Bleak House; Shaykh Asrar on Hamza Yusuf

Why are you asking kattar for go and ask Mawlana Asrar or the Shaykh.

What do you make of the content of the blog Khadimu?

 

2 questions:

1. Mawlana Asrar says in one video 'video cannot be used as evidence' - so why have him and Danyaal relied on videos to produce an entire blog?

2. Did Mawlana Asrar contact Sheikh Muhammad al-Yaqubi about this issue (read my words, kattarsunni, i'm not asking whether Asrar asked for a fatwa, i'm asking whether he contacted the Sheikh about it, and if so, why?)

 

daft mushtaqur

Getting low and attacking Birmingham now.

I just get the feeling that this group is very desperate for some publicity and so are attacking Western scholars who haven't joined their caravan. What it does do is add to my very low opinion of Birmingham.

I must say that I have no idea why Sandala has decided to put SHY's email address for every Tom, Dick and Daniel to write in to.

@KW: leave the sarcasm to me.



Mushtaqur Rahman

Tue.09.Oct.2012

 

1 No one has implored of Sayyid Shaykh Muhammad alYaqoubi for a fatwa. That is a lie.

2 The Mufti in Halab is known and has a running Darul Ifta, on which he can be contacted. Mufti Huot is also a well known Mufti and Scholar in Halab.

3 Waheed Chishti is Mustapha Baig, who's dad has contacted Hamza Yusuf who has given them wrong information. Or the Tafdili's have added this stuff.

 

Some Waheed Chishti chimes:

 

The previous PDF had a minor typo. This is a correct version of the PDF.

Moderator, please replace the PDF and edit the previous post with the statement in it. Jazaka Allahu Khayran

 

Here's some lessons on what good adab and husn az-zdhann of shuyukh is from a few "sidis":

Told ya, husn az-zdhann and adab only applies to some select few individuals.

 

Some guy called Seth Laffey opines as such:

 

Masud Khan:

And thats exactly what they are attempting to do on deenport with the response from Maulana Asrar.

 

Allama Kazmi said:

 

Mohammed Shakil:

That is in response to a Nuh Keller murid,

 

@Unbeknown:

Once the kufr becomes Iltizam, then the rule of 'man shakka fi kufrihi wa azabihi', and this is pointed out in the above article:

 

Faisal:

Khalid Williams:

 

Faisal Raja refuting a comment:

 

Khalid Williams on deenport:

 

one advice we receive as students of sacred law is to be patient; sometimes, we find explanations in unexpected places. and often, after a long wait.

 

Can someone please explain the above?

Does 'kufr' here imply 'luzumi'? Then would it be appropriate to call it 'kufr' in the first place?

What could be the reasons that would keep a person mu'min despite his holding belief/beliefs that are kufr? Is it merely the ambiguity and room for interpretation or something else? Then if a statement is categorized as definite kufr, why will takfir be witheld ? As in the following statement:

So if he has to repeat the Shahadah, is it out of precaution rather than necessity? What opinion should a non-scholar/layperson hold of such an individual? If he refrains from calling him a kafir would he himself not fall under 'Man Shakka ......'?

The same questions also arise after reading Shaykh Asrar's response:
If Imam Subki et al. did consider the beliefs of ibn-taymiyyah to be kufr, then what made him withold takfir? If once classified as 'kufr', surely ambiguity/intention/interpretation could not be a reason? Was it the reports of his repentance? Or the weakness of the reports of his beliefs?

Ditto for Imam Ahmed Rida witholding from takfir of Dehlawi, it wasn't due to ambiguity but due reports of his repentance.

So what would be the bar in the case of Hanson?

Someone please take time to respond to these queries cause they are very important, especially in these times when a person keeps hearing of deviant opinions all the time: Should he teeter in every case? And what would be the ruling upon him if he did? Didn't Al-Qari say that a belief that violates the dharuriyat ad deen expels a person from islam, ignorance can't be an excuse?

Jazakallah. Wassalaam.

 

Bleak House​

By​

Muhammad Asrar Rashid​

I have a few observations [Mulahazat] regarding the recent retraction of Shaykh Hamza Yusuf on mistakes which he has made.


A: Stating that an action or saying is Kufr [Disbelief] does not necessitate the Takfir [Anathematization] of the individual it has been ascribed to. This is the way of the Ahl al-Sunnah. Imam Taqi al-Din al-Subki in his refutation of the heresies of Ibn Taymiyyah entitled al-Durat al Mudiyah fi alRad a’la Ibn Taymiyyah refers to his positions as Kufr, but throughout the very same work refuses to make Takfir of Ibn Taymiyyah. In the same epistle he refers to the position of Ibn Taymiyyah as a rejection of consensus which is disbelief, but yet does not anathematize any specific individual.


By the same right, learned people have the right to point out positions that are heterodox and disbelief. Highlighting positions that are problematic and in opposition to the consensus does not make anyone an irresponsible Takfiri. Imam Nawawi, Imam Qadi Iyadh and Imam Rafi’i (amongst many others) have pointed out that a person who doubts the disbelief of Jews and Christians himself is a disbeliever. Would anyone have the audacity today to oppose these great Imams on their positions? If anyone were to cite these valid and relied upon positions today we cannot condemn them for doing so.


