Shaykh Yaqoubi RIS 2013

He actually states that Sufis and Christians would worship together in the same lecture:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qbOrSrEHP4&list=UU4AHmdSYSVfuQdLmtJieL1w

This whole thing is dubious.

 

No wonder Mark say's stuff like.. he sure isn't taking theology outside the classroom

“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.”

I think these Soofis need to open monasteries in some remote areas and worship God side by side with monks to bring love and respect.

With such theology they can go to hell!

 

an old post.

 

really, honestly the padri tahir is not alone in his mission and he is either a cohort or takes his inspiration or cues from people like keller and the hadrami geoffrey and o-mar and so on. anytime we lash out at the padri, people like this deserve an equal share.

 

see mark hanson's 'who are the disbelievers?' for a detailed analysis of this problem, in addition to a bunch of his talks on this topic. according to mark hanson, only abu jahl and abu lahab and firawn and their ilk can be called kafirs.

yes. to be more clear about their euphemisms, by 'theological circles' they are referring to their own cult gatherings and classes.

their message is - you are not qualified to teach or learn the Quran without their sanction. the Quran cannot be interpreted by common fools such as yourself, neither can you or are you authorized to read the works of the masters of tafsir, hadith, fiqh etc.

the bottom line that they preach - 'we are wholesale distributors of the interpretations of the Quran, and any and every interpretation must pass through us. every verse of the Quran has hidden contexts and allegorical meanings and only we know how to extract them. if you want anything from knowledge or spiritual fuyud, sign up for our courses, do what we say, buy our used jubbas at auctions, and conform to the standards of our puppet masters'

i know for a fact, keller's murids censor any and every mention of citing texts by the masters like ibn humam or al-haytami or others. why it is simply bad adab to bring out a Shafi3i opinion in front of the opinion of the ignorant as a rock sheikh. just mentioning the general principles of takfir as you did in your TKM, for instance, stating the general principle that 'throwing the Quran in the rubbish takes one outside of Islam' is labelled as 'doing takfir'.

the list goes on.

as the hadith says, a believer is not bitten from the same hole twice.

i used to be on the husn az-zdhann vibe against such cult masters, but not, my personal rule for respecting shuyukh is very simple - one strike and you're out. you're either with us, or you're with the enemies of Islam.

although takfir can't and shouldn't be done for wishy washy and obscure statements, such statements show the worth of such 'shuyukh'
---------------------------------

i said on the other thread too (http://www.sunniport.com/masabih/showpost.php?p=44142&postcount=36) about the rotten nazi dog ratzinger's speech

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regensburg_lecture

and see what 38 'respectable' shuyukh had to reply to that with

http://ammanmessage.com/media/openLetter/english.pdf

http://ammanmessage.com/media/openLetter/arabic.pdf

this open letter was the illegitimate father of the 'a common word' letter that followed it - both letters were crafted by the same evil bunch of devils who only deserve to have their beards shaved and their faces adorned with the pope's shoes

 

and what about hundreds of verses in the quran that say kafirs will go to hell? should we stop teaching the qur'an outside theological circles?

 

shaykh yaqubi says in this clip:

2.25
one of the major problems we have is taking theology outside classes of theology into the society. these are two major areas which i would like to highlight in my talk, the issue of finding principles of dialogue in our theologies. the second is finding a ground for the implementation of these principles within our communities.

3.43
the challenge that which we are facing now is that people are highlighting often..and specially in times of conflicts heated up, are highlighting principles which talk about conflicts, destruction, hell and so on. it is natural for any faith to get worried about its following, and about its demise and about its growth, and about its future.

4.17
but these questions if dealt with, should be dealt with, within the theological circle not taken into politics or taken into the streets.

5.23
now, to read in every theology that followers of other faith will go to hell is natural in theology, but this is theology, which protects the very existence of every faith. what we are facing now is taking this outside in newspapers, in friday sermons, in our daily talks, to tell the commons that others are going to hell.

