Asad Ali is a Perennialist Sympathiser

From everything I've seen of Hafiz Asad and his social media posts in response to inevitable criticism for his many blunders, he just comes across as rather immature and wanting to have the last word in order to save face and his playing victim does actually remind me of Marks style when he gets pulled up.

As for his attendance at the Halifax event and his attempted clarification, when I watched the video out of all 4 panelists he seemed the most uncomfortable, at least that's what his body language was saying to me. He seemed very fidgety and nervous as though he's worried to some extent at how it may go in relation to him getting targeted with specific questions. Tbh it seemed like he was there just to have his name cleared whilst actually saying as little as possible and dropping the Mark style victim card. It was good that Shaykh Asrar told him to grow a thicker skin because to date what I've seen of Hafiz Asad is that he comes off as a quite over sensitive and rude in his social media responses but on stage he seemed like a rabbit caught in the headlights.

Don't think he did himself any favours in saying I'm not on marks level yada yada yada.. yes we know he's been around longer than you but Mark is a Amman message endorsing swine and for us Muslims a swine has no value so you don't need to be bringing levels etc into it.

Likewise Shaykh Asrars remarks about having respect for Bin Bayyah were completely unnecessary as Bin Bayyah is a cheif endorser of the Amman message aswell as endorser of normalisation between UAE and the Israeli's.

 

this is a lie he keeps repeating. the verse about jews, christians going to paradise has been explained by many people. shaykh sayid foudeh debunked this in his refutation of adnan ibrahim.

i had translated a short talk here:
https://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/sh-foudah-on-perennialism.11981/page-3#post-48103

 

heres another example
he quotes Imam ghazali Radi Allahu Anhu as well...

 

now, i suggest you read my first post. i said he is a perennialist sympathiser. if he doesn't openly refute and distance himself from perennialism and instead resorts to vague explanations, he can be called a sul-kulli too for that is one of the definitions: a person who is not openly critical of his belief and is willing to accommodate (i.e. sulH) those whom he may privately deem heretics.

also bear in mind that my first post was before asad ali's 'clarification'.

 

Mark Hanson has been a perennialist ever since the year 2000 at least. During the 11th Sep episode it was the first time I came across this man when he gave an interview on one of the American news channels. Basically he told the interviewer that the real martyrs in the sight of Allah were the brave firefighters who lost their lives trying the save the people in those buildings (can't find that interview now).

So he always held the belief that Jannah is not restricted to Muslims only!

 

The murtadd Hamza Yusuf is a prime example of those who admire and love the enemies of Islam. Whoever supports such people has also aided the cause of such enemies!

 

Hanson did his dante stunt - and when he was taken to task for it (and he knew for sure that he would be) - he huffed and puffed and issued a supposed "clarification" - full of conceit and self-righteousness: "here you low IQ idiots. Take this and get lost"
Asad ali copied him. Shuffled a few words here and there - brought in Alahazrat to placate the audience in-attendance (cause he knows that people don't read and if you just say Alahazrat 3 or 4 times in a sentence - they will believe you and go home) - and issued the now routine arrogant dismissal: "here take this clarification and get lost!"

 

I really don't understand the "jumped the gun" thing. Here was an individual practically telling others to shut-up about hanson and go read books in a library and in the same breath patting himself on the back for having 'openly met him without hiding his face, for 3 precious hours' - who when called out - snaps back that his critics are slanderes - and we are forbidden from drawing the simple conclusion that he is a hanson fanboy?!

When we see a duck quacking and flapping and diving - we don't wait for a biopsy to eliminate the possibility of its being a horse or a rat. We call it a duck.

