[husartrof]

Jadeed, I humbly am unqualified to answer. I am merely a student who wishes to learn. Far be it for me comment on a topic that I haven't been taught nor my teachers have given me permission to comment on.

Then please go sit in a corner humbly and quit your emotional sarcasm, especially so since your teachers haven't given you permission to comment!

Please be reasonable and constructive in your discussion, and not deriding and loathsome in your attitude.

[freeringtonesioo]

It's amusing how some of SHY's tangential statements are used to extrapolate his ultimate aqeedah, yet when he states is aqeedah in clear terms its brushed off as 'diplomatic statements'. Of course his ambiguous statements serve one's cause and agenda much better than his clear ones.

[mudozvonf]

It's amusing how some of SHY's tangential statements are used to extrapolate his ultimate aqeedah, yet when he states is aqeedah in clear terms its brushed off as 'diplomatic statements'. Of course his ambiguous statements serve one's cause and agenda much better than his clear ones.

What cause do his ambiguous statements serve? Do they serve the perennialists when they pounce on his words and say 'Look, SHY said this' and then mislead others? Do they serve the modernists who say 'Look, SHY says this' and then they use these statements to mislead others? Even his statement on apostasy is ambiguously worded... we don't whether the thinks it's obligatory to apply the hadd or not, he just mentioned it 'could be strongly argued that...' which is problematic since we'll get a bunch of people (modernists) who start denying all the hadd punishments in a manner similar to Tariq Ramadan who says 'they make us look bad, lets not use them for a while'. His ambiguous statements are the SOURCE of fitnah... he says things that sound like one thing when he means the total opposite and those who are unaware of his real stances fall hook line and sinker into deviance.

[duceswild]

Except the 'aim' here is not obvious from the text. Who knows what the aim is? Maybe it's ta'abuddi.

What's more, two of Hamza Yusuf's associates - Abdul-Hakim Murad and Abdullah ibn Hamid Ali, both argue against the hadd for riddah.

Then in this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naEj915VU20


Hamza Yusuf said (5:20): "The Prophet never... nobody during his lifetime was killed for apostasy. And there are apostasy laws, just like in Catholicism [...] there's one hadith that they base this on, but there are other hadiths, and they weren't in agreement on this. One of the greatest scholars of Islam (inaudible) did not believe there should be a capital punishment for this."

And he said (7:21) "The other thing that's very problematic in Islamic tradition, and I have to say this, you know, full disclosure - Islamic tradition is not as amenable as other traditions are to reformation. Because the Islamic tradition sees itself as a reformation [...] there are many verses saying 'Don't change your religion.' As Muslims, it's much more difficult for us. We have to find the dissenting opinions. Those dissenting opinions are there, and they need to be brought to the fore-front, because right now they are in the background. [...] And this is what I try to do."

A lot of people accuse Salafis of bringing ancient, abandoned opinions to the fore-front. Where's the consistency? Accuse everyone who does it or keep silent.

Mufti Jumah holds the same opinion. Why dont you go have a debate with him ? And there are tons of ssalafis sitting in US and UK with the same opinion. Show some balance in your targetting.

No one has openly accepted their opinion, as it has no yet moved to a place that invites attention or criticism. Therefore you would see silence mostly unless a scholar has directly faced this issue.

[VanDerSmok]

Mufti Jumah holds the same opinion. Why dont you go have a debate with him ? And there are tons of ssalafis sitting in US and UK with the same opinion. Show some balance in your targetting.

No one has openly accepted their opinion, as it has no yet moved to a place that invites attention or criticism. Therefore you would see silence mostly unless a scholar has directly faced this issue.

Anyone who says this is wrong, be he Salafi, Sufi, or whatever he wants to present himself as. If we're not bound by the ijmaa' as-sahabah and the agreement of the Four Schools, then are we bound by anything at all?

What's more, how can you say that it hasn't moved to a place where it invites criticism? Anyone expressing a view like this in public is effectively leaving off the ijmaa of the Sahabah and the agreement of thousands of great scholars from all Four Schools. People who give speeches on the incumbency of 8 rak'ahs taraweeh are shot down like WW1 planes meeting Sidewinder missiles, so why is this going unchallenged?

[duceswild]

Anyone who says this is wrong, be he Salafi, Sufi, or whatever he wants to present himself as. If we're not bound by the ijmaa' as-sahabah and the agreement of the Four Schools, then are we bound by anything at all?

