Junayd: It would be interesting if you could furnish up some references for the quote you have attributed to A'la Hadrat. You will find it different to what others are saying. Naqshbandi and Wadood may agree on much more now as this is an old discussion that took place three years ago. Much water has passed under the bridge since then.
This is not at ALL a Wahhabi view since numerous Sunni scholars held the same opinion. Even Alahazrat said the same. He is a Prophet since his birth in the knowledge of Allah, not that the Prophet knew it on beforehand that the Qur'an will be revealed to him. The knowledge of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) increased gradually as Alahazrat Imam Ahmad Raza Khan said in his Dawlat al-Makkiya.
How convenient it is for you to say that someone is putting words into your mouth sidi. These are my own words, and I used the vocabulary you used, "sacrosanct" and "fair game". Is it that hard to understand English? How do I sound like? Do I sound like a Sunni? On another note, do we come on forums to PR Scholars?
i of course said none of the above words which you've so conveniently put into my mouth. all fair minded brothers on here would admit i am one of the biggest promoters of the scholars you listed with the possible exception of shaykh nuh on the issue of deos and shaykh hamza on his statement about the prophet.
Which rule? What are these rules? Who is making these unknown rules for the 'fallible' scholars of Ahl al -Sunnah. Let me use your language Sidi Asif. Shaykh Hamza Yusuf is not sacrosanct, he is a fair game. Imam Zaid Shakir is not sacrosanct, he is a fair game. The Habaib are not sacrosanct, they are a fair game. Shaykh Muhammad al-Ya'qoubi is not sacrosanct, he is a fair game. Shaykh Muhammad Yahya al-Ninowy is not sacrosanct, he is a fair game. Shaykh Nazim al-Haqqani is not sacrosanct, he is a fair game. Shaykh GF Haddad is not sacrosanct, he is a fair game. Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller is not sacrosanct, he is a fair game. Pir Mufakkire Islam Abdul Qadir Jilani is not sacrosanct, he is a fair game Pir Syed Irfan Shah Mashadi is not sacrosanct, he is a fair game. Shaykh Pirzada is not sacrosanct, he is a fair game. ..now how do I sound like? Do I sound like a Sunni?
why are some scholars considered sacrosanct and others are fair game? Shouldn't the same rule apply to all?
It is not a personal attack, I don't know why you think as such, you have been invloved in so much of bickering in the past, so from that experience you should know that there is no personal attack in this thread.
i did NOT have the same objection. How could I have when I didn't even KNOW about what shaykh hamza said in that series of lectures...i hadn't HEARD them yet. Get it bro?
Please dont put words into my mouth. There is no issue here and there is no deobandi nonsense here that you like to repeat. You had the same objection on yanaabi.com TWO YEARS ago, and the same story. You have forgotten. Keep on repeating this objection for the next 10 years.
my dear brother wadood! calm down and have some chaai-e-sabz! now, dear biradar, please READ what I wrote: I ONLY heard these talks of Hamza Yusuf and his claim that the Prophet 'did not know he was a prophet until the Revelation came' TWO NIGHTS ago. NEVER before then. So whether Hamza came to the UK or not before two nights ago is immaterial. Secondly, I myself have NOT been in the UK for any length of time for some years now. Thirdly, if i ever get to meet Shaykh Hamza I will ask him but in the meanwhile whilst promoting this exceptional series of talks it is also my duty to tell others of what I found problematic therein. So stop acting petulantly my dear brother and try to address the issue. Don't try to use a Deobandi-style obsfuscation 'oh he SAID this but what he REALLY meant was this only he used THAT word BECAUSE of X YZ and our akabir can never be wrong!..'
Sidi Asif, you repeat the same old empty story again after two years. Let me ask again, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf has been in England a number of times. He was in Ghamkol Sharif Masjid. 1. Why did you not make the EFFORT and go and ask him directly about this issue so that you can keep your heart at rest and not waste time repeating it again? 2. If you were really worried about the honour of the Prophet, you would have made the EFFORT of asking him while he was available to the public in England on many occasions. 3. You have kept this grievance about the honour of Sayyiduna HabeebAllah salAllaho 'alayhi wa alihi wa salam in your heart for TWO YEARS? 4. And you also found NO ONE among the so many students of Shaykh Hamza who could have helped you for two years? People just talk on the net. They don't work hard. It could be forum addiction.
