Typical faqir. He was also spreading the so called views of Dr. Buti on Imkan al Kadhib for years on all the forums http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-1166.html
Sh Yaqoubi has demanded an explanation. So far none has been given. However, some Ulama of Syria have given fatwas. They will be released shortly bi idhnillah, inshaAllah. Considering the slaughter in Halab and Damascus, the Ulama have still responded. This is a sign of their bravery.
The person who said Shaykh Muhammad demanded an explanation never said he was satisfied with the response. It seems you too suffer from the same fallacy that it is people who validate beliefs and not vice versa. Whatever the case, nothing can be said until KS says what exactly was told to Shaykh Muhammad about hanson, what exactly he demanded of hanson, and what exactly hanson responded with. One or two lines of kufr are enough to show the state of a person and indeed according to hadith I'm sure you know of, just one sentence is enough to land someone 70 years deep into hellfire. No one on that blog made a mountain of a molehill. Those extracts from mark hanson's buddha essay show his true state and his true inclinations. I'm attacking the inbuilt mechanism that some people have, according to which Sayyid status automatically means a person can't be deviant. I'm not attacking his ancestry per se and believe it is irrelevant to his misguidance and deviancies. You once again missed the point and are repeating the mistake of the wahabis. When someone tells them, 'your books are full of lies', they say 'but they have Quranic verses and also ahadith. You have no shame to speak in this manner about Quran and ahadith.' The larger point is that jimmy swaggert was/is a conman and so are these people who have shown themselves to be conmen. My love and hate is dictated by the 3aqidah of the Ahlus Sunnah, which these people have shown to disrespect, disregard, distort and dishonor, either directly, or knowingly supporting those who do (such as gibril knowingly supporting nazim). The reasons exist on various places on this forum. You are welcome to show me how and why those people do not violate the Ahlus Sunnah or how, why and when they have withdrawn support of such people. I believe a Muslim should state the truth, call a spade a spade and not be afflicted by political correctness, and should not compromise on the 3aqidah of the Ahlus Sunnah only out of fear of hurting egos or going against the status quo of blind sheeple. It is definitely very unbecoming of a modern, western Muslim afflicted with the fluffy good manners of political correctness, perennialism, pleasing people, and compromising on the 3aqidah of the Ahlus Sunnah but absolutely no respect towards the 3aqidah of the Ahlus Sunnah, and openly lying against the verses of the Quran and/or the Prophet. Sorry, but I don't subscribe to group hugs and chant wah-wah and masha Allah at the emperor's new clothes. Unlike many people that frequent this forum, I don't enjoy being willfully blind at the reality of some so called shuyukh, and look the other way and whistle! The company and association of ahlul bid3ah, zanadiq and mulhideen is much worse than that of original kafirs and the ways of our elders are to show no pacifism to such people.
brother, how did you conclude that sh.Yaqubi was satisfied ? please do not take offence, but it seems that you reserve your critical thinking only for the wahabis. why not use the same yardstick for everyone? you can read books of fiqh and creed in their original language but why, when it comes to certain personalities, do you prefer to wait till forever before forming an opinion?
Great. And if sh Muhammad was satisfied with the response he received then so should everyone else be.
Faqir Sahib, Mark Hanson's defense is of Dante's insults to our Messenger sallAllahu alayhiwasallam is what we should term as 'rubbish'. Was Mufti Ahmad Hassoun contacted before he was condemned? And with Hassoun no one has his speech where he made derogatory comments. Irrelevant to what you think of the blog, the content cannot be ignored. And for your info Zaytuna Institute, its affiliates and Hamza Yusuf have been contacted on this issue. Shaykh Muhammad alYaqoubi has been notified by many people, and according to (name edited) Shaykh Yaqoubi has phoned Hanson demanding an explanation.
