Your sentence would make better sense if you add the word "deviant" before "scholars", and then enlighten us what is that qualification that one needs to attain to be eligible to make disparaging comments about DEVIANT scholars?
i'm not defending haris786, but again enlighten us with your understanding of the wider picture of the school that ala hazrat rahimahullah represented, give some references form his books please.
to some extent true that it is not the duty of layman to find fault in scholars, because he is a layman, but when sunni scholars have declared or have warned laymen about the ugly beliefs of some so-called scholars then they won't be stopped to condemn those deviants.
only propaganda because they cannot counter his arguments. again, explain to us what is your definition of narrow minded brelvi and open minded brelvi?
why? it is simply a befitting title, have you not seen such befitting titles from ala hazrat rahimahullah and other elder scholars? did you really read the entire book? what is your view about the contents? don't tell us in vague words like "which raises some important points", rather tell us what is your stand about nuh keller after reading the book?
so, do you call the title as tirade, or are you referring to the contents? if it is the later then kindly do mention some of those tirades please.
and then call yourself a sufi? one should be eager to see and read what others are saying and criticising oneself - not look for praises about self and feel good. besides, you know the level of people who judge a book by its cover...or its title.
as i said, if you had ghayrah more than hypocritical adab you have learned in the west, you would not say it thus. nuh keller shamelessly supports the view of dihlawi that the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is not aware of his own state - just like a hypocrite.
you need to provide proofs, otherwise it is baseless objection and bad opinion without evidence.
staying away and warning others by pointing out heresies and heretics are two different things, the first one is necessary and the other is important. you need to read ahadith about deviants, they don't advise only staying away with them but they demand us to be harsh with them, and do a social boycott of them.
not in every case and for everyone, so you cannot generalize it. besides, you are confusing fu'u with usul, the difference in usul is not acceptable.
, on the other hand he had read nuh keller's article and liked it very much. it was four years back, and he hasn't read TKM. do you think you can make such idiots understand?you are making petty arguments, there is no specific authority, it is the quran and sunah which defines who is deviant and who is not, otherwise this view of yours is nothing different from sullah kullies, they repeat the very argument that who we are to judge this and that big scholar, but at the same time you'll find them discrediting those ulama who refute/reject their beloved scholars.
you must be thinking very high of yourself.
are all the issues with them of the same level or severity? if not then your view about them should be according to that severity level. sorry, you didn't provide a clear view of yours. do you think hamzah yousuf a muslim or a murtad? do you think tahir al qadri a sunni, deviant, or murtad?
who asks you to spend your time disparaging them, and why do you assume that others spend their time ONLY disparaging them? however, honestly speaking their is no room for being very nice with the deviants, you need to read ahadith and history, if hazrat umar raDiAllahu anh can kick a person out of his house while he was his guest and having meal, when ibn sireen rahimahullah would refuse to listen quran from a deviant, when sufyan thawri rahimahullah would reject to pray the funeral of a deviant then from where do you find this being very very polite theory?
yes, but they would have courage to read nuh keller's full article and praise it, listen to filth of hamzah yousuf and gobble it down their throats into their hearts, but they won't read anything which is against their favorite personalities, so it is not about titles, or disparagement, rather they want to remain biased and don't want to change their views.
if you were around then, you would probably
clearly you are a pandering to the masses. Haqq is the last on your mind. you want popularity, and in the process if you can convey something, fine. else. being proper, politically correct and oh-so-nice is more important that saying the truth.
i did?
which?
it is a rhetorical device. 'you' doesn't actually mean you do it. it means is that what you are looking for?
you are just using flowery language to disguise your hatred of alahazrat and ahl al-sunnah. learn to speak plain and direct, maybe you will earn some respect.
you need to provide proofs, otherwise it is baseless objection and bad opinion without evidence.
Why don't you read Abu Hasan's post about my hidden state, if you want proof. That sums up the attitude of the people on this forum.
staying away and warning others by pointing out heresies and heretics are two different things, the first one is necessary and the other is important. you need to read ahadith about deviants, they don't advise only staying away with them but they demand us to be harsh with them, and do a social boycott of them.
not in every case and for everyone, so you cannot generalize it. besides, you are confusing fu'u with usul, the difference in usul is not acceptable.
also my point - if such a layman is that big dolt then why does he follow one and abandons other. i see this attitude among the supporters of those listed above that they close their eyes so tight, they don't read or listen to arguments of their opponents. it is not about disparaging, or titles of books, they simply don't listen or read.
when i explained the issue to some of my own relatives and asked them to read TKM, they simply refused to read it, and to date they have good opinion regrading nuh keller, padri, and et al, yet they call us haters etc. one of them, whom i asked to read TKM, replied first he wanted to finish ihya and other works
you are making petty arguments, there is no specific authority, it is the quran and sunah which defines who is deviant and who is not, otherwise this view of yours is nothing different from sullah kullies, they repeat the very argument that who we are to judge this and that big scholar, but at the same time you'll find them discrediting those ulama who refute/reject their beloved scholars.
you must be thinking very high of yourself.
are all the issues with them of the same level or severity? if not then your view about them should be according to that severity level. sorry, you didn't provide a clear view of yours. do you think hamzah yousuf a muslim or a murtad? do you think tahir al qadri a sunni, deviant, or murtad?
