I was going through this video go to mark 19:40 this is a recent video ( year 2015) Apparently Hamza Yusuf retracted his position against Qadiyanis Save the videos, these people are deleting it from youtube once they are caught
to be fair to Hamza Yusuf and Bin Bayya, they mean from a historical and minority perspective. The Ibadhis in Libya are an ancient community in the Nafusa mountains. And their culture is traditional heritage of the Libyan Berbers. They being deviants is a fact, but on the bright side they are anti-wahabi and at peace with Sufi Sunnis in Libya.
In one of the FB links posted by Ghulam it is mentioned that Hamza Yusuf and Bin Bayah want preservation of the Ibadi identity in Libya.
http://www.weforum.org/sessions/summary/religion-pretext-conflict?utm_content=buffer48905 http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-spies-gaddafi-libya-revealed-official-papers https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...458816146.1073741832.536166145&type=1&theater https://www.facebook.com/shaykhfarazrabbani/posts/167651433294942 http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/people/sohail-nakhooda failed journalist .. ex k towner now advising the transitional council in Libya mark, tim, nuh are all pigs
mark's an expert in conveying and teaching very exacting disbelief to sheeple without himself being explicit about what he's saying, so that he can always dance around with nuanced verbal acrobatics if he's ever taken to task to a qadi who would declare him as a rotten murtad and a zindiq.
the thing is what would we have said if the same political correctness was displayed in a different context, the christians for instance. let's consider a hypothetical possibility and say the questioner was one of the christian profs sitting next to him and inquiring about the classical Muslim position on takfeer of christian community, and mark answers something along the lines of: "takfeer of an entire community is against Islamic principles. there are rules for anathematizing individuals in the Shari3ah wherein the due course of law must be administered, and then after completing the due legal requirements, only a qadi or a mufti can declare someone to be a kafir. we just can't say that an entire community of people is nonMuslim. most Muslims are not aware of the orthodox Shar3i statutes to anathematize a person. most Muslims don't understand the nuances in the classical Islamic legal tradition that they just can't say that an entire community of people are nonMuslims, or worse yet kuffar because calling people kuffar has theological implications that they are destined to hell-fire." (if it were a real situation) we could sit and argue that mark hasn't used the word "christian" at all in his answer and nowhere has he said that christians aren't kafirs, and that he has only given some cop-outs at a general level, even if those cop-outs too are fallacious spins. but the fact that he was asked something in a very specific context and he then delivers this as the answer only proves that this is not just a general guideline he is presenting but this is also his answer for the queried situation. if he were even half a man and even half a Muslim, even if only an adulterous alcoholic, he would give a yes/no answer in black and white.
Mark needs to clarify and state if he was or not referring to the qadianis when he mentions one cannot do takfir of a whole group as collective takfir is against the Islamic tradition. He is answering a question regarding the qadianis and has definitely muddied the waters! The qadianis have used his previous statements and will do again. They have even quoted him in their services and still inferring what he spewed to their advantage. Therefore Hamza needs to stop dilly-dallying and be man enough to issue a statement on his position on the qadianis and what he meant. http://www.ahmadiyya.org/movement/hamza_yusuf_reply.pdf Mark likes back peddling “One of the things our Abrahamic Traditions suffer from is exclusivism. Many of the people who adhere to Abrahamic teachings whether they be Jews, Christians or Muslims, tend to see themselves as having some monopoly on the truth, and monopoly on the truth as far as any real Abrahamic traditions would say would be God’s alone.” “If we accept or assume the