 

by default, every muslim - scholar or layman will be considered a sunni muslim. however, when someone actively promotes a non-sunni aqidah, especially a heresy that is clearly kufr - that person cannot be considered a sunni.

if that person promotes those who promote kufr - such as hamza promoting nasr - this is implicit/passive promotion. i personally do not consider hamza a muslim for many reason and that he shamelessly praises and promotes dante and has to date not repented from it. and for this reason, i hate his filthy face.

people can come up with technicalities - but i don't really care. and i find it amusing that people are offended when i call hamza filthy etc etc, but have explanations when hamza praises and promotes the most famous blasphemer and saabb of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam, that accursed dante.

choices and priorities, boys. you love hamza, so you feel offended. and i love RasulAllah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam and i feel offended.

main to kahaa hi chaahun ke bandah hoon shaah ka
par luTf jab hai kah den agar woh, janab hoon.

nas'alu Allah al-aafiyah.

 

btw, i did not say i have a secret reason. i have already made the reasons clear - but if someone didn't get it, i would be willing to explain why. this cannot be compared with asad's "i met HY. and fawn over it. display it as a medal" and then when criticised: "i discussed with him that are asraar, which i have already shared with asrar."

for not being clear about perennialism and perennialists. if someone says, i disagree with albani or bin-baz or taqi usmani, but i have great respect for them as scholars. what would you class them?

we will certainly not spare those who make space for pushing the envelope in the future. we will nip it in the bud.

and that should be the response of all muslims, especially towards someone who has influence (such as social media followers).

----
wAllahu a'alam.

 

what he did in that gathering was equivocate. say it in a manner which would sound as a clarification to those who were howling and in a respectful manner, that hamza wouldn't mind if he happens to tune in.

the fitna of hamza is something one should warn against. apparently asad has a number of followers and he answers questions - i.e., he is in a position of a guide. so his 'clarification' is actually an implicit endorsement of hamza.

"i respect him but i don't agree with him" - and the extremely cheesy cliche: "we agreed to disagree" which is an euphemism for: "we won't criticise each other's differences".

compare this with hamza, who is a past-master of equivocation, . it is his standard MO. "do i agree everything shaykh nasr says? of course, not. but will i do takfir of him? of course not." [paraphrased].

----
in any other subject which is not related to religion/aqidah, such a statement is a mark of openness and maturity. for example, we do not agree with the colour of the upholstery, the taste of food, the manner of dressing; iphone/android... only people with small minds bicker over such things and refuse to accept the diversity of choice and opinion.

however, religion is a different matter altogether. one can be tolerant of other religions, i.e. we won't force our opinion down their throats and they are free to disagree (for eventually it is their life and they will pay the price for their choice). tolerance does not mean assimilation. when some people say 'i respect your religion' that does not mean 'i accept it'. rather it is a polite way of saying: "i consider it nonsense and do not believe a word of it. but since this is your choice, i will pretend that i am not offended by it".

some people mean what they say - and that is haram. we are not allowed to 'respect' other religions in the meaning of 'considering it to be a variant of truth and is equal to my belief' - i.e. islam in our case.

---
in a post-modern world, we do not live in distinct communities. we live with each other - we trade with one another and unlike say fifty years ago, any action by a muslim in california will have an effect on people living down-under. we are seen as one homogeneous entity (i.e. muslims). so we are forced to adapt and abandon blunt statements and be nuanced.

unfortunately, this need to be discrete (as opposed to in-your-face) is exploited by the perennialists and try to push the agenda of syncretism. i.e. the false belief that all religions (or even atheism) can lead to salvation. and muslims alone do not have monopoly over the truth and being allowed into paradise.

they prey on common muslims exploiting their inability to think, reason and of course, phenomenal ignorance in our time.

if a jew were to say: only jews will enter jannah. i won't be offended. because i don't agree with him.

if a hindu were to say: "you muslims will be reborn as some animal and will take so many rebirths to be even reborn as a shudra - as your karma will follow you", i would not even care as much as i would for a piece of discarded tissue lying in the street. i do not believe in transmigration of souls and i don't care what he thinks or believes will be my station after death.

my only concern is that they do not violate our rights in this world - and for fair deal, i will not violate THEIR rights to live in this world. what we believe about life after death and the hereafter is nobody's concern and nobody should be offended by this.

