Refutation of Ihsan Ilahi Zahir (long)

[qas...@ziplip.com]

Replies to Some of Ihsan Ilahi Zahir’s Attacks on Imam Ahmad Rida Khan al-Barelwi

by `Abd al-Mustafa al-Hajj Gibril Fouad Haddad
Qas...@ziplip.com

Note: Ihsan Ilahi Zahir is a rabid anti-Sufi who wrote a pernicious book titled al-Barelwiyya in collaboration with the publishers of Matba`at al-Rashid, a Saudi publishing house based in Madina. The book is prefaced by a certain Atiyya Muhammad Salim from Saudi Arabia. Zahir was killed in a terrorist bombing in Pakistan.

1. The claim that the name `Abd al-Mustafa is shirk.

<<[Imam] Ahmad Rida Khaan al-Bareilawi [rahimahullah] would refer to himself in many of his works as Abdul Mustafa (Slave of al- Mustafa - a name of the Prophet sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam), such a name obviously is not allowed. However, this was not his only expression of shirk ...>>

Reply: To say that the name `Abd al-Mustafa is an expression of shirk shows a very bad opinion of Muslims – an unislamic trait, especially if one means rejection of the yoke of allegiance to the Messenger of Allah (saws) wal-`iyadhu billah.

“Slave of the Prophet” is an unusual but not a forbidden name to bear. It does not signify worship nor is it an expression of shirk. It refers to a bond of allegiance and respect which is required of every Muslim.

There are several examples of such names for Sunni Ulema in Islamic history:

- Al-Sayyid `Abd al-Nabi ibn al-Sayyid al-Tayyib al-Bilkrami in the book of al-Sayyid Azad al-Bakri titled Ma’athir al-Kiram Tarikh Bilkram as cited in Shaykh Siddiq Hasan Khan al-Qinnawji’s Abjad al-`Ulum in his notice on Shaykh Yasin al-Qinnawji.

- The late Hafiz of Syria, al-Sayyid `Abd Allah Siraj al-Din al-Halabi (d. March 2002 CE) mentioned in his commentary on al-Bayquniyya in hadith science: .

- “Al-Imam al-`Allama al-Hujja al-Qudwa al-Fahhama Mufti al-Sadat al-Malikiyya bi-Dimashq” `Abd al-Nabi ibn Jama`a al-Maliki al-Maghribi the student of the Moroccan Sufi Mujahid and Wali al-Sayyid Abu al-Hasan ‘Ali ibn Maymun al-Hashimi al-Qurashi al-Tabbasi (d. 917), teacher of Qadi al-Qudat Abul-Khayr Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Qadir ibn Gibril al-Ghazzi al-Maliki, and son of the Shafi`i Imam of Masjid al-Aqsa Shaykh Muhyi al-Din `Abd al-Qadir ibn Jama`a al-Maqdisi al-Qadiri (d. 931) as mentioned in their respective biographies in Shadharat al-Dhahab while the author of `Ala’ al-Din al-Busrawi in his Tarikh describes Shaykh `Abd al-Nabi ibn Jama`a as “one of people of learning and Religion who is trusted” and the author of al-Daris fi Tarikh al-Madaris names him “Shaykh al-Islam `Abd al-Nabi al-Maghribi al-Maliki”.

- The true Shahid and learned Imam “al-`Allama al-Mutafannin al-Salih al-Shaykh” `Abd al-Nabi al-Sadr Shayda (d. 990) who died strangled in the Sultan’s jail on the night of 12 Rabi` al-Awwal - as cited in al-`Aydarusi’s al-Nur al-Safir.

- The Mufassir, Muhaddith and Usuli Sayyid Muhammad ibn `ABD AL-RASUL IBN `ABD AL-SAYYID ibn Qalandar al-Husayni al-Shafi`i al-Shahrazuri al-Madani (d. 1103/1691). See Mu`jam al-Mu'allifin (3:409 #14044). Sayyid Muhammad is the author of (1) Sadad al-Din wa Sidad al-Dayn on the proofs that the parents of the Prophet (saws) are in Paradise; (2) al-Isha`a li Ashrat al-Sa`a (on the preconditions of the Final Hour) in which he stated, “Allah taught the knowledge of the Hour to the Prophet (saws) and forbade him to divulge it due to its terrible nature and enormous importance.” Imam Ahmad Rida quotes this passage of the Isha`a in the Breilly edition of his masterpiece al-Dawla al-Makkiyya fil-Madda al-Ghaybiyya (Breilly p. 378-380.

The strange statement that “to name oneself ‘Abd al-Rasul/al-Nabi or Ghulam al-Rasul/al-Nabi is shirk” originates in the book of Shah Isma`il Dihlawi titled Taqwiyat al-Iman [cf. Darussalam English edition p. 42, p. 54, p. 141]. It is ironic that the preface to the English edition of this book is signed precisely by one Ghulam Rasool Mehr, since Ghulam also means slave in Arabic.

As for us let us not only say that we are the slave of the Prophet (saws) but also, like Qadi Yusuf al-Nabhani (d. 1350/1931), the slave of his slave as in the following poem from his great volume of poetry in praise of the Best of creation (saws) titled Sa`adat al-Darayn:

1. ana `abdun li sayyid al-anbiya'i
wa wala'i lahu al-qadimu wala'i

I am the slave of the Master of Prophets
And my fealty to him has no beginning.

2. ana `abdun li `abdihi wa li `abd al-`abdi
`abdun kadha bi ghayri intiha'i

I am slave to his slave, and to his slave's slave,
And so forth endlessly,

3. ana la antahi `anil-qurbi min
babi ridahu fi jumlati al-dukhala'i

For I do not cease to approach the door
Of his good pleasure among the novices.

4. anshuru al-`ilma fi ma`alihi lil-nas
wa ashdu bihi ma`a al-shu`ara'i

I proclaim among people the teaching of his high attributes,
And sing his praises among the poets.

5. fa `asahu yaqulu li anta salmanu
wala'i hassanu husni thana'i

Perhaps he will tell me: “You are the Salman
Of my allegiance, the Hassan of my excellent homage!”

6. wa-biruhi afdi turaba himahu
wa-lahu al-fadlu fi qabuli fida'i

Yes, I would sacrifice my soul for the dust of his sanctuary.
His favor should be that he accept my sacrifice.

7. faza man yantami ilayhi wa-la
hajata fihi bi-dhalika al-intima'i

He has triumphed who ascribes himself to him
– Not that he needs such following,

8. huwa fi ghunyatin `an al-khalqi turran
wa hum al-kullu `anhu duna ghina'i

For he is not in need of creation at all,
While they all need him without exception.

9. wa huwa lillahi wahdihi `abduhu
al-khalisu mujalla al-sifati wa al-asma'i

He belongs to Allah alone, Whose purified servant he is,
As his attributes and names have made manifest;

10. kullu fadlin fil-khalqi fa huwa
min allahi ilayhi wa minhu lil-ashya'i

And every single favor in creation comes from Allah
To him, and from him to everything else.

Apparently, neither did Ibn Maymun, nor the Imam of Masjid al-Aqsa, nor Qadi al-Qudat Abul-Khayr al-Ghazzi, nor Ibn `Imad al-Hanbali, nor al-Busrawi, nor the author of al-Daris think that Imam `Abd al-Nabi al-Maliki should have changed his name before being allowed to be a Qudwa for Muslims. Apparently, the entire Barzanji family of Sayyid (Ashraaf) Ulema thought well of the name “Slave of the Prophet” and used it from father to son. If only all those supposedly stray souls, `Abd al-Nabi Shayda, al-`Aydarusi, al-Sayyid al-Shaykh `Abd Allah Siraj al-Din, and the Qadi Yusuf al-Nabhani (rahimahum Allah) could have met Isma`il Dihlawi and Ihsan Ilahi Zahir, who could have taught them about shirk and real tawhid! Instead, alas, they and all the Sunni Muslims associated with them all over the world died in complete ignorance that they were committing or abetting the gravest of all possible sins.

Subhan Allah `amma yasifun. Allah Most High said: {And speak not, concerning that which your own tongues qualify (as clean or unclean), the falsehood: "This is lawful, and this is forbidden," so that ye invent a lie against Allah. Lo! those who invent a lie against Allah will not succeed.}

Ibn `Abbas - Allah be well-pleased with him - once said: "Misguidance
contains sweetness in the hearts of those who spread it." This explains
the saying of Allah Most High: {Is he, then, to whom the evil of his
conduct is made alluring, so that he looks upon it as good, (equal to him who is rightly-guided)? For Allah leaves to stray whom He wills, and
guides whom He wills} (35:8).

When I first posted the above verses of poetry by al-Nabahani, someone posted the following reaction:

seer...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8l4ha0$8fm$1...@samba.rahul.net>...

>Whenever I see the state of those innovators and sectarians I indeed
>become even more grateful and thankful to Allah(SWT) for His mercy and
>His guidance and for saving me from the miserable state of those folks,
>Allhamddul'Allah.

This person - purportedly a Muslim – accused Shaykh Yusuf al-Nabahani of being an innovator and a sectarian for saying in his poetry: "I am the slave of the slave of the slave (etc.) of the Messenger of Allah (SAWS)." Then he thanks Allah for "saving me from the miserable state of those folks."

It is a constant surprise to see the main people of innovation and
fanaticism in our time calling traditional Sunni Muslims "innovators" and "sectarians." But congratulating themselves for being "saved" from the "miserable state" of a Friend (wali) of Allah, is surely gigantic delusion!

{Say: Shall We inform you who will be the greatest losers by their works? Those whose effort goes astray in the life of the world, and yet they reckon that they do good work} (18:103-104).

Obviously there is nothing to debate with those who have, *of their own
admission*, parted ranks with the Muslims. But it is still necessary to
expose them for, "At the time when the last of this Umma curses the first of this Umma," the Prophet (SAWS) said, "whoever hides knowledge from people, it is as if he hides what Allah has revealed to me."

The following is excerpted from a fatwa by the Moroccan hadith master
Shaykh Ahmad ibn al-Siddiq al-Ghumari about Wahhabis and "Salafis":

"So fear Allah and do not be like he who is beguiled by them, and supports their corrupt sect and worthless opinion, and their state of misguidance which was explicitly described by the Prophet – Allah bless and greet him and his Family – who characterised them as the “Dogs of Hell-Fire”(1) and informed us that they are “the worst of all that dwell beneath the sky”(2) and that they “swerve from the Religion as an arrow swerves away from its target,”(3) and that they mouth some of the best sayings in the form of their prattlings about Tawhîd, and implementing the Sunna, and combating bid‘as, and yet – by Allah! – they are drowning in bid‘a. In fact, there is no bid‘a worse than theirs, which causes them to “swerve from the Religion as an arrow swerves away from its target,” in spite of their superficial efforts in worship and adherence to the Religion."

The complete fatwa can be found at:
http://ds.dial.pipex.com/masud/ISLAM/misc/wahhabi.htm

(1) Al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, and Ahmad with four chains.
(2) Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah, Ahmad, and al-Darimi.
(3) In the Six Books and Ahmad.

And Allah knows best. Allah send blessings and peace on the Master of creation, his Family, and his Companions. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds.

2. The claim that “Seeking Help from Other Than Allaah” is “an un-Islamic belief” and “words of kufr”

<<The Bareilawis call upon other than Allaah in times of need, this is clear in their books, [Imam] Ahmad Rida Khaan al-Bareilawi said: "There are servants of Allaah whom He has singled for fulfilling the needs of the people who flee to them with their needs." [Al Amn Wal Ula of [Imam] Ahmad Rida al-Bareilawi p29] And he also said: "Seeking help and aid from anyone besides Allaah is lawful and desired. No one denies it except an arrogant and obstinate." [Hayat al Mawat By [Imam] Ahmad Rida al-Bareilawi; included in al Fataawa ar-Ridwiyya (Pakistan Edition) Vol 4, p 300.] And he also says in Al Amn Wal Ula p10: "The Messenger of Allaah is the remover of the calamity and bestower of the donation." And he also says in Malfuzat p 99: "Jibreel is the supplier of the needs, and the Messenger of Allaah is the supplier of the needs, for the Prophet fulfils the needs of Jibreel too." And he also said the following words of Kufr in Malfuzat p 307: "During my life I did !
not seek help from anyone, and I do not ask for aid except Shaykh Abdul Qaadir, whenever I seek help I seek it only from him; whenever I ask for aid, I ask him alone. Once I tried to ask for aid and seek help from another saint, (hadhrat Mahbub Ilahi). When I intended to utter his name for seeking help, I did not utter the words but 'Ya Ghauthan' (O one whose help is sought). My tongue refused to utter the words for seeking help from anyone except him." [Imam] Ahmad Rida Khaan also said in Al Amn wal Ula p44: "When you are confused and helpless in matters, then seek help from the inmates of the graves." All this is refuted by Islaam we say many times in our prayer: "You alone do we worship and You alone do we ask for help." [1:5]>>

Reply: They do not understand the meaning of “You alone do we worship” because none of the above statements pertain to worship; nor do they understand the meaning of “You alone do we ask for help” if they consider that it contradicts tawassul, because then it would contradict “the path of those whom You have shown favor” which is tawassul!

Assuming the above quotes from the Imam are accurate, their meaning is as follows:

a. Concerning the statement "There are servants of Allaah whom He has singled for fulfilling the needs of the people who flee to them with their needs": If this were not true then it would be shirk to visit a doctor’s clinic, ask for a loan, or ask for someone for a glass of water. Allah Most High mentioned {the ships which run upon the sea with that which is of use to men} (2:164) because it is allowed or rather obligatory to use normal material means and seek one another’s help to fulfill one’s needs. This is a patent truth in the Religion of Islam and the underlying wisdom of the Pillar of zakat cf. 6:165, 16:71 although it is Allah alone Who gives and withholds, as illustrated by the narration, “Creatures are all Allah’s dependents (‘iyâl), those among them most beloved to Allah are those most helpful to His dependents.”

b. Concerning the statement, "Seeking help and aid from anyone besides Allaah is lawful and desired. No one denies it except an arrogant and obstinate." This is true and actually more than lawful and desirable, it is obligatory to follow causes and means in this world of causes and means and it is prohibited to refrain from them on the pretext that Allah has no need of them or by invoking the foreordained Decree (qadar) like the Jabriyya sect.

To ignore or pretend to ignore the above is not part of the Religion of Islam. However, most relevant here is the truth that Allah has also singled out some wretched servants for creating difficulties in the path of Muslims, instilling doubts and levelling accusations of shirk and kufr at them, calling Awliya’ bad names, etc.

c. Concerning the statement, "The Messenger of Allaah is the remover of the calamity and bestower of the donation." Sallallahu `alayhi wa Sallam. This is proven by the sahih hadith in which the Prophet (saws) said in the Sahihayn: “I am the Eraser (al-mahi) by whom disbelief is erased,” this erasure being the greatest mercy and donation for which He was sent, hence he said – in al-Bazzar’s Musnad and others through trustworthy narrators: "I am nothing but a mercy bestowed." And in the Sahihayn: “I distribute (aqsimu) what comes to you."

d. Concerning the statement, "Jibreel is the supplier of the needs, and the Messenger of Allaah is the supplier of the needs, for the Prophet fulfils the needs of Jibreel too." This is proven by the hadith in Sahih Muslim in which Allah said: "O Gibril, go to Muhammad and tell him: Verily We shall satisfy you fully concerning your Community and We shall never displease you." And Gibril upon him peace, is part of the Community of the Prophet (saws) as are all the angels by Consensus.