who asks you to spend your time disparaging them, and why do you assume that others spend their time ONLY disparaging them? however, honestly speaking their is no room for being very nice with the deviants, you need to read ahadith and history, if hazrat umar raDiAllahu anh can kick a person out of his house while he was his guest and having meal, when ibn sireen rahimahullah would refuse to listen quran from a deviant, when sufyan thawri rahimahullah would reject to pray the funeral of a deviant then from where do you find this being very very polite theory?
yes, but they would have courage to read nuh keller's full article and praise it, listen to filth of hamzah yousuf and gobble it down their throats into their hearts, but they won't read anything which is against their favorite personalities, so it is not about titles, or disparagement, rather they want to remain biased and don't want to change their views.
you need to provide proofs, otherwise it is baseless objection and bad opinion without evidence.
you need to provide proofs, otherwise it is baseless objection and bad opinion without evidence.
staying away and warning others by pointing out heresies and heretics are two different things, the first one is necessary and the other is important. you need to read ahadith about deviants, they don't advise only staying away with them but they demand us to be harsh with them, and do a social boycott of them.
not in every case and for everyone, so you cannot generalize it. besides, you are confusing fu'u with usul, the difference in usul is not acceptable.
also my point - if such a layman is that big dolt then why does he follow one and abandons other. i see this attitude among the supporters of those listed above that they close their eyes so tight, they don't read or listen to arguments of their opponents. it is not about disparaging, or titles of books, they simply don't listen or read.
when i explained the issue to some of my own relatives and asked them to read TKM, they simply refused to read it, and to date they have good opinion regrading nuh keller, padri, and et al, yet they call us haters etc. one of them, whom i asked to read TKM, replied first he wanted to finish ihya and other works
you are making petty arguments, there is no specific authority, it is the quran and sunah which defines who is deviant and who is not, otherwise this view of yours is nothing different from sullah kullies, they repeat the very argument that who we are to judge this and that big scholar, but at the same time you'll find them discrediting those ulama who refute/reject their beloved scholars.
you must be thinking very high of yourself.
are all the issues with them of the same level or severity? if not then your view about them should be according to that severity level. sorry, you didn't provide a clear view of yours. do you think hamzah yousuf a muslim or a murtad? do you think tahir al qadri a sunni, deviant, or murtad?
who asks you to spend your time disparaging them, and why do you assume that others spend their time ONLY disparaging them? however, honestly speaking their is no room for being very nice with the deviants, you need to read ahadith and history, if hazrat umar raDiAllahu anh can kick a person out of his house while he was his guest and having meal, when ibn sireen rahimahullah would refuse to listen quran from a deviant, when sufyan thawri rahimahullah would reject to pray the funeral of a deviant then from where do you find this being very very polite theory?
yes, but they would have courage to read nuh keller's full article and praise it, listen to filth of hamzah yousuf and gobble it down their throats into their hearts, but they won't read anything which is against their favorite personalities, so it is not about titles, or disparagement, rather they want to remain biased and don't want to change their views.
staying away and warning others by pointing out heresies and heretics are two different things, the first one is necessary and the other is important. you need to read ahadith about deviants, they don't advise only staying away with them but they demand us to be harsh with them, and do a social boycott of them.
not in every case and for everyone, so you cannot generalize it. besides, you are confusing fu'u with usul, the difference in usul is not acceptable.
also my point - if such a layman is that big dolt then why does he follow one and abandons other. i see this attitude among the supporters of those listed above that they close their eyes so tight, they don't read or listen to arguments of their opponents. it is not about disparaging, or titles of books, they simply don't listen or read.
when i explained the issue to some of my own relatives and asked them to read TKM, they simply refused to read it, and to date they have good opinion regrading nuh keller, padri, and et al, yet they call us haters etc. one of them, whom i asked to read TKM, replied first he wanted to finish ihya and other works
you are making petty arguments, there is no specific authority, it is the quran and sunah which defines who is deviant and who is not, otherwise this view of yours is nothing different from sullah kullies, they repeat the very argument that who we are to judge this and that big scholar, but at the same time you'll find them discrediting those ulama who refute/reject their beloved scholars.
you must be thinking very high of yourself.
are all the issues with them of the same level or severity? if not then your view about them should be according to that severity level. sorry, you didn't provide a clear view of yours. do you think hamzah yousuf a muslim or a murtad? do you think tahir al qadri a sunni, deviant, or murtad?
who asks you to spend your time disparaging them, and why do you assume that others spend their time ONLY disparaging them? however, honestly speaking their is no room for being very nice with the deviants, you need to read ahadith and history, if hazrat umar raDiAllahu anh can kick a person out of his house while he was his guest and having meal, when ibn sireen rahimahullah would refuse to listen quran from a deviant, when sufyan thawri rahimahullah would reject to pray the funeral of a deviant then from where do you find this being very very polite theory?
yes, but they would have courage to read nuh keller's full article and praise it, listen to filth of hamzah yousuf and gobble it down their throats into their hearts, but they won't read anything which is against their favorite personalities, so it is not about titles, or disparagement, rather they want to remain biased and don't want to change their views.
well that is my opinion and interpretation of your flowery language. why aren't you trying to speak in a manner that pleases me? you see, i get offended and turned off by your kind of speech. i prefer direct and frank speech. your posts are ineffective - i think most of the forum members won't appreciate it. you should try and adapt to our kind of posting. If affected politeness distracts or puts off one from gaining an understanding of the issue, then the purpose has been defeated.