if someone is so worried that islam says that if one dies as a kafir, he/she will go to hell and stay there forever and hell is a terrible place to be, they should become muslims. because that is what the Warner (nadhir, sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam) has come for. to alert you and to make you fear the terrors of Judgement day. and if you are afraid, then what stops you from accepting islam?

as i said to a classmate long ago: you do neither believe in, nor fear the hell that i warn you of; but still you do not want to go there! [for his objection: islam says that only muslims will enter paradise and all others will go to hell].

even though many people do not realise, a sort of cultural imperialism. that is, a christian (or any other kafir, even an atheist) "i have go to your paradise, EVEN if i do not believe in it and i openly mock it. how can it be denied to ME?". a kind of privilege and the sense of entitlement that goes with it.

-----
schuon probably had a selfish reason. he wanted to go to paradise of muslims, but at the same time he didn't want the restraints of islam. so he had this syncretist belief - that anyone can go to paradise. [i.e. if he really believed in afterlife].

those who are pushing it - whether nasr or the cabal of shayateen that supports him - have the same approach. except that it is a lucrative field. people love them, give them money and they get to be the prolocutors of islam even though they disbelieve in and contradict the fundamentals of islam.

---
every muslim who knows about this should warn others against it; those who are able, should refute it. scholars should warn common people to stay away from those who promote it.

not say: "i respect hamza [even though he promotes perennialism, has contributed to the attempt at the perennialist tahrif TSQ, is the most famous sidekick of the murtadd nasr and his glamorous apologist]"

---
this is why asad will be seen as someone who supports perennialism, implicitly by promoting hamza who explicitly promotes it!

 

In these types of situation, what would be considered as clear and that the accused has justified himeself?

Even Shaykh Asrar Rashid said he respects Bin Bayyah (if Im not mistaken) for his age and learning. So whats the ruling on him?

PS: im neither trying to justisfy of defend Hafiz Asad nor trying to attach Shaykh Asrar.

 

not really. he needs to be more clear. remember, it is he who first lit the fire and he should be the one to put it out.

welcome.

fair point. in sha'Allah, i will explain. wa billahi't tawfiq.

 

Fair points I think

 

Asad Ali has clearly stated his position on HY. I think these threads can be put to rest for now. Until it is proven he is supporting Hamza Yusuf.

 

You provided that screenshot as an evidence of BB being worse than HY. Yet in the same screenshot the invitation of the Qadianis was attributed to HY.

 

Why is bin bayyah worse than HY? HY out and out refuses to make takfeer on perennialists etc- what does bin bayyah do that is comparable? Just curious.

 

The brother who posed the question was myself - a long time reader of this forum but I've only just made an account now to get my answers

This is what Hafiz Asad said about meeting HY and a lot of us jumped on him for not explaining. So please could you answer my following thoughts

Please could you clarify why you hold Hafiz Asad to be out of the folds of the Ahlus Sunnah.

If Hafiz Asad isn't a Sunni Muslim, what's the hukm on him - what is he? Is he a sulh kulli?

In the event, I think we can all agree Shaykh Asrar wasn't very local against HY, on the contrary, he said he respects Bin Bayyah (for whatever reason). Bin Bayyah is worse than HY. What's the hukm on Shaykh Asrar?

What's the hukm on the organisers (Halifax Masjid) and all the other sunni masajid all over the UK who invite this 'non-sunni' Hafiz Asad to their mosques?

What's the hukm on the attendees (who maybe know Hafiz Asad met HY and 'promoted' him)?

Just to clarify, I am very far from being a fan of Hafiz Asad and his clique. He has had me blocked on Twitter for some time (until recently) and Syed Samdani still has me blocked on FB.

jazak'Allah khair

 

Someone did ask about hamza although I don't know exactly what the question was (couldn't hear it) but basically he clarified his comments about the meeting and what he meant by great scholar etc. Watch from 2:47:00 onwards on the livestream video for his brief comments. As mentioned in the thread, it wasn't satisfactory.

https://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/sectarianism-event-and-criticism.15161/