Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Aqidah/Kalam' started by AR Ahmed, Aug 14, 2019.
Excellent evaluation by aH.
But this is the problem
This and that? So theres no major problems then?
No Primary differences just secondary non Aqida issues?
Isn’t this what tahir ul wrote in the 80’s?
Problematic. Very problematic.
Using this as a reference sullah kullis, perennialists, promotors of kufr, the list goes on, and on, they all got green light?
incredible. there are so many things wrong in this clip. so many contradictions...
i watched the small portion that is transcribed here.
this only proves that merely having many sanads, or having elevated sanads, or having sanads from great men - this in itself does not make one a faqih. nas'alu Allaha al-aafiyah.
i am sure, shaykh yaqubi's [cult] followers will insist on blind following and preach to us on the necessity of abstaining from criticism. because you see, people-criticism is anathema to islam. our forefathers were a people who invented the jarH and ta'adil [narrator criticism] system; and did not spare anyone from criticism. however, WE should not criticise anything - even flagrant violations of the shariah of celebrity shaykhs. because you know, 'unity'...
what can one do about it? when celebrity scholars are hobnobbing with popes, asking them to pray for them, exhorting muslims to celebrate christmas; some of them claiming that trinity can be concordant with islam - and 'scholars' sitting there without batting an eyelid - etc etc. - what effect will it have on the weak and ignorant muslims? but shush! we must not criticise them. we must join with them and be all bonhomie with them. if ignoramuses leave the religion for petty benefits, we must only show concern to get back at critics.
so what did yaqubi sahib do about these conversions? or any of the prominent shuyukh?
once, a person came to my teacher and among other things he was discussing, he complained about a group of 'muslims' who had converted to hinduism. my teacher - raHimahullah - shrugged and said: 'most likely they did not even know what is necessary to be a muslim. so it was easy for them to be converted. let them come here and try to convert us.'
but so-called 'scholars' who promote crosses, attend mass in churches, invite christians to celebrate christmas in mosques - what about them? oh no. yaqubi sahib does not like criticising them.
why is yaqubi sahib lamenting people becoming christians? wasn't it tahir, who gathered all kuffar and asked them to call 'their god in their own tradition'. and a christian priest said: 'jesus son of god'.
oh, where would yaqubi find time to criticise him? sacrilege! don't criticise tahir. don't criticise hamza yusuf. but like a seasoned politician, just throw hints and make vague statements that gives enough fuel for blind and dumb cult followers to justify their shaykh's errors of omission. because you see, yaqubi said:
was yaqubi talking about the 'study qur'an'? or just making a general comment on the practice of most heretics who twist the scripture to suit their own belief-system?
did yaqubi sahib make any comment on the 'study quran'? hamza yusuf praised this work and the murtad nasr, thus:
but hey! leave hamza yusuf alone. you go fight those missionaries converting people somewhere. don't talk about the study quran. because it is not yaqubi's job. when hamza yusuf says that we should not claim that truth is confined to muslims [or something like that], is it not a license for ignorant and weak muslims to try out other options?
some hadith scholars of our time freely interpret ahadith to show inclusiveness - have you forgotten the amman message and the attempt to send christians to paradise?
tahir cannot even term them kafirs - as he invented a new system: believers and non-believers. and believers are of two kinds: muslims and people of the book: christians and jews.
if this is the case, then why is lamenting those who left islam for christianity?
shaykh yaqubi makes this statement
he explicitly says that we should not 'fight' against each other, 'put our guns' against each other. this he says without qualifying the statement.
is refuting heresies wrong? probably yaqubi sab needs to learn something about our salaf.
when an imam felt mortified for criticising others, imam ahmad rebuked him and said: "if you keep quiet and if i keep quiet, then how will a person without knowledge learn the truth?" [jahil here refers to someone who doesn't know about a thing; not an absolute ignoramus]
ibn mubarak said to some sufi who reproached him for what he deemed 'back-biting': "shut up. if we do not clarify and explain, how will truth be manifest from falsehood?'
person-A criticised a narrator; person-B criticised person-A in the presence of the great muhaddith ibn ulayyah, and reproached him for [what he claimed was] backbiting. ibn ulayyah said: "o ignoramus! [ya jaahil!] he has given you good counsel - this is a trust he fulfils; it is not backbiting."
hamza yusuf and tahir may be dear to yaqubi - the pristine shariah is dearer to us than any of them.
come again? according to what standards?
if he is talking about someone else, i don't know. but for us, i.e., alahazrat's followers, we do not make takfir until a person abnegates a necessary component of religion (daruriyat).
so according to yaqubi:
1. imam bukhari can refute shiah and mutazilah and khawarij. but that is not 'fighting' amongst ourselves [i.e. within muslims].
2. but we should not refute hamza or yaqubi (for being pals with a open wahabi like akram nadwi - who does not even have the basic etiquette of talking about RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam). or tahir for claiming that RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam invited christians to pray in masjid al-nabawi according to their own tradition. or those who claim that trinity can be concordant with islam.
one may object: sh. yaqubi is saying this because you claim shiah are kafir; imam bukhari narrated from shiah. by this standard, imam bukhari would be kafir. this is what the shaykh was expounding.
bahut acche. very good. but can yaqubi please explain:
1. what did 'shiah' mean in imam bukhari's time?
2. are there only one kind of shiah, or whether there are different kinds of shiah?
3. if there are many kinds, which ones are ruled kafir and which ones are not?
4. can we call the rafidis - who call themselves shiah - who claim that the imams of the ahl al-bayt are superior to prophets?
5. what about those who revile sahabah?
