Shaykh Yaqoobi: Deos & Salafis and unity

Discussion in 'Aqidah/Kalam' started by Sunnisoldier, Jul 14, 2019.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. AR Ahmed

    AR Ahmed Active Member

    I used to respect Sh. Muhammad al Yaqoubi
    Until I heard this.....

    Astaghfirullah. This is textbook Sullah Kuliyat. And worse is his mention of Dr Tahir al Minhaji who has been known for his antics. He also mentions Hamza Yusuf Hanson, the mastermind of spreading perrenialist philosophy in the name of "traditional Islam".
    Aqdas likes this.
  2. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.
  3. Juwayni

    Juwayni Well-Known Member

    Thank you. It's quite amazing that the Imam has risalas on this subject.
  4. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    Some facets of this subject have been dealt with in Kitab al-Seer of Fatawa Ridawiyyah Shareef i.e. vol#14. The fataawa therein deal with questions of Hindu-Muslim unity and co-operation, political and social both, in the backdrop of the freedom struggle against the British.

    More importantly, a list of what not to do can be found in al-tari al-dari li hafawat abd al-bari.

    This Risalah is primarily based on three epistles of varying length - brief, intermediate and detailed. The intermediate sized letter lists the prohibited phrases/actions and the rulings about them while the detailed one quotes the sentences verbatim and provides proofs for the rulings listed in the former.

    I am simply surprised that this risalah was not quoted during the ubaidullah controversy - as several of the rulings mentioned in it apply to ubaidullah's words, spoken not just in Gujrat but also at Ashrafiya.


    This risalah is as important today as it was then - because, leaders and laymen alike are once again calling for a "unity" with hindu dalits, liberals and other non-muslim minorities, in order to jointly resist the hindutwa mercenary brigade that has come to control virtually all the reins of power in India.

    What is the extent of co-operation allowed by the shari'ah? Where should the lines be drawn? Muslim scholars need to address these and related issues and make them percolate to all the strata of the Muslim populace - and quickly too - as these are times of confusion and fear and the common man is wont to rush headlong into anything that offers even a remote hope of justice and safety - ergo - into the open arms of near-irreligious liberals.

    Two things that this risalah makes abundantly clear are:

    1. there can be no melding of the hearts between kufr and Islam and
    2. there can be no hope in the human congregation - only in Divine Mercy and Justice.

    This is not a call to passive inaction and despairing resignation but to realign the efforts, ideas, hopes and fears to the only effective source of succour.

    May Allah ta'ala have Mercy on Muslims everywhere and keep them steadfast on the thorn strewn path to His Rida.

    Aqdas likes this.
  5. Juwayni

    Juwayni Well-Known Member

    We need a good book on this subject. What are the areas, limits, methods, and strategems for Muslims who want to be politically engaged.
  6. FaqirHaider

    FaqirHaider Shajar-e-Sharjeel Shajar-e-Uthman

    In the Diplomacy, I feel people end up crossing a fine line, like the ones you quoted below ,but we do have diplomacy between Muslims our Ma'shaikh e Kiram,and Ahle Kitab I good example being Sayyiduna Abdul Ghani Al Nablusi (Qaddas Allahu sirruhu) https://cairo.universitypressschola...4162473.001.0001/upso-9789774162473-chapter-1

    I don't have the link to to book, but I do remember it being quoted, but one can find more specific narrations in his Journey "Rihla" Books about his diplomatic encounters with Christian priest under Arab / Ottoman Rule.
  7. ghulam-e-raza

    ghulam-e-raza Well-Known Member

    Huzur Muhaddith-e-Kabeer's response

    Unbeknown likes this.
  8. Jonaid202

    Jonaid202 New Member


    Attached Files:

  9. Jonaid202

    Jonaid202 New Member

    From 37 mins Sayyiduna Shaykh says Muslims carried crosses in honour of Christians
  10. Jonaid202

    Jonaid202 New Member

  11. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    This passage from the muqaddimah of Imam Nawawi's majmu':

  12. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    how can yaqubi equate THOSE shiyi and those who call themselves shiah in our time who are rawafid who reject necessary articles of faith!
    are you telling me he does not know the history of shiah?

