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

“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.

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.

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!

@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.

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.

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.

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!

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”.