So it is as the Imam of Hind and Sind said; as Imam al-Busiri said, “How could need attract towards this world such a one had it not been for whom this world would not have come out of inexsitence?”; as Qadi Yusuf al-Nabhani said, “Every single favor in creation comes from Allah to the Prophet, and from him to everything else”; as Shaykh al-Islam al-Taqi al-Subki said, “Truly Allah knows that every goodness in my life which He has bestowed upon me is on account of the Prophet and that my recourse is to him, and my reliance is upon him in seeking a means to Allah in every matter of mine, in this world and the next, and the gifts of Allah I owe to him are too many to count, both the hidden and the visible”; and as the Caliph and Commander of the Believers, the Wali and Mujaddid, Sultan `Abd al-Hamid said, “You [Sayyidina Muhammad] are in truth the helper of all creation”!

Allah have mercy on them and on all the Ahl al-Haqq. None can withhold the gift made by Allah Most High to the Prophet (saws) with regard to all creation, despite every envier of mankind and jinn.

e. Concerning the words, "During my life I did not seek help from anyone, and I do not ask for aid except Shaykh Abdul Qaadir, whenever I seek help I seek it only from him; whenever I ask for aid, I ask him alone.” This concerns not one iota more than what Shaykh Abdul Qadir is entitled to provide by the grace of Allah and according to the criteria already mentioned in the previous answers. Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab himself conceded: “We do not deny nor reject the invocation of help from the creature insofar as the creature can help.” The capacity of Shaykh `Abd al-Qadir to help, even from his position in Barzakh, is mutawatir.

f. Concerning the statement, "When you are confused and helpless in matters, then seek help from the inmates of the graves." This is a forged hadith cited in some late Sufi works. Its meaning (as a non-Prophetic saying) is true in the sense of the Prophetic command to visit the grave to remember the hereafter and the Prophetic command to Ibn `Umar to consider himself one of the dwellers of the graves. Meaning: Seek lessons, by visiting the dead whom you will very soon join, in remembering Allah and submitting to His will so as to extract yourselves from the confusion and helplessness created by your attachments to this fleeting world.

3. The claim that “The Bareilawis believe that the Prophets and the righteous slaves and saints know the unseen” and that “All this [is] kufr refuted by the Qur'aan and the Sunnah”

The above claim shows reckless proclivity to takfir and ignorance of the Qur’an and Sunna.

<<In ad-Dawlaat al-Makiyya p 58 of [Imam] Ahmad Rida Khaan it is written: "The Prophets know, rather they see and watch over all that which happened and all that which will happen from the first day to the last.">>

This is proven by the verse: {But how (will it be with them) when we bring of every people a witness, and We bring you (O Muhammad) a witness against these} (4:41). Thus, each Prophet is the witness of his people, which means that he sees everything in connection with those people from beginning to end – which is the precondition of witnessing - and our Prophet (saws) is a witness over all of them put together.

<< In the book of Ahmad Yaar, Mawa'iz Naimiya p 192 it is written: "The Prophets know the unseen from their birth.">>

This is established by the doctrine of [the real] Ahl al-Hadith that Prophets are Prophets from birth, and the meaning of Nabi is one who informs others about the unseen.

<< [Imam] Ahmad Rida Khaan al-Bareilawi said in Khalis al Itiqaad p 38: "The Knowldege of the guarded tablet, the knowledge of the pen, and the knowledge of whatever existed and of whatever will exist are part of the knowledge of the Prophet.">>

This is proven by the fact that all of the above concern whats takes place until the Rising of the Hour, and al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated from Hudhayfa, Abu Zayd al-Ansari, and other Sahaba that “The Prophet e stood among us [speaking] for a long time and did not leave out one thing from that time until the rising of the Final Hour except he told us about it. Whoever remembers it remembers it and whoever forgot it forgot it. All those who are present know this.”

<<[Imam] Ahmad Rida Khaan al-Bareilawi also said in Mawa'iz Naimiyya p 364-365: "If the Prophet (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) places his foot on an animal, it will have knowledge of the seen and the unseen. How does a saint on whom the Prophet (sal- Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) put his hand, not know the seen and the unseen.">>

The first sentence above is a hyperbole to stress the point illustrated by the hadith that the Knowers of Allah are the inheritors of Prophets. Since knowledge of the unseen is a Mu`jiza of Rasulullah (saws), it follows naturally that it is also a Karama of the Awliya’ of his Umma, both of them by the gift of Allah Most High which none can prevent. Something to this effect was stated by Mawlana Ashraf `Ali al-Tahanawi in his chapter on the benefits of the shoe of the Prophet (saws) and by Mawlana Muhammad Zakariyya al-Kandihlawi’s praise of that chapter in his translation of Imam al-Tirmidhi’s Shama’il.

As for the Dawla al-Makkiyya of Imam Ahmad Rida Khan, it is a truly perfected jewel that would be enough proof of its author’s grand mastership in Tawhid. It is probable that anyone that reads it with an authoritative teacher and then denies its pure Sunni character of the highest order is himself not yet – or not anymore – a Sunni, wal-`iyadhu billah.

<<All this kufr is again refuted by the Qur'aan and the Sunnah: "Say (O Muhammad sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam): 'None in the heavens and the earth knows the Ghayb (unseen) except Allaah, nor can they perceive when they shall be resurrected.' " [27:65] "And they say: 'How is it that not a sign is sent down on him from his Lord?' Say (O Muhammad sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam): 'The unseen belongs to Allaah Alone, so wait you, verily I am with you among those who wait (for Allaah's Judgement).' " [10:20] The Messenger (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) once heard a young girl say: "Amongst us is a Prophet who knows what will happen tomorrow." So he (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) said to her: "Leave this and return to that which you were saying before." [Bukhaaree]>>

It is the characteristic of the Yahud to believe in part of the Book and disbelieve in another. Ahl al-Sunna believe in all of the above and also believe that Allah shows His ghayb to whomever He pleases, just as He said: {The Knower of the Unseen, and He reveals unto none His secret SAVE UNTO EVERY MESSENGER WHOM HE HAS CHOSEN} (72:26-27). This is the meaning of Nabi, “speaker of the Unseen.” It was one of the great miracles of `Isa (as) as he said: {and I reveal to you what you hide in your houses…}. As much as the people of innovation talk and talk, they take the greatest care to circumvent these verses and meanings. They have not received a share of wisdom although knowledge is shared even by non-believers.

As for the hadith of the young girl’s poetry, The reason for the Prophet’s order is not at all because he did not know what happens tomorrow. As we just showed, it is established that Allah I is {the knower of the Unseen, and He reveals unto none His secret save unto every messenger whom He has chosen} (72:26-27) and He revealed to the Prophet (saws) knowledge of the future until the Day of Judgment and much of the Hereafter as well. He only objected because knowledge of the unseen was attributed to him (saws) in absolute terms when only Allah knows the unseen in absolute terms. This is stated by Ibn Hajar in his commentary of this narration in Fath al-Bari. Coming from the mouth of a child not yet qualified to pray (as stated by Ibn al-Qayyim in his marginalia on Abu Dawud’s Sunan), such an assertion was reminiscent of the popular belief unbecoming of a Prophet but typical of the false claims of seers, oracles, astrologers etc. that they could, of their own devices, know th!
e future, to which Allah (saws) said {No soul knows what it will earn tomorrow} (31:34). Hence, the Prophet (saws), in one version, added by way of explanation, “Only Allah knows what happens tomorrow” (in Ibn Majah with a fair chain) i.e. independently of anyone and with an absolute knowledge.

4. The claim that the Barelwis believe “That the Prophet (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) is not Human [but] was Created from Light”

<<It is written in Mawa'iz Naimiyya p14 by Ahmad Yaar (a leading figure of the Bareilawis): "The Messenger of Allaah is light from the divine light, and all the creatures are from his light.">>

Then all the creatures are not human either, and this is absurd and proves that the claim he is not human was never made in the first place. Rather, as Qadi `Iyad said in his masterpiece al-Shifa’, the Prophet (saws) was outwardly human and inwardly angelic. Every other human being pales in comparison, hence the simile of the sun next to whom every other light seems like a drop in the ocean of its light. This kind of image is abundant in the Qur’an, the Sunna, and the poetry of the Companions.

<<In al-Fatwaawa Naimiyya p 37 it is written: "Allaah created the image of Muhammad from the light of his names Al-Badee (The Originator), Al-Qaadir (The All Powerful), and looked at it with his Name Al-Qaahir (The Irresistible). Then He (Allaah) became manifest to him (the Prophet Sall Allaahu alayhi wa sallam) with His names Al-Lateef (The Subtle), Al-Ghaafir (The Most Gracious, The Most Forgiving)" Islaam again rejects this belief, Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta'alaa) mentions that what kept man from believing was the fact that the Prophets and Messengers were human… >>

Islam rejects none of the above except the false reasoning in the last sentence. Nothing in the above writing remotely suggests that the Prophet (saws) is not human. On the contrary, this is made very clear at the beginning by the words “Allah created.” So the Prophet (saws) is created and his creatureliness is identical with that of other human beings in some points and different in other points. Is this so difficult to understand?

<<Allaah the Glorified and Exalted ordered His Prophet (sal- Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam): "Say (O Muhammad sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam): 'I am only a man like you. It has been inspired to me that your Ilaah (God) is One Ilaah (God i.e. Allaah). So whoever hopes for the Meeting with his Lord, let him work righteousness and associate none as a partner in the worship of his Lord.' " [18:110] The whole life of the Prophet (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) bears witness to him being a human, he ate, drank, relieved himself, married, had children. And we say that he was the greatest of mankind due to his status and rank as the Chief of the Messengers.>>

As we said before, it is the characteristic of the Yahud to believe in part of the Book and disbelieve in another. Ahl al-Sunna believe in all of the above and also believe that Allah described the Prophet as “possessing a tremendous character” and a superlative mind, together with other attributes that make him the best of all creation. The angels are made of light but the Prophet (saws) is by Consensus better than the angels. Whoever denies this has left the pale of Ahl al-Sunna and earned the label of fisq and bid`a if not worse. In fact, the vision that the Prophet (saws) was merely human is typical of the kuffar: {You (Prophets) are nothing but human beings like us}. As for the Believers, their attitude is similar to that of Ubay ibn Ka`b in Sahih Muslim, who said that one time he looked at the Prophet (saws) and “felt as if I were looking at Allah.”

5. The claim that “the belief the Prophet (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) is Ever Present and Ever Watchful (Haadhir wa Naazir)” is “an evil belief”

<<This is one of the main beliefs of the Bareilawis, this belief is that the Prophet (Sall Allaahu alayhi wa sallam) is present at every place and sees everything. This leads them to leave spaces in their innovated gatherings believing that he (sal- Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) comes and sits in those gatherings. It is written in Taskin al-Khawatir fi Masalat al-Haadhir wal- Naazir, that Ahmad Rida Khaan al-Bareilawi said: "There is no place and there is no time in which the Messenger of Allaah is not present.">>

This is correct. As the hadith Master Ibn `Allan said in his fatwa titled Ithaf Ahl al-Iman, “[After the Prophet e entered Barzakh] no time and no place is devoid of him e – both in body and spirit.”

<<In Ja'al Haqq of Ahmad Yaar p 150 it is written: "The Messenger of Allaah has power to travel throughout the world with the spirits of the companions, and many saints have seen him.">>

This was the belief of Imam Malik as stated by Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari and is mutawatir anyway.

<<In Khaalis al-Itiqaad p40 it is written: "The Spirit of the Prophet (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) is present in the homes of the people of Islaam." This evil belief is totally refuted by Islaam,>>

This supposedly evil belief is that of the Salaf and is explicitly stated by Mulla `Ali al-Qari rahimahullah. Al-Qadi ‘Iyad in al-Shifa, in the section titled “Concerning the places where it is desirable to invoke blessings and peace upon him” cited from ‘Amr ibn Dinar al-Athram (d. 126) the explanation of the verse {when you enter houses salute one another} (24:61): “If there is no one in the house then say: ‘as-salamu ‘ala al-Nabiyyi wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh.’” Al-Qari said in his commentary on al-Shifa’: “Meaning, because his soul (saws) is present in the house of the Muslims (ay li’anna ruhahu ‘alayhi al-salamu hadirun fi buyut al-muslimin).” The claim that this is a copyist’s mistake and that he was meant to write: “Not that his soul is present” is tahrif.

<<Allaah says addressing His Prophet (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) whilst mentioning the events of Moosaa (alayhis-salaam): "And you (O Muhammad sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) were not on the western side (of the Mount), when We made clear to Moosaa (Moses) the commandment, and you were not among those present." [28:44] He (subhaanahu wa ta'aala) also says: "Glorified (and Exalted) be He (Allaah) Who took His slave (Muhammad Sall Allaahu alayhi wa sallam) for a journey by night from Al-Masjid-al-Haraam (at Makkah) to the farthest mosque (in Jerusalem), the neighbourhood whereof We have blessed, in order that We might show him (Muhammad sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) of Our Ayaat (proofs, evidences, lessons, signs, etc.). Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer." [17:1] This means that he, the Prophet (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) would enter where he (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) was not present at that time.>>

What about after the Prophet (saws) entered Barzakh? Whoever puts a limit on his presence then, speaks of what they do not know.

<<Shaykh Hasan ibn Mansoor al-Ma`roof Biqaadeekhaan (d.592H) writes, "A man did nikaah with a woman without any witnesses and at the time of the nikaah he said to the woman "We make Allaah and his Messenger our witnesses." The fuqahaa (Islaamic jurisprudents) have said that this statement of the man is disbelief (kufr), because he held the belief that the Messenger of Allaah (sal- Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) had the knowledge of the unseen whereas he didn't have the knowledge of the unseen when he was alive so how would he then have it after his death." [Fatawaa Qaadee Khaan (p. 883)]>>

Following is the text of the original Egyptian edition of the Fatawa Qadi Khan, printed in the margins of the Fatawa Hindiyya [1:305-306]: "A man marries a woman with the witness of Allah and His Messenger: this is invalid due to his saying / sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam: 'There is no nikah except with witnesses' whereas every nikah is with the witness of Allah. Some of them deemed this to be tantamount to kufr (wa ba`duhum ja`alu dhalika kufran) because the man believes that the Messenger sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam knows ghayb, and this is kufr." End of fatwa.

Note the following: (1) The fatwa does NOT contain the words, "The fuqahaa (Islaamic jurisprudents) have said that this statement of the man is disbelief" but rather restricts the opinion of takfir to "some of them"; (2) The fatwa does NOT contain the words, "whereas he didn't have the knowledge of the unseen when he was alive so how would he then have it after his death"! This is the soul of the tampering of the truth by non-Muslims. {Some of those who are Jews change words from their context} (4:46).
[…]
<<In the famous and well-known Hanafee Fiqh book Fataawaa Tataarkhaniyyah it is written, "The one who makes Allaah and his Messenger (sal- Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) as witnesses for nikaah, then his nikaah will be invalid and the individual will become a kaafir because he held the belief that the Messenger of Allaah (sal- Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) had the knowledge of the unseen.">>
[…]

<<Imaam Abee Ibn Abee Bakr (d.593H), the author of Hidaayah in his book Tajnees (p. 297). Al-Allaamah Taahir Ibn Ahmad (d.542H) in Khulaasatul-Fataawaa (4/354). Imaam Abdur-Rahmaan (d.561H) in Fusool Eemadiyyah (p. 64). Imaam Muhammad Ibn Muhammad Khawarzamee al-Mashoor Bil-Bazaazee (d.827H) in Fataawaa Bazzaziyyah (p. 325). Al-Muhaddith al-Allaamah Badrud Deen al-Aynee (d.855H) in Umdatul-Qaaree (11/520). Al-Haafidh Ibnul-Hammaam Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Waahid (d.861H) in Masaayarah M'a al-Masamarah (2/88) printed in Egypt. Al-Muhaddith Alee Ibn Sultaan, commonly known as Mullaa Alee Qaaree (d.1014H) in Sharh Fiqhul-Akbar (p. 185). Al-Allaamah Ibn Aabideen al-Hanafee (d.970H) in Shaamee (2/306). Thanaa ullaah Pani Patee (d.1225H) in Maalaa ba'd Mun (p.176) and other Hanafee Fuqahaa have clarified that, The individual who holds the aqeedah that the Messenger of Allaah (sal- Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) had the knowledge of the unseen or he was present with us then !
he commits an act of disbelief (kufr).>>

Following is the text of the original Egyptian edition of the Bazzaziyya, printed in the margins of the Fatawa Hindiyya [4:135]: "A man marries a woman with the witness of Allah Most High - Mighty and Exalted - and His Messenger - upon him blessings and peace: It [nikah] is invalid, and kufr is feared for the man because he is suggesting that he (saws) knows the unseen (ghayb): {And with Him are the keys of the invisible. None but He knoweth them} (6:59). As for what Allah Most High teaches to the elite of His servants through revelation or true inspiration, after this takes place then it no longer called ghayb, so it is not part of the [verse's] two exclusive statements, namely, the affirmation in first place and then the exclusive clause {none but}."

This shows that, according to the Bazzaziyya, only the man who states that the Prophet (saws) knows ghayb in the sense that he possesses the keys of the invisible or that he shares their knowledge with Allah, commits kufr. Meaning, a man who states that the Prophet (saws) knows ghayb in a dependent, inexclusive sense does not commit kufr.

Imam al-Haskafi in al-Durr al-Mukhtar [3:27] only said: "It is impermissible to take Allah and His Prophet (saws) as one's witnesses to nikah, and *it was said* that this constitutes kufr." Note that the passive phrase denotes the weak or secondary rank of the fatwa. This should immediately ring the bell of every student of fiqh that the position in question is a weak one and not relied upon in the madhhab.

The next step is to verify the main reference-books in the Hanafi madhhab in our time, which is not the QadiKhan nor the Fatawa Bazzaziyya nor `Umdat al-Qari nor Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar nor the Musayara [the last three are not even books of Hanafi fiqh] nor the other, more minor works quoted, but the Hidaya of al-Haskafi and the Hashiya of Ibn `Abidin where he says: [3:27-28=2:283-284]: "The compiler said in the Tatarkhaniyya and the Hujja: 'It was mentioned in al-Multaqat that the person [who says that] does not commit kufr, because things are shown to the soul of the Prophet (saws) and because the Messengers know part of the ghayb....' I say [i.e. Ibn `Abidin]: More than that, they mentioned in the Books of `Aqa'id that among the miraculous gifts (karamat) of the Awliya' is the fact that they are aware of some of the unseen matters.... We have expanded on this issue in our epistle, Sall al-Husam al-Hindi liNusrat Sayyidina Khalid al-Naqshbandi ('Drawing the Indian Sword in !
the Defense of our Master Khalid al-Naqshbandi') so look it up there."

Note that the Wahhabis quoted the Tatarkhaniyya only as saying: "The one who makes Allaah and his Messenger (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) as witnesses for nikaah, then his nikaah will be invalid and the individual will become a kaafir because he held the belief that the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) had the knowledge of the unseen." But they do not quote the continuation of this verdict, which is that this fatwa is not recognized as valid as cited above in the text of Ibn `Abidin.

This shows that if Imam Ibn `Abidin rejects this fatwa as false and
incorrect, those who hold it today cannot be called Hanafis in this
particular matter but more correctly deviants from the Madhhab. This
does not refer to the fatwa of takfir on the false claim that the Prophet (saws) knows ghayb independently and exclusively, but rather to the fatwa of takfir on the correct claim that he (saws) knows ghayb because Allah Most High said {the knower of the Unseen, and He revealeth unto none His secret, Save unto every messenger whom he hath chosen} (72:26) and other evidence. Wal-Hamdu lillah Rabb al-`Alamin.

6. The Claim that the Barelwis hold “Evil Practices at the Grave[s]”

<<The Bareilawis have many evil practices at the graves such as prostration to it >>

No Barelwi authority permits this practice to our knowledge.

<<or near it,>>

Billions of Muslims prayed in Madina near the Noble Grave.

As for the licitness of praying in a mosque that contains or is located near the grave(s) of one or more righteous persons, it is established in the hadith of the Prophet saws: "In the Mosque of al-Khayf there is the qabr of seventy Prophets." Narrated from Ibn `Umar by al-Tabarani in al-Kabir and al-Bazzar with a chain of trustworthy narrators according to al-Haythami in Majma` al-Zawa'id (#5769, #5965).

<< making tawaaf of the graves, and putting candles and lamps on the graves, raising them high. It is written in Ja'al Haqq p 300 of Ahmad Yaar: "To light the lamps and candles at the graves of the saints, righteous people and the learned is to exalt the saints. The purpose lying behind it is a good one. The offering of oil and candle to the saints kindled at their graves for their exaltation and out of their love is lawful. It is not proper to prohibit them from this practice.">>

Imam al-Shawkani admitted that the Salaf built up the graves high. Indeed, there is nothing wrong in signalling the graves of the Awliya, as stipulated by Imam `Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulusi. See:

http://www.ummah.org.uk/masud/ISLAM/MISC/nabulsi.html

under the subtitle: "Domes over the Grave of the Awilya."

Dawud ibn Salih said: "[The governor of Madina] Marwan [ibn al-Hakam] one day saw a man placing his face on top of the grave of the Prophet. He said: "Do you know what you are doing?" When he came near him, he realized it was Abu Ayyub al-Ansari. The latter said: "Yes; I came to the Prophet, not to a stone." Ibn Hibban in his Sahih, Ahmad (5:422), Al-Tabarani in his Mu`jam al-Kabir (4:189) and his Awsat according to Haythami in al-Zawa'id (5:245 and 5:441 #5845 Book of Hajj, "Section on the honoring of the dwellers of Madina, chapter on placing one's face against the grave of our Master the Prophet saws" and #9252 Book of Khilafa, "Chapter on the leadership of those unworthy of it"), al-Hakim in his Mustadrak (4:515); both the latter and al-Dhahabi said it was sahih. It is also cited by al-Subki in Shifa' al-siqam (p. 126) and Ibn Taymiyya in al-Muntaqa (2:261f.).

The use of the word “stone” in the prevous hadith indicates that the Prophet’s (s) grave was built up with stone already in the time of Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (ra).

It is also narrated that Mu`adh ibn Jabal and Bilal came to the grave of the Prophet saws and sat weeping, and the latter rubbed his face against it. Ibn Majah 2:1320, Ahmad, al-Tabarani, al-Subki, and Ibn `Asakir.

Imam Muslim relates in his Sahih, in the first chapter of the book of
clothing, that Asma' bint Abi Bakr said: “Here is the cloak (jubba) of
Allah's Messenger... [which] was with `A'isha until she died, then I got
possession of it. The Apostle of Allah used to wear it, and we washed it for the sick so that they could seek cure thereby.” Al-Nawawi comments in Sharh sahih Muslim (Book 37 Chapter 2 #10): “In this hadith is a proof that it is recommended to seek blessings through the relics of the righteous and their clothes (wa fi hadha al-hadith dalil `ala istihbab al-tabarruk bi aathaar al-salihin wa thiyabihim).”

The latter verdict puts to rest the possible claim that, on the basis of the above reports, such veneration applies only to the Prophet (SAWS). This would be contrary to the rules of Islamic Principles (Usul) and probably none claims it except the uneducated.

Imam al-Dhahabi said: “Ahmad ibn Hanbal was asked about touching the
Prophet's saws grave and kissing it and he saw nothing wrong with it. His son 'Abd Allah related this from him. If it is asked: "Why did the
Companions not do this?" We reply [this reply also applies to the identical question about the celebration of Mawlid]: "Because they saw him with their very eyes when he was alive! Enjoyed his presence directly! Kissed his very hand! Nearly fought each other over the remnants of his ablution water! Shared his purified hair on the day of the greater Pilgrimage! And even if he spat it would virtually not fall except in someone's hand so that he could pass it over his face! Since we have not had the tremendous fortune of sharing in this, we throw ourselves on his grave as a mark of commitment, reverence, and acceptance, even to kiss it! Do you not see what Thabit al-Bunani did when he kissed the hand of Anas ibn Malik and placed it on his face saying: ‘This is the hand that touched the hand of the Mes­senger of Allah saws’? Muslims are not moved to these matters except by their excessive love for the Prophet saws, as they are ordered to love Allah and the Prophet saws more than!
their own lives, their children, all human beings, their property, and Paradise and its maidens! There are even some believers that love Abu Bakr and `Umar more than themselves!!” Al-Dhahabi, Mu'jam al-Shuyukh (1:73 #58).

Al-Dhahabi elsewhere relates that Imam Ahmad himself used to seek blessings from the relics of the Prophet saws then he lambasts who­ever would fault the practice of tabarruk or seeking blessings from blessed objects:

"`Abd Allah ibn Ahmad said: ‘I saw my father take a hair that belonged to the Prophet saws, put it on his mouth, and kiss it. I believe I saw him put it on his eyes. He also dipped it in water and drank the water to obtain cure. I saw him take the Prophet's saws bowl (qas'a), wash it in water, and drink from it. I saw him drink Zamzam water in order to seek cure with it, and he wiped his hands and face with it.’ I say: Where is the quibbling critic of Imam Ah.mad now?! It is also authentically established that `Abd Allah asked is father about those who touch the pommel of the Prophet's (saws) pulpit and touch the wall of the Prophet's room, and he said: ‘I do not see any harm in it.’ May Allah protect us and you from the opinion of the Khawarij and from innovations!!" Al-Dhahabi, Siyar A'lam al-Nubala' (9:457). Ch. on Imam Ah.mad, section entitled Min Aadaabih.

Imam al-Dhahabi’s du`a in the last sentence is an allusive fatwa from him that those who oppose tawassul, ziyara, tabarruk etc. are from Ahl al-Bid`a, and specifically from the Khawarij.

<<It is mentioned in a hadeeth reported by Muslim that: "The Messenger of Allaah (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) prohibited the plastering of graves, sitting upon them and building over them.">>

Truly, the Salaf spoke well when they warned emphatically against reading the hadith without knowledge. Al-San`ani in Subul al-Salam said: "The Jumhur – vast majority - hold that the prohibition of building up and plastering graves is one of preference (tanzih) [i.e. not strictness (tahrim)]." So is the prohibition of sitting upon them.

<<In the book called Bahari Shariat it is written: "There is no harm if a person circumambulates (makes tawaaf) around the grave to attain blessings." Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta'aala) clearly states in the Qur'aan that we can only make tawaaf of the Ka'bah: "And make Tawaaf around the Ancient House." [22:29]>>

If “we can only make tawaaf of the Ka`ba” then why, in Bukhari and Muslim, is the Sa`i between Safa and Marwa also called tawaf? Why are the Prophet’s (saws) successive visits of his wives also called tawaf? When the women of Madina visited the Prophet’s wives one after another this was also called tawaf in the Sunan!

{And speak not, concerning that which your own tongues qualify (as clean or unclean), the falsehood: "This is lawful, and this is forbidden," so that ye invent a lie against Allah. Lo! those who invent a lie against Allah will not succeed.}

7. The claim that celebrating the birthday of the Prophet (sal- Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) “is an innovation and was never practiced by him (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) or by any of his Companions.”

The Prophet (saws) did celebrate his birthday by fasting. His uncle al-`Abbas (ra) mentioned in his poetry that the Prophet’s birthday was a light by which the Muslims pierce through the darkness of kufr and the Prophet (saws) approved of him. The massive majority of the Ulema past and present, especially in the Hijaz, also approve the desirability of extolling the birth of the Holy Prophet (saws) and celebrating the Mawlid. It is truly the mark of Ahl al-Bid`a to try to extinguish that light. As Sidi al-Habib `Umar said, those Muslims lost and became unable to “pierce through” when they stopped celebrating the light of the Mawlid described in that poetry of al-`Abbas.

<<The religion of Allaah (subhaanah wa ta'aala) was completed in the lifetime of the Prophet (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) as He (subhaanah wa ta'aala) says: "This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islaam as your religion." [5:3]>>

This noble verse has nothing to do with the issue of the permissibility of Mawlid nor the permissibility of writing books of Fiqh nor that of writing vowels inside the Mushaf to read the Qur’an more easily nor many other good innovations. It is the mark of the Khawarij to grossly misinterpret the noble Qur’an then, on the basis of their own erring, go on to make takfir and tadlil of Muslims.

<<There was no celebration of any birthdays or death anniversaries during the time of the Prophet (sal- Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam). Islaam rejects all of these celebrations.>>

If this were true then why did the Prophet visit the graveyard of the martyrs of Uhud punctually at the end of every year as narrated by al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir in their Tafsirs? Secondly, Islam rejects the above objection by means of the fatwa that Mawlid is licit every single day of the year.

<<The Prophet (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) said: "Whoever innovates in this affair of ours something which does not belong in it will have it rejected" [Bukhaaree and Muslim]>>

Indeed, and the greatest innovation is that which Allah Subhan wa Ta`ala described in His Book when He said: {And speak not, concerning that which your own tongues qualify (as clean or unclean), the falsehood: "This is lawful, and this is forbidden," so that ye invent a lie against Allah. Lo! those who invent a lie against Allah will not succeed.}

<<If the celebration of the Prophet's (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) birthday had been something good then definitely the Companions, those who loved him (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) the most, would have done it and told others to do it. However, this is not the case, so we have no right to do what they did not do.>>

We already showed that the claim that the Prophet (saws) did not celebrate his birthday is a falsehood. We also showed that the Companions also emphasized that event in their celebratory poetry. The authentic hadiths mention that there was also singing, dancing, reciting of poetry, and banging the drum. Shaykh al-Islam, Sayyid Muhammad al-Maliki said in one of his fatwas on Mawlid: “There is no doubt that such singing, dancing, reciting of poetry, and banging the drum was for joy at being with the Prophet (saws), nor did he condemn nor frown upon such displays in any way whatsoever. These are common displays of happiness and lawful merriment, and similarly to stand up at the mention of the birth of the Prophet (saws) is an ordinary act that shows love and gladness symbolizing the joy of creation: it does not constitute worship, nor law, nor Sunna!”

Yet, even if it were hypothetically true that the Companions never did something, it does not automatically mean that such a thing is bad, nor prohibited. Only an ignorant person would invent such a rule.

8. The claim that “the Bareilawis believe that Allaah is everywhere in His Essence”

This is a lie, the Barelwis do not believe that Allah is anywhere is in His Essence. Whoever attributes direction to Allah is an innovator and whoever attributes place to Allah is a kafir wal-`iyadhu billah. Correct Sunni belief is that Allah is everywhere in His Attributes.

Wal-Hamdu lillahi Rabbi al-`Alamin.

Hajj Gibril

--

GF Haddad
Qas...@ziplip.com

[Imran Razi]

This is the state of "Islamic scholarship." While our brothers and
sisters are getting slaughtered everywhere, and the ummah is suffering
under massive social, political and economic problems, we get two
"Islamic scholars" calling each other names. Our ulema have become
like the rabbis who simply sit and argue and nitpick with one another,
losing all meaning of the religion. Their knowledge is of no use to
anyone.

wa salaam, and may Allah save us from ourselves

Imran Razi

[Alwi Kamus]

"Imran Razi" wrote in message

> This is the state of "Islamic scholarship." While our brothers and
> sisters are getting slaughtered everywhere, and the ummah is suffering
> under massive social, political and economic problems, we get two
> "Islamic scholars" calling each other names. Our ulema have become
> like the rabbis who simply sit and argue and nitpick with one another,
> losing all meaning of the religion. Their knowledge is of no use to
> anyone.

Assalamu alaikum

your comment looks like you are trying to stifle scholarship and at the
same
time make sweeping statement about ulamas.
the tumultous events that besetting this ummah, it dosnt mean that we
abandon
scholarship and knowledge, Ulamas are still treasure trove of knowledge
- from
the smallest mundane fiqh problems, to the profound fiqh/tasawwuf
knowledge - no matter what
happened to the ummah. thats what they are suppose to do best.
( do you expect them to enter politics? become political leaders? be a
military
leaders? business leaders? IMHO,When ulamas enter politics, almost
always the result
is disastrous)
They are the doctors, the one wrote the prescriptions, it up to us,the
common
people, the leaders, the soldiers,etc.. to follow their prescriptions.

differences in their opinions and their disputes - that is normal.
we simply follow the one whom we thinks the best.

even in modern medical settings, specialist doctors dont always agree
with
each others, thats why we have 1st, 2nd opinion, deferential diagnosis,
prognosis etc.
with all these differences in medical opinion, we still submit our neck
and
brain for surgical procedures, and swallow doubtful pills and
medications
for the recovery of our helath.
the ulamas, they will defend the honor of Islam, and from anyone trying
to change or bring
innovations into Islam - however small. just like the doctors, some are
ignorant and
narrow minded, some are specialist and pragmatist.

Muslims dies or being killed, that happened all the time,
Andalusia, Tartar onslaught, safawi madness, genocidal british
colonialist,
rampaging hindu mobs, etc....
still the ummah survived.
But once deviations/innovations creeped into the mind of the ummah,
it took really herculean task to remove it.
many people call for abandoning sunnah or changing the sunnah, with the
excuse of warfare, military defeats, economic and social degenarations
Thats what ataturk, taha hussein, saddam, etc.. and their ilks have
done.
in the process, they manage to destroy islam from the lives of the
people.

so when someone or somebody is talking about an obscure part of
religion,
it dosnt mean that he is oblivious to the suffering of the palestinians,
bosnian or afgans -
if my heart is bleeding and crying for them, i dont go out and publicise
it
to everybody - or organise a public mourning and whining
but we pray and du'a and beseech ALLAH for them, in solitude and in
congregation, we turn to ALLAH, we cried to ALLAH like a terrified baby
clinging to his/her mother.

Wassalam

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

[vmi...@yahoo.com]

"Alwi Kamus" <alb...@tm.net.my> wrote:
> "Imran Razi" wrote in message

> Assalamu alaikum

wa alaykum as Salam wr wbt:

>
> your comment looks like you are trying to stifle scholarship and at the
> same
> time make sweeping statement about ulamas.
> the tumultous events that besetting this ummah, it dosnt mean that we
> abandon
> scholarship and knowledge, Ulamas are still treasure trove of knowledge

Which ulama are you talking about? How can people, whose only purpose in
life seems to be to parade their own egos and to vilify their opponents,
be considered to be truly imbued with the spirit of Islam?

By and large, I agree with Imran. In today's world Islam has been reduced
to utterly dry legalism by its adherents. And so called ulamas are to
Islam, what the pharisees were to Judaism at the time of Jesus(PBUH); an
empty vessel making a lot of noise about legalities.

This ummah is becoming spiritually bankrupt at an alarming pace.

May Allah(SWT) Preserve the truth of His Last Guidance, and the honor of
His Last Messenger(SAW), from the depravity of scholars of this ummah.

Viqar Ahmed

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service

[Alwi Kamus]

Assalamu alaikum

> Which ulama are you talking about? How can people, whose only purpose in
> life seems to be to parade their own egos and to vilify their opponents,
> be considered to be truly imbued with the spirit of Islam?

Dear Bro.,
of course i meant true ulama haq -
but even ulama haq, even the most truthful and scrupulous and saintly
ulama,
they still have to discuss about 'haidh/nifas/taharah-etc..' when asked.
my point is that - thats their role - to talk about every nitpicking and
mindboggling parts of religion. We shouldnt and shallnot stop them and
blame
them for that.
that was my original response to bro ImranRazi who seems to dislike
sectarian tone of Hajj Gibril Haddad posting.
This almost perpetual debates (radd-ing each other, if u prefer the
term)
traditionalist like Hajj Gibril and Wahhabi Salafi like Ihsan Ilahi
Zahir
is our reality today.
Should we stop and censor them?
i dont think so.
to me, from all these debates and munazarah and mujadalah, we learn a
lot
of things, new knowledge, new aspects of religion which was unknown to
us
before - it helps us in our spritual maturity and help us becoming less
ta'sub, and obstinate, less prejudice etc.
>From all these mujadalah - we learn our differences, diffrent manhaj,
>from which we can build and initiate common points between us.

do i sound like an idealist or just a dreamer?

> By and large, I agree with Imran. In today's world Islam has been reduced
> to utterly dry legalism by its adherents. And so called ulamas are to
> Islam, what the pharisees were to Judaism at the time of Jesus(PBUH); an
> empty vessel making a lot of noise about legalities.

That i dont agree....
common muslims today suffers from mind boggling indifferent to tenets of
religion
and sunnah.
As bro Dr Jeremiah put it - the religion solely exist in books - books
only.
i add - and in the chest of the ulama. only.

When the masses do not follow even the most basic fundamentals of
religion
then it is true when the ulamas are talking about legalities, they seems
to
be making a lot of noise.

> This ummah is becoming spiritually bankrupt at an alarming pace.

True, when they started to worship TV sets, loves this dunya more than
akhirat, and toss the ulama-haq into thrash bin of their life.
they spend more time in front of TV than in front of ulama, majlis -ilm,
majlis
zikr, visiting the sick, caring for the poor, doing volunteer works
etc..

When they need to sit at the feet of the ulama, they fell for the
self-serving
cult making, screaming mad ulama.
They like to hear how bad is the kafir, the christians, the jews, the
americans,
the europeans, how degenerated, how abominable these people are...
So, in the process, the most popular ulama will be the one who spews
more
venomous hate, they-are-bad - we are-good kind of self gratifying
feeling.

The least popular Ulama will be the one who advocate self cleansing,
jihad against the nafsu, zikr to ALLAH,
pure akhlaq, sincereity, simple living etc..
This type of ulama is everywhere, in the village, in towns, in big
cities,
but theya are branded stagnant and out of date.

no wonder at all.

wassalam

[Imran Razi]

wa alaykum assalaam,

> "Imran Razi" wrote in message
>
> > This is the state of "Islamic scholarship." While our brothers and
> > sisters are getting slaughtered everywhere, and the ummah is suffering
> > under massive social, political and economic problems, we get two
> > "Islamic scholars" calling each other names. Our ulema have become
> > like the rabbis who simply sit and argue and nitpick with one another,
> > losing all meaning of the religion. Their knowledge is of no use to
> > anyone.
>
> Assalamu alaikum
>
> your comment looks like you are trying to stifle scholarship and at the
> same
> time make sweeping statement about ulamas.

I'm not trying to stifle scholarship, but I am claiming the scholarship
currently produced is not relevant to issues of the day for the ummah.

> the tumultous events that besetting this ummah, it dosnt mean that we
> abandon
> scholarship and knowledge, Ulamas are still treasure trove of knowledge
> - from
> the smallest mundane fiqh problems, to the profound fiqh/tasawwuf
> knowledge - no matter what
> happened to the ummah.

The fiqh they are concerned with is for a long-gone world. The
socio-political framework has changed radically. I think this is
relevant to living as a Muslim in the complete sense, perhaps you (and
the ulema) do not. But is it any wonder that people have lost respect
for the ulema? They are experts in ancient history while we are dying
today. Of what good is their knowledge?

thats what they are suppose to do best.
> ( do you expect them to enter politics? become political leaders? be a
> military
> leaders? business leaders?

I expect politics, economics, etc. to be governed by Islam, not just
theoretically but in the real world. The ulema offer tepid advice, if
they offer any advice at all, and then sit quietly while corrupt devils
ignore their advice and lead the people into devastation.
I do not like the secularism of traditional Sunnism, and traditional
Shiism. Again, what good is a beautiful theory when it is completely
absent in our world? Is that the Sunnah of our Rasool (saws)?

IMHO,When ulamas enter politics, almost
> always the result
> is disastrous)

Maybe, and it is important to examine the failings. It is probably due
to the ignorance of the ulema concerning politics and political
institutions. But Iran is doing far better than just about any Muslim
country. Just as importantly, it is free of foreign, nonMuslim
influence. They have not sacrificed their integrity for Western
trinkets, and inshaallah they never will. The more Islamic knowledge
infuses the actual society, the better off the people are.

> They are the doctors, the one wrote the prescriptions, it up to us,the
> common
> people, the leaders, the soldiers,etc.. to follow their prescriptions.

The problem is the prescriptions include a duty to obey even unjust
rulers, and obedience to the ulema - as a professional class - no
matter what the circumstances.

>
> differences in their opinions and their disputes - that is normal.
> we simply follow the one whom we thinks the best.

The ulema have to follow a certain interpretative tradition, but whose
to say that tradition is right? If the Muslim world were doing well,
then the ulema could point to that as evidence that they really do know
what's best, but when our fellow Muslims are being slaughtered right
before our very eyes and our "ulema" tell us to do nothing, and engage
in vain debates like the one I was criticizing, then why should we
believe they really understand Islam correctly?

> Muslims dies or being killed, that happened all the time,
> Andalusia, Tartar onslaught, safawi madness, genocidal british
> colonialist,
> rampaging hindu mobs, etc....
> still the ummah survived.

Survived how? And what does this have to do with the ulema? Islam's
spread through India, for example, had virtually nothing to do with the
ulema and everything to do with Sufiism.

> But once deviations/innovations creeped into the mind of the ummah,
> it took really herculean task to remove it.

It all depends on what you mean by "deviations".

> many people call for abandoning sunnah or changing the sunnah, with the
> excuse of warfare, military defeats, economic and social degenarations
> Thats what ataturk, taha hussein, saddam, etc.. and their ilks have
> done.

No, Ataturk and Saddam outright rejected the Sunnah in favor of
secularism. Taha Hussein I'm not sure about, but his interpretation of
the Sunnah was distorted. That doesn't mean the interpretation of the
ulema is correct.

> in the process, they manage to destroy islam from the lives of the
> people.
>
> so when someone or somebody is talking about an obscure part of
> religion,
> it dosnt mean that he is oblivious to the suffering of the palestinians,
> bosnian or afgans -

We have limited time and resources. Decisions have to be made as to
what are the important priorities.

> if my heart is bleeding and crying for them, i dont go out and publicise
> it
> to everybody - or organise a public mourning and whining
> but we pray and du'a and beseech ALLAH for them, in solitude and in
> congregation, we turn to ALLAH, we cried to ALLAH like a terrified baby
> clinging to his/her mother.

This is our problem. All we do is cry to ALLAH when we need to take
the next step and do something about it. But the ulema discourage
this.

wa salaam,
Imran Razi

[asimm...@yahoo.com]

> Which ulama are you talking about? How can people, whose only purpose in
> life seems to be to parade their own egos and to vilify their opponents,
> be considered to be truly imbued with the spirit of Islam?
>

They simply do not get it Bro. Under the guise of scholarship and
knowledge, they spend pages upon pages writing about totally
irrelevant material that has absolutely no effect on the creation of
moral values in Islam. There is absolutely no such thing in Islam as
knowledge that does not benefit one's own self. Islam has never
separated the ACT of knowing, with the ACT of doing what one knows,
and ilm includes the connotation of both. Possessing knowledge is
NOTHING in islam, applying knowledge is something in Islam.

Whether one can quote the isnad by memory about a hadeeth that says
that the Prophet wore a black turban on the Day of the conquest of
Mecca, and the biography of every single narrator in the chain, has
absolutely no relevance to whether one has improved his status on the
Day of Judgement.
One can know that it is beneficial to spend 1/10th of one's wealth for
the benefit of humanity, but it is a different story when it comes to
spending it.

The issue of the regeneration of this ummah is through action, and
Iqbal says it clearly:

"LIFE is preserved by purpose
Because of the goal its caravan-bell tinkles.
Life Is latent in seeking,
Its origin is hidden in desire.
Keep desire alive in thy heart,
Lest thy little dust become a tomb."

The ummah has been spiritually bankrupt for years. Knowledge that
does not awaken desire is nothing but a waste to one's own welfare.

[saifu]

"Alwi Kamus" <alb...@tm.net.my> wrote in message news:<aamd1q$4p7$1...@samba.rahul.net>...

> "Imran Razi" wrote in message
>
> > This is the state of "Islamic scholarship." While our brothers and
> > sisters are getting slaughtered everywhere, and the ummah is suffering
> > under massive social, political and economic problems, we get two
> > "Islamic scholars" calling each other names. Our ulema have become
> > like the rabbis who simply sit and argue and nitpick with one another,
> > losing all meaning of the religion. Their knowledge is of no use to
> > anyone.
>
> Assalamu alaikum
>
> your comment looks like you are trying to stifle scholarship and at the
> same
> time make sweeping statement about ulamas.

Bismillah, Alhamdulillah, wasselatu wasselaamu 'alaa Resulillah,

Your accusation is baseless. Where did you get the idea that he is "
trying to stifle scholarship ". He was speaking in the context of the
origional post which was basically , Qeel wal Qaal. We have to see the
issue in the context of the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

Allah (subhanehu wa ta'alaa) said:

"And obey Allâh and His Messenger, and do not dispute (with one
another) lest you lose courage and your strength depart, and be
patient. Surely, Allâh is with those who are As-Sâbirin (the patient
ones, etc.)." - Surah Al Al Anfal.

The behaviour of Mr Haddad is always of the blameworthy type. It can
be shown to be of the type to be reprimended:

"The Messenger of Allaah (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) heard some
people arguing outside his home, one of them saying, 'Did not Allaah
say so and so?' and the other saying, 'Did not Allaah say so and so?'
So he came out angry and said, "Is this what I have ordered you, or is
this what I was sent with, that you should set one part of the Book of
Allaah against some other parts?"
- Reported by Imam Ahmad.

A man asked 'Umar ibn al-Khattaab (radiallahu 'anhu): What is "Those
(angels) who gently take out (the souls of the believers)?" (Soorah
an-Naazi'aat 2) He said, "If your head were shaved, I would have
beheaded you." (Shaving his head was the sign of the Khawaarij). The
man who asked 'Umar was called Sabeegh. It is also reported that 'Umar
ibn al-Khattaab (radiallahu 'anhu) beat Sabeegh, sevearly - reported
by al-Laalikaa'ee in as-Sunnah.

Contrast the above position with the behaviour of the likes of Mr.
Haddad and his Shaikhs old and present. Can you imagine what the
Sahaba (redwanullahi 'alaihim a'jmaeen) would have done about them.
For example, the position of Mr. Haddad and his masters vis-a-vis the
Kufr utterances of Ibn Arabi is not secret. Recently, there was a post
where MR. Haddad was defending the glaring Kufr statements of Ibn
Arabi.

> the tumultous events that besetting this ummah, it dosnt mean that we
> abandon
> scholarship and knowledge, Ulamas are still treasure trove of knowledge
> - from
> the smallest mundane fiqh problems,

No body would deny their place in Islam. The poster was critical about
the useless argument that would only weaken the Ummah - which is also
condemned in Both the Qur'an and the Sunnah of The Messenger of Allaah
(sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam).

> to the profound fiqh/tasawwuf
> knowledge - no matter what
> happened to the ummah.

Must you Juxtapose Tassawuf as part of Islam. Tasawuf, at best, can be
considered to based on the Ijtihad of the people who practised it. And
Insha Allah will be rewarded accordingly - as Shaikh al Islam Ibn
Taymiyya opines. But for you to put it as part of Islam based on the
Qur'an and Sunnah it only shows bias. Can you give us an example of a
Sahaba who was practising "Tasawuf" or a saying of the Messsenger of
Allah (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) guiding us to practice Tasawuf.

> thats what they are suppose to do best.
> ( do you expect them to enter politics? become political leaders? be a
> military
> leaders? business leaders? IMHO,When ulamas enter politics, almost
> always the result
> is disastrous)

Baseless assertion. I hope you are not one of those who believes that
religion and politics as two separate issues. You need to review your
knowledge base as you are way off well established facts. The True
followers of the The Messenger of Allaah (sallallahu `alayhi wa
sallam), among the Ullema, were at the forefront of all political
activities of our Islamic history. What would you consider the action
of al Izz bin Abdisalaam (rahimahullah) to be when he was making a
Khutba against the Sulatan of As-Shaam Malik Ismaeel who was
cooperating with the Christians (their is a parallel with the rulers
of our time) - At the End of the Jumu'ah Khutba, he made the following
Du'aa: "Allahuma abrim lihathihill Ummati Ibram Rushdin Yu'azu fihi
awliya'uk wa Yuthalu fihi 'a'adaa'uk wa y'umalu fihi bita'atik wa
yunhaa fihi 'an M'asiyatik). He was making a political statement
against the Ruler of As-Shaam -his removal if posible. The Ullema
played major political roles - their Fatwa fiqh rulings are part of
the political activities of the Muslim state. Examples such as the one
where Imam an-Nawawi (rahimahullah) refused to sign a decree that
would authrize Dhahir Baybars to collect money from the people to
support the campaign against the Tatars show that the Ullema are part
of Islamic Politics. The Fatwa by Shaikh Bin Baz (rahimahulla) - no
doubt a major mistake -allowing for the US army's entry into the
Arabian Penusula and peace treaty with the Zionist entity are two
examples (from our time) that shows the importance of ullema in
Muslim Politics. One may consider the Muslim Ullema as the equivelant
of legislators (senators & MPs) in Western political context.

> They are the doctors, the one wrote the prescriptions, it up to us,the
> common
> people, the leaders, the soldiers,etc.. to follow their prescriptions.
>
> differences in their opinions and their disputes - that is normal.
> we simply follow the one whom we thinks the best.

The point of objection? If their diffrences lead to disputation and
weakness, then Imran's point becomes evident and needs to be addressed
based on Islamic priciples.

>
< snip - >

> the ulamas, they will defend the honor of Islam, and from anyone trying
> to change or bring
> innovations into Islam - however small. just like the doctors, some are
> ignorant and
> narrow minded, some are specialist and pragmatist.
>

Based on what we see from Mr Haddad's activities, I believe MR. Haddad
to be one of those "trying to change or bring innovations into Islam
".

> Muslims dies or being killed, that happened all the time,
> Andalusia, Tartar onslaught, safawi madness, genocidal british
> colonialist,
> rampaging hindu mobs, etc....
> still the ummah survived.

All of that requires Muslims to be more attentive - as opposed to your
dismissive - to the Commands:

Allah (subhanehu wa ta'alaa) said:

"And obey Allâh and His Messenger, and do not dispute (with one
another) lest you lose courage and your strength depart, and be
patient. Surely, Allâh is with those who are As-Sâbirin (the patient
ones, etc.)." - Surah Al Imran.

> But once deviations/innovations creeped into the mind of the ummah,
> it took really herculean task to remove it.

That is our concern. Mr. Haddad and his masters are among the
prominent individuals who are spreading "deviations/innovations ".

> many people call for abandoning sunnah or changing the sunnah, with the
> excuse of warfare, military defeats, economic and social degenarations
> Thats what ataturk, taha hussein, saddam, etc.. and their ilks have
> done.
> in the process, they manage to destroy islam from the lives of the
> people.
>

What does the above apostates have to do with the issue of the Ullema
being bad examples to the non-Ullema. They are not showing their
wisdow that makes them distinct from the rest. As Al-Hasan al-Basree
said, "The wise man does not argue or seek to overcome with stratagem
rather he propagates his wisdom. If it is accepted he praises Allaah
and if it is rejected he praises Allaah."

<snip - weak excuse, fails to consider the priciple of avoiding
disputation>

One should not create fitna by arguing about minor fiqh
questions where there is khilaf. In this respect, even if there is no
khilaf, I refer to the position that was taken by Ibn Masu'd and Ibn
Umar (radiallahu 'anhum) when confronted with a Fiqh question - the
complaint that Uthman (radiallahu 'anhu) was not shortning the prayer
while
travelling - the Sunnah is to shorten prayer. After Confirming that
the sunnah is to shorten prayer while travelling, they simply said,
"Fitnah is evil" and left the issue with out further argument.
Although the people who brough the complaint expected Ibn Masu'd and
Ibn
Umar (radiallahu 'anhum) to do something about it.

I believe the above position of Ibn Masu'd and Ibn Umar (radiallahu
'anhum) to be a good example to show the gist of Imran's objection
that you attempt to critic.

> .
>
> Wassalam

Saifu,

[saifu]

"Alwi Kamus" <alb...@tm.net.my> wrote in message

news:<aaqtes$383$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
> Assalamu alaikum
>

Bismillah, Alhamdulillah, wasselaamu wesselaatu 'alaa resulillah,

> > Which ulama are you talking about? How can people, whose only
purpose in
> > life seems to be to parade their own egos and to vilify their
opponents,
> > be considered to be truly imbued with the spirit of Islam?
>

<snip>

> This almost perpetual debates (radd-ing each other, if u prefer the
> term)
> traditionalist like Hajj Gibril

When did spreading shirk and innovation became the identification of
"traditionalist"?

> Should we stop and censor them?
> i dont think so.

Innovators who are spreading Innovation and shirk must be stopped. Can
you justify the wasting of time arguing about innovations? - can you
discuss that inlight of the Qur'an and Sunnah.

> do i sound like an idealist or just a dreamer?
>

may be a dreamer who is detached from reality.

>
> That i dont agree....
> common muslims today suffers from mind boggling indifferent to tenets
of
> religion
> and sunnah.

How can you address this problem when you are ignoring the
introduction of conflicting innovations in religion as some
individuals wont to do. We are pressured by the innovators to abandon,
the advice of the Messenger of Allah (sallalhu 'alahi wasallam) who
warned us:

"Beware of Satan, for the safety of your religion. He has lost all
hope that he will ever be able to lead you astray in big things, so
beware of following him in small things." - Excerpt from the Last
Sermon of the Messenger of Allah (sallalhu 'alahi wasallam)

>
> When the masses do not follow even the most basic fundamentals of
> religion
> then it is true when the ulamas are talking about legalities, they
seems
> to
> be making a lot of noise.

You need to tell that to the likes of of the origional poster who
instead of
promoting the pure Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (sallalhu 'alahi
wasallam) is spreading innovations that were not practiced by the
first generations of Muslims. Note that for every innovation
introduced into
Islam, the common people are made to abandon the Sunnah. Most of the
heated arguments are concerning innovations while there is little
disagreement exist about the established Sunnah of the Messenger of
Allah (sallalhu 'alahi wasallam). As one scholar put it, " Do not ask
the people of innovation about innovations, as they have prepared a
reply, ask them about the Sunnah, they do not recognize it."

The innovation side effect is very damaging to the Ummah - Simply
following the advice (below) would help:

"Beware of Satan, for the safety of your religion. He has lost all
hope that he will ever be able to lead you astray in big things, so
beware of following him in small things." - Excerpt from the Last
Sermon of the Messenger of Allah (sallalhu 'alahi wasallam)

>
> > This ummah is becoming spiritually bankrupt at an alarming pace.
>

Our concern is with the Dajjal's who are creating havoc within the
Ummah. Here is an example of what is promoted by one whom you consider
"traditionalist like Hajj Gibril" - would you consider that to be a
tradition of Islam?:

---------------Start--------------------------
"Ibn Arabi
Dr. GF Haddad
>Ibn 'Arabi says in Dhakhaairul-A'laaq (p.93):
>"Before today, I used to criticise my companion if my religion was
not the one
>which he followed. But my heart changed to accept every image, so
pastures for
>the carefree lovers and convents for the monks. A house of idols and
the idol
>house at Taa'if, the tablets of the Torah and the mushaf of the
Qur'aan. I
>follow the religion of love wherever it takes me, so all religion is
my
>religion and belief."

The above is an adaptation from lines of poetry from Ibn `Arabi's work
Tarjuman al-Ashwaq ("The Translator of Yearnings"). Its style is
highly lyrical and meaning evidently metaphorical. It would be very
unfair or rather strange for this slim book to be adduced as precise
evidence of a particular belief or used as a proof against Ibn
`Arabi's own statement of doctrine in his massive Futuhat
al-Makkiyya."
------------- end of Dr. GF Haddad's words -----------

One wonders, If one can find an excuse for the glaring kufr of Ibn
Arabi,
how can he fail to find excuse for those whom he address as
"Wahhabi", "salafi"? Is is the Traditionalism that you are referring
to - It must be a tradition opposed to Islamic Tradition.
We are informed about this kind of inspiration in the Qur'an:

" Shall I inform you (O people!) upon whom the Shayâtin (devils)
descend? They descend on every lying (one who tells lies), sinful
person. " - Surah Ash-Shu'ara' 221 - 222.

Scattered reading of the writing of the one whom you consider
"traditionalist like Hajj Gibril" - on the web (search) and the
teaching of his masters provide some indication why his posts on SRI
are geared to casting aspersions against Ahlusunnah scholars by using
terms such as "wahabi", "salafi" , etc ... it seems that he and his
masters need to hide their Batini background by posturing as true
followers of the Messenger of Allah (sallahu 'alaihi wasallam) - as
you present them "traditionalist" - and hope to confuse the
unsuspecting person. The ultimate goal of these Batini individuals and
groups is to obscure the true teaching of the Messenger of Allah
(sallalahu 'alahi wa sallam) and call people to the worship of other
than Allah. As you imply, this group uses "traditionalist" Posturing.

The Messenger of Allah (sallalahu 'alaihi wa Sallam) said, about them:

"In the Last days, there will be Charletans and liars, they will bring
you ahadith that you or your fathers Never heared before, be on guard
so that they do not misguide you or try you "

<snip>>

> wassalam

Saifu,

[GF Haddad]

saifu...@yahoo.com (saifu) wrote in message news:<aaqle5$1hn$1...@samba.rahul.net>...

> A man asked 'Umar ibn al-Khattaab (radiallahu 'anhu): What is "Those
> (angels) who gently take out (the souls of the believers)?" (Soorah
> an-Naazi'aat 2) He said, "If your head were shaved, I would have
> beheaded you." (Shaving his head was the sign of the Khawaarij).

What `Umar (ra) more probably meant is: "If you had been a recidivist,
I would have applied the death sentence to you." They used to shave
the heads of those convicted of criminal offenses, as took place with
`Umar's own son, `Abd al-Rahman, when he was convicted for
drunkenness. The Khawarij did not appear as a sect until the time of
`Ali (ra).

> Contrast the above position with the behaviour of the likes of Mr.
> Haddad and his Shaikhs old and present. Can you imagine what the
> Sahaba (redwanullahi 'alaihim a'jmaeen) would have done about them.

I certainly can imagine the Sahaba bearing witness over which is the
sectarian innovator - Mr. Saifu and his Wahhabi kind or the Friends of
Allah and their students? - and look forward to that day.

> > to the profound fiqh/tasawwuf
> > knowledge - no matter what
> > happened to the ummah.
>
> Must you Juxtapose Tassawuf as part of Islam.

The comment shows ignorance of the ethics of the Salaf.
"Be both a Faqih and a Sufi - never just one." - Imam al-Shafi`i,
Diwan.
"Among the best of people is the Sufi learned in Fiqh." - Imam Sufyan
al-Thawri as narrated by al-Harawi al-Ansari in his Tabaqat
al-Sufiyya.

> activities of our Islamic history. What would you consider the action
> of al Izz bin Abdisalaam (rahimahullah) to be when he was making a
> Khutba against the Sulatan of As-Shaam Malik Ismaeel who was
> cooperating with the Christians (their is a parallel with the rulers
> of our time)

Malik Isma`il tactically gave away Sidon, Shaqif, Safad and other
Muslim towns to the Franks in 640 to secure strategic control over
Damascus and because of a disagreement with his nephew Najm al-Din
Ayyub. Imam Ibn `Abd al-Salam declared this action unlawful and
stopped praying for Malik Isma`il from the pulpit, for which he was
imprisoned then exiled together with Ibn al-Hajib al-Maliki. Shaykh
al-Islam was not "making Khutba against Malik Isma`il" - Allah have
mercy on both of them - nor was the latter "cooperating with the
Christians."

> where Imam an-Nawawi (rahimahullah) refused to sign a decree that
> would authrize Dhahir Baybars to collect money from the people to
> support the campaign against the Tatars show that the Ullema are part
> of Islamic Politics.

Ibn Kathir in al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya said there is a long-standing
juridical difference of opinion as to the permissibility for the ruler
of retaining for Bayt al-Mal Muslim lands wrested back from invaders.
The Hanafis say it is permissible, the other three Schools say not.
When King Baybars - a Hanafi - wrested the Syrian orchards and lands
back from the Tatars he entered Damascus in the midst of a huge
popular welcome and invoked the Hanafi position. He convened a large
gathering of the Qudat and Fuqaha' and made a formal request for a
clear fatwa on the matter. They finally agreed for him to return all
those lands to their former owners in exchange for one million dirhams
in installments for his army.

> khilaf, I refer to the position that was taken by Ibn Masu'd and Ibn
> Umar (radiallahu 'anhum) when confronted with a Fiqh question - the
> complaint that Uthman (radiallahu 'anhu) was not shortning the prayer
> while
> travelling - the Sunnah is to shorten prayer. After Confirming that
> the sunnah is to shorten prayer while travelling, they simply said,
> "Fitnah is evil" and left the issue with out further argument.
> Although the people who brough the complaint expected Ibn Masu'd and
> Ibn
> Umar (radiallahu 'anhum) to do something about it.

Another rewording of what is actually reported. First, Ibn Mas`ud did
pray behind `Uthman (ra) even without shortening; Second, there are a
number of reasons for which `Uthman (ra) did not shorten the prayer.
Third, Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Maliki in his book al-Tamhid wa
al-Bayan lists no less than fourteen Sahaba as not shortening the
prayer while travelling including `A'isha (ra). This leads to the
Fourth point, namely, that not only does the Sunna include not
shortening prayer during travel, but also, shortening is considered
Rukhsa in the Shafi`i Madhhab while not shortening is `Azima.

These points are probably what the ignorant will describe as
"unimportant minor fiqh differences" and to mention them is probably
"weakening the Umma"!

Was-Salamu `ala man ittaba`a al-Huda.

Hajj Gibril

[Alwi Kamus]

Intro:

"Imran Razi" wrote in message
> > This is the state of "Islamic scholarship." While our brothers and
> > sisters are getting slaughtered everywhere, and the ummah is suffering
> > under massive social, political and economic problems, we get two
> > "Islamic scholars" calling each other names. Our ulema have become
> > like the rabbis who simply sit and argue and nitpick with one another,
> > losing all meaning of the religion. Their knowledge is of no use to
> > anyone.

After Basmalah, tahmid and salawat
Bro Saifu wrote: (S:)

Your accusation is baseless. Where did you get the idea that he is "
trying to stifle scholarship ". He was speaking in the context of the
origional post which was basically , Qeel wal Qaal. We have to see the
issue in the context of the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

My response: (MR)
Wa alaikum salam
On the contrary, bro imran while commenting about behaviour of ‘2
islamic scholars’,
he went on to make sweeping and fantastic accusations against ulamas:
i.e.:
1. Our ulamas have become like rabbis
2. our ulamas simply sit (and do nothing?)
3. our ulamas argue (all the time?)
4. our ulamas nitpick with one another
5. our ulamas losing all meaning of the religion
6. our ulamas’ knowledge is useless to anyone.

My dear bro, these are serious accusations!
I feel it is the right thing to defend the honor of ulama.

Just because 2 proponent of their own sect, argue with each others,
it didnt give anybody the excuses to hurl all the accusations against
OUR ulamas.
If you are part of this ummah, YOUR ulamas, his ulamas, means MY ulamas
as well ,
if you took the stringent standard of:
“Innama YakhshaLLAHu min ‘ibadihil Ulama”
“al-Ulama waratsatul- ambiya’”

wherein the Qur’an and Sunnah we are allowed to make such sweeping
condemnation about a group of this ummah who is designated as ulama’?

If we don’t agree with them, perhaps we can criticise them,
point to them their mistakes etc..

Such a vehement respons is uncalled for,
Which SEEMS to me as if an attemp to silence an academic debate,

Even if they are at fault, you can always accuse them (2 of them)of
Namecalling
Nipicking
Simply sit
Harbouring useless knowledge,
Personally I am sure Dr Haddad will be happy to receive such accusations
(if it is not true, he will receive THAwab in exchange,
if it is true he’ll get the chance to repent)
BUT not our ulama wholesale.!

S:

Contrast the above position with the behaviour of the likes of Mr.
Haddad and his Shaikhs old and present. Can you imagine what the
Sahaba (redwanullahi 'alaihim a'jmaeen) would have done about them.

MR:
I cannot imagine what ashab-kiram (ridwanullahi 'alaihim a'jmain)
will do, I have no knowledge of the unseen, neither can I juxtapose,
deduce or predict what will happen. Dare you claim such knowledge?

S:

For example, the position of Mr. Haddad and his masters vis-a-vis the
Kufr utterances of Ibn Arabi is not secret. Recently, there was a post
where MR. Haddad was defending the glaring Kufr statements of Ibn
Arabi.

MR:
I havnt read his statement – no comment
Can you give me the link, please.

S:

No body would deny their place in Islam. The poster was critical about
the useless argument that would only weaken the Ummah - which is also
condemned in Both the Qur'an and the Sunnah of The Messenger of Allaah
(sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam).

MR:
As I indicated, sweeping accusations are also against Qur’an and Sunnah

S:

Must you Juxtapose Tassawuf as part of Islam. Tasawuf, at best, can be
considered to based on the Ijtihad of the people who practised it. And
Insha Allah will be rewarded accordingly - as Shaikh al Islam Ibn
Taymiyya opines. But for you to put it as part of Islam based on the
Qur'an and Sunnah it only shows bias. Can you give us an example of a
Sahaba who was practising "Tasawuf" or a saying of the Messsenger of
Allah (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) guiding us to practice Tasawuf.

MR:
Very weird position.
Ibn Taimiah (and Ibnul Qayyim) himself is a practitioner of Tasawwuf
methodology, he is of Qadiriah Tariqah.
As for Sahabah, the example are too numerous.

S:

Baseless assertion. I hope you are not one of those who believes that
religion and politics as two separate issues. You need to review your
knowledge base as you are way off well established facts. The True
followers of the The Messenger of Allaah (sallallahu `alayhi wa
sallam), among the Ullema, were at the forefront of all political
activities of our Islamic history.

MR:
Another strange position
I always thought religion is above politics – that the ulama
is above politics.
I always thought about this group called umara’,
a different entity from ulama.

I do not relished at the sight of ulama, campaigning in politics:
Shouting: “elect me!’ I am more islamic! Vote for me! I am better than
them useless bugger! Give me the leadership, give me the ministerial
post! Gimme power…!

Imam Hanafi, despite supporting the rebellion against abbasiah,
did not covet any political post.. Imam Shafi’e did not join
the establishment of power, Imam hanbali did not sought political power
in routing the mu’tazilites.

S:

What would you consider the action
of al Izz bin Abdisalaam (rahimahullah) to be when he was making a
Khutba against the Sulatan of As-Shaam Malik Ismaeel who was
cooperating with the Christians (their is a parallel with the rulers

of our time) –
--

MR:
The Sultanul Ulama was merely stating what is obviously
the real teachings of Islam.

S:

He was making a political statement
against the Ruler of As-Shaam -his removal if posible.

MR:
I wouldn’t call it ‘political’ statement.
I call it ‘greatest jihad’ - speaking against oppressive ruler.
Its just degrading to call it political satement.

S:

The Ullema
played major political roles - their Fatwa fiqh rulings are part of
the political activities of the Muslim state.

MR:
As I said, the politicians, the military leaders etc., they all should
listen to the advise of the Ulama who are making the HISBAH ---

Ulama should be above politics
Their job is ta’lim wa ta’alum, and to unify this ummah,
and guard them against hell-fire.

We need more Raja’ ibn Haiwah.

S:

The Fatwa by Shaikh Bin Baz (rahimahulla) - no
doubt a major mistake -allowing for the US army's entry into the
Arabian Penusula and peace treaty with the Zionist entity are two
examples (from our time) that shows the importance of ullema in
Muslim Politics.

MR:
This is an unfortunate example of wahhabi gullibility which made
any sensible Muslims sad. One of the main contentions of traditionalist
scholars of which Dr. haddad is a supporter. And so the ensuing debate.

S:

One may consider the Muslim Ullema as the equivelant
of legislators (senators & MPs) in Western political context.

MR:
Another of your strange idea.
Based on sunnah? please Enlighten me..

S:

The point of objection? If their diffrences lead to disputation and
weakness, then Imran's point becomes evident and needs to be addressed
based on Islamic priciples.

MR:
Which point? The accusations, or the statements
Isnt it better for bro. Imran to do ISLAH b/n them?

S:

Based on what we see from Mr Haddad's activities, I believe MR. Haddad
to be one of those "trying to change or bring innovations into Islam
".

MR:
This is another serious accusation.

Based on Abdul Mustafa al-Haddad writings/postings, I found them to be
well researched and always come with scholarly proof from Qur’an and
Sunnah, unmatched by any salafi/wahhabi/jihadis proponents in the net.

No doubts sometimes he made mistakes, false facts and misquotes,
but his writings much better than most of you.

Let me make this clear, I am of ashaari in aqidah and shafi’e in mazhab,
When someone from wahhabi salafi claimed that asha’irah are deviants in
aqidah, you bet I will be very interested to hear their arguments.
I cannot be indifference. It s my creed/aqidah?
This is nor minor lightly matter….!
I am also interested in hearing the defensive arguments.

Now you all want to censor all this, saying it is useless etc..and
started to qoutes hadith after hadiths and making all sorts of
accusations, What kind of people are you?

S:

That is our concern. Mr. Haddad and his masters are among the
prominent individuals who are spreading "deviations/innovations ".

MR:
That is another accusation.
I fail to find any ‘innovations’, even though their followers lives
amongst my community, and prayed in the same mosque.
I am aware of Dr. haddad’s Jama’ah and have even queried Dr. haddad
regarding their political standing (he did not respond - )

S:

One should not create fitna by arguing about minor fiqh
questions where there is khilaf.

-snipped-

MR:
accusing other muslims of SHIRIK is not a minor thing, my dear saifu,
neither it is minor fiqh or minor khilaf. This something really serious
– and that’s what Ihsan Ilahi zahir did.
So Dr Haddad wrote a respons and then brother imran called it
(useless namecalling - and linked it to ulama) and you supported his
position (based on qur’an and sunnah?)

What a wonderful world to live in.

Wassalam.

[Shuaib]

Assalamu alaikum

saifu...@yahoo.com (saifu) wrote in message news:<ab0iec$a5q$1...@samba.rahul.net>...

> Innovators who are spreading Innovation and shirk must be stopped. Can
> you justify the wasting of time arguing about innovations? - can you
> discuss that inlight of the Qur'an and Sunnah.

A large part of the problem is your approach is too simplistic, and is
not consistent with much of the hadith literature.

Nuh Keller's article on "bid`a" is excellent and discusses this
thoroughly. You can read it at

http://66.34.131.5/ISLAM/nuh/bida.htm

Taking your (Salafi/Wahhabi) approach, you unfortunately label the
behavior of many of the Companions as bid`a. For example, I have even
heard Salafis / Wahhabis accusing the Companions of bid`a for praying
20 rak'ats in taraweeh prayers. That this kind of accusation is even
made shows that you consider yourselves to be superior to the Sahaba!

Perhaps these "problems" with their approach is the reason why Salafis
/ Wahhabis feel the need to tamper with the Islamic texts, as
discussed at

http://66.34.131.5/ISLAM/nuh/masudq3.htm

If your position was truly the correct one, you would not need to try
to alter the Islamic texts to support your position. By altering
Islamic texts, it is a tacit admission by the Salafis / Wahhabis that
their position is not supported by the Islamic texts as they are.

Shuaib

[Shuaib]

Imran Razi <ra...@ucla.edu> wrote in message news:<aaf6ma$ho2$1...@samba.rahul.net>...

> This is the state of "Islamic scholarship." While our brothers and
> sisters are getting slaughtered everywhere, and the ummah is suffering
> under massive social, political and economic problems, we get two
> "Islamic scholars" calling each other names. Our ulema have become
> like the rabbis who simply sit and argue and nitpick with one another,
> losing all meaning of the religion. Their knowledge is of no use to
> anyone.

You seem to assume that refuting falsehoods in the Muslim community is
not important, and that it is okay to allow such falsehoods to stand.
That's the only reason I can think of for your criticism of
refutations of falsehoods.

In contrast, I personally consider the refutation of such falsehoods
to be of the utmost importance. You cannot build a solid, correct
foundation on untruths. When you start with the wrong premise, you
will more often than not end up with the wrong conclusion. So it is
important to have the correct knowledge at the beginning.

It may seem of "no use" to you, but I disagree. I think the
consequences can be far-reaching, straight to the heart of Muslim and
Islamic society.

In your response, you did not address the actual content of the post
at all, but simply restricted yourself to an ad hominem attack.

Sometimes seemingly small things can have large consequences, which
may not always be predictable. This fact I think refutes your
criticism. You are stuck in "linear" thinking, whereas the world of
human society is in fact "nonlinear".

Shuaib

[saifu]

shua...@yahoo.com (Shuaib) wrote in message news:<ab28ga$khe$1...@samba.rahul.net>...

> Assalamu alaikum
>
> saifu...@yahoo.com (saifu) wrote in message news:<ab0iec$a5q$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
>

Bismillah, Alhamdulillah Wasselaatu wasselaamu 'alaa Resulillah,

> > Innovators who are spreading Innovation and shirk must be stopped. Can
> > you justify the wasting of time arguing about innovations? - can you
> > discuss that inlight of the Qur'an and Sunnah.
>
> A large part of the problem is your approach is too simplistic, and is
> not consistent with much of the hadith literature.

Simple in the sense that Islam "easy" to undersatnd and follow, Yes.

Allah (subhanehu wa ta'alaa) says:

"This day I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favor
upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion" Surah
Al-Maidah 3.

The Jahil (ignorant) does not perceive that Innovations, besides
being rejected by the Shari'ah, as a side effect, do cause division
within the Ummah -notice the example where Keller has to write a
refutation a gainst those who oppose Bid'ah. This is in contrast to
the position of our Salaf (our predecessors) who were adherents to
Islaam, who said: "Whenever a people introduce a Bid'ah (an
innovation), they destroyed its counterpart in the Sunnah."

Among the most important Sunnah that is being destroyed because of the
usless argument concerning "Bid'a" is Unity.

"And hold fast, all together, by the Rope which Allah (stretches out
for you), and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with
gratitude Allah's favor on you; for ye were enemies and He joined your
hearts in love, so that by His Grace, ye became brethren; and ye were
on the brink of the pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus doth
Allah make His Signs clear to you that ye may be guided" - Surah al
Imraan 103.

The position of the Sahaba (ridwanullahi 'alaihim) concerning
innovations is very clear. For example, when A man asked `Umar ibn
al-Khattaab: What is
"Those (angels) who gently take out (the souls of the believers)?"
(Surah an-Naazi`aat 2), He said, "If your head were shaved, I would
have beheaded you."
[Shaving his head was the sign of the Khawaarij. The man who asked
`Umar was called Sabeegh and His story is well-known. It is reported
by ad-Daarimee, al-Laalikaa'ee in as-Sunnah and many others.

If Umar (radiallahu 'anhu) treated Sabeegh with such harshness for
asking such seemingly valid question concerning an Ayah of the Qur'an,
what do you belive would be their position with newly introdused
Bid'a. Can you Imagine what they would do with the likes of Ibn Arabi
and his diffenders like Mr. Haddad and Innovators such as Keller.

>
> Nuh Keller's article on "bid`a" is excellent and discusses this
> thoroughly. You can read it at
>
> http://66.34.131.5/ISLAM/nuh/bida.htm

Aisha (Radiallalhu 'anhaa) reported, The Messenger of Allah (sallalahu
'alaihi wasallam) said: "Whoever innovates into this affair of ours
something that we have not commanded it is to be rejected" - Sahih
Bukhari and Muslim.

Jaabir (Radiallalhu 'anhu) narrated, The Messenger of Allah (sallalahu
'alaihi wasallam) said, "To proceed: The best speech is the Book of
Allah and the best guidance and example is that of Muhammad, and the
worse of all things are the newly invented things (in the religion),
for every innovation is a error and a misguidance." Sahih Muslim in
another narration: "Every innovation is a going astray and every
going astray is in the fire." reported by Tirmidhi.

The Messenger of Allah (sallalahu 'alaihi wasallam) said, "Verily I
shall proceed you to the Fountain (Al-Kawthar). Whosoever will pass by
me shall drink (from it) and never get thirsty. People whom I know and
who will know me will certainly come to me for drink but there will be
a barrier between them and me. Then I will say, "Verily they are of
me." It will be said, 'You certainly do not know what bid'ah
(innovation) they made after you.' Then I shall say, "Be off those who
made bid'ah after me." - Sahih Al Bukhari and Muslim.

Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud narrated, "The Messenger of Allah (sallalahu
'alaihi wasallam) drew a line for us and then said, 'This is Allah's
Straight Path. 'Then he drew lines to its right and left, then he
said, 'These are paths, upon every one of them there is a devil
calling towards it.' - Reported by Imam Ahmad.

By beautifying and presenting "bid`a" as excellent, Which path is
Keller calling to? It seems Keller is ignoring the clear commands of
teh Messenger of Allah (subhanehu wa ta'alaa):

"Beware of Satan, for the safety of your religion. He has lost all
hope that he will ever be able to lead you astray in big things, so
beware of following him in small things." - Excerpt from the Last
Sermon of the Messenger of Allah (sallalhu 'alahi wasallam)

Who better to refute keller:

Ibn Abbaas (radiallahu 'anhu) said:

"Indeed the most detestable of things to Allaah are the innovations."
- Reported by al Bayhaqiy in as-Sunan al Kubraa.

Ibn Umar (radiallahu 'anhum) said: "Every innovation is misguidance,
even if the people see it as something good." - Reported by Abu
Shaamah.

It is upto you to follow the sahaba or the likes of Keller.

We remind Keller and those who follow him to fear Allah (subhanehu wa
ta'alaa):

"Let those beware who oppose the command of the Prophet (sallallaahu
'alayhi wa sallam), lest they are afflicted with fitnah (trial), or
lest they are afflicted with a painful punishment." - Surah an-Nur
63.

>
> Taking your (Salafi/Wahhabi) approach, you unfortunately label the
> behavior of many of the Companions as bid`a. For example, I have even
> heard Salafis / Wahhabis accusing the Companions of bid`a for praying
> 20 rak'ats in taraweeh prayers. That this kind of accusation is even
> made shows that you consider yourselves to be superior to the Sahaba!
>

First, the Sahaba (ridweanullahi 'alahim) do not invent Bid'ah:

Abdullaah ibn Mas'ud (radiallaahu 'anhu) said:
"Follow and do not innovate, for you have been given that which is
sufficient (and every innovation is misguidance)." - Related by Wakee'
in azZuhd and Abu Khaythamah in Kitabul 'Ilm. Note, the addition "(and
every innovation is misguidance" is related by Imam at Tabaraani in al
Kabeer.

Now, if any of those whom you label as "Salafis / Wahhabis" accuse "
the Companions of bid`a for praying 20 rak'ats in taraweeh prayers" -
if it is true??? as you provide no evidence in the form of texual
quotes - then they are the worst of innovators and need to repent.

Who better to clarify this postion, Imaam Ibraahim an-Nakha'ee said,

"If the Companions had wiped over their finger nails then I would not
have washed them due to the great virtue of following them"

> Perhaps these "problems" with their approach is the reason why Salafis
> / Wahhabis feel the need to tamper with the Islamic texts, as
> discussed at
>
> http://66.34.131.5/ISLAM/nuh/masudq3.htm

A Major accusation, and it is Keller who is beautifying and presenting
"bid`a" as excellent who is making the accusation - conflict of
interest and reliability is an issue here. Can you provide some
evidence that we can see here on sri and confirm if the accusations
are true. Note that you will be required to solemnly testify and stand
by the accusations yourself and Keller said so will not help you? I
know that the likes of Keller falsely accuse the "Wahabis"/ "salafi".

It is also confusing to see that you associate evryone who oppose
Bid'a with those whom you label "Salafis Wahhabis ". Some people
introduce themselves as "Naqshabandi", "Rifa'i" but I never recall
introducing myself as "Wahabis"/ "salafi".

Also, your source of knowledge (Keller) is a very weak one:

The Messenger of Allah (sallalahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said: "
One of the signs (of the end of time) is that knowledge will be
associated with Juniors (asaghir)". Imam Ibn Mubarak was asked who the
Juniors (Asaghir) were, he said, Those who speak based on their
opinions; the one who narrates from the Seniors - The sahaba and those
who followed them - he is not among the Juniors (Asaghir) " reported
by Ibn "abdilbar in Jam'i Bayan Al "ILM wa Fadhlih - Ibn Abdul bar
clarifies that age (in reference to Asaghir) has nothing to do with
it.

>
> If your position was truly the correct one, you would not need to try
> to alter the Islamic texts to support your position. By altering
> Islamic texts, it is a tacit admission by the Salafis / Wahhabis that
> their position is not supported by the Islamic texts as they are.
>

You accuse me and you do not juistify your point by atleast provide
one single textual quote. And this is how the accusation against the
"Wahabis"/ "salafi" are spread - the accuser exspects that the
Majority of the readers would
not follow through to research and establish the facts. The nature of
these accusations are similar to the type that political parties may
make against each other. They contain those things which the accuser
thinks will get the reader's attention. He declares his
disappointement and expects that his victim to be seen nagatively.

I do not believe you undersand the clear prohibition of Bid'a. I do
not belive you have mastered the pure Suunah of the Messenger of Allah
let alone be in a position to dispute and defend innovations. I only
wish that Allah (subhanehu wa ta'alaa) give you the understanding.

The Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu `alaihi wa sallam) said:
"Whomsoever Allah wishes to show goodness, he gives him understanding
of the Religion." - Sahih Al Bukhaari and Muslim.

Saifu,

> Shuaib

[thebit]

Alwi Kamus wrote:

> Assalamu alaikum
>

waalaykum salaam

> of course i meant true ulama haq -

I have a question: Who decides who are the "true ulema haq"? What makes someone
a "true Ulema haq"?

I have often wondered what is mean by "The Ulema". I often see this phrase
pushed in as a way of asserting ones suprerioty in an argument. But to me it
seems meaningless. Do we have a critera for deciding who is the "true Ulema
haq"? We see all sects and schools who bring forth their own scholars. We then
end up attacking each other.

> As bro Dr Jeremiah put it - the religion solely exist in books - books
> only.
> i add - and in the chest of the ulama. only.

Then this is something we have copied from the Christians and Jews, who gave
their Religion to a preistly class. We never had a priestly class. Our Religion
isn't meant to be left in books for show and debate. It ought to be active in
society.

assalaamu `alaykum

[Alwi Kamus]

Assalamu alaikum

"thebit" wrote in message

> I have a question: Who decides who are the "true ulema haq"? What makes someone
> a "true Ulema haq"?

the criteria of true ulama (haq) has been documented exhaustively in
classical
Books, i.e. in Ihya of Imam al-Ghazali...
just go and read, understand it and decide for yourself..you are an
intelligent
and educated person.

> I have often wondered what is mean by "The Ulema". I often see this phrase
> pushed in as a way of asserting ones suprerioty in an argument. But to me it
> seems meaningless. Do we have a critera for deciding who is the "true Ulema
> haq"? We see all sects and schools who bring forth their own scholars. We then
> end up attacking each other.

apart from criteria listed in the classical books, here are some of my
personal
favourite criteria of true ulama:
they will never ask money from you, or persuade u to donate to his
cause/whatever/org
they are not really that happy if you gave them money.
they are not interested in gathering followers/forming their own
groupie/cult
they will personally serve you and make you feel comfortable
they treat you like their own sons/children
they listen and smile politely at your stupid jokes
and they will personally cook nice food and drink for you..

how about that? can you find some ulama like that?

> Then this is something we have copied from the Christians and Jews, who gave
> their Religion to a preistly class. We never had a priestly class. Our Religion
> isn't meant to be left in books for show and debate. It ought to be active in
> society.

This is one of your misconception
we never give religion to the ulamas - its the other way around
it is the ulama who gave us the religion.
As for religious rituals - ulama dont have monopoly -
funeral prayers, marriage ceremony, zakat cllections, congregation
prayers,
etc.. most of it were not done by ulamas
muslim laymen can do it - and they do it most of the time.
i have myself became imam of prayers for number of times in my village
and hometown
many fathers of the bride perform nikah and khutbah of their daughters,
not ulama
who said ulamas monopolised everithing?
Its not like the priestly class at all..
at least in my community, the ulama and the commoner are almost alike,
no uniform - and they mingled and blended into the community...

i find this continuous attempt to equate ulamas with 'priest and rabbis'
a bit
distasteful and way off the true reality.

Wassalam

[saifu]

Qas...@ziplip.com (GF Haddad) wrote in message news:<ab118n$cvm$1...@samba.rahul.net>...

> saifu...@yahoo.com (saifu) wrote in message news:<aaqle5$1hn$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
>

Bismillah, Alhamdulillah, Wasselaatu wasselamu 'alaa Resulillha,

> > A man asked 'Umar ibn al-Khattaab (radiallahu 'anhu): What is "Those
> > (angels) who gently take out (the souls of the believers)?" (Soorah
> > an-Naazi'aat 2) He said, "If your head were shaved, I would have
> > beheaded you." (Shaving his head was the sign of the Khawaarij).
>
> What `Umar (ra) more probably meant is: "If you had been a recidivist,
> I would have applied the death sentence to you." They used to shave
> the heads of those convicted of criminal offenses, as took place with
> `Umar's own son, `Abd al-Rahman, when he was convicted for
> drunkenness. The Khawarij did not appear as a sect until the time of
> `Ali (ra).
>

Wee, I have to expose your obscurantism using a Naqshabandi source(you
are a naqshabandi) - a website that confirms my point that you
dismissed as untrue, "Shaving his head was the sign of the Khawaarij".
Here is a version of a hadith about the Khawarij that suppots my point
- ironic, that it is found on a Naqshbandi website that Mr Haddad is
associated with - he is a naqshabandi:

----------------start quote ------------------
5. "There will be in my Community a dissent and a faction, a people
with excellent words and vile deeds. They will read Qur'an, but their
faith does not go past their throats. They will pass through religion
the way an arrow passes through its quarry. They will no more come
back to the religion than the arrow will come back to its original
course. They are the worst of human beings and the worst of all
creation. The one who kills them or is killed by them is blessed. They
summon to the book of Allah but they have nothing to do with it.
Whoever kills them is closer to Allah than they. Their sign is that
they shave (their heads)."
-------------------------end quote ----------------
source web address: -
http://www.naqshbandi.org/ottomans/wahhabi/hadith_about_najd.htm

Note how reliable the "wahabi/ Salafi" bashers are.

Allah (subhanehu wa ta'alaa) informed us about the these type of
people:

"And when they are called to Allāh (i.e. His Words, the Qur'ān) and
His Messenger (SAW), to judge between them, lo! a party of them refuse
(to come) and turn away.

But if the right is with them, they come to him willingly with
submission.

Is there a disease in their hearts? Or do they doubt or fear lest
Allāh and His Messenger (SAW) should wrong them in judgement. Nay, it
is they themselves who are the Zālimūn (polytheists, hypocrites and
wrong-doers, etc.)- Surah An-Nur 48 - 51.

Accordingly, Mr Haddad rejected the Hadith when it appeared to be
against his position and accepted the Hadith and used it against those
whom he address as "Wahaabi/Salafi".

> > Contrast the above position with the behaviour of the likes of Mr.
> > Haddad and his Shaikhs old and present. Can you imagine what the
> > Sahaba (redwanullahi 'alaihim a'jmaeen) would have done about them.
>
> I certainly can imagine the Sahaba bearing witness over which is the
> sectarian innovator - Mr. Saifu and his Wahhabi kind or the Friends of
> Allah and their students? - and look forward to that day.

Those who are alive can also witness the falshood that is promoted by
you and your masters. Can you Imagine what Umar (radilallahu) or the
Sahaba (ridwanullahi 'alahim) would have done to you and the likes of
you for defending Ibn Araabi. Here is what you posted:

---------------Start--------------------------
"Ibn Arabi
Dr. GF Haddad
>Ibn 'Arabi says in Dhakhaairul-A'laaq (p.93):
>"Before today, I used to criticise my companion if my religion was
not the one
>which he followed. But my heart changed to accept every image, so
pastures for
>the carefree lovers and convents for the monks. A house of idols and
the idol
>house at Taa'if, the tablets of the Torah and the mushaf of the
Qur'aan. I
>follow the religion of love wherever it takes me, so all religion is
my
>religion and belief."

The above is an adaptation from lines of poetry from Ibn `Arabi's work
Tarjuman al-Ashwaq ("The Translator of Yearnings"). Its style is
highly lyrical and meaning evidently metaphorical. It would be very
unfair or rather strange for this slim book to be adduced as precise
evidence of a particular belief or used as a proof against Ibn
`Arabi's own statement of doctrine in his massive Futuhat
al-Makkiyya."
------------- end of Dr. GF Haddad's words -----------

By way of analogy, I refered to the story:

"A man asked 'Umar ibn al-Khattaab (radiallahu 'anhu): What is "Those
(angels) who gently take out (the souls of the believers)?" (Soorah
an-Naazi'aat 2) He said, "If your head were shaved, I would have

beheaded you." (Shaving his head was the sign of the Khawaarij). The
man who asked 'Umar was called Sabeegh. It is also reported that 'Umar
ibn al-Khattaab (radiallahu 'anhu) beat Sabeegh, sevearly - reported
by al-Laalikaa'ee in as-Sunnah."

Contrast (case study and precedence) the above position with the
behaviour of the likes of Mr.Haddad and his Shaikhs old and present.

Can you imagine what the
Sahaba (redwanullahi 'alaihim a'jmaeen) would have done about them.

For example, the position of Mr. Haddad and his masters vis-a-vis the
Kufr utterances of Ibn Arabi is not secret. Recently, there was a post
where MR. Haddad was defending the glaring Kufr statements of Ibn
Arabi.

>

> > > to the profound fiqh/tasawwuf
> > > knowledge - no matter what
> > > happened to the ummah.
> >
> > Must you Juxtapose Tassawuf as part of Islam.
>
> The comment shows ignorance of the ethics of the Salaf.
> "Be both a Faqih and a Sufi - never just one." - Imam al-Shafi`i,
> Diwan.
> "Among the best of people is the Sufi learned in Fiqh." - Imam Sufyan
> al-Thawri as narrated by al-Harawi al-Ansari in his Tabaqat
> al-Sufiyya.
>

Tasawuf, at best, can be considered to based on the Ijtihad of the

people who practised it. And Insha Allah will be rewarded accordingly
- as Shaikh al Islam Ibn Taymiyya opines. But for you to put it as
part of Islam based on the
Qur'an and Sunnah it only shows bias. Can you give us an example of a
Sahaba who was practising "Tasawuf" or a saying of the Messsenger of
Allah (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) guiding us to practice Tasawuf.

If you need a thorough critsizm of the Sufism, you can refer to
talibis Iblees by Ibn Al Jawziy - it is interesting that you consider
him among "al-khalaf al-sadiqeen - the truthful successors " - no
doubt it is true. Can you provide us some quotes from his book
"Talbees Iblees" concerning Tasawuf (Sufism).

> > activities of our Islamic history. What would you consider the action
> > of al Izz bin Abdisalaam (rahimahullah) to be when he was making a
> > Khutba against the Sulatan of As-Shaam Malik Ismaeel who was
> > cooperating with the Christians (their is a parallel with the rulers
> > of our time)
>
> Malik Isma`il tactically gave away Sidon, Shaqif, Safad and other
> Muslim towns to the Franks in 640 to secure strategic control over
> Damascus and because of a disagreement with his nephew Najm al-Din
> Ayyub. Imam Ibn `Abd al-Salam declared this action unlawful and
> stopped praying for Malik Isma`il from the pulpit, for which he was
> imprisoned then exiled together with Ibn al-Hajib al-Maliki.

I wonder where this blunder "Isma`il tactically gave away Sidon,
Shaqif, Safad and other Muslim towns to the Franks in 640 " come from.
Who is reliable, Shaykh al-Islam or someone else. The fact is that
Isma'il made a tactical agreement with the the Christians to fight
against his Brother Najmudeen Ayyub(treason against the Muslims) and
according to As-Subkee he gave Saydaa to the Christians and according
to Al Maqrezee Safd and other fortification; and with this act of
treason he allowed the Christians to enter Dimashq and buy weapons and
other militery supply. And as I said before "their is a parallel with
the rulers of our time". No surprise with you defending another
transgression of the pure Shari'ah of Islam. Is it not obligatory to
cooperate with his Brother Najmudeen to fight against the Christians
as oposed to fighting his Muslim Brother by cooperating with the
enemies of Islam. Only a Munafiq would ignore the commands of Allah
(subhanehu wa ta'alaa):

"O you who believe! Take not as (your) Bitanah (advisors, consultants,
protectors, helpers, friends, etc.) those outside your religion
(pagans, Jews, Christians, and hypocrites) since they will not fail to
do their best to corrupt you. They desire to harm you severely. Hatred
has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal
is far worse. Indeed We have made plain to you the Ayāt (proofs,
evidences, verses) if you understand. " - Surah Al Imaran 118.

> Shaykh
> al-Islam was not "making Khutba against Malik Isma`il" - Allah have
> mercy on both of them - nor was the latter "cooperating with the
> Christians."
>

Shaikh al Islam's Du'aa: " Allahuma abrim lihathihill Ummati Ibram

Rushdin Yu'azu fihi awliya'uk wa Yuthalu fihi 'a'adaa'uk wa y'umalu
fihi bita'atik wa

yunhaa fihi 'an M'asiyatik)." is more than "stopped praying for
Malik". It is easy to see that the Supplication of Shaikh al islaam,
asking Allah (subhanehu wa ta'alaa) for a ruler who is Guided where
the beleivers will be held in high esteem and those opposed to Islam
are held in contempt (as opposed to what Isma'il did) is equivellant
to saying that Isma'il is a sinner, to say the least.

Who better to testify against him than his own words:

" Isma'il to the Franks: Do you hear the shaikh who is reading the
Qur'an? They said, "Yes" He said: " This is the most important Priest
of the Muslims, I imprisoned him for your sake, because he objected my
act of giving to you, the fortifications belonging to the Muslims. As
a result, I removed him from his position of giving sermon in Dimashq
and exiled him ..." The Franks said: "If he was our priest, we would
have washed his feet and drunk the water" - see Tabaqat of As-Subki
and Waa Islamah by Ahmad BaKathir. Allah (subhanehu wa ta'alaaa) will
Judge ismai'l for what he coceals in his heart, but we judge him based
on what is manifest.

> > where Imam an-Nawawi (rahimahullah) refused to sign a decree that
> > would authrize Dhahir Baybars to collect money from the people to
> > support the campaign against the Tatars show that the Ullema are part
> > of Islamic Politics.
>

<Unecessary dissection - simple point: Muslim Ullema are part of
islamic politics>

> khilaf, I refer to the position that was taken by Ibn Masu'd and Ibn
> > Umar (radiallahu 'anhum) when confronted with a Fiqh question - the
> > complaint that Uthman (radiallahu 'anhu) was not shortning the prayer
> > while
> > travelling - the Sunnah is to shorten prayer. After Confirming that
> > the sunnah is to shorten prayer while travelling, they simply said,
> > "Fitnah is evil" and left the issue with out further argument.
> > Although the people who brough the complaint expected Ibn Masu'd and
> > Ibn
> > Umar (radiallahu 'anhum) to do something about it.
>
> Another rewording of what is actually reported. First, Ibn Mas`ud did
> pray behind `Uthman (ra) even without shortening; Second, there are a
> number of reasons for which `Uthman (ra) did not shorten the prayer.

You have a habit of resorting to obscurantism. Who denied that he did
not pray behind Uthman (radiallahu 'anhu) - in fact, i pointed that he
(radilaaahu 'anhu) said: "Fitnah is evil" indicating that he believed
the sunnah to be against what Khalifah Uthman (radiallahu 'anhu) did
but would not oppose the khalifa by his action or words as suggested
by some people. The reason behide Uthman (radiallahu 'anhu) not
shortning the prayer (or more correctly not paying 2 cycles) - whether
they are valid or not - hold no bearing on Ibn Mas'ud's position that
he believed "Fitnah is evil" even if it requires to abandon the Sunnah
of the Messenger of Allah (sallalahu 'alaihi wasallam) of praying 2
Rak'ah while at mina. From ibn Mas'ud's and Ibn Umar's position, i was
trying to draw a lesson and point the misguided stance of those who
dispute in defending innovated practices. The simple point that I was
trying to make is : If the Sahaba prefer to abandon an established
Sunna to avoid Fitnah, what is the wisdom behind the innovators who
argue and create fitnah by introducing innovated practices into Islam
- this challenge apply to Mr. haddad and the likes of him.

There are many reasons given for Uthman (radiallahu 'anhu) not
shortning the prayer.

1. Abu Dawud mentioned that Uthman (radiallahu 'anh) had prayed four
rak'at at Mina instead of two because that year the beduins had come
in great numbers and he wished to teach them that the prayer consisted
in four cycles.

2. Uthman (radiallahu 'anhu) did not consider mina to be qualified as
having the chartacterstic of travel place as he was not required to
bring provision (no need for zaad wal Mazaad) as a traveller would do
- he has relatives in Mekkah.

3. Not all travelling could qulaify for shortning prayer - for example
it must be a travel for Hajj, 'Umra, or Jihad - as some interpret.

4. It is Rukhsaa and therefore optional.

All of them are to be invalid because the prayer of the traveller is 2
cycles and not considerd Qasr. Ibn Abbas said: "Whoever prays 4 cycles
while travelling it is as if he prayed 2 while not travelling" -
narrated by AdDhahak bin Mahazim.

It is was reported that Umar Ibn abdulAziz (radiallahu 'anhu) was
asked about praying the full cycles while traveling, for those who
prefer, he said: "No, Prayer while traveling is two, it is mandatory,
it is not valid, otherwise" - reported by ibn Hazm.

> Third, Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Maliki in his book al-Tamhid wa
> al-Bayan lists no less than fourteen Sahaba as not shortening the
> prayer while travelling including `A'isha (ra).

True, Ummul m'umineen, 'Ayisha (radiallahu 'anha) did no shorten
prayer while travelling. According to the ullema It is based on
T'aweel and it is not supported by a cogent nass from the sunnah of
the messenger of Allah (sallalahu 'alahi wa sallam) in contrast to
shortning prayer while travelling which is supported by a Mutawatir
narrations from the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (sallalahu 'alahi
wa sallam), from the practice of Abubaker and Umar (radilallahu
'anhum) as confirmed by Ibn Mas'ud and Ibn Umar (radiallahu 'anhum),
in Sahih al Bukhari:

Narrated 'Abdur Rahman bin Yazid:
"We offered a four Rakat prayer at Mina behind Ibn 'Affan . 'Abdullah
bin Masud was informed about it. He said sadly, "Truly to Allah we
belong and truly to Him we shall return." And added, "I prayed two
Rakat with Allah's Apostle at Mina and similarly with Abu Bakr and
with 'Umar (during their caliphates)." He further said, "May I be
lucky enough to have two of the four Rakat accepted (by Allah)."

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:

I offered the prayer with the "Prophet, Abu Bakr and 'Umar at Mina and
it was of two Rakat. 'Uthman in the early days of his caliphate did
the same, but later on he started praying the full prayer."

> This leads to the
> Fourth point, namely, that not only does the Sunna include not
> shortening prayer during travel, but also, shortening is considered
> Rukhsa in the Shafi`i Madhhab while not shortening is `Azima.
>

That is the assumption and the reasons given to the practice of not
shortning prayer while travelling, by Uthman and A'isha (radiallahu
'anhum).
This is contradicted by a clear Nass that shows the prayer of the
traveler is 2 cycles - in fact it is not considered Qasr. Umar
(radiallahu 'anh) said:
"the Prayer of Al Adhaa is two (cycles), the prayer of al Fitr is two,
the prayer of Jumu'ah is two, and the prayer of Travel is two,
Complete and not Qasr as per the words of your Prophet (sallalahu
'alaihi wasallam)" - reported by imam Ahmad and an-Nasa'i.

> These points are probably what the ignorant will describe as
> "unimportant minor fiqh differences" and to mention them is probably
> "weakening the Umma"!
>

Ibn Mas'ud considered it as such and said: "Fitnah is evil". I cannot
make you understand the wisdom of Ibn Mas'ud:

Allah (subhanehu wa Ta'alaa) says, "Among them are some who (pretend
to) listen to thee: But canst thou make the deaf to hear,- even though
they are without understanding? " - Surah Yusuf 42.

That is why I said that your fate would have been the fate of Sabeegh
if you lived at the time of Umar (radiallahu 'anhu).

Among the most important Sunnah that is being destroyed because of the
usless argument concerning "Bid'a" is Unity.

"And hold fast, all together, by the Rope which Allah (stretches out
for you), and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with
gratitude Allah's favor on you; for ye were enemies and He joined your
hearts in love, so that by His Grace, ye became brethren; and ye were
on the brink of the pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus doth
Allah make His Signs clear to you that ye may be guided" - Surah al
Imraan 103.

You are not going to follow the advice of the Messenger of Allah(
sallalahu 'alaihi Wasallam) as you have given your allegiance to the
one who raison d'etre is opposing the Messenger of Allah (sallalahu
'alaihi wa sallam).

"Beware of Satan, for the safety of your religion. He has lost all
hope that he will ever be able to lead you astray in big things, so
beware of following him in small things." - Excerpt from the Last

Sermon of the Messenger of Allah (sallalhu 'alahi wasallam)

> Was-Salamu `ala man ittaba`a al-Huda.
>

Wa 'alaika,

Saifu,

> Hajj Gibril

[thebit]

asalaamu `alaykum

Alwi Kamus wrote:

> how about that? can you find some ulama like that?

All the qualities you listed above are (sadly) missing in some of our current day
Ulema. Tact and diplomacy, and an understanding of the person asking the questions,
are unfortunately missing in some of our Religious personalities today.

> This is one of your misconception
> we never give religion to the ulamas - its the other way around
> it is the ulama who gave us the religion.

Yes. I have never denied this. What ever iota of Islam I know of comes from someone
who is an alim. All the books I read are written by learned men ("ulema"). But this
was not my point. My point was that over time the thoughts and opinions and
deriviations of our learned Scholars of the Past (and of today) have become rigid and
static, with the followers ahdereing to every word from these men as though it were
virtually divine. No one is saying we deny our past, or refuse to learn from it. My
point was that today, we have to do what they did: Re-understand the Qur'an and apply
it. Not just copy ad verbatim some of their rulings, which can be wrong (since they
wre human and fallible). If someone questions a ruling from a scholar of the past, he
is automatically labelled a "heretic" or a "modernist".

> As for religious rituals - ulama dont have monopoly -
> funeral prayers, marriage ceremony, zakat cllections, congregation
> prayers,
> etc.. most of it were not done by ulamas
> muslim laymen can do it - and they do it most of the time.

Yes. I agree. But my point is that a there is an intellectual stagnation among the
"hierarchy" (as it were) of Muslims. We have almost next to no debate and discussion,
just copy and past from old fatwas, made and drawn up in a different time. Some
scholars have taken steps to try and invigorate the intellecual process among the
Muslims, by looking back to the original sources and trying to understand the Message
of the Islam, its laws and its philosophy. Examples include Hameed-ud-Din Farahi,
Ameen Islahi, Maududi etc. But not enough. That is not to say these men are 100
percent correct. They may well not be. I'd like to see efforts from other scholars
questioning their presentation of Islam with integrity and sincerity. Not just
labelling them as hypocrites and insulting them. The ones I mentioned (among others)
have made the efforts to re-understand the Sources of Islam, the same way the
scholars of old did. No one labelled Imam Abu Haneefah "wrong" for his efforts, just
as no one labelled Imam Malik "wrong" for his efforts, though the two may have
differed. People actually recognise that they made a sincere stuggle in their own
way.

> who said ulamas monopolised everithing?

That was not the point of my post. We have to be thankful that in the Islamic
community, by and large, the Qur'an was a book open to all, experts and laymen alike,
and it wasn't hoarded by a clergy. But it seems we have intellectually stagnated,
with different sects revelling in their own opinions, and have (in essence) created
"churches", each with their own scholars, whose words are used to attack each others
ideas. Look at the lengthy pages of "refutations" of "heretics" on this NG. Instead
of showing us why these people are wrong, the character of the individual is attacked
and other opinions are quoted supporting the 'refutation'. Quoting an opinion of
person against the opinion of another is not a way to encourage learning. We have to
look at the basis of the opinions.

> Its not like the priestly class at all..
> at least in my community, the ulama and the commoner are almost alike,
> no uniform - and they mingled and blended into the community...

Please do not contruse my post as an attack on each an every individual alim. If it
looked like that, I'll be the first to apologise. It was actually meant to question
the behaviour of some their followers (and some of our Relogious leaders, who think
they have a hegemony over Islamic thinking).

> i find this continuous attempt to equate ulamas with 'priest and rabbis'
> a bit
> distasteful and way off the true reality.

I don't think any alim would construe himself as a "preist" or "rabbi". But it seems
that way, sadly. I cannot remember the last time a local learned man went from house
to house in my area and asked people if there was something he could do to help.
Perhaps they need to open "Religious surgeries", where one can pop by and ask for
help, in private if need be. Of course this depends on the individual alim. If a
Muslim has a question, which is a taboo in Muslim society, he ought to be able to ask
without being attacked and insulted. My final point would be to say: No scholar would
ever label himself (or herself) as 100 percent accurate in their presentation of
Islam. They would recognise their limitations and that a difference of opinion is
more than likely. Everyone can see their honesty and integrity.

asalaamu `alaykum