6. what about those who say unspeakable things about our mother sayyidah ayishah?
7. were the shiah narrators of imam bukhari, from the above groups?
8. have any sunni imams ruled shiah as kafir?
9. is it not intellectual dishonesty to make such a vague statement and mislead gullible followers? personally, yaqubi would be ruled unreliable for making such an egregious blunder. either he has not read ibn Hajar's explanation [unlikely] - OR - he is concealing this information to buttress a silly argument [most likely].
we have refuted these arguments (drawing from ibn Hajar and other imams) on this very site. what a royal letdown.
yes, we should not fight on small issues - but on issues of aqidah and islam, there are no holy cows. no hamza yusuf. no yaqubi. no tahir.
but we should not refute modern mutazili resurgence, in their claim that "Allah ta'ala can lie". deobandis proudly assert that "Allah ta'ala can lie". but yaqubi's ghayrah and conscience will sleep soundly by ignoring this and many other aberrations of deobandis.
in that very bukhari that yaqubi sahib recited, is the hadith:
yeah, imam abul hasan al-ash'ari was wrong. he wasted his time refuting mutazilah until his last breath. so also many imams in their fight against the REAL enemies within. it is deplorable that yaqubi wants us to embrace heretics and brands those who refute heretics as 'enemies within'.
إلى الله المشتكى
yeah, what did anyone do about it? did yaqubi sahib or his followers do anything about it? apart from other attacks on ulama by the razor-punk-rascal. him and atabek and others.
what did yaqubi do about study quran? his best friend hamza yusuf promotes the demonic work. but yaqubi is worried only about himself and his friends being criticised - he cannot gather the courage to refute that work. because it is not his job.
but yaqubi sahib won't tell you that narrating from a heretic and being friends/brothers with heretics is not the same thing.
the impression yaqubi wants to give is that shiah and khawarij are all his brothers. in this statement he is repeating the inane accusations of shiah/rawafid. as i said, either he does not know WHY or he is wilfully distorting / concealing the truth. la Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah.
also, according to yaqubi, one cannot narrate from someone who says lying [for humans] is permitted.
but one has to be friends and brothers with those who say lying for Allah is possible. [al-iyadhu billah].
it is a weird world.
'There is so much to speak about when we speak about Imam al-Bukhari but one thing I would like to highlight before we go into the text here. I would like to draw one example from Sahih al-Bukhari to highlight the importance of the unity of the Muslim ummah today.
It's very important that the Muslim ummah should unite today. We've been quite busy as groups and sometimes as sects fighting against each other or fighting against others, putting our guns against each other rather than against the true enemies of Islam.
And this is very dangerous. I would say that the worst enemies of Islam are from within ourselves. Either people who claim to be Muslims and they are destroying Islam and we have many examples of them: people denying the sunnah of the Messenger ﷺ, people even denying the interpretations of al-Quran al-Karim, the agreed upon, the consensus on the agreement and the agreement of the interpretation of al-Quran al-Karim - people denying fiqh - but we have people trying to destroy each other just because they belong to different groups or let's say different madh'habs.
And this is very wrong. And I would like to highlight here that you know, wherever we come from, we're sufis, we're salafis, you're Barelwis, you're deobandis, tablighis; wherever you come from, we are Muslims.
We believe in Allah subhanu wa ta'ala, ash'hadu an la ilaha illa Allah, we believe in ash'hadu anna Muhammad al-RasulAllah. We believe in the five pillars of Islam. We pray to one qiblah, the same qiblah. And the list is so long that unites us together as Muslims. We need to put our efforts now to support each other to protect Muslims.
How about those who are proselytising Christianity and picking up refugees, for example, going to the Philippines or Nigeria or here and there and converting born Muslims into Christianity.
What have we done to support? What have we done about someone claiming, someone promoting homosexuality and claiming that he is a mufti and at the same time, hinting that great scholars like Imam Nawawi were homosexuals.
What have we done towards these people? Other than picking up Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqubi, picking up Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, picking up this or that, Tahir al-Qadri, picking up this person or that and saying, "this is a kafir because he made that statement."
Well, according to these standards, Imam Bukhari himself could be kafir according to these people because he narrated from shiah! Amongst his teachers are shiah! Yet he refuted shiah in his book.
He narrated the hadith that mut'ah, temporary marriage is forbidden. Many times. Amongst his teachers were khawarij, deviators, yet he refuted khawarij. Whenever he mentions Fatimah, he said 'peace be upon her'. Whenever he mentions Sayyiduna Ali or Sayyiduna al-Husayn, 'alayhim assalam', etc. I highlighted this actually feature in my introduction. The position of Imam Bukhari towards ahl al-bayt.
He narrated from some pro-Mutazalis amongst his teachers but he refuted Mutazalis. And he authored the book actually, Khalq af'ali li'l ibad also refuting Mutazalis.
Because the issue has to do with hadith narration. And hadith narration has it's own conditions. So the narrator should not be fanatic. The narrator should not be a caller to his bidah. And the narration itself should not be in support of his opinions.
So he would not narrate hadith from someone who said lying is permitted. There are certain conditions. When these conditions were met, it did not matter to him whether the narrator was pro-khawarij or pro-shiah. It shows you that knowledge is above. Because the goal is to preserve the words of the prophet ﷺ. The goal is to support this dīn.'
Watch 37 mins onwards
In the Bukhari khatm in Ashton shaykh Yaqoobi has just said that barelwis and deobandis and salafis "are our brothers."
He said this in the presence of Yaseen, Waseem, Wajib Iqbal students,...... and many other teachers and no one has spoken up.