Faruq
      “we can say there is a difference between the kaafir (non-Muslim) who IS accountable, and the kaafir (non-Muslim) who IS NOT accountable in terms of their state in the Hereafter.”

      “Notice, however, that the stipulation of accountability does NOT mean that the person who is a non-Muslim is not rightly called a kaafir.”

      Okay rereading the translation (after reading what you wrote) I realize that the author was trying to say that. But it is an Arabic to Urdu to English translation (and bad at that too)

      YOUR RIGHT

      @Asmarani AND Faruq

      Btw I haven’t lost my mind. It is an misunderstanding based on language. (or a liar as Asmarani says)

      be careful with the WAY you correct people. If i was a Liar I wouldn’t of conceded. When you speak with such attitude you’ll lose people in ur islah/dawah based on the mere fact of your character.

      @Asmarani (ONLY)
      I dare you to speak the way you do online to people’s faces your what we call in the MMA world a keyboard warrior or paper tiger.

    33. Abdullah May 4th, 2010 at 2:15 am

      assalamu alaikum,

      It seems that many of our brothers (e.g., The Ghazzali Blogger, Swarth Moor, etc.) have not read the works of Muhammad ibn abdul wahhaab, and others that they are so carelessly attacking. We are not to defend the killings of the innocent, but we are also to defend those innocent (many many many of whom are Muslims, as well, that we so easily ignore while having these arguments and debates, pretending to be the great scholars of our times).

      When we are supposed to be working against the shaitaan, we sit here debating each other and attacking each other, forgetting the etiquette of disagreements between Muslims (“and say to My servants to say that which is best; surely shaitaan causes divisions (and enmity) between them; surely shaitaan is man’s clear enemy”, surah al-Israa’, 17:53).

      While it is true that the ‘aqeedah of the asharis (and the zhaahiris on the opposite end) is flawed, because of their dive into the world assumptions and doubts, etc., arguing with hatred may only help shaitaan in fulfilling his oath to Allah. Remember when shaitaan told Allaah that we will lead astray everyone “illa 3ibaadaka minhum al-mukhlaseen,” al-hijr, 15:40.

      I know we all believe we are doing the right thing, but hating on each other and arguing like ignorant and uncivilized people will not convince either side of anything; it may only make all sides become more stubborn and animal-like.

      In the end, I want to clarify that I am by no means trying to end these conversation. Instead, I’m attempting to encourage debates that will actually benefit someone in the end. There is only One Path to Allaah, and in surah al-fatihah, we ask Allah to guide us onto that Path. But that path is through beliefs and actions that are clear, not assumed or derived through any philosophical concepts and personalities.

      O Allah, we seek refuge in You from hypocrisy and everything that does not benefit us or Islaam (and therefore does not result in Your pleasure). O Allah, guide us to Your pleasure, and do not let our hearts be misguided or led astray after they have been guided. O Allah, open our hearts and minds to understand what is Al-Haqq and help us differentiate that from everything else. Aameen.

      Jazakum Allahu khairan,
      Assalamu ‘alaikum wa rahmat Allah wa barakatuh

Your Ad Here

MRecent Talk

MRecent Posts

MRespected

MRecognize

MReads

Syndication

Recent comments