possibly that He did speak, the divine spoke through these revelations of the Old Testamant, the Older Testament, the New Testament then the Quran, which each one has their claim. If we do accept that certainly God has many voices, and to claim any one voice to be the exclusive voice of God is a very dangerous thing to do.” “I’ve been in my share of exclusivist tradition, when I first became Muslim that was the type of Islam I was introduced to… when you begin to look at the nuances of our traditions you find is that they are deeply compatible at those most basic fundamental levels as they are teaching universal truths, and they would not resonate in the millions of hearts if that were not true.” He then went on to say In refutation to those accusing me of disbelief or questioning my faith, I would like to clarify something that is obvious to most people who know me: I am an orthodox Muslim. I follow the Maliki school of law; I believe in and accept the creeds of Imam al-Tahawi, Imam al-Ash’ari, and Imam al-Maturidi as all being valid understandings of the Divine in our faith and sources for sound dogmatic theology; and I am also a believer in the agreed-upon path of Imam al-Junaid and of those who are rightly-guided among the Sufis, such as Abu Talib al-Makki, Imam al-Qushayri, Imam al-Ghazali, Sidi Ahmad Zarruq, and countless others. I am not a Perennialist and never have been. I believe Islam abrogated previous dispensations, as asserted in the major creeds of Islam, but I do agree with Imam al-Ghazali’s position of the possibility of salvation outside of the faith of Islam and am not exclusivist in that manner. When I said, “I don’t believe in exclusivist religion” I was referring to that position and was not attributing Divine sanction after the advent of God’s final dispensation, Islam, to any other faith tradition https://sandala.org/blog/sticks-and-drones OK Mark if you say so! You and Yaqoubi have said we need indigenous callers to Islam in the West as the immigrants do not have the command of the language nor understand it's nuances. Yaqoubi cannot even abbreviate Salawat correctly on twitter! Or is Mark trying to do what Yaqoubi was for the nusayris with his riddles? 5.23 now, to read in every theology that followers of other faith will go to hell is natural in theology, but this is theology, which protects the very existence of every faith. what we are facing now is taking this outside in newspapers, in friday sermons, in our daily talks, to tell the commons that others are going to hell. 5.57 preaching hell used to be popular in the past, because people would cry and people would become fanatic and people would pay more money, but it shouldn't be so popular. because it causes hatred. it causes fanaticism. 6.16 i [will] give you an example also from our syrian conflict now. as you may be aware, we have a sect, a minority in power called the alawite minority. which in theology, muslim sunni scholars agree that these are non muslims. i wouldn't say what i [*unclear] but i am telling you what is in books. a sunni girl should...cannot marry an alawite man; but to take this outside books of theology is very wrong.
well, to be fair to hamza, he was talking of the rules qadianis have to follow in pakistan, as being a political problem. obviously, his other answers were also diplomatic and cop-outs, but i don't think in this video he even implied that qadianis are not non-muslims. his was a politically correct answer they prefer in 'civilised' (hypocritical) societies in the west. or perhaps, too much work in the past few days has numbed my mind. Allah ta'ala knows best.
Ghulam you want sh yaqoubi to tweet? That will happen the day our ex sh yaqoubi students speak against him on fb and YouTube like sheikh asrar and imam ijaz and his great interview which got him known.
I consider these as implants / moles / double agents. They have never really accepted Islam - but are working for their pay-masters, to hack our pristine religion, to change our core beliefs, to destroy it from within. one give-away for these implants is that they are always slush with money, well funded.
Yaqoubi needs to post on twitter what he thinks about mark now The likes of Hafiz Aslam need to stop taking kids to see mark and then making cheap films to sell Umrah tickets.
this is what happens when someone's sole aim in life is to please people, come what may. mark hanson has become a kafir and a murtad by saying what he did, assuming the video isn't doctored. he can't plead ignorance because in his crocodile tears essay he has admitted that those who know better than him deem the qadianis (both branches) as outside of Islam. yes, he very cleverly speaks about what he perceives to be a generality, but given that he was asked a specific question in a specific context (takfeer of qadianis) it's a given that he implies that all qadianis aren't kafir. he says the qadiani issue is political. the kafir very slyly says that most of the ismailis don't pray. the ismailis deny basic obligations like hajj and salah. not praying out of laziness is completely different from denying its obligation. his claim that qadianis are not rich and powerful is baloney. but yes, pakistanis should have done more to establish the legal status of ismailis as kafirs. he says there is no such thing as an excommunication or takfeer of an entire community. that's just a play on words to make sure he gets his hidden message across that all christians can't be called kafirs. in case of wahabis or deos or shias, it may not be a case of declaring 100% all of them kafir, but in cases of alevis, qadianis, ismailis who deny basic tenets of Islam, indeed the entire community is kafir. it is also clear that the questioner is a qadiani or infatuated by them, heavily, and that he's deliberately asked him questions on daruriyat of deen to put him in a spot in front of his christian friends and mark scores a 100/100 in making people happy and a 0/100 in preserving his Islam. it's not funny when he says this band of christians are doing jihad. mark hanson ibn ubay started off a few years back by saying that most people are nonMuslims but not kafir. now he's gotten so bold to say we can't call entire "communities as nonMuslim" (see the clip). this is what happens when Sunni scholars are too chicken to deal with fitnah like this head on. those scholars who know english, should be made aware so a legal edict can be issued against this 21st century ibn ubay. notice how he always behaves as if he is the appointed governor general over Muslims by saying rubbish like "most Muslims don't understand ...." and "most Muslims don't know...." and so on. in that respect, he is behaving just like the shaykh of the najdis and the mirza himself to an extent i pray to Allah mark hanson's face is crushed to pulp under a speeding 24-wheeler in a ruthless traffic accident and that he isn't buried in a Muslim graveyard. aameen bijaahi Sayyidil Mursaleen, Sayyidil Qaahireena 3ala a3daai rabbil 3aalameen, 3alaihis salawat wa tasleem.
when the cat's away... he's right, to a degree, you cannot do takfīr of an entire people based on the aberrancies of a select few.* ---------- qadiyānī, however, is the filthy appellation given to someone who believes in the false prophethood of the mutanabbī mirzā ghulām - may Allāh fill his grave with fire. a qadiyānī, by definition, is a believer, follower of admirer of mirzā ghulām; irrespective of whether he calls himself a aHmadī or a lahōrī.** ----- mirza ghulām's blasphemies and profanities are as clear as the sun at its zenith. they are neither vague nor abstruse; they are not a result of taHrīf or tampering to his works, nor do we know of any repentance on his part. --- pīr mehr 'alī Shāh confuted the 'academic curiosities' of the likes of hamza yūsuf in his work Sayf e Chistīāī; wherein he proved beyond doubt that mirzā was a claimant to prophethood. so all of his believers, followers and admirers - who fall under the umbrella of 'qādīānī' - are guilty of abetting his crimes against Islām, by contracting themselves to his Kufr. may Allāh protect us from it. if hamza wants to start giving favourable interpretations to the beliefs of the qādīānīs or their group status, let him know that he is no longer treading on thin ice but is deep in the water with his fisherman buddy keller. to deny that qādiānīs, as a group, are kuffār is itself disbelief. it is a matter of muslim consensus - what was the political motive of alAzhar to declare them disbelievers? ---------- every qādīānī knows what he's signed up to. Allāh knows best ------------ *our manhaj in takfīr has been articulated by sayyid ahmad sa'īd kādhmī in his 'maqālāt', which abu hasan went to the trouble of translating on pg. 156 of 'Killer Mistake' **qādīānī, as a term, is said to be an offensive slur against 'ahmadiyya muslims.' nonetheless, whatever they want to call themselves; no person has ever called himself a qādīānī/ahmadī and absolved himself from or pleaded ignorance of mirzā's kufr.
Listen to Mark at 1 hour and 13 min. He gets asked about the takfir of the qadianis. He responds by saying you cannot do takfir of a entire group. Little Yaseen needs to be a proper Maulvi Nasheen and use his weight and not get up off Yaqoubi until he gives him an answer on what he thinks of the idiot Mark. Or will he now think the Sayyid from the Hills of Potwar was also politcal for declaring the devil from qadian a Kafir