What's more, how can you say that it hasn't moved to a place where it invites criticism? Anyone expressing a view like this in public is effectively leaving off the ijmaa of the Sahabah and the agreement of thousands of great scholars from all Four Schools. People who give speeches on the incumbency of 8 rak'ahs taraweeh are shot down like WW1 planes meeting Sidewinder missiles, so why is this going unchallenged?

Not everyone lives in America that they bother about what some individuals there say. Either way there are more salafis in west holding this opinion then those who follow the madhab. Clean your own house before attempting to prove anything.

At the end of the day those who follow the madhab always have the scholars of mmadhab as authority over riding the individual opinions today. While salafism by default is opposite that requires madhabs being diverted to agree with some individuals personal interpretation of Quran and sunnah. That's the big difference.

[Rchzygnc]

It's amusing how some of SHY's tangential statements are used to extrapolate his ultimate aqeedah, yet when he states is aqeedah in clear terms its brushed off as 'diplomatic statements'. Of course his ambiguous statements serve one's cause and agenda much better than his clear ones.

No one here is getting paid to oppose Hamza Yusuf. He does not represent any specific school of thought so that one will oppose him based on personal grievances towards that specific school. I have personally listened to three of his stances which are extremely problematic. Let me list them again for the sake of clarity.

1. His saying that the Lahori group of Qadyanis are not out of the fold of Islam and Muhammad Ali (one of the pioneers of the Lahori Qadyanis was a great scholar). I am thinking to translate that speech of him and forward it to "Majlis Tahafuz e Khatam e Naboowat" which is a body composed of real scholars so that they can either ask him to repent publicly or issue a Fatwa regarding his deviance.

2. His saying that the Maturidi creed has been influenced by Buddhism. He made a speech (in which probably he was in his crypto-perrenialistic mood) in which he claimed that Imam Abul Mansoor maturidi ra was born in an area where Buddhism was prevalent and so he induced the "softness" of Buddhism into Islam through the Maturidi creed.

3.His saying that Quran opposes the punishment of death for apostates and this ruling has long been misunderstood.

These views are simply unacceptable. Had any person in Pakistan come up with these deviant views and would have dared to propagate them in public, the righteous scholars would have opposed him. These views are just acceptable for the people who want to understand and interpret Islam through social relativism.

[mudozvonf]

Anyone who says this is wrong, be he Salafi, Sufi, or whatever he wants to present himself as. If we're not bound by the ijmaa' as-sahabah and the agreement of the Four Schools, then are we bound by anything at all?

What's more, how can you say that it hasn't moved to a place where it invites criticism? Anyone expressing a view like this in public is effectively leaving off the ijmaa of the Sahabah and the agreement of thousands of great scholars from all Four Schools. People who give speeches on the incumbency of 8 rak'ahs taraweeh are shot down like WW1 planes meeting Sidewinder missiles, so why is this going unchallenged?

Lol, nice simile. Seriously though, what you say is true. The traditionalist camp is the most anti Salafi camp there is and their major arguments are based around 'the four schools worked for x number of years, why are you doing DIY ijtihad, etc' and they complain about 8 rakaah taraweeh and so forth and say the Salafi's are devoid of understanding since they have left the basic understanding of the four schools, but then their leaders tell us the apostasy hadd isn't applicable anymore despite there being a consensus on it and suddenly a thousand excuses come flooding in like 'Shaykh so and so is much more learned than you'. Well in that case, Shaykh Uthaymeen and others were also learned, why are they criticised by traditionalist laymen? (Not that I am Salafi or anything, just pointing out the basic hypocrisy we see from the traditionalist camp).

If the four schools are supposed to be good enough for the Salafi's when it comes to 8 rakaah taraweeh, they should be good enough for the traditionalists when it comes to the apostasy hadd too.

If the excuse 'don't criticise so and so scholar because he is more learned than you' should be good enough for the Salafi's, it should be good enough for the traditionalists too.

[VanDerSmok]

Not everyone lives in America that they bother about what some individuals there say. Either way there are more salafis in west holding this opinion then those who follow the madhab. Clean your own house before attempting to prove anything.

At the end of the day those who follow the madhab always have the scholars of mmadhab as authority over riding the individual opinions today. While salafism by default is opposite that requires madhabs being diverted to agree with some individuals personal interpretation of Quran and sunnah. That's the big difference.

