Discussing the Kufr of Yazid

Jazak Allah brother Sherkhan for that last post. Yes sunnis should love each other for the sake of Allah and His Beloved صلى الله عليه وسلم

------------------------
To show the humility of Shah Sahib damatbarkatahum: Once in a speech in Bradford in front of a packed audience including many scholars too he was explaining a point and he referenced some classical text as he always does. Then he stopped paused, his voice broke and he began to sob on the minbar.
He then said (in punjabi: when he gets really emotional he reverts to punjabi since it is his mother tongue although urdu speakers think he is an urdu speaker! [he studied and lived in delhi for some time]., and I paraphrase, "Alhamdulillah I have written marginalia on that book and on many others so that when I die I can say that this dog of the Prophet (meaning himself) [nabi paak day kuttay] has also done some work for the Deen of the Prophet."

In the same speech he was speaking about the Sahaba and he suddenly stopped again and said something like, 'khuda ki qasam jab bhi sahaba ka zikr karta hoon tau dil thar thar kaampta hai. nabi paak kay dost hain, patta nahin kab koi gustaakh baat munh se nikal jaaye...' [roughly: i swear by Allah whenever i talk about the sahaba my heart quakes with fear, they are the friends of the Prophet, one never knows when one might accidentally say something disrespectful..."

This speech is available, I think on video. It was called "Ahle Sunnat Kawn?"

 

aH

I love you brother, abu Hasan. I still highly admire your knowledge, which is so rare among English speakers. I don't doubt your clarifications. My objective of writing was only to ensure that these confusions don't happen any more. Apologies if I sounded very harsh. I have no more complaints against you.

I don't own rights to Mufakkir-e-Islam's speeches. But when passions are inflamed and reactions are so strong, it is best to steer clear of them.

I don't think of Lurker and tazkiyya as necessary evils. How many times have you shown them irrefutable truth and they came back with same nauseating attitude.

 

sher khan brother

i think you are being too harsh on sidi abu hasan. he has repeatedly apologised now and the matter is settled. it is unislamic of you to doubt the intentions of brother aH after such an open and honest retraction and apology.

sir, with all due respect, huzoor mufakkir al islam is not your personal property that you can demand whether we host him on this forum--his ilm is for all sunnis everywhere. i am speaking here as someone who has done bayah of barakat with him and who has met him many times. shah sahib is not in 'need' of any forum. rather, we host his speeches out of love and to gain ilm just like we do with other sunni alims.

stop beating a dead horse.

sidi abu hasan, you will not go away. this forum and others need sunnis like you.

brother abu nibras please lock this forum now.

 

mostly to sherkhan

if it was any another issue, i wouldn't have written so many clarifications.

'maulvi', yes. i said that. i had also forgotten that after i removed posts. i have apologized for that and here i apologize once more - brother abu nibras pointed out in private mail only early today that i was hasty in dropping the title because of the rule 'innocent until proven guilty'.

i am sorry i did so and yes, i was wrong in doing so. if i haven't said it earlier, here, i am saying it now.

i did not listen to the speech to fault the shaykh. sure, i have become cynical after having gone through many speakers, but certainly, i did not listen to criticize or fault the shaykh. truth be told, this is the first speech of the shaykh that i have properly listened to. and as i commented in a post, i didn't understand some of it, due to the punjabi used and some poor quality sound.

well, if so many people think like that, perhaps you are right. i will take it - and i will restrain myself from criticising others atleast in the near future, inshaAllah, being suspicious of my own judgement.

for the last time: i asked for a clarification. i did so because it was posted here. i certainly do tawbah for all sins of commission and omission; willing and inadvertent, but this particular act is not sacrilege.

i just questioned whether the shaykh could say so, and asked for a clarification. i did not accuse him of takfir and in a post [probably deleted one] is said: 'if the shaykh says just as i have heard him and transcribed it here, then it is a kalimah of kufr'. even there i abstained from making takfir because it requires a formal inquiry by muftis and alaHazrat's advice: 'kalimah e kufr hona aur baat hai, kaafir hona aur baat hai' [paraphrased].

i did not tarnish somebody's reputation. i was worried that such a central sunni figure could say something and a multitude of his followers getting into a big controversy. ultimately, it would be ahlu's sunnah that would suffer. i made a public enquiry to a public speech that certainly had an objectionable statement in the absence of a clarification. i asked for that clarification.

bad generalization or on second thoughts you are probably right.

or better still, i shall go away. this forum belongs to all sunnis and they should decide what stays or not. why should a community forum suffer for the poor judgement of one of its members?

if at all, any one person had the right to decide on this forum, it would be brother abu nibras. he does everything - design, housekeeping, maintenance, upkeep - he even pays for it. i am just there as a troublemaker.

in the circumstances, the best thing would be for me to go away.

i am against this. it is nothing about free-speech, it only gives you other viewpoint. Lurker is not a deobandi, just another cynical sunni. we have banned spammers like ibn arabi in the past who just wanted to create disorder. but soft-deobandis like taz should be a non-issue. that only serves to reinforce our certitude in being right.

ma's salamah.
wa billahi't tawfiq wa ilayhi uneeb.

