Welcome to the Net Muslims Forums.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28
  1. #1
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default Fake Misguided and Weak Speakers and Their Ideology

    Questions 2 and 3 to Shaikh Yahyaa Al-Hajooree regarding Zakir Naik

    The Second Question:

    Zakir says, “Zoroastrianism is a non-semetic, Aryan, non vedic religion, which is not associated with Hinduism and it’s a Prophetic religion. It (Zoroastrianism) is also called as Persianism and it was founded by the Prophet Zoroaster.”

    The Shaykh said:

    This statement is false. For indeed Zoroastrianism is from the religions of atheism, and the matter of him (Zakir) affirming that this religion is Prophetic and attributing it to a Prophet from the Prophets, this does not prove that it is correct. So let’s assume it as a given that some people attribute that (religion) to a Prophet – according to what they say – then indeed what the Messenger of Allaah came with abrogates all of what the rest of the Prophets came with, regardless of whether those Prophets were ones whose names were known, or those whose names are unknown. Allaah, the Most High, said: “Of some of them We have related to you their story and of some We have not related to you their story.” (Ghaafir:78)

    And what was sufficient for this man and those like him is the statement of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, “And We have sent down to you (O Muhammad) the Book (this Qur'ân) in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it and Muhayminan (trustworthy in highness and a witness) over it (old Scriptures). So judge between them by what Allâh has revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging away from the truth that has come to you. To each among you, We have prescribed a law and a clear way.” (Al-Maa’idah:48)

    And the statement of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, “And so judge (you O Muhammad) between them by what Allâh has revealed and follow not their vain desires, but beware of them lest they turn you (O Muhammad) far away from some of that which Allâh has sent down to you. And if they turn away, then know that Allâh’s Will is to punish them for some sins of theirs. And truly, most of men are Fâsiqûn (rebellious and disobedient to Allâh). Do they then seek the judgment of (the Days of) Ignorance? And who is better in judgment than Allâh for a people who have firm Faith.” (Al-Maa’idah:49-50)

    And it would also have been sufficient for him the statement of Allaah, glory be unto Him the Most High, in His Noble Book, “Then We have put you (O Muhammad) on a plain way of (Our) commandment. So follow that (Islâmic Monotheism and its laws), and follow not the desires of those who know not. Verily, they can avail you nothing against Allâh (if He wants to punish you). Verily, the Dhâlimûn (polytheists, wrong-doers, etc.) are Auliyâ' (protectors, helpers, etc.) to one another, but Allâh is the Walî (Helper, Protector, etc.) of the Muttaqûn (pious).” (Al-Jaathiyah:18-19)


    The Third Question:

    Zakir says, “Sikhism strictly believes in monotheism, and Almighty God…”

    Our Shaykh said:

    This statement contains one of two matters, or it contains both of two matters: So Sikhism, their religion is known, and it is known that they worship everything that walks or crawls. So even the vagina and the penis are from the greatest of their objects of worship, as well as the trees and cows. They also have numerous statements of disbelief. No man will disagree with another man who can see regarding the disbelief of the Sikhs, and that they are polytheists and idolaters. And Allaah, glory be unto Him the Most High, says in His Noble Book, “And whosoever disbelieves in the Faith (i.e. Oneness of Allâh and in all the other Articles of Faith [i.e. His (Allâh's), Angels, His Holy Books, His Messengers, the Day of Resurrection and Al*-Qadar (Divine Preordainments)], then fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers.” (Al-Maa’idah:5)

    And He says, Verily, those who disbelieve from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikûn (the polytheists) will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.” (Al-Bayyinah:6)

    So how can he (Zakir) affirm for them monotheism (At-Tawheed) when they are upon this idolatrous condition?

    So he is either an Ittihaadee (here meaning one who believes in Wahdat ul-Wujood – the concept that Allaah is one with His creations), and from those who believe that whoever worships any stone, or tree, or cows, or idol, or vagina, or penis, then verily he is a worshipper of Allaah – just as the people who hold this creed of disbelief say. And among them was Husayn bin Mansoor Al-Hallaaj who said (in lines of poetry):

    “I am Allaah without doubt, So glory be unto You (Allaah), glory be unto me. So Your Tawheed (Allaah) is my Tawheed, And disobedience to You (Allaah) is disobeying me.”

    And indeed they have mentioned from Abee Yazeed Al-Bistaamee, who was known by the name Tayfoor, that he said, “Glory be unto me, glory be unto me, there is none whose condition is greater than mine, and the Paradise is the toy of my children.” And Adh-Dhahabee reported in his biography from Al-Meezaan that some of them used to affirm this statement from him (Al-Bistaamee).

    And the likes of these statements in their creed of belief means all the things that exist are Allaah.

    So these statements from Zakir could be from (his) belief of Al-Hulool (that Allaah indwells within His creatures). If not, then how can he affirm for these Sikhs, who are worshippers of cows, and vaginas, and trees, and whatever else that they worship besides Allaah – how can he affirm for them that they are people of monotheism (Muwahhidoon)!?

    Or (the second possibility) is that he has with him something from the speech of the Jahmiyyah, when they say that verily Faith (Al-Eemaan) is acknowledging, so whoever knows Allaah, then he is a person of monotheism (Muwahhid). Ibn Abee Al-‘Izz (may Allaah have mercy upon him) reported in his book, “Sharh ut-Tahaawiyyah”, that this statement necessitates from him (the speaker) that Fir’awn (Pharaoh) was from the people of monotheism (At-Tawheed), in that he only was in denial while his own soul actually was certain of it (Islaam being true). Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, said, “And they denied them (those Ayât) wrongfully and arrogantly, though their own selves were convinced thereof.” (An-Naml:14)

    What is necessitated by this statement is that the Prophets fought the idol worshipping polytheists (Wathaniyyoon Mushrikoon) upon falsehood, and that Allaah commanded that these disbelievers be fought against by that. And this is not correct, since they were worshippers of stones, and trees, and other than that from those things that they worshipped. And if they were like that, then verily they were worshipping Allaah when they knew this (i.e. there was no reason to fight them if Allaah was in all of these created things that they were worshipping as well). So the things that are necessitated by this statement are false.

    The conclusion is that the man (Zakir) has rolled up everything that crawls or walks into his pouch from the falsehoods. And there is not a paragraph from these paragraphs (from his statements in this letter) except that beneath it are deviations and falsehoods that Allaah knows. However, this is an allusion to things other than this.

    Translated by Aqeel Walker, 3/26/07




  2. #2
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default

    The Reply to Thirty Questions


    Confirming that Zakir the Indian and People of His Ideology are Misguided Deviants

    Answered by Ash-Shaikh Yahyaa Al-Hajooree – may Allaah preserve him

    These are some of the well-known, published statements of the one who is called Zakir Naik, the Indian – may Allaah guide him – which we are presenting to the Shaikh, the ‘Allaamah, Abee ‘Abdir-Rahmaan Yahyaa bin ‘Alee Al-Hajooree Al-Yamaanee, for him to answer. And they are as follows:

    The first question: Zakir Naik says, “You can call Allaah with any name at all, however it must be a name that is good and beautiful.” [Translator's note: This is my translation of the Arabic question. Please refer to the original statement of Zakir Naik, as it may not be exactly as I have translated it from Arabic but it has the same meaning. The brothers who are familiar with this man's deviance most likely know the exact quote.]

    The response of the Shaikh, may Allaah bless him:

    In the Name of Allaah, the Most Merciful, the Giver of Mercy. All praise is due to Allaah. We praise Him, we seek His help, we seek His forgiveness, and we seek refuge with Him from the evils of our own selves, and our own wicked deeds. Whoever Allaah guides, there is none who can misguide him, and whoever He leads astray, there is none who can guide him. And I testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allaah alone, who has no partner, and I testify that Muhammad is His Slave and Messenger – may prayers of blessing and peace be upon him, and upon his family, in great abundance. Thus to proceed:

    So this statement, which contains in it a permission for every person that he may name Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, with what Allaah did not name Himself; this contains a cruel mistreatment of Allaah, Glory be unto Him, the Most High, and it contains fabrication of a lie against Allaah, Glory be unto Him, the Most High. And it is a statement of falsehood that is not based upon anything from the Book (Al-Qur’aan), the Sunnah, or any consensus (Ijmaa’). And indeed I have already refuted the Sufi, ‘Umar bin Hafeedh in one of his statements that is similar to this statement, and that he would supplicate to Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, with names that were not confirmed (for Allaah). And here is the refutation so that we do not have to repeat what has been mentioned of evidences, and it is the refutation against this Zakir person (as well):

    The Sufi ‘Umar bin Hafeedh said in his book “Khulaasat ul-Madad in-Nabawee fee Awraad Aali Baa’lawee”, pg 39, under the topic heading “Ad-Du’aa bi Asmaa’illaah il-Husnaa yaa Muqsit, yaa Naafi’, yaa Jaami’.”

    The reply of Ash-Shaikh Yahyaa (hafidhahullaahu ta’aalaa):

    Allaah, the Most High, says: “And unto Allaah belong the Most Beautiful Names, so call upon Him with them.” (Al-A’raaf:180)

    So how can he call upon Allaah with names that are not confirmed for Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, like his saying, “O Naafi’,” etc.? And how can he name Allaah with that which Allaah has not named Himself, nor did His Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) call Him by these names. This is from the matter of speaking about Allaah without knowledge. And if we wanted to call ‘Umar bin Hafeedh by a name other than his name, he would not be pleased with that, and he would consider it mistreating him by us calling him by other than his name. So how can this person not be pleased with this for himself, yet he is pleased with that treatment for Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic?! And he, with this deed of his, has opposed the evidences, and the consensus of the Ummah (Muslim nation).

    Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’ee (may Allaah have mercy upon him) said: “Allaah, the Most High, has Names and Attributes, which His Book (the Qur’aan) has come with, and His Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) has informed of. There is no room for anyone from the creatures of Allaah, the Most High, whom the proof has been established upon him, to refute (or deny) them.” (Thamm ut-Ta’weel, pg. 121)

    And Al-Imaam Ahmad (may Allaah have mercy upon him) said about the Attributes: “And they are not known except by what Allaah described Himself with. So He is All-Hearing, All-Seeing. And those who describe him do not reach the full extent of his Attribute, and one is not to go beyond the Qur’aan and the Hadeeth (in describing Him). So we say just as He (Allaah) said, and we describe Him with what He used to describe Himself, and one is not to go beyond the Qur’aan.” (Al-Masaa’il war-Rasaa’il fil-‘Aqeedah, by Al-Imaam Ahmad, 1/277, and Ijtimaa’ ul-Juyoosh il-Islaamiyyah, pg. 83, and Al-Fataawaa, 5/26.)

    And the Imaam of the Imaams, Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Ishaaq said: “So we, and all of the Salaf, from the people of the Hijaaz, and Tihaamah, and Al-Yemen, and Al-‘Iraaq, and Ash-Shaam, and Misr (Egypt), our Math-hab (way) is that we affirm for Allaah what he affirmed for Himself.” (At-Tawheed, by Ibn Khuzaymah, 1/26)

    And Al-Imaam Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Ismaa’eel, who was known as Al-Ismaa’eelee, said: “And they believe that Allaah is called by His beautiful Names, and described by His Attributes, which His Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) named and described Him with.” (I’tiqaad A’imati Ahlil-Hadeeth, pg. 35)

    And Al-Imaam Abu Nasr ‘Ubaydullaah bin Sa’eed As-Sijzee said: “And indeed the Imaams have agreed that the Attributes should only be taken as Tawqeefiyyah (restricted to the texts) and it is not permissible that Allaah be described except with what He described Himself, or with what His Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) described Him with.” (Ar-Radd ‘alaa man Ankar al-Harf was-Sawt, pg. 121)

    Al-Imaam Ibn ‘Abdil-Barr said: “Ahlus-Sunnah are unanimously agreed in confirming the Attributes that are reported in the Book (Al-Qur’aan) and the Sunnah, and believing in them according to the literal meaning, and not as figurative meanings.” (At-Tamheed, 7/145, and Al-Fataawaa, 5/87).

    And Abul-Qaasim Al-Qushayree said: “The Names are to be taken as Tawqeef (restricted) from the Book (Al-Qur’aan) and the Sunnah, and the Consensus (Ijmaa’).” (Al-Fath, 11/226)

    And Abul-Hasan Al-Qaabisee said: “The Names of Allaah, and His Attributes are not known except by the Tawqeef (restrictive texts) from the Book (Al-Qur’aan) and the Sunnah, or the Consensus (Ijmaa’), and one is not to enter into them with analogy (Qiyaas).” (Al-Fath, 11/220)

    And Ibn Mundah said: “And the Names of Allaah, and His Attributes are Tawqeefiyyah (restricted to the texts), and Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah do not affirm for Allaah anything but what He affirmed for Himself in His Book (Al-Qur’aan), or what has been authenticated from the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam).” (At-Tawheed, by Ibn Mundah, 2/135).

    And Ibn Hazm said: “So it is correct that it is not permissible that Allaah be named with any name except what He named Himself with.” (Al-Muhallaa, 8/31)

    And Al-Imaam Al-Baghawee said: “The Names of Allaah, the Most High, are taken as Tawqeef (restricted to the texts of the Qur’aan and the Sunnah).” (Ma’aalim ut-Tanzeel, 3/307)

    And As-Safaareenee said in Lawaami’ ul-Anwar: “But they are in reality Tawqeefiyyah, We have with this proofs that are reliable.” (These are two lines of poetry)

    Then he explained that, so he said: “We have – O people of the Sunnah and following the Salaf – in considering the affirmation of Tawqeef (restriction) regarding the Names of Al-Baaree (Allaah), the Magnificent and Exalted, from the Legislator, reliable, lofty proofs, that fulfill the goal, because whatever is not confirmed from the Legislator, it should not be taken in unrestricted reliance upon it. And the basic principle (Asl) is prohibition (regarding issues of belief) until a proof of allowance is established. So if it is confirmed, then it is Tawqeefee (within the restriction of the texts).” (Lawaami’ ul-Anwar, 1/124-125)

    And Shaikh ul-Islaam ibn Taymiyyah (may Allaah have mercy upon him) said: “And the conglomerate of statements regarding the affirmation of the Attributes is the statement that the Salaf of the Ummah were upon and its Imaams, and it is that Allaah is described by what He described Himself with, and by what His Messenger described Him with. And that is to be safeguarded from At-Tahreef (distortion of meaning), At-Tamtheel (likening with the creation), At-Takyeef (describing how they are), and At-Ta’teel (denial of them). ‘There is nothing like Him.’ (Ash-Shooraa:11) These (At-Tahreef, At-Tamtheel, At-Takyeef, and At-Ta’teel) are not to be applied to His Self, His Attributes, nor to His Actions.” This concludes what was wanted of his statement. (Majmoo’ ul-Fataawaa, 6/515)

    And his student, Al-Imaam Ibn ul-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy upon him) said in the principles that he mentioned regarding the Attributes of Allaah: “The seventh is that whatever is used to refer to Him, and regarding the matter of the Names and Attributes, then this is Tawqeefee (restricted to the texts of the Qur’aan and the Sunnah).” (Badaa’i’ul-Fawaa’id, 1/162)

    Based upon this, it is not permissible to affirm a name of Allaah, nor any attribute for Him, without an authentic proof conveyed from a textual evidence (i.e. the Qur’aan or authentic hadeeths). This is due to Allaah, the Most High’s, statement: “And unto Allaah belong the most beautiful Names, so call upon Him with them. And leave off those who deviate regarding His Names. They will be punished for what they used to do.” (Al-A’raaf:180)

    And affirming Attributes of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, without an authentic evidence to support it, is considered speaking about Allaah without knowledge. And indeed Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, mentioned speaking about Allaah without knowledge along with the major Shirk (associating partners with Allaah). So He, the Most High, said: “Say (O Muhammad): ‘(But) the things that my Lord has indeed forbidden are Al-Fawâhish (great evil sins, every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse, etc.), whether committed openly or secretly, sins (of all kinds), unrighteous oppression, joining partners (in worship) with Allâh for which He has given no authority, and saying things about Allâh of which you have no knowledge.’” (Al-A’raaf:33)

    And Allaah, the Most High, said: “And follow not (O man i.e., say not, or do not, or witness not, etc.) that of which you have no knowledge (e.g. one’s saying: ‘I have seen,’ while in fact he has not seen, or ‘I have heard,’ while he has not heard). Verily! The hearing, and the sight, and the heart, of each of those you will be questioned (by Allâh).” (Al-Israa:36)

    And the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) used to say, “I seek refuge with You, from You. I cannot enumerate the praises upon You. You are just as You have praised Yourself.”