None of what you're saying has anything to do with anything and nor does it even make sense. Why don't you go clean your own house? Or do you not love the Sahabah? Cite the 'Salafis' who hold this opinion. I can think of a few you might cite:
1) Usama Hasan : murtadd, not Salafi.
2) Jamal Badawi : Modernist, not Salafi.
3) SA Rahman : Modernist, not Salafi. (if you want to argue that the two are synonyms, please come up with common factors between ibn 'Uthaymeen and Jamal Badawi, preferably fully cited with reference to their works; thanks).
4) MH Kamali : pseudo-traditionalist and co-hort of Abdul-Hakim Murad, not Salafi.
5) Yusuf Qaradawi : darned if I know WHAT he is.

On the 'traditionalist camp,' we have:
1) Suhaib Webb (studied at al-Azhar, received authorization from Ali Gomaa, self-admitted Ash'ari/Sufi in recent lecture)
2) Abdullah ibn Hamid Ali
3) Abdul-Hakim Murad
4) Hamza Yusuf
5) Ali Gomaa.

Looks like the count is even so far. Even it up on your end or stop your blabbering.

@ahmad12
Yes, that's very well said. Wa iyakum.

[freeringtonesioo]

I'm sorry for being sarcastic. My issue is that I dislike the 'amm to criticize scholars, I simply am not convinced its within our capacity or station to do that. I think we should continue to ask for clarification which dr Saab has done or we consult with other scholars and continue to attempt to understand what the scholar has said, and if we still don't understand it we can leave it at 'I didn't understand what he said, and it is different from what I have been taught from the other scholars I frequent' instead of passing judgements of deviancy.

People may dislike scholars for whatever reason and that is okay. I just think that to believe that a regular person without spending the necessary years to become a scholar himself has the capability and knowledge to criticize scholars is hugely problematic. And I'm not alone in this concern, it was brought up many years ago as well:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...icizing-Ulema&

And then people will say but it's our responsibility to expose mistakes for fearing others will be led astray. I still maintain that too is the station of scholars themselves who are well equipped to deal with complexities of the issues at hand. If other scholars themselves are silent on the matter, and do not criticize them, then that is the example we should adhere to. Or ask the silent scholars why have the scholars kept silent regarding this other scholar?

And as is in most cases the ambiguous is interpreted based on what has been made clear.

[soajerwaradaY]

some good old emotional rhetoric on display here.

one question: how does one ascertain that a certain ruling of Islam and its application is harmful to Muslim's faith?

which Muslims?
how many are they?
how practising are they?
how did you ascertain the number?

[soajerwaradaY]

3) SA Rahman : Modernist, not Salafi. (if you want to argue that the two are synonyms, please come up with common factors between ibn 'Uthaymeen and Jamal Badawi, preferably fully cited with reference to their works; thanks).

lol i remember being wrong about this.

[duceswild]

None of what you're saying has anything to do with anything and nor does it even make sense. Why don't you go clean your own house? Or do you not love the Sahabah? Cite the 'Salafis' who hold this opinion. I can think of a few you might cite:
1) Usama Hasan : murtadd, not Salafi.
2) Jamal Badawi : Modernist, not Salafi.
3) SA Rahman : Modernist, not Salafi. (if you want to argue that the two are synonyms, please come up with common factors between ibn 'Uthaymeen and Jamal Badawi, preferably fully cited with reference to their works; thanks).
4) MH Kamali : pseudo-traditionalist and co-hort of Abdul-Hakim Murad, not Salafi.
5) Yusuf Qaradawi : darned if I know WHAT he is.

On the 'traditionalist camp,' we have:
1) Suhaib Webb (studied at al-Azhar, received authorization from Ali Gomaa, self-admitted Ash'ari/Sufi in recent lecture)
2) Abdullah ibn Hamid Ali
3) Abdul-Hakim Murad
4) Hamza Yusuf
5) Ali Gomaa.

Looks like the count is even so far. Even it up on your end or stop your blabbering.

@ahmad12
Yes, that's very well said. Wa iyakum.

I have already nullified the foundations of your argument. The difference and the fallacy of your comparison is that our foundations are traditionalist while that of yours or your salafi camp are that of a innovator. Our authorities are quite clearly laid out and opinions other than that, are quite easily thrown away if they cant prove themselves within the madhab.

