[Immarsecice]

My post is referring to the fact that this brother approves of Shabbir Ally.

[EzekelEnzino]

Shabbir Ally denies that Allah has fore-knowledge of particulars.

[lkastonidwedsrer]

Shabbir Ally denies that Allah has fore-knowledge of particulars.

Wa alaykumus salam, any reference?

[Unrersvar]

Shabir Ally is said to be the most knowledgeable Muslim today when it comes to Islam and Christianity. I would only take that knowledge from him since he is no scholars, but only a specialist in Christianity. One piece of advice he gave is when debating with a Christian evangelical all you have to quote is Jeremiah 8:8.

I did this once with 3-4 missionaries who came to an MSA iftar, they had their big bibles and there were about 6-7 of them in the area of which their top 3 guys took turns on preaching to me and my friend. They got pretty frustrated when it came to Trinity, and then to put the cherry on top, I remembered this verse and I asked them to open their Bibles to this verse, even though before this I had never opened a Bible. They got excited and did so, I asked them to read it, "'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?. They gave up, did a group huddle with their fellow missionaries and left.

[orgagsUpsepsy]

Shabbir Ally denies that Allah has fore-knowledge of particulars.

If he does deny it, then someone needs to give him this verse:

“With Him are the keys of the unseen, the treasures that none knows but He. He knows whatever there is on the earth and in the sea. Not a leaf falls but with His knowledge: there is not a grain in the darkness (or depths) of the earth, nor anything fresh or dry (green or withered), but is (inscribed) in a record clear (to those who can read).” – (Quran 6:59)

But as Mufti Sahib mentioned any proof for his statement?

[Apparpsmose]

interesting. how do you define an 'apologist'?

I think you dislike the term.
I too had the same reaction to this term, many years ago.

I suspect the following might have happened.

Christian preachers might have tried their preaching skills on Jewish people also.
Seeing the versatility of Christian preachers it will be a quick wind up for Judaism.
The fact that Christianity has slightly more truth to it would only help the process.

Now Jewish people are the chosen one, aren't they.
They specialize is intellectually overwhelming their adversary.
That is what they did to Christianity earlier - by getting them to accept the old testament as their own.
In the phase under consideration they made another onslaught of intellectual kind on Christianity.
Or Christian preachers, to be more specific.
They convinced them that proselytizing is bad, evil and wrong.
And the Christian preachery capitalized.
They accepted that proselytizing is indeed bad, evil and wrong.
For all their achievements the Christian intelligentsia is a poor lamb when it comes face to face with Jewish chosen-ness.

So what do the Christian preachers do?
Well they do not say Dawah. They do not have a word for that.
They call their Dawah apologetics.

And hence the words of this kind are the more common ones which we hear.

PS: My post was gobbled up by power failure yesterday so I apologize if the post sounds belated.

[Misebeita]

Shabbir Ally denies that Allah has fore-knowledge of particulars.

:haula:

It is clear that he is still struggling to figure out the things. It is not an easy task for a person who has studies Deen in BA (Theology). I suppose there is the lesson in this case that a Dar-ul-Uloom gives you more then an info package about Deen.
There is Tarbiyah also that is imparted to you. In universities you merely get the info package.

Shabir Ally is said to be the most knowledgeable Muslim today when it comes to Islam and Christianity. I would only take that knowledge from him since he is no scholars, but only a specialist in Christianity. One piece of advice he gave is when debating with a Christian evangelical all you have to quote is Jeremiah 8:8.

I did this once with 3-4 missionaries who came to an MSA iftar, they had their big bibles and there were about 6-7 of them in the area of which their top 3 guys took turns on preaching to me and my friend. They got pretty frustrated when it came to Trinity, and then to put the cherry on top, I remembered this verse and I asked them to open their Bibles to this verse, even though before this I had never opened a Bible. They got excited and did so, I asked them to read it, "'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?. They gave up, did a group huddle with their fellow missionaries and left.