5.57
preaching hell used to be popular in the past, because people would cry and people would become fanatic and people would pay more money, but it shouldn't be so popular. because it causes hatred. it causes fanaticism.

6.16
i [will] give you an example also from our syrian conflict now. as you may be aware, we have a sect, a minority in power called the alawite minority. which in theology, muslim sunni scholars agree that these are non muslims. i wouldn't say what i [*unclear] but i am telling you what is in books. a sunni girl should...cannot marry an alawite man; but to take this outside books of theology is very wrong.

*suggest, profess?
​

-----------------
weird.

of course, neither am i suggesting that people should go out and kill every kafir on the street. yaqubi sb. has pointed out a number of valid points such as being good to one's neighbour or being tolerant and kind to all humans regardless of their faith [except apostates and blasphemers who shall be boycotted by common folk; and a muslim sovereign who can enforce islamic laws will execute an apostate if he does not repent].

we too speak to non-muslims, we deal with them, we do business with them. of course, we do not turn every meeting into a debate on whose religion is right or who is upon the truth. nor do we ridicule or make fun of their strange ideas - even though we denounce it privately or in muslim gatherings. alahazrat has mentioned that one should avoid calling a non-muslim as 'kafir' in his face, if it offends or hurts him.

but assimilation, or becoming apologetic about islam, just because a kafir finds an islamic principle offensive is lack of courage.

-----
anybody who is not a muslim will go to hell. if this 'principle' was to be confined only to 'theological circles' and common people are not to be warned against 'hell' as it causes hatred and fanaticism, why should there be any sermon at all?

for example, take a common person [al-iyadhu billah] who does not pray, watches movies and listens to music; or someone who is worse and lives with girlfriends; or even worse who gambles or drinks wine or fornicates or even oppresses others? why should he not indulge in such 'sin'? why should an alawi - bashar - not commit oppression? why should your neighbour not misappropriate your property? why should someone not kill another? why should one be just and fair?

if you object: talk about hell for all these sins, but the shaykh is only talking about sending 'others' - meaning followers of other faiths - to hell. keep that thing within theological circles.

i say: isn't a drunkard or an adulterer or an oppressor in a group of 'others'? drunks and sexual freedom advocates may not have powerful groups, but what about homosexuals? can we say that homosexuality will lead to hell or because it is politically incorrect, dodge that one too?

ma'adhAllah, why shouldn't one become a christian or a jew? remember, no talking about hell - as it breeds hatred and fanaticism.

i am not saying that yaqubi does not believe in hell - nor do i think that he believes "non-muslims will not go to hell". rather, he is probably trying to persuade his audience that this talk about hell is for the hereafter (he mentions it obliquely somewhere in the same talk) and in this worldly life, we muslims can live with kafirs and even struggle together against a common enemy. and in his enthusiasm to get this point across, he comes across as a psuedo-secularist.

----
and what about hundreds of verses in the quran that say kafirs will go to hell? should we stop teaching the qur'an outside theological circles?

​

 

i don't know what he is trying to do - and what he says in that clip is absurd coming from an islamic scholar. because, what he suggests is the concept of separation of religion and state, which the west claims to be a big stride in enlightenment and progress. it is the mainstay of a secular state. "keep your religion [or as yaqubi likes to put it, your theology] in your books and behind your doors - within society, it ought not to be highlighted."

 

i have seen these criticisms of shaykh yaqubi and as such, i prefer to keep out of politics. this particular clip is saddening. i wouldn't be surprised if such a thing were said by actors like hamza yusuf or tahir jhangvi, but one would expect a person like shaykh yaqubi to know better than say things like this.

cooperation, coexistence, living together, tolerance etc. are all fine. but the shaykh - apparently a religious figure - is trying to mollify (as it appears from the talk) a mix crowd and what appears to be a speech for islam degenerates to an apology for islam.

i say, why apologise?

to hell with those who do not believe in islam and to hell with those who do not accept our faith. so what if they will scorn me as a fanatic or laugh at me or mock at me or call me backward or un-progressive?

 

The statements made by some preachers seem very confused. This particular Syrian cleric's statements are to be rejected and are incorrect. Like was quoted in another thread:

http://www.sunniport.com/masabih/showthread.php?t=10845&page=2

Over 200,000 people have died in this conflict. This cleric mentioned Dr Booti as a government stooge, but in hindsight Dr Booti was more experienced and his foresight and was ahead of this particular cleric. He claims to have objected to Dr Booti from the 80's.

He states Dr Booti done the worst damage to Sunni Islam. Would he say the same about his buddy Hamza Yusuf?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQO7a2q252M


This is a cleric who called for a failed coup against a brutal dictator only to call for unity with Christians and 'Democracy':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qbOrSrEHP4&list=UU4AHmdSYSVfuQdLmtJieL1w

Shaykh Al-Yaqoubi - A Joint Muslim-Christian Commitment

This individual has strange views. He believes we must put our hands with Jews, Christians and Buddhists to save humanity. @20 minutes and 20 seconds.

@9.30 He claims that Sunni scholars of Syria agreed not to call anyone to Islam. Not to call non Muslims to Islam!!

He calls for not mentioning theological issues in public gatherings, and this answers anyone's queries as to why this particular cleric does not delve in to theological debate. He will avoid any thorny theological issues.

He does seem to be sufi cult leader and a confused politician. He mentions Dr Suad elHakim with whom he is lecturing with. He states @16 minutes 40 seconds onward 'I was honoured to sit next to Dr Sai'd alHakim...' This is that professor:

http://vimeo.com/14793605

One of those esoteric pseudo sufi claimants this Dr Suad elHakim.

 

http://www.sunniport.com/masabih/showpost.php?p=41240&postcount=27

 

What are his beliefs?

 

the zindiq hossein nasr's lecture from last year here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAgGB407FHs

 

I re iterate, the above questions need answering. You may dismiss some of the posts as 'emotional', but the questions remain.

The question as I posted above:

What is your view on Hamza Yusuf's defense of Dante as he has not retracted?

Has he retracted his views on this?:

Or this:

And as Unbeknown has posted:

If you fail to answer correctly you have proven the following:

You 'people' are downplaying serious insults and issues relating to usul aldin.

You take insults to your Pir more serious than insults to RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wasallam. You would never associate with anyone who insults your Pir even if they retract, yet Hamza is a 'faqih', a 'wali' and 'general of Imam Mahdi' (the last quote according to Aftab Malik that Shaykh Yaqoubi said this)

Your little group is more important than the principles of ahlu Sunnat waljama'at.

 

Brother Aqdas I understand you've encountered a problematic passage in Sh Nazims book. And again you have a valid reason to object to it. But with all due respect let us deal with this issue first and then we may thoroughly concentrate on Sh Nazims clear errors.

Why? Because the likes of Khadimu are what we'd call in Mirpuri: chalaak. Why would he go on so reckless and confident till he's been cornered and questioned regarding prime issues. Lo and behold, he disappears!

Khadimu where are you gone? We all await your decisive critique. Hope you're still alive. Amin!

Mind you I wouldn't wish for any Muslim to die in a state of denial and uncertainty.

Aqdas and Abu Hassan, you guys run the show here so I request that if Khadimu doesn't respond promptly you take his posts next time with a pinch of salt by capping anything he posts on miscellaneous polemics.
Why?
Because he ain't got stamina to debate. So he wastes all of our reading and writing time.

The same goes for any of his chalaak buddies who ought to be on sellout forums such as "deen"port.

Why should they apply "nakhra" in banning any kind of controversial discussion which is ja'iz on their respective forums, whereas you lot allow the very same charlatans to post nilly willy here?

Yes. And that goes for posting advertisements for their events. Why can't Ismail Ray, who chooses to come on here with his real name, at least answer our objections?

The answers are obvious. One answer is: because Mr Rai and crew want to keep us naive Sunnis sweet and happy till they've used us good and proper. Like a used sponge.

Shame on you guys!

If you want to say, based on bad supposition (su al zann- a principle which is a must for you Sufis) that I'm possibly Sh Asrars younger brother from which you infer he's motivated me to post on here as such, then I tell you clearly that Sh Asrar advises me to NOT post on internets forums. To which I told him if these people can't discuss face to face and label Sh Asrar and a handful of students "takfiri" for asking valid questions, then I see it necessary to start posting.

Besides even if I was Sh Asrars brother (which I don't see any reason yet to disclose whether I am or not) it doesn't in anyway corroborate his criticisms. Being someone's brother doesn't mean one must agree on everything.

Read Surah Baqara and you'll see how family relationships are baseless when it comes to ones Iman.

This is not about "us" vs "you". It's about: 'yaa ayyuhalladhina aamanu udkhuloo fissilmi kaaffah".

 

Shaykhs are because of Islam, Islam is not because of Shaykhs.

 

in the past, i have many times made the mistake of trying to speak with corpses. i hope not to repeat it, in sha Allah.

but fwiw, this is what i said then - and stand by it.

http://www.sunniport.com/masabih/showthread.php?t=10447

 

I've been watching this thread closely, khadimu you have been playing emotional tactics. You didn't answer to any of the direct questions of wadood, AQ, KS, and YR. We deeply respect shyskh al-Yaqubi, had deep respect for habib ali and untill now we only have doubts due to his signing common word. None of these scolars, you, or us are infallable and unquestionable. If Sayyiduna Umar Farooq raDiAllahu ành can bequestioned by those lesser than him in ranks, then why not anybody else. My request to kadimu is to leave all the personal attacks, deriding aside and answer to the direct question if you are realy sincere. If you are not here to answer plain questions, and you don't feel that by jumping into this thread you've taken this responsibily then kindly keep quiet. I see that genuine questions were asked and they shuold be delath with honesty.

 

this is disturbing indeed. you are brushing the thing off as though HY insulted a fellow colleague and then apologized for losing his temper. this is the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu'alayhiwasallam) we are talking about!

so small talk about the person of rasulAllah (peace be upon him) no longer creates strong sentiments in people's hearts?! now anyone can say what he likes and then furnish a so-called retraction, which is in fact a thinly veiled contemptuous sneer at the opponents. and then his blind-followers are up in arms if anyone dares say a word against him!

you get offended if a Sayyid is spoken lightly of but not if the personality of the very source of a sayyid's honor is! not to mention Sayyiduna Ali (radhiAllahuanhu) was belittled too!

what if brother AQ had said:

"I think Sayyid XYZ will be in the lowest depths of hell fire ... and his intestines will be floating around....."

will you be content if he merely said that you didn't understand him?

------------------------------------

a few posts back you were admonishing AQ to worry about his akhirah. well, you have an akhirah too, remember?

 

people who propagate bid3ah and zandaqah don't deserve pleasantries. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal for example, did not permit responding to the salam of a mubtadi3. the ahlul bid3ah deserve the harshest of our treatment.

-----------

as for khadimu:

yet you expect me or anyone else to entertain your tantrums - on matters or personalities you or others like you have already made your minds up about!!!!!!!!

brilliant! core matters of Muslim 3aqidah, definition and identity are 'irrelevant' and just matters of disagreement as simple as where should one place the hands in salah. yes, when deen itself becomes irrelevant to the likes of you, then indeed, you win, and i have nothing to refute you.

i was good-mannered enough to engage with you, by saying genuinely and honestly:

how about we start with you just listing 3 good reasons of why you think ali jifry is a great wali, and i will list why i think the opposite, we then give reasons for that

if you want to engage with me any further in any meaningful discussion, i ask that you please play fair.

unless and until you do this simple thing as i asked for you, i won't bother with you. you can throw as many attacks of bad-manners at me as you want, but that's about it, and it won't bother me in the least.