    This is the conclusion of the first question posed to Shaikh Yahyaa Al-Hajooree regarding Zakir Naik.
    Translated by Aqeel Walker, 2/28/07

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

    Read and listen in urdu @ http://forum.netmuslims.com/showthread.php?p=54311#post54311

  3. #3
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default

    Zakir Naik says that the Quraan says to read Injeel/Bible for dawah.

    20. "Question:…Muhammed salAllahu alaihiwasallam has advised follow the quraan and not to do research on other religious books….why do we make research and instead convince the non-muslim the greatness of Islaam..?
    answer: "…which hadeeth say the prophet said don't do research…people quote a hadeeth in which hazrat Umar may Allah be pleased with him he was reading the injeel and the prophet said don't read the injeel…the prophet said don't read the injeel for guidance…for guidance you should not read the injeel.. but to do dawah YOU HAVE TO READ.. who says that…? ….not dr.zaakir…Quraan says that…Quraan says in surah al baqarah….chapter no.2 verse no.111 it says….wa qaalu lay yadhulal jannata illa man kaana hunaan aw nasaara…the jews and Christians they say you muslims …you shall never enter jannah…with your hajj with your fasting without your salah.. with the mark on your forehead….you muslim you shall never enter jannah…unless you become a jew or a christian….Allah says … tilka amaaniyoohum….this is their wishful thinking…bakwaas hai bakwaas….vain desires…..Qul haatum Burhaanakum….Produce your proof….in kuntum saadiqeen…but if you are truthful….and they have produced the proof ..the holy bible in no less than 2000 different languages….they say …my bible says this…my bible says that….my bible says this ..my bible says that….what you have to do? You have to follow the bible and ….(words unclear)……YOU HAVE TO READ THE BIBLE .ANALYSE THE BIBLE AND SPEAK TO THEM…..Quraan says surah Aali Imran chapter no.3 verse no.64….tala ilaa kalimatan sawaaimbayna na wa baynakum….come to common terms as between us and you…..how will you come to common terms unless you don't read the religious scriptures….so don't read the religious scripture of non-muslim for guidance…but read it for dawah and that's what the Quraan says…and the prophet never forbid that….

    (Muhamed in various world religious scripture- from the CD- -"Presenting Islaam and Clarifying Misconceptions –Lecture series by Dr.Zaakir Naik, Developed by AHYA Multi-Media- 12 Enlightening Sessions)

    What the Scholars of Islam say:

    The Second Question of Fatwa no. 8852

    Question:

    What is the ruling on reading the Bible?

    Answer:

    The Divine Books revealed before the Qur'an now include many distortions, alterations, and omissions, as Allah says in the Qur'an.

    Therefore, it is not permissible for Muslims to read any of these Books, unless they have deep-rooted knowledge of the Din (religion) and want to explain the distortions and inconsistencies in these books.

    May Allah grant us success! May peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and Companions!

    Permanent Committee for Scholarly Research and Ifta'
    `Abdul-`Aziz ibn `Abdullah ibn Baz
    `Abdul-Razzaq `Afify
    `Abdullah ibn Ghudayyan
    `Abdullah ibn Qa`ud


    Question:

    What is the ruling on a Muslim who reads the Bible or swears by it?

    Answer:

    It is not permissible for a Muslim to read the Bible as it has almost entirely undergone interpolation. Even the parts of the Bible that have undergone no interpolation are needless as the Qur'an replaces them. This ruling is not applicable to scholars who need to read it in order to refute the claims of the People of the Book.

    It is not permissible either to swear by the Bible in its present form as it has undergone partial interpolation and distortion, and thus cannot be the words of Allah (may He be Glorified and Exalted).

    Excerpt from http://www.alifta.com/Fatawa/FatawaChapters.aspx?View=Page&PageID=9911&PageNo=1&BookID=7

    An example of a Scholar who is allowed to read the books of non-Muslims and refute them is al-Allamah Taqiuddeen al-Hilali rahimahullah and mashAllah he did a very good job with that.

  4. #4
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default

    Zakir Naik says its fard to do da'awah and if not will not enter Jannah.

    15. "…as I mentioned its fard for every muslim to do dawah if they don't do dawah they wont enter jannah .its fard upon every muslims to atleast do part-time dawah. But the quraan says in surah imraan chapter no.3 verse no.104 let there arise out of you a group of people enjoin what is good and forbid what is bad these are the ones to attain felicity….. how we have have full time doctor full time lawyers full time advocates…why don't we have full time daeee…so there should be a group of people amongst the muslims who are full time daees and it's the duty of the ummah to support these daees…but otherwise it's the duty of every muslim to atleast be part time daee they should do dawah if they don't do dawah they shall not enter jannah"

    (Muhammed in the various world religious scriptures- from the CD-"Presenting Islaam and Clarifying Misconceptions –Lecture series by Dr.Zaakir Naik, Developed by AHYA Multi-Media- 12 Enlightening Sessions)

    What Islam says:

    Let there arise out of you a group of people inviting to all that is good (Islâm), enjoining Al-Ma'rûf (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism and all that Islâm orders one to do) and forbidding Al-Munkar (polytheism and disbelief and all that Islâm has forbidden). And it is they who are the successful. (Aali Imran 3:104)

    As the verse above clearly states "a group of people" meaning not everyone but only some people. So do the rest not enter Jannah then?

    Where is the proof of Zakir Naik to say that if you don't do dawa then you will not enter jannah?!

  5. #5
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default

    Zakir Naik says the word 'Hur' in the Qur'an refers to both men and women

    46. "...the sister has posed the question that when a man enters paradise he will get hoor that is a beautiful maiden what will the women get when she enters paradise ?....the quraan has mentioned the word hoor in no less than 4 different places its mentioned in surah dukhan , chapter no.44 , verse no.54, its mentioned in surah tur chapter no. 52, verse no.20, its mentioned in surah rahman chapter no.55, verse no. 72 as well as in surah waaqia , chapter no. 46 verse no.22, and many of the translations ..specially the urdu translations have translated the word hur to as beautiful maiden,... if the word hoor means a beautiful maiden then what will the women get in paradise , actually the word hur is a plural for "ahwaar"...which is applicable to the man and "hawar" which is applicable to the women... and it signifies the characteristics of hawar...which means big, white beautiful eyes and describes specially the whiteness of the eyes....the similar thing is mentioned as 'azwajun mutaharan' many places in the quraan in surah baqarah, chapter no.2, verse n.25, and surah nisa chapter no.4 , verse no. 57 it says 'azwaajun mutaharatun' which means companion , pair. But the word 'hur' is rightly translated by Mohammed Asad as spouse and also by Abdullah Yusuf Ali .. abdullah yusuf ali as companion....so hur actually means a companion or a spouse..it has no gender.... further man will get a good lady with big beautiful eyes and for a women she get a good man with big beautiful eyes...I hope that answers the question"

    (Womens rights in islaam – modernising or outdated-- ------"Presenting Islaam and Clarifying Misconceptions –Lecture series by Dr.Zaakir Naik, Developed by AHYA Multi-Media- 12 Enlightening Sessions)


    What Islam says:


    In just memorizing the verses where the word "hoor" is mentioned, he has memorized a wrong chapter number for the surah waaqia. Surah Al-Waq'ah is chapter 56, not 46. If you don't know then he has stated that they memorize verses from different books for dawa purposes.

    He mentions chapter 2, verse 25, and chapter 4, verse 57 to mean that they are talking about the "hoor" when in fact these verses are not talking about the "hoor". They are talking about purified mates or wives with no earthly impurities such as menses, stool, urine.

    He talks about the word "hoor" to refer to woman companions only in jannah. One the proof is quotes is chapter 55, verse 72. Let's look at a few verses before this and after this. If you read the whole chapter then you will see that it is describing the Paradise and what is in it for the dwellers.

    Asad translation: http://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/

    [55:56] In these [gardens] will be mates of modest gaze, whom neither man nor invisible being will have touched ere then.
    [55:72] [There the blest will live with their] companions pure and modest, in pavilions [splendid]
    [55:74] [companions] whom neither man nor invisible being will have touched ere then.

    Another translation: http://thenoblequran.com

    [55:56] Wherein both will be those (maidens) restraining their glances upon their husbands, whom no man or jinn yatmithhunna (deflowered) before them.
    [55:72] Houris (beautiful, fair females) restrained in pavilions;
    [55:74] Whom no man or jinn yatmithhunna (deflowered) before them.

    Does Zakir Naik think that there are gay men in Jannah? That's what it means when you say the "hoor" mentioned in the Qur'an refers to men when these verses clearly say that no man or jinn has touched them.

    Zakir Naik, while talking 'hur' meaning to be a man or woman, says that a man will get a woman and a woman will get a man. What will happen to these women's husbands from the dhuniya (world)? Does he think that Allah's law of only one man per woman is negated in heaven? If women are not allowed to have more than one husband on earth and never were allowed from the start then do they think this law will change in jannah?


    Tafseer of Ibn Katheer on these verses

    (Qasirat At-Tarf) chaste females, wives restraining their glances, desiring none except their husbands, seeing them as the most beautiful men in Paradise. This was said by Ibn `Abbas, Qatadah, `Ata' Al-Khurasani and Ibn Zayd. It was reported that one of these wives will say to her husband, "By Allah! I neither see anything in Paradise more handsome than you nor more beloved to me than you. So praise be to Allah Who made you for me and made me for you.'' Allah said,

    [لَمْ يَطْمِثْهُنَّ إِنسٌ قَبْلَهُمْ وَلاَ جَآنٌّ ]

    (whom never deflowered a human before nor Jinn ) meaning they are delightful virgins of comparable age who never had sexual intercourse with anyone, whether from mankind or Jinns, before their husbands. This is also a proof that the believers among the Jinns will enter Paradise. Artat bin Al-Mundhir said, "Damrah bin Habib was asked if the Jinns will enter Paradise and he said, `Yes, and they will get married. The Jinns will have Jinn women and the humans will have female humans.''' Allah's statement,

    [لَمْ يَطْمِثْهُنَّ إِنسٌ قَبْلَهُمْ وَلاَ جَآنٌّ فَبِأَىِّ ءَالاءِ رَبِّكُمَا تُكَذِّبَانِ ]

    (whom never deflowered a human before nor Jinn. Then which of the blessings of your Lord will you both deny) Then Allah describes these women for the proposed:

    [كَأَنَّهُنَّ الْيَاقُوتُ وَالْمَرْجَانُ ]

    (they are like Yaqut and Marjan.) Mujahid, Al-Hasan, Ibn Zayd and others said, "They are as pure as rubies and white as Marjan.'' So here they described Marjan as pearls. Imam Muslim recorded that Muhammad bin Sirin said, "Some people either boasted or just wondered who are more in Paradise, men or women. Abu Hurayrah said, `Has not Abu Al-Qasim (Muhammad ) said,

    «إِنَّ أَوَّلَ زُمْرَةٍ تَدْخُلُ الْجَنَّةَ عَلَى صُورَةِ الْقَمَرِ لَيْلَةَ الْبَدْرِ، وَالَّتِي تَلِيهَا عَلَى (أَضْوَءِ) كَوْكَبٍ دُرِّيَ فِي السَّمَاءِ، لِكُلِّ امْرِىءٍ مِنْهُمْ زَوْجَتَانِ اثْنَتَانِ، يُرَى مُخُّ سُوقِهِمَا مِنْ وَرَاءِ اللَّحْمِ،وَمَا فِي الْجَنَّةِ أَعْزَب»

    (Verily, the first group that will enter Paradise will look like the moon when it is full, and the next batch will be as radiant as the radiant star in the sky. Each one of them will marry two wives. The marrow of the bones of their shins will be seen through the flesh. None will be unmarried in Paradise.) This Hadith was recorded in the Two Sahihs. Imam Ahmad recorded that Anas said that the Messenger of Allah said,

    «لَغَدْوَةٌ فِي سَبِيلِ اللهِ أَوْ رَوْحَةٌ خَيْرٌ مِنَ الدُّنْيَا وَمَا فِيهَا، وَلَقَابُ قَوسِ أَحَدِكُمْ، أَوْ مَوْضِعُ قِدِّهِ يَعْنِي سَوْطَهُ مِنَ الْجَنَّةِ خَيْرٌ مِنَ الدُّنْيَا وَمَا فِيهَا، وَلَوِ اطَّلَعَتِ امْرَأَةٌ مِنْ نِسَاءِ أَهْلِ الْجَنَّةِ إِلَى الْأَرْضِ لَمَلَأَتْ مَا بَيْنَهُمَا رِيحًا، وَلَطَابَ مَا بَيْنَهُمَا، وَلَنَصِيفُهَا عَلَى رَأْسِهَا خَيْرٌ مِنَ الدُّنْيَا وَمَا فِيهَا»

    (A morning or an evening journey in Allah's cause is better than the world and whatever is on its surface. And a place in Paradise as small as that occupied by the whip of one of you, is better than the world and whatever is on its surface. If one of the women of the people of Paradise looks directly at the earth, she will fill what is between Paradise and earth with a good scent and all of it will become delightful. Verily, the veil over her head is better than this life and all that is on its surface.) Al-Bukhari also collected a similar narration.

  6. #6
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default

    Zakir Naik says Muhammed salAllahu alaihiwasallam was also a King besides being a prophet.

