abu Hasan
Administrator
is this your opinion as well? if it is, there is no harm in saying it yourself.
sidelines of the discussion on atabek-shaykh asrar debate
- Thread starter Harris786
- Start date
- Status
'you should try and adapt to our kind of posting.' what is that, insults and disparaging comments. You accused me of being a deviant, who behinds flowery language.' I can change my style but your comments just prove my original point that there is no objectivity here, just narrow-mindedness and assumptions that reflect that. Are you willing to change?
You want me to say that Hamza Yusuf is a murtad- name me one scholar who holds that position. It is not about losing my cool but when one accuses you of something, which is not true and does not tie in with what you have said but s
abu Hasan
Administrator
why don't you change yourself to suit our style?
abu nibras
Staff member
As salam alaykum,
Give Zayd, a man with an average nafs a page with positive comments in flowery language about him include sugar coated mild hints at some of his shortcomings let's call this a type 1 letter, then give Zayd a page filled with diirect comments about him highliting truths about his shortcomings in crisp direct language pointing out the worst consequences if he continues, let's call this a type 2 letter.
Guess which one Zayd will like?
--
Sufiya kiram of our glorious past, first excelled in control of this base nafs which prefers type 1 to type 2 letters and then taught it to murideen.
Its one of the first steps in suluk.
Sufiya would hang around with men who were abrasive and did seemingly menial and hard jobs to tame their nafs.
Sufi shuyukh would travel distances and bear hardships if they could get a page of a custom type 2 letter.
In today's age we have sufi "masters" who can't take criticism without loads of sugar and senseless adab. Which tells one, that these @sufimasters themselves are alike our example of type 1 loving Zayd.
Nay, worse as this behavior is typical of bloated egos.
@Shaykh Nuh in my opinion, right now is probably on a high horse of - not concerning onself with criticism and seeking the divine.
You keep quiet and criticism dies off.
And poor @Murids are learning.
So yes I agree that mawlana Abu Hasans style ruffles feathers as it does not confirm to type 1 adab.
That most @sufimasters of this age are charlatans, is what we should understand and not go about advocating type 1 style especially when it's censure of @sufis and @scholars.
I am a bit flowery.. I guess you will like that I call them @scholars and not even deviant, some others may be more straightforward and plain
Give Zayd, a man with an average nafs a page with positive comments in flowery language about him include sugar coated mild hints at some of his shortcomings let's call this a type 1 letter, then give Zayd a page filled with diirect comments about him highliting truths about his shortcomings in crisp direct language pointing out the worst consequences if he continues, let's call this a type 2 letter.
Guess which one Zayd will like?
--
Sufiya kiram of our glorious past, first excelled in control of this base nafs which prefers type 1 to type 2 letters and then taught it to murideen.
Its one of the first steps in suluk.
Sufiya would hang around with men who were abrasive and did seemingly menial and hard jobs to tame their nafs.
Sufi shuyukh would travel distances and bear hardships if they could get a page of a custom type 2 letter.
In today's age we have sufi "masters" who can't take criticism without loads of sugar and senseless adab. Which tells one, that these @sufimasters themselves are alike our example of type 1 loving Zayd.
Nay, worse as this behavior is typical of bloated egos.
@Shaykh Nuh in my opinion, right now is probably on a high horse of - not concerning onself with criticism and seeking the divine.
You keep quiet and criticism dies off.
And poor @Murids are learning.
So yes I agree that mawlana Abu Hasans style ruffles feathers as it does not confirm to type 1 adab.
That most @sufimasters of this age are charlatans, is what we should understand and not go about advocating type 1 style especially when it's censure of @sufis and @scholars.
I am a bit flowery.. I guess you will like that I call them @scholars and not even deviant, some others may be more straightforward and plain
Unbeknown
Senior Moderator
really, who decided that?
if this 'someone' can digest the lame excuses keller's made in his article, even after agreeing that the statements made by the bandits, in regard to rasulAllah (peace be upon him), are so disparaging that one would not stand them had they been made against one's father let alone the Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him), and then this same 'someone' is put off by a book's title, then the fellow is already lost. I don't think that reading the book would have benefited him at all. So no harm done.
Bazdawi
Well-Known Member
It's rather strange how the modern-day sufis can be put off by: book titles, behaving harshly towards deviants, correcting abberant positions, not being respectful to misguided people etc. Yet they aren't offended by:
1) The Messenger of Allah [ŞalAllāhu 'Alayhi waSallam] being disparged.
2) Holding misguided and deviant views.
3) Going against Ijma.
4) Hobnobbing and rubbing shoulders with controversial people [deviants and even murtads].
As well as many other things.
They almost always seem to have a hidden animosity towards 'Ala Hazrat, and why not? When Allah has chosen 'Ala Hazrat to be the criterion, the benchmark, and the yardstick!
These subcontinent sidi wannabes will use excuses for their shaykh for not being aware of 'Ala Hazrat but what excuses do they have themselves for not fully accepting 'Ala Hazrat [and Hussam al-Haramayn].
The ironic thing is - these people are often guilty of what they accuse others of: being narrow minded, not accepting the truth, being harsh etc.
May Allah allow them to see the truth.
1) The Messenger of Allah [ŞalAllāhu 'Alayhi waSallam] being disparged.
2) Holding misguided and deviant views.
3) Going against Ijma.
4) Hobnobbing and rubbing shoulders with controversial people [deviants and even murtads].
As well as many other things.
They almost always seem to have a hidden animosity towards 'Ala Hazrat, and why not? When Allah has chosen 'Ala Hazrat to be the criterion, the benchmark, and the yardstick!
These subcontinent sidi wannabes will use excuses for their shaykh for not being aware of 'Ala Hazrat but what excuses do they have themselves for not fully accepting 'Ala Hazrat [and Hussam al-Haramayn].
The ironic thing is - these people are often guilty of what they accuse others of: being narrow minded, not accepting the truth, being harsh etc.
May Allah allow them to see the truth.
Aqib alQadri
Veteran
book names do matter. what better way to remember what is inside?
just look at the names of refutations by esteemed scholars and you will understand that it is pertinent to refute even with the book's name. For example: Ala Hazrat's refutations of Deos, Shias, Qadiyaanis, Wahhabis, etc- almost every one carries the name of the cult or their leader.
i don't see any sense in having sweet book names when inside they are chock-full of refutation of the deviants.
just look at the names of refutations by esteemed scholars and you will understand that it is pertinent to refute even with the book's name. For example: Ala Hazrat's refutations of Deos, Shias, Qadiyaanis, Wahhabis, etc- almost every one carries the name of the cult or their leader.
i don't see any sense in having sweet book names when inside they are chock-full of refutation of the deviants.
that tells a lot about yourself. however,i gave three options (1) Muslim (2) Deviant Muslim (3) Murtad.
the 3rd option is out, would you mind to tell now that from the first two which one is your opinion about hamzah and also about tahir al qadri?
see despite many posts you haven't spoken in clear language. is it not honesty that first you state your own stance in clear words and then defend it rather than pretending to present opinion of others? brother speak for yourself, then you can engage, with other members, in a dialogue to discuss the issues rationally.
that is the main problem with these people, they are more sectarian than those they accuse of it.
that is why they are put off by the titles, because they know they won't see sweet, sugar coated, dipped in chocolate statements, therefore their inner fear of seeing the truth doesn't let them open it and they pull the veil of respect, love, and titles being repellent.
mr. waqar didn't answer any question of mine in clear words. it is pretty obvious that he hasn't read ala hazrat's books, and the concerns that he is presenting on behalf of others are actually gripe of his own but he hasn't the temerity to say it.
'Your silence or your rejection of calling them murtad will reveal that on behalf of which side you are arguing to be nice and polite'
That is what you said and it is pretty clear what you are insinuating. However, to answer your question, this is the position of a scholar, whose opinion I trust and follow.
'I hold their views as heterodox and heretical but because they contradict themselves on the same things I abstain from declaring them disbelievers because of their contradictions.'
That is my stance too.
What do you mean by clear words- insults and disparaging comments. The concerns that I have are of course reflective of my own opinion but they are also shared by others. You have made no attempt to address these and switched the discussion to demanding my stances on individuals and then claim that I do not speak in clear words. I asked you in clear words, who declared Hamzah Yousuf a Murtad, because that what you were insinuating and you could not answer. You accuse others of being more sectarian and whatever but you have proven over these posts that you are no different.
That is what you said and it is pretty clear what you are insinuating. However, to answer your question, this is the position of a scholar, whose opinion I trust and follow.
'I hold their views as heterodox and heretical but because they contradict themselves on the same things I abstain from declaring them disbelievers because of their contradictions.'
That is my stance too.
What do you mean by clear words- insults and disparaging comments. The concerns that I have are of course reflective of my own opinion but they are also shared by others. You have made no attempt to address these and switched the discussion to demanding my stances on individuals and then claim that I do not speak in clear words. I asked you in clear words, who declared Hamzah Yousuf a Murtad, because that what you were insinuating and you could not answer. You accuse others of being more sectarian and whatever but you have proven over these posts that you are no different.
no, answer to my questions in plain language without unnecessary verbosity. let me give you an example, if you ask me the same following question
Q: do you consider hamzah yousuf and tahir al qadri a murtad?
my answer: yes
yes, that's more like it, now you have spoken in clear words. like that.
yes, because first we want to know who we are talking to, we always demand people coming on our forum that they present their view/stance in clear words and then indulge in debate. don't put the gun on others shoulders, say what is your point of view.
we hold a clear stance about those individuals, therefore before you teach us respect, and how to conduct constructive debate, and counter individual's controversial issues rather than disparage them, you should make clear which party you belong to, otherwise who knows that you quit saying that i don't belong to that group.
besides, i asked you that you should read ahadith and history to learn how to deal with deviants, if you think i am wrong then you can easily prove it by presenting some reports of history and ahadith, that is your original argument (a constructive debate, rather than personal attacks), therefore why don't you practice it?
well my answer is very clear that hamzah yousuf and tahir al qadri are murtad. tell me in a nice and respectful manner with some sugar and chocolate coated statements from classical books if their heresies are not kufr.
do you really need a fatwa from a mufti for such beliefs that
- we cannot do blanket takfir of qadyanis? did you watch his video or not?
- defending dante for his blasphemy
- perennialism?
however, you can find mufi akhtar raza khan's hafizahullahu ta'ala fatwa regarding tahir al qadri, and search for a fatwa on this forum from a yemani mufti on hamzah yousuf.
and your answer is still not clear, for you didn't provide the name of that scholar, while you are demanding from me some names which is not needed because my view on these individuals is very clear, they are murtad.
you are still evasive, and have ignored to mention about tahir al qadri.
tell me is this sentence an example of the attitude that you want to teach us? where is love, and respect in it. don't you think that this statement can put me off? what is your criterian which defines that something can put people off and something will not? your own feelings?
what if i repeat this sentence for yourself, will it put you off or you will take it as dealing with one's arguments rather than disparagement?
and who is the judge of what i have proved and what not? you? so you are the plaintiff and the judge both?
Last edited:
My argument was never about dealing with deviants in a harsh manner because many of the Ahadith that you have quoted discusses how the deviants are shunned (none of them say swear at them and insult them) . All individuals that you have mentioned, I avoid too so that is not the issue. The issue that I have had is that on this forum we attack the person before tackling the issue and that is counter productive. The approach is not academic and is off-putting. My flowery language can be off putting too but I am not advocating that, I am advocating a change of approach.
well my answer is very clear that hamzah yousuf and tahir al qadri are murtad. tell me in a nice and respectful manner with some sugar and chocolate coated statements from classical books if their heresies are not kufr.
I have already told you of my stance on them- I am not required to give a specific ruling on them or explain why their heresies are not kufr. I follow the position held by my teachers and scholars who I trust. That is enough for the layman, it is not for them to give rulings and explain positions. This is why we are in the malaise that we are in, laymen going round (this was particular to the Salafis before but is becoming a problem within Sunnis as well) or posting things on social media that they are not qualified to comment on. However, you are more than happy to defend or tolerate these individuals because they are 'harsh with deviants' but if they were confronted by them, these keyboard warriors will not have a clue.'
These are things that I have requested you (senior moderator) to address but you are more interested in if so and so thinks that this person is a murtad. My points might be 'ineffective' as @abu Hasan points out but I am you are acutely aware of the state that Sunnis are in and in my opinion, Sunniport does more to perpetuate the problems than actually deal with the issues that concern us.
That is me being plain and direct, which is what you want. I have made my points above and I hope that they will be taken into consideration. I feel we have reached a natural end in the discussion and should look to move on.
As if Sunniport is a person. Sunniport is a public forum where INDIVIDUALS such as yourself air their views.
Anyway, what did you or your teachers do about the greatest slander against Alahazrat in our times? Was it not "Sunniport" where the most detailed reply to Keller was released?
Also, what have your teachers done about the greatest fitnahs of our time like perennialism, sulh kullism, tafdilism, pseudo western internet devbandism, minhajism?
Isn't it "Sunniport" that has made some of the best responses to these heresies thereby saving the iman of lay Sunnis?
Last edited:
Bazdawi
Well-Known Member
Whilst brothers here were busy trying to warn against heresies, Waqar and his ilk were hobnobbing with them, promoting them, listening to their speeches and encouraging a the mentality 'just do dhikr' and 'love all. Hate none' having completely misunderstood what tasawwuf is.
Yet, their compounded ignorance puts them under the illusion that they are the only true sufis.
Yet, their compounded ignorance puts them under the illusion that they are the only true sufis.
If I have already said that I avoid those individuals, how can you say that I am hobnobbing with them. That makes no sense but you like others just prove my original point that on these forums, certain people just make baseless comments, chase hype and draw their own conclusions. You have a right your opinion but that right does not extend to making false assumptions to prove a point.
Sorry, I should have phrased that better. I agree that individuals on this forum have done some good responses but other individuals have used this forum to create hypes, cause arguments and slander scholars. That is where the problem lies and I have asked for there to be a change of approach, so that the focus is on the issue and not the person. If you ask, the lay sunnis that 'sunniport' has saved, what is perennialism and why is it a dangerous belief, they probably won't know but will know that Hossein Nasr is a perennialist. If you ask them what is a Sulh Kullism, they won't know but will say that Shaykh Habib Ali Jiffri is a Sulh Kulli and so forth. That is where the problem lies.
what have your teachers done about the greatest fitnahs of our time like perennialism, sulh kullism, tafdilism, pseudo western internet devbandism, minhajism? The scholars that I respect and whose opinions that I follow were at the forefront of speaking out against these issues. You make assumptions that because I have asked for there to be greater dialogue and more engagement between the scholars, I follow scholars that you would term as 'Sulh Kulli.' I have not mentioned my teachers because I have only started studying properly recently and I have not asked them about these issues. The only scholar, who I have discussed these issues with and whose opinion, I hold in the highest regard is Shaykh Asrar. I have only mentioned him because that will be enough for you to know my background and will stop you and others from making assumptions about 'who I hobnob' with or 'who do I support.' He is not my teacher but he is someone whose opinion I certainly listen take into consideration.
Like I mentioned to Noori, I have made my point and I feel that this discussion has come to its natural conclusion. I will only comment further, if there is something for me to clarify.
My argument was never about dealing with deviants in a harsh manner because many of the Ahadith that you have quoted discusses how the deviants are shunned (none of them say swear at them and insult them) . All individuals that you have mentioned, I avoid too so that is not the issue. The issue that I have had is that on this forum we attack the person before tackling the issue and that is counter productive. The approach is not academic and is off-putting. My flowery language can be off putting too but I am not advocating that, I am advocating a change of approach.
well my answer is very clear that hamzah yousuf and tahir al qadri are murtad. tell me in a nice and respectful manner with some sugar and chocolate coated statements from classical books if their heresies are not kufr.
I have already told you of my stance on them- I am not required to give a specific ruling on them or explain why their heresies are not kufr. I follow the position held by my teachers and scholars who I trust. That is enough for the layman, it is not for them to give rulings and explain positions. This is why we are in the malaise that we are in, laymen going round (this was particular to the Salafis before but is becoming a problem within Sunnis as well) or posting things on social media that they are not qualified to comment on. However, you are more than happy to defend or tolerate these individuals because they are 'harsh with deviants' but if they were confronted by them, these keyboard warriors will not have a clue.'
These are things that I have requested you (senior moderator) to address but you are more interested in if so and so thinks that this person is a murtad. My points might be 'ineffective' as @abu Hasan points out but I am you are acutely aware of the state that Sunnis are in and in my opinion, Sunniport does more to perpetuate the problems than actually deal with the issues that concern us.
That is me being plain and direct, which is what you want. I have made my points above and I hope that they will be taken into consideration. I feel we have reached a natural end in the discussion and should look to move on.
Of course it is a repetition because once again I have had to counter another false assumption.
- Status