 

to aH

Since I don't have the opportunity to post on the thread that has been closed, I will make few pertinent points here anyway. I have been tracking all the comments posted over last week.

I am extremely pained by brother abu Hasan's attempt to fault Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jilani (damat barakatahu).

I am not a murid of Shah sahib, neither do I know any of his close murids in person (nor am I a die-hard fan of moderators at yanabi.com). But having resided in London for past couple of years, I have had fortune of attending some of Mufakkir-e-Islam's speeches. Wallahi, I haven't known a better and more knowlegable speaker in my life. I have been fortunate enough to attend a number of majalis and heard a cross-section of very eminent speakers. I admire many of them, but I haven't seen an ulema as well-versed in so many ulooms at the same time. Anyway, I will now move away from singing paeans to Mufakkir-e-Islam (since it may irk quite a number of users here, who seem to direct their dislike for yanabi.com to this venerable Shaikh).

Abu Hasan, I had so long admired your scholarship and your courage to counter baatil beliefs. If I were to spend next decade fully devoted to mastering Islamic sciences, I doubt I would ever come up to your standard of knowledge. Given your scholarship, I would expect you to have healthy scepticism against any ulema (Sunni or otherwise). But I suspect you have been guilty of arrogance stemming from your knowledge. It's the bane for most scholars (although I expect you to protest 'humbly' that you are not one), and sadly you couldn't rise above it. I suspect that all the naarebaazi that goes in Shaikh's majalis also makes you futher sceptical about him.

aH, when you listened to Mufakkir-e-Islam's speech, you listened with a "critical" ear. That you found couple of errors (that none else could find) speaks of your niyyah. Sadly, both errors were a case of jumping to early conclusion after mishearing the speech. Your tawbah doesn't absolve you of the shame and disgrace you "unintentionally" tried to bring to Shaikh (who frankly has many detractors, and personally he won't care a whit if he had more!). Abu Fadl isn't wrong in claiming that you used disparaging terms for him. Looks like some messages have been selectively expunged. I distinctly remember the Shaikh being referred to as maulvi (which was incidentally misspelt). Although Maulvi isn't a pejorative term, but of late terms like mullah and maulvis have come to carry negative connotations. Nobody calls an Allamah, a maulvi anymore. As you yourself said, maulvis these days are very jazbati and loose and say lot of things without realizing the impact they make on layman!

aH, when you murkied the water, it became infested by mosquitos like Lurker, Tazkiyyah and Calltoallah, who had a field day throwing some muck at the Shaikh. Some queried the imamah that he wore and some questioned his teachers and education. At the same time, these vermins demanded that they and their own aqaid teachers be shown some 'husn-e-zann"!

aH, you must realise that tawbah you make after tarnishing somebody's reputation is incomplete since you directly wronged the person. You delved into kufriyat of Shaikh's saying, without giving a thought to the stature and lineage of Shaikh. I may be wrong, but I presume that you are based in UK. How come you have not been aware of the stature of Mufakkir-e-Islam, before stooping to condemning him? Shaikh is a doyen of Ahle-Sunnah and he hasn't got such lofty reputation for nothing. Allamas of Indo-Pak are in awe of him, and likes of Zahid Hussain Shah sahib, Ghazali-e-Zaman etc. have utmost regard for him.

aH, did you think you were serving the society by castigating such loose speech? You cannot hide behind the excuse that no one is above shariah and every muslim has a right to question other's beliefs (which wahabi/deo/unclassified users like Lurker etc. like to exercise every now and then). It is fine when you query aalims like Sh. Tahir-ul-Qadri, but you cannot apply the same critique to Mufakkir-e-Islam. Many before you have tried to fault his knowledge, but have failed to make that stick.

The reasons that I also respect the Shaikh is that I have heard him making tawbah in public for a light (but loose) comment he had made regarding his colleague maulana. Not many with his level of following and knowledge have guts to do so in public.

