shaykh yaqubi on alahazrat

How many Cults do we have?
Your implications are sunni/sufi Muslims who love & respect their Shaykh/Pir are Cultists no sunni/sufi can escape this evil curse?
Example: Barelvi Cultists?
Have you not had enough of this nonsense from wahhabi/deobandis?

All those Muslims who fought and those that were killed in World War I and II, were “ fi sabilish shaytan”???

The British Indian and Pakistani Muslims and those from India/Pakistan should not be so proud of their grandparents /parents and should send Lanaat upon them because they according to you “ died fi sabilish shaytan” and we should ask our “Molvis” please pray to Allah(swt) for their forgiveness, every step we take in these Kufaar lands we live in today...such as Britain…etc

The 3million or so Muslims of Britain today should be ashamed… you agree?

please explain in detail:
How did Islam develop in Britain and how did the Muslims implied Sharia in their daily life’s as they developed and how far have we got with it?
Note: without your Quote: "support and serving as their mouthpieces is not a "meeting/dialogue" " ?

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Salaam alaykom brothers

The Beloved of Allah sallahu alayhi was salam said, "inna min ahabukom ilayya wa aqrabukom minee malisan yaumal qiyamati ahsanukom aKhlaaqa", the one that loves me the most and will be closest to me in my majlis on yaum al qiyamah is the best of you in ethic (manners ettiquette and decorum etc).

If it possible please try to show some better decorum and adabb when we speak about scholars especially sayyids, even if we do not agree with their ways or methodology!!!

 

What on Earth are you talking about? You need to elaborate on basically everything in this post, it makes no sense at all.

 

those are the implications coming out of yaqoubi's cult

as usual, you speak in cryptic nonsense.

which ancestors and which wars? those who fought on the wrong side, certainly did more than die in vain. they died fi sabilish shaytan.

again, you need to elaborate on that. dunno what you're talking about.

 

Just out of curiosity you don’t happen to live on a remote Island somewhere near Heard Island & McDonald Islands?
Have the cave walls started to speak to you… who said, “Sayyids are bigger than Shariah”???

All those Muslims not including your “ancestors” who died in these Wars died in vain?

Today you may say: No! We got “Pakistan”…some of us also live in the UK…etc, we have thousands of Mosques and Islam is flourishing in the West…thanks to the person who’s living on a remote Islands!

 

Until one of our orthodox scholars does not come to the forefront with bravery and actually refute Sh Yaqoubi this issue will keep getting swept underneath the rug by the awwam

 

[/QUOTE]support and serving as their mouthpieces is not a "meeting/dialogue"

search on yaqoubi more and you will see this.[/QUOTE]

Could you provide a link please?? I asked you before show me daleel of what you claim against Shaykh Yaqubi?

 

since you know more about this, i'm asking you the details of the episode.

do you know the fiqh of any madhab on what a hakim/sultan can and can't do? in which tactical circumstances can do or not do what you said?

did the sultan support her in the slaughter of Muslims or in the watering down of the deen? did he tell Muslims to tell the christians to keep theology in the classroom and not tell any of them what the Quran says expressly, that they are disbelievers and destined for hellfire if they don't become Muslim?

bring proof from Islamic sources that this is allowed or praiseworthy.

for some reason, here you mention "men and women" and "asians" as opposed to Muslims. if you imply Muslims, again, bring proof from Islamic sources that they are allowed to get involved in such intra-kafir wars? in this case, they are not the army of a Muslim sultan.

1. Sayyids are not bigger than the Shari3ah. it's ludicrous to believe they have a God-given right to trample all over the teachings of the Beloved Prophet 3alaihis salam himself!

2. Ala Hazrat also made takfeer of ahmad khan of aligarh, because of his zandaqah. no one's above the Shari3ah that the Prophet 3alaihis salam brought. it's insane to suggest that Sayyids have the right to make a mockery of the deen that their grandfather brought!

3. no Sayyid is greater than Imam Hussein radi Allahu 3anhu. his example is to uphold the Shari3ah and stick by the truth, no matter what. i'd rather follow his example, bi idhnillah.

 

Falsely Accusing Shaykh Sayyid al-Yaqoubi a descendant of Ahlul Bayt as “corrupt, deviant, Evil” is not dishonesty?

It was Ala Hazrat (ra) who showed the Muslim world how to respect the descendants or family of the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam)

“Who is a Sayyid from amongst you? I am receiving the scent of a Sayyid.”

---

Quote:
“support and serving as their mouthpieces is not a "meeting/dialogue"”

Queen Elizabeth I, for example, asked the Ottoman Sultan Murad for naval assistance against the Spanish Armada. The Muslims who SUPPORTED her were ?

The “Serving”?

Britain’s 1st World War : 400,000 Muslim soldiers fought and died alongside British troops!

In World War II: 2.5million men and women fought for Britain, with 36,092 killed, 64,354 wounded and almost 80,000 were taken prisoner!

More than 3.5million soldiers from the Asian subcontinent fought for Britain in the two conflicts, with tens of thousands killed in action!

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Salaam alaykom brother

Actually if you research Judaism there is quite a lot difference between the differing Jewish groups, really depend on which side of the spectrum you are stood on!!! Take for instance the example where the Talmud (Kesubos 111a) says that ever since the beginning of exile, Jews are forbidden to conquer the Holy Land, or to fight wars against the non-Jewish nations. They are also forbidden to take physical action towards their redemption.

The Talmud bases itself on a verse in the Song of Songs 2:7, I have caused you to swear, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles and the hinds of the field, that you will not arouse or awaken the love before it is desired.

These Three Oaths are quoted consistently by all post-Talmudic Jewish legal authorities such as Maimonides, Rivash, Rashbash, Aruch Hashulchan, Rabbi Shmuel Salant, Peas Hashulchan.

