Sayings of Shaykh Asrar

That particular post has been deleted from the shaykhs fb posts.

 

and i call upon hamza hanson to repent in public from this crime and fear Allah ta'ala and His Wrath.

 

Shatha is basically ecstatic utterance

From facebook posted January 29th:

My opponents have claimed for a few years that I declare people as disbelievers and encourage others to do so. However I have mentioned in many lectures that this is not the case. I even personally e mailed Sh Hamza Yusuf to say I have not declared him a disbeliever. I even mentioned in a lecture that I called him Mark once in order to make his followers realise how offensive it was for him to entertain a theme park based on Dante's Inferno and this does not mean I declared him a disbeliever. I mentioned that x, y and z positions are disbelief and quoted great authorities like Imam Nawawi, Qadi Iyad and others and yet Minhaj alQuran members thought I am declaring Professor Tahir a disbeliever. The reason why the followers and the followed choose to say this is to play the victim and to muddy the issue. No one will be able to discuss the core problems but will instead resort to saying 'you or your followers do takfir'. So I reiterate what I said many years ago in this clip:

https://m.youtube.com/?hl=en-GB&gl=GB#/watch?v=7sTjWFj-2u4

Please listen and spread. This clip is only two minutes. Share, like and forward to all to dispel this myth. I only say this so in future people do not obfuscate these matters. Forward to all those who have slandered us because of our position and who refuse to acknowledge these realities even with the blatant assault of the 'The Study Qur'an'. This includes blind followers of what they are told in their cults without using their minds.

- Shaykh Asrar Rashid

 

what's "shathat"?

are you talking about me?

where can the latest posts be found?

 

Have you seen the recent post, the comment section is always filled with the same desperate "mureeds" or whatever they are, they keep Trying to undermine or Shaykh Asrar and they happen to use Brother Abdul Qadirs "shathat" as Id like to call them as ammo againts him. To me seeing these people act this way is quite pitiful, and they arw living in this dream land where There Scholars cannot be critiques what so ever.

Then there is always that one deo ka banda that tries to use the point of finding interpretations (on of Shaykh Asrar's points) to justify his schools interpreing the ibarat. Its like dispite all their efforts in gaining knowledge when it comes to thier own they become brickheads.

 

if you check out Abdullah bin Hamid Ali and his partner Sherman Jackson's lampost productions you will find contradictions to this statement.

 

Abdullah bin Hamid Ali:

Neither Ghazali nor Ibn Taymiya held that non-Muslims could be spared from hell if they rejected islam.

Via: Twitter

 

masha Allah once again Harris saves the day with a quote. grow a beard.

 

The Mashaykh of Tassawwuff traditionally would have been masters of outward and inward knowledge. Knowledge of Shariah was Paramount and the student who wanted to take Baya would also have understood this. The problem now lies in many So called Sufi Shaykh's only focusing on the inward (if that in many cases as most are not anywhere close to being Sufis) on purpose as they find it easier to control Mureeds who don't know that much. Most carry the numbers in their Silsila like a badge for their nafs to delight. I'll never forget one mureed when he mentioned a certain Shaykh' s statement " we are in the business of religion"....Tauba

The real Spiritual Masters would not take a student unless he or she was already a Sufi or very close to being one.

 

'I, Asrar Rashid, categorically and in clear words condemn the sell out streak amongst certain 'sufi' groups. Do not mistaken my politeness as a condoning silence on innovators and innovation. A common trend is free mixing in 'mawlid' gatherings and inviting 'shaykhahs' to speak to men in a free and open evironmemt without a veil. Some have tried making an analogy of this and shopping centers or restaurants. The difference is that those are open public spaces but a 'mawlid' is supposed to be a religious gathering. What necessity has arose for men to listen to a woman speaker? Have all the male Ulama passed away? Or do these women retain a knowledge which those men do not have? Even when Sayyidah Aisha (Allah be well pleased with her) taught and related hadith out of necessity it was done from behind a veil. This modernist streak in 'sufis' ranges from undermining certain sunnah acts to wholesale association with deviants. If a scholar associated with deviants and condemned their innovations openly their would be no problem. Condemnation of their innovation can be polite but unequivocal. But what we have now is a total silence on innovations like perennialism, to statements like saying 'the Qadiyani issue is a political issue' and a host of other things. These innovations start with laxity on smaller issues relating to fiqh but end up with major issues of faith. Suffice it to say that Imam Ahmad Zarruq and Imam Sharani (Allah bless them) both condemned 'sufi' shaykhs who give dispensations and 'sufi' aspirants who follow relaxed fiqh rulings and dispensations. 'Sufi' claimants today do not fit the criteria laid out by the real Imams of true Tasawwuf. The jurists today who are strict on Shariah are better than the claimants of 'tasawwuf' who play with belief and Shariah. This tribulation has ranged from politics (FUREC in India, or support of aggressors to Islam), to bleliefs (Wembley drama of TQ), or support of books like 'The Study Quran' and many other things. May Allah rectify our states as no one other than Prophets are perfect. Perfection is with the Quran, Sunnah and Consensus of the Ummah.'

- Shaykh Asrar Rashid

 

"You should memorise the Quran al-Kareem! Instead of your intention of coming to these beautiful gatherings is to meet your friends, or to meet up after for some food, or discuss pointless things such as discussing about me and Shaykh Yaseen. Why do this? You should do things that are benefiting to yourselves, such as memorising the Quran al-Kareem."

https://www.facebook.com/ghamkolsha...247579.37703.172862942762516/915698971812239/

 

'If you are in a silsila/tariqa, claiming suluk, and are wasting time with petty things like gossip, slander, hatred, backbiting, competing for ijaza and status, or positions, recruiting as if it's a business, then you have failed. If you refuse to change, then why are you making claims of suluk?'