Would have loved to watch the scenario.

[EvonsRorgon]

Shabir Ally is said to be the most knowledgeable Muslim today when it comes to Islam and Christianity. I would only take that knowledge from him since he is no scholars, but only a specialist in Christianity. One piece of advice he gave is when debating with a Christian evangelical all you have to quote is Jeremiah 8:8.

I did this once with 3-4 missionaries who came to an MSA iftar, they had their big bibles and there were about 6-7 of them in the area of which their top 3 guys took turns on preaching to me and my friend. They got pretty frustrated when it came to Trinity, and then to put the cherry on top, I remembered this verse and I asked them to open their Bibles to this verse, even though before this I had never opened a Bible. They got excited and did so, I asked them to read it, "'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?. They gave up, did a group huddle with their fellow missionaries and left.

Sorry, this may be a dumb question, but what exactly is this verse talking about that it shut them up?

[sposicke]

It is talking about the Torah and the Talmud, the sources of law in Judaism.

[nmnrIjGB]

It is talking about the Torah and the Talmud, the sources of law in Judaism.

So the Bible says that the Torah and Talmud were changed?

[georgshult]

Assalamu alaykum,

I think we can take the good (comparative religion) from the Sheikh and leave the bad (fiqh and tafseer). We can learn these from more traditional sources.

Thanks.

[Lxbsvksl]

Assalamu alaykum,

I think we can take the good (comparative religion) from the Sheikh and leave the bad (fiqh and tafseer). We can learn these from more traditional sources.

Thanks.

I usually do that only but after the discussion in Salman Nadwi and Zakir Naik thread I am worried. Personally I feel that I can do that both in case of Zakir Naik and Shabir Ally but the question is what about others who have not spent time with scholars or Masha-ikh? The danger is that they will insist on taking everything from people like Naik and Ally for they are no equipped to differentiate between good content and the bad content.

[parishilton]

I usually do that only but after the discussion in Salman Nadwi and Zakir Naik thread I am worried. Personally I feel that I can do that both in case of Zakir Naik and Shabir Ally but the question is what about others who have not spent time with scholars or Masha-ikh? The danger is that they will insist on taking everything from people like Naik and Ally for they are no equipped to differentiate between good content and the bad content.

Yes, your right. There is a danger for many extremely laymen Muslims to be led astray and adopt deviant beliefs like those of Zakir Naik and Shabir Ally. One must be well grounded in knowledge before listening to these people. But this danger is low because Zakir Naik and Shabir Ally rarely talk about fiqhi issues, most of their videos are just Muslim-Christian dialogue and apologetics.

In fact, I wasn't even even aware of the deviant beliefs of Shabir Ally before reading this thread. Although it does disappoint me a little, it does not keep me from being attracted to his videos. He is, no doubt, and intelligent man, having memorized both the Qur'an and the Bible (This is fact really impresses me about both Zakir Naik and Shabir)

I intend to watch more of his debates after Ramadhan . The only one I've watched is the one between him and Sam Shamoun.

[beatrisio]

Once such people have a platform, it is hard for them to resist answering questions beyond their ambit. This is where the problems start. Shabbir Ally has some extremely problematic beliefs and is far worse than Zakir Naik.

[cargo_brad]

I happened to pray once behind this rajul during the friday prayer. La hawla wa la quwwata billah. This man would have been declared an apostate by the judge for his kufr beliefs.

[XVzrlWIv]

Yes, your right. There is a danger for many extremely laymen Muslims to be led astray and adopt deviant beliefs like those of Zakir Naik and Shabir Ally. One must be well grounded in knowledge before listening to these people. But this danger is low because Zakir Naik and Shabir Ally rarely talk about fiqhi issues, most of their videos are just Muslim-Christian dialogue and apologetics.