Secondly, no one you cited claimed that this opinion is the only right opinion or that they only understood the Quran and Sunnah or that everyone who disagrees with them are kaffirs or mubtadis meant for the hell fire or that people should necessarily accept his opinion or anything of that sort that is a hallmark of salafi cult. Thirdly, their positions are quite frank in that they admit of their opinion being lone rather then distorting and creating a false perception with their rhetoric, as the salafis would do.

Fourthly, among those you cite, only Mufti Ali Jumah really comes as a heavy personality. Others come from western background and context and their opinions in plenty of issues retain that problem. Don't forget Shuaib Webb, Hamza Yusuf were all neo-salafis in origin. Their shift to traditionalism only means salafism is dying cult. If you had cited the opinion of large ulemas of Sham or yemen or others where traditionalists give respect, then you would have an argument.

As for Mufti Ali Juma, then I admit im simply not even close to being qualified to make a critic of his any opinion let alone something as in depth as this. So i invite you to go have a debate with him if you carry even 1//100 th of the boldness of criticism you display here. I prefer to stay silent and let scholars in equal par with him do the talking.

Fifthly, your coming from the same camp that defends to the death the opinion of IT and MIAW that are in blatant opposition to the ijma. In fact those opinions form the basis of the existence of your camp. So your criticism makes it even more hypocritical.

Finally, do inform me with evidences as to the ijma on this issue and as to what kind of ijma it was, etc. Lets see how much you know it yourself.

Edit:
Not to forget how salafism was flirting with modernism for years.
http://hornofsatan.wordpress.com/201...abism-in-1929/

The basis upon which salafism even spread and gained followers was largely because of their protestant modernism.

[ManHolDenPoker]

Ml. Idris Kandhlawi said in his tafsir ma'arif al-qur'an about those who deny the punishment of apostasy:

“Denying of such a clear (qat'i), agreed upon belief is in itself kufr and apostasy.” (Ma’aarif al-Qur’an, volume 2, p. 540)

They claim to follow the 4 schools of thought but in actual fact are pure modernists.

[brorialsibers]

I think we all know that shaykh Hamza wrote this because of some arrogant castigators on this very forum!!

Pay heed:

Our community is currently dealing with many grave matters: suicide bombings, sectarianism, civil wars, our great scholars of the past having their bodies dug up from their graves and desecrated, mentally challenged adolescent girls accused of blasphemy, embassies destroyed and ambassadors killed or under threat, … the list continues. As a result of the madness in our community, increasingly, for the first time since I became Muslim thirty-five years ago, I am hearing pleas such as, “Help my son – he has left Islam; help my daughter – she is having a crisis of faith.” I now receive letters and emails requesting that I talk to Muslim youth who no longer identify with our faith. Sadly, harsh-hearted haters among our community are driving people from the mosques and making the most beautiful teaching in the world appear ugly.

[euylvaygdq]

I respect Hamza Yusuf's willingness to admit that his statement was not necessarily correct. However:
[5] Punishment in this world for apostasy is not mentioned in the Qur’an; however, some sound hadiths indicate that it is a capital offense. These are not absolutely certain (mutawatir) traditions, and some scholars, such as al-Nakhi’ and others, argued against it. Imam Abu Hanifah’s school does not mandate capital punishment for a female apostate due to the mutawatir tradition prohibiting killing women or children, which he saw as limiting the singular hadiths enjoining capital punishment on apostates. Today, it could be strongly argued that the aim (maqsad) of considering apostasy a capital offense, which was to protect the faith, is lost in application, given that modern people suffer a crisis of faith due to such applications.

Nobody else has an issue with this footnote and logic? Especially the bolded part? Frankly, this is worse than his statement about the Lahoris, because that was made out of a lack of understanding of the precise situation, and this appears to be part of his credo along with Abdul-Hakim Murad, Suhaib Webb, et al. Since when do Sunnis let the maqasid over-ride the nass? Have we all turned into Shi'a overnight?

for bringing attention to this issue. And I share your concerns about this matter as a trend among shuyukh who are somehow impressionable to ulama who project these trends. This trend was observed in the 1990s. It is feared that shaykh bin Bayyah is pushing this on the likes of those listed.

It has been an effort found in various kafir universities in Europe and America, to use Maqasidul Shariah as an end-around, a pretext, for changing the nass to suit 'other' forces. But this trend is present in both the traditional Ahlil Sunnah schools as well as the salafi schools.

[VanDerSmok]

*CLIP*

There are literally no arguments in here, just factual inaccuracies and your usual obfuscation and generalizations. One of your questions is even answered in an earlier post.

