Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Multimedia' started by Noori, May 4, 2015.
does anyone know if there has been any sort of reply or acknowledgement from hamza or his group?
Awesome lecture and very professionally delivered.
Full respect was maintained for the individual concerned - and each point was presented and then academically refuted.
Also a good job by the presentation party; having lectures, audio inserted within the video to show proof of allegations.
Best english lecture delivered in a long time.
May Ghaus Paak help and protect Sh Asrar in every job he does for Ahle Sunnah - a truly gifted scholar ma sha Allah.
For all the fan boys - This wasn't about getting numbers into talks, whose got the most following and knowledge; it was the honour of our Beloved Nabi (salatu wasalam); if you had ONLY realised this ONE aspect, you would have snapped out of your sheep like behavior and accepted the truth. It is apparent who are the fitnah makers and who are there to crush the fitnah.
I agree, sunni's should appreciate gems like this and support them 100%
Mawlana Aqdas Misbahi Sahib Qibla and Sidi Wadood could pass your message on to Maulvi Sahib
mashaAllah! Shaykh Asrar stands out of the crowd. He makes me feel proud of my Sunniyat.
The Prophet (peace be upon him) has said that when you love a person you should make it known to him.
I humbly request brothers who are in touch with Shaykh Asrar (hafidhahullah) to please convey my message to him that I love him for the sake of Allah subHanu wa ta'ala.
moriarty posted an excerpt of translation from shifa by ayesha bewley. here is the same passage that was translated in TKM:
The Sixth Case: When one cites or reports blasphemies of others. The context of the citation, his actual words and situation will be taken into account for the ruling and it varies accordingly in four possible categories:
1. Obligatory / Wājib
2. Preferrable / Nadb
3. Disliked / Makrūh
4. Forbidden / Ĥarām
If a person mentions them in his testimony against a blasphemer and to inform others, and to reject and refute such speech; and to make it known to the public so that they abhor the blasphemer and criticise him – then such a narration is required and whoever does this is praiseworthy; similarly, if he mentions such things in a book or in a gathering to refute and quash such blasphemies or to issue a fatwā related to such utterances. This is obligatory or recommended for him depending on the situation and the state of the person who narrates and the one about whom such a narration is made.
If the person who uttered [such blasphemies] is a person known to be a scholar or a teacher, [a shaykh or a muftī], or a ĥadīth scholar and narrator, or a person in authority or known to be a reliable witness or a well-known jurist – then it is obligatory for whosoever hears [such a thing from him] to expose him and make the public aware of what has been heard from him – and to make people dislike such a person, to bear witness against such a person and what he has said; it is obligatory for scholars and leaders in the Muslim community to repudiate such a person and clearly communicate the kufr of this person and the monstrosity of his ugly speech so that Muslims are safeguarded from the evil of such a person – and the right of the Leader of Messengers e is well established. Similarly, if that person [who has uttered a blasphemy] is a preacher or a schoolmaster; if this be the things in his heart, then how can he be trusted to teach the love and reverence of RasūlAllāh e to those in his care or his audience?
It is definitely obligatory to publicise the blasphemies of such people – for the right of the Prophet e and the right of the Sharīáh. If the blasphemer is not a scholar or a person of religious authority, even then defending the right of the Prophet and guarding his honour is a religious duty; and to support him against those who seek to hurt him, whether in his worldly life or after his passing is a right upon every believer. However, if one person stands to fulfil this duty in the service of the Messenger, to aid the truth and establish the ruling, then the responsibility is waived from others and it is not obligatory on all others anymore – yet, it is recommended for others to attest this person’s actions and support him to warn against the evil of the blasphemer.
Our elders have unanimously agreed that it is necessary to document and publicise the state of a ĥadīth narrator accused of lying – then what about this man [who has blasphemed against the Nabiy e]? Abū Muĥammad ibn Abi Zayd was asked about a witness who has overheard such things about Allāh táālā – is it allowed for him to keep quiet? He answered that if it is hoped that his testimony will result in a prosecution, he should bear witness. Similarly, it is necessary to bear witness in front of a governor who follows the ruling that repentance of blasphemer is acceptable and hence spares the death penalty; in fact it is necessary to [complain and] bear witness.
Except for these two purposes, I do not see any other reason for narrating such things. It is not permissible to rake things concerning the honour of RasūlAllāh e and to rinse one's mouth with obscene mentions of RasūlAllāh e – neither for the person who mentions it, nor who repeats it – it is not permissible for either of them to utter it except for a valid sharaýī reason. And for the purposes mentioned above, it is either obligatory or recommended [depending on the situation]. Allāh táālā has mentioned the words of disbelievers which is slandering and belying His prophets; He has mentioned this to repudiate them and to warn against their kufr and to inform of His Promise to punish the beliers; and this is mentioned in the Holy Book which is also recited. Such examples are also found in the authentic ĥadīth of the Prophet e. Our elder scholars and those who followed them agreed that it is permissible to narrate statements of infidels and heretics, in gatherings and in their books to analyse and demonstrate their invalidity and clarify doubts concerning them. Even though it is reported that Imām Aĥmed ibn Ĥanbal was opposed to Ĥārith ibn al-Asad al-Muĥāsibi for doing so, he himself cited such things in his refutation of Jahmīs and those who claimed that the Qur’ān is created speech.