Why didn't you ask Qaid e Inqilab before you started this thread? What do you make of Shaykh Hamza's comments below (taken from the blog) “One of the things our Abrahamic Traditions suffer from is exclusivism. Many of the people who adhere to Abrahamic teachings whether they be Jews, Christians or Muslims, tend to see themselves as having some monopoly on the truth, and monopoly on the truth as far as any real Abrahamic traditions would say would be God’s alone.” “If we accept or assume the possibly that He did speak, the divine spoke through these revelations of the Old Testamant, the Older Testament, the New Testament then the Quran, which each one has their claim. If we do accept that certainly God has many voices, and to claim any one voice to be the exclusive voice of God is a very dangerous thing to do.” “I’ve been in my share of exclusivist tradition, when I first became Muslim that was the type of Islam I was introduced to… when you begin to look at the nuances of our traditions you find is that they are deeply compatible at those most basic fundamental levels as they are teaching universal truths, and they would not resonate in the millions of hearts if that were not true.”
rubbish. nit picking of one or two lines from here or there to make a mountain out of a molehill. i can't even be bothered to read past the first page. its not surprising many speakers don't allow the public to record their talks until they've gone over it and checked and corrected it where necessary. anyone can make a mistake - why doesnt this blog writer ask the shaykh himself openly what his view is on these points of contention?
al-salam `alaikum you are baselessly attacking people's lineage (which has severe consequences in shari'ah), calling muslims names like 'jimmy swaggarts' (who was an adulterous non-muslim preacher i believe) and worse. I wouldn't even expect muslims to treat non-muslims in such a manner. not sure why you are so full of hatred brother - i think you should take a break from forums to calm down and do something more beneficial. your behaviour is unbecoming of a muslim.
Sidi Nuh on about Shaykh Hamza? “So when people see that the Muslims are trying to say that Islam is flower power, Islam is a new vitamin packed cereal or Islam is a new species of Christianity or whatever they are saying to try to win the hearts of the Christians and Jews, You are not gonna win their hearts until you quit making sajdah with your head upon the ground my friends in that sense but stand your ground and say this is the way I am, like it or don’t like it.”
Is Shaykh Hamza still the Vice Chairman of the Global Centre for Renewal and Guidance? This is where the great Jurists pass Fatwa according to Fiqh Aqalliyyat. Sidi Nuh is not happy with these great scholars doing Ijtihad and global Tajdid http://al-miftah.blogspot.co.uk/2007/09/islam-not-cereal-shaykh-nuh-keller-uk.html?m=1
Vice-Chancellor Al-Azhar University Declares Dr. Tahir-ul-Qadri as Shaykh-ul-Islam??? Any comments on this Youtube video snippet: Vice-Chancellor Al-Azhar University (Egypt) Declares Dr. Tahir-ul-Qadri as Shaykh-ul-Islam: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHot5-3dG4A
AQ, in case you didn't realise, many other scholars consider Hamza Yusuf a Shaykh, and even use the term 'Shaykh' when referring to him. Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi has even taught him a few texts and refers to him as a jurist in that Tahwiyyah ijaza. Isn't that enough evidence? (I'm not talking about other issues like what he's said or done - I'm just addressing the specific issues you have raised about verifying his credentials; to me what you've written is completely absurd)
Valid point about Tim as he was working for the British Council in Egypt and for British Steel in Jeddah http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&so...9IZtBiDw9yUMu9DBQ&sig2=vUDlvEK2_aEJDKuxT6830Q
the same thing. let's go by my very meager knowledge of islamic fiqh and evidencing - what is the Shar3iy status of media reports and internet reports and youtube videos and so on and so forth? it's a "khabar" - that's all it is. it could be true or false. it needs to be ascertained. our Quran tells us: يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِن جَاءَكُمْ فَاسِقٌ بِنَبَإٍ فَتَبَيَّنُوا أَن تُصِيبُوا قَوْمًا بِجَهَالَةٍ فَتُصْبِحُوا عَلَىٰ مَا فَعَلْتُمْ نَادِمِينَ who has verified mark hanson's own credentials? these people just started writing and speaking, and people started calling them "shaykh" ... and with time the snowball effect took place. and it's an irony of severely tragic and comic proportions that in the recent past, mark hanson himself has touched on the subject of critical observation, verifying news, authentication, plagiarism, doctored experiments and fudged citations! - http://sandala.org/blog/2012/02/28/critical-eyes-in-a-critical-time/ these people's credentials are just as much a mystery as is the origin of tahir's "shaykh-ul-islam" title! the truth of the matter brother, is that these people just popped up out of the blue along with the dot com boom, and the only thing that can be rightly claimed by them is internet and now other media popularity. of course now they have a fan base to stand by them. this is hanson's bio on his popular websites: http://zaytunacollege.org/academics/faculty/shaykh_hamza_yusuf the same content is repeated elsewhere. tell me, where is the evidence for him being a shaykh? other than his popularity with fanboys on forums, and now after the snowball effect having occured with his popularity in other media outlets and also the offline world, what REAL evidences do people have for calling him "shaykh" just as a sidenote, i found this line quite interesting, on mark hanson's bio page - http://sandala.org/about/hamzayusuf/ ed hussein - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Husain -------------------------------- if people call him "shaykh" and he doesn't deny it even after not being one, then he is accepting and claiming the title his fanboys give him this is his bio on the masud website: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/ (emphasis mine) so tell me my brother - does a degree from cambridge in Arabic qualify one as a 'shaykh' in Islamic sciences? can cambridge and oxford and their 'Arabic' and 'Islamic' departments where tim is based at, be considered as "credible" for us Muslims? what then about all the arab christians whose native tongue in Arabic? what did he study in al-Azhar in Cairo? which Islamic science? who has verified what? who has seen his certificates and diplomas from al-Azhar? assuming he did study something there for 3 years, is that enough to confer the title of shaykh on him? who has assessed the sum total of all his qualifications and who can verify it in writing and where are those testimonies? and when did qualified shuyukh ever say that christians and jews shall get the Prophet's shafa3ah on judgment day? of course there too he said "a lot of scholars say" as is typical of such people. give just the right dose of poison. no 'sheeple' will ever bother asking "who are those 'many scholars'?" does residing in jeddah count as an academic qualification? does maintaining close contact with some other gazeted 3ulema, also make one an 3alim himself? if that's the case, half the people on this forum should be called shaykhs. anyone who has had 'close contact' with an 3alim, like our brother chisti for example, should claim the title of 'shaykh' this on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Winter (emphasis mine) since wiki can really be edited by anyone, we will just assume it's his enemies who have changed the "3 years" to "several years" only to denigrate his credibility ---------------------------------- his blind defense of nazim shows his worth. i will be fair and point out that the aim of clubbing all these people together was due to the same misguidance that they preach and i don't know much about his real (but of no use to him and others) or perceived credentials. in case his credentials too are wishy washy like mark hanson and tim winters, he too is guilty of accepting the title of "shaykh" from his blind fanboys ----------------------------------- because it is flaunted as an automatic proof in and of itself to indicate that he is right in anything that he says if we want to deal with a problem, we have to attack the root of the problem. he may or may not be a real Sayyid and you and i know it is irrelevant to him being right or wrong, but in a time when people are so caught up on fancy claims and won't accept your or my telling that his such and such saying/action violates Islam, then it does make sense to tackle the reasons that they hold so dear to validate the man, and this Sayyid claim is one of those reasons again, the general theme is grand titles and high and mighty claims. just who awarded him the title of "sultan al-awliyaa" and for what reasons? ----------------------------- brother, i'm really no one, it's a joke to mention my 'credibility'; and i'm not trying to be great by pretending to be humble. let's not even talk about brothers like yourself or abu hasan or aqdas or noori or sunnistudent who in my opinion, are much more knowledgeable than the rest of us members (notwithstanding my nafsanic faults and i don't say this sarcastically to you) let's take our beloved Ala Hazrat himself who has real credibility did he refute the enemies of Ahlus Sunnah and Islam with knowledge and logical structure? the answer is an honest and sincere yes for most members of this forum do his opponents and their blind fanboys accept all that he has proven? forget about them (deos, wahabis, qadianis, etc). we now have people claiming to be his admirers and beloved followers who make all sorts of comments that don't just violate Sunni maslak, but even Islam. i'm not talking about idiots on forums, but rather people who are supposedly learned men of the Ahlus Sunnah do all the other people of hawaa in other parts of the world accept what the rest of the credible Sunni scholars have said, despite claiming to be their admirers? i am talking about beacons of knowledge like Imam Ghazali, Imam-e-A3zdham and so on. their works are open for all to see. yet people don't accept their rulings if they go against their whims, and will come up with the most exquisite of justifications! with the greatest respect, you might think that other "people" are like you and will accept knowledge and logical structure, but this is not true for the most part in these times. this is not the age of knowledge and logical arguments. it is the age of propaganda, sensationalising, marketing flair and long winded justifications (which ironically my post and reply to you will also considered to be if i am to be fair, but such is the nature of the beast we are dealing with) of course as Muslims, knowledge and logical istidlal is a requirement from our deen, but these other weapons that the enemies of Islam and Ahlus Sunnah are using on us, we also have to use on them. not that what i stated was propaganda or sensationalising, it was just my manner of sometimes thinking faster than i type, and gathering all similar propagators of misguidance into one set.