By the same token, if a Muslim cites the agreed upon position that the Qadiyani Sect, Lahori and other, are Kuffar and rejection of their Kufr is also Kufr, the Ulama of the Ahl al-Sunnah do not condemn him for doing so. In summary, propagating the agreed upon position of the Ahl al-Sunnah does not necessitate the Takfir of an individual unless the position explicit, thus moving from Luzum to Iltizam. The jurists have been more stringent in this regard compared to the theologians. Therefore the scholars have stipulated in this regard that taking the position of the theologians is safer. A clear example is where the jurists have declared anyone who insults the Shaykhayn [Abu Bakr and Umar] as disbelievers, yet the theologians have stated otherwise, however at the same time acknowledging that the latter positions is a heterodox position.


The scholars that I follow also take the position of the theologians over that of the jurists simply because it is the way of precaution. However this does not rule out that a particular position will be referred to as Kufr, yet this does not necessitate the disbelief of the individual. When looking at positions from the books of the scholars it is always necessary to see what the contemporary scholars of that age and later scholars have stated. This is the way of scholarly integrity and honesty. We will take the example of Imam Ghazali’s s passage in ‘Faysal al-Tafriqa’ which has been cited elsewhere by Shaykh Hamza and others. Imam Qadi Iyadh pointed out the mistake of this position and stated that anyone who moves away from the orthodox position on the salvation of the disbelievers has left the consensus and Islam. Yet Imam Khafaji explains in his commentary on the ‘Shifa’ of Qadi Iyadh that the passage from Imam Ghazali s has been taken out of context and the Imam himself has opposed the position ascribed to him. Imam Ibn Hajr al-Makki also exonerates Imam Ghazali by stating that these passages have been tampered and at the same time forwarding Imam Ghazali’s s real position. He does this in ‘al-Swaiq al-Muhriqah’ and ‘al-I’lam bi Qawati’ al-Islam’. Imam Muhammad bin Yusuf al Sanusi also clarifies Imam Ghazzali’s position in his ‘Sharh alMuqaddimat’.


B: Responsibility in an age of Irresponsibility
Fitna [Tribulation] and Bida’ [Heretical Innovation] are sometimes used as synonyms. In a Hadith narrated by al-Khatib and others, it is said “When dissension [Fitan] appears and my companions are cursed, then every learned one must reveal his knowledge. Whoever does not then upon him is the curse of Allah, the angels and Mankind. Allah will not accept any act of justice from him.” In another variation of the same narration the word ‘Fitan’ is exchanged by ‘Bida’’.


Today, we are living in an age where Fitna is rife and the companions are cursed on television, the internet and in literature. If the curse of Allah is upon those who conceal their knowledge, then what about those who spread Fitna [Innovation]? This is why in this age of irresponsibility our responsibilities as callers to Islam are more. Initially when the ‘Lahori Qadiyani’ debate ensued, some individuals aggressively defended the mistaken position. Now that Shaykh Hamza has retracted and acknowledged his mistake, and we commend him for doing so, where do these individuals stand? This is a time for introspection on how we formulate positions within our religion. Do we follow the consensus on a given position or do we follow the odd opinion of one individual without evaluating it with the consensus?

C: Taking Responsibility
When I first refuted Shaykh Hamza in a public lecture on the Dante issue, I referred to him as ‘Mark Hanson’. Some admirers of the Shaykh were offended, and from their perspective they had every right to be.


To me, however, someone teaching Dante’s ‘Inferno’ is as equivalent to teaching Rushdie’s ‘Satanic Verses’. The Messenger of Allah (Peace be Upon him) gave us guidelines with regard to such literature when he said:


“Should the stomach of anyone of you be filled with pus is better than it be filled with poetry in which I am reviled”


Similarly, I took great offence when Shaykh Hamza referred to our Master by his name without adding ‘Sayyiduna’ or saying ‘Salla Allahu alayhi wa Sallam’. In an age when we have Muslims placing the Quran on the floor when reciting it, stretching their feet out towards the Ka’bah, not acknowledging the special qualities of the Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him) , calls for the destruction of the Green Dome in Madinah the Illuminated and destruction of our heritage at the hands of zealots, we need to teach books like the ‘Shifa’ of Qadi Iyadh and the works of Imam Yusuf al-Nabhani . It is not without reason that the author of ‘Dalail al-Khayrat’, Muhammad Ibn Sulayman al-Jazuli , states:


“Oh Allah! Grant us a death on the two testimonies of faith and the Sunnah wal Jama’ah.”

May Allah grant us this and make us responsible people.


Written by His sinful slave,
Asrar Rashid

 

Abu al Mawahib posted on SunnaForum:

Orhan Gazi said: ↑

We wait for a thorough refutation by the excellent and well informed young scholar Muhammad Danyal to some of the cunning used by Hamza. Take people in to a circular argument and keep them confused, this is the new style invented by Mr. Hamza.

In a nutshell, what Hamza wants people to take away from his article:

They are conducting themselves based upon some misguided adherence to their understanding of Islam. They are uncertain in themselves, and so they feel threatened by anyone who might differ with them; through fanaticism, they attempt to protect themselves from doubt but result in only obscuring their view.

Basically anyone who dares criticise Hamza for being misguided or ill-informed on certain issues is infact himself or herself misguided and a fanatic. Great, thanks Hamza!​

​

Muhammad Danyaal has written a response entitled 'A Just Response to an Unjust Critic', in which he has refuted the accusations made against him and the Sunni Ulama of being Takfiris. He has demonstrated how to highlight a statement of Kufr does not necessitate the Takfir of an individual. Several other notions have also been dealt with.
http://adoptingorthodoxy.wordpress.com/

 

Shaykh Asrar Rashid has issued a statement with respects to Hamza Yusuf's recent retraction/article entitled 'Sticks and Drones may break my bones but Fitna really hurts.'

[mod:updated version]