Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Refutation' started by Harris786, Dec 4, 2015.
they are a bizarre group.
for all their shiite overtures, they're not tafdili.
yet, depending on the political situation in lebanon and the time period you're talking about, they've also had close business and political associations with the shiites, as well as have condemned them.
i remember hearing myself in one of their radio programs them blasting the hezbosh-shaytan as "so called hezbollah".
i've heard of skirmishes between their guys and lebanese hezbo thugs.
and yet, i've also personally witnessed their imams having friendships with shiite imams on various occasions, the same way the perennialists are cozy with the christian priests.
harari has unequivocally said that the qaadhif of Ummuna 3Aisha radi Allahu 3anha is a kafir, and that the one not accepting the companion status of Sayyidina Abu Bakr radi Allahu 3anhu is a kafir.
if at all this ra'id guy isn't fudging harari's positions, then i'll have to say with a heavy heart that his and his shaykh's (harari's) knowledge and/or rational thinking and/or guts against the Sahaba exceed their intelligence. (personally, to me, attributing "sinfulness" to ANY Ummul Mumineen is beyond insane for anyone who claims to be a Sunni)
despite their bizarreness (for lack of a better word), i used to have a fondness for them for their blunt and straight forward manner of addressing issues (unlike the likes of keller, hanson etc), for being non-wahabi (actually fiercely anti-wahabi), non-shia, non-perennialist sufis (they, bizarrely again, hold Shaykh Al-Akbar Ibn Al-Arabi in very high esteem as a wali), and pro-Mawlid and pro-tawassul, pro-istighatha etc.
i have known about their positions on certain Sahaba Kiraam for the past 11 years
personally, i believe, and i could be wrong, but Shaykh Harari had shiite tones because of the prevalent shiite atmosphere in Lebanon, where the Shiites occupy the largest proportion of the country. Perhaps he was appealing to them.
thanks for the link. for years, i've been trying to extract a straight forward answer from the habashis regarding their position on Sayyidina Mu3awiya radi Allahu 3anhu.
the best i got was - "his narration of hadith is accepted" - something the sinful idiot alluded to in that article
and when i asked "do you believe his error in judgment was for personal or selfish reasons" i was responded with silence
this article clearly shows their real position on that too now:
i withhold from all praise of the ah-bash now for this terrible bid3ah, that is stated in the article
the major fallacy of this idiot writer, and indeed al-harari (if at all he also preached such, and he is mayyit now) is that these idiots think that we can also use the same commanding tones towards the companions as the Prophet, 3alaihis salam, did.
so if the the Prophet 3alaihis salam expressed displeasure at an act of the companions or spoke sternly to teach them, the fool thinks we too can do the same.
it's like (without tashbeeh), if "shaykh" ra'id's mother calls him an idiot due to her position of authority over him, his wife too starts calling him the same and her (wife's) evidence is, "your mother also calls you an idiot"
in any case, i never praised them before too. just said that they are a lesser evil than the wahabis and shias, and the wahabis and shias themselves are a much lesser evil than the perennialist sufis like mark hanson, faraz, keller, ali jifry etc. and i still stand by it.
tafdili alert - despite their idiotic positions and twisting of some scholars' words as in the linked article, they still believe in the tafdil of Shaykhayn radi Allahu 3anhumaa.
personally, i think they are fools for cherry-picking opinions and positions. they will praise the Ash3ari imam, An-Nawawi to no end when it suits their purpose and when it doesn't, they say his daleels are "meaningless", as if al-harari or this ra'id guy is greater than An-Nawawi
ironically, they're just as literal and foolish as the wahabis on certain issues, and similar to them, they first decide on positions and then go looking for evidences.
they will gladly present silly arguments to burn down straw men and negate narrations of Bukhari, but will hang by their teeth to a narration from Muslim when it suits their purpose (as shown in the article linked by Harris)
they will recite the Burdah (their own censored version) and praise Al-Busiri, but yet audaciously declare that he made a blunder when he said:
ومن علومك علم اللوح والقلم
not very different to the wahabis love for amreeka but censoring some things from their imams' sitcoms.
they will gladly mention narrations to justify their activities but ignore all situational contexts and circumstances of these times and basic usool of fiqh
for all their audacity to foray away from positions of celebrated Ash3ari and Shafi3i imams like Nawawi, they simply can't veer away from a single opinion of al-harari, and every answer must be tailored to justify his opinions.
i think they're a cult with some shadh opinions and bid3ahs and repeat that they are a lesser evil than the wahabis and shias, and the wahabis and shias themselves are a much lesser evil than the perennialist sufis like mark hanson, faraz, keller, ali jifry etc. (unless they too have decided to sign on the common word rag)
now that that they've made their position on this topic known clearly and straightforwardly (on the internet), someone can work on writing a refutation of their position.
and when refuting them, i hope whoever refutes them, doesn't look to wahabis and/or ikhwanis (like qaradawi) or perennialists and/or government stooges (like ali gomaa) to strengthen his case
they can be refuted purely from within the positions of the authentic Ahlus Sunnah
if someone can get this, please advise: