jazakAllahu khayran that's loads off my mind! al-fatiHa for the Mujahid and Imam of ahlusunnah (raHimahullah) wassalaam.
if there is anyone who has a genuine excuse for not criticising wahabis and their kings, it is the late sayyid muhammad ibn alawi al-maliki. he was right in their midst - defending mawlid and all our practices and sunni aqayid and it was a small compromise that he had to make for his mission. notice, that in the video itself, he so bravely makes it clear that he does not agree with their aqayid. 53:10 ...and the differences (fawariq) between us and many brothers (ikhwanin) [things upon] which we could not agree with them; [matters because of which] we couldn't see each other eye to eye, if it were not for an assembly, a forum and call for dialogue such as this. 54:16 and then that happened, which happened, and there is no need to mention it... that is the difference between sayyid muhammad ibn alawi and the present folk. right there in makkah, the late shaykh did everything we sunnis do, amid protests by major wahabi scholars. and whether at home or abroad, the shaykh made his aqidah known - and for that, he had to make a small compromise of mentioning the kharijite kings and their taghut, shaykh najdi where it was impossible to escape. the book - mafahim is one such example. if he had reviled shaykh najdi and called him the ugly fitna that disfigured the jazirah, the horn of satan, not only would his book be banned - who knows the farayinah of jazirah would do with the shaykh, his family, his students and his madrasah. ---- contrast this with scholars who have no compulsion, yet act as if they are glad to dilute islam - genuflecting to kuffar and their false religions. al-iyadhu billah. ---- as for shaykh abu bakr musaliyar, i think he has to make a similar compromise for the remittances markaz receives from gulf states. he could have remained silent, but they (decision makers - and many are business minded folk running the organisation) probably look at it as a necessary evil to allow them to work and expand. Allah ta'ala knows best. as long as they only talk about authorities/kings/rulers and not actually compromise on sunni aqayid, we can admit their excuse. i have repeatedly said that sitting with kafirs or mubtadiys (for scholars that is) in itself is nothing worth censure - so long as it is clear that they do not agree with them and they refute them openly; and so long as the common public does not mistake them to be friends (i.e., the sunni scholar and the bidyi) and therefore listen to the bidyis speeches/read his books etc. the other thing is that shaykh aboo baker sitting with hindu leaders. gathering with them in common programmes (not religious ones) and as a muslim representative is not blameworthy even. some people go too far (such as devbandi conventions where the swamis made and said things which muslims cannot agree) in their zeal to show "qawmi ek-jehti" to the point of integration. devbandis - and their affiliates from nadwa were foremost during the independence movement; politicians such as abul kalam azad etc were staunch gandhians - abul kalam was such a ghaddar of the community that he sealed his papers for 50 years just to save face of his kafir friends. we muslims suffered a thousand cuts, and the unkindest cut of all was the partition. inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un. ----- for example, if hamza yusuf's parleys were only with george bush; or if yaqubi sahib's attending king of morrocco or the jordanian royals, or habib jifri amongst abu dhabi royals would have never been an issue. it is still not an issue per se. the problem is that hamza is a perennialist (in spite of his denials for reasons mentioned in other threads). jifry and others act as if they are chorus-boys for christian leaders instead of prominently and proudly - and unapologetically presenting themselves as muslims. Allah ta'ala knows best.
all this is appalling! https://www.facebook.com/SheikhAboo...41828.673812582702569/778509605566199/?type=1 http://www.arabnews.com/saudi-arabia/news/693986 https://www.facebook.com/SheikhAboo...41828.673812582702569/774022889348204/?type=1 https://www.facebook.com/SheikhAboo...41828.673812582702569/768703179880175/?type=1 http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20141110223947 https://www.facebook.com/SheikhAboobacker/posts/727064767377350 https://www.facebook.com/SheikhAboobacker/posts/726691397414687
I am not proficient in Arabic so the following is definitely not exact but the things in bold/underlined are what shocked me. A rough translation (I think the topic was 'Extremism and its Repercussions"). 53:42 onwards: and this (meeting and closing of distances which was detrimental to many students of knowledge and thinkers and literati) is no doubt by the grace (fadl) of Allah (subHanu wata'ala) and thereafter your kindness (fadl) and then likewise by the grace of Allah you have turned (اعتم) to this city in this magnificent gathering (ختم الجلىلة) in history, by which stood your father, the late Imam, the Great, the King, Abdul 'Aziz, may Allah have mercy on him, when he unified the peninsula and opinions and removed the differences of tribalism and dismantled the remnants of division and included all men by the grace of Allah (subHanu wata'ala) and by the grace of that which he carried of the call to Islam and then things which occurred, there is no need to mention them, and it was witnessed, and you came with this blessed call (al-da'wa al-mubaraka) to meeting and alliance and dialogue and understanding which shall soon bring immense goodness and soon through it will come immense grace in bringing together the views of all Muslims and the interests of the nation and the unification of it's people and brothers and sons by the grace of Allah (subHanu wa ta'ala). -------- please excuse the errors in translation
Thanks for clarifying that it is his brother. In fact it is the brother Sayyid Abbas who runs the madrasah that I visited. I even met him there. Most of the students are resident there and from East Asian origin.
Sayyid Abbas is the brother - the son is Sayyid Ahmad The son runs the Madrasah - the uncle is at a different location
Can someone please translate what has been said? I presume it is about the late Saudi king! I happened to visit their madrasa (cum residence) in Makkah last year which is now being run by his son Sayyid Abbas bin Alawi (the person in this video ). The first thing I noticed when entering the main madrasah hall are big pictures (around 5 feet in height) of the late Abdullah bin Abdulaziz of Saudi along with several pictures of his family members (including his late father Sayyid Alawi). We also prayed Isha in the very same madrasah hall where the photos were towards the back wall opposite to the direction of the Qibla! I know the islamic ruling on having pictures of people hung up (especially the then alive king) and therefore I was quite disturbed with what I witnessed. Allah knows best!
one scholar was asked (this was more than a couple of years ago) who did he think could be called a mujaddid of the present era and he ahd said that it's not something for one or two people to decide but if he were asked to think of a name he would say Sayyid Alawi bin Maliki (raHimahullah). A good intro here: but what I heard around 52:56 was a first* and I admit that I am surprised. . . . *that is if I've understood the arabic correctly.
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Well, brother one of the videos i posted of Maulana Abu bakr ahmed sahib was where Shaykh Munowar was the stage secretary, I think it was at Cradley heath You can see Shaykh Monawar at the beginning of the video introducing the Shaykh Abu Bakr Ahmed, so Shaykh Monawar is clearly aware of who he is and has some link with the shaykh. If you have some concerns regarding the shaykh (abu Bakr Ahmed) I am sure Shaykh Manowar can alleviate your concerns.
not quite sure what you're suggesting - that i should somehow approach Monawwar Atiq in uk, through Aqdas or agent-x, in order to get a fatwa/clarification for shaykh abubakr musliyar's conference-to-be in india (along with info on Yaqoubi's antics)? why don't i just contact someone from india, both among Tajush Shari3ah's mureeds up north, and also people in kerala to directly get info from his markaz?
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Salaam brother, there people on this forum who do have direct links with shaykh manowar ateeq, i emember reading that at least one brother here (on this forum) has the shaykhs direct mobile, maybe you can ask aqdas or agent-x maybe thewy have it or have contact direct with the shaykh if so then you can address you valid concerns direct to him.
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Have a look at the shaykhs official facebook account [https://www.facebook.com/SheikhAboobacker] main picture showing conference with hindu's, christians and sikh. Apparently, the shaykh visited the UK earlier this year and appeared upon Takbir tv here's the video: He also was main speaker at a jalsa (maybe @ Cradley heath) organized by Shaykh Monawwar Ateeq here' the video: Maybe you (bro abdulqadir) can contact Shaykh Monawwar Ateeq and get a fatawa from him and at the same time maybe you can get one regarding Shaykh Sayyed Yacoubi al Idrisi
was going thru his bio here http://markazonline.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/profile-ustad.pdf i find it strange that most of the "reformers" and "redeemers" of the ummah in our times love to blow their own trumpets in their lives (or don't mind their mureeds doing it for them). in the past, such people used to be mainly recognized after their deaths. Ala Hazrat also has a great fatwa blasting the "reformers" and "leaders" of british india.
a brother just sent me the below poster regarding shaykh abubakr musliyar's org organizing a conference on dec 18th this year. the chief guests include major mureeds of the vatican like ali jifry, umar bin hafiz, and ali goma and some others according to my friend who sent me this, if anyone in indian Sunnis is net savvy and knows exactly what's going on on youtube, etc. regarding jifry & co's activities and what their leanings are etc - it will be this markaz run by shaykh abubakr musliyar - so they really can't say "we didn't know these guys are vatican mureeds" . (but still this is only conjecture on my friend's part) shaykh abubakr is a khalifa of Tajush Shari3ah. yes Tajush Shari3ah has health issues to not be fully aware of what these people are doing, but it is the duty of the mureeds of Hazrat to bring it to his notice so that he may renounce the khilafah he bestowed on him and completely dissociate from these people's sulah kulliyat. secondly any associations with this shaykh abubakr's sulah kulli organization will most certainly come back to haunt Muhaddithe Kabeer after Tajush Shari3ah's passing (may Allah give him a long life) so yeah, as far as this particular signatory to the open letter is concerned, my husn az-zdhann for him is on the verge of collapse i tried to find if the poster was uploaded online, but wasn't successful, but got these other links this - and this - and this - and this - and this
I didn't see the issue with the word 'bloody', till you mentioned 'Would you use it in the presence of an elderly Muslim or a scholar?' I suppose you are right, if we are to use that as the yardstick then it is an inappropriate word. Jazbah sometimes gets the better of all of us. I will refrain from its use in future, in sha' Allah.
