'Who are the Disbelievers?' - Shaykh Hamza Yusuf

Discussion in 'Refutation' started by absalih, Nov 10, 2010.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. absalih

    absalih Active Member

    حاشية العلامة الصاوي على تفسير الجلالين

    [Faqir(Marifah) and Nuh Keller(Masud.co)]
    If Wahabis are so, how can their offshoots escape from being the satan's party ?
     
  2. absalih

    absalih Active Member

    Eve the Deobandi commentator of Holy Qur'an acknowledges the vices of Human Shayateens, while explaining Surah:114-6_S.an-Nas
    Verse [114:6( whether from among the Jinn or Mankind.)_Ma’riful Qur’an_MUFTI MOUHAMMAD SHAFI’E
    --------
    ______________
    Though we are convinced that the enemies won't retract from their Shaytanic Ways. we are not advocating armed struggles, but only defending and attacking with our voice and letter.The least of faith is to hate them.
     
  3. Someone is certainly a shaytan-wonder who.,...may be the guy going around calling everyone else a shaytan :)

    Get a life...
     
  4. kattarsunni

    kattarsunni Veteran

    Deobandis are Shayatin. Proponents of Imkan alKidhb are Shayatin. And people who muddy the water are Shayatin.
     
  5. I again agree with Sidi AQ. The whole thesis and tone of HY article above is to try and alter the classical definitions of iman and kufr and is therefore an insidious articlle. He himself in the very beginning quotes Abu al-Baqa’
    After quoting the above HY comments,
    "This definition is consonant with most
    modern Muslim understandings of kufr. It
    is simplistic, black and white,
    and assumes
    that everyone has heard the message,
    thought about it, and made a final decision
    on it[...]"

    His modern sensibilities are obviously offended by such simplicity and straightforwardness and he, though he admits that,
    - thereby sealing the matter and telling the truth -- spends the rest of the lengthy article trying to prove that this traditional Muslim understanding is no longer adequate and should therefore be changed to make the definition of who is a kafir so narrow that almost no one is left as a kafir!

    IMHO this is a very dangerous article for one's imaan as it will lead many people who admire HY to begin to believe that the great mass of non-Muslims are indeed not kafirs thus ruining their aqidah as it is amongst the necessary things to believe that kafirs are kafirs.

    Mufti Ahmad Yaar Khan discusses this, I believe, in his magnum opus Jaa al Haqq and I will try to find it.

    I also request our learned brother Sidi Abu Hasan to comment on this article by HY.
     
  6. AbdalQadir

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

    This is because they are scholars of duniya and their real intentions (amongst others) are for people to call them scholars and praise them and say "how wonderful", "how eloquent!" and so on. They get into the field of religious knowledge to seek duniya.

    I have a personal formula - deeni matter or duniyawi - don't trust someone who doesn't shoot straight.

    Also, as it seems to me, hanson is deliberately conflating issues without explicitly itemising them, as they are two very different issues, and there are very different rulings.

    1) calling a known kafir as a kafir (like hindus, jews, christians, budhhists, etc.)

    2) calling a person who claims to be a muslim, someone from the ahlul qiblah as kafir.

    ... and from my meager understanding, I think he has completely no idea of what he is talking about or deliberately takes the conversation to the twilight zone, on the topic of "Ummah al-Istijabah" and "Ummah al-Dawah"
     
  7. chisti-raza

    chisti-raza Veteran

    how true, in their elegance of prose they still lead you into nothingness.you come out of their writings still not knowing the direction to take or their personal view on the topic*. this is probably one of the greatest injustices, for a scholar (especially a mufti) should be firm in his view. sadly, I have not seen this amongst the contemporaries albeit a handful.

    * not directed at any particular scholar
     
  8. AbdalQadir

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

    Actually, let me take back what I said earlier. I just read the second half of hanson's article and the best I can say about him is that he is deluded and he is deliberately twisting the words of ahadith and scholars to suit his nafsanic agendas.

    He should be publicly exposed and people should be warned not to take "bush's pet scholar" as a scholar of the Ahlus Sunnah.
     