In fact, I wasn't even even aware of the deviant beliefs of Shabir Ally before reading this thread. Although it does disappoint me a little, it does not keep me from being attracted to his videos. He is, no doubt, and intelligent man, having memorized both the Qur'an and the Bible (This is fact really impresses me about both Zakir Naik and Shabir)

I intend to watch more of his debates after Ramadhan . The only one I've watched is the one between him and Sam Shamoun.

I don't know why people think Shabir or Naik have memorised the Bible- they quote it just like evangelists quote it or other Muslim debaters would (i.e. memorising the passages that are necessary for debate only, not the entire text). I can't think of a single human being that has memorised the ENTIRE bible and even the memorisation of the Torah itself is rare.

The danger of being misled is great because an average Muslim layman will consider these guys to be scholars of the highest calibre on the basis that they can speak English and quote with verse and chapter number unlike 'these mullahs' who don't. So the most obvious danger is that these people are given a status amongst the laymen that should be reserved for actual scholars instead.

The second being that even in these debates, you'll find people like Shabir making kufr statements. It was in a debate for example, where he denied a hadith of Bukhari that was brought up by the Christian opposing him, with the Christian confused as to why a 'sunni Muslim' was denying the authenticity of a hadith from Bukhari (as he had been correctly told that we believe them all to be authentic). All Shabir said was 'it goes against the Quran' (which it actually didn't). How many laymen would have then been fooled by his ignorance and began to adopt his methodology so that whenever they are shown a hadith that seems to contradict Al Quran, they decide to believe it is a fabrication instead?

The point is, maybe the already religiously inclined may know where he falters but MOST laymen do not and they will be swept up in his ignorance and as such, I CANNOT recommend that anyone watches any of his talks

And I now ask the question- in a Sharia state, do you think he would be allowed to continue his 'preaching' with the Ulema advising that they take the good and leave the bad or would he have been banned or brought before a Qadi to answer for some of his statements (especially ones like the evolution one which is kufr but that is for the Mufti's to explain)?

[VladFal]

I don't know why people think Shabir or Naik have memorised the Bible- they quote it just like evangelists quote it or other Muslim debaters would (i.e. memorising the passages that are necessary for debate only, not the entire text). I can't think of a single human being that has memorised the ENTIRE bible and even the memorisation of the Torah itself is rare.

Are you sure they haven't memorized the Bible? I always assumed they did, by the way the rapidly quote verse after verse. I also heard the Zakir Naik memorized Hindu scriptures as well.
And about memorizing relevant verses, how would you know what verses would be relevant in a debate? Your opponent could bring up any topic, so you wouldn't really know which verses to memorize.

The danger of being misled is great because an average Muslim layman will consider these guys to be scholars of the highest calibre on the basis that they can speak English and quote with verse and chapter number unlike 'these mullahs' who don't. So the most obvious danger is that these people are given a status amongst the laymen that should be reserved for actual scholars instead.

This is true. I myself though of them as scholars when I first saw their videos. I know better now though.

The second being that even in these debates, you'll find people like Shabir making kufr statements. It was in a debate for example, where he denied a hadith of Bukhari that was brought up by the Christian opposing him, with the Christian confused as to why a 'sunni Muslim' was denying the authenticity of a hadith from Bukhari (as he had been correctly told that we believe them all to be authentic). All Shabir said was 'it goes against the Quran' (which it actually didn't). How many laymen would have then been fooled by his ignorance and began to adopt his methodology so that whenever they are shown a hadith that seems to contradict Al Quran, they decide to believe it is a fabrication instead?

Akhi, I dont remember ever watching a video in which Shabir denies a sahih hadith, and I've watched a lot of his videos on youtube. Can you provide a link?

The point is, maybe the already religiously inclined may know where he falters but MOST laymen do not and they will be swept up in his ignorance and as such, I CANNOT recommend that anyone watches any of his talks

Well Shabir and Naik may have some deviant beliefs, but they sure know how to defend Islam. Watching there videos may help a new Muslims iman increase. But like I said, they rarely talk about fiqhi issues, so this isn't an unavoidable danger.