    13. "…Moses and Muhammed peace be upon them both besides being prophets of Almighty God they were even Kings ..kings means they could give a punishment . a capital punishment of death to whoever they wanted …whoever commited a crime besides being prophets of God they were even head of states or King of that world"

    (Similarities between Islaam and Christianity- from the CD-"Presenting Islaam and Clarifying Misconceptions –Lecture series by Dr.Zaakir Naik, Developed by AHYA Multi-Media- 12 Enlightening Sessions)


    What Islam Says:


    Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Allah will take the whole earth (in His Hand) and will roll up the Heaven in His right Hand, and then He will say, "I am King! Where are the kings of the earth ? " Sahi Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 526


    Prophet King Or Slave Messenger

    Author: Al-Haafidh Ibn Rajab al-Hanbalee

    The Prophet sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam chose the station of al-Ubudiyyah (slavery and servitude) over and above the station of kingship. Once - on the day of the conquest of Makkah - a man stood-up (out of reverence) for the Prophet sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam , who, being shocked, said to him:

    “Do not trouble yourself! Indeed, I am not a king. Rather I am merely the son of a Qurayshi woman who eats dry meat.” [Ibn Maajah (no.3312) and al-Haakim (3/47)]

    It has also been authentically reported from the Prophet sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam that he said:

    “Do not over praise me as the Christians over-praised Eesaa son of Maryam. Indeed, I am only a slave. So call me the Slave of Allaah and His Messenger.” [Related by al-Bukhaaree (6/345), ad-Daarimee (2/320) and others]

    Imaam Ahmad - rahimahullaahu ta’aala - reports from Muhammad ibn Fudayl, from Amaarah, from Abu Zur’ah who said: I do not know this except from Abu Hurayrah - rahimahullaahu ta’aala - who said:

    “Jibreel was sitting with the Prophet sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam looking towards the sky, when he saw an angel. So Jibreel - ’alayhis-salaam - said to him: Indeed, this angel has never descended before today. So when the angel had descended, he said: O Muhammad! I have been sent by your Lord (to inquire) whether He should make you a Prophet-King or a Slave-Messenger.” [Related by Ahmad (2/321), al-Bazzaar (no.4262) and al-Haythamee in al-Majma’ (9/18-19)]

    And in a mursal narration from Yahyaa Ibn Katheer – rahimahullaah, that the Prophet sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam said:

    “I eat as a slave eats, and I sit as a slave sits. Since indeed I am a slave.” [Related by Ibn Sa’d in at-Tabaqaat (1/371)]

    There is also a narration related by Abu Ma’dhr from al-Maqburi from Aa'ishah - radi-Allaahu ’anhaa - that the Prophet sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam said:

    “An angel came to me and said: Allaah sends blessings upon you and says: If you wish you may be a Prophet-King or a Slave-Messenger. So Jibreel - ’alayhis-salaam - indicated to me that I should humble myself: So I said: A Prophet-Slave.” So ’Aa'ishah said: So after that day, the Prophet sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam never ate whilst reclining, saying: “I eat like a slave eats and I sit like a slave sits.” [Related by al-Baghawee in Sharhus-Sunnah (no.4683)]

    And from the mursal narrations of az-Zuhree -rahimahullaahu ta’aala - who said:

    We were informed that an angel came to the Prophet sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam, who had never come to him before. Accompanying him was Jibreel - ’alayhis-salaam. So the angel spoke, and Jibreel - ’alayhis-salaam - remained silent, so he said: Your Lord inquires whether you wish to be a king or a Prophet-Slave. So the Prophet sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam looked towards Jibreel - ’alayhis-salaam - as if he was seeking his advice. So Jibreel indicated that he should be humble. So Allaah’s Messenger sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam said: “A Prophet-Slave.” Az-Zuhree said: So it is said that from that day onwards, the Prophet sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam never ate whilst reclining, until he departed from this world. [Mursal narration, supported by narrations that have preceded]

    And it is related in the Musnad, or in the Sunan of at-Tirmidhee, from Abu Hurayrah radi-Allaahu ’anhu, from the Prophet sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam who said:

    “My Lord - the Mighty and Majestic - gave me the choice that the valley of Makkah be filled with gold, but I said: No! O Lord. However, grant food to me one day, and hunger the day after. So when I am hungry I humble myself before You and remember You, and when I am full, I am grateful to You.” [Related by Ahmad (5/254) and at-Tirmidhee (no.2348)]

    Some of the knowledgeable people have said: Whoever claims al-ubudiyyah (slavery and servitude to Allaah), but desires still remain with him, then he is lying in his claim. Indeed, al-ubudiyyah will only be true for the one who annihilates his desires and establishes the will of his Master, where his name is what He called him (i.e. ibaadur-Rahmaan: the Slaves of the Most Merciful).

    Al-Haafidh Abu Nu’aym - rahimahullaahu ta’aala - relates in the book: Asmaa‘us-Sabaabah, by way of Shaykh Abu Sulaymaan ad-Darani (d.215H) - rahimahullaahu ta’aala - who related from ’Alqamah ibn al-Haarith al-Azdi, from his father, from his grandfather who mentioned the saying of Luqmaan the wise when he said to his son:

    “I have gathered my wisdom for you in six sentences: Work for this world in proportion to how long you shall remain in it, and work for the Hereafter in proportion to how long you shall remain in it. Commit acts of sin in proportion to how much you can endure it. Act for Allaah in accordance to how much you are in need of Him. Commit acts of disobedience in accordance to how much you can endure the punishment. Do not ask except from the One who is in need of no one. And when you intend to commit a sin against Allaah, then do it in a place where He cannot see you.”

    Ibraaheem al-Khawwaas - rahimahullaahu ta’aala - said:

    “The cure for the hearts is in five things: reciting the Qur‘aan with reflection and contemplation; emptying the stomach (i.e. frequent fasting); praying at night; humbling oneself in the early hours of the morning; and being in the company of the saaliheen (righteous).”

    Ibraaheem ibn Adham (d.160H) - rahimahullaahu ta’aala - said in an admonition, when he was asked (by some people) about the saying of Allaah - the Most High -: “Call upon Me and I will respond to you.” [40:60]

    (They said): “We call upon Him, but He does not respond to us.”

    So he said to them:
    “You know Allaah, yet you do not obey Him. You recite the Qur‘aan, but you do not act according to it. You know Shaytaan, but still agree with him. You claim to love Allaah’s Messenger sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam, yet you abandon his Sunnah. You claim to love Paradise, yet you do not work for it. You claim to fear the Fire, yet you do not stop sinning. You say: Indeed death is true, yet you have not prepared for it. You busy yourselves with the faults of others, but you do not look at your own faults. You eat the sustenance that Allaah provides for you, yet you are not grateful to Him. You bury your dead, but you have not heeded its lesson.”

    We ask Allaah to grant us the ability to please Him and to bestow upon us His mercy.

    Source:Al-Khushoo' fis-Salaah (pp. 57-62)


  7. #7
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default

    Zaakir Naik equates Names of Allah to the names of deities found in hindu religious books & Zakir Naik says its is permissible to call Allah by names of these Hindu Mushrikeen idols.

    8."….the other veda is the atharva ved …its mentioned in atharva ved book no. 20 chapter no. 58 verse no.3 it says –dev mahaosi…god is verily great .same as Allahu Akbar….allah Is great Amongst all the Vedas the most sacred and the oldest is the Rig ved …

    its mentioned in Rig ved book no. 1 hymn no.164 verse no.46 ..sages call one god by many name …that means there are various names given to this one god and the Rig ved alone gives no less than 33 different attributes to Almighty God most of which are mentioned in Rig Ved book no.2 hymn no.1…

    and one of the beautiful attribute which is mentioned in Rig ved of Almighty God is Brahma which mentioned in Rig ved book no.2 hymn no.1 verse no.3… Brahma means the creator if you translate into Arabic it means Khalique …..we muslims have got no objection if anyone calls Almighty god… Allah subhanwatala as Khalique , or creator or Brahma… but if someone says that Brahma is Almighty god who has got four heads and on each head is a crown and he has got four arms we muslims take strong objection to it moreover it is even prohibited in Yajur ved chapter no.32 verse no.3 which says ..na tasya pratima asti ....there is no image of him…

    another beautiful attribute which is given in the Rig Ved book no.2. hymn no.1 verse no.3 is Vishnu , Vishnu means the sustainer..if you translate into Arabic it means Rab…we muslims have got no objection if someone calls Almighty God as Rab or cherisher sustainer or Vishnu but if someone says Vishnu is almighty god who has got four hands and one his right hand holds the charka that's the discus and one of his left hand holds the counch and he is riding on a bird or reclining on a couch of snakes we muslims take strong objection to it …you are going against Yahur ved chapter no.40 verse no.8 which says ….god is bodyless……as well as upaishad chapter no.4 verse no.19 of swetha swatara upanishad which say s– na tasya pratima asti..there is no likness….

    Its mentioned in Rig Ved book no.8 hymn no.1 verse no.1 maa chidanyadi shansada ..that means …do not worship anyone besides him alone…praise him alone… its mentioned in rig ved book no.5 chapter no.81 verse no.1 it says…verily great is the glory of the divine creator same as surah fatihah chapter no.1 verse no.2 – Alhamdulillahi rabbil aalameen.. praise be to Allah subhanwatala the Lord of the Worlds ….its futher mentioned in Rig Ved book no.3. hymn no.34 verse no.1…says… he is the bouteous giver….its futher mentioned in the yajur ved chapter no.40 verse no. 16 it says …that lead us to the good path and save us from the sin which makes us wander and go astray ….similar to the verse of holy quraan of surah fathiha chapter no.1 verse no. 6 and 7 which says …ihdina siraatal mustaqeem siraatalzeena ………..show us the straight path the path………..its mentioned in rig ved book no.6 hymn no.45 verse no.16 …ya ek et mushtihi ….. praise him who is matchless and alone……

    (Concept of God in Major religions- from the CD-"Presenting Islaam and Clarifying Misconceptions –Lecture series by Dr.Zaakir Naik, Developed by AHYA Multi-Media- 12 Enlightening Sessions)

    _________________

    What Islam Says:


    Answered by Ash-Shaikh Yahyaa Al-Hajooree – may Allaah preserve him

    The response
    of the Shaikh, may Allaah bless him:

    In the Name of Allaah, the Most Merciful, the Giver of Mercy. All praise is due to Allaah. We praise Him, we seek His help, we seek His forgiveness, and we seek refuge with Him from the evils of our own selves, and our own wicked deeds. Whoever Allaah guides, there is none who can misguide him, and whoever He leads astray, there is none who can guide him. And I testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allaah alone, who has no partner, and I testify that Muhammad is His Slave and Messenger – may prayers of blessing and peace be upon him, and upon his family, in great abundance. Thus to proceed:

    So this statement, which contains in it a permission for every person that he may name Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, with what Allaah did not name Himself; this contains a cruel mistreatment of Allaah, Glory be unto Him, the Most High, and it contains fabrication of a lie against Allaah, Glory be unto Him, the Most High. And it is a statement of falsehood that is not based upon anything from the Book (Al-Qur’aan), the Sunnah, or any consensus (Ijmaa’). And indeed I have already refuted the Sufi, ‘Umar bin Hafeedh in one of his statements that is similar to this statement, and that he would supplicate to Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, with names that were not confirmed (for Allaah). And here is the refutation so that we do not have to repeat what has been mentioned of evidences, and it is the refutation against this Zakir person (as well):

    The Sufi ‘Umar bin Hafeedh said in his book “Khulaasat ul-Madad in-Nabawee fee Awraad Aali Baa’lawee”, pg 39, under the topic heading “Ad-Du’aa bi Asmaa’illaah il-Husnaa yaa Muqsit, yaa Naafi’, yaa Jaami’.”

    The reply of Ash-Shaikh Yahyaa (hafidhahullaahu ta’aalaa):

    Allaah, the Most High, says: “And unto Allaah belong the Most Beautiful Names, so call upon Him with them.” (Al-A’raaf:180)

    So how can he call upon Allaah with names that are not confirmed for Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, like his saying, “O Naafi’,” etc.? And how can he name Allaah with that which Allaah has not named Himself, nor did His Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) call Him by these names. This is from the matter of speaking about Allaah without knowledge. And if we wanted to call ‘Umar bin Hafeedh by a name other than his name, he would not be pleased with that, and he would consider it mistreating him by us calling him by other than his name. So how can this person not be pleased with this for himself, yet he is pleased with that treatment for Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic?! And he, with this deed of his, has opposed the evidences, and the consensus of the Ummah (Muslim nation).

    Al-Imaam Ash-Shaafi’ee (may Allaah have mercy upon him) said: “Allaah, the Most High, has Names and Attributes, which His Book (the Qur’aan) has come with, and His Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) has informed of. There is no room for anyone from the creatures of Allaah, the Most High, whom the proof has been established upon him, to refute (or deny) them.” (Thamm ut-Ta’weel, pg. 121)

    And Al-Imaam Ahmad (may Allaah have mercy upon him) said about the Attributes: “And they are not known except by what Allaah described Himself with. So He is All-Hearing, All-Seeing. And those who describe him do not reach the full extent of his Attribute, and one is not to go beyond the Qur’aan and the Hadeeth (in describing Him). So we say just as He (Allaah) said, and we describe Him with what He used to describe Himself, and one is not to go beyond the Qur’aan.” (Al-Masaa’il war-Rasaa’il fil-‘Aqeedah, by Al-Imaam Ahmad, 1/277, and Ijtimaa’ ul-Juyoosh il-Islaamiyyah, pg. 83, and Al-Fataawaa, 5/26.)

    And the Imaam of the Imaams, Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Ishaaq said: “So we, and all of the Salaf, from the people of the Hijaaz, and Tihaamah, and Al-Yemen, and Al-‘Iraaq, and Ash-Shaam, and Misr (Egypt), our Math-hab (way) is that we affirm for Allaah what he affirmed for Himself.” (At-Tawheed, by Ibn Khuzaymah, 1/26)

    And Al-Imaam Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Ismaa’eel, who was known as Al-Ismaa’eelee, said: “And they believe that Allaah is called by His beautiful Names, and described by His Attributes, which His Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) named and described Him with.” (I’tiqaad A’imati Ahlil-Hadeeth, pg. 35)

    And Al-Imaam Abu Nasr ‘Ubaydullaah bin Sa’eed As-Sijzee said: “And indeed the Imaams have agreed that the Attributes should only be taken as Tawqeefiyyah (restricted to the texts) and it is not permissible that Allaah be described except with what He described Himself, or with what His Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) described Him with.” (Ar-Radd ‘alaa man Ankar al-Harf was-Sawt, pg. 121)

    Al-Imaam Ibn ‘Abdil-Barr said: “Ahlus-Sunnah are unanimously agreed in confirming the Attributes that are reported in the Book (Al-Qur’aan) and the Sunnah, and believing in them according to the literal meaning, and not as figurative meanings.” (At-Tamheed, 7/145, and Al-Fataawaa, 5/87).

    And Abul-Qaasim Al-Qushayree said: “The Names are to be taken as Tawqeef (restricted) from the Book (Al-Qur’aan) and the Sunnah, and the Consensus (Ijmaa’).” (Al-Fath, 11/226)

    And Abul-Hasan Al-Qaabisee said: “The Names of Allaah, and His Attributes are not known except by the Tawqeef (restrictive texts) from the Book (Al-Qur’aan) and the Sunnah, or the Consensus (Ijmaa’), and one is not to enter into them with analogy (Qiyaas).” (Al-Fath, 11/220)

    And Ibn Mundah said: “And the Names of Allaah, and His Attributes are Tawqeefiyyah (restricted to the texts), and Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah do not affirm for Allaah anything but what He affirmed for Himself in His Book (Al-Qur’aan), or what has been authenticated from the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam).” (At-Tawheed, by Ibn Mundah, 2/135).