True, citation of such things are permissible in certain situations, however statements that are insulting to the Prophet or things that are disparaging and derogatory to his exalted station should not be narrated by way of stories and casual chatting or just to be novel or eccentric or for gossip, whether serious or silly discussions, or mirth and jokes of clowns; and tasteless and bizzare blathering and pointless arguments or idle talk; in all these cases, it is prohibited to mention such blasphemies, some cases being severe and worse than others. If a person cites such things, neither with an intention, nor aware that it is disrespectful to the Messenger e, and it is also not his habit of mentioning such things, or if what he narrates is not very ugly, or he does not justify the blasphemer he is citing or says it in a way of commending the blasphemer or proving his speech valid – then such a person will be rebuked and will be censured against repeating such a thing again. If he has mentioned loathsome words in what he cites, he shall be severely reprimanded.
A man came to Imam Mālik and said: ‘What is your opinion about a person who says the Qur’ān is created?’ Mālik replied: [‘This person is] a kāfir, execute him’ The person [panicked and] said: ‘I am quoting someone else.’ Imām Mālik said: ‘But we have heard it from you.’ Imām Malik said so only to reproach the person and to harshly reprimand him, because [it is a fact] that the person was not executed. If such a narrator [of blasphemies] is accused of fabricating such quotes and [falsely] attributing it to others; or such is his habit or it is demonstrable that he says it in an approving tone, or is enthusiastic about it or trivialises it or [is eager] to memorise such things or seek out such things and recite poems which mock or insult the Master e – in all such cases, this person takes the ruling of the blasphemer himself and his excuse that he is narrating from others will not avail him. Such a person shall be put to the sword immediately and hastily dispatched to the pits of fire. Abū Úbayd Qāsim ibn Sallām said about a person who had memorised a part of a [poetic] verse which mocked the Prophet e that it was kufr.
Scholars who wrote about ijmāá have said: Muslims are unanimously agreed that it is ĥarām to narrate or quote speech that mocks the Prophet e or to write it down, or read it, or to leave it unerased when one comes across such things. May Allāh táālā have mercy upon our elders, the pious and righteous folk, who were guarded and extremely careful about their religion that they dropped such things from annals and records of battles and biographies, and abstained from narrating such things except very little; and even then, only that which is not disgusting. The rules of citation [they followed were] according to the categories mentioned earlier, and to show how a blasphemer invites the Wrath of Allāh táālā and to arrest the slanderer. Thus, Abū Úbayd Qāsim ibn Sallām mentioned a person who was lampooned in Arabic poetry as merely ‘the satirised’ without further details, to avoid naming him in his book, mindful of another Muslim’s honour and because of his [Ibn Sallām’s] scrupulousness; then what about the honour and esteem of the Master of all mankind e; should we not be more careful and responsible?
 For example, Alahazrat listed the blasphemies of Deobandi elders to refute them.
 Such as an amīr or a qāđī – the governor or the judge.
 So that people are warned of such hypocrites and keep away from them and their sugar-coated and hollow speech.
 Khafājī: It is a communal obligation [farđ kifāyah] not an individual obligation [farđ áyn].
 Bearing witness, issuing a ruling or repudiating them.
 Like Hamza Yūsuf Hanson likes to talk about Dante’s Divine Comedy or mentions it in his recommended reading list. Even more surprising are those scholars who do not feel Hamza has committed any error and wave it away as a fly upon their noses.
 And this is not for a purpose such as bearing witness or issuing a ruling; but in the course of idle chatting.
 I wonder, if Hamza Yūsuf were in Andalusia a thousand years ago, would the judge [most likely a Mālikī] spare him from the gallows or do istitabah? I wonder.
 Qārī: If his intention is to memorise it or publicise it.
 To satisfy ‘intellectual’ curiosities.
Shaykh asrar rashid has something about him which makes me think that he will be one of the ulama who will leave a legacy after his going from this world!
May allah protect and grant shaykh asrar victory over jelous and enemies..!
he is INDEED defending dante - and yes, he explains dante's blasphemy and in other words says "hey dante considered us muslims", it can't be that bad.
shame hamza. shame. you are bey-ghayrat.
now, hamza cites nawazil of shanqiti:
wa mud'khilun alfan mina'l malaHidah
aqrabu min mukhriji nafsin waHidah
which further says:
kadhaaka kullu Haaqirin ma `uZZima
shar'an fa fi silki'rtidadin nuZima
which also says:
bal dha mina'l kufri alayhi yurhabu
idh lazimu'l madh'habi qila madh'habu
in the above controverisal talk: immediately after 1.08.28 (closing time) hamza says mentioning robert frost:
...because, in the end, for me, the real two sources of truth in this world are revelation and poets. and in islamic tradition, you cannot seperate the two. it is a pre-requisite to comment on the qur'an, that you have to master the pre-islamic poets. [literally] that is agreed upon in the islamic tradition.
what poetry enables us - the poets penetrate. and the poets are inspired. and dante was an inspired poet. we can look at the kind of...there are many things we would object to...but ultimately, dante's vision is a vision of every man and every woman's journey back to God.
and in the end, when dante has the beatific vision, and...he sees it... he says: already my desire and my will were made one, turning by a wheel, at one speed - the desire and the will become one, there is no more tension between one's impulses and one's moral rectitude. and then he says: 'turned by the love that moved the planets and the stars. that love of God.'
[aH: ellipsis above is not to indicate incontiguousness; it is there to show that the speaker hesitates or changes the sentence.]
p.166 [of marja' al-mushkilat by al-libi, a commentary on naZm al-nawazil of sayyid abdallah al-alawi al-shanqiti, d.1230AH. the book nawazil of shaykh abdallah al-alawi was versified by shaykh muhammad aaqib mayabi ]
hamza is lying when he says dante was incidental. hamza has an infatuation for dante and his inferno; he uses its themes for illustration and is generally not offended:
link on zaytuna (for non-repudiation)
earl lectures: no longer available:
but that lecture in mp3 can be found here:
he talks a lot about dante and his book, drawing parallels with modern times; but the controversial part starts around 54:00