DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Who is Shaykh Hamza Yusuf and why is he so popular?

**Ferkilort** · 08-20-2011, 09:15 AM

I was highlighting the huge change in Hamza Yusuf style/tone from pre-2001 to now. Before he used to mention the truth clearly even if it was bitter.

Compared to now with things like: Muslims are very protective of Islam, thats why they're constantly vary of new ideas bid'ah and this is something that wont change anytime soon. Especially in the Muslim world they're closed to new ideas, but western Muslims are more open and tolerant to differing views. (paraphrased)

The problem with that is that no one understands what the message is. Traditionalists will apply husn adh-dhann and assume he's agreeing with them. Modernists and other deviants will say (& do say) he's agreeing with them. The clips posted have actually been uploaded by a modernist to show 'traditionalist' support for his views.

And the last link in my post (which is the full lecture thats embedded on another forum), thats the most confusing one of all. Its left me confused thinking about what on earth could he have meant, because going by the apparent of his words it implies kufr. Yet I find it hard to believe he would have meant it like that. So I would appreciate any explanation on that.

08-20-2011, 09:15 AM	#23
Ferkilort Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 422 Senior Member	I was highlighting the huge change in Hamza Yusuf style/tone from pre-2001 to now. Before he used to mention the truth clearly even if it was bitter. Compared to now with things like: Muslims are very protective of Islam, thats why they're constantly vary of new ideas bid'ah and this is something that wont change anytime soon. Especially in the Muslim world they're closed to new ideas, but western Muslims are more open and tolerant to differing views. (paraphrased) The problem with that is that no one understands what the message is. Traditionalists will apply husn adh-dhann and assume he's agreeing with them. Modernists and other deviants will say (& do say) he's agreeing with them. The clips posted have actually been uploaded by a modernist to show 'traditionalist' support for his views. And the last link in my post (which is the full lecture thats embedded on another forum), thats the most confusing one of all. Its left me confused thinking about what on earth could he have meant, because going by the apparent of his words it implies kufr. Yet I find it hard to believe he would have meant it like that. So I would appreciate any explanation on that.
	Quote