  9. absalih

    absalih Active Member

    A'ALA HAZRAT on Kufr and Takfir

    Ala’Hazrat Azeemul-Barkat Mujaddid Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Bareilvi [FONT=&quot](Alaihe Rahma Wal Ridhwan[/FONT] wrote in his

    ‘Tamh[FONT=&quot]ī[/FONT]d e [FONT=&quot]Ī[/FONT]m[FONT=&quot]ā[/FONT]n ba [FONT=&quot]Ā[/FONT]y[FONT=&quot]ā[/FONT]t e Qur’[FONT=&quot]ā[/FONT]n’
    [Definition of Iman in the light of Qur’an]

    1) To quote from Sharah Flqah Akbar:
    "Verily they have mentioned if an issue related to Kufr has 99 aspects directed towards Kufr and one against it, it is most appropriate for the Mufti and the Qadi to act in favour of the aspect which is against Kufr."
    2) We find this in Fataawa Khulasah, Jami-UI-Fasooleen, Muheet and Fataawa Alamgiriyah.
    "If an issue is many faceted necessitating condemnation (Takfeer) and one aspect prohibiting condemnation, the Mufti and Qadi has to incline towards that one aspect and not to issue a decree of Kufr against such a person, having good faith in a person's Islam. Then if their intention of the one who utters those words confirms to the aspect that prohibits condemnation, he will be regarded as a Muslim, and if it is contrary to that then the Muftis attempts to explain his statement from that angle which does not necessitate (Takfeer) condemnation will be futile in his case".
    3) In the same way it can be seen in Fataawa Bazazla, Baher-ur;.Raalq, Majma-ul-Anher and Hadeeqah Hadiyah. Tatar Khaniah, Baher, Sal-al-Hisam and Tanbih-ul-Walat etc, also show as under:
    “A person will not be condemned as Kafir in a case involving possibilities because condemning as Kafir is the ultimate in punishment which demands extreme case in crime and in a doubtful case there is no case of final punishment."
    4) Baher-ur-Raaiq, Tanveer-ul-Absaar, Hadeeqah Nadiyah, Tanbih-ul-Walat and I Sal-ul-Hisam etc, show as under:
    The statement reads, "A Muslim will not be condemned as Kafir if there is a possibility of interpreting his statement bordering on good intentions."

    Further down the Imam wrote under the heading,

    PROBABLE POSSIBILITY:
    The question arises why have the Islamic scholars issued a verdict of disbelief when so many Islamic Interpretations are possible? Obviously, they have given importance to the more probable possibility, which goes towards disbelief If we do not take this view, the statements and the reasoning of the scholars will be- come null and void.
    Further details can be seen in Jami-ul-Fasooleen, Radd-ul- Mukhtar, Hashia Allama Nooh, Multaqit Fataawa Mujjat, Tatar Khaniyah, Majma-ul-Anher, Hadiqah Nadiyah and Sal-ul Hisam etc.
    The key references to the Quranic verses and Prophet's traditiorls can be studied in the books concerning knowledge of the unseen, such as AI-lolul-Mahnoon etc. It all depends of-the guidance and strength given by Allah'.
    Here it would suffice to quote the following words from Hadiqah Nadiyah:-
    "That is to say In the books of Islamic decision only those words have been considered adequate to give a verdict of disbelief through which the speaker had the intention of expressing the disbelieving shade of meaning, otherwise it would not be disbelief"

    AN IMPORTANT WARNING
    Only that probability is reliable which appeals to the common sense. When a statement is clear, it is not advisable to explore the far-fetched probabilities If we indulge in this sort of unreasonable exercise, nothing would be classified as disbelief. For example, Laid says that there are two Gods. If we try to interpret this statement metaphorically as two forms of Allah's will. The Quran, says:
    "Except that which Allah decrees" (that is) the order of Allah (Quran).
    DECISIONS OF FUQAHA
    Ajar may say "I am the Messenger of Allah (Rasool of Allah) .It can be presumed that he means literally because It is Allah who has put soul Into his body These presumptions are not impossible but they don't stand to reason
    It is stated in Shifa Sharif "Where the statement is clear In Itself there is no need to hear and consider the farfetched probabilities'
    Sharah Shifa Oari says:
    "Such a claim in the Islamic law is to be rejected.
    Nasim-ur-Riaz shows.
    "Such an interpretation would not be considered sympathetically and it would be regarded as superfluous."
    Fataawa Khulasa, Fasool-E-Amaria, Jami-ul-Fasooleen and Fataawa Hindiah etc state,
    "If somebody calls himself a Prophet or a Messenger of Allah and by this he means to say that he takes messages, hence he is a Messenger, he will become a disbeliever."
    This sort of interpretation will not be considered valid. May Allah save us!
    He wrote at another place under ,:
    QIBLAH FOLLOWER CONCEPT INVALID:
    The term "facing the Oiblah" in the opinion of the Imams stands for a person who believes in all the essentials of the Islamic faith. If that person denies even a single essential, he certainly becomes a disbeliever, in the light of the unanimous verdict of the Islamic scholars. Anybody who does not call such a person a disbeliever is himself a disbeliever.
    Shifa Sharif, Bazaziah, Dar Radd- e-Gharoor, and Fataawa-e-Khairiah and many other books state:
    “All the Muslims are unanimously of the view that any person, who shows disrespect to Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم), is a disbeliever. Any- body, who doubts it, is himself a disbeliever"
    Majma-ul-Anhar and Durr-e-Mukhtar show as under:
    "Any person, who becomes a disbeliever on account of showing disrespect to a Prophet, will not be forgiven; and anybody who doubts his punishment or disbelief is himself a disbeliever"
    Also:
    It is mentioned in the commentary on Fiqah Akbar:-
    "The correct approaches include this that the followers of Qiblah will not be called disbelievers, unless they refuse to accept the essential requirements of faith; for instance treating forbidden (Haraam) as allowed (Halaal). It is no secret that our scholars, when they say that the followers of Qiblah should not be classified as disbelievers, do not mean just turn- ing one's face towards the Qiblah. The Rafizi people falsely say that Gabriel made a mistake in conveying the revelations; Allah had sent him towards Hazrat Ali and not Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). Some of them treat Hazrat Ali as Allah. These people, though they pray with their faces towards the Qiblah, are not Muslims. This Hadith also has a similar meaning, which says that he, who prays like us, turns his face towards our Qiblah, and eats the animals slaughtered by us, is a Muslim".
    ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY:
    It means that such a person must believe in the essential requirements of the Islamic faith, and he should not do anything against the spirit of the faith. In the same book 'we come across this statement:-
    "That is to say, it is an agreed view of the Islamic scholars that a person who violates the essential requirements of Islam is a disbeliever, though he may be a follower of the Qiblah and he may spend his entire life in performing the acts of obedience, as has
    been stated in Sharah-E- Tahreer by Imam Ibnul Hammam."
    The books of Islamic belief, law and principles are full of clear directives and details on this point.
    http://www.razanw.org/modules/products/item.php?itemid=2
     
  10. AbdalQadir

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

    I will let abu Hasan and others comment on that article, but i disagree with faqir. The article is going about the topic in an extremely roundabout and philosophical way that seeks to muddy the waters.

    The definition for kafir in books of fiqh is very short and simple.

    hamza yusuf (and others like him like nuh keller and tim winters) has this habit of writing lengthy essays going round and round in circles, while the scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah have always been clear, concise, and to the point. Anyone who seeks to know anything from their works, doesn't have to read and re-read the entire chapter and an additional 50 pages, and will find what he's looking for. See if you can do that with hamza hanson's article?! or the articles of his other cohorts?

    This kind of lengthy philosophizing, even if not saying anything untrue, does eventually muddy the truth.

    I've been meaning to bring it up myself. Thank you faqir for posting it. I really hope some of the knowledgable brothers can comment on it. Personally, his philosophising annoyed me greatly and i didn't have the patience to read all of it, and left it.

    PS: In that buddhist common ground epistle, either hamza hanson or the other author made the case for including all the world's religions under the "people of book" banner because "every nation was sent a prophet" (see page 12, bottom half), and then like ahm says/implies, people of the book too will gain shafa3ah.
     
  11. absalih

    absalih Active Member

    Imam Rabbani Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi.(qs) on kufr

    Maktubat Shareef:3.38
    This letter, written to Mulla Ibrahim, explaining the hadith which informs that this Ummat will part into seventy-three groups:
    'Indispensable to be believed' means 'Zaruriyyat e Din', as explained by A'la Hazrat Imam Ahmed Raza Khan.Rah
    http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Endless_Bliss_Third_Fascicle/bliss3_2.htm
     
  12. faqir

    faqir Veteran

    disclaimer: i don't necessarily agree with all mentioned therein but I think the article does at least demonstrate that sh hamza is not a perennialist as is being made out by some here

    wa Allahu `alam
     
  13. faqir

    faqir Veteran

Share This Page