Mr. Israel, do you mind bringing forth some actual arguments or points or are you just going to re-post Hamza's twaddle?

[Rchzygnc]

I think we all know that shaykh Hamza wrote this because of some arrogant castigators on this very forum!!

Pay heed:

Our community is currently dealing with many grave matters: suicide bombings, sectarianism, civil wars, our great scholars of the past having their bodies dug up from their graves and desecrated, mentally challenged adolescent girls accused of blasphemy, embassies destroyed and ambassadors killed or under threat, … the list continues. As a result of the madness in our community, increasingly, for the first time since I became Muslim thirty-five years ago, I am hearing pleas such as, “Help my son – he has left Islam; help my daughter – she is having a crisis of faith.” I now receive letters and emails requesting that I talk to Muslim youth who no longer identify with our faith. Sadly, harsh-hearted haters among our community are driving people from the mosques and making the most beautiful teaching in the world appear ugly.

There is nothing in it to pay heed to.

This is infact no argument but Hamza is constructing excuses for his deviations. Even if we consider it as an argument , it has the following two traits of preposition and conclusion.

1. As people are becoming apostates these days and I am receiving calls from parents who are saying that there kids are going through a faith crisis therefor my own deviations should be ignored.

2. As Islam is in crisis these days therefor a reformation is needed and my deviations should be seen as efforts of reformation and therefor digested.

These two arguments are much old. Hamza is not playing a new game. Each and every heretic sect in Islam has started by initially blackmailing the Muslims on the same lines by posing Islam as being under-attack and then they would consequentially pose their own deviations and Hawa e Nafs (personal desires) as the solutions. At the end of the day Islam survived and all such reformatory cults vanished in their own insecurities. Mr Hamza and his ignocent (a mix of ignorant and innocent) followers must keep it in mind that it the personal faith crisis of Mr Hamza (which became visible after 911) that he is trying to generalize. We all know that he himself went to a transition after the events of 911 and he assumed that it must be true for everybody.

Secondly , even if it is true that Islam is under some crisis and people are supposedly leaving Islam , where the hell Islam says that change the fundamentals of religion in such conditions? I am sure nowhere. From where is Mr Hamza extracting the power of reformation with in the Nasoos? I am sure from where in the Nasoos but his personal insecurities and relativistic approach is the root of his "reformatory efforts". It is the duty of each and every Muslims , including Mr Hamza, to present Islam as it is to the people. Allah has not made him a Mukalif of anything after that. If someone accepts the message or rejects it , Mr Hamza has nothing to do with it. It is not his religious duty of present his own modified Islam to the people to convince them. Reformed and Modified Islam is not Islam.

My advice to Hamza shall be that he should come out of the fragile and dubious environment of Zaytunia where he is encircled by the Modernist crowd. It is adding to his insecurities and under the influence of them he starts saying "Qadyanis are not outside the fold of Islam". It shall be very good if he spends some time in the Tablighi Jamaat so that not only his environment changes but so that he can also see that how the TJs are giving the 1400 years old message of Islam to the people without modifying it a bit. May be he should visit Afghanistan as well so that he can see how Islam is surfacing as an idea to counter the post modernistic ideologies and again the old fashioned non modified Mujahideen are doing that.

[soajerwaradaY]

It shall be very good if he spends some time in the Tablighi Jamaat so that not only his environment changes but so that he can also see that how the TJs are giving the 1400 years old message of Islam to the people without modifying it a bit. May be he should visit Afghanistan as well so that he can see how Islam is surfacing as an idea to counter the post modernistic ideologies and again the old fashioned non modified Mujahideen are doing that.

brilliant idea

[soajerwaradaY]

As for Mufti Ali Juma, then I admit im simply not even close to being qualified to make a critic of his any opinion let alone something as in depth as this. So i invite you to go have a debate with him if you carry even 1//100 th of the boldness of criticism you display here. I prefer to stay silent and let scholars in equal par with him do the talking.

such respect here.
but,

Not to forget how salafism was flirting with modernism for years.
http://hornofsatan.wordpress.com/201...abism-in-1929/

The basis upon which salafism even spread and gained followers was largely because of their protestant modernism.

utter hatred and lack of respect here.

the first one is an example of emotional rhetoric. the second one is your intolerance and sectarian hatred rising to the surface. this is the case with all the traditional extremists.