And I now ask the question- in a Sharia state, do you think he would be allowed to continue his 'preaching' with the Ulema advising that they take the good and leave the bad or would he have been banned or brought before a Qadi to answer for some of his statements (especially ones like the evolution one which is kufr but that is for the Mufti's to explain)?

Brother you are right. I Agree that Shabir and Zakir would probably be condemned or even declared apostates in an actual Shariah state because of some of their statements (like Shabir's about evolution), but this doesn't change that fact that they've refuted the Christians many times and are great da'ees (Zakir Naik has brought many people to Islam).

[Intory]

Are you sure they haven't memorized the Bible? I always assumed they did, by the way the rapidly quote verse after verse. I also heard the Zakir Naik memorized Hindu scriptures as well.
And about memorizing relevant verses, how would you know what verses would be relevant in a debate? Your opponent could bring up any topic, so you wouldn't really know which verses to memorize.



This is true. I myself though of them as scholars when I first saw their videos. I know better now though.



Akhi, I dont remember ever watching a video in which Shabir denies a sahih hadith, and I've watched a lot of his videos on youtube. Can you provide a link?



Well Shabir and Naik may have some deviant beliefs, but they sure know how to defend Islam. Watching there videos may help a new Muslims iman increase. But like I said, they rarely talk about fiqhi issues, so this isn't an unavoidable danger.



Brother you are right. I Agree that Shabir and Zakir would probably be condemned or even declared apostates in an actual Shariah state because of some of their statements (like Shabir's about evolution), but this doesn't change that fact that they've refuted the Christians many times and are great da'ees (Zakir Naik has brought many people to Islam).

It is my guarantee that they have not memorised the Bible. Naik has not memorised hindu scriptures either, but only the relevant passages (he admitted this, he is not even haafiz of Al Quran). The way to know which verses will be relevant is to know the most common method of attack (from the opposition). For example, you memorise all the verses regarding the oneness of God and then you memorise all the verses the Christians interpret to say that God is trinity (may Allah save us from such disbelief). Then, for example, we know Christians will try and attack Sharia law and speak about acts such as stoning so you memorise verses about stoning... many people have done this, not just Shabir Ally and Naik and it is not difficult when basic studies of the text have been completed.

With regards to video's of Shabir denying sahih hadith, I haven't watched any of his video's in over two years but I found such statements in even the first few video's of his that I watched (which is why I think he is so dangerous).

Regarding whether the danger they pose is AVOIDABLE, it is only avoidable if you have basic knowledge of Islam (which a new Muslim or even an 'old' Muslim may not have). It is not avoidable at all. Just look at the fact he is asked to lead salaah! People have been duped by the likes of Ally and Naik and the fact that they have brought people to Islam is not a mitigating factor since people like Ally can be considered zindeeq and we judge them according to the sharia, not according to whether they brought people to Islam or not. Especially since it is actually only Allah who guides and these people would have been guided even if Naik and Ally had never existed.

So, when we realise that:

1. Only Allah guides to Islam
2. These two are people of misguidance (Ally especially)

We find that we should NOT advocate that people listen to them

[mpegdvdclip]

Brothers I am extremely upset of this scathing attack to Dr. Zakir Naik. Though his issues on fiqh is questionable but he , to the best of my knowledge, has not uttered any words of kufr. Please brothers watch what you post as this could be an evidence against you

[pouslytut]

Brothers I am extremely upset of this scathing attack to Dr. Zakir Naik. Though his issues on fiqh is questionable but he , to the best of my knowledge, has not uttered any words of kufr. Please brothers watch what you post as this could be an evidence against you

1. I have been watching his video's for years. I probably have most his talks memorised (since he just reuses them)
2. I have not claimed anywhere here that he has uttered kufr but he is definitely misguided
3. At some point, he has claimed (I have heard this from his own lectures) that heaven and hell do not last forever. This is deviance at the very least, maybe someone can explain whether it is kufr or not.
4. It is necessary to warn against such misguidance