7. the reason i mentioned the fact he was a convert was from my husn e zann of shaykh hamza. i.e. it was an excuse as to why perhaps he explained this about our Prophet differently to how i have grown up hearing it from sunni scholars. 8. again i am a big admirer of shaykh hamza. criticism or questioning a scholar on one point doesn't make one a fitna-monger if it is done with a good niyyat. 9. if someone says something about huzoor paak صلى الله عليه وسلم which is not true we must not look at who it was who said it even if it is our own shaykh or our own father! the honour of the prophet is greater! 10. i hope some of shaykh hamza's students/reps on here can answer. perhaps it IS a difference of opinion amongst Ahlus Sunnah?
sidi wadood. 1.i did not even know that the same objection has been pointed out by others at yanabi.com. 2. it is not a personal attack on shaykh hamza. i think my post made clear i am a big admirer. but if a scholar says something we do not understand or agree with we have a right to ask of it. 3. i have not been in the UK for the past 2 years! 4. it is not an attempt at bickering but of asking a genuine question. i hope u understand. Shaykh Hamza is a Sunni and it is allowed to differ on issues whilst still respecting a Sunni. 5. Therefore please have husn e zann of me! 6. No scholar is infallible.
When will this silly dribble of being a 'convert' end, la hawla wala quwwata illa bilAllah, I do not know. What about Muslims in Turkey/Albania/Romania/Bulgaria/Russia/Kosovo who knew nothing about Islam, but became proper Sunni Muslims today, would they too come under the class of converts as Shaykh Hamza Yusuf by Sidi Asif's reasoning above. Shaykh Hamza Yusuf is taught by Sayyiduna Murabit al-Hajj, Allahu Akbar! He has attended the suhba of Awliya Allah, the stars of Ahl al-Sunnah today, from the south of Morocco to the north of Morocco for at least 2 decades now. He has attended the suhba of the Sayyids of al-Ahsa for at least a decade now. He is not some suhufi as brother Yasir Khan was mentioning in another thread. He has gained his knowledge from people who do not read books, but keep books in memory and transmit it from teacher to student throughout the centuries. Sayyiduna Murabit al-Hajj hafizuhuAllah ta'ala
I would advise you to meet Shaykh Hamza Yusuf and ask him this objection of yours, which has been much debated on yanaabi.com against Shaykh Hamza Yusuf for many years. It could be their main grievance. Shaykh Hamza Yusuf is quite accessible to meet. He comes to England. You can ask him this directly. Ask him what he means by 'the Prophet did not know he was a prophet until the onset of the Revelation'. Another grievance on yanaabi.com was that Shaykh Hamza Yusuf was spreading around the belief that HabeebAllah salAllaho 'alayhi wa aalhi wa salam was being taught by Sayyiduna Jibraeel knowledge which RasulAllah salAllaho 'alayhi wa aalihi wa salam did not know. Sidi Asif, it is quite schocking to see you repeat the same old objection and repeat the same husn zan of him being a convert that I heard from you at least 2 years ago. Since then, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf has been in England a number of times in masjids like Ghamkol Sharif in Birmingham. Why did you not make the effort to ask him this and then settle your heart? He is so open to questions, subhanAllah. Now, we can speculate and speculate, waste time and space, and energy on this issue once the yanaabi crowd appears, and it might go into the bickering section. But I hope it does not turn out that way.
:s1: Shaykh Hamza Yusuf has given a wonderful series of talks based on the Sira of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم entitled, Life of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, which is, essentially, Shaykh Hamza's explanation and commentary on Martin Lings' excellent biography. It is a talk in 48 parts and covers the Sira of our Master صلى الله عليه وسلم: in great detail and with Shaykh Hamza's inimitable style. Allah bless him! It is truly beautiful and I have so-far listened to 12 (of 48) of the talks. It is chronological. Highly recommended: http://msa.kaist.ac.kr/kis/resources1/2_Lectures & Debates/Hamza Yusuf/The Life of The Prophet Mohammad - mp3/ I would also recommend buying the CD set insha Allah. May Allah give us the tawfiq. Anyway it is worthy of praise --as is Martin Lings (alayhirahmat) book --Shaykh Hamza recommends reading it at least once a year!-- but in one of the lectures, Shaykh Hamza said something which is, with all due respect, not correct according to our aqidah. He said that 'the Prophet did not know he was a prophet until the onset of the Revelation'. naudhubillah. This is what the Wahabis say. I'm not accusing Shaykh Hamza of that but this is certainly not our Sunni view --as a convert he is allowed a lot of leaway since it depends who taught him that and also his view now might have changed since this talk is a few years old--but this view goes against the Sunni view of the Prophet being a Prophet from the moment Allah created Him and knowing that He is a Prophet even at his birth. Our view is that, just like Sayyidina Isa :as: who declared his prophethood at birth, our Prophet too knew he was a Nabi and a Rasool at birth but was not commanded to reveal it until the age of 40. Other than that one point there is nothing but praise for his series of lectures! Subhan Allah!