I shudder to think that had brother Asif not brought forth a clear refutation, Mufakkir-e-Islam would have been continued to be mucked around on this forum.

aH and nJ, I demand that this forum not host any speeches by Mufakkir-e-Islam anymore. Please remove all his speeches. Shah sahib is not in need of this forum.

aH (and mods), if there is any atonement you could do (in my eyes), please permanently ban Lurker, tazkiyyah etc. from this forum. How you tolerate these parasites boggles me. All this free-speech excuses are plain drivels.

 

ok i shouldn't have suspected your intentions but i did that because you seemed to be defending yazid mal'un which is cause enough. sorry. (btw are you sahib al kashf to know that i am not sahib al kashf? ;-) )

[btw i am not!]

 

alhamdulillah, it is good to hear that this has been cleared up. I apologise to anyone if they were offended by any of my remarks and/or posts.

And I didn't know you were Sahib al-Kashf to know what my intention was in asking for a man's credentials. And I wasn't asking for Peer Saheb's credentials, I was asking for Syed Irfan Shah's. And in a time and age like this, please dont discourage people from asking about credentials, people should ask! I bet you yourself dont even know either of their credentials, but anyway...

And I liked how Abu Fadl went on end listing Peer Saheb's endorsements from fellow Sunni Ulama in the PAST, as if that is what leads to a man's exoneration in the PRESENT. His past endorsements are *secondary*, and they are not what frees a man from his actions and words done in the present, but his words/actions are what needs to be fully examined "in and of themselves" under the sacred Law before moving on to any recommendations or endorsements or what have you. Merely listing a man's credentials and endorsements is simply not enough. And why? Because men greater in knowledge and piety have trodden this earth who have said strange things which at first hand *APPEAR* to be kufr, but were later freed from this on account of investigation and NOT due to because they were famous, or because so and so shaykh or mufti had endorsed him in the past. [ look into the whole issue between ibn Arabi's words and ibn Taymiyya's and you'll realize that both of these men were greater in knowledge than Peer Saheb, yet both were accused of kufr]. Anyhow, this issue has been laid to rest, thank Allah. alhamdulillah! case closed.

 

Lurker,
The smell of 'possible kufr' has been cleared up Mr. Lurker, haven't you heard? This isn't Ashraf Ali Thanawi we're talking about here...

If you read the other thread you will have known that we were wrong, there was nothing wrong with Qibla Shah Sahib's verse, we misheard it. The actual verse was not mentioning Allah at all but was addressing the Day of Judgement.

As for your question about asking for credentials in principle there is nothing wrong you are right but when one suspects that the intention is not a pure one one can decline. However I apologise to you if you asked with good faith.

Suffice it to say Shah Sahib is one of the most learned scholars in Islam at the moment and accepted by all Sunnis for his vast knowledge. He has been teaching the classical texts for decades as well. Let alone the classical texts he has taught the Mathnawi of Rumi 14 times from cover to cover!

 

All I can say to my brothers on here is to stick to traditional ulama like Shaykh Syed Abdul Qadir Jilani and Pir Irfan Mashadi Shah Sahib and ignore these internet surfers who cannot even name one teacher from whom they have studied. You can't expect any better from the deobandi moaners who often find chances on this forum to attack our scholars and faith based on the writing of some members of the forum; but hearing it from "i know it all sunnis"!?!

As for Shaykh Jilani Shah Sahib, he is regarded in great respect and honour from the great ulama of ahl as-sunnah today like (from india) Taj-ush-Sharia Akhtar Raza Barelwi, Hazrat Shaykh Madni Mian and countless scholars from Pakistan who regard him as one the greatest living scholars (i have heard these in gatherings and tapes myself), as well as scholars from the past such as Ghazali e Zaman Kazmi Shah, Zia ul Ummat Pir Karam Shah, Allama Hazravi Kachucha Shareef Ulama (rahimahumullah), ...and you have arrogant and ignorant cowboys on here who have absolutely no standing or wujood even using slanderous and insulting comments against our akabir scholars, it is despicable. Spitting at the sun will only dirty your own face.

 

For a blok who cant smell the scent of possible kufr, I could care less what your nose picks up. And check the archives, I've already made it clear that I am not Deobandi.