    And Ibn Hazm said: “So it is correct that it is not permissible that Allaah be named with any name except what He named Himself with.” (Al-Muhallaa, 8/31)

    And Al-Imaam Al-Baghawee said: “The Names of Allaah, the Most High, are taken as Tawqeef (restricted to the texts of the Qur’aan and the Sunnah).” (Ma’aalim ut-Tanzeel, 3/307)

    And As-Safaareenee said in Lawaami’ ul-Anwar: “But they are in reality Tawqeefiyyah, We have with this proofs that are reliable.” (These are two lines of poetry)

    Then he explained that, so he said: “We have – O people of the Sunnah and following the Salaf – in considering the affirmation of Tawqeef (restriction) regarding the Names of Al-Baaree (Allaah), the Magnificent and Exalted, from the Legislator, reliable, lofty proofs, that fulfill the goal, because whatever is not confirmed from the Legislator, it should not be taken in unrestricted reliance upon it. And the basic principle (Asl) is prohibition (regarding issues of belief) until a proof of allowance is established. So if it is confirmed, then it is Tawqeefee (within the restriction of the texts).” (Lawaami’ ul-Anwar, 1/124-125)

    And Shaikh ul-Islaam ibn Taymiyyah (may Allaah have mercy upon him) said: “And the conglomerate of statements regarding the affirmation of the Attributes is the statement that the Salaf of the Ummah were upon and its Imaams, and it is that Allaah is described by what He described Himself with, and by what His Messenger described Him with. And that is to be safeguarded from At-Tahreef (distortion of meaning), At-Tamtheel (likening with the creation), At-Takyeef (describing how they are), and At-Ta’teel (denial of them). ‘There is nothing like Him.’ (Ash-Shooraa:11) These (At-Tahreef, At-Tamtheel, At-Takyeef, and At-Ta’teel) are not to be applied to His Self, His Attributes, nor to His Actions.” This concludes what was wanted of his statement. (Majmoo’ ul-Fataawaa, 6/515)

    And his student, Al-Imaam Ibn ul-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy upon him) said in the principles that he mentioned regarding the Attributes of Allaah: “The seventh is that whatever is used to refer to Him, and regarding the matter of the Names and Attributes, then this is Tawqeefee (restricted to the texts of the Qur’aan and the Sunnah).” (Badaa’i’ul-Fawaa’id, 1/162)

    Based upon this, it is not permissible to affirm a name of Allaah, nor any attribute for Him, without an authentic proof conveyed from a textual evidence (i.e. the Qur’aan or authentic hadeeths). This is due to Allaah, the Most High’s, statement: “And unto Allaah belong the most beautiful Names, so call upon Him with them. And leave off those who deviate regarding His Names. They will be punished for what they used to do.” (Al-A’raaf:180)

    And affirming Attributes of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, without an authentic evidence to support it, is considered speaking about Allaah without knowledge. And indeed Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, mentioned speaking about Allaah without knowledge along with the major Shirk (associating partners with Allaah). So He, the Most High, said: “Say (O Muhammad): ‘(But) the things that my Lord has indeed forbidden are Al-Fawâhish (great evil sins, every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse, etc.), whether committed openly or secretly, sins (of all kinds), unrighteous oppression, joining partners (in worship) with Allâh for which He has given no authority, and saying things about Allâh of which you have no knowledge.’” (Al-A’raaf:33)

    And Allaah, the Most High, said: “And follow not (O man i.e., say not, or do not, or witness not, etc.) that of which you have no knowledge (e.g. one’s saying: ‘I have seen,’ while in fact he has not seen, or ‘I have heard,’ while he has not heard). Verily! The hearing, and the sight, and the heart, of each of those you will be questioned (by Allâh).” (Al-Israa:36)

    And the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) used to say, “I seek refuge with You, from You. I cannot enumerate the praises upon You. You are just as You have praised Yourself.”

    This is the conclusion of the first question posed to Shaikh Yahyaa Al-Hajooree regarding Zakir Naik.
    Translated by Aqeel Walker, 2/28/07

  8. #8
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default Hamza Yusuf and his Ideology

    Hamza Yusuf- Where did he go wrong?

    By Yusuf Estes

    Yusuf Estes was a Christian priest who entered Islam and has since worked to promote it. He has studied and spread the message of Islam all over the US and in many foreign countries. He is currently a Muslim chaplain for federal Institutions and prisons. He is also a Muslim delegate to the UN Interfaith conference for religious leaders. We are very grateful for his comments regarding our struggle to promote the true Islam.

    He like Hamza Yusuf entered into Islam after being introduced to it. He has sat with Hamza Yusuf on many occasions and has visited his institute as well. Below are some emails he sent out after reading emails from other Brothers.

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

    Message: 1

    Subject: Hamza Yusuf - Where did he go wrong? (And why didn't I say something sooner?)
    From: Sheikh Yusuf Estes
    Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 01:19:39 EDT

    Bismillah Rahman Raheem
    As-Salam Alaykum:
    Re: Hamza Yusuf and his new teachings

    I ask Allah to Forgive me and protect me from the evil one and from the evil within myself. I ask all of the brothers and sisters to pray for me that I be rightly guided in the future and forgive me for keeping silent so long on a very serious issue. For more than one year I have wrestled with the notion of whether or not to expose one of our scholars in Islam here in America for some very serious deviation in his teachings. In my defence, I thought perhaps he would come to his senses or that possibly myself or someone could have the opportunity to sit with him and correct him in these areas. I was wrong. Recently it has escalated to the extent that he is misquoting the Quran, denying certain verses, presenting wrong hadeeth and in general showing Islam in the wrong light. And to make matters worse, he is doing it on prime time television. Due to his fame and access to the media, this now presents a great problem for all of us.

    This letter is in regard to the teachings and understandings of Hamza Yusuf. It is very difficult to write due to the sensitivity of the subject and the respect for all our scholars in Islam today. We are forced to mention certain things about the beliefs of one of our leaders in the USA and his teachings. In the process however, we must do so in the most delicate manner so as not to cause further separation and division in the Muslim community when this is definitely not the time to divide ourselves up. Even so, it is all the more important to say what I have to say about our brother Hamza's understandings and teachings and the way that he is misrepresenting us as Muslims to the media and to the non-Muslims in general. The hard part is to do so with the most consideration for him and for all those who have been following him.

    First of all, I am not the first one to offer this information regarding some of the beliefs held or at least promoted by Hamza Yusuf. In fact, I may be guilty of holding back information all too long, for the sake of trying to keep the ummah together on the issue of the our brother Hamza Yusuf in California. If you have not heard of him, you should. He is a good speaker and knows how to hold the attention of a crowd. He has been promoted heavily in the past by well known Muslim organizations like: ISNA; ICNA; Sound Vision and others. He is an American who chose to come to Islam and then went to study in another country to learn more about Arabic and Islam. He has worked hard and produced a large following.

    For several years people have been asking me about the rumors regarding Hamza Yusuf and his "Zaytunna Institute." I have tried to avoid saying anything in a way that would be considered backbiting or slanderous. Yet, I have had complaints from some of those who actually were in his community studying under his tutelage. I took the opportunity over a year ago to go out to California and visit him, at the request of those who were commenting on the "strange" things that bothered them. After my visit I was convinced that there was a problem, but I did not feel that the best way to handle the situation was to publicly "blow the whistle" on him. I know that the Muslims today have a tendency to overreact and often they will turn against the one trying to help in the matter, out of their ignorance of Islam's teachings on these types of issues.

    It is all too easy to point the finger at someone who has said or done something that appears against the principles of Islam and call them misguided. And worse, these days anyone can be called a "kafar" (disbeliever) just for saying the someone else is not following Islam correctly.

    Additionally, a factor came into play that I really did not want to upset. That is that so many people (including our own family) love the audios and videos that Shaikh Hamza has produced. If you realize that this is the kind of thing which helps keep Muslims together, then you must also realize that any criticism could hurt feelings and cause ruffled feathers amongst the ummah. There certain video and audio producers and distributors who are making a lot of money from the sale of Hamza's tapes and they have been notified on no uncertain terms that there are problems with Hamza's Manhaj (methodology) to say the least. They refused to do anything about it or even suggest anything was wrong. Why? Some have accused them of turning a blind eye to truth in favor of the money they make on Hamza's tapes. They couple this with the fact that these same distributors also offer tapes with music on them. I don't think that is fair, however.

    Let me now come to the main point. While investigating charges leveled at Shaikh Hamza, I personally stood in his Zaytunna Institute in California and watched as Shaikh Muhammad Yaqubi from Syria was conducting a class in Sufi Dhikr. For hours his students sat there on the floor rocking back and forth saying only: "Allah. Allah. Allah." Over and over again. One of the complaints from a student was that a Shaikh at Zaytunna Institute was forcing them to do hundreds of different Dhikrs everyday. So much so, that they were not able to complete their daily chores, but if they tried to stop a shaytan would start beating them. I advised them to stop immediately and get away from anything dealing with the shaytan. Keep in mind this is not Hamza, but rather someone working in his "institute."

    My other experiences with Hamza have shown me that he has a tendency toward exaggerating the meanings of words, especially when it comes to discussing issues of any type. I have heard him time and again give the wrong meanings to words and then go off on tangents trying to prove up some point that just is not there. I recall one instance when I offered him some scented oil and he pulled away and then said he needed to smell it first. After smelling it, he began to tell those gathering around that actually from the Sunnah he was able to understand that smells provided cures for diseases. He then mistranslated the word for fragrance (at-teeb) to be related to the word for doctor and then derived from that the meaning of prescription and then cure. From there he took off on a non-Muslim expert on scents and fragrances used for cures and began explaining that the plants have to be grown organically for them to still have the affect that they once had in the past.

    The relevance of the whole situation is that many people in the West have come to regard Hamza as a scholar of Islam. I don't think that he is trying to promote himself so much as a scholar but it is possible that he may just be trying to promote his understandings of different words. But in view of the recent increased attention and focus on all Muslims and especially our leaders, we are forced to come forward and clarify what is the true Islam and who are the true scholars. We have to be up front and say what needs to be said, without fear of criticism from others.

  9. #9
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default

    Hamza Yusuf- Where did he go wrong?

    By Yusuf Estes

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

    Message: 2


    From: Sheikh Yusuf Estes (
    To: (ADDRESS REMOVED) Someone who had complained about his first email
    Subject: May Allah forgive our mistakes, ameen. re: Article on Hamza Yousef

    Bismillah Rahman Raheem
    Salam Alaykum dear brother in Islam:

    First, I begin by saying thank you for taking the time to write to me directly. I am amazed that someone criticized me to another person behind my back, for having criticized someone else, even though it was according to the teachings of Islam.

    Also, up front we must say that no one is calling anyone else a nonbeliever (kafr). This all came about as an effort to clarify the correct teachings of Islam to many, including Muslims, who are very confused and concerned about what Islam does actually teach.

    Before I begin, there is something that I should mention in all candidness. The organizations that I represent are not behind me in making these statements, at least they are not going to admit it publicly.

    Additionally, the critique that was emailed out did not originate with me. Someone else with more knowledge and courage did a very through job on it and then forwarded it out and put in on the Internet. I did not take permission to reveal their identity, nor do I feel that it is necessary to disclose that information. If people want to be angry with me, so be it. At least it will not tear down years of work of a hard working scholar of Islam. By showing the identity what would be the benefit? Then the two scholars [Hamza & the other] may start to be against each other and divide the people up even further. If the whole matter stops at me, then there is actually very little loss. Right?

    After all, who am I? I am just a brother who came to Islam some years ago, that goes around trying to bring others to Islam. I am merely a concerned Muslim who wants to do what Allah has ordered and what has been established by our righteous predecessors in Islam. If I am wrong, then I need to be shown proof from Quran and Sunnah regarding the matter in order to correct my mistakes and also to be able to go back to Allah in humility and beg for His Forgiveness.

    Now to begin, inshallah. I love you for the sake of Allah. I pray that Allah Guide us both to truth and forgive any mistakes, ameen. I have been criticized for the way the brother treated the subject of Hamza Yusuf's comments on television as being "fitnah." But there is a lot of truth in what he said. He definitely used the right word: "fitnah." -- This word is particularly used in Islam to mean the things which could take someone out of Islam. It is the same word that Allah used when He told us that our wives, children, property and so on would all be "fitnah" [hard trials] for us.

    The predictions of our beloved prophet, peace be upon him, are coming true faster than pearls fallen from a broken neckless.

    Consider that he told us in the Last Days that the true scholars would be taken away and ignorance would be everywhere and the people without knowledge would be perceived as people with knowledge.

    All of this is of course a test for all of us. Consider the recent events and how Muslims around the world are responding:
    · Attacks came against America -- the blame went to Muslims immediately -- what did we do?
    · America is now destroying Muslim property, Muslim lives and thousands are homeless and dying as a result -- what are we doing?
    · And certain individuals are promoting their distorted views of Islam, while raising themselves to be close to those who are doing these things. What would you like me to say?
    I will not apologize for being a Muslim. Nor will I apologize for what Muslims have NOT DONE. Additionally I refuse to back down from the fact that Islam is the only valid answer to the problems facing our world today. We must stand up now before it is too late. Mark my words. This is not a time to play and think that things are going to go back to "normal" for the Muslims in this or any other country. Allah has made it clear for us. Now we must carry this message or suffer the real consequences.

    I have fallen under criticism for more than one year because I have not spoken out about what I know on this issue. I was trying to use the time to do exactly what you have said. Many others have expressed concerns over these same matters. I delayed for more than one year saying anything publicly.

    I regret only that we did not move earlier on this subject. You see this has been well known to a number of us here in the states as well as abroad. Hamza has totally disregarded our efforts to speak to him on these or any subjects. He immediately begins to give lectures in the middle of discussions and goes off on definitions of words that have no meaning whatsoever to the conversation. (and they are incorrect in meaning as well).

    I met with him a year ago in July at his place in California. [he ignored me]

    I sat next to him in a very important meeting of imams for America in Chicago last year at ISNA. [he talked over me - and everyone else]

    And then again I spoke with him at the ISNA Conference in Chicago. [he had his own agenda -- which included publicly attacking the belief of the Salaf as Saleeh (The companions and rightly guided early generations of Muslims) in the form of saying something twisted about "Wahabees" in his main lecture to thousands.]

    I have referred new Muslims to his "Zaytunna Institute" only to find that they were not being taught Islam at all, they were being forced into doing "Sufi Dhikr." One lady complained to me over the phone and then when I went out there she told me that the shaytan were punishing her for not obeying the head "Shaikh" at Zaytunna. (This was Muhammad Yaqubi from Syria - who happens to be one of the muftis of the Shadaleyah Tareeqah). I personally went in and found his followers sitting on the floor reciting the word "Allah" over and over again for hours without stopping. Their eyes were closed and they were swaying back and forth as in a trance. This is not the proper way to introduce people to Islam.

    When people begin learning "Islam" from these types it is very difficult for them to simply break away. Some are afraid that the jinn will bother them. Others think that the dead shaikhs have some mystical powers. The list goes on.

    We have only produced exactly what he has said on the most important occasion of trying to bring about a better understanding of what Islam is all about. I realize that all of us, especially me make mistakes in our presentations. Sometimes, like last Sunday, I put things in the wrong order and loose valuable time and even the attention of some of the listeners. I ask Allah to forgive me for that. But when it comes to the material that is presented, if it is not in conjunction with what the Quran and the Sunnah teach, what would you suggest?

    Would you accept that someone says something to a non-Muslim about the Quran that can open doors to huge attacks against Islam for no reason?

    Is it right to sit silent while someone is making our Deen appear to have mistakes in it?

    In fact, that is why I have been criticized so heavily in the recent weeks. I had received admonition during the summer just before leaving for Egypt from some of our brothers who study at one of our Islamic institutes in Virginia. They insisted that we begin exposing Hamza's institute before he did his last big nationwide drive for enrollment. But I thought I should wait a little longer. Now look what has happened.

    There are others involved in this "Sufi" movement as well. I have not sat with them personally nor have they corresponded with me. However, I can assure you that the teachings coming from their sources have serious errors in them and could even be considered leading out of Islam completely.