- Shaykh Asrar Rashid

 

'A person turning to Islam is first told he must give bayah and join a tariqah or an organisation. He is then exposed to esoteric concepts, kashf, ghawth, dreams etc. He is then ordered not to go to other gatherings and avoid other sufi orders. 'Secrets' of the group are divulged to him. Instead the person should have been taught correct creed, salah and how to recite Quran. Not how to dance to qawali, or blind follow a shaykh even when wrong, or just kiss hands and give money. This is why I say every person should learn and not commit to blind conformity.'

- Shaykh Asrar Rashid

 

excerpt from 'Reliance of the Traveller' the section on fard al-'ayn (personally obligatory knowledge):

a4.2 As for the basic obligation of Islam, and what relates to tenets of faith, it is adequate for one to believe in everything brought by the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) and to credit it with absolute conviction free of any doubt. Whoever does this is not obliged to learn the evidences of the scholastic . The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) did not require of anyone anything but what we have just mentioned, nor did the first four caliphs, the other prophetic Companions, nor others of the early Muslim community who came after them. Rather, what befits the common people and vast majority of those learning or possessing Sacred Knowledge is to retrain from discussing the subtleties of scholastic theology, lest corruption difficult to eliminate find its way into their basic religious convictions. Rather, it is fitter for them to confine themselves to contentment with the above mentioned absolute certainly.Our Imam Shafi'i (Allah Most High have mercy on him) went to the greatest possible lengths in asserting that engaging in scholastic theology is forbidden. (A: What he meant thereby was the heretical scholastic theology that proliferated in his time and put rationalistic theories ahead of the Koran and sunna, not the science of theology (`ilm al-tawhid) by which Ash'ari and Maturidi scholars have clarified and detailed the tenets of faith of Sunni Islam, which is an important part of the Islamic sciences.) He insistently emphasized its unlawfulness, the severity of the punishment awaiting those who engage in it, the disgrace of doing it, and the enormity of the sin therein by saying, "For a servant to meet Allah with any other sin than idolatry (shirk) is better than to meet Him guilty of anything of scholastic theology." His other statements expressing the same meaning are numerous and well known. But if someone has doubts (Allah be our refuge) about any of the tenets of faith in which belief is obligatory (def: books u and v), and his doubt cannot be eliminated except by learning one of the theologians' proofs, then it is obligatory for him to learn it in order to remove the doubt and acquire the belief in question.

---

as for the particular incident, I have heard it numerous times in bayans but never had the opportunity to read it in a book. The last time I heard it was from a shafi scholar, I'll ask him for a reference, inshaAllah.

-----

I think that what shaykh asrar is warning against is taqleed of individuals in aqaid without bothering to verify them from the sources of shariah which are the Qur'an, sunnah and ijma', so much so that if this person is presented with an explicit textual evidence he will not give it any weight and claim that whatever his shaykh or a particular individual has said is enough and if that individual changes his creed after a while then this person (blind conformist) will follow suit even if the new creed he is being asked to believe may be diametrically opposite to the former. In short, this person has given a non-prophet the status of a prophet whose words constitute a proof in and of themselves!

--------

But at other occasions, during lectures on atheism, shaykh asrar has used the words 'rational proofs' and not 'textual evidence from the Book and the Sunnah'. I would really appreciate a clarification about what he meant.

wassalaam.

 

It did indeed take place between Imam Razi and Shaykh Najmuddeen Kubra (raHmatullahi ta'ala 'alayhi). I believe it is narrated in the book Adaab e Murshid published by Dawat e islami's Maktaba tul Madina.

 

i may be wrong but i heard in a wa3z that it was Shaykh Junaid al-Baghdadi and he hurled the pot at iblees and told the mureed to tell him 'i believe in my Lord without requiring any proofs'. the mureed's name escapes me, Allahu a3lam if it was Imam Fakhruddin ar-Razi.

have you got a textual reference for this narration? just asking to get it right.

 

blind conformity:

I have heard shaykh asrar say this on quite a few occasions. But how does this compare to Imam al-Razi's experience at the time of death when he was confronted by iblees who challenged him to prove his creed and he, being the master mutakallim that he was gave hundreds of proofs, only to be refuted by iblees each time. So he was in a quandary at a very critical juncture of his life - any uncertainty in creed at this point would mean eternal damnation, and here was iblees, the master deceiver, rebuking him for holding beliefs which he did not have proof for. This situation was made apparent to Imam Razi's shaykh, Shaykh Najmuddeen Kubra (raHmatullahi ta'ala 'alayhi) through kashf. The shaykh was performing wudu at the time and had a pot in his hand. The narration goes that he hurled his pot toward Imam Razi and told him, through kashf again, "O fakhruddeen! why don't you say, 'I believe in my Lord without needing a proof'?". Imam Razi immediately said this to the devil and he was defeated in his arguments.

I do not know how strong the sanad for this narration is but ever since I have heard it I have always maintained that all the proofs for aqaid are useful insofar they help a person establish a presentable case for his beliefs to other human beings and to his nafs when he is required to answer the question 'why?'. They provide what is known as 'ilm-ul-yaqeen (or knowing-is-believeing).

But at the end of the day, knowledge does not equate to hidayah. So if any being of superior intellect, including my devious nafs, were to prove my case to be lacking in solid evidence, all I have to say is, "I believe not because of what i know but because my Lord has guided me and His guidance is sufficient an aid against all counter-arguments to my arguments".

I have personally found this approach to be quite useful at certain times in my life when I have been bothered by my nafs.

what do others have to say?