Genesis 15:8-17 is interpreted as a reference to the Four Exiles: Egypt, Babylon/Persia, Greece, Rome. So is Daniel 2:36-44 and 7:1-8.

Leviticus 26:33, Deuteronomy 4:25-27, 11:17, 28:36, 28:62, 29:27 all speak of the exile.

So do Psalms 106:27. Ezekiel 20:23, 22:15.

Jeremiah 29:7 says that Jews must be loyal citizens of their countries during exile.

Song of Songs 2:7 commands Jews not to arouse the end of exile before its time.

Now 50%+ of Jewry and i would guess a large portion of Europeans would say Jews have a right to the al ardul muqadisa (The Holy Land), yet they are in the most part ignorant of (1) their own scripture (2) Either do not know history or choose to ignore it (3) satisfying their own person needs (and here i make the distinction between ego and personal needs)

I guess the question for me is how do you engage those that have deviated?

(1) Is it by providing evidence clearly showing that they have deviated, so as to protect people like me from such people. Here i would give the example of His Eminence Hazoor Muhadithi Lahore, Shaykh ul Hadeeth Allama Sayyed Mahmood Rizvi (I have had the privilege of reciting fateha at his makam in lahore), Mujahidi Millat Maulana Abdus Sattar Khan sahib Niazi alayhi rehma and my qa'id, Qa'idi Millati islamiyyah Shah Ahmed Noorani Miya alayhi rehma extensive work on khatami naboowat and raday Qadianiyyat (outlawing of the qadian movement and declaration as non-Islamic). They provide evidence based rebuttle from the qur'an and sunnah (extracts of the 1972 court case are available on line) which was invaluable to the public to protect themselves from such deviants.

(2) Or is ot for the Ulema the engage such people especialy those that aren't particularity aware of their aqeeda and bring them towards the correct path or for the ulema to engage such people on common issues that effect the majority of the people (awaam) as in the case
Qa'idi Millati islamiyyah Shah Ahmed Noorani Miya alayhi rehma and his JUP party, which had ahle hadeeth (aka pakay wahabis), debandi and brailvi ulema sitting side by side for the common good (i.e. reduction of public lewdness)

 

if ibnhasan was honest and straight forward, he would have said

1. what he implied about Imam Ghazali associating with the political powers of his time and therefore being influenced in his decision to refrain from cursing yazeed.

2. what he implied by Ibn Hajar and Ibn Kathir being associated with the political powers of their times

support and serving as their mouthpieces is not a "meeting/dialogue"

search on yaqoubi more and you will see this.

 

Orthodox jews are zionists lol, they only differ with zionist in one respect! when the jewish state should be formed....before or after their 'messiah'

Just though't id clarify this.
Like the brothers said, make use of the search function, we are not here to spoon feed.

 

Apologies for the misunderstanding …The point I was trying to make is that classical scholars differed in opinion over several matters…

Regarding Imam ibn Hajar Asqalani(ra) does he strongly refute/condemn ibn tayimyyahs aqidah? Nothing to do with the political power at the time!

Why do we label our sunni/sufi scholars as Evil/deviant because they have a “meeting/dialogue” with the Christians/Jews?

How do we treat these Christians and Jews?


and


---

@abu Hasan with all due respect, I don’t think me as a layperson further needs to clarify Imam Ghazali(ra)’s position:
http://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/yazid-imam-ghazali-and-his-ihyaa.3907/

 

on my usage of "tag along" - http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/tag along

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tag along

 

hmm, i thought ibnhasan was saying that Imam Ghazali was accused (by people) of tagging with the political powers. likewise for Imams Ibn Hajar or Ibn Kathir.

hence my post #23. i wasn't trying to be smart or beating around the bush or pretending to know about the topic. i don't know about any such accusations upon them in their times. what i am sure of is the fact that Ghazali and Ibn Hajar and Ibn Kathir didn't tag along with the enemies of Islam or Ahlus Sunnah. even ibn taymiah himself for that matter, from the little history i do know, despite all his heresies, didn't openly join hands with the christians or those who were slaughtering Muslims.

i didn't interpret his (ibnhasan's) post that he was actually making a statement saying they (Ibn Hajar, Ibn Kathir, Ghazali) tagged along with the political powers of their times and asked me to substantiate on such associations.

like aH said, ibnhasan, please clarify your posts #21,

and #24 for me, and state your stance and queries clearly.

 

of our age.

 

any proof?

reference?

----
you have accused imam ghazali of "tagging" with political power at the time and linked lanat-upon-yazid issue with that. so please provide proof of such collusion that influenced his advice to abstain from la'anat on yazid.

in the same breath you mention imam ibn hajar of "tagging" with political power at the time to praise ibn taymiyyah (when ibn taymiyyah was imprisoned by political power until he died). or is it something else you wanted to say?

 

why dont you answer your own questions first before trying to cross examine me!

state your stance clearly on

and then we may talk

 

Since you don’t want to answer my questions directly and prefer to beat around the bush… that’s fine

Which Christians and Jews?

What about my Christian college “John” at work, who may accept Islam tomorrow?
In Sha Allah!

Regarding your "apples to apple" comment, how did our pious predecessors treat Christians and Jews in Jerusalem or in any other parts of the Christian world…etc?

What did Ala Hazrat(ra) say regarding Christians and Jews?

Note: I am not talking about SUCH Euro-Jewish/Euro-Christian alliance that is waging war on Islam.

 

which of the names you mention, actually teamed up with the christians and all those political powers who slaughtered Muslims?

which of them asked for theology to be restricted to the classroom and forbade Muslims from saying that christians and jews will go to hell?

you're not comparing apples to apples here, either deliberately or due to ignorance about contemporary personalities.