    All this time, this groups such as "sufees" And "Shiites" and "Nation of Islam" and "Ahmadiyyans" and "Rastafarians" and "Moorish Science Temple" and "Ansar Allah" and "Five Percenters" and "Submitters International" are actually doing the thing that you are complaining against me: They are dividing up the Muslims through their various cults and tareeqahs. We ask everyone to come together and unify according to what Allah has ordered us in the first place, and that is to unify under the Quran and the Sunnah.
    Thank you again for coming straight to me with this subject. If I chose to reveal the topic, I will conceal your identity, inshaallah.

    Salam Alaykum wa Rahmatulah,
    Your brother in Islam,
    Yusuf

    .......More On Hamza Yusuf
    http://www.allaahuakbar.net/individual_callers/hamza_yusuf/indexhtm

  10. #10
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default

    Zaakir Naik claims that there are various ways of doing da’wah and says they have chosen the Zen Philosophy as manhaj in da’wah.

    ..Brother has very good question …and he has asked .that since he is in non muslim school where the majority of his classmates are non muslims how should I invite them towards islaam and how will be doing.. there are various ways and styles of doing dawah whichever is effective you use it

    …and believe me we have done a survery…and we have come to know….that the average non muslim ..the 90% of non muslim they don't have more than 15 to 20 questions about islaam (referring to questions on Muslims having more than one wife, Muslims being circumcised etc..) they don't have more than 15-20 questions against islaam so when we train a daee we first equip him with these answers of these 15-20 questions…we have a common questions which u r already aware of ……..(mentions the questions)….and believe me if you can master these 15-20 questions you can win over at least 90% of non-muslims and then after you have removed the misconception then even if you speak 10 good points about islaam he will accept it … this is the ZEN PHILOSOPHY..if the cup is filled ….and if you pour more into it ..it will overflow …first empty the cup then fill whatever u pour into it…….so first what we do is… we encourage the youngsters to learn the answers to these 15-20 questions and then we ask them to go to the field and later on then we train them with the verses of bible of the Vedas of the Gita the holy Quraan …and simultaneously his knowledge keeps on increasing…

    ...(continues after asking to ask questions and says)…….but you should start doing dawah immediately..you should not wait and say that until I acquire the knowledge like Shaikh Deedat..or like someone else then I will start doing dawah…we should start immediately…to make a beginning and we know that….Allah subhanwatala says in the holy Quraan in surah ankaboot chapter no. 29 verse no.69 that if you strive in the way of Allah subhanwatala Allah will open up your pathways…, so this is the way we have adopted and we are very successful brother..……"

    Why laymen are impressed:

    Zakir Naik and his people memorizes verses from the Qur'an and other texts when do their speeches and arguments. This is how they are so quick to point out so many verses of the Qur'an on a topic in one breath. The laymen think that these people have the Qur'an memorized and are finding these verses from the Qur'an on the spot during their speech.


    What
    Islamic Scholars say about dawa:

    answered by Shaykh Al-Muhaddith Muhammad Naasirud-Deen Al-Albaanee

    Question:


    Do you hold that the means (wasaa'il) for da’wah (call to Islaam) are tawqeefiyyah (dependent upon revelation) just like the prayer, fasting and all the other acts of worship? Or do you hold that da’wah is mainly an act of Ijtihaadiyyah worship (dependent upon ones own investigation and deduction) based on the understanding of the textual evidences and religious benefits, which are considered and called for by the means, such as having knowledge and commanding the good?

    Answer:

    Yes. I believe that the means (for giving da'wah) vary from time and place. And this is something that no Faqeeh or scholar of the Book and the Sunnah will dispute.

    The means differ from time and place, however proceeding towards applying these means requires knowledge of what the Prophet, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, was upon from his guidance and Sunnah. The general rule for this is that: It is not permissible to turn away from the means that the Messenger, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, has handed down to us with the excuse that "The times have changed." So if there exists some type of means, by which that which the Prophet, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, was upon can be supported, such as the means we use today – such as tape-recording and book printing and the easy means of distribution – in order to bring the knowledge to distant places, then no one can forsake this.

    However, we know that many callers to Islaam today have accepted some types of means that the Divine Legislation has not prescribed. Rather, they are the means that the Divine Legislation has ordered us to oppose! I think that the cause for the acceptance of these means on their part is due to (their) ignorance of Islaam. And we don't need to give examples, but instead we say that most of the times there cannot be found any scholars, knowledgeable of the Qur'aan and Sunnah, in these Islaamic groups and parties that exist today. The majority of the people who run these groups are from the enthusiastic youth who are zealous for Islaam, then from those who do not exert themselves to study Islaam, by way of the Qur'aan and the Sunnah upon the methodology of the Salaf As-Saalih .

    Talk concerning this topic will only lengthen and prolong. So we will now give an example of a dispute that broke out during the close of one Ramadaan between one state and another, such that some states fasted 29 days, and the other land completed 30 days! So in some of the western lands, such as America, there were some Islaamic Callers (i.e. people of Da'wah) who announced that their method for confirming the crescent at the beginning and end of the month was based on astronomy. Either they were ignorant of the truth or they disregarded it and pretended to be ignorant about it. And as it is said: "The sweeter of the two is (still) bitter."

    The Prophet, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, said: "We are an illiterate nation. We do not record nor do we estimate. A month is like this, like this and like this – [or he sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam gestured with his hands three time like this, and this and this, meaning thirty days]." Then he, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, said: "A month is like this, this and this [meaning twenty nine days]."

    And in some of the authentic narrations, he, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, said: "And if it becomes too cloudy, then complete the month as thirty days." In many of the lands in which the people give rulings according to their own way, some astronomers confirm the crescent for Ramadaan by astronomical estimations and calculations. And the Messenger, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, has nullified this type of means. Even if it is a means based on knowledge, then only a few people in some lands are aware of this knowledge. Whereas the prescribed means that the Messenger, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, has made as a proof for the beginning of the new month or the termination of the current month is the innate natural and human means of physical sighting. And it is not the scientific sighting, which we are not able to share knowledge of to all people.

    Based on this, it is not permissible to cast off this type of means, which Islaam has brought, by claiming that times have advanced and changed. So it has become clear from by previous explanation
    that it is not proper today to take a means that the Messenger, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, was able to take (during his time, but which he didn't). The discussion on this topic will prolong severely. Ibn Taimiyyah has a very beneficial section in his book Iqtidaa As-Siraat-il-Mustaqeem Mukhaalafatu Ashaab-il-Jaheem dealing with this matter. I will abridge what I can from the words of Ibn Taimiyyah:

    The means that are introduced in a time and a place are divided into two categories:

    1. A means of which a need for using it existed during the time of Allaah's Messenger, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, but he did not use it. So introducing it is an innovation.

    2. A means of which there did not exist a need to use it during the time of Allaah's Messenger, sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam. He (rahimahullaah) said: "So it should be examined. If the need for introducing this means and using it is to make the Muslims refrain and lessen in their application of the rulings of the Religion, then it is not permissible to use them. And if this is not the case, then it is permissible." And Allaah is the One who grants success. [Al-Asaalah, Issue #18}

  11. #11
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default

    Hamza Yusuf and Martin Lings

    Sufi or not Sufi? That is the question


    Islam week at the Globe Theatre will link Shakespeare with a mystic Muslim sect

    Vanessa Thorpe, arts and media correspondent
    Sunday October 24, 2004
    The Observer


    The influence of William Shakespeare on western culture has made him arguably Britain's greatest export. Now it is being claimed that his work resembles the teachings of the Islamic Sufi sect.

    The argument will be put forward next month at Shakespeare's Globe Theatre in London. It comes as part of a week of events focusing on Islam to address concerns raised by the 'war on terror' and improve understanding of the links between Islam and British culture.

    While it has been suggested that Shakespeare dabbled with espionage and Catholic political activism, the new theory will attempt to persuade Shakespeare scholars that the playwright was a member of a religious or spiritual order which can best be compared to the philosophy of Sufism.

    The respected academic Dr Martin Lings will put forward this thesis in his lecture on 23 November. 'Shakespeare would have delighted in Sufism,' said Lings, who is 96 and an adherent of Sufism. 'We can see he obviously knew a lot about some kind of equivalent sect or order.'

    Lings argues that the guiding principles of Sufi thought are evident in Shakespeare's writing. The plays, he believes, depict a struggle between the dawning modernist world and the traditional, mystical value system. And, like the Sufis, the playwright is firmly on the side of tradition and spiritualism.

    'It was the end of the Middle Ages and the birth of atheism,' he says. 'It was the beginning of the ideas of enlightenment and the beginning really of the modern era. Shakespeare is the last outpost of tradition.'

    Lings believes that characters in some of the best known works exemplify the Sufi quest for purification, while others represent Shakespeare himself.

    'I am going to say that it is wrong to say we know very little about Shakespeare because he is present in his plays to a remarkable degree,' said Lings, who was keeper of oriental manuscripts and printed books and in charge of Koranic manuscripts at the British Museum. He argues that the journey of Edgar, in King Lear , is like the Sufi's search for truth, in which the seeker is helped by angelic characters and impeded by diabolic agents.

    While the magician-like figure of Prospero, orchestrating the action in The Tempest, and the manipulative Duke of Vienna in Measure for Measure are commonly seen as Shakespeare's alter egos, Lings traces the teachings of a spiritual order akin to Sufism in their words.

    The famous line of Prospero's 'We are such stuff as dreams are made on' is a complete fit, he claims, adding that King Lear's words also eerily echo Sufi ideas when he tells his faithful daughter: 'Upon such sacrifices, my Cordelia, the gods themselves throw incense.' Lings makes the point that the Bard is 'quite at home' with 'Gods' in the plural.

    The International Shakespeare Globe Fellowship Lecture will take place in the middle of the Islam Awareness Week on the 22-28 November and will be preceded by a lecture from Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, the founder of the Zaytuna Institute in California, who will look at Shakespeare's sonnets from a Sufi perspective.

    Throughout the week the outside walls of the theatre on the banks of the Thames will be illuminated with scenes of Islamic culture.

    On the final weekend a souk will take over the premises, with stalls selling eastern wares. The week will also form part of the 4th centenary celebrations of the first recorded performance of Othello , which will be marked by staged readings of four plays featuring Moors and Turks.

    Echoes of Sufism

    'Upon such sacrifices, my Cordelia, the gods themselves throw incense'
    King Lear to his daughter, Act V, Scene III

    'We are such stuff as dreams are made on'
    Prospero in The Tempest, Act IV, Scene I


    What is above is copied directly from the Guardian on Sunday 10/10/2004


    _________________________________

    Zaid Shaakir
    is a very dangerous person. Such that he can look to a persons style of dress and then formulate his approach to your questions about his methodology.

    It is enough that with much energy and he vigor is translating and teaching the works of Abul Haarith Al-Muhaasibi. In his little "Deen Intensive" program he down played the scholars' (namely Imam Ahmad) refutations of him.

    Another subtle point comes to my mind.

    Sh. Saalih Al-Fawzaan (hafidhahullah) mentioned this issue in Al-Ajwibaat al Mufeedah that was being expounded upon by Br. Abdul Rahman Al-Afrikee.

    The Shaykh said it was true and well known at his time that Abul Haarith was (bahoorul Ilm); an ocean of knowledge. However, he was largely abandoned by the Sunni community of his time. Recall Sh. Saalih Al Ashaykh’s (May Allah lengthen his life and raise his status) lecture [From the Fountains of Imam Ahmad]. The speech of Imam Ahmad after eavesdropping on one of Abul Haarith's sittings:

    "I have never heard the like of such speech in my life. However, do not sit with him anymore."

    The fact that someone is knowledgeable does not bar them from being abandoned. In fact they are more deserving of such as they can easily make truth look like falsehood and vice-versa. – It’s a lesson.

    _________________________________

    "Al-Muhaasibee was a soofee ascetic from Baghdaad. Even though he was firm in some issues that were in accordance with the way of the Salaf, like how he made takfeer of his own father because he withheld from saying that the Qur'aan is not a created thing, the scholars still warned against him and his books. Aboo Zur'ah Ar-Raazee said, "Be warned about these books! They are books of innovation and misguidance!" Refer to Siyaru A'laam An-Nubalaa' (12/110-112)."

    http://www.bakkah.net/articles/imaamahmad2.htm


  12. #12
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default

    Hamza Yusuf and the Path of Deviance

    Hamza Yusuf is amongst the `aqlaaniyyah (rationalists), mu`attilah (deniers of Allaah's Attributes), and mutasawwifah - and his collections of video lectures, audio lectures, and his own website (still operative and available online) is ample testimony to this.

    The courses taught at his institute use the book "Jawharat ut-Tawheed" - the book that preaches and invites to the heresies of ta'teel and (false) ta'weel and tafweed, a book which is a base and pole for the Mu`attilah. His institute teaches al-Burdah of al-Busayree which is a poem that invites to Shirk with Allaah, invites to Istigaathah from other than Allaah, and which has been refuted by the Scholars of Tawheed and the Sunnah.

    See the screenshot (taken from his website today) attached for a mention of these books used for his curriculum.



    You can see some refutations of excerpts from al-Burdah here:
    http://www.sahab.net/sahab/showthrea...hreadid=294580

    And I have also heard this person on a video lecture making the following two remarks, "This concern with `aqeedah is a sickness in the minds of the Muslims", and "I can go to the desert in Mauritania and learn Tawheed in five minutes", which gives further insight into his ignorance and misguidance.

    There is much much more from his lectures, but to be honest, once you hear a few statements like this, and you realise what he is actively promoting, and you are someone who knows and understands the Salafee `aqeedah, you wouldn't want to waste any more time on him or his likes because the affair would be sufficiently clear already. My advice is to study and learn the Salafee `aqeedah using whatever is accessible to you from the speech and works of the Scholars of the Sunnah, and the prominent books such as al-Waasitiyyah, and at-Tadmuriyyah and Kitaab ut-Tawheed so you have a good grounding in these most important subjects.


  13. #13
    Super Mod/NM facebooker Array
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Byram, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    1,790

    Default

    Wow

  14. #14
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default

    The purpose of the message is only to show Hamza Yusuf's distortion/lies about Islam.

    __________________________________


    'Sheikh' Hamza Yusuf Exposes Himself

    Islamic history has shown that times of trial and tribulation for the Muslims have exposed the hypocrites in their ranks. During the Battle of Ahzab, when the disbelieving armies gathered against the Muslims of Madinah from all sides, the hypocrites came out and said: "And when the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease said: 'Allah and His Messenger promised us nothing but delusions.' And when a party of them said: 'O People of Yathrib (Madinah) There is no stand possible for you (against the enemy attack)! Therefore, go back!'" [Quran 33:12-13]

    One such personality amongst the Muslims that has been famous over the last few years is Hamza Yusuf. His eloquent speeches have led to a popular following amongst ignorant Muslims. However, his credibility was destroyed on 11 September 2001.

    There follows a discussion on various points made by Hamza Yusuf after the events on 11 September 2001. One can make the necessary conclusions about this individual after hearing what he himself has to say.

    There have been many other Muslim scholars who condemned the killing of the innocents in the World Trade Centre, but none crossed the limits of Al-Walaa Wal-Baraa (loyalty and hate for the sake of Allah) as Hamza Yusuf did.