    إنا لله وإنا إليه راجعون
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  13. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    tahdhib al-tahdhib v1/p94:


    to summarise the above: "in the parlance of the earlier (hadith) scholars, tashayyu means hazrat ali was superior to hazrat usman or that hazrat ali was in the right in the conflicts/wars (he had with other sahabah) and his opponents were wrong, but giving precedence to shaykhayn and superiority; sometimes, some of them believed that hazrat ali was superior to the rest of the creation after RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam (even though ibn Hajar doesn't say so, it is implicit that anbiya are excluded)...

    as for tashayyu in the parlance of later scholars - it is absolute rifD; the narration of a fanatical rafiDi is unacceptable, and there is no honour.

    dhahabi discussing superiority of hazrat ali over hazrat uthman says in his siyar a'alam: 16/457-458


    (dhahabi) i say: giving superiority to hazrat ali (over hazrat uthman) is not rifD/rafD, nor it is heresy. many saHabah and tabiyin held that view.

    anyway, in lisan al-mizan, ibn Hajar explains dhahabi's statement from mizan.

    lisan v1/p202:

    Last edited: Jul 24, 2019
    Unbeknown and Bazdawi like this.
  14. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    1. those who elevate mawla ali over the shaykhayn raDiyAllahu anhum, without disparaging the latter are tafDilis NOT rafiDis. [even though ibn Hajar in hady al-sari called them mildest rafidi, according to the terminology of muhaddithin]
    2. the rafiDis are the vilifiers, the abusers, the rejecters and the fanatics.

    hady al-sari, p1238:

    Last edited: Jul 24, 2019
    Unbeknown and Bazdawi like this.
  15. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    reposting some for ready reference:

    in mizan al-iytidal, dhahabi says (under the entry #2, aban ibn taghlib):
    Unbeknown likes this.
  16. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    if yaqubi sahib does not clarify the statement about imam bukhari and shiah, by properly explaining the issue (he can look up hady al-saari), proper students of hadith should be wary of him. because this is dishonesty or ignorance. and both traits are undesirable in a scholar.

    on the usage of the term shiah, we discussed it some time ago:

    not very long ago, i liked and respected yaqubi. but not now. he has no responsibility towards islam or religious knowledge. if he did, he would have rallied against the "study quran" and those who promote it, instead of making snide remarks on those who criticise HIM. but he won't. hamza yusuf is his best friend - and i doubt yaqubi has the courage to speak against him. so what if study quran is a very big fitnah? one should not offend friends.

    in our times, hypocrisy is a virtue; hypocritical sweet-talk is deemed cultured and being refined. speaking plain truth and being frank is uncivilised and impolite. we have seen akram nadwi - and how pathetic his talks are (i sometimes think, yaqubi cannot understand akram's accent and hence doesn't understand what he says; i am fine because i am well acquainted with urdu-accented english). this jahil, heretic, wahabi is praised by yaqubi, betraying religious knowledge.

    as for tahir...sigh. i don't know why yaqubi is enamoured by such a charlatan.

    نسأل الله العافية

    Ibn.ali and Unbeknown like this.
  17. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    Excellent evaluation by aH.
  18. Ghulam Ali

    Ghulam Ali Active Member

    But this is the problem

    This and that? So theres no major problems then?

    No Primary differences just secondary non Aqida issues?

    Isn’t this what tahir ul wrote in the 80’s?

    Problematic. Very problematic.

    Using this as a reference sullah kullis, perennialists, promotors of kufr, the list goes on, and on, they all got green light?
  19. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    incredible. there are so many things wrong in this clip. so many contradictions...
    i watched the small portion that is transcribed here.

    this only proves that merely having many sanads, or having elevated sanads, or having sanads from great men - this in itself does not make one a faqih. nas'alu Allaha al-aafiyah.

    i am sure, shaykh yaqubi's [cult] followers will insist on blind following and preach to us on the necessity of abstaining from criticism. because you see, people-criticism is anathema to islam. our forefathers were a people who invented the jarH and ta'adil [narrator criticism] system; and did not spare anyone from criticism. however, WE should not criticise anything - even flagrant violations of the shariah of celebrity shaykhs. because you know, 'unity'...

    what can one do about it? when celebrity scholars are hobnobbing with popes, asking them to pray for them, exhorting muslims to celebrate christmas; some of them claiming that trinity can be concordant with islam - and 'scholars' sitting there without batting an eyelid - etc etc. - what effect will it have on the weak and ignorant muslims? but shush! we must not criticise them. we must join with them and be all bonhomie with them. if ignoramuses leave the religion for petty benefits, we must only show concern to get back at critics.

    so what did yaqubi sahib do about these conversions? or any of the prominent shuyukh?

    once, a person came to my teacher and among other things he was discussing, he complained about a group of 'muslims' who had converted to hinduism. my teacher - raHimahullah - shrugged and said: 'most likely they did not even know what is necessary to be a muslim. so it was easy for them to be converted. let them come here and try to convert us.'

    but so-called 'scholars' who promote crosses, attend mass in churches, invite christians to celebrate christmas in mosques - what about them? oh no. yaqubi sahib does not like criticising them.

    why is yaqubi sahib lamenting people becoming christians? wasn't it tahir, who gathered all kuffar and asked them to call 'their god in their own tradition'. and a christian priest said: 'jesus son of god'.

    oh, where would yaqubi find time to criticise him? sacrilege! don't criticise tahir. don't criticise hamza yusuf. but like a seasoned politician, just throw hints and make vague statements that gives enough fuel for blind and dumb cult followers to justify their shaykh's errors of omission. because you see, yaqubi said:

    was yaqubi talking about the 'study qur'an'? or just making a general comment on the practice of most heretics who twist the scripture to suit their own belief-system?

    did yaqubi sahib make any comment on the 'study quran'? hamza yusuf praised this work and the murtad nasr, thus:


    but hey! leave hamza yusuf alone. you go fight those missionaries converting people somewhere. don't talk about the study quran. because it is not yaqubi's job. when hamza yusuf says that we should not claim that truth is confined to muslims [or something like that], is it not a license for ignorant and weak muslims to try out other options?

    some hadith scholars of our time freely interpret ahadith to show inclusiveness - have you forgotten the amman message and the attempt to send christians to paradise?

    tahir cannot even term them kafirs - as he invented a new system: believers and non-believers. and believers are of two kinds: muslims and people of the book: christians and jews.

    if this is the case, then why is lamenting those who left islam for christianity?

    shaykh yaqubi makes this statement
    he explicitly says that we should not 'fight' against each other, 'put our guns' against each other. this he says without qualifying the statement.

    is refuting heresies wrong? probably yaqubi sab needs to learn something about our salaf.

    when an imam felt mortified for criticising others, imam ahmad rebuked him and said: "if you keep quiet and if i keep quiet, then how will a person without knowledge learn the truth?" [jahil here refers to someone who doesn't know about a thing; not an absolute ignoramus]


    ibn mubarak said to some sufi who reproached him for what he deemed 'back-biting': "shut up. if we do not clarify and explain, how will truth be manifest from falsehood?'


    person-A criticised a narrator; person-B criticised person-A in the presence of the great muhaddith ibn ulayyah, and reproached him for [what he claimed was] backbiting. ibn ulayyah said: "o ignoramus! [ya jaahil!] he has given you good counsel - this is a trust he fulfils; it is not backbiting."


    hamza yusuf and tahir may be dear to yaqubi - the pristine shariah is dearer to us than any of them.

    yaqubi said:
    come again? according to what standards?
    if he is talking about someone else, i don't know. but for us, i.e., alahazrat's followers, we do not make takfir until a person abnegates a necessary component of religion (daruriyat).

    so according to yaqubi:

    1. imam bukhari can refute shiah and mutazilah and khawarij. but that is not 'fighting' amongst ourselves [i.e. within muslims].

    2. but we should not refute hamza or yaqubi (for being pals with a open wahabi like akram nadwi - who does not even have the basic etiquette of talking about RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam). or tahir for claiming that RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam invited christians to pray in masjid al-nabawi according to their own tradition. or those who claim that trinity can be concordant with islam.

    one may object: sh. yaqubi is saying this because you claim shiah are kafir; imam bukhari narrated from shiah. by this standard, imam bukhari would be kafir. this is what the shaykh was expounding.

    bahut acche. very good. but can yaqubi please explain:

    1. what did 'shiah' mean in imam bukhari's time?

    2. are there only one kind of shiah, or whether there are different kinds of shiah?

    3. if there are many kinds, which ones are ruled kafir and which ones are not?

    4. can we call the rafidis - who call themselves shiah - who claim that the imams of the ahl al-bayt are superior to prophets?

    5. what about those who revile sahabah?

    6. what about those who say unspeakable things about our mother sayyidah ayishah?

    7. were the shiah narrators of imam bukhari, from the above groups?

    8. have any sunni imams ruled shiah as kafir?

    9. is it not intellectual dishonesty to make such a vague statement and mislead gullible followers? personally, yaqubi would be ruled unreliable for making such an egregious blunder. either he has not read ibn Hajar's explanation [unlikely] - OR - he is concealing this information to buttress a silly argument [most likely].

    we have refuted these arguments (drawing from ibn Hajar and other imams) on this very site. what a royal letdown.
    yes, we should not fight on small issues - but on issues of aqidah and islam, there are no holy cows. no hamza yusuf. no yaqubi. no tahir.

    but we should not refute modern mutazili resurgence, in their claim that "Allah ta'ala can lie". deobandis proudly assert that "Allah ta'ala can lie". but yaqubi's ghayrah and conscience will sleep soundly by ignoring this and many other aberrations of deobandis.


    in that very bukhari that yaqubi sahib recited, is the hadith:

    bukhari, 7311.png

    yeah, imam abul hasan al-ash'ari was wrong. he wasted his time refuting mutazilah until his last breath. so also many imams in their fight against the REAL enemies within. it is deplorable that yaqubi wants us to embrace heretics and brands those who refute heretics as 'enemies within'.

    إلى الله المشتكى

    yeah, what did anyone do about it? did yaqubi sahib or his followers do anything about it? apart from other attacks on ulama by the razor-punk-rascal. him and atabek and others.

    what did yaqubi do about study quran? his best friend hamza yusuf promotes the demonic work. but yaqubi is worried only about himself and his friends being criticised - he cannot gather the courage to refute that work. because it is not his job.

    but yaqubi sahib won't tell you that narrating from a heretic and being friends/brothers with heretics is not the same thing.

    the impression yaqubi wants to give is that shiah and khawarij are all his brothers. in this statement he is repeating the inane accusations of shiah/rawafid. as i said, either he does not know WHY or he is wilfully distorting / concealing the truth. la Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah.

    also, according to yaqubi, one cannot narrate from someone who says lying [for humans] is permitted.
    but one has to be friends and brothers with those who say lying for Allah is possible. [al-iyadhu billah].

    it is a weird world.
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2019
    Ibn.ali, Unbeknown, AMQadiri and 3 others like this.
  20. Jonaid202

    Jonaid202 New Member


    'There is so much to speak about when we speak about Imam al-Bukhari but one thing I would like to highlight before we go into the text here. I would like to draw one example from Sahih al-Bukhari to highlight the importance of the unity of the Muslim ummah today.

    It's very important that the Muslim ummah should unite today. We've been quite busy as groups and sometimes as sects fighting against each other or fighting against others, putting our guns against each other rather than against the true enemies of Islam.

    And this is very dangerous. I would say that the worst enemies of Islam are from within ourselves. Either people who claim to be Muslims and they are destroying Islam and we have many examples of them: people denying the sunnah of the Messenger ﷺ, people even denying the interpretations of al-Quran al-Karim, the agreed upon, the consensus on the agreement and the agreement of the interpretation of al-Quran al-Karim - people denying fiqh - but we have people trying to destroy each other just because they belong to different groups or let's say different madh'habs.

    And this is very wrong. And I would like to highlight here that you know, wherever we come from, we're sufis, we're salafis, you're Barelwis, you're deobandis, tablighis; wherever you come from, we are Muslims.

    We believe in Allah subhanu wa ta'ala, ash'hadu an la ilaha illa Allah, we believe in ash'hadu anna Muhammad al-RasulAllah. We believe in the five pillars of Islam. We pray to one qiblah, the same qiblah. And the list is so long that unites us together as Muslims. We need to put our efforts now to support each other to protect Muslims.

    How about those who are proselytising Christianity and picking up refugees, for example, going to the Philippines or Nigeria or here and there and converting born Muslims into Christianity.

    What have we done to support? What have we done about someone claiming, someone promoting homosexuality and claiming that he is a mufti and at the same time, hinting that great scholars like Imam Nawawi were homosexuals.

    What have we done towards these people? Other than picking up Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqubi, picking up Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, picking up this or that, Tahir al-Qadri, picking up this person or that and saying, "this is a kafir because he made that statement."

    Well, according to these standards, Imam Bukhari himself could be kafir according to these people because he narrated from shiah! Amongst his teachers are shiah! Yet he refuted shiah in his book.

    He narrated the hadith that mut'ah, temporary marriage is forbidden. Many times. Amongst his teachers were khawarij, deviators, yet he refuted khawarij. Whenever he mentions Fatimah, he said 'peace be upon her'. Whenever he mentions Sayyiduna Ali or Sayyiduna al-Husayn, 'alayhim assalam', etc. I highlighted this actually feature in my introduction. The position of Imam Bukhari towards ahl al-bayt.

    He narrated from some pro-Mutazalis amongst his teachers but he refuted Mutazalis. And he authored the book actually, Khalq af'ali li'l ibad also refuting Mutazalis.

    Because the issue has to do with hadith narration. And hadith narration has it's own conditions. So the narrator should not be fanatic. The narrator should not be a caller to his bidah. And the narration itself should not be in support of his opinions.

    So he would not narrate hadith from someone who said lying is permitted. There are certain conditions. When these conditions were met, it did not matter to him whether the narrator was pro-khawarij or pro-shiah. It shows you that knowledge is above. Because the goal is to preserve the words of the prophet ﷺ. The goal is to support this dīn.'
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 23, 2019
    Unbeknown and Bazdawi like this.

Share This Page