As for asking me of my credentials, you employ such silly logic. Since when does one need "credentials" to ask about a scholar's credentials? Do you see me speaking from the pulpit? No, you dont. So then don't worry about my credentials. As for those that do, then there's nothing wrong in asking for it. In fact, in the era we live in, it is all the more pressing to ask about a speaker's credentials. The day you stop investigating a man's credentials and just go by what zaid and 3amr think of the man is the day you start opening yourself up to all sorts of risks.
You're a funny guy NaqshiJ, your mantiq is full of emotion and hence your premises are flawed and thereby making your conclusions inane.
Good day

 

tell us your credentials for asking the credentials of a scholar like sayyid irfan shah sahib/sayyid abdal qadir shah sahib first, lurker?
if someone spits at the sun, they only dirty their own face.

are you a deobandi? i can smell a rat.

 

Actually, I retract the "why am I not surprised" as I earlier thought CalltoAllah was referring to Syed Irfan Shah when he disagreed with al-Ghazali(rahmatullah-alaihe). But apparently CalltoAllah was referring to Pir Abdul Qadir Jilani Saheb.

But yes, I would still like to know Syed Irfan Shah's credentials.

Did anyone get a chance to ask Pir Jilani Saheb about his line under "poetic(pathetic) license" yet? I dont live that close to his town or else I would have asked myself.

 

The caliph who did Rasulullah's ('alaihi 's-salam) task of guidance as he had done was called Khalifat rashida. These were perfect, real caliphs. The caliph who did not carry out this task precisely and who did not obey Islam was called Khalifat jabira.. [Shah Wali-Allah ad-Dahlawi, Izalat al-Khafa, v. II, p.330].


"Rasulullah's ('alaihi 's-salam) task of guidance had three parts. The first one was to have Allahu ta'ala's commands and prohibitions obeyed by using power and force. This is called 'sultanate'. His second task was to teach His commands and prohibitions. His third task called 'ihsan' was to purify the heart. Al-Khulafa' ar-rashidin did all of these three tasks. Those who succeeded them did only the task of sultanate. The task of teaching was given to the imams of madhhabs, and the task of ihsan was given to the great men of tasawwuf." .. [Shah Wali-Allah ad-Dahlawi, Izalat al-Khafa, v. II, p.342. A hadith written on its 567th page calls such a caliph "Malik al-adud", who has been called "caliph" symbolically. The khulafa al-jabira came next.].


"VII: Yazid ibn Muawiya became the caliph in 60 and died four years later in Hawwarin, which is located between Damascus and Tadmur. He was buried there. (23-64)


"VII: Muawiya It ibn Yazid was very intelligent, very pious and very just. He resigned from caliphate after forty days. (44-64)

 

Only :edit: from the deobandi school have defended yazid, that is quite apparent from this thread also, playing obvioulsy on the hands of certain "know it all" sunni mods.

 

as for the generality of your post on the ikhtilaf amongst sunnis on yazid's kufr i agree with you.

 

you cannot compare the murders of ordinary muslims by saddam--although that was tyrannical--with the murder of imam e hussain. if nasibis didn't exist it wouldn't be worth discussing calltoallah but to paraphrase a famous saying, 'is fehrist mein bhi baRe pardadaaroN kay naam aate hain'. of course we must provide evidence, for example, that mufti taqi usmanis papa and mawdudi signed the book rasheed ibn rasheed in which imam husayn was made out to be the guilty party and called names. will you then admit the author of rasheed ibn rasheed and those who signed the book are nasibis and la'anatis?

 

apologies for straying from the topic at hand which is regarding the iman/kufr of yazid. the sunni scholars have differed on this, some have stated that he is a kafir and therefore cursing him is permissible. imam al-taftazani held this opinion as we have mentioned already and ibn al-jawzi was another who dedicated a book to the subject. imam al-suyuti in his tarikh al-khulafa curses him when he mentions his name.

other scholars chose silence due to the fact that his kufr is not established and therefore had husn ud-dhann of him stating he was a believer. imam al-ghazali held this opinion and it was endorsed by ali al-qari and al-haytami both stating that this is the mawqif of the jumhur.

given the ikhtilaf of the scholars, and our being laymen, we simply follow one of the top opinions. the way of precaution of course would be to remain silent on his iman.

as for the nasibis and those who condemn imam al-husayn, then we have nothing to do with them. in fact i don't think they are even worth mentioning in this discussion.

 

I am not praising yazid

ITS interesting that saddam hussain killed hundreds of thousands of muslims-sunnis shias and kurds.
We have no record of a public tawbah of this from him.

But shaykh abdal qadir jelani's website yaanabee dat com
has the video at the top of the page telling of how
that man is now a shaheed.