    __________________________________________

    Transcript of CBS's 60 Minutes Interview with Hamza Yusuf, Imam Siraj Wahaj, Farid Esack and Faisal Abdur Rauf

    aired on 30 September 2001

    >>Bradley: While Islam forbids the killing of innocents, in this 1998 interview, Bin Laden justified the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, saying every American man is our enemy, whether he is a soldier or a taxpayer. As for the women and children who died, he says women and children die every day in Palestine. In a statement last week, Bin Laden called for a Jihad or Holy War in the Name of Allah.

    >>Yusuf: I would say that he has no legitimate authority, that in Islam, Jihad can only be declared by legitimate state authority. And this is accepted by consensus. There is no vigilantism in Islam. Muslims believe in state authority.

    According to this, the Muslims in Palestine should not wage Jihad against the Israeli forces, because Jihad has not been declared by a legitimate state authority. Ibn Qudama, the Hanbali scholar, said in Al-Mughni 8/253, "The absence of an Imam does not postpone the Jihad because much is lost in its postponement."

    >>Bradley: You think he's a vigilante?

    >>Yusuf: Absolutely, absolutely. All Muslims are guided by the words of Islam's holy book, the Quran, which is believed to be the word of God, and explains how Muslims should lead their lives. It also says fighting should only be in self-defence, a fight in the Way of Allah against those who fight against you, but be not aggressive. And the Quran forbids suicide. They cannot bring any textual evidence from the Quran, from the traditions of the prophet, to prove anything that justifies what they've done.

    Jihad can be defensive or offensive.

    Letter from the Messenger of ALLAH (SAW) to the people of Najran (Narrated in Baihaqi):


    "In the Name of the God of Ibraheem, Ishaaq, and Ya'qoob, from Muhammad Messenger of Allah to Asqaf of Najran, and the people of Najran:
    Peace be upon you…


    …I call you to the worship of Allah, away from the worship of the slaves (of Allah). And I call you to the governorship of Allah, away from the governorship of the slaves (of Allah). If you refuse, then the Jizyah. If you refuse (that), then I declare war upon you. Wassalam."


    Offensive Jihad

    Where the disbelievers are not gathering to fight the Muslims. The fighting becomes Fard Kifaya with the minimum requirement of appointing believers to guard borders, and the sending of an army at least once a year to terrorize the enemies of Allah. It is a duty of upon the Imam to assemble and send out an army unit into the land of war once or twice every year. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the Muslim population to assist him, and if he does not send an army he is in sin.

    And the Ulama have mentioned that this type of jihaad is for maintaining the payment of Jizya. The scholars of the principles of religion have also said: "Jihad is Dawah with a force, and is obligatory to perform with all available capabilities, until there remains only Muslims or people who submit to Islam."

    Defensive Jihad

    This is expelling the disbelievers from our land, and it is Fard Ayn, a compulsory duty upon all. It is the most important of the compulsory duties and arises in the following conditions:

    A) If the disbelievers enter a land of the Muslims.
    B) If the rows meet in battle and they begin to approach each other.
    C) If the Imaam calls a person or a people to march forward then they must march.
    D) If the Kuffaar capture and imprison a group of Muslims.


    (Defence of the Muslim Lands - Dr. Abdullah Azzam)


    >>Bradley: Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't it the responsibility... Does not Islam, does not Allah require that Muslims police their own religion and rid theelves of extremists?

    >>Yusuf: Yes, absolutely. It's an obligation for Muslims to root them out. And I think it is a Jihad now for the Muslims in the Muslim country to rid themselves of this element.

    An apparent contradiction. Earlier in this interview, he says:

    "I would say that he (i.e. Osama bin Laden) has no legitimate authority, that in Islam Jihad can only be declared by legitimate state authority. And this is accepted by consensus. There is no vigilantism in Islam. Muslims believe in state authority."

    Now he himself (who is also not a state authority) is calling the Muslims to fight Jihad to "rid themselves of this element." ?!


    Transcript of Interview with Shaykh Hamza Yusuf Hanson by Michael Enright on the September 11 Tragedy
    Aired on September 23, 2001 Transcribed by Raneem Azzam


    Shaykh Hamza: Yes, and he (President Bush) said that. I think he mentioned that going to New York was a very profound experience for him, being there. And he said that he was making serious efforts to keep himself contained. So he, I think, did express that in very real human terms of what he was experiencing emotionally. I mean I think none of us can really fully comprehend what happened. I think we're all still in a bit of a shock, and I think that the fact that the American people… the World Trade Center towers there are really a symbol of American economic prowess and really of the capitalist world, so for them to literally be destroyed in a Shiva-like manifestation there, of just utter destruction, not just before the eyes of onlookers in New York but really of the entire world because of the film footage. And people watch this thing over and over again and I think it expresses just the profound impact that just those images have had on all of us.

    Michael: And ditto his use of the word crusade.

    Shaykh Hamza: He actually expressed his own regret at using that word but he did say that the Pentagon doesn't have theologians and they're the ones that name these things. And he said that they wanted to get it changed for that reason. I felt that there was a definite sincere response there.

    According to this statement, he considers Bush to be sincere, and makes excuses for him. On the other hand, he does not make any excuses for his Muslim brothers, and is calling for a Jihad against them (See above).

    Michael: Well we know now it was more plunder than religion.

    Shaykh Hamza: Well, that's true. And unfortunately a lot of religious wars tend to be for other than religion. But the word Jihad is probably one of the highest concepts that the Arabs and the Muslims have. It represents really the best of humankind. In the Quran it is never once used to express a military meaning. Not once.

    This is an extremely serious mistake. His claim that: "In the Quran it (Jihad) is never once used to express a military meaning. Not once." is contrary to the understanding of the scholars of the mainstream Ahlus-Sunnah wal Jama'ah:

    The four Fuqaha' of the four schools of thought have agreed that al-Jihad is al-Qitaal (fight) and to help in it (i.e. in Qitaal). Below are given four definitions of Jihad from the different madhaahib.

    1. Al-Hanafiyah:

    It has come in Fath al-Qadeer by Ibn Humaam 5/187: "Al-Jihad: calling the disbelievers to the religion of truth and to fight them if they do not accept." Al-Kaasaani said in al-Badaa'i', 9/4299 "To sacrifice ones strength and energy in Fighting in the way of Allah 'Azza wa-Jal with ones life, property and the tongue and whatever besides."

    2. Al-Maalikiyah:

    "For a Muslim to fight against a disbeliever who is not under oath, to raise the word of Allah, or if he (disbeliever) is in his (Muslim's) presence (in order to attack him), or upon his (disbeliever) entering his (Muslim's) land." (Haashiya al-'Adawi/as-Sa'eedi 2/2 and ash-Sharh as-Sagheer/Aqrab al-Masaalik by ad-Dardeer 2/267)

    3. Ash-Shaafi'iyah:

    Al-Baajawari said, "Al-Jihad means: al-Qitaal (fighting) in the way of Allah", Al-Baajawari / Ibnul-Qaasim 2/261. Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani said in Al-Fath 6/2, "…and legally Jihad means sacrificial striving in fighting the disbelievers."

    4. Al-Hanbaliyah:

    "To Fight the disbelievers" see Mataalib Ulin-Nuha 2/497. "Al-Jihad is al-Qitaal (fighting) and to sacrifice all strength in it to raise the Word of Allah", see 'Umdatul-Fiqh p.166, and Muntahal-Iraadaat 1/302.

    Ibn Rushd said in his Muqadamaat 1/369: "…and Jihad of the Sword: to fight the Mushrikeen for the Deen. So whoever tires himself for the sake of Allah, he strove in the way of Allah. Except that when Jihad Feesabeelillah is spoken, then it cannot be applied (to everything) in general except striving against the disbelievers with the sword until they enter Islam, or pay the Jizya with willing submission and they are under humiliation".

    Ibn Hajr said in his explanation of Sahih Al-Bukhari, Fath Al-Bari 6/29: "…and by the phrase Feesabeelillah, Jihad is implied"

    Michael: It means… does it not mean to go to war with yourself?

    Shaykh Hamza: Well, that's one of the meanings. It literally means - if you look at the word, the root word is "jahada" which means to struggle, and juhd in the Arabic language means a struggle literally. So Jihad is the act of struggling. And the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, said that the greatest Jihad is to struggle with your own soul's insidious suggestions.

    The saying, "We have returned from the lesser Jihad (battle) to the greater Jihad," which people quote on the basis that it is a hadith, is in fact a false, fabricated hadith which has no basis. It is only a saying of Ibrahim bin Abi Ablah, one of the Successors, and it contradicts textual evidence and reality.

    Ibn Taymiyyah said in Al-Furqan PP. 44-45: "This hadith has no source and nobody whomsoever in the field of Islamic knowledge has narrated it. Jihad against the disbelievers is the most noble of actions and moreover it is the most important action for the sake of mankind." Al-Khateeb Al-Baghdadi reports it as daeef (weak) due to the narrator Khalaf bin Muhammad bin Ismail Al-Khiyam.

    Al-Haakim says, "His hadiths are unreliable." Abu Ya'la Al-Khalili says, "He often adulterates, is very weak and narrates unknown hadith," (Mashari-ul-Ashwaq, Ibn Nuhas 1/31). There is also the narrator Yahya bin Al-Ula who is a known liar and forgerer of hadith (Ahmad). Amru bin Ali, An-Nasai and Ad-Daraqutni state, "His hadith are renounced." Ibn Adi states, "His hadith are false," (Tahzeeb-ut-Tahzeeb 11/261-262). Ibn Hajar said, "He was accused of forging hadith," (At-Taghrib). Adh-Dhahabi said, "Abu Hatim said that he is not a strong narrator, Ibn Ma'een classified him as weak and Ad-Daraqutni said that he is to be neglected."

    Shaykh Hamza: And I think that really clarifies to the Muslims. Building a hospital in the Arab world - and I've lived in the Arab world, I speak Arabic very well - building a hospital, the Arabs will literally say what a great Jihad that was when it was completed. The idea of spending money for anything good… those firefighters who were pulling people out of the World Trade Towers, they would be considered, that's an act of Jihad. They would be considered mujahideen if they were described in Arabic. And I'm not exaggerating at all. That really is at the essence of this word.

    Shaykh Hamza: Linguistically, the word Jihad is taken from Juhud - Yajhad - Jahdan. So initially al-Juhud is with Dhamm or Fath which is al-was' (strength) or at-Taaqah (power), and it is said: al-Juhud (with Dham) is al-was' (strength) or at-Taaqah (power), and al-Jahad (with Fath) is al-Mushaqqah (hardship). Al-Jahd (with Fath) is used as al-Ghaayah (i.e. taking to limits): "They swore by Allah their strongest (Jahda) oaths (i.e. took it to limits)" [Quran 5:53] Which means to complete and to end their promise. So al-Juhud and al-Jihad linguistically is to sacrifice to ones utmost according to a person's ability with strength, in order to obtain the beloved or to avert the hated / see Lisaan-ul-'Arab and al-Qaamoos al-Muheet.

    Could we then say, that linguistically, Shaytaan is also a mujahid, because of his utmost effort in misguiding the people? We could also say that the Serbs in Bosnia, Hindus in Kashmir, Russians in Chechnya, and Israelis are also Mujahideen because they struggled/are struggling their utmost in trying to achieve their objectives.

    Michael: When you read the coverage in some of the more fulminating columnists and commentators, it comes up time and time again, this business about the Quran promising the martyrs or the suicide bombers that if they die in the course of their mission they will go immediately to heaven where they will be greeted by ten or fifteen or sixty-eight or something or other, virgins. You must have seen that. What is that?

    Shaykh Hamza: You know, again this is the problem with religious language for the modern mind. The Quran, just to give you an example, says that there is nothing like God and immediately after that - it's in a chapter called Shura (The Council) - and immediately after that it says and He is the All-Seeing, the All-Hearing. So here's a verse that says there's nothing like Him and then it's immediately followed by saying He hears everything and He sees everything. Well, how do we know what seeing and hearing is if we don't have a likeness in this world of it. So on the one hand there's pure transcendence and on the other hand there's the imminent aspect of God's manifestations, his attributes in the world. If you look in the Quran about the pleasures of paradise, the definitive verse in the Quran is that the pleasures of paradise are those which no eye has seen, no ear has heard of, and has never occurred to the heart of a human being. So that is the definitive verse about the pleasures of paradise. Now, there are some hadiths, it's not in the Quran, there is mention of beautiful youths as well as beautiful women, and that's more metonymy in rhetoric.

    Michael: It's an allegory.

    Shaykh Hamza: Exactly, it's an allegory, exactly. And the thing about it is that our scholars say that the highest sensual experience in the world is orgasm and it's quite literal. I mean this is a traditional opinion; Imam al-Ghazali, one of the early theologians said that the orgasm that a human being experiences in sexual intercourse is the closest sensual experience that one can taste of what the delights of paradise are like. The Muslims traditionally saw it as almost - and the Hindus have this concept as well - that there's almost a mystical experience. Now, the vast majority of human beings do not have profound mystical experiences. The mystic has experiences that transcend sexuality and in fact, it's well known that a lot of mystics lose their appetite for those types of things because of their own internal experiences.

    Saheeh-al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 53:

    Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, "A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah's Cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all the world and whatever is in it. A place in Paradise as small as the bow or lash of one of you is better than all the world and whatever is in it. And if a houri from Paradise appeared to the people of the earth, she would fill the space between Heaven and the Earth with light and pleasant scent and her head cover is better than the world and whatever is in it."
    From this hadith, will any rational individual understand the maid of Paradise as an allegorical concept ?

    Michael: Let me ask you this: people have been saying in the last few days that if the mullahs, or the imams, or the leaders, leadership of Islam, however you define that, came out and condemned in a loud voice or in a united voice, the terrorism, if there was some mechanism for excommunicating Osama bin Laden somehow. Is there…

    Shaykh Hamza: Did somebody talk to you about that? It's an excellent point because I'm working on that right now. Terrorism, interestingly enough, this is not a new thing, what is new is weapons of mass destruction. Terrorism is as old as the world. If we take the Biblical, as well as the Quranic idea of Cain and Abel, you know Cain is really terrorizing his brother. So terror I think is an ancient phenomenon. The Muslims were tried with a group called the Assassins, the Hashashin, which was a very bizarre sect from the Isma'ilis. It was, even within Isma'ilism, it was a radical sect, and what they would do was they would put sleepers, plant sleepers among Muslim rulers, and one day they would be told to kill them, and then they would kill them and then kill themselves. And these were a real, just a plague, on the Islamic world for a period of time. So there's always been a condemnation of this.

    Will he also condemn US terrorism against the children of Iraq (see article), and the civilians of Afghanistan? Will he also condemn the US for terrorising the Palestinians by providing full support to Israel?

    Expert says Islam prohibits violence against innocents. Muslim scholar: Terrorists are mass murderers, not martyrs by Richard Scheinin, Mercury News

    Richard Scheinin: Why would anyone do what the hijackers did?

    Hamza Yusuf: Religious zealots of any creed are defeated people who lash out in desperation, and they often do horrific things. And if these people indeed are Arabs, Muslims, they're obviously very sick people and I can't even look at it in religious terms. It's politics, tragic politics. There's no Islamic justification for any of it. It's like some misguided Irish using Catholicism as an excuse for blowing up English people. They're not martyrs, it's as simple as that.

    Richard Scheinin: Because?

    Hamza Yusuf: You can't kill innocent people. There's no Islamic declaration of war against the United States. I think every Muslim country except Afghanistan has an embassy in this country. And in Islam, a country where you have embassies is not considered a belligerent country.