sayyid sab, the ibn hasan guy and some others. please mind your language. you may find 'bloody', 'bitching' and other such words as common words to use, but we are a bit uptight here. doesn't sayyid sab find it appalling to use language like that on islamic forums, though 'chronicles' makes him bloody angry? --- last warning to all: regardless of the goodness of the post otherwise, if i see a word that ought not to be used in decent company, (would you use such words in the presence of a scholar or an elderly muslim?) i will delete the entire post. if you spent hours composing that valuable post, you better save it (or easier still leave out profanity) - cuz you won't get it back again.
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم “He [the Prophet sallahu alayhi was salam] answered, “It is that you worship Allah as if you see Him. And even though you do not see Him, [you know] He sees you.” Hulul can also refer to a pantheon (from greek Πάνθεον pantheon, literally "(a temple) of all gods", as in the christian sense post 1 century. The christian idea of a triune god would constitue a pantheon or hulul aqeeda. the greeks had this, so did the persians and egyptians, some socio-analyst have cited at least 20+ pantheons thgroughout history.
no brother you are not promoting hulool. but you are not connecting the dots here properly. hulool is absolute kufr. we are taught to attain "closeness" of Allah, attain His favors, blessings, etc. this doesn't have any physical connotations towards tajseem and tashbeeh - agreed. but you get two things wrong. 1. what you're talking about is your own definition of "immanence". hence i asked you to define what you're talking about. the meaning of the word is all about indwelling going by basic dictionary definitions. wikipedia says this about the christian definitions of "immanence" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence 2. actually these "scholars", to me, don't seem to be trying to prove the Islamic model of attaining Allah's "closeness" "blessings" "taqva" etc. rather they are apologizing for Islam, their holy father said that their holy father is saying that God's will is bound up with any of our categories and that Islam doesn't teach this. these masakeen are apologizing and telling their holy father that they too believe that His will is bound by our categories. this is why they use this paragraph and use the interjection "but" what exactly do they mean by "a simplification which can be misleading" when they talk about Allah's transcendence? they quote the verse "There is none like unto Him" (42:11) then they apply the conjunction "but" and quote mutashabihat verses with literal implications, just like the wahabis! they build up their case by quoting the allegorical hadith qudsi as well, again in a literal perspective what is the aim of presenting these quotes, completely stripped of their interpretations and explanations by orthodox and traditional scholars - to an infidel who actually believes that God can become flesh and blood? wal 3eyadhu billahi ta3ala Allah alone knows why they write a letter kissing up to the pope, right after he disparaged the Beloved Prophet 3alaihis salam, and make apologies for "being Muslims" groveling and pleading to the pope to like them and accept them as for where in the letter it is mentioned, see what i said above. they didn't say it in the words you put it in, but the fact that they mention the verse 42:11, and then go ahead and add the conjunction "but" and introduce a few mutashabihat verses and hadith deliberately making literal implications, means they are doing exactly what you say. btw, the kufr belief of hulool is not just about indwelling in human body per se, but rather in any creation, specific, or generally in the universe. actually they have proven their worth and shown who they really are by starting off with addressing an evil shaytan who disparaged the Prophet, 3alaihis salam, with "his holiness" and "your holiness" so you do the math on the imbecile part. of course Islam has no deficiency what these masaakeen are doing is begging and pleading to their holy father to accept them and to please give sanction to what they think is "Muslim belief" or they are corrupting Islamic doctrines so that they may appeal to their holy father's palate. they are really crying, kneeling at the altar saying "our holy father, please do not shun us like that. see we too believe similar to what you believe" read a transcript of what the pope said, and read this "open letter" again. you will see what exactly the pope was trying to do and what these people are trying to do. no one refutes someone by presenting apologia that may be acceptable to the opponent's sensibilities! it DOES REQUIRE having the RIGHT BELIEF regarding him. those who believe in trinity can never attain "closeness" of Allah. ---------- on a side note, i noticed how you are so anti using dramatic terms and western hollywood buzzwords, movie titles etc to promote Islamic teachings and concepts, yet on this thread, you use a mainly christian word of "immanence". i don't think it was necessary, rather it was counter-productive to introduce that word in the discussion. i'm not accusing you of promoting hulool. as i said, i just think you didn't connect the dots regarding these so called scholars. neither am i saying you're infatuated by using christian words. i just think you shouldn't have used that word to describe what you're talking about.
BTW Notice how Anti-Christian I am being in these comments, please, someone bloody notice, dont act like I am someone promoting Hulul, that would really be disappointing.