    Hamza Yusuf: In Islam, the only wars that are permitted are between armies and they should engage on battlefields and engage nobly. The Prophet Muhammad said, ``Do not kill women or children or non-combatants and do not kill old people or religious people,'' and he mentioned priests, nuns and rabbis. And he said, ``Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees and do not poison the wells of your enemies.'' The Hadith, the sayings of the Prophet, say that no one can punish with fire except the lord of fire. It's prohibited to burn anyone in Islam as a punishment. No one can grant these attackers any legitimacy. It was evil.

    What about bombing of Muslim civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, Sudan by US? (see Children of Iraq article) Is this also evil ?

    Can we say that Israel (in Palestine), India (in Kashmir), Russia (in Chechnya) are not belligerent because they have embassies in Muslim countries.

    Richard Scheinin: What is the Arabic word for martyr?

    Hamza Yusuf: Shaheed. It means witness. The martyr is the one who witnesses the truth and gives his life for it. There are people in this country like Martin Luther King who would be considered a martyr for his cause. Also, if your home, your family, your property or your land or religion is threatened, then you may defend it with your life. That person is a martyr. But so is anybody who dies of terminal illness; it's a martyr's death. Because it's such a purification that whatever wrongs they once did, they're now in a state of purity.

    Are we saying that Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., a Christian, was a shaheed ?

    "This morning I would like to submit to you that we who are followers of Jesus Christ, and we who must keep his church going and keep it alive, also have certain basic guidelines to follow. Somewhere behind the dim mist of eternity, God set forth his guidelines. And through his prophets, and above all through his son Jesus Christ…" ( A Knock at Midnight: Inspiration from the Great Sermons of Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.: "Guidelines for a Constructive Church" Delivered at Ebenezer Baptist Church, Atlanta, Georgia, on 5 June 1966)

    This is a complete contradiction with the Islamic doctrine, i.e. that a non-Muslim can die a Shaheed !! Imam Nawawi has narrated seven different views in association with the Shaheed from the commentary of Sahih Muslim:

    1. He is called Shaheed because he is alive, and his soul is present in Darus-Salam and his soul will be present in Jannah on the Day of Judgement. So the meaning of Shaheed is 'present'.
    2. Allah and His angels bear witness to him for Jannah. So Shaheed is in the meaning of 'witness'.
    3. When the Shaheed's soul comes out, he sees those grades and gifts that Allah has made ready for him. So Shaheed is in the meaning of 'observing Allah's gifts'.
    4. The Angels of Blessings come down to place his soul at its rank. So Shaheed is in the meaning of 'the presence of angels.'
    5. His obvious state has testified his Iman and a good death. So Shaheed is in the meaning of 'testifying his death on Iman'.
    6. The evidence to his Shahadah is the presence of blood and this is why he is given the rank of Shaheed.
    7. He will be appointed as a testifier for the Prophets that they conveyed their messages to their nations. So Shaheed is in the meaning of 'testifier'.


    Richard Scheinin: What is a martyr's reward?

    Hamza Yusuf: The Prophet said that a martyr who dies doesn't have a reckoning on the Day of Judgment. It's an act through which he is forgiven. But the Prophet also said that there are people who kill in the name of Islam and go to hell. And when he was asked why, he said, "Because they weren't fighting truly for the sake of God.''

    Hamza Yusuf: If there are any martyrs in this affair it would certainly be those brave firefighters and police that went in there to save human lives and in that process lost their own.

    So the non-Muslim firefighters and police in New York who lost their lives are shuhadaa' who will not have a reckoning on the Day of Judgement?

  15. #15
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default


    Transcript of Interview with Shaykh Hamza Yusuf Hanson by Michael Enright on the September 11 Tragedy
    Aired on September 23, 2001

    Extract from the interview

    Michael: Well we know now it was more plunder than religion.

    Shaykh Hamza: Well, that’s true. And unfortunately a lot of religious wars tend to be for other than religion. But the word jihad is probably one of the highest concepts that the Arabs and the Muslims have. It represents really the best of humankind. In the Qur’an it is never once used to express a military meaning. Not once.

    Comment: This is not true. Open any Quran commentary book and find for yourself. (See for example: surah 4 verse 95, surah 9 verse 41, and surah 61 verses 10-13)

    Interestingly, even Hamzah Yusuf himself knows that this statement is not entirely accurate. In his tape “The Life of The Prophet Muhammad,” tape number 9 Hamzah Yusuf - talking about the prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and his companions in Madinah- said:

    “They are in a state of perpetual vigilance and war. This is jihad, his life is really a life of jihad, of struggle against the people who were bent on not seeing Islam spread which is important to us to take as a lesson if we really want to spread Islam”

    ******************************************

    Michael: It means… does it not mean to go to war with yourself?

    Shaykh Hamza: Well, that’s one of the meanings. It literally means – if you look at the word, the root word is "jihad" which means to struggle, and juhd in the Arabic language means a struggle literally. So jihad is the act of struggling. And the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, said that the greatest jihad is to struggle with your own soul’s insidious suggestions.

    Comment: The root word of Jihad is actually “jahada.” It means 'fighting the enemies or doing ones utmost in fighting' (see lisaan Al-Arab by Ibn Mandhoor, Vol. 2 page 396. First edition, published by Dar Ihya at-Turath al-Arabi, Beirut 1988).

    The hadith mentioned at the end is a weak hadeeth (See the book of weak hadiths by Imam al-Albani, and the book of weak and fabricated Hadiths for Imam al-Shawkani). Sufis in general always quote this Hadith because it relieves them from waging the true Jihad.

    ******************************************

    Shaykh Hamza (continues): And I think that really clarifies to the Muslims. Building a hospital in the Arab world – and I’ve lived in the Arab world, I speak Arabic very well – building a hospital, the Arabs will literally say what a great jihad that was when it was completed.

    Comment: This is not an accurate statement. Arabic is my native tongue and I have studied it – at least one session every day - for 22 years. That phrase would never be used to describe such an effort. Instead, the Arab might say: what a great juhd which means “effort”.

    However the Shari’ (legal) meaning of the term ‘Jihad,’ is “ The war Muslims wage to make the word of Allah superior against kuffar (disbelievers) who do not have a covenant with Muslims after being invited to Islam and rejecting the invitation. Reference: The Fiqh encyclopedia by the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Kuwait”

    ******************************************

    Shaykh Hamza (continues): The idea of spending money for anything good… those firefighters who were pulling people out of the World Trade Towers, they would be considered, that’s an act of jihad. They would be considered mujahideen if they were described in Arabic. And I’m not exaggerating at all. That really is at the essence of this word.

    Comment: Again, this is not accurate. In Islamic literature, when the word “mujahideen” is used without any qualification, it means one and only one thing: those who fight in the battlefield for the sake of Allah. Please refer to the Quran (See for example the commentary on surah 4 verse 95) and search for the word Jihad and Mujahideen to gain a better understanding of how they are used.

    The following hadith in Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4 Book 52, No. 44 shows how the prophet
    (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) understood the word “jihad” and “mujahid” (singular of mujahideen,” please compare this hadith to what Hamzah Yusuf said:

    Narrated by Abu Huraira (RA): A man came to Allah's Apostle and said, "Instruct me as to such a deed that equals Jihad (in reward)." He replied, "I do not find such a deed." Then he added, "Can you, while the Muslim fighter is in the battle-field, enter your mosque to perform prayers without cease and fast and never break your fast?" The man said, "But who can do that?" Abu- Huraira added, "The Mujahid (i.e. Muslim fighter) is rewarded even for the footsteps of his horse while it wanders about (for grazing) tied by a long rope."

    However, if one does use the terms 'Jihad' or 'Mujahid' in a context other than their literal meaning, one must supplement these words with specific references that modify its literal meaning. These two words may be qualified to mean other types of jihad e.g. you may say jihad against the devil which means being vigilant towards the devil’s tricks. Therefore, each time the word jihad is used without any qualification in the Islamic literature – aside from the Sufi books--it means primarily fighting in the battlefield for the sake of Allah(SWT). Without doubts scholars have clearly mentioned Jihad-ul-nufs (struggle against one’s insidious suggestions), however this has never been the primary understanding of the term Jihad.

    Also, refer to all the authentic Hadeeth in which “jihad” is mentioned, observing what the scholars have said about it. For example when Imam Bukhari & Muslim compiled their books of Sahih Hadith, they carefully gathered related Hadeeth reflecting a certain theme under definitive titles. In order to see the understanding of these Imams about Jihad, please go and read the chapters on Jihad in their respective books of Hadeeth. The same applies to Imam Nawawi in his book Riyad-us-Saliheen.

    ”******************************************

    Michael: When you read the coverage in some of the more fulminating columnists and commentators, it comes up time and time again, this business about the Qur’an promising the martyrs or the suicide bombers that if they die in the course of their mission they will go immediately to heaven where they will be greeted by ten or fifteen or sixty-eight or something or other, virgins. You must have seen that. What is that?

    Shaykh Hamza: You know, again this is the problem with religious language for the modern mind. The Qur’an, just to give you an example, says that there is nothing like God and immediately after that – it’s in a chapter called Shura (The Council) – and immediately after that it says and He is the All-Seeing, the All-Hearing. So here’s a verse that says there’s nothing like Him and then it’s immediately followed by saying He hears everything and He sees everything. Well, how do we know what seeing and hearing is if we don’t have a likeness in this world of it

    Comment: When it comes to the attributes of Allah the scholars of Islam discuss these attributes from 2 distinct, yet related, perspectives:

    1. ‘The how’: This means, how does Allah actually see? How does His hand –that He has mentioned in the Quran- look?

    The stance of the Companions of the Prophet, the Tabi’een (those who came after the companions) and those who follow, the major scholars of Ahul-Sunnah including the 4 Imams stated that: We do NOT know anything about the ‘how’ of the attributes of Allah SWT because Allah SWT did not tell us anything about them.

    2. ‘The meaning’: What is the meaning of the attribute of hearing, seeing, etc? The stance of the Companions of the Prophet
    (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), the Tabi’een (those who came after the companions) and those who follow, the major scholars of Ahul-Sunnah including the 4 Imams is that: We KNOW the meaning of the attribute of Allah SWT. We know what mercy means when Allah says about Himself that He is merciful. We know what hearing means. We also believe that His attributes are perfect. For example, Allah has the attribute of knowledge and humans have that attribute too. The difference is that Allah’s knowledge is perfect in the sense that there is no beginning for His knowledge and there is no end, it is not limited by time nor space, it precedes everything, etc. Human knowledge, on the other hand, is far from being perfect. Human knowledge is preceded by ignorance, it is limited by time, space, one’s mental capacity, and it is followed by a lack of it when one ages.

    There is no contradiction in the verse that Hamza Yusuf speaks about. When Allah SWT states that “there is nothing like Him and He is the All-Seeing, the All-Hearing” this actually means that there is nothing like him in: [1] manifestations of (How) and [2] perfection of attributes (meaning). Actually, the scholars consider this very verse as the corner stone of the Islamic creed (Aqeeda) when it comes to the attributes of Allah SWT since this verse negates any resemblance between Allah and his creation, however it also affirms that He has attributes.

    ******************************************

    Shaykh Hamza (continues): So on the one hand there is pure transcendence and on the other hand there’s the imminent aspect of God’s manifestations, his attributes in the world.

    Comment: Please note how he has introduced a ‘supposed contradiction in the Quran.’ “Does Allah have a likeness to something in this world.” He will now use this, below, to convince the reader not to take the Qur’anic verses regarding Paradise literally.

    ******************************************

    Shaykh Hamza (continues): If you look in the Qur’an about the pleasures of paradise, the definitive verse in the Qur’an is that the pleasures of paradise are those, which no eye has seen, no ear has heard of, and has never occurred to the heart of a human being. So that is the definitive verse about the pleasures of paradise. Now, there are some Hadiths, it’s not in the Qur’an, there is mention of beautiful youths as well as beautiful women, and that’s more metonymy in rhetoric.

    Michael: It’s an allegory.

    Shaykh Hamza: Exactly, it’s an allegory, exactly.



    Comment:: There are many issues here:

    1. With all due respect to Hamzah Yusuf, he is wrong: The statement “the pleasures of paradise are those which no eye has seen, no ear has heard of, and has never occurred to the heart of a human being” is not in the Quran. It is part of a Hadith. (Please see hadith 1760, page 857 in Sahih al-Bukhari, published by Dar-us-Salam Publications). If someone claims it is in the Quran, let him show us the Surah and the verse number.

    2. In addition, beautiful youth and women are mentioned in the Quran contrary to his statement. See for example the following verses:

    a. Surah 52 Verse 24

    b. Surah 55 Verse 56 &70

    c. Surah 56 Verse 22,36,37

    d. Surah 76 Verse 19

    e. Surah 78 Verse 33

    Please refer to what the scholars of the commentary on the Quran have said about the meaning of the aforementioned verses. You may read Imaam at-Tabari, Imam Ibn Katheer, Imam al-Qurtubi, Imam al-Shawkani, etc.

    3. The reward for a martyr is also mentioned in Ahadith. And it is not limited to what has been stated above. See Riyad-us-Saliheen [English], vol. 2, pages 967-992. Published by Darussalam, 1999)

    4. Hamza Yusuf claims that the pleasures of Paradise are “an allegory”. This statement is in contradiction with the consensus of Muslim scholars. There are clear Ahadeeth describing in detail the types of pleasures awaiting the believing men and women in Paradise. Unfortunately some early philosophers –who were not considered Muslims by Muslim scholars- claimed that the pleasures of Paradise are not real, but rather are only allegorical. As a general rule though, all the statements of the Quran must be interpreted literally unless there is an evidence for them to be interpreted metaphorically. In fact, this is the case in all sorts of texts (e.g. American Constitution- the US law).

    5. We recently discovered Hamza Yusuf refuting what he has said above in his own tape, explaining: 'Surah Insan part 2 (side B).

    ******************************************

    Michael: It’s an allegory.

    Shaykh Hamza: Exactly, it’s an allegory, exactly. And the thing about it is that our scholars say that the highest sensual experience in the world is orgasm and it’s quite literal. I mean this is a traditional opinion; Imam al-Ghazali, one of the early theologians said that the orgasm that a human being experiences in sexual intercourse is the closest sensual experience that one can taste of what the delights of paradise are like. The Muslims traditionally saw it as almost – and the Hindus have this concept as well – that there’s almost a mystical experience Now, the vast majority of human beings do not have profound mystical experiences. The mystic has experiences that transcend sexuality and in fact, it’s well known that a lot of mystics lose their appetite for those types of things because of their own internal experiences.

    Michael: They’re celibate.

    Shaykh Hamza: Exactly.

    Comment::

    There is a contradiction here. If ‘the pleasure of Paradise has never occurred to the heart of a human being’ (as said by Hamza Yusuf earlier), which is true, how would anyone know if “sexual intercourse” is the closest sensual experience that one can taste of what the delights of Paradise are alike.

    It does not behoove a Muslim to introduce such an irrelevant matter in this conversation.

    What is the point of mentioning what concepts the Hindus share with Muslims? Does it make our concepts more valid? Are we to use Hindu doctrines to legitimize Islamic beliefs?

    Who are these Muslims that considered orgasms to be a mystical experience? Can he quote any of the four Imams as having agreed with such as perverse notion.1, 2

    Please read the book of Abdulwahab al-Sharani (a sufi scholar and historian) which he titled: Tabakat al-sufiyyah, or a book for al-Nabhani (another Sufi) to find if the mystics really lost their appetite for such things due to their own internal experiences. The reality is that many of these mystics have indulged in illicit sexual acts including homosexuality.

    With all due respect to Hamzah Yusuf, does he find it praise-worthy to lose one’s “appetite” for these types of things? How about the Prophet SAAWS who married 11 women, living with 9 of them at the same time? How about the authentic Ahadeeth that relate the Prophet as having intimate relations with all of his wives within the span of one night. The Prophets life is indeed perfect in its totality, and leaves no room to take concepts of perversity or celibacy from other deviant belief systems.

    ************************************************** ************************************************** **************************
    Expert says Islam prohibits violence against innocents

    Hamzah Yusuf said: Jihad means struggle. The Prophet said the greatest jihad is the struggle of a man against his own evil influences. It also refers to what Christians call a ``just war,'' which is fought against tyranny or oppression -- but under a legitimate state authority.

    Comment: -This Hadith is not authentic as mentioned before.

    - Please note in the previous interview Hamza Yusuf alluded to Jihad as ‘Jihad-ul-Nufs’ (internal struggle). However now he is introducing another meaning to Jihad, and allowing Jihad to be –a “Just War” against tyranny and oppression! This kind of Jihad is to be a defensive form of warfare.-[Jihad –ul-dafa’]

    - Please note in Islam there is indeed a legitimate offensive Jihad. [Jihad-at-Talab] The Prophet
    (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) sent troops to different parts of the Arabian Peninsula to spread Islam. Also the three rightly guided Khalifas after Him sent armies to Persia, Roman territory, and North Africa to spread Islam. (However there are etiquettes to all types of Jihad, and the armies did not oppress or compel people to change their religion, but rather spread the virtues of Islam).

    ***********************************

    Interviewer: What is the Arabic word for martyr?

    Hamzah Yusuf said: Shaheed. It means witness. The martyr is the one who witnesses the truth and gives his life for it. There are people in this country like Martin Luther King who would be considered a martyr for his cause. Also, if your home, your family, your property or your land or religion is threatened, then you may defend it with your life. That person is a martyr. But so is anybody who dies of terminal illness; it's a martyr's death. Because it's such a purification that whatever wrongs they once did, they're now in a state of purity.



    Comment: While it is agreed that one meaning of the term Shaheed is to be a witness.

    The prominent meaning of Shaheed in Islamic terms is, however, a person who is killed in Jihad. This is the highest degree of martyrdom. A lesser degree is for a Muslim who gets killed defending his/her family, his/her wealth, or his/her honor, a person with terminal illness, a woman who dies while delivering a child, and the one who dies drowning. But this applies only to Muslims according to the definitive Ayah in the Quran: “Verily, Allah forgives not (the sin of) setting partners (in worship) with Him” (Surah 4 Verse 116). Hence, Martin Luther King – although he stood for a just cause-- definitely does not fit in this second category of martyrdom unless he became a Muslim before he died.

    ****************************

    Hamzah Yusuf said: And the greatest martyr in the eyes of God is the one who stands in the presence of a tyrant and speaks the truth and is killed for it. He is martyred for his tongue.

    Comment: With all due respect this is not the complete truth. The statement above is extracted from a Hadith, which in full is “the master of the martyrs is Hamzah – the Prophet’s uncle who was killed in the battlefield- and a man who stood in the presence of a tyrant and spoke the truth and was killed for it” (see Sahih al-jami as-Sageer by Imam al-Ablani, Vol. 3 hadith no. 3569 page 219. Second Edition, Published by al-Maktab al-Islami, Amman 1979) .

    *****************************

    Hamzah Yusuf said: If there are any martyrs in this affair it would certainly be those brave firefighters and police that went in there to save human lives and in that process lost their own.

    Comment: This is inaccurate due to the fact that the hadith of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) regarding this matter applies to Muslims only. If any of them was a Muslim, then we hope that he/she is a martyr.

    FOOTNOTES:

    (PLEASE REFER TO LAST PARAGRAPH OF FIRST LECTURE) The four Imams were chosen here because they have a prestigious status in the entire Ummah and their leadership and knowledge has been clearly accepted by an overwhelming majority of Muslims. Also please note that we were forced to address this perverse issue (understanding the delights of paradise through sexual experience) simply because it was brought up in these interviews in such a manner.

  16. #16
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default

    "American Islam"

    Hamza Yusuf Claims: Holocaust Denial Undermines Islam!

    by Kaukab Siddique, Ph.D, Associate Professor of English

    Readers of New Trend have our analysis of the new "Islam" the Bush administration is fabricating in America and exporting to the Muslim world. We have seen the activities of Ingrid Mattson and Hartford Seminary, the false witnessing by Siraj Wahhaj, the abuse of Zaid Shakir aimed at those who objected to the "cartoons" of Prophet Muhammad, pbuh, and more recently the global coordination of Native Deen’s travels by the State Department. Before that we looked at the machinations of Asra Nomani, Irshad Manji and Salman Rushdie.

    However, in this entire process of fabrication of a new "Islam," Hamza Yusuf’s "achievement" is unique. He has come out with the claim that the authenticity of the Qur’an and the "authenticity" of the Jewish "Holocaust" story are co-equal. If Muslims deny the "Holocaust," they will thereby be denying the Qur’an and Islam itself.

    We should be thankful to Hamza Yusuf for coming out with his true face. Till now he had concealed himself quite well among Muslims. He is presented at almost every annual convention of ISNA [the so-called Islamic Society of North America] as a celebrity. Hundreds of ISNA supporters listen to him spellbound when he speaks. He has that unique lure which immigrant Muslims cannot resist: He is a White convert to Islam who knows Arabic and who is presented as [and presents himself as] a scholar.

    He may well have continued to mislead many Muslims for a long time. After all he has an Islamic institute of his own [known as Zaytuna] [funding not clear] in northern California. Alhamdulillah, his article on the Qur’an and Holocaust Denial has brought out the facts of his ignorance of the Qur’an, the Hadith and the "Holocaust" story.

    HAMZA YUSUF’S HOLOCAUST CLAIMS are as follows:

    "HOLOCAUST DENIAL UNDERMINES ISLAM "

    Hamza Yusuf, Tikkun - http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/tik0708/frontpage/denial

    Holocaust survivors have "lived to tell of it."
    "Nazis were brought to trial for it" and "convicted."
    "Mass graves were found" and "gas chambers were discovered."
    "The ovens exist."
    "I have personally met many Holocaust survivors and their children."
    "I have seen tattoos. I have also heard firsthand accounts of the horrific events."

    Hamza Yusuf claims that holocaust denial is a form of lunacy which is tantamount to the idea that "Australia doesn’t exist."

    These claims are being made about the Second World War in which the White races not only hit each other as hard as they could but also carried out systematic propaganda against each other. The Russians and their West European and U.S. allies won. The Germans lost the war. Our task is to make sure we jettison wartime propaganda and arrive at the facts as far as they can be found. Much of wartime information remained classified till 50 years after the war. Recent research by David Irving has shown that the area bombing of German cities and the mass murder of German civilians by British and American air fleets was part of the Churchill doctrine.

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

    YUSUF MAKES FALSE COMPARISONS with the Qur’an and the Hadith because he does not know two important facts:


    The Qur’an was written down during the process of its revelation.

    The Hadith was written down by Sahabah [such as Ali, Abu Huraira, Abdullah ibn Amru bin al-‘As, and others as the Prophet (peace be upon him) spoke, though the Prophet (peace be upon him) took measures to ensure that his words would not be written with the Qur’an.

    By contrast:

    There is no documentary or WRITTEN evidence of the "Holocaust." As revisionist scholars have shown:

    There is no order from Hitler to exterminate the Jewish people.
    No gas chambers have been found.
    No mass graves related to the alleged scope of the "holocaust" have been found. Minor grave sites have been found but such are available for every nation in a major war.
    No ashes related to the burning of millions of bodies have been found.

    TESTIMONY:

    Again the comparison with the Qur’an and Hadith is absurd. The testimony of German war criminals was forced by the allies under horrendous conditions of torture, beatings and an atmosphere of hopelessness. For instance, Hoss, the commandant of Auschwitz, was starved, beaten and tortured almost to death. He was then ordered to write his "confessions" which were doctored and presented as evidence.

    There is no testimony worth the name which could stand up in any court which had an element of impartiality in it. Hilberg, the main "historian" of the holocaust story admits in his extremely one sided The Destruction of the European Jews [1961] that ALL of the top German leaders brought to trial at Nuremburg insisted that they had not known of the mass murder of Jews. Goering insisted, in grueling prison conditions, that the allegations of mass murder were untrue.

    Now how does this COMPARE WITH THE QUR’AN? Were the Qur’an and Hadith being written in response to the leaders of Islam being brought to trial? Hamza Yusuf has gone beyond all limits of decency in this matter.

    SURVIVOR STORIES:

    In his brilliant research work, Dissecting the Holocaust, Germar Rudolf has a chapter on the "growing critique of ‘Truth’ and ‘Memory’" related to the stories told by survivors. There are no real eyewitness accounts of gassings or burnings. Instead there is hearsay, rumor and fear-motivation. The basic stories of the holocaust, says Rudolf, were started by a group of Communist inmates inside Auschwitz who later let it known that

    "The whole propaganda which started about Auschwitz abroad was initiated by us with the help of our Polish comrades." [Widerstand in Auschwitz by Bruno Baum, 1957, p. 97.]

    Of course Jews were tormented and oppressed by Hitler, as were Germans hunted, oppressed and slaughtered by the friends of the Jews. No holocaust denier says that the Jews did not suffer under Hitler. The Jews first declared war on Germany. Only then did Germany declare war on them. Today, the German witnesses are not allowed to speak while the Jewish witnesses continue to hog the media and to repeat wartime fears and stories.

    By contrast, the Qur’an and Hadith were recorded by people who wanted success in the Hereafter. They wrote and they memorized. They were not being used, nor were they fearful of anyone other than Allah.

    CENSORSHIP speaks against the Holocaust story. Germar Rudolf is in prison, Ernst Zundel is in prison, David Irving spent months in prison, thousands of Germans are or have been in prison for bearing witness to the German side of the story.

    By contrast, Muslims have studied and answered vicious attacks on the Qur’an and the Hadith in the most scholarly fashion. Only when it came to abuse of the Prophet, pbuh, by Salman Rushdie, and the insulting cartoons, did the Muslims 'lose their cool.'

    Finally Hamza Yusuf complains that Muslims do not allow Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl to be taught to Muslim students. Perhaps Yusuf does not know that this Diary’s authenticity is seriously in doubt. By comparison, the writings of David Irving are not taught in American universities and not allowed into American bookstores and libraries. The recently published book FIRE [by an avowed anti-Nazi] which details the destruction of German cities, libraries, churches, schools, museums and gardens by the British and U.S. air forces has been strictly censored and kept out of book reviews by the U.S. media.

    NOW A LITTLE ABOUT HAMZA YUSUF and ISLAM:

    As noted above, he does not know that the Qur’an was written down DURING the process of revelation, not after the Prophet, pbuh, passed away. So there is absolutely no comparison with Jewish stories which have developed AFTER the war.

    Hamza Yusuf’s knowledge of Hadith too is negligible. He writes:

    "One of the greatest achievements of the Islamic scholastic tradition is ‘ilm ar-rijaal, the science of narrators. It is the study of reports of events in the life of the Prophet, especially of his sayings and deeds. Its formulators established a rigid set of criteria to validate the truth claims of those who asserted they saw or heard the Prophet do or say such-and-such."

    Yusuf must be the first to make the baseless claim that ‘ilm ar-rijal is "the study of events in the life of the Prophet." [pbuh] He has confused Hadith and the criticism of Hadith narrations. Plenty of evidence is available to show that Hadith were memorized and written down before the books about the narrators were written.

    The books about the narrators became necessary owing to the efforts of "scholars" linked to the kings to fabricate Hadith. Yusuf confuses them with Hadith itself. In addition, Yusuf does not know that Islamic Law is based on Hadith which are Mashhur and not always on those which are Mutawatir.

    Yusuf also claims that "Islamic jurisprudence is largely based upon solitary evidence." I would like to know how he got this idea. It could be that he read Imam Shafi'is defense of solitary narrations and thought that his entire school of thought was based on such narrations.

    New Trend Magazine. newtrendmag.org. Biggest Islamic web site in the USA. blog.360.yahoo.com/newtrendmag for blog. newtrendmag.org/ntma1151.htm for previous issue. Phone: 443-869-5233. Email: butshikan@.... Subscription for printed edition: $10 for 3 months. Mail check to: New Trend, P.O. Box 356, Kingsville, MD 21087.

    Disclaimer: Views expressed are not necessarily shared by the editors. New Trend does not endorse violence of any kind. Information on news or views related to violence is for analysis and understanding, not for endorsement. New Trend is against racism, classism, gender superiority, Zionism and Imperialism. The Qur'an and the authentic Hadith are our foundation. All views are welcome but only a selection can be published owing to high volume of mail. Anyone criticized in New Trend has the right of reply up to 300 words.
    ----------------------------------------------
    Rajab 19, 1428/ August 3, 2007 #60
    ----------------------------------------------

  17. #17
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    414

    Default

    A.A.W.W.

    First we are Muslims who believe in One God, Quran and Messenger of ALLAH Muhammad (s.a.w.)

    You posted an old comment of Br.Yusuf Estes (2001), please would you ask Br.Yusuf Estes about Br. Hamza’s position today,

    Br. Hamza did accept some of his mistakes on an interview after 9/11

    You know that Br. Hamza Yusuf, Br. Zaid shakir, Br.Siraj Wahaj. Br.Yusu Estes. Br.Bilal Phillips, Br.Yusuf Islam, Br.Dawood Adib and more converted Brothers never claim themselves as the Uleema. They just explain to the western audience in their understanding levels. They always refer to well recognize Uleemas. They really bring so many young people into being enthusiastic about Islam. They all are agreeing on Aqida of Tauheed.

    There are so many different opinions on some issues and that matter needs very deep knowledge of Islam. So leave it to uleemas.
    Some people are very stereotyped in today world politics, whenever they find anything against their opinion they became a very upset and they unconsciously go too far.

  18. #18
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default

    W.S.

    I understand what you are saying. IF you read all of the posts carefully, you will see that they are not referring to the ulemas nor are they even saying what is according to the Quran and Sunnah. It is one thing to be wrong once or twice but to consistently contradict the Quran and sunnah and on top that, have their own educational institution that preaches the same contradictory material is something else. The fact these figures are so popular and attract so many youths shows all the more dangerous their preaching is and all the more important it is to highlight their misinformation of Islam lest they lead many astray with their false information on Islam.

  19. #19
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    414

    Default

    PURIFICATION OF THE HEART
    Translation and commentary of Imam Mawlud’s Matharat al-Qulub

    Please read these books by Yusuf Hamza,

    and

    THE PURIFICATION OF THE SOUL,

    Al-Muhasibi's Risalah al-Mustarshideen is translated by Br. Zaid Shakir


    and let me know what did wrong there.

    I have more than 25 audio lactures by Br.Yusuf Hamza and Br. Zaid Shakir.

    Thanks.

  20. #20
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,374

    Default

    No thanks, the posts in this thread make it very clear as to how reliable they are. I don't need to rely on them when there are many reliable authentic scholars available, who have spent their lives studying Islam from scholars before them.

    My Advice to everyone is, Be careful who you take your deen (knowledge) from, for beliefs will be based on it, and it will take you to heaven or hell based on those believes. Do not be so relaxed as it is your akhirah that is at stake!


 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •