Meaning of SALAF
Fouad Haddad
MEANING OF "SALAF"
There are lexical and technical definitions for the word "salaf."
Lexically, al-salaf means:
- one's ancestors or older relatives, particularly those of pious memory.
- one's past good deeds.
- an advance deposit on a sale.
- a loan, like qard.
In the legal terminology of Islamic Law it has the following meanings:
- it refers to the early Mujtahid Imams of the Schools who are accepted and
imitated, such as Abu Hanifa and his companions Abu Yusuf and
Muhammad al-Shaybani, the Companions of the Prophet, and the Tabi`in.
This is the definition of Ibn `Abidin.
- it refers to the first community of the Muslims until Muhammad ibn
al-Hasan al-Shaybani. This is `Abd al-`Al's definition.
- in the Shafi`i school, it means: Those who came first in the history
of this Community. (awa'il hadhihi al-umma)
- it refers to the Companions, the Successors, and the immediate
followers of the Successors, who are encompassed by the hadith of the
Prophet: "The best of centuries is my century, then the one that follows
it, then the one that follows that."
Sources:
- Sa`di Abu Habib: al-Qamus al-fiqhi lughatan wa istilahan "Dictionary
of Islamic Law: Lexical and Technical" (Damascus: Dar al-fikr, 1408/1988)
p. 180.
- Muhammad Rawwas Qal`aji and Hamid Sadiq Qunaybi, Mu`jam lughat
al-fuqaha' "Compendium of Islamic Legal Terminology" (Beirut: Dar
al-Nafa'is, 1405/1985) p. 248.
- Nawawi, Tahrir al-tanbih mu`jamun laghawi p. 209.
- Ibn Manzur, Lisan al-`Arab.
On the first page of Muhammad Sa`id Ramadan al-Buti's book entitled
al-Salafiyya marhalatun zamaniyyatun mubarakatun la madhhabun islami
"The Salafiyya is a blessed period of history, not an Islamic school of
law" (Damascus; Dar al-fikr, 1408/1988) is found the following definition:
"The established technical definition of the term salaf is: the first
three centuries in the age of this Muslim Community, the Community of our
Master Muhammad, upon him blessings and peace. This is derived from his
saying according to the narration of the Two Shaykhs [Bukhari and Muslim]
from `Abd Allah ibn Mas`ud: {The best of people are my century, then those
that follow them, them those that follow the latter. After that there will
come people whose witness will jump ahead of their oaths, and their oaths
will jump ahead of their witness."
Blessings and peace on the Prophet, his Family, and his Companions
Fouad Haddad
fha...@sunnah.org
__________________________________________________________________________
http://sunnah.org/ http://www.naqshbandi.org/frmpract.htm
http://kohala.huskynet.com/ihlas/index.htm http://www.ummah.org.uk/masud/
http://members.aol.com/askgive/stories.htm http://web.syr.edu/~maalkadh/
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8139/index.html
Hazem Nasereddin
Al-manhaj assalfi (or the methdology of following the salaf) means the
methdology of following quran and sunnah accoridng to what the first 3
generations of the muslims understode to be like.
the salaf as an islamic term means the first 3 generations of the
muslims only. we say assalafu assali7 to distingusih between a rightious
one among the salaf (like Abu Bakr RA) and between a deviant one (like
abdullah bin saba'). That is why the mahhaj is called "manhaj ittiba3
assalfu assali7" (the methdology of following the rightious predecessors)
The first one to put the term "salafi" was shiekh al-islam ibn tamiyah
rahimahu allah.
the muslim who wants to follow Islam exactelly like it was at the time of
the prophet and the sahabah, in the understanding, in the aqeedah, in the
a7kam is a salafi muslim, or a muslim that follows the manhaj of the salaf.
A salafy muslim only accept to understand quran according to what the
sahabah understode, the verse in quran can have but ONE meaning and that
is the menaing the sahabah understode. and that is the meaning we must
follow. Therefore a salafy tafseer of quran is 100% of what the sahabah
understode the verses to mean, we do not accept that a certain shiekh
would contempulate for a day or a month and then come up for nea meaning
for verses that the BEST of the muslims understode differently.
That is why Ibn katheer put his excellent tafseer book containing ONLY
what was narrated of the sahabah of understanding quran, rahimahu allah
wa kathara min amthalih.
The followrs of manhaj asslaaf do not take a hadith, and then explain it
as they wish like all deviant do, they take the hadith, and search for
what was the understanding fo the companions for that hadith and how did
they apply it and that to them is the true meaning of the hadeeth.
A salafy muslim does not accept additions to islam, a salafy muslim truly
believes that islam was complete on the day of hujatul-wada3 as the
prophet said "today i have compeleted your religion for you". Any addition
to Islam is bad. A proof - to a salafy muslim - for that is what ibn omar
used to say "every innovation is bad even if the people see it as good"
A salafy muslim undertsands that the faith of the human is the most
important thing, because as clearly said in quran the punishment for kufr
or shirk is eternal hellfire. Therefore a salafy muslim makes sure he
followes the faith (aqeedah) that the salaf used to believe in so that he
can save himself from eternal hellfire waqana wa waqakum minha Allah.
Q) you say, why must we follow the salaf in our understanding?
1 The salaf are the best of the Islamic nation. They are the best muslims.
Proof: the prophet said in an authentic hadith "the best of my nation is
the generation i was born to (companions-sahabah), those second to
them (in goodness) are the generation who come after them (tabi3een), then
those second to those are those who come after those (tabi3i al-tabi3een)."
is it not smart to follow the best of the nation?
and this hadith is proof that the salaf is just the first 3 generations.
2 people in the day of judgement are three groups, the people of the
right, the people of the left and the close ones to allah. Allah says in
quran that these close ones to Allah are a great number of the first of
the islamic nation and a few number of the later. Look at ibn katheer for
the details of the tafseer.
we understand from this that the salaf were more rightious group of
people, therefore they are indeed more correct. and we notice that most
deviations like exgerated sufism and jahmiyah and mu3tazillah and
falasifah and asha3irah all came AFTER the first 3 generations. The
methdology of following the salaaf aims to purify muslims from the extras
that was added to islam, and return islam to the understanding of the
generations that the prophet praised.islam according to manhaj assalaf is
Islam without any additions or any deletions. complete Islam. Pure Islam.
Nothing added. Nothing taken Away. Like the sahabah lived it.
3 Allah says in quran "fa in aamanu bi mithli ma aamantum bih fa qad
ihtadu, wa in tawalo fa hom fi shiqaq" Surat al baqara (if they believe
in what you ''speaking to the conpamions'' believe in then they are
guided, if they refuse to do so then they are in division."
4 The prophet said in a sahih hadith "those who will live among you will
see a lot of changes, cling tight to my sunnah and the sunnah of my
rightiously guided khulafa', cling to it with the most inner of your
teeth and remember that ever new thing that will be introduced into your
religion (after the prophet death) is an innovation and every innovation
is misguidence"
5 The hadith about the saved group describes them as those who follow what
he and his companions are on as narrated in mustadrak al-7akim. (jews will
split into 71 sects, christians into 72 and my nation into 73, 72 in hell
and 1 is saved ... companiosn asked "who are those saved group", the
prophet said "those who follow what i and my companions are on.")
The followers of manhaj assalaf are not a group that is seperate
from muslims, or consider themselves a seperate group withen islam (like
mathhabis, or hizbis), because understanding Islam according to the salaf
rejects 3asabiyah and grouping. The followers of manhaj assalaf are
muslims and are an inseperable part of the muslims nation, and they should
not group only with each other and form hizbiyah or 3asabiyah. they are
an integral part of the muslim nation. The followers of manhaj assalaf
are the onyl ones active today in refuring deviant sects and explaining
to the muslims why are these groups deviant and trying to give advice to
the peopel to stay away from these groups and their deviants, and advise
to the members of these groups maybe Allah will guide their hearts. That
is why the followers of manhaj asslaf are almost the only ones attacking
the kufr and shirk in the books of the shi3a! they are the only ones
that in lebanon fight the deviant ahbash! they are the only ones that
fight the grave worship and supplications to other than allah! they are
the only ones who believe in what the companions believed in in mattares
of where is Allah and what are his attributes!
And this not to make tazkiyah of them and not to anything other, but this
is indeed the fruit of following a manhaj as correct and as beatiful as
manhaj assalaf assali7.
The enemies of the followers of manhaj assalaf like to label them with the
term "wahhabis", the wahhabishwere the followers of Shikeh Mohammad bin
abdul-wahhab who came in the last century of the ottoman times and
succeded in cleaning the arabian penensila from the shirk and kufr of
using magic and worshing graves of the companions and worshiping the
prophet in the name of Islam! he and his followers cleansed arabia of so
many innovations like building high graves and having 4 athans and 4
salahs one for each mathab in al-ka3ba. Mohammad bin abdul-wahhab and his
followers were hanbali followers of manhaj asslaf, we are sincerely proud
to be called the likes of shikeh mohammad and his students who like ibn
taymiyah: supported the sunnah, revived what was forgotten of it, fought
the innovations and fough kufr and shirk day and night to purify islam
from what was added to it.
if following islam as the sahabah understode it to be like means
wahhabiyah to deviants like 12er imam shi3a and isma3ilis, then we hold
this name "wahhabi" as a badge of honor on our chests and we look forward
to living up to the level of shaikhul-islam ibn taymiyah and his student
mohammad bin abdul-wahhab rahimahuma allah wa radiya anhuma. We say to
these deviants : come up with an authentic proof that what Mohammad
abdul-wahhab and his followers did was not according to quran and sunnah.
The fail to answer and they sometimes try ot lie their way our,
unauthenticaed slander is their best answer. Anyhow, the term wahhabi is
perhhaps a good one, How could we not say so when "Al-wahhab"(The one who
bestwos gifts) is one of the names of Allah? Alhumdolilah that the enemeis
of manhaj assalaf picked an excellent name to use in their distorted
propaganda and shamful slander of the follower of manhaj assalaf.
The followers of manhaj assalaf have indeed a great manhaj, but i remind
you all that they are human, and they do make mistakes. A follower of
manhaj asslaf may make mistakes out of his ignorance (and i sincerely
admit that i indeed fall into that description). People should not blame
the manhaj of the salaf if the followers of the manhaj make mistakes like
treat them harshly or advise them publically, because the fact remains
that the manhaj of following the salaf is indeed correct and right, but
the followers of manhaj assalaf are humans who make mistakes, insha'
Allah listen to advice so it is best to advise them to what they may not
be aware of.
I ask Allah to forgive me and guide me
I ask Allah to forgive you all and guide you all
Wassalamu alaikom, wa rahmatu allahi, wa barakatuhu
PS to Akhi Fouad Haddad: if you are reading this please send a copy to Mr
Sa3eed Al-Buti. Please also mention that we are all happy that he left the
naqshabandis and stopped the music things and many other innovations, but
it would be better if he left all of sufism, better not stop where
al-ghazali stopped, there is still one last methdology called manhaj
assalaf. and also please tell him to kindly tone down his attacks (and
perhaps wallahu a3lam slander) of shikeh nassir addin al-albani. wa jazak
allah khairan wa hadani wa iyyak.
--
-=<<( ht...@ee.mcgill.ca )>>=- ,=====================.
-=<( http://www.ee.mcgill.ca/~htana )>=- | HaZeM T. NaSeRedDiN |`.
`====================='`:
`--------------------`'
Fouad Haddad
>Al-manhaj assalfi (or the methdology of following the salaf) means the
>methdology of following quran and sunnah accoridng to what the first 3
>generations of the muslims understode to be like.
Mustalah or technical terminology in the Islamic sciences is not taken
except from scholars. If there are authoritative sources among the
fuqaha' of the schools and the hadith masters who say the above, cite them.
>The first one to put the term "salafi" was shiekh al-islam ibn tamiyah
>rahimahu allah.
Where and in what context?! When supporting an issue that is under question,
cite your source. Differ from the SRI Christians and show intellectual
integrity. Citing the source is part of the religion. AL-ISNADU MIN AL-DIN.
>the muslim who wants to follow Islam exactelly like it was at the time of
>the prophet and the sahabah, in the understanding, in the aqeedah, in the
>a7kam is a salafi muslim, or a muslim that follows the manhaj of the salaf.
There is NO MUSLIM except those who want to adhere to Islamic belief,
doctrine, and law principles exactly like it was at the time of the Prophet
and the Sahaba. To deliberately differ from that throws one out of Islam.
And to suggest that there are Muslims who want other than that is a lie.
So there is no justification at all to add the term "Salafi" to Muslim here.
>A salafy muslim only accept to understand quran according to what the
>sahabah understode, the verse in quran can have but ONE meaning and that
>is the menaing the sahabah understode.
That is again outright falsehood and spoken carelessly. You need only open
the book of Tafsir al-Qur'an in Sahih Bukhari to disprove it. There are many
ma'thur meanings for many verses of Qur'an. And the Prophet said: "Whoever
interprets Qur'an according to his own understanding [i.e. claims something
about the meaning of Qur'an without knowledge], let him prepare himself for
his seat in the fire."
and that is the meaning we must
>follow. Therefore a salafy tafseer of quran is 100% of what the sahabah
>understode the verses to mean, we do not accept that a certain shiekh
>would contempulate for a day or a month and then come up for nea meaning
>for verses that the BEST of the muslims understode differently.
We do not accept the interpretation of someone who is speaking from
the top of his head. From now on please provide exact sources for
your statements about Qur'an, hadith, usul, terminology, and the
positions of the scholars on any issue you bring up.
>That is why Ibn katheer put his excellent tafseer book containing ONLY
>what was narrated of the sahabah of understanding quran, rahimahu allah
>wa kathara min amthalih.
This is utter nonsense. Ibn Kathir also included many of the Tafsir
of the Tabi`in such as al-Hasan, `Ilqimah, Mujahid, Muqatil, and others!
It seems you are not a frequent reader of Ibn Kathir or this would be obvious
to you.
>The followrs of manhaj asslaaf do not take a hadith, and then explain it
>as they wish like all deviant do, they take the hadith, and search for
>what was the understanding fo the companions for that hadith and how did
>they apply it and that to them is the true meaning of the hadeeth.
I see more sustained deviancy and aberration in two or three posts
of the so-called followers of "Salafi" ideology than in dozens of posts
by other Muslims. A while ago Nasereddin was flatly corrected on a
basic issue of hadith on which he made an evident mistake, saying
that the Prophet SAWS. only fought in Hunayn when that was not the case.
Instead of accepting a true correction and saying al-hamdu lillah for being
shown "the true meaning of the hadeeth" he turned to claim that I only
corrected him because I and my shaykh follow other than the Manhaj al-
Salaf! I am still waiting for the apology for that slander. Preaching that
is built on slanders and fanaticism is from shaytan, we seek refuge in Allah
from useless knowledge and the teaching of the unschooled.
O Muslims: Keep to the 4 Schools of Ahl al-Sunna and stay away from
those who call themselves "Salafis", they use coated words to disguise
their ill-will and innovative character. They are basically non-madhhabi
and the massive majority of the scholars including Ibn Taymiyya have
declared this a deviation. Ibn Taymiyya said in Mukhtasar al-fatawa al-
misriyya: "One who rejects what is in the Four Schools is misguided, for
the entire Shari`a is not found anywhere else other than in them." Only
accredited scholars of the Four Schools have their isnads back to the
Prophet and the Companions and they are the only true followers of the Salaf.
Fouad Haddad
fha...@sunnah.org
Hazem Nasereddin
In article <5jh8k9$9...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
Fouad Haddad <fha...@sunnah.org> wrote:
>In article <5jecc6$n...@shell3.ba.best.com> ht...@Aries.EE.McGill.CA (Hazem Nasereddin) writes:
>
>>methdology of following quran and sunnah accoridng to what the first 3
>>generations of the muslims understode to be like.
>
>except from scholars. If there are authoritative sources among the
>fuqaha' of the schools and the hadith masters who say the above, cite them.
Check with the books of Ibn bazz, Al-Albani and Safar Al-Hawalli.
I personally got this defintion from tapes of Shiekh Nassir Addin Al-albani.
>>The first one to put the term "salafi" was shiekh al-islam ibn tamiyah
>>rahimahu allah.
>
>Where and in what context?! When supporting an issue that is under question,
>cite your source. Differ from the SRI Christians and show intellectual
>integrity. Citing the source is part of the religion. AL-ISNADU MIN AL-DIN.
Akhi give me a break, i am not a 3alim that can prepare a whole book for
you, or write al-3aqeedah assalafiyah referenced in a couple of hours, i
am not ibn taymiyah, and even ibn taymiyah needed the time between thuhr
and asr to write al-3aqeedah al-hamawiyah!
I can not do the above because i am a student of knowledge, not a scholar.
>>the muslim who wants to follow Islam exactelly like it was at the time of
>>the prophet and the sahabah, in the understanding, in the aqeedah, in the
>>a7kam is a salafi muslim, or a muslim that follows the manhaj of the salaf.
>
>There is NO MUSLIM except those who want to adhere to Islamic belief,
>doctrine, and law principles exactly like it was at the time of the Prophet
>and the Sahaba.
no akhi, there are many. like those who believe al-qubrusi can add
"highways" to islam and can make up new kinds of worship that draws a
person closer to allah (mentioning Allahs name while dancing and listening
to haram sufi music) or supplicate to other than Allah like your sufi
shiekhs publically advises.(madad ya hasan, madad ya jilani, madada ya ibn
3arabi ... etc)
Some muslims follow the sahabah. some follow the dreams of their scholars
as a source of legislation.
and also, some follow the salaf in matter so the sifat of Allah
( http://www.ee.mcgill.ca/~htana/sifat.gif ) and some don't, they just
make up their own understanidng that did not exist at the time of the
prophet, the example of those are the mu3tazillah, the habashis and the
asha3irah like yourself ya akhi.
>To deliberately differ from that throws one out of Islam.
no actually it doesn't, the mu3tazillah differ with the agreement of the
salaf and they are not considered kafirs. Rejection of one verse in quran
is enough for kufr, but rejection of one hadeeth or ijma3 assalaf is not
kufr, just fusuq in the first case and deviation (dalal) in the second.
>And to suggest that there are Muslims who want other than that is a lie.
>So there is no justification at all to add the term "Salafi" to Muslim here.
of course there is. And of course that are muslims that want and do
follow other than the salaf in their understanding. Like those who follow
Qubrusi, kabbani, habashi, ash3ari , etc
ba3dain i do not say I am salafy. I say i am salafiyel-manhaj insha' allah.
big difference.
>>A salafy muslim only accept to understand quran according to what the
>>sahabah understode, the verse in quran can have but ONE meaning and that
>>is the menaing the sahabah understode.
>
>That is again outright falsehood and spoken carelessly. You need only open
>the book of Tafsir al-Qur'an in Sahih Bukhari to disprove it. There are many
>ma'thur meanings for many verses of Qur'an. And the Prophet said: "Whoever
>interprets Qur'an according to his own understanding [i.e. claims something
>about the meaning of Qur'an without knowledge], let him prepare himself for
>his seat in the fire."
I don't see how are we in disagreement here, please explain more.
anyhow i agree with what you wrote. Any tafseer for quran has to be
supported by a narration that goes back to the salaf, otherwise it is
rejected. for example, if a certain verse meant "A" and there is a chain
of narrators that supports this tafseer, then a 3alim read the verse and
explained it "B" and there is nothing to supprt that, just what came up
to his mind, then that tafseer is out of the window.
>and that is the meaning we must
>>follow. Therefore a salafy tafseer of quran is 100% of what the sahabah
>>understode the verses to mean, we do not accept that a certain shiekh
>>would contempulate for a day or a month and then come up for nea meaning
>>for verses that the BEST of the muslims understode differently.
>
>We do not accept the interpretation of someone who is speaking from
>the top of his head. From now on please provide exact sources for
>your statements about Qur'an, hadith, usul, terminology, and the
>positions of the scholars on any issue you bring up.
"la yokalifu allahu nafsan illa wis3aha"
if i was a 3alim, i would do the above, but i am not a 3alim, i am Talib
3ilm. Give me a break ya ustaz Fouad, how long has it been sicne you have
been a gabriel? for me it is 1 year and 3 months, i don't think that in 1
year 3 months i can learn all the above that you demand of me.
ba3dain remember that I dont work for the naqshabandi haqqani foudation
of ahlu-al-bid3a wal-khurafa, so i do not have lot of free time on my
hands. :)
>>That is why Ibn katheer put his excellent tafseer book containing ONLY
>>what was narrated of the sahabah of understanding quran, rahimahu allah
>>wa kathara min amthalih.
>
>This is utter nonsense. Ibn Kathir also included many of the Tafsir
>of the Tabi`in such as al-Hasan, `Ilqimah, Mujahid, Muqatil, and others!
>It seems you are not a frequent reader of Ibn Kathir or this would be obvious
>to you.
May Allah forgive me for one more of my ignorant mistakes. I meant to say
that ibn katheer wrote his whole book based on the saying os the SALAF
who are the SAHABAH, THE TABI3EEN, AND THE TABI3I-ALTABI3EEN. instead of
just saying only the sahbah. And again, following those 3 generations in
udnerstanding of islam is salafy, therefore ibn katheers is tafseer
salafy lil-quran.
>>The followrs of manhaj asslaaf do not take a hadith, and then explain it
>>as they wish like all deviant do, they take the hadith, and search for
>>what was the understanding fo the companions for that hadith and how did
>>they apply it and that to them is the true meaning of the hadeeth.
>
>I see more sustained deviancy and aberration in two or three posts
>of the so-called followers of "Salafi" ideology than in dozens of posts
>by other Muslims. A while ago Nasereddin was flatly corrected on a
>basic issue of hadith on which he made an evident mistake, saying
>that the Prophet SAWS. only fought in Hunayn when that was not the case.
so what? let this stupid ignorant hazem nasereddin bang his head against
the wall! better let him eat brokoli and celery! what is hazem naseereddin
to judge salafies from hazem? hazem is a simple student of Islam that
only started learning about islam a year ago! he is nothing. Why should
the mistakes of a half-student of 3ilm like hazem make al-manhaj assalafy
bad?
Al-manhaj assalafy is not hazem or fullan or 3iltan. Al-manhaj assalfy is
a manhaj by its own, you don't need to look at what the ignorant among the
salafies (like hazem) say to judge this manhaj, judge the manhaj by what
it is! not by what its little followers err! It even wouldn't be fair
judging this manhaj by the udnerstaing of just one shaikh, you need to see
more than one and judge on theoverall level.
>Instead of accepting a true correction and saying al-hamdu lillah for being
>shown "the true meaning of the hadeeth" he turned to claim that I only
>corrected him because I and my shaykh follow other than the Manhaj al-
>Salaf!
By the way, the post was about al-manhaj assalafy, not about hazem
nasereddin.
but maybe, ya akhi, you are using the mistakes of the simple newly
returning to islam Hazem to demonise a manhaj that you can not refute by any
other methods?!
>Preaching that
>is built on slanders and fanaticism is from shaytan, we seek refuge in Allah
>from useless knowledge and the teaching of the unschooled.
>
>O Muslims: Keep to the 4 Schools of Ahl al-Sunna and stay away from
>those who call themselves "Salafis",
how typical of a sufi.
they tell muslims "stay a blind follower! forget your mind! how dare you
question our shaikh??? who needs a methdology for understanding Islam! why
sould this era of islamic history be Islamically productive! why should
you people undertsand islam, just follow it blindly, kabbani will answer
all your questions, you just follow blindly and most importantly, stay
away from those muslims who want you to understand this deen! no these
salafies are bad! they want you to understand and not follow blindly as
much as you can! these salafies are trouble for our shiekh kabbani, when
he last came to montreal they cornered him with their questions and he
could nto answer, why? it is because they LEARN islam and they do not
IMITATE BLINDLY!"
"oh these salafies, they are so evil, whenever the 4 mathabs disagree they
just don't give us a rest and just follow one of them blindly, they must
check the strength and weakness of the evidences of each scholar and then
find what is the most suitable Hukm and follow it, today the find that
shafi3i has a sahih hadith that the others didn't know about, so they
follow his opinion on that matter, tomorrow in another case they find that
the hadith that Imam ahmad used was weak so they don't follow his opinion
and follow the others! these people are going to make us crazy! can't
they imitate blindly and forget about it? do they have to be so eager to
follow the truth?! can't they sing and dance and say "allah 7ai, allah
7ai, allah 7ai, fo' el-ard wa ta7t el-mai" until they fall out of
consisiouness from the LOVE of ALLAH! and just forget about this truth?!
Akhi fouad, why don't you attend a Halaqa by a shaikh that follows manhaj
assalaf and ask him to give them something without a proof for once, and
see how many of them will right away demand a proof from quran and
sunnah. Better, see how many of them, will check the sources after the
shaikh gives them the evidence. And then ask them who taugh them to do
that? could it be, the salafies?!
>they use coated words to disguise
>their ill-will and innovative character. They are basically non-madhhabi
>and the massive majority of the scholars including Ibn Taymiyya have
>declared this a deviation.
no in fact it is not. No scholar would agree that you follow him if his
opinion is wrong. Lets face it, a big imam may give a fatwa that something
is permissble because he didn't find any hadith that says it is not, an
imam that came later would find a hadith therefore he would declare it
haram. it is not permissbale to do the haram when we know for sure that
the first imam made a mistake that was out of his hand, and just follow
him blindly. Why this 3asabiyah? follow the truth, no need to imitate
when you can understand! god gave you a mind that you can use in these
cases! find the truth for yourself.
>Ibn Taymiyya said in Mukhtasar al-fatawa al-
>misriyya: "One who rejects what is in the Four Schools is misguided, for
>the entire Shari`a is not found anywhere else other than in them."
you are misinterpretting his words, he didn't say follow the mathhabs
blindly, in fact he advised against blind taqleed if the person can do
without, how could he not when it was killing the muslims at those times?
besides, ibn taymiyah disagreed with all the 4 schools of fiqh in many
cases, and let us remember that in the issue of promising to make talaqa
he was ALONE agaiants the sufis, the mathabis and almost everyone yet
today his opinion is adopted by everybody.
>Only
>accredited scholars of the Four Schools have their isnads back to the
>Prophet and the Companions and they are the only true followers of the Salaf.
Ibn taymiyah became the head of Al-mathhab al-hanbali when he was 20
years old, his father was the head of the mathhab before him.
I advise any muslim to seek true knowledge, based on UNDERTSANDING not on
blind following and 100% momorising for things he doesn't really
understand. And a good advise would be to check the claim of the
followers of manhaj assalaf, do they really follow the salaf?
if they do, then stick with them, the 5 proofs i gave last time are
enough insha' Allah.
My personal advise to akhi fouad is to try for maybe just once in his
life, to understand the manhaj of following the salaf. Get a book by a
respeted salafy scholar, then judge the manhaj. wa jazak allah khair.
wassalamu alaikom wa rahmatu allah
Fouad Haddad
In article <5jj654$h...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> ht...@Aries.EE.McGill.CA (Hazem Nasereddin) writes:
[I had said:]
>>Mustalah or technical terminology in the Islamic sciences is not taken
>>except from scholars. If there are authoritative sources among the
>>fuqaha' of the schools and the hadith masters who say the above, cite them.
>Check with the books of Ibn bazz, Al-Albani and Safar Al-Hawalli.
>I personally got this defintion from tapes of Shiekh Nassir Addin Al-albani.
al-hamdu lillah, I see now the source of the misunderstanding and I ask
Allah to guide us all. The question is in the East and Hazem answers in the
West. I will push on so there is at least agreement that we do not understand
each other: Of the three named above, who is it that qualify in your
view as one of the fuqaha' of the schools, and which school is that?
I will not ask who you think is a hadith master !
Then Hazem said, in relation to quoting with an exact source:
>I can not do the above because i am a student of knowledge, not a scholar.
Then, in reply to my words whereby "There is NO MUSLIM except those who want
to adhere to Islamic belief, doctrine, and law principles exactly like it was
at the time of the Prophet and the Sahaba," he says:
>no akhi, there are many. like those who believe al-qubrusi can add
>"highways" to islam and can make up new kinds of worship that draws a
>person closer to allah (mentioning Allahs name while dancing and listening
>to haram sufi music) or supplicate to other than Allah like your sufi
>shiekhs publically advises.(madad ya hasan, madad ya jilani, madada ya ibn
>3arabi ... etc)
Then insha Allah I will stop here, because it is established by the Prophet
that a believer cannot lie and the above are deliberate lies. I am fearful
of arguing with every haggler that thinks he has an idea about Islam, and in
the process yokes himself with lies and slanders, in a few quick taps.
Does the example of the Christians and the Ahmadis that quote Qur'an
against themselves without even realizing not suffice you? If Hazem
Nasereddin is content to open his computer and sin, he is free, but
let him not ask others to be partners with him in this. Salam.
...
>My personal advise to akhi fouad is to try for maybe just once in his
>life, to understand the manhaj of following the salaf. Get a book by a
>respeted salafy scholar, then judge the manhaj. wa jazak allah khair.
The Salaf never gave advice that they did not practice first. The Salaf
never robbed the rights of Muslims, or elders, or scholars. The Salaf
stand witness against hypocrites who slander twice, in full sight.
Fouad Haddad
fha...@sunnah.org
Hazem Nasereddin
In article <5jl669$o...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
Fouad Haddad <fha...@sunnah.org> wrote:
>
>The Salaf never gave advice that they did not practice first. The Salaf
This is what i have been trying to tell you for more than three months now!
the salaf, did not say "madad ya jilani" or "madad ya mohammad"
in jordan where i came from, they do that all the time.
the salaf did not celebrate al-isra' wal-mi3raj or birthday of the prophet
here in montreal, we get sufis every such occasion from the sufi center
that wants the MSA to post their innovative celebrations, of course, we
refuse because we are insha' Allah among those who do not support bid3a
when they know it is bid3a, unlike the naqshabandi haqqani foundation of
ahlu-albid3a wal-khurafa.
the salaf did not build mosques on the graves and did not go to them to
ask for help, when i was in syria in 1988 i went to al-masjid al-omawi
and i saw the sufis crying and asking the head of some prophet the claim
is burried their, i think it was yahya but i am not sure, what i remember
is the ugly kind of supplication they were asking this grave! a woman was
crying "help my son ya yahya, he needs to be healed from his illness"
another was saying "we need money, we are so poor, send us money, please"
and when one of the people that came at the same time we did told these
people that it is not appropriate to do so they refused and shouted at
her! now i was not a religious muslim at the time, and in fact i was
just touring the mosque, but i remmeber how much i hated this kind of
supplication to the dead and how my natural fitra was my guide to that
these sufis are nothing but either ignorant lost souls or cunning
deviants who brought shirk back into islam!
The salaf ya Mr Fouad did not sing and dance and call that worship!
the salaf never said that the mureed will take the souls of his followers!
the salaf never claimed that Allah was in everything and everywhere!
the salaf never said that earth is flat and there are 4 qutbs each at a
corner that hold it!
Akhi, and i say akhi
you are a very smart person, but you are also a very cunning and deviant
person, you appear nice in the begining, but when you are shown something
that proves you wrong, you suddenly reveal your true colors : nothing but
someone who has a lot of deviations and doesn't want to change, and in
his defence of himself he will slander just about everyone and accuse
everyone of slandering although what they are doing is naseeha and
warning.
I ask Allah to be my refuge from people such as yourself
Those who shetler the innovators and innovation then Allah will not
accept a fard of nafilah from those as shown in the sahih hadith.
do you not shetker he innovatiors with your propaganda? you are ready to
deny what the sufis do just in order to appear "nice"!
This will conclude my discussions with you, the advice that shikeh
nassir gave in regard to innovators and those who SHELTER innovations by
claiming to be followers of a mathab when in reality they are in fact
shetlering the mutated innovated sect called sufism, that we should
advise those and leave them to themselves. There is no use wasting time
on those "music and dancing for the love of Allah" junckies!
in any case, today i am not capable of refuting you because i am a
student of knowledge, and i am in the begin of a long road of knowledge
insha' Allah. but the average muslim does not need more than an
open mind to see how deviant the sufis are once he sees them in reality,
and he will see that all the stuff i accuse them off is true and they
teach it, like many of theose who left sufism say (like some shikeh you
and I know that you hate very much).
But although i am not qualified to refute you today for lack of my
knowledge, insha' Allah i will make that my inspiration and motivation to
LEARN and UNDERSTAND and insha' Allah i will read even sufi books and then
dedicate all the free time of my life to fighting innovations and
deviation whereever i find them.
Wassalamu 3alaikom wa rahmatu Allah
Fouad Haddad
In article <5jnp38$6...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> ht...@Aries.EE.McGill.CA (Hazem Nasereddin) writes:
[The usual personal invective and avoidance of the issues]
Subhan Allah, how far the ego pushes one so that he can avoid acknowledging
his slanders. Just like Nasereddin did with the hadith, so why should a
shaykh, or brothers in faith, fare better at his hands? al-Hamdu lillah `ala
kulli hal. All go according to their nature, and I leave this fellow to his.
Fouad Haddad
fha...@sunnah.org
Walid Dabbous
In his article ht...@Aries.EE.McGill.CA (Hazem Nasereddin) writes:
|>
|> the salaf, did not say "madad ya jilani" or "madad ya mohammad"
|> in jordan where i came from, they do that all the time.
|>
Al-Bukhari related in al-'Adab al-Mufrad, and even ibn taymiya cited
in the book he called al-kalim at-tayyib that Ibn ^Umar said when
he had an illness in his foot: YA MUHAMMAD, he was immediately
healed.
Ya Sayyidi, ya Muhammad, ya Rasullallah.
Salla-llahu ^alayhi wa sallam.
Walid
Mikaeel
As salamu alaikum,
I know two people who claim to be Sufi. One is a naqshabandi for about ten
years. He does not even know how to say the Fatihah, but yet he can quote
his shaikh all day long. He also knows all these questionable hadeeth but
he cant say two Ayah from Allah's book. There is something obviusly
(x-cuse the spelling) wrong here. This man told me he would rather visit
his shaik in London than go on Hajj. I can see why these people would
apose the dawa us-salafiyah
The other sufi I know can't marry without her Shaikh's permission. She
also told me that Shaikh's should wear beards but it wasn't incumbent on
the rest of us. This is not the practice of the early generation of
Muslims.
These to examples sound a lot like chritianity to me . And I know being an
ex x-tian my self.
I don't see any logical basis for rejecting the Dawah us-Salafiyah. I hear
emotionalism, DOUBLE talk, confussing arguments and jiberish to put the
Salafi's down. Show us your proof in simple langauge if you can.
As salamu alaikum
Abu Atiya
AAQL
In article <5jecc6$n...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
Hazem Nasereddin <ht...@Aries.EE.McGill.CA> wrote:
>1 The salaf are the best of the Islamic nation. They are the best muslims.
Your are judging yourself. Let others judge us, so that justice is fair
and impartial. In saudi, there is much discrimination between saudi,
yamani and rafeeq. At saudi bus stands and other crowded areas, near the
smoking and tea drinking centers (called gahwas) if any woman pass,
attired in decent muslim dress, these people track and stare her like a
guided missile for almost 150 degrees of neck rotation.
>if following islam as the sahabah understode it to be like means
>wahhabiyah to deviants like 12er imam shi3a and isma3ilis, then we hold
>this name "wahhabi" as a badge of honor on our chests and we look forward
>to living up to the level of shaikhul-islam ibn taymiyah and his student
>mohammad bin abdul-wahhab rahimahuma allah wa radiya anhuma. We say to
Look at the history and the tolerance of Ismailis. Even friend and foe
acknowledge that it is exemplary. When they had the power of the state,
they never persecuted other muslims sects, unlike others, and do NOT mix
the off-shoots of Ismailis like the Qaramatians of Bahrain that have come
to dead end with the main-stream.
Then compare the persecution of Ismailis by others. The burning of their
libraries and destruction of their heritage. Truth will win, and if those
books had not been burnt, we could have seen and judged them today. Let
the system run its own cycle. Falsehood and impracticality and hypocrisy
will die its natural death. Proposals that do not work will die. I respect
the Salafi puritanism very much, but the issue is: How practical is it? If
that system cannot arrange for the security of the Hajjis for a few days
in a rich oil kingdom, what good is that puritanism that is impractical
and is only in the service of the rich, or one who has left the worldly
affairs.
Let us also talk about the great Umar. Umar was always subservient to the
Judiciary. The executive was subservient to the judiciary. Was this in the
later times? Never again after Mu'awiya. For example, in the Abbasid time
the Qadi and Ulema were pressured to write fatwa against the Ismaili
Fatimids. That is a glaring violation of Islam, and a fundamental canon of
puritanism. Why do you not speak against it?
Let me tell you why it bothers you so much when the 12-er shia speak
against the hypocrisy of Mu'awiya. This is because your real hero is not
Umar, but Mu'awiya. Just as Mu'awiya over-rode judiciary and the Ulema
through bribes and force, your present rulers do, and your puritanism
does not in this hypocritical instance ever succeeds in moving you to
action. Umar got you booty, the vast empires of the byzantine and persia.
But your real hero is Mu'awiya, SUBCONSCIOUSLY if not consciously. You are
content to live with a passive puritanism that never gives you the trouble
to change, progress and the freely flowing oil is able to sustain it.
If you are true puritans, face this biggest innovation in Islam which is
the pressuring of judiciary and the ulema by the executive, and the
Kingship. Was Umar a king? Did he not flog his own son for zina? Are your
kings that honest? Were the early muslims cowards as you are? Hence, you
are more similar to the muslims in Mu'awiya's time and your real hero is
he and not Umar or Othman. You just hide behind them. Go and stand behind
Mu'awiya and Yazeed, not Abu Bakr, Umar and Othman.
I tell you that the biggest Salafi/Wahabi innovation in Islam was the
justification and will-full turning eye from the subversion of Islamic
form of government, and keeping mouth shut like cowards when the judiciary
and the Ulema were pushed around by the executives by bribes and by the
stick.
Ber...@city-net.com
As Salaamu 'ala man 'itibial huda
Brother Abu Atiya
May Allah reward you for your stance upon the Da'watus Salafiyyah -
the TRUE Da'wah of Islam - no matter what the Madh-habiyyah and
Sufiyyah claim! Debating this F. Haddad Madh-habi/Sufi/Salafi-hating
person is of no benefit. He has clung to his Naqshabandi Shaikh while
Allah's Messenger (SAAWS) has ordered him to cling to his Sunnah and
the Sunnah of the Sahabah. Their main objective is to attempt to make
great scholars such as Shaikh Muhammad Nasiruddeen Al-Albaanee, Shaikh
'Abdul 'Azeez bin 'Abdullah bin Baaz, and their students, to look bad
and ignorant of the Diyn. Rather, we ask Allah to reward these great
scholars and to give them life so that they may continue to refute the
call to Taqleed (blind following) and Sufiyyah, Ameen. They have done
the same to other great scholars such as Ibn Taymiyyah and Shaikh
'Abdul Wahhab (r). With every attack on this pristine Da'watus
Salafiyyah, they show their own ignorance and deviance as well as
increasing the zeal of the Salafiyyah to demolish their Bid'ah through
correct knowledge and application of Allah's Book and the Messenger's
authentic Sunnah according to the way of the Salaf As-Saalih
- of which they know little. May Allah help us and protect the Muslims from their Fitnah, Ameen.
For more information on these Naqshabandi Sufis and the true Da'wah of
our Pious Predecessors, E-Mail me & also visit Al-Qur'an Was Sunnah
Society at:
As well as the Islamic Society of the Univ. of Essex, whose http can
be found at the "recommended sites" sections of the above http
address. Also visit the Islamic Assembly of North America at:
For the article: The Naqshabandi Sufi Tariqah Unveiled, E-mail me
immediately. For the rebuttal to the slanderous book by As-Saqqaf the
Liar on the reknown Muhadith, Shaikh Nasiruddeen Al-Albaanee, E-Mail
me immediately!
LET THE SUNNAH GO FORTH AND DO NOT STOP IT!
Abu Abdul Fattaah
Ber...@City-Net.com
Fouad Haddad
>I don't see any logical basis for rejecting the Dawah us-Salafiyah. I hear
>emotionalism, DOUBLE talk, confussing arguments and jiberish to put the
>Salafi's down. Show us your proof in simple langauge if you can.
The above writer's testimoy about Naqshbandis and Sufis is rejected.
The man does not even know -- judging from another post -- that
visiting graves is Sunna. It is ironic that the above applies to him first.
Fouad
AAQL
In article <5jumvk$4...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
Mikaeel <mik...@aol.com> wrote:
>As salamu alaikum,
>
>I know two people who claim to be Sufi. One is a naqshabandi for about ten
>years. He does not even know how to say the Fatihah, but yet he can quote
>The other sufi I know can't marry without her Shaikh's permission. She
NOTE
you
cannot
make
these
objections
about
the
ismailis.
We say Sura fatiha
and the Sura Ikhlas
in our dua all
the time.
Just so
that you
know.
Mehdi
This is really a refreshing article by a shia acknowledging the
justice of Umar (ra) wassalam,
Mahdiyy Al`rabiyy Alsunniyy
--
----------------______________--------------------________________
_=asd0g jf kdfjg 9f-f\\ ukjfghsfg 0==0gh -
Mahdiyy ------ Sleep never increases age <> Nor
does lack of it decreases age ....
m a m
AAQL wrote:
>
> In article <5jecc6$n...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
> Hazem Nasereddin <ht...@Aries.EE.McGill.CA> wrote:
>
>
> and impartial. In saudi, there is much discrimination between saudi,
> yamani and rafeeq. At saudi bus stands and other crowded areas, near the
> smoking and tea drinking centers (called gahwas) if any woman pass,
> attired in decent muslim dress, these people track and stare her like a
> guided missile for almost 150 degrees of neck rotation.
What does this have to do with the Salaf !!!?????
Subhana ALLAH!
Just in case you're not capabel to distinguish:
Saudi Arabia -with all its good and bad- is a country,
The Salaf are the rightous 3 first generations of Islam,
where Ismailies are not included by the way,
AdDa'wah AsSalafiyah is a worldwide movement which call
the Muslims to abide by the Islamic standards that
the Salaf livid with, i.e. living by Quran and Sunnah
and their interpretations by the companions and thier
rightuos followers.
So don't blame some one who want to abide by the Quran
and Sunnah and the practice of Salaf for the mistakes
of some one else...
got it!
majed
Hazem Nasereddin
assalamu alaikom
In article <5k3ri6$a...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
Mehdi <ha...@spot.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>
>Brother - the madhhabiyyah is not your enemy. The madhhabiyyah in
>its proper form is the salafiayyah since you follow the salaf al-salih,
>the four imams just because you do not have the tools to be a scholar
>yourself.
Modern day goals of the Salafi da3wa is to rid the muslims of the
negatives of taqleed as much as possible, for those that it is possible. I
understand that most salafi scholars accept taqleed of one manhaj for the
simple people who are unable to authenticate things for themselves, ya3ni
yalli 3ala baraket allah as we say in arabic. As for today, most muslims
know how to read and write and we are mentaly capable of integrating and
derivating tough equations, we also memorise tons of biology and history
books, in other words we are capable of understanding and learning, we
also do not lack the time just think of how much TV and socialization
takes of our every day time, and for such people, i believe mathahabiyah
will be a burden on our islamic nation that will withhold islamic
production prosperity. I believe that the average muslim today does not
need to become a muqalid, or least the few rightious people that realise
what is our nation suffereing from and what should we do to heal it AND
they are obviously mentaly capable of learning and understanding, then i
do not see an excuse for them not to learn and understand. Blind following
of a mathhab will literaly waste the valuable efforts that we need these
few rightious people to put into da3wa, and I hope we agree that a da3iyah
must understand and a muqalid can never be a da3iyah.
consider how many muslims back in out lands do not pray? how much
ignorance about islam is there where you lived most of your life? think of
bosnia? about chechniya? about former USSR states? how many preachers do
we need for all those? allahu a3lam, but i see myself in debt, having to
pay all these people to reach them and teach them the little i know, i
also owe it to these people to learn and make my understanding better so
that I, one who realises that Islam is the only solution and that
salafiyatul-manhaj is the key to avoiding most if not all deviations, MUST
leave taqleed and understand then try to reach out to at least those
arround me (relatives, work colleages, friends, etc).
Which means, that the small rightious group should leave taqleed and with
it mathhabiyah. Why should we keep the borders between the schools of
fiqh? why not mix them together and get the correct rulling and make
that a part of al-manhaj assalafi?! why not have a new better
understanding of fiqhi issues so that in the future we will have the
simple people do taqleed on a collection of the four mathabs?! (for
example a more clear fiqhu assina)
I also do not see a point to keeping the labals "hanbali" "shafi3i"
"maliki" & "hanafi", we know that the reason we don't consider ourselves
as followers of manhaj assalaf a jama3ah (or a group) is that there are
several hadiths telling us that we should not make groups and devisions
and grouping in islam, let alone the verses that say so "wa la takunu ka
allathina farraqu deenahom shiya3an ..." ... so why would we do that
when it comes to salafiyatul-manhaj and not do it when it comes to
mathabiyah?
So i think it is time that we, the mentaly capable of not doing taqleed,
to leave mathabiyah and start following the correct of the mathabs not
caring which of the 4 imams said what as long as the arguement is correct
when we put it before the book and the sunnah. I also hate quoting the 4
schools and saying "hanafis say this and that, hanbalis however say this and
that", once the arguement of one party is proven wrong (eg by knwoing that
the hadiths they used were da3eef) then that opinion should be dropped, the
other opinion should be quoted without saying who said it, what gives the
opinion power is the hadith and verses that support it not who among the 4
supported it. You see where i am going?
>Now that is differnet that the Muta`assibah for a specific
>madhhab (prjiduce for one against the others) for these should be the
>people who you would be at odds at. If however you are also Mutassib
>for an understanding of a certain so called 'salafi' scholars then you
>are no better than the mutassibah for the madhhabs.
I am in total agreement with you on this.
wassalam
AAQL
In article <5k86ii$9...@shell3.ba.best.com>, m a m <ma...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>AAQL wrote:
[ description of wahabis/salafis at staring women at the gahwas deleted ]
>What does this have to do with the Salaf !!!?????
This has to do with the salaf because your definition of
salaf changes like a chameleon. your other salafites said
that if the word wahabi is to be used for us then we
must wear like a badge of honor. By that definition, the
saudi land is the biggest salafi land with the official
ideology of wahabism.
First you got to come up with a definition of salafism. By
your definition of 3 generations, there is no existent salaf.
Salaf according to that is extinct. Let me tell you, that you
use the same logic and brain in religion as in science and
math. If you are poor in the latter than you are poor in the
former. I do not see any modern intellectuals from the wahabi/salafi
land. Seems like your kings do not even think you capable or even
worthy of being listened to in a parliament etc.
>Just in case you're not capabel to distinguish:
I am not going to write a legal document with all the defenitions
and so on to maintain precision. I am not on oil pension to have the
time to do all that. You got to try to understand the central idea
of my article and it is obvious. If you cannot understand it, then
relativity and other thoughts are beyond you and it is stupid of me
to talk to a person of that calibre. I am using a generalisation whic
holds for a large majority (exceptions granted).
>Saudi Arabia -with all its good and bad- is a country,
>
>The Salaf are the rightous 3 first generations of Islam,
then they are extinct.
>where Ismailies are not included by the way,
Ismailis by strict definition are those who followed Ismail. But since we
believe that this is the correct lineage of Imamat, all those who followed
the correct Imams from H. Ali to the present Agakhan are referred to by
that. Hence, the earliest shia are included in that.
>AdDa'wah AsSalafiyah is a worldwide movement which call
>the Muslims to abide by the Islamic standards that
>the Salaf livid with, i.e. living by Quran and Sunnah
>and their interpretations by the companions and thier
>rightuos followers.
The movement's credibility would be increased if you can actually show
some fruit, because words are cheap. Only deeds are expensive. First you
got to show some tolerance and a track record of it. The tolerance of
true followers of the Imamat at is exemplary. They never passed fatwas
against other muslims (even in fatamid time) as kafirs for political
reasons.
Second you got to show the true piety, and eliminate the staring of
properly dressed women in the wahabi/salafi land.
At the same time you got to show how you can manage the affairs of the
state practically and fairly. You do not even have nationality in the
wahabi land for muslims. Was the Islam of Salafi times (in the sense of
the first 3 generations) frontierless or filled with prejudices and
nationalities like the rafeeq, yamani and so on?
>So don't blame some one who want to abide by the Quran
>and Sunnah and the practice of Salaf for the mistakes
>of some one else...
As I said that words are cheap. You have no practical effect on the
conditions of where you were born, nor do you have any value or
representation in your land. When you have it, I will respect it. Till you
have it, you got to work more and talk less. Our Imams work first, produce
the result and then give publicity to entice others to do good. Not
for boasting!
>got it!
>
>majed
>
You would not even have the access to internet if you did not have the
money in your pocket. I want you or your salafi movement to show a
leadership which can actually make a difference on the most down-trodden
people in the muslim world and elsewhere!
Where were you when there was Bosnia occuring? did you prepare for it?
It was Iran that dared send help. You cannot even do anything on Al-Quds?
All that you can create is fitna, by giving money to Saddam to kill for
10 years. Your silence is a sin in itself. Was the great Umar silent like
cowards in the present time? You being in the majority with control of
80% of worlds oil have a special responisbility.
Show democracy, freedom, enlightenment, tolerance, and action in the
muslim world, and get it united.
I will tell you the secret of unity. It is tolerance, and mild toned
Dawa by tongue, but more rigorous through action. Dont go after someone
for what they call themselves.
Furthermore, It would not be fair if I do not tell the whole truth. It is
that I have actually great admiration for the puritans. I have seen many
such people take great troubles to pray in time, as well as help others.
But there are many among them who are hypocrites, as well as many among
them who do not know essence, or are swayed by the literal. Allah does
not need your prayers, he says. The true essence of prayer is to keep
reminded of what is right and what is wrong, as well as renewing efforts.
If that was indeed the case, those who profess to be puritans must have
been very organised and effective group, capable of influencing events
peacefully and also had been capable of producing improvements, such as
I mentioned you need to create to gain any credibility.
That this is _NOT_ the case speaks about itself. As I said, look at the
fruit when you cannot compare the seed!
Hence, it is the Baatin that is the most important. There was no one who
was more pious that Iblees at any time, yet he was arrogant, and fell.
Our prayers are always for your and the muslim worlds success towards
unity in a tolerant society submissive to Allah in words and spirit, ie.
Zahir and Baatin.
D A Rice
In article <5k2dtl$2...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, Ber...@City-Net.Com writes:
> Debating this F. Haddad Madh-habi/Sufi/Salafi-hating
> person is of no benefit. He has clung to his Naqshabandi Shaikh while
> Allah's Messenger (SAAWS) has ordered him to cling to his Sunnah and
> the Sunnah of the Sahabah.
You make the wrong assumption that following a Shaykh is against
following the Sunnah. The early Muslims made bay'at to the Prophet
(s.a.w.), then after that, they made bay'at to the 4 khalifas. Bay'at
is also mentioned in the Qur'an (60:12). Today, most Muslims have
neglected this Islamic practice -- the exception are the authentic
Sufis, who have strictly adhered to the Sunnah.
In Islam, we must follow the knowledgeable scholars. However, Islam
is not only the shari`ah! Islam is also about sincerity and being
humble. The _authentic_ Sufi shaykhs are those who are experts in
this part of Islam, they are the scholars of ikhlas (sincerity) who
strongly adhere to the shari`ah and the sunnah, and that is why we
must respect and follow the authentic Sufi shaykhs.
There are some "pseudo-Sufis" too -- these people do not follow the
shari`ah. These people should not be followed. Many of them only
claim to be Sufis because it brings them prestige in the eyes of the
people. Therefore, one should be careful to distinguish between the
true and the false.
Today, we can notice a big difference in societies where Sufism is
influential, and those where it is not. Turkey, for example, is a
society where the Sufi turuq are still very influential. We don't
hear about bombings in Turkey. We don't hear about people killing
other Muslims, or targeting Christians. However, they managed to
elect a Muslim government. The secularists are very unhappy with it,
and have tried to bring down the government, but still you don't find
any atrocities in Turkey by extremists that you find in the countries
dominated by "Salafi" way of thinking. The places where "Salafi"
influence is greatest are well-known for their extremist groups who
bomb innocent civilians, both Muslims and Christians, and commit
assassinations.
The tree is known by its fruit, so let's examine the fruit! Which is
the way of Islam -- bombing innocent people, or striving with all our
means, yet preserving and supporting innocent civilians? I think the
answer is clear. The Sufi path is the path of ikhlas, or sincerity,
and the path of the Prophet (s.a.w.), and it is the path of supporting
the innocent.
Here is a hadith (which I first heard from Br. Fouad Haddad):
`Ubada ibn al-Samit said: The Prophet said: "He is not of my
Community / He is not one of us who does not give respect to our
elders or does not show mercy to our little ones or does not
recognize the rights of our scholars." [*]
Often those who reject the authentic Sufi shaykhs are the ones who
need them the most.
> Their main objective is to attempt to make
> great scholars such as Shaikh Muhammad Nasiruddeen Al-Albaanee, Shaikh
> 'Abdul 'Azeez bin 'Abdullah bin Baaz, and their students, to look bad
> and ignorant of the Diyn.
Interesting that you mention Ibn Baz, who I understand is most
influential in Saudi Arabia, and has the backing of the Saudi
monarchy. Saudi Arabia is known for reports of intolerance and
racism, particularly against immigrant workers, both Muslim and
non-Muslim. Is this Islam?
Again, the tree is known by its fruit, so let's examine the fruit! Do
we want an Islam full of bigotry and violence against innocent people?
Or do we want an Islam fully in accord with the Qur'an and Sunnah,
which believes that Allah is "ar-Rahman ar-Rahim," and tries to
manifest qualities of mercy among Muslims as well, which fosters love
among Muslims, which believes in striving for Islam, but in a way that
is completely in accordance with the Sunnah, because of the faith in
Allah's help for those who are on His path?
The latter path is the authentic Sufi path -- it is pure Islam, pure
sincerity, pure brotherhood, and full of strength.
Wassalam,
Fariduddien Rice
[*] An authentic hadith narrated by Ahmad in his Musnad (5:323),
al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak (1:122) -- al-Dhahabi agreed with him on
the authentication of the hadith, -- and Tabarani in al-Mu`jam
al-kabir. al-Haythami in Majma` al-zawa'id (1:127, 8:14) said its
chain was fair (hasan). So did al-Mundhiri in al-Targhib wa
al-tarhib (1:125). Shaykh Albani the leader of the "Salafis" said
one time that it was sound (sahih), and one time that it was fair
(hasan), respectively in Sahih al-targhib (1:44) and Sahih
al-Jami` al-saghir (5:103)! al-Ajurri (d. 360) cited it in Akhlaq
ahl al-Qur'an, 2nd ed., ed. Muh. `Amr ibn `Abd al-Latif (Beirut:
dar al-kutub al-`ilmiyya, 1407/1987) p. 136-137. al-Hakim said:
"He is not one of us" means: He is not on our path nor does he
follow our guidance. Tirmidhi in the Sunan (3:216) said: Some of
the scholars said it means: He is not of our Sunna, and: He does
not follow our etiquette (adab).
D A Rice
In article <5k86il$9...@shell3.ba.best.com>, ht...@Aries.EE.McGill.CA
(Hazem Nasereddin) writes:
[...]
> As for today, most muslims
> know how to read and write and we are mentaly capable of integrating and
> derivating tough equations, we also memorise tons of biology and history
> books, in other words we are capable of understanding and learning, we
> also do not lack the time just think of how much TV and socialization
> takes of our every day time, and for such people, i believe mathahabiyah
> will be a burden on our islamic nation that will withhold islamic
> production prosperity.
You argument is like saying, because someone has been able to
"memorise tons of biology and history books," he should be able to be
a lawyer. I hope this never happens, since biological facts rarely
help in a court of law. The person needs to know about *law* to be a
lawyer, his knowledge of biology or history will be of little help.
Similarly, not everyone is an Islamic scholar. There are certain
requirements before someone can claim to be an Islamic scholar. The
vast majority of Muslims do not meet these requirements, so they are
not scholars.
Here is an important hadith which I read from Br. Fouad Haddad. It
mentions that we must recognize the rights of our scholars.
`Ubada ibn al-Samit said: The Prophet said: "He is not of my
Community / He is not one of us who does not give respect to our
elders or does not show mercy to our little ones or does not
recognize the rights of our scholars."
An authentic hadith narrated by Ahmad in his Musnad (5:323),
al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak (1:122) -- al-Dhahabi agreed with him on
the authentication of the hadith, -- and Tabarani in al-Mu`jam
al-kabir. al-Haythami in Majma` al-zawa'id (1:127, 8:14) said its
chain was fair (hasan). So did al-Mundhiri in al-Targhib wa
al-tarhib (1:125). Shaykh Albani the leader of the "Salafis" said
one time that it was sound (sahih), and one time that it was fair
(hasan), respectively in Sahih al-targhib (1:44) and Sahih
al-Jami` al-saghir (5:103)! al-Ajurri (d. 360) cited it in Akhlaq
ahl al-Qur'an, 2nd ed., ed. Muh. `Amr ibn `Abd al-Latif (Beirut:
dar al-kutub al-`ilmiyya, 1407/1987) p. 136-137. al-Hakim said:
"He is not one of us" means: He is not on our path nor does he
follow our guidance. Tirmidhi in the Sunan (3:216) said: Some of
the scholars said it means: He is not of our Sunna, and: He does
not follow our etiquette (adab).
I wonder if Hazem Nasereddin, who apparently believes he is a scholar,
was aware of this hadith?
Fariduddien Rice
euphrates
D A Rice wrote:
>
> In article <5k2dtl$2...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, Ber...@City-Net.Com writes:
>
> > Debating this F. Haddad Madh-habi/Sufi/Salafi-hating
> > person is of no benefit. He has clung to his Naqshabandi Shaikh while
> > Allah's Messenger (SAAWS) has ordered him to cling to his Sunnah and
> > the Sunnah of the Sahabah.
>
> You make the wrong assumption that following a Shaykh is against
> following the Sunnah.
Following a shaykh(?) is first of all against the Quran. I do not
understand how easily you forget the verse
[7.3] which says
"Follow what has been revealed to you from your Lord and do not follow
any friends(awliya) besides Him, how little do you mind".
The companions of our prophet never blindly followed him, they first
asked if it was his opinion or it was from God concerning what he has
said to them. They knew what Islam was. They knew that they would only
follow what has been revealed to them by their Lord. Unfortunately
some people today lacking rational thinking principles are mixing
everything like a soup and deceiving themselves and some others.
The below arguement is a good example of how to mix the truth with false
and reach to false consequences.
> The early Muslims made bay'at to the Prophet
> (s.a.w.), then after that, they made bay'at to the 4 khalifas. Bay'at
> is also mentioned in the Qur'an (60:12).
So what?
> Today, most Muslims have
> neglected this Islamic practice -- the exception are the authentic
> Sufis, who have strictly adhered to the Sunnah.
An unwarranted assertion and even if it is true adds nothing to the
reasoning.
> In Islam, we must follow the knowledgeable scholars.
One more...He is asserting what he is trying to prove.
> However, Islam
> is not only the shari`ah! Islam is also about sincerity and being
> humble. The _authentic_ Sufi shaykhs are those who are experts in
> this part of Islam, they are the scholars of ikhlas (sincerity) who
> strongly adhere to the shari`ah and the sunnah,
switching to another topic...
>and that is why we must respect and follow the authentic Sufi shaykhs.
and finally conclusion has been reached. This could take a good grade if
the author was asked to write an example of fallacy in a logic class.
If you believe in Quran the verse is clear:
"Follow what has been revealed to you from your Lord and do not follow
any friends(awliya) besides Him, how little do you mind".
No need to argue.
> The Sufi path is the path of ikhlas, or sincerity,
> and the path of the Prophet (s.a.w.), and it is the path of supporting
> the innocent.
Islam is the path of ikhlas and sincerity and the path Allah has chosen
for muslims. However Allah did not reveal any evidence about the sufi
path and you will be responsible for following a path which Allah did
not even mention.
> Again, the tree is known by its fruit, so let's examine the fruit! Do
> we want an Islam full of bigotry and violence against innocent people?
Islam can never be full of bigotry and violence against innocent people.
Also Islam is not according to our wishes. Are you aware of what you are
implying? You are talking as if muslims have a variety of Islams to
choose from. Read the Quran and learn that there is only one Islam.
> The latter path is the authentic Sufi path -- it is pure Islam, pure
If it is the pure Islam why do you call it Sufi path?
I hope one day you will reference verses from the Quran instead of
hadiths which may be referred to when Quran is not explicit about.
> Wassalam,
> Fariduddien Rice
Mikaeel
As salamu alaikum
Fouad wrote
The above writer's testimoy about Naqshbandis and Sufis is rejected.
The man does not even know -- judging from another post -- that
visiting graves is Sunna. It is ironic that the above applies to him
first.
True I don't know all. But what I said about the two Sufi that I KNOW is
true and I swear by Allah to it being truthful. as far as my TESTIMONY
BEING REJECTED. Who are you to say that; I attacked no ones honesty since
I been here. If you take it personal I advise you to take it up with your
Lord, not me. i have not said one thing about you or anyones character or
lack thereof. I don't know you or want to know you. In fact, Aoodu billahi
minka (I seek refuge with Allah from you) and all the acusations you make.
Abu Atiya
AAQL
SALAFI> I read your article on Salafiyyah and I felt from it that you are
more angry with the politics of arabia than the religion.
AAQL> Both are inseparable. The system of governing (politics) gets
support from the religion, and the religion is protected through the
government power to prevent alternative interpretations to be aired. It
will crumble the day oil runs out, unfortunately not before that. Besides,
in Islam, religion pervades all aspects of life. I wonder why in this
instance the convenient separation of state and religion is being
suggested!
SALAFI> 1st you mentioned that the salaf refers to the first 3
generations. Well that is true, what "salafiyya" means is to follow Islam
as it was "Already Practiced!!!" by those best 3 generations.
AAQL> I wonder if the grandson of the Prophet, about whose piety and
righteousness there was absolutely no doubt, and whose lineage was
absolutely transparent was butchered in the muslim land by the muslims
within the three generations? If that is so, the the whole concept of
Salafiya is nothing but mythology intended to retard thinking and protect
an obsolete system of government.
SALAFI> To be salafi is to follow the Qur'an and Sunnah.
AAQL> Then a Salafi must not use any other means for transportation other
than what the Prophet used, ie camals and possibly horses. A Salaif must
live in hunger and impoverishment as the Prophet did. Finally, a Salafi
must stand up to injustice and uphold justice as the great Umar did
fearlessly. I hope that these should serve to show the hypocrisy (defined
as disparity between preaching and acting) where it actually infact
belongs.
SALAFI> 2nd you mentioned that the secret to unity is tolernce etc. Where
do you get your definitions from? I am almost sure you are letting your
nafs or your desires speak for you. Unity is being on the truth, even if
you are only one person. Do you think that we muslims will ever get
anywhere if we are united by our numbers? No we must unite together on the
truth (Qur'an and Sunnah) not on our desires.
AAQL> I must apologise for omitting this counter-consideration. If you
will, let me state what I actualy meant. Since, no one know what the truth
really is, I mean there are always distinctions that we know, but there
are others that are not that clear. Furthermore, it is the grey area that
is always problematic, and where difference of opinions lead to conflicts.
In such situations it is best to refrain from passing hasty judgement. In
such situation the instinctive intolerance, and presumptuous of believing
in one's own righteousness which leads to passing hasty judgement.
Scientific subjects like Physics, Chemistry, Maths, especially dealing
with mathematical paradoxes, and remembering the personal experience does
serve to make one humble that one can err. For example, there is a very
interesting way to present 1=2 based on cancellation of zero. Similarly,
there is another one where one can add an infinite series with positive
and negative numbers to get any sum by the change of order. I have been
confronted with this experience, and I learn that one can make errors. I
have made other errors in life, and I must be humble in passing judgement
wihtout due thought and experience.
SALAFI> 3rd You mentioned Democracy. Brother wake up and do some research,
it is Haram!
AAQL> present your alternatives in this public forum and then defend them.
SALAFI> So my advice to you and me first is to try to practice islam as it
was practiced by the sahaba, and the 3 best generations. We must not
follow any Sheikh that uses his Nafs and desires in his fatwas.
AAQL> I unfortunately do not posses a detector for ascertaining this. To
do this, my knowledge must be more or comparable to the Sheikh. I have
been proven wrong in my views that came from literalists earlier in life
by comparing with the views of the Imam of the time. And I feel truth from
that direction.
SALAFI> Allah Taala says" If you dispute in a matter than refer it to
Allah and his messenger"
AAQL> But this should not be an excuse for using one's own mind, as well
as for inactionism.
SALAFI> I am not writing this to offend you, but to help my brother in
Islam, In shaa Allah.
AAQL> Similar sentiments to discuss my thoughts for mutual enlightenment
from my side.
Was Salam aleikum wa rahmat Allahi wa barakatu.
Muhammad Shadid.
AAQL> Same to you.
Fouad Haddad
In reply to the following:
>True I don't know all. But what I said about the two Sufi that I KNOW is
>true and I swear by Allah to it being truthful. as far as my TESTIMONY
>BEING REJECTED. Who are you to say that; I attacked no ones honesty since
>I been here. If you take it personal I advise you to take it up with your
>Lord, not me. i have not said one thing about you or anyones character or
>lack thereof. I don't know you or want to know you. In fact, Aoodu billahi
>minka (I seek refuge with Allah from you) and all the acusations you make.
>
>Abu Atiya
O my Lord, I accuse this person -- Abu Atiya -- of slandering my
brothers in faith and debasing the greeting of peace among Muslims
with statements that characterize enmity not brotherhood.
If I took Abu Atiya to be representative of all followers of Albani
I would say: By Allah all followers of Albani are ignorant. But I don't.
Similarly Abu Atiya should not make, on the basis of some ignorant
acquaintances of his, any general statement about Sufis or Naqshbandis
like he did. If he continues to do so, while at the same time admitting
his ignorance of some basic matters in the Sunna, then he is not only
ignorant but also obdurate. He should seek refuge from the evil of
his own acts.
Fouad Haddad
fha...@sunnah.org
D A Rice
Assalamu alaikum,
I wrote,
>> You make the wrong assumption that following a Shaykh is against
>> following the Sunnah.
In article <5kg87m$q...@shell3.ba.best.com>, euphrates
<euphr...@hotmail.com> writes:
> Following a shaykh(?) is first of all against the Quran.
Let's look at what the Qur'an says.
The Qur'an says in meaning:
O Prophet! If believing women come unto thee, taking oath of
allegiance unto thee that they will ascribe nothing as partner
unto Allah, [....], nor disobey thee in what is right, then accept
=================================
their allegiance and ask Allah to forgive them. Lo! Allah is
Forgiving, Merciful.
[Qur'an 60:12, Pickthall translation]
O Prophet! When believing women come to thee to take the oath of
fealty to thee, that they will not associate in worship any other
thing whatever with God, [....] and that they will not disobey
=====================
thee in any just matter, then do thou receive their fealty, and
========================
pray to God for the forgiveness (of their sins): for God is
Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
[Qur'an 60:12, Yusuf Ali translation]
In his comment on this verse, Pickthall writes:
This is called the women's oath of allegiance. It was the oath
extracted from men also until the second pact of Al-`Aqabah when
the duty of defence was added to the men's oath.
Therefore, we see that both men and women would make this oath of
allegiance to the Prophet (s.a.w.), promising that they will not
disobey him in any just matter. What is a "just matter"? To my
understanding, it is a matter in accordance with Islam. The meaning
therefore is that, unless an order contradicts Islamic practice, the
Muslims must obey the instructions of the Prophet (s.a.w.).
After the Prophet (s.a.w.) passed from this life, the Muslims made
their oath of allegiance to the khilafa. The same principles would
hold -- obedience to the khilafa is required, unless an order
contradicts Islam.
Therefore, we see that obedience to the Prophet (s.a.w.) is required.
By the practice of the Companions, we see that bay`a (oath of
allegiance) to the khilafa is also required. This practice is
continued in the Sufi turuq, and it has a fully Islamic basis.
Why are some people so much against making an oath of allegiance to
those more knowledgeable than themselves? It is hard to make your ego
submit, when it is in complete control -- the ego likes to believe it
is the rightful emperor, but if your ego remains in control, it will
lead you away from submission to Allah.
Some people are afraid that, if they make bay`a, that they will be
asked to do something against Islam. Firstly, the wording of the oath
shows that it is not permitted to do something against Islam, even if
you have made bay`a to someone -- there is no excuse for disobedience
to Allah. Secondly, this is why it is very important to very
carefully choose your Shaykh, and be sure that he is someone who
strictly practices and teaches the Shari`ah.
> I do not
> understand how easily you forget the verse
> [7.3] which says
> "Follow what has been revealed to you from your Lord and do not follow
> any friends(awliya) besides Him, how little do you mind".
You haven't read the verse in context.
The Qur'an says, in meaning:
A Book revealed unto thee, So let thy heart be oppressed no more
by any difficulty on that account, that with it thou mightest
warn (the erring) and teach the Believers).
Follow (O men!) the revelation given unto you from your Lord, and
follow not, as friends or protectors, other than Him. Little it
is ye remember of admonition.
[Qur'an 7:2-3, Yusuf Ali translation.]
The two verses in context clearly say that you must follow the Qur'an
as revelation -- there is no other source of shari`ah apart from
Allah. This verse therefore refers to _revelation_ -- it does not
refer to obedience of someone's instructions, as long as that person's
instructions does not contradict the shari`ah.
It also follow from this verse that if the Qur'an asks you to obey the
Prophet (s.a.w.) in any just matter, then you must do so, otherwise
you will be disobeying the revelation from Allah.
Similarly, if a command from anybody contradicts the teachings of the
Qur'an, then you must disobey that command. This is the same
principle mentioned above in Qur'an 60:12. On the other hand, as we
shall show, obeying someone's instructions, as long as the command is
in accordance with Islamic teachings, is not contradictory to Islam.
In Islam, not only are we to obey a leader we make bay`a to (as was
practiced by the Companions), but also to my understanding we are
required in general to obey our parents, as long as their instructions
do not contradict Islam.
The Qur'an says in meaning:
We have enjoined on man kindness to parents: but if they (either
of them) strive (to force) thee to join with Me (in worship)
anything of which thou hast no knowledge, obey them not. Ye have
(all) to return to me, and I will tell you (the truth) of all that
ye did.
[Qur'an 29:8, Yusuf Ali translation.]
Again, the same principle is revealed in this verse -- if their
command contradicts Islam, then a parent should be disobeyed, but
apart from this there is nothing wrong in obeying your parents.
Similarly, there is nothing wrong with obeying authorities, as long as
what they ask you to do does not contradict Islam. The Qur'an says in
meaning:
O ye who believe! Obey God, and obey the Apostle, and those
charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among
yourselves, refer it to God and His Apostle, if ye do believe in
God and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final
determination.
[Qur'an 4:59, Yusuf Ali translation.]
I hope this helps to clarify that there is nothing wrong with
obedience to someone, so long as their instructions to you do not
contradict Islamic teachings.
In summary, making bay`a to a Shaykh is based on the early practice of
the Companions of the Prophet (s.a.w.), who made bay`a to the khilafa,
and it is an Islamic practice. Obedience to a Shaykh should only be
as long as his instructions are in accordance with the shari`ah. No
authentic Sufi shaykh I am aware of claims otherwise, and if anyone
claims to be a Sufi yet says or does things against the shari`ah, they
should be avoided, since there are both false Sufis and true Sufis,
and it is important to distinguish the true from the false.
> The companions of our prophet never blindly followed him, they first
> asked if it was his opinion or it was from God concerning what he has
> said to them.
Your claim contradicts Qur'an 60:12, mentioned above.
I think here you have confused the topics of where the Prophet
(s.a.w.) sometimes asked for advice from his Companions, as did
sometimes occur. However, if the Prophet (s.a.w.) instructed them to
do something, his Companions did it unhesitatingly, as they were
required to do under their oath, given in Qur'an 60:12, where they
promise to obey the Prophet in any just matter.
If what you are saying was correct, then the Companions would be
breaking their oath, as it is recorded in the Qur'an. I seriously
doubt that that would be the case, and I have never seen any evidence
for your claims.
> They knew what Islam was. They knew that they would only
> follow what has been revealed to them by their Lord. Unfortunately
> some people today lacking rational thinking principles are mixing
> everything like a soup and deceiving themselves and some others.
It seems to me that in general you have confused the topic of only
accepting shari`ah from divine revelation, with the topic of obedience
to an individual. These are two different matters, and are dealt with
in separate verses in the Qur'an. The clear principle from the Qur'an
is that obedience to an individual is permissable as long as that
person's instructions do not contradict the shari`ah. This is also
the principle to be used in following an authentic Shaykh.
Fariduddien Rice
Mikaeel
Fouad Haddad said:
<<O my Lord, I accuse this person -- Abu Atiya -- of slandering my
brothers in faith and debasing the greeting of peace among Muslims
with statements that characterize enmity not brotherhood.>>
Again I repeat this is the truth and I mention no name. So who am I
slandering, you must know the person I'm talking about. Instead of acusing
me you should be teaching them the Fatihah. I study Allah's book and the
Sunnah of His messenger (saws). My goal is to please my lord and follow
His messenger (saws). This deen saved me from a drug adiction when nothing
else would work. its so simple, follow Allah and follow His messenger
(saws). You talk about brother hood, you admit you don't beleive as I
beleive; so are we brothers in faith anyway. I will probably stop posting
here if you continue to attack me PERSONALLY. I don't know you or accuse
you of anything, why do you continue to attack me, leave me alone.
I seek refuge with Allah from you and your Dua/accusation.
AbdulraHman Lomax
as-salamu 'alaykum.
euphrates <euphr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Fouad Haddad wrote:
>> It is related from Abu Yazid al-Bistami that he said: "Who does not have
>> a shaykh, his shaykh is shaytan."
>Funny...Then:
> Who was the shaykh of our prophet(pbuh)?
> Who was the shaykh of Jesus(pbuh)?
[etc., with a list of 6 more prophets.]
Allah knows best, but perhaps what Abu Yazid, QS, said was a general
truth and not without exception; it may even be a challenge and a bit
of advice representing a warning, and not a logic-chopping syllogism.
>From what little I know of him, Abu Yazid would be far more concerned
with the immediate needs of those to whom he spoke than to how some
dull-witted critic would take his words many centuries later.
The fact is that who is unwilling to be guided, has Satan for a guide.
We may say that the shaykh of our Prophet, SAS, was Jibriyl, AS. Of
course, this takes the term "shaykh" a bit outside of its normal
usage....
> If you can not find their shaykh please apologize twice for implying
>them to have a shaykh also that shaykh being satan.
Euphrates has completely lost context. What Br. Haddad said is
undoubtedly true. "It is reported that...," regardless of (1) whether
or not Abu Yazid ever said the thing, regardless of (2) whether or not
the thing is unconditionally true, and regardless of (3) whether or
not it is situationally true.
AbdulraHman Lomax
mar...@ioa.com
P.O. Box 5123
Asheville, NC 28813
euphrates
AbdulraHman Lomax wrote:
> The fact is that who is unwilling to be guided, has Satan for a guide.
> We may say that the shaykh of our Prophet, SAS, was Jibriyl, AS. Of
> course, this takes the term "shaykh" a bit outside of its normal
> usage....
It seems you have to define shaykh first so that I know what it stands
for.
Your explanation is a good try. But two problems:
who is the shaykh of the shaykh to be followed? (Do not say he had once
a shaykh, because when that shaykh dies then you don't have a shaykh so
your shaykh becomes shaitan according to your logic, or is it only
enough to have a shaykh for sometime in order to be a shaykh, and also
when you become a shaykh do you need a shaykh)
if you still insist then answer this
who is the shaykh of the original shaykh?
Euphrates
"Who is more foolish the fool or the fool who follows the fool?"
IBN ADAM
Fouad Haddad wrote:
> It is related from Abu Yazid al-Bistami that he said: "Who does not have
> a shaykh, his shaykh is shaytan."
<<Funny...Then:
Who was the shaykh of our prophet(pbuh)?
Who was the shaykh of Jesus(pbuh)?
Who was the shaykh of Moses(pbuh)?
Who was the shaykh of Abraham(pbuh)?
Who was the shaykh of Solomon(pbuh)?
Who was the shaykh of David(pbuh)?
Who was the shaykh of Noah(pbuh)?
Who was the shaykh of Adam(pbuh)?
If you can not find their shaykh please apologize twice for
implying
them to have a shaykh also that shaykh being satan.>>
JIBREEL (AS) and a addition toMusa (as), al-khidhr.
Fouad Haddad
In article <5l2uur$r...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> abdul...@worldnet.att.net (AbdulraHman Lomax) writes:
>euphrates <euphr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Fouad Haddad wrote:
>>> It is related from Abu Yazid al-Bistami that he said: "Who does not have
>>> a shaykh, his shaykh is shaytan."
>>Funny...Then:
>> Who was the shaykh of our prophet(pbuh)?
>> Who was the shaykh of Jesus(pbuh)?
>[etc., with a list of 6 more prophets.]
Did not the Messengers receive the news from Heaven through an angel?
Yet Allah is quite able to give it directly, as He did in the case of the
Prophet Musa. This is a teaching for us that even Prophets accept
a teacher who, in the larger scheme of things, could well be their student,
since the best of mankind are considered of a rank above the best of the
angels. Another lesson is that the Prophet, who scaled the seven heavens
and went to a point where Jibril himself could not accompany him, took to
himself a guide when he emigrated from Mecca to Madina. If "euphrates" has
ears to hear, then hear!
Blessings and peace on the Prophet, his Family, and his Companions
Fouad Haddad
fha...@sunnah.org
AbdulraHman Lomax
as-salamu 'alaykum.
euphrates <euphr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Very interesting things are happening. Mr. Lomax and Mr. Haddad after
>thinking a week called Jibril(pbuh) who is one of the greatest
>messengers of Allah, "shaykh" just to make their arguement that
>everyone has to have a shaykh valid.
I did not call Jibriyl a "shaykh," except that I noted it was a
stretch of meaning. Here is what I said:
***begin quote***
The fact is that who is unwilling to be guided, has Satan for a guide.
We may say that the shaykh of our Prophet, SAS, was Jibriyl, AS. Of
course, this takes the term "shaykh" a bit outside of its normal
usage....
***end quote***
>These people unfortunately does not have a clear understanding of Islam.
Euphrates apparently does not understand what is in front of him....
>They do not appearantly read the Quran carefully. I would not put Mr.
>Lomax under the same category with Mr. Haddad until recently. But he is
>no different than Mr. Haddad, I suppose their only difference is having
>different shaykhs.
I am flattered, but I do not have a "shaykh" like Mr. Haddad. I have
known a number of shuyukh, whom I respect to one degree or other. I do
not take the statement "who does not have a shaykh has Satan for a
shaykh" literally; rather, one who is unwilling to receive guidance
merely because it comes through a human being is in great danger of
being deceived by Satan. And if I had the time, it would be easy to
establish this from the Qur'an, for arguments against being guided by
human beings are found there, in quotations from kafiruwn.
>Jibril (pbuh) was a messenger of Allah. He brought what was sent by
>Allah to human messengers. Human messengers explained what has been
>revealed to them to people. There has never been a shaykh -
>slave(whatever you call it) relationship between the prophets and
>Jibril. Also no such a relationship existed between the prophets and the
>people.
What is the relationship between a shaykh and one who learns from him?
Euphrates seems to assume that it is master-slave. The essential
relationship is not one of slavery, but of a willingness and an
ability to inform and guide -- or transmit -- on the part of the
shaykh and a willingness to learn, follow, and receive on the part of
the follower. Certainly this relationship existed between the prophets
and Jibriyl, AS.
Does it exist between Euphrates and anyone? Certainly I do not know,
but the phrase which to which he objects so strenously suggests that
if it does not, he is in great danger.
>One of the central and crucial messages of Islam is to have Allah as
>the sole "rab"-teacher, ordainer-. Prophets bring what Allah reveal to
>them, therefore following the prophet's message is actually equivalent
>to following God's message.
This is actually a paradoxical statement. By this logic, as it is
being applied, if we take the Prophet as our teacher, then we no
longer have Allah as our "sole" teacher. No, the example of the
prophet shows that it is possible that following the example and
guidance of a human being *is* following the guidance of Allah. This
becomes especially clear if that human being is part of the chain of
transmission passing through the Prophet himself. It is precisely this
claim which is made by and on behalf of some of the shuyukh, and it is
made by the shuyukh of fiqh as well as the shuyukh of tasawwuf. What
is the difference?
>There are many verses in Quran who orders us to reject other rabs.
Min duwnillah. To take another lord *in the place of Allah*, i.e.,
instead of, in contradiction to, Allah, is what is forbidden, not
learning from others with more knowledge or experience: the latter is
actually encouraged by the Qur'an. The kind of argument presented by
Euphrates is typical of a number of heretical groups: the followers of
Rashad Khalifa come to mind.
>Euphrates
>"Who is more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows the fool?"
or the fool who imagines that others are fools? "a laa innahum humu
s-sufahaa'u wa lakin laa ya'lamuwn." na'udhu billah.
AbdulraHman Lomax
abdul...@worldnet.att.net
P.O. Box 10316
San Rafael, CA 94912
AbdulraHman Lomax
as-salamu 'alaykum.
euphrates <euphr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>So you knew what the discussion was about.
Yup.
>Clearly Mr. Haddad's
>definition of shaykh
>was not the same of yours.
Not so clear.
>Instead of warning Mr. Haddad about
>understanding the term "shaykh" correctly
>in "who does not have a shaykh has Satan for a shaykh", why did you
>support his misunderstanding
>and did not write anything about it.
I wrote that it was true, provided that one understood that it was not
a categorical, unconditional truth, but a relative truth. I do not
think that Br. Haddad misunderstood anything, but Euphrates is not
exactly showing signs of clear thinking.
>I invite you to do this in your
>reply to make your position clear.
I don't have anything to add. A "shaykh" generally refers to a person
of knowledge; it implies age, but not rigidly. Metaphorically, it
could be applied to anyone from whom one receives guidance, and it is
necessary to apply this understanding for the statement "who does not
have a shaykh has Satan for a shaykh" to be true in the case of
prophets. But Haddad was not really writing about Prophets, he was
talking about you and me.
Believe me, I worry about this one.
>> I am flattered, but I do not have a "shaykh" like Mr. Haddad.
>Now suddenly you begin to understand what shaykh means so clearly that
>you even declare you don't have a shaykh forgetting the stretched meaning of it.
I don't get direct instructions from Jibriyl, AS. At least not yet, or
not that I recognise....
Ah, the arrogance we encounter sometimes leaves me breatheless. I did
not forget. Rather, words do not have fixed, nailed-down meanings, as
the shallow-minded sometimes like to think. I'm getting the same kind
of argument, though on a more challenging level, from certain
Christians writing in s.r.i.
>> one who is unwilling to receive guidance
>> merely because it comes through a human being is in great danger of
>> being deceived by Satan.
>You are playing with the words here. We are supposed to take warnings or
>admonitions from anyone.
So take them. I am not playing with words. What was quoted is just
what I intended to say.
>You may even take guidance from a human. But you have to make sure that
>it comes from God.
No. That is backwards. We first take guidance from our parents, and we
are under no obligation, at first, to "make sure that it comes from
God." Rather, as we receive guidance, we become capable of
discrimination, and we may then be tested. But the beginning of the
path is the baby who does not question the mother's milk.
>Now how can you make sure whatever
>the shaykh says comes from Quran knowing that the first requirement of
>the shaykh is to believe whatever he says as true and not to discuss
>about it.
Where did that come from? Was that true of the Prophet, AS? If it was
true of the Prophet, then it is lawful, at least, with regard to the
shaykh. But a shaykh who made that his "first requirement," well, it
sounds a little rigid and controlling to me, not at all like one who
himself trusts in Allah.
A shaykh might say, "listen and learn." He might suggest that one
assume that what he says is true until one has sufficient
understanding to verify it.
>Is not this the same thing Christians did to their monks? I am sure you
>know the verses about them.
Any good thing may be perverted by those whose hearts are corrupt.
>> What is the relationship between a shaykh and one who learns from him?
>> Euphrates seems to assume that it is master-slave. The essential
>> relationship is not one of slavery, but of a willingness and an
>> ability to inform and guide -- or transmit -- on the part of the
>> shaykh and a willingness to learn, follow, and receive on the part of
>> the follower. Certainly this relationship existed between the prophets
>> and Jibriyl, AS.
>Now you shift to the stretched meaning of shaykh, you sound like
>Christians who choose Jesus to be God at one time and human at another,
>so that they may answer every question about their conflicts. Decide
>what a shaykh is first, and then argue.
I established, clearly enough, I think, if one is willing to read,
that there is a parallel between the relationship between a shaykh and
one who learns from him and the relationship of Jibriyl and the
Prophet, SAS. The parallel goes even further; in neither case was the
"teacher" the real origin of the knowledge; it comes from Allah. I
have no problem understanding what is a shaykh. But one who loves
argument more than clarity will always be able to find more to
debate....
>> Does it exist between Euphrates and anyone?
>Now I assume your question is about the stretched meaning of shaykh.
Nope, it was about the ordinary meaning, the primary meaning, not the
secondary, exceptional one. Most of us do not have Jibriyl for a
shaykh....
>If
>it is so then my shaykh is Quran, the word of God.
Sounds like every run-of-the-mill heretic to me. Now, I will also say
that my shaykh is the Qur'an. But somehow he speaks to me a bit
differently than does Euphrates. Of course, perhaps one of us is a
poor follower -- or both of us.
>Quran is a message
>from God, to inform and guide people -- or transmit -- . And I am
>willing to learn, follow and receive what the God tells to me in this
>book.
Let's hope so. As for myself, I am not so willing. It takes personal
disaster, calamity, my nose getting rubbed in it for me to learn. Inna
n-nafsa la 'ammaratun bisu'. And it takes reading the Qur'an over and
over, applying the verses about the Jews and Christians, the kafiruwn
and the munafiquwn, to *myself*, at least enough that I worry about
them. It takes recognising that when I think that the people in danger
are *those* people, I am, in fact, in danger, and I have lost the
capacity to be warned.
>What Jibril, AS taught the messengers was the message of Allah, it was
>once Torah, Gospel, and once Quran and also "The Book" as Mr. Katz
>noticed its difference. If you mean the term shaykh as it is used by Mr.
>Haddad, my answer is how can I have any "shaykh"-that is your stretched
>shaykh- other than Quran, since it warns me not to in [7.3].
Again, this is a Khalifite argument. I have already, in this thread,
answered this objection. But, since Euphrates (what a name for a
Muslim!) seems to need some repetition, the verse prohibits following
awli'a min duwih, guardians aside from him. Certainly, taken
literally, this would prohibit following, for example, the Prophet
when he elucidates a Qur'anic text. Rather, we take this as
substituting the guidance of anyone for the guidance of Allah.
But what is the guidance of Allah?
Euphrates is saying that it is the Qur'an, but the Qur'an is useless
to one who does not understand it. How do we obtain the understanding?
Essentially, we depend on Allah, but in practice, we depend on
generations of scholars who have provided us with a tremendous arsenal
for this jihad of the 'aql. We have commentaries, dictionaries,
grammars, translations, and supporting material in the form of hadith
and transmitted consensus. But all of this is of no avail if Allah
does not intend that we understand his meaning.
>Please
>notice I do not have any problem about Quran being taught by a person,
>when the student has the chance to check if it is really from Quran and
>object if it is not. Unfortunately Mr. Haddad has to accept everything
>taught by his shaykh and this is strictly prohibited by God.
I do agree with one thing. I consider it forbidden to "accept
everything" if this means that one must violate the shari'a, as one
understands it, without question, if one's shaykh orders this. But I
highly doubt that "Mr. Haddad," whom I would prefer to call "brother,"
has been obligated to do this. Rather, if his shaykh were to order him
to do something against the shari'a, something which I do not expect,
I would think that he would dely action until he understood better.
After all, perhaps he has misunderstood the *shaykh.* Or the *shari'a*
Or both.
Intention is everything. If Br. Haddad intends the worship of Allah by
following his shaykh, his following will be accepted, I am thoroughly
confident. And if he intends something else, his reward will be in
accordance with his intention. This is well enough described in the
Qur'an.
As it happens, his shaykh is knowledgeable in the shari'a. There are
shuyukh of tasawwuf who are not so knowledgeable, who know the nafs
and its ways, and its purification, and who defer to the scholars in
matters of law.
>> This is actually a paradoxical statement. By this logic, as it is
>> being applied, if we take the Prophet as our teacher, then we no
>> longer have Allah as our "sole" teacher.
>I hope this has been clear to you now. Notice the companions of prophet
>were able to suggest their own ideas if what our beloved prophet said
>was not from God but his own idea in a particular topic.
I have never met a shaykh of any substance who denied the right of his
followers to ask him, to question him. In fact, it seems to be pretty
hard to get followers to ask good questions. Many people just want to
sit around and soak up the baraka. Bad idea, I would say, and it
borders on magical thinking. Yes, the company of the righteous is, in
itself, a blessing. But part of the blessing is in being able to ask
them questions....
On the other hand, there are those who ask as Moses was asked. What
does the Qur'an say about that, O Euphrates?
By the way, I have certainly questioned what Br. Haddad's shaykh has
written, though it was mostly in private correspondence, not on s.r.i.
My questions -- which were a sometimes harsh critique of some of the
material -- about the Salafi problem -- which has eventually been
published, were met with some initial hostility by one of the shaykh's
followers, but he promptly apologised. And the shaykh himself told me,
when I met him, that he welcomed what I wrote.
I certainly was not told that it was obligatory to not question the
shaykh. Where did this idea come from?
>>This
>> becomes especially clear if that human being is part of the chain of
>> transmission passing through the Prophet himself.
>No, it does not matter if that person is part of the chain of
>transmission or not. Certainly it has no value.
Euphrates stands naked before us. He has completely denied that there
is any value to authenticity. With standards like these, no wonder his
understanding of the Qur'an and hadith is so shallow.
>Still you have to question, if what one says is from Allah or not?
In fact, it is all from Allah. But part of it is trial and part of it
is blessing.
>That
>is essential, and is the requirement of your submission to Allah alone.
>Certainly it is not a requirement if you feel free to submit yourself to
>other people or more generally to other gods.
>> Min duwnillah. To take another lord *in the place of Allah*, i.e.,
>It is not only *in the place of Allah* but also *besides Allah*.
So Euphrates *did* read my comment on this point. "Besides" can mean
"to the exclusion of." And this is the meaning of those passages,
according to my understanding and the understanding of the scholars I
have heard speak about them. (This also applies to the verse where the
Muslims are told not to take Christians as friends *min duwn* the
believers. It does not mean that we are not allowed to befriend
Christians.)
>> The kind of argument presented by
>> Euphrates is typical of a number of heretical groups: the followers of
>> Rashad Khalifa come to mind.
>I am not a follower of the person mentioned
Except in a certain matter of style.
>nor am I a member of any
>other group. But certainly not everything is black and white.
>If they also sometimes say the truth then it is still the truth. There
>is a saying; Gold in thrash is still gold.
Trash. I think he meant trash. Gold in trash is in imminent danger of
being lost. It may be gold, but until it is separated from the trash,
it is useless.
>I hope the above parargraphs made my point clear to you.
>Btw I am not a salafi either. No need to say I am not from "the quick
>classifiers":)
>I am a muslim.
Well, good for that. Now act more like one. It does not become a
muslim to insult those who have more knowledge. Or anyone, for that
matter, without cause. It is certainly lawful, and even necessary, to
question, but question with caution and humility.
Best wishes....
Hatem Soliman
As Salaamu 'ala man ittaba'alhuda;
AbdulraHman Lomax <abdul...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<5libfd$ghq$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>...
> as-salamu 'alaykum.
>
> Euphrates seems to assume that it is master-slave.
(((Concerning the relationship between the learner and the Shaiykh.)))
>
Mr. Lomaax asks a very important Question:
> What is the relationship between a Shaykh and one who learns from him?
Note The one who learner = Mureed is Sufi terms.
He answers it in a very non-Sufi way:
>The essential relationship is not one of slavery, but of a willingness and
an
> ability to inform and guide -- or transmit -- on the part of the
> Shaykh and a willingness to learn, follow, and receive on the part of
> the follower. Certainly this relationship existed between the prophets
> and Jibriyl, AS.
As one has to say the truth, One has to say it all!
A Sufi answer to the above can be retrieved from Al-Anwaarul Qudsiyah
by Ash-Sha'raani; {AlMa'aref-Bairout}
[Vol. 1, P 200]
(( Ash-shaiykh Abul Hajjaj Al-oqsori used to say: ''' The sincere Mureed
will never gain the degree of men (Wali) until he is willing to give up his
life
and perish his will under the will of his Shaiykh. and then he (Abul Hajjaj
)
said: If *die* ( as an order from his shaiykh) had been said to me, I would
have died out of obedience at once, and I would have said to the Angle of
death Ahlan Wa Marhaban.(welcome).'''
he also used to say: ''' It is a condition upon the Mureed, not to
accompany
his Shaiykh with any Self (!), wealth or choice (will) Rather He should see
himself ****OWNED**** by his Shaiykh who can act with him as he
pleases.'''))
[Vol. 1, P 204]
(( And it is his (the Mureed's) duty not to say ***WHY*** to his
Shaiykh.!!!
It is a consensus among the Shoiyoukh (Sufis) That every Mureed who
said ***WHY*** to his Shaiykh will never be successful.))
[Thousands more sayings can be found easily]
> if we take the Prophet as our teacher, then we no
> longer have Allah as our "sole" teacher.
There is a conflict between saying (if we take the Prophet as our
teacher, then we no longer have Allah as our "sole" teacher.)
and Verse 7 in Surat- Al_Hashre where Allah swt says:
{....., So take what the messenger assigns to you, and deny yourselves that
which he withholds from you; And fear Allah, for Allah is strict in
punishment.}
In the verse Allah swt is teaching us not only to take Mohammad saaw as our
teacher, but also to follow his teaching strictly. and then Allah swt
ordered us to
fear him (do as he said, i.e.. take from the Messenger saaw whatever he
gave)
otherwise .....
A Muslim who has the least knowledge in Islaam, would know by necessity
that
Learning from the Messenger saaw is learning from Allah swt without
denying
Allah swt of being the soul teacher.
>No, the example of the
> prophet shows that it is possible that following the example and
> guidance of a human being *is* following the guidance of Allah.
This is an extremely Wrong I'tiqaad. For we have no evidence that sending
the
Messenger saaw and indeed all the prophets, was JUST an example for
humanity to follow the teachings of ANY OTHER HUMAN !!!!!!!
In the above, There is a hint of comparison between Humans and The
Messenger saaw. Na'ootho Billahi Men Thalika.
> This becomes especially clear if that human being is part of the chain of
> transmission passing through the Prophet himself.
What is there to suggest that those who falsely claim talking, sitting with
or taught be the Messenger saaw are telling the truth?
if they are not, How then can one end up following the guidance of Allah
swt.
>
> >There are many verses in Quran who orders us to reject other rabs.
>
> Min duwnillah. To take another lord *in the place of Allah*, i.e.,
> instead of, in contradiction to, Allah, is what is forbidden, not
> learning from others with more knowledge or experience: the latter is
> actually encouraged by the Qur'an. The kind of argument presented by
> Euphrates is typical of a number of heretical groups: the followers of
> Rashad Khalifa come to mind.
I do understand from the above that it is all right to take other Lords as
long as you keep Allah swt among them (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
, what is prohibited it to exclude Allah.
If this is the understanding any one, (A'oothu Billahi Menath Dhanni)
I would confidently say to that person, Come to Islaam, seek Allah's
forgiveness
So you may be forgiven. What you've been introduced to is not Islaam.
> >Euphrates
> >"Who is more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows the fool?"
>
> or the fool who imagines that others are fools? "a laa innahum humu
> s-sufahaa'u wa lakin laa ya'lamuwn." na'udhu billah.
Fools is not the appropriate description, simply because fools are
sometimes born fools; There is nothing they can do about it.
I'd rather say (Ssommon Bokmon 'omyon, fahum la yafqahoon).
May Allah reward every one who fights the Shirk for his sake
May Allah swt crush his enemies so hard and so suddenly
May Allah forgive the sins of the Muslims. Aaameeen
Jazakomollaho Khiyran. (Muslims)
Was Salaamu 'ala man ittaba'alhuda;
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Abu Hadeer
e-mail: <<h.so...@ukonline.co.uk>>
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||
euphrates
Salaam,
AbdulraHman Lomax wrote:
I noticed a wrong behavior on my side, I will try not to attack your
personality anymore, but focus on the subject.
> But Haddad was not really writing about Prophets, he was talking about you and me.
The written statement was a general statement. It did not exclude
prophets. Also I think he responded by saying Jibril, (pbuh) was the
shaykh of prophets after you.
> I don't get direct instructions from Jibriyl, AS. At least not yet, or
> not that I recognise....
I thought the stretched meaning did not necessarily mean Jibril, AS.
Also "At least not yet" is redundant, because the revelation won't
happen again.
> But the beginning of the
> path is the baby who does not question the mother's milk.
Clearly I was not talking about babies who are not responsible for
anything.
> Where did that come from? Was that true of the Prophet, AS? If it was
> true of the Prophet, then it is lawful, at least, with regard to the
> shaykh.
We can not compare an angel with a person if you are trying to do that.
When you take the revelation from Jibril(pbuh), you are absolutely sure
that it is from Allah. Angels can not add anything by themselves. They
have to obey God's orders, but human may choose not to.(Except
messengers in their mission)
> But a shaykh who made that his "first requirement," well, it
> sounds a little rigid and controlling to me, not at all like one who
> himself trusts in Allah.
That is what I am trying to say.
009.031 They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords
in derogation of
God, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were
commanded
to worship but One God: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him:
(Far is He)
from having the partners they associate (with Him).
Mr. Lomax can you please explain us how did Christians take their
priests as lords besides Allah? If you object to word "besides" there, I
will ask you another question: What is the meaning of mushreek? Do
Christians leave Allah and take Jesus(pbuh) in the place of Him as their
lord, or do they take both of them as Lords?
> in neither case was the
> "teacher" the real origin of the knowledge; it comes from Allah. I
When it comes from an angel, it is true the knowledge is from Allah. But
when it comes from a person it may or may not be true, there is no
guarantee except for the messengers.
> Nope, it was about the ordinary meaning, the primary meaning, not the
> secondary, exceptional one. Most of us do not have Jibriyl for a
> shaykh....
I thought the stretched meaning was not only Jibril, (pbuh) but it was
more generalistic. Appearantly I mis(over)understood you.
> But somehow he speaks to me a bit
> differently than does Euphrates. Of course, perhaps one of us is a
> poor follower -- or both of us.
Actually it speaks the same way to both of us. But our interpretations
may be different. And I agree with the last sentence.
>But, since Euphrates (what a name for a Muslim!)
Since I decided that I will focus on the subject I won't ask why do you
have "Lomax" as your last name or why a river name is unislamic.
Please do not take them as questions.
> Certainly, taken literally, this would prohibit following, for example, the Prophet
> when he elucidates a Qur'anic text. Rather, we take this as
> substituting the guidance of anyone for the guidance of Allah.
No it does not. The message of the messenger is no different than the
message of Allah. There is no doubt about it.
Also we are commanded to follow the messenger's message which is in fact
God's message, that is why they are called messengers.
But following some people about whom we have no evidence is what the
verse [7.3] forbids us from.
> Euphrates is saying that it is the Qur'an, but the Qur'an is useless
> to one who does not understand it.
Quran is clear, it is a guidance. If you do not understand it, that
means you have a mental problem-not you Mr. lomax-.
You are not supposed to understand every verse. But you are obligated to
understand the basic message. Everyone is responsible to the extent of
their knowledge.
> But all of this is of no avail if Allah
> does not intend that we understand his meaning.
They definitely help if you seek for deeper understanding, and I agree
Allah guides alone.
> I do agree with one thing. I consider it forbidden to "accept
> everything" if this means that one must violate the shari'a, as one
> understands it, without question, if one's shaykh orders this.
Mr. Lomax "To accept everything" means not to question it, so you would
not know if it was against the shariah or not, regardless of the order
actually violating the shariah or not. Maybe it does not. But the
important thing is accepting everything you are told is submission, and
it is prohibited to be to someone other than Allah.
> But I
> highly doubt that "Mr. Haddad," whom I would prefer to call "brother,"
I prefer Mr. Haddad..
> has been obligated to do this. Rather, if his shaykh were to order him
> to do something against the shari'a, something which I do not expect,
> I would think that he would dely action until he understood better.
> After all, perhaps he has misunderstood the *shaykh.* Or the *shari'a*
> Or both.
Again to restate, the important thing here is not whether the shaykh
violates the shariah or not, but whether the murid submits himself to
him or not.
Now here is the requirements of his shaykh:
1.The seeker must submit to the will of the shaikh and to obey him in
all his orders and advice, because the shaikh has more experience and
^^^^^^
more knowledge in haqiqat, in tariqat and in shari'ah. As the sick
person gives himself to his doctor to be cured, so too does the murid,
sick
in his conduct and behavior, submit to the shaikh's experience in
order to be healed.
2.The seeker must not object to the way the shaikh instructs and
controls the murids. Each shaikh has his own way, which he has been
^^^^^^
permitted by his own shaikh to use. Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haythami said,
"Whoever opens the door of criticism against shaikhs and their
behavior with their murids and their actions will be punished and
will be isolated from receiving spiritual knowledge. Whoever says to his
shaikh, 'wWhy?' will never succeed." [al-Fatawa al- adathiyya, p.
55]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
3.The seeker must know that the shaikh might make some mistakes, but
that these will not prevent him from lifting the murid up to the Divine
Presence. So the murid must excuse the shaikh, as the shaikh is not
the Prophet (s). Only the Prophet (s) was free of error. Although it is
rare, just as the doctor might make a mistake in treating a
patient, so too might the shaikh make a mistake in treating his murid's
spiritual
illness, and that must be excused.
4.The seeker must respect and honor the shaikh in his presence and
his absence, if only because the shaikh can see with the eye of the
heart.
It is said that whoever is not happy with the orders of the shaikh,
and does not keep good conduct and adab with him, will never keep
good conduct with the Qur'an and with the Sunnah of the Prophet
(s). Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jilani said, "Whoever criticised a saint,
Allah
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
will
cause his heart to wither."
Did you say you criticized a shaykh Mr. Lomax:)?
5.The murid must be sincere and loyal to the company of his shaikh.
6.He must love his shaikh with an extraordinary love. He must know
that his shaikh is going to take him to the Presence of Allah, Almighty
and Exalted, and to the Presence of the Prophet (s).
7.He must not look to any other than his shaikh, though he must keep
respect for all other shaikhs.
External Conduct of the Murid
1.He must agree with the opinion of his shaikh completely, as the
patient agrees with the physician.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
2.He must behave well in the association of the shaikh, by avoiding
yawning, laughing, raising the voice, talking without authorization,
extending the feet, and always sitting in a respectful manner.
3.He must serve his shaikh and make himself as useful as possible.
4.He must not mention from the speeches of his shaikh what listeners
cannot understand. This might harm the shaikh in a way that the murid is
unaware of. Sayyidina cAli said, in a hadith narrated in Bukhari,
"Speak to people at a level they can understand, because you don't want
them to deny Allah and His Prophet (s)."
5.He must attend the association of the shaikh. Even if living far
away, he must make an effort to come as often as possible.
> Intention is everything. If Br. Haddad intends the worship of Allah by
Intention is everything for your deeds, but not for your submission,
there are verses in the Quran that shows that the intention is not an
excuse for your submission to other people or things. May I ask for your
proofs about your opinion. I will post mine next time. Also if intention
is everything why then Christians will go to hell?
> I have never met a shaykh of any substance who denied the right of his
> followers to ask him, to question him.
Refer to the passage I have quoted above and meet with one.
> But part of the blessing is in being able to ask
> them questions....
I agree.
> By the way, I have certainly questioned what Br. Haddad's shaykh has
> written, though it was mostly in private correspondence, not on s.r.i.
Are you his murid? If not of course you can question, who can prevent
that?
> I certainly was not told that it was obligatory to not question the
> shaykh. Where did this idea come from?
It directly comes from the shaykh. Please refer to the passage I have
quoted.
> Euphrates stands naked before us. He has completely denied that there
> is any value to authenticity.
Did I? I think there is a misunderstanding. The authenticity of the
knowledge is very important.
What I said was it is of no value if the person comes from a chain of
the prophet or not? Person versus knowledge, they are different.
> So Euphrates *did* read my comment on this point. "Besides" can mean
> "to the exclusion of."
This seems to be another discussion topic, if you want you may start a
new thread for it. I have stated my opinion about it.
> It is certainly lawful, and even necessary, to
> question, but question with caution and humility.
Thank you for your suggestions.
Regards,
Euphrates
Tariq N
as-salaam ala man al itibaa al hudaa
I don't read this news group very often, but I have a question for Mr.
Haddad...
What is the daleel for going through a "shaykh" to get closer to Allah?
Please respond via email
AbdulraHman Lomax
as-salamu 'alaykum.
I do not like to casually charge writers in s.r.i. with kufr. But I am
constrained to say that if Br. Hatem meant to say what he appears to
have said, it was the writing of a kafir.
"Hatem Soliman" <h.so...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>As Salaamu 'ala man ittaba'alhuda;
Always puts me off my feed when I am addressed in that way. But it is
typical of Salafis.
>Mr. Lomaax asks a very important Question:
>> What is the relationship between a Shaykh and one who learns from him?
>Note The one who learner = Mureed is Sufi terms.
Mureed has a slightly different connotation. It connotes one who does
not merely learn, but who has surrendered to guidance.
>He answers it in a very non-Sufi way:
Why, then, I must not be a Sufi. Ah, well. Next year, perhaps.
>>The essential relationship is not one of slavery, but of a willingness and
>an
>> ability to inform and guide -- or transmit -- on the part of the
>> Shaykh and a willingness to learn, follow, and receive on the part of
>> the follower. Certainly this relationship existed between the prophets
>> and Jibriyl, AS.
>As one has to say the truth, One has to say it all!
I'd better go out and buy a few oceans of ink. Wait, this is the
modern age, we don't use pen and ink any more. What I need now is a
prepaid medical services contract, to deal with the carpal tunnel
syndrome that I would surely develop from all that typing. Maybe I'll
get Warp 4, with VoiceType, and buy a few cases of throat lozenges.
Still, I don't think I would live long enough.
>A Sufi answer to the above can be retrieved from Al-Anwaarul Qudsiyah
>by Ash-Sha'raani; {AlMa'aref-Bairout}
There are thousands of writers who might be considered, legitimately,
Sufi, and they have written reams of material on the subject. What I
said stands, and I do not think that the Sufi authorities would
disagree with it. But what I described was only the beginning of the
relationship of the shaykh and his mureed; in fact, "mureed" is a more
advanced stage. The mureed has come to understand that the guidance of
his shaykh is more to be trusted than his own nafs. At that moment, it
became obligatory on him to follow his shaykh. Is this sunna? Read on.
>(( Ash-shaiykh Abul Hajjaj Al-oqsori used to say: ''' The sincere Mureed
>will never gain the degree of men (Wali) until he is willing to give up his
>life and perish his will under the will of his Shaiykh. and then he
>(Abul Hajjaj) said: If *die* ( as an order from his shaiykh) had been said
>to me, I would have died out of obedience at once, and I would have said
>to the Angle of death Ahlan Wa Marhaban.(welcome).'''
>he also used to say: ''' It is a condition upon the Mureed, not to
>accompany his Shaiykh with any Self (!), wealth or choice (will) Rather
>He should see himself ****OWNED**** by his Shaiykh who can act with him
>as he pleases.'''))
Is this not the description of the relationship of some of the
companions, RA, to the Prophet, SAS?
If this relationship is a forbidden relationship, why did the Prophet
not forbid it? Or did he order, "You can do this with me, but don't do
it with anyone else."
Obviously, there is a great danger if one surrenders to a guide who is
corrupt, who is going to do other than convey the guidance and message
of Allah. It does happen that immature seekers *wish* for the state of
the mureed, for all kinds of reasons, not all of them good. This is
one of the hazards of the path. But there is also a hazard in
remaining confined to the prison of the nafs. And thus we come to "who
does not have a shaykh has Satan for a shaykh." It is a warning, not
an airtight piece of logic.
Some movers stumble against a window in a tall building, and the safe
they were carrying falls out. One of them shouts out the window, "Look
out below." A man is walking down the street, and hears this. He
thinks to himself, "How can I look below; I am already on the ground."
>(( And it is his (the Mureed's) duty not to say ***WHY*** to his
>Shaiykh.!!!
>It is a consensus among the Shoiyoukh (Sufis) That every Mureed who
>said ***WHY*** to his Shaiykh will never be successful.))
>[Thousands more sayings can be found easily]
And this saying has a Qur'anic basis. "Will you ask your messenger as
Moses was asked before?" Instead of considering what has been said and
trying to understand what it might possibly mean of truth, Hatem
places the most negative construction on what he reads, then repeats
what he has read with sarcasm.
The shaykh stands as a transmitter of the sunna. That is a real
shaykh, anyway. Are there no real shuyukh? I once asked a man about
this, a man who was, by the way, known as a shaykh. I said, "In the
book, it says of the Prophet, that when his hand was on their hand,
God's hand was on his hand. Are there hands like this in the world
today?" He said, sitting in his office in Washington, D.C., "Yes, but
they do not come to the United States." Now, this was the better part
of twenty years ago. Maybe we have had some visits now. Maybe he was
wrong. What do I know, anyway? I just report what I have seen and what
I think. As to what I have seen, you may trust it within the limits of
my fallible memory and the vagaries of verbal expression. As to what I
think, it is only a suggestion. If it fits the lock, you may open the
door; at that point you will not need to worry about whether or not it
was the true key.
>> if we take the Prophet as our teacher, then we no
>> longer have Allah as our "sole" teacher.
>There is a conflict between saying (if we take the Prophet as our
>teacher, then we no longer have Allah as our "sole" teacher.)
>and Verse 7 in Surat- Al_Hashre where Allah swt says:
>{....., So take what the messenger assigns to you, and deny yourselves that
>which he withholds from you; And fear Allah, for Allah is strict in
>punishment.}
Now, the nafs would love to believe that the "messenger" is only a man
who lived fourteen hundred years ago, and when this man died, we were
completely free to apply our own reasoning. Why does the nafs love
this? Because it knows that reason is the tool of intention. If I want
to find an argument why a proposition is true, I can find one. I might
be able to find a hundred. And I can do this even if the proposition
is false.
Now, if my intention is truth, I will try to consider *all* arguments,
but the nafs knows that I won't have time for this, unless I am very
unusual. So all the nafs has to do is generate a blizzard of arguments
and it can keep me doing what it wants me to do. (Gosh, I'm starting
to sound like Mark Pleas, am I not? Well, Mr Pleas has a point. I am
here arguing for the *lawfulness* and the conditional necessity of
following an authority.
Hatem forgets that "shaykh" is a term which encompasses not only the
shuyukh of tasawwuf but also the shuyukh of hadith, of Qur'an, and so
forth. The nafs wants to be free to interpret all the sources for
itself, because it knows that it takes a lifetime to do this, and, in
the meantime, it can play with possibilities and interpretations, it
can use incomplete understandings, partial readings, evil speculation,
and so forth to prevent the believer from finding the truth.
In my debate with Mr Pleas, I have argued that there is a necessity
for an internal faculty. I do not believe that we are relieved of the
responsibility for ijtihahd; the door is not only open, but ijtihad is
obligatory on every believer, at least in certain matters. Didn't the
Imam Shafi'iyy say that?
But when we have reason to trust the judgement of another, it is not
only lawful, but it may be obligatory to follow that judgement. Again,
the paradigm of this is the Prophet, SAS.
Did that obligation terminate with the death of the Prophet, SAS? The
consensus seems to be that it did not. It is, in fact, a general
obligation, though its conditions became more diffuse.
>A Muslim who has the least knowledge in Islaam, would know by necessity
>that learning from the Messenger saaw is learning from Allah swt without
>denying Allah swt of being the soul teacher.
Sole teacher, I think Hatem meant, though "soul" is interesting. So it
is possible that learning, without question, from a human being is not
shirk. Then why does he cite examples of Sufis doing such a thing, as
if it were obviously shirk, with no other evidence?
>>No, the example of the
>> prophet shows that it is possible that following the example and
>> guidance of a human being *is* following the guidance of Allah.
>This is an extremely Wrong I'tiqaad. For we have no evidence that sending
>the Messenger saaw and indeed all the prophets, was JUST an example for
>humanity to follow the teachings of ANY OTHER HUMAN !!!!!!!
"Ask the people of remembrance." And my statement stands. One might
argue that the Prophets are the *only* examples, but, nevertheless, it
shows that it is possible. What is "extremely wrong?"
And how do we come to know the "teachings" of the Messenger, without
other humans? Does Hatem imagine that the meanings of the Qur'an will
miraculously appear in his heart without *any* human help? Yes, Allah
taught him speech, but Allah used *means.* And we are told to seek
those means. What are the means of knowledge? Are they only books?
Then that loaded donkey must be very knowledgeable.
>In the above, There is a hint of comparison between Humans and The
>Messenger saaw. Na'ootho Billahi Men Thalika.
Uh, this is what I mentioned above. The messenger, SAS, was human. Any
other view is kufr, or at least heresy. It is certainly true that he
is not like others in may respects, but, first of all, he was human.
He ate and drank and relieved himself as we eat and drink and relieve
ourselves. If "there is no hint of comparison between" us and him,
then all analogy derived from his behavior would break down and there
would be no foundation for fiqh except that derived from direct
command. We would not know that he allowing a thing for himself meant
that it was allowed for others.
Hatem's error is in fact a common one in religion. Some Christians did
it with Jesus, some Buddhists did it with the Buddha. Placing the
teacher on a pedestal, apart from humanity, makes their sanctity
inaccessible and justifies our failings.
>> This becomes especially clear if that human being is part of the chain of
>> transmission passing through the Prophet himself.
>What is there to suggest that those who falsely claim talking, sitting with
>or taught be the Messenger saaw are telling the truth?
>if they are not, How then can one end up following the guidance of Allah
>swt.
If one learns that a man is a liar, it becomes forbidden, or at least
disapproved, to sit with him. True?
Now, there are two basic ways to approach information: one can assume
that any report is true, at least for the purposes of investigation,
or one can presume that it is false (in which case one need not
investigate it). The way of imaan is the first, and the way of kufr is
the second. I will not bother, at the moment, to establish this from
evidence; for the moment, take it as a suggestion for thought and
research. It is clear from Hatem's comment that he follows the second
approach if the person in question is a "Sufi."
Now, this is lawful if he has been burned by lying "Sufis." But the
problem is that the term "Sufi" is used by both liars and the tellers
of truth. Actually, if a man says, "I am a Sufi, listen to me," run.
Fast. But if someone else says that so-and-so is "Sufi," it is just
like any report; it might be true, it might not, and depending on the
language of the relator, it might mean that the man could be trusted,
or it might mean the reverse.
But among the Sufis are the best Muslims. I have no doubt about that.
And among those who are called "Sufi" are some of the worst scoundrels
around. But Hatem is attacking some of the best.
>> >There are many verses in Quran who orders us to reject other rabs.
>> Min duwnillah. To take another lord *in the place of Allah*, i.e.,
>> instead of, in contradiction to, Allah, is what is forbidden, not
>> learning from others with more knowledge or experience: the latter is
>> actually encouraged by the Qur'an. The kind of argument presented by
>> Euphrates is typical of a number of heretical groups: the followers of
>> Rashad Khalifa come to mind.
>I do understand from the above that it is all right to take other Lords as
>long as you keep Allah swt among them (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
>, what is prohibited it to exclude Allah.
An evil understanding. If Hatem understood the sunna, he would know
that when what another Muslim says seems to be so offensive that it
warrants 31 exclamation points, it just might be possible that the
person did not mean what he thinks it meant. One may take no lord in
the place of Allah. That's a pretty clear statement. Now, may one take
any lord *other* than Allah?
There have been some of the Sufis who would truly take no other lord
than Allah. This, by the way, is not sunna, but it is lawful, because
of the intention. I think of Rabi'a, as one.
What does it mean to "take a lord"? It means to seek help from the
lord, to expect guidance from the lord, or to serve the lord. It does
not mean to worship, in itself. Nearly ever Qur'anic usage of rabb
refers to Allah. But the word clearly came into the language from its
ordinarly usage as the master in a master/servant relationship.
(Yusuf, AS, uses the word this way, without any indication that it was
a charge of shirk.)
Essentially, Hatem's argument would prevent anyone from serving a
ruler of any kind. But Sufis do not use the term "rabb" in reference
to the shuyukh, apparently out of respect for its usage for Allah.
There are those who have said that a master should not be called the
rabb of his slave, because it is like shirk (see Lane, article on
rabb, but the evidence against this is the saying of Yusuf in 12:42.
Nevertheless, it is very clear that if anyone says, "Worship me" or "I
am the equal of God" or the like, the person is a liar and a deciever,
no matter what names are on his ijaza. If anyone makes his shaykh
equal to God or worships him, it is shirk. But it simply is not true
that *following* a shakyh with the intention to follow Allah is shirk,
just as it is not true that to serve a man is to worship him, even if
the same word might be used for both conditions.
But this does not mean that names on an ijaza are not important. If
they were not forged, if the chain is authentic, if the man has not
lost his mind, then one has found a link to the sunna. Does one
imagine that the sunna was transmitted on *paper*? No, the paper is
merely an evidence, the sunna is in the person.
>If this is the understanding any one, (A'oothu Billahi Menath Dhanni)
>I would confidently say to that person, Come to Islaam, seek Allah's
>forgiveness
>So you may be forgiven. What you've been introduced to is not Islaam.
>> >Euphrates
>> >"Who is more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows the fool?"
>>
>> or the fool who imagines that others are fools? "a laa innahum humu
>> s-sufahaa'u wa lakin laa ya'lamuwn." na'udhu billah.
>Fools is not the appropriate description, simply because fools are
>sometimes born fools; There is nothing they can do about it.
>I'd rather say (Ssommon Bokmon 'omyon, fahum la yafqahoon).
>May Allah reward every one who fights the Shirk for his sake
>May Allah swt crush his enemies so hard and so suddenly
>May Allah forgive the sins of the Muslims. Aaameeen
> Jazakomollaho Khiyran. (Muslims)
>Was Salaamu 'ala man ittaba'alhuda;
>|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
>Abu Hadeer
>e-mail: <<h.so...@ukonline.co.uk>>
>||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
>|||||||||||||||||
AbdulraHman Lomax
AbdulraHman Lomax
as-salamu 'alaykum.
euphrates <euphr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I noticed a wrong behavior on my side, I will try not to attack your
>personality anymore, but focus on the subject.
Repentance is becoming. Congratulations. May Allah make it easy for
the brother.
I wrote:
>> I don't get direct instructions from Jibriyl, AS. At least not yet, or
>> not that I recognise....
>I thought the stretched meaning did not necessarily mean Jibril, AS.
>Also "At least not yet" is redundant, because the revelation won't
>happen again.
I have a tendency to say a thing which is basically true; as soon as
it has been said, I think of the possible exceptions. It's my style.
Now, is this exception possible? I don't know. Not everyone who gets
some instruction directly from Jibriyl is necessarily a Prophet or a
Messenger. Revelation is not completely closed, at least according to
the apparent meaning of the ahadith about true dream. So I cannot say
that it is impossible for me to receive instructions from Jibriyl. But
I will say this much. If I do, they will not be binding on anyone but
me, my report -- or opinion -- that they came from Jibriyl would not
increase their weight, and they might lessen it....
>> But the beginning of the
>> path is the baby who does not question the mother's milk.
>Clearly I was not talking about babies who are not responsible for
>anything.
When it comes to certain subjects, I am a baby. But perhaps Euphrates
is older. "Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that
now." --Bob Dylan.
>We can not compare an angel with a person if you are trying to do that.
>When you take the revelation from Jibril(pbuh), you are absolutely sure
>that it is from Allah. Angels can not add anything by themselves. They
>have to obey God's orders, but human may choose not to.(Except
>messengers in their mission)
Ah, but how does one know that it was an angel and not a jinn? And
jinn can disobey. And an angel can transmit deception, on the order of
Allah, though I understand that they will always warn.
>> But a shaykh who made that his "first requirement," well, it
>> sounds a little rigid and controlling to me, not at all like one who
>> himself trusts in Allah.
>That is what I am trying to say.
Now, I doubt very much that Euphrates has ever approached a real
shaykh. But if he has met a "shaykh" who said to him, "don't ask
questions, just do what I tell you," there are a number of
possibilities: (1) The shaykh was merely a stuffed cloak, (2) he was
*very* unskillful, (3) he wanted to send Euphrates away, seeing that
he was not ready for any kind of instruction.
By the way, sometimes would-be mureeds get caught imagining that the
third possibility is happening, and use it to justify bad behavior on
the part of an alleged shaykh. I listed the possibility above to allow
that a real shaykh might say such a thing to someone like Euphrates,
but if it happens to be true, it would only be the case that Euphrates
should go away and do just what he is doing until Allah opens
something better for him. There is a story of Al-Alawi, I think, that
he once said to a faqir, "Go away, and keep going." The man travelled
for the rest of his life.
And any follower who worships his shaykh deserves what he gets. But it
does not necessarily reflect on the shaykh unless he can do something
about it. After all, there are those who worship Jesus, AS.
>009.031 They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords
>in derogation of
>God, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were
>commanded
>to worship but One God: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him:
>(Far is He)
>from having the partners they associate (with Him).
>Mr. Lomax can you please explain us how did Christians take their
>priests as lords besides Allah?
They took what their priests said as superior to the guidance which
came to them from Allah. In fact, though they claimed that Jesus was
God, they took their doctrine, not from his words in the Gospel, but
from the analyses of theologians. Do Muslims do the like of this?
You bet we do. It is nearly unavoidable in some cases. But in the case
of the Christians, when the truth came to them from Allah, they turned
from it, which is the proof that they had taken their priests as lords
in preference to Allah. But when a priest is a means of approach to
Allah, then it is allowed to learn from him. This is why the Qur'an
criticizes the Christians on one hand and praises them on the other.
Euphrates' argument would have it be unlawful for us to learn from or
serve anyone but Allah. No, what is forbidden is to serve anyone in
derogation of Allah. If the service is intending approach to Allah,
sincerely, it is not only lawful, it is good and fulfils a command.
>If you object to word "besides" there, I
>will ask you another question: What is the meaning of mushreek? Do
>Christians leave Allah and take Jesus(pbuh) in the place of Him as their
>lord, or do they take both of them as Lords?
Are those the only two possibilities? Some do one and some do the
other and some do both and some do something else, though none of them
would describe what they do in the way Euphrates has described it.
"Mushrik" (not "mushreek, which is an error) signifies one who
attributes (to God) a partner, that is, an equal. It may indicate an
actual attribution, or an implied attribution; the latter would be,
for example, one who makes his money his God.
Most Christians do not "leave" Allah, SWT, in favor of Jesus, AS;
rather they misidentify Jesus with Allah. And Christians certainly do
not think that there is more than one God. So even if they get the
name wrong, even if their theology is defective in some way or other,
they would agree that they are worshipping the creator of the heavens
and the earth, the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes.
At a certain point, when one is naming a thing, it becomes clear who
one is naming even if one of the names is incorrect.
"You know, John, the guy down the street who drives a Ford and works
as a schoolteacher."
"I don't know any John like that."
"John, the guy who wrote a book about fishing."
"Oh, *Ralph.*"
"I thought his name was John...."
"Call upon Allah, call upon Rahman, by whatever name you call upon
him, by whatever name you call upon him, his are the most beautiful
names." (17:110)
>> in neither case was the
>> "teacher" the real origin of the knowledge; it comes from Allah. I
>When it comes from an angel, it is true the knowledge is from Allah. But
>when it comes from a person it may or may not be true, there is no
>guarantee except for the messengers.
Yes, there is no guarantee. Now, since there are no more messengers,
there is, by this logic, no more guarantee. What do we do if we are in
a marketplace, and we need to buy an article, but no merchant is
offering to guarantee that the article will work in the way that we
need it to work?
We simply take care to examine the article before we buy it. We might
be wrong, but we have no other choice.
I have accepted that the Qur'an is the message of Allah. Was I given a
guarantee that this was true? Well, yes, but the guarantee was not
from an independent source. If all of the merchants would not
guarantee their article, but one, would this mean that I should buy
from the one who offers a guarantee? What if he offers the guarantee,
and he is selling out of the trunk of his car, and I know nothing
about his character, his honesty, or his capacity to make good if
something goes wrong? A guarantee from any other than Allah is no real
guarantee.
All of us, including the greatest of shuyukh, are dependent on Allah
for guidance. No shaykh can, on his own, guarantee that I will be
guided, if Allah does not permit it. So to follow a shaykh in the path
of guidance requires the permission of Allah, and every real shaykh
knows that and teaches that; the shaykh has no power except by the
permission of Allah.
The only question is the degree of power, the character of power, that
Allah permits. The Salafis would generally say that *no* power is
permitted. But let me not set up a straw man. I'll let others do it
for me.
>>But, since Euphrates (what a name for a Muslim!)
>Since I decided that I will focus on the subject I won't ask why do you
>have "Lomax" as your last name or why a river name is unislamic.
>Please do not take them as questions.
Good. And I won't ask Euphrates any rude questions either. I won't
even mention them. But I will say that Lomax was my father's name, and
I do think that it is sunna to retain the name of one's father unless
it is an offensive name. I also have another non-Muslim name, my birth
name, and most of the readers here don't know it because I don't use
it for anything other than certain legal matters. It is, in fact,
islamically offensive to some degree, as it comes, in origin, from one
of the Greek gods; but I have not gotten around to legally changing my
name, partly out of respect for my mother, and partly just because it
is a nuisance and does have a cost associated with it. I've also got
*another* non-Muslim name that is not offensive, by which I am known
in business.
>> Certainly, taken literally, this would prohibit following, for example, the Prophet
>> when he elucidates a Qur'anic text. Rather, we take this as
>> substituting the guidance of anyone for the guidance of Allah.
>No it does not. The message of the messenger is no different than the
>message of Allah. There is no doubt about it.
Euphrates has omitted the original quotes, making my comment and his
response unintelligible. It appears that he said, "No," and then, in
effect, agreed with me. If I had more time I would look back....
>Also we are commanded to follow the messenger's message which is in fact
>God's message, that is why they are called messengers.
>But following some people about whom we have no evidence is what the
>verse [7.3] forbids us from.
If we have "no evidence" about a person, we are actually *obligated*
to follow them at least enough to test what they are conveying to us.
7:3 mentions nothing about "evidence." If a person comes to you, who
is unknown to you except perhaps you know his name, and he tells you
that he has received a message from God, by some means, and he tells
you the message, are you obligated to follow it? Alternatively, are
you forbidden to follow it? (That's what Euphrates said.) What are we
obligated to do when it is alleged that a command is from God? Can we
say, "Well, I have no proof that you are a Messenger or that your
message is from God, so I am going to go back to watching television?"
Here is the implication of Euphrates' position as he expressed it:
these foreigners from overseas come to our towns and tell us that
there was this man called Muhammad and he brought a message from God.
Since we don't know whether this is true, and we don't know these
people, we have no obligation to check it out.
Actually, Allah has commanded us that if information comes to us from
a *wrongdoer*, we must check it out. What if information comes to us
from one who appears to us to be righteous and knowledgeable? Do we
not have *more* of an obligation?
>> Euphrates is saying that it is the Qur'an, but the Qur'an is useless
>> to one who does not understand it.
>Quran is clear, it is a guidance. If you do not understand it, that
>means you have a mental problem-not you Mr. lomax-.
Perhaps it could be called a "mental problem." Yes, the Qur'an is
clear, but "there is a seal on their hearts and their hearing, and on
their eyes a veil." Now, I said that the Qur'an is useless if one
cannot understand it. Suppose I am holding a Qur'an, and suppose it is
in pure Arabic without translation, and suppose further than I do not
know a single word of Arabic. Is it not useless to me? I suppose I
could use it for a paperweight. Do we believe in magic? I could put it
under my pillow and absorb knowledge in my dreams. What does Euphrates
think about that?
It *is* what I would do if I had no other means. Allah recognises the
call of his servant, and responds to it. But if a man is in front of
me, and he can translate the Arabic, I am *obligated* to follow him
until I have better knowledge.
>You are not supposed to understand every verse. But you are obligated to
>understand the basic message. Everyone is responsible to the extent of
>their knowledge.
We are obligated to seek understanding. We are not obligated with
respect to what is not within our power, and we have no power to
understand if Allah does not permit it. Lack of understanding is the
*consequence* of kufr, not the cause of it.
>> But all of this is of no avail if Allah
>> does not intend that we understand his meaning.
>They definitely help if you seek for deeper understanding, and I agree
>Allah guides alone.
Al-hamdu lillah.
>> I do agree with one thing. I consider it forbidden to "accept
>> everything" if this means that one must violate the shari'a, as one
>> understands it, without question, if one's shaykh orders this.
>Mr. Lomax "To accept everything" means not to question it, so you would
>not know if it was against the shariah or not, regardless of the order
>actually violating the shariah or not. Maybe it does not. But the
>important thing is accepting everything you are told is submission, and
>it is prohibited to be to someone other than Allah.
Uh, it is prohibited to accept everything we are told by the Prophet?
I don't think that Euphrates means what he writes.
>> But I
>> highly doubt that "Mr. Haddad," whom I would prefer to call "brother,"
>I prefer Mr. Haddad.
This is all too typical. While I do not agree with everything Br.
Haddad writes in s.r.i., I have said a number of times that when I do
not agree with him, I check my sources and check my reasoning and
check my heart, for I fear that I am wrong. He is one of the most
knowledgeable writers here, and there is absolutely no doubt that he
is a Muslim in the legal sense (and no doubt to me that he is a muslim
in other senses as well). But writers like Euphrates leave the sunna
when it comes to the matter of courtesy.
>> has been obligated to do this. Rather, if his shaykh were to order him
>> to do something against the shari'a, something which I do not expect,
>> I would think that he would dely action until he understood better.
>> After all, perhaps he has misunderstood the *shaykh.* Or the *shari'a*
>> Or both.
>Again to restate, the important thing here is not whether the shaykh
>violates the shariah or not, but whether the murid submits himself to
>him or not.
I agree that the primary issue is the behavior of the murid. Is it
lawful to "submit" oneself to another?
Was it lawful for Moses, AS, to follow the man known sometimes as
al-Khidr? It's a real question. Moses was apparently unable to do it.
I'll give my own position: it is lawful to submit oneself to another,
but one remains completely responsible for everything one does. If I
submit myself to a false shaykh, it will be no excuse for any sin that
I commit under his misguidance for me to say, "I was only doing what I
was told." But if I say, "I was seeking to serve Allah," I will be
judged according to whether or not I am lying. Check it out. It's all
in the Qur'an, even though I said its "my position." I say it is "my
position" because you won't find all those exact words; essentially,
the tafsir is my own.
But Euphrates has claimed that the very act of submitting to another
is shirk, i.e., the worst sin. So even if the shaykh is following the
shari'a and commands me to nothing but good, Euphrates would argue
that I will still be cast into hell. Does it not matter what was my
intention in submitting?
>From where does Euphrates get his understanding? What are the
foundations of his fiqh?
When I learn a subject, I submit to the teacher. Now, my submission is
not unconditional. I presume that conditional submission is allowed,
is it not? Now, at what point does conditional submission become the
submission that is not allowed?
I'll say this: if I say that I will do what my shaykh tells me to do,
no matter what, I have sinned. It is not necessarily the sin of shirk;
it might merely be a lie....
It is true that the relation of the murid and the shaykh, at an
advanced stage, is like the relation of a believer and God. It is, in
fact, a model of that relation; practice, if you will. But this is
only true as long as the shaykh is functioning with the hand of Allah
on his hand. If the shaykh falls from that, the murid remains
responsible.
To follow a shaykh and not question is actually among the most
difficult of tasks. I am not capable of it, at least not yet. It
certainly is not the state of most followers, who question all the
time. But the greatest learning does not come through questioning, and
questioning is an inhibitor of this kind of learning. Sincere
questions are to be answered; but many questions are not answerable in
words, and the one who asks may be avoiding looking at an answer which
is right in front of him.
Do we ask questions of God? If we came into the presence of God, would
we question him? (If Euphrates thinks he would, I can only say, good
luck; he'll need it, not that it would do him any good.) Now, there
are questions and there are questions.
"They ask you about menstruation." It happens that questions come up,
and when one whom one expects to know the answer is present or can be
asked, it is right to ask. But the writings of the shuyukh which imply
that questions should not be asked are not discussing that kind of
question. Rather they are pointing to the restless mind, that does not
trust that Allah will inform and guide, or that really just wants to
distract and delay. "What kind of cow? What color?"
>Now here is the requirements of his shaykh:
Strictly speaking, these are not "requirements," but advice.
>1.The seeker must submit to the will of the shaikh and to obey him in
>all his orders and advice, because the shaikh has more experience and
>more knowledge in haqiqat, in tariqat and in shari'ah. As the sick
>person gives himself to his doctor to be cured, so too does the murid,
>sick in his conduct and behavior, submit to the shaikh's experience in
>order to be healed.
Yes. I agree 100%. But the seeker remains responsible. Allah will
inform him if he is to question the shaykh, but he must be *willing*
to trust.
> 2.The seeker must not object to the way the shaikh instructs and
>controls the murids. Each shaikh has his own way, which he has been
> ^^^^^^
>permitted by his own shaikh to use. Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haythami said,
>"Whoever opens the door of criticism against shaikhs and their
> behavior with their murids and their actions will be punished and
>will be isolated from receiving spiritual knowledge. Whoever says to his
> shaikh, 'wWhy?' will never succeed." [al-Fatawa al- adathiyya, p.
>55]
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Now, I have been arguing for the method and its lawfulness, but it is
also the case that there is a tremendous danger. al-Haythami's comment
is true, but if it is taken literally, it is poison. And it is a fact
that there are those among the people who aspire to Sufism who do take
it literally.
There is a man, known as a shaykh, who has fornicated with Western
women who came to him for guidance. There are occasions where it is
necessary to expose this. But Al-Haythami is not talking about shuyukh
who have left the shari'a, whose behavior is flagrantly deviant. He is
talking about courtesy; and his statement is a prediction, and it is
true.
> 3.The seeker must know that the shaikh might make some mistakes, but
>that these will not prevent him from lifting the murid up to the Divine
> Presence. So the murid must excuse the shaikh, as the shaikh is not
>the Prophet (s). Only the Prophet (s) was free of error. Although it is
> rare, just as the doctor might make a mistake in treating a
>patient, so too might the shaikh make a mistake in treating his murid's
>spiritual
> illness, and that must be excused.
This is very sensible and sounds not at all like shirk to me. One who
expects one's teacher to be perfect is bound to be disappointed.
> 4.The seeker must respect and honor the shaikh in his presence and
>his absence, if only because the shaikh can see with the eye of the
>heart.
> It is said that whoever is not happy with the orders of the shaikh,
>and does not keep good conduct and adab with him, will never keep
> good conduct with the Qur'an and with the Sunnah of the Prophet
Right on! I was about to respond to the first part of 4 with what is
said in the second part. As to the shaykh seeing with the "eye of the
heart," I would not have said it that way; but I would have suggested
that the murid consider that the shaykh can see whatever he does, for
if he does not see, his shaykh has a lord who can see.
>(s). Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jilani said, "Whoever criticised a saint,
>Allah
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>will
> cause his heart to wither."
Yes.
>Did you say you criticized a shaykh Mr. Lomax:)?
When Abdul Qadir said that, he meant hostile criticism, not
constructive criticism. But I would say that, really, Br. Abdul Qadir,
one who criticises a saint already has a shrivelled heart. I wonder
what his response will be.
> 5.The murid must be sincere and loyal to the company of his shaikh.
> 6.He must love his shaikh with an extraordinary love. He must know
>that his shaikh is going to take him to the Presence of Allah, Almighty
> and Exalted, and to the Presence of the Prophet (s).
> 7.He must not look to any other than his shaikh, though he must keep
>respect for all other shaikhs.
I want to thank Euphrates for reproducing these instructions. There is
a certain edge to contemporary Sufism, and I have problems with it,
but there is still a core that is the reason for its existence.
>External Conduct of the Murid
> 1.He must agree with the opinion of his shaikh completely, as the
>patient agrees with the physician.
>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes. Just like the patient agrees with the physician. To "agree" does
not mean to make the opinion his own, but rather to stop fighting it,
to accept it, to acquiesce to it, to follow it until he finds its
taste and its result. Does a disease sometimes require a bitter
medicine?
But "fools rush in where angels fear to tread." People are known by
their marks, and a false shaykh is marked, for those who will look.
One who wants to abdicate responsibility for his own actions will
easily be deceived by such a shaykh, for his desire will distract him
from the signs.
> 2.He must behave well in the association of the shaikh, by avoiding
>yawning, laughing, raising the voice, talking without authorization,
> extending the feet, and always sitting in a respectful manner.
> 3.He must serve his shaikh and make himself as useful as possible.
> 4.He must not mention from the speeches of his shaikh what listeners
>cannot understand. This might harm the shaikh in a way that the murid is
> unaware of. Sayyidina cAli said, in a hadith narrated in Bukhari,
>"Speak to people at a level they can understand, because you don't want
> them to deny Allah and His Prophet (s)."
Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I'm guilty, very guilty of failing to
follow this piece of advice. One of these days, I will learn not to
tell a group of narrow-minded fundamentalists that there are textual
variations in the Qur'an. It just provokes them, and they make
statements out of arrogant ignorance like, "If I find any Qur'an with
any variation, I'll burn it."
> 5.He must attend the association of the shaikh. Even if living far
>away, he must make an effort to come as often as possible.
I have written previously that a perfect master who is not accessible
is worse than useless. The nafs will be proud that it is honored by
having such a great teacher, and it will secretly be happy that it can
do whatever it likes, since the teacher is not around to notice.
>> Intention is everything. If Br. Haddad intends the worship of Allah by
>Intention is everything for your deeds, but not for your submission,
So submission is not a deed? I think I would like to put together a
book, called Weird Fiqh, and I have just found a tidbit for it.
>there are verses in the Quran that shows that the intention is not an
>excuse for your submission to other people or things. May I ask for your
>proofs about your opinion. I will post mine next time.
Hey, I'm lazy as all get-out, and I've been typing for forever. So,
since Euphrates has said "there are verses," but he has not given any
reference, I'm going to ask him to provide them. I do know of a verse,
but since I think he is going to quote it, thinking that it means the
opposite of what I think it means, I'll let him go to the trouble of
looking it up. Maybe he needs the thawwab.
>Also if intention
>is everything why then Christians will go to hell?
Perhaps they aren't, except for those whose *intention* is corrupt.
Really, this is a very good topic. Thanks once again to Euphrates, may
Allah reward him according to the good of what he has done and forgive
him for the evil of it. He, too, will be judged by intention.
>> I have never met a shaykh of any substance who denied the right of his
>> followers to ask him, to question him.
>Refer to the passage I have quoted above and meet with one.
No rights were denied in that passage. No shaykh is above the shari'a,
and one who claims to be is a reprehensible deceiver.
>> But part of the blessing is in being able to ask
>> them questions....
>I agree.
>> By the way, I have certainly questioned what Br. Haddad's shaykh has
>> written, though it was mostly in private correspondence, not on s.r.i.
>Are you his murid? If not of course you can question, who can prevent
>that?
I am not his murid. I don't know him well enough. But I have never
attempted to expose him to contempt, which is the kind of questioning
and criticism which is discussed in the quotations. Now, I am living
closer to him, having moved for a time to San Francisco. I hope I will
be able to spend a little more time in his company.
>> I certainly was not told that it was obligatory to not question the
>> shaykh. Where did this idea come from?
>It directly comes from the shaykh. Please refer to the passage I have
>quoted.
No, what was in that passage was advice for a murid. While it used the
word "must," a doctor might say, "you *must* take your medicine on
time." Now, is it obligatory to take the medicine on time? No, but it
might be pretty foolish to fail to do so....
>> Euphrates stands naked before us. He has completely denied that there
>> is any value to authenticity.
>Did I? I think there is a misunderstanding. The authenticity of the
>knowledge is very important.
I'm glad there was a misunderstanding. But here is the passage which
prompted me to make such a strong statement:
***begin quote***
>>This
>> becomes especially clear if that human being is part of the chain of
>> transmission passing through the Prophet himself.
>No, it does not matter if that person is part of the chain of
>transmission or not. Certainly it has no value.
***end quote***
It would be better if Euphrates were to tell us just what the
misunderstanding was. Is there any difference between authenticity and
the "chain of transmission"?
Tariq N
as-salaam ala man al itibaa al hudaa
I am disappointed that both Mr. Lomax and Mr. Haddad misunderstood my
question, and decided to relentlessly attack me. I will not attack them
though...
Let me reiterate my question...
I am not talking about learning from a learned man (i.e. a shaykh). Please
do not try to make it look as if I am against the Ulemah. You read too
much into what I am asking...
I am asking for daleel for GOING THROUGH a shaykh to get closer to Allah.
In other words, I and other average Muslims are too sinful, so therefore
we need a shaykh to get closer to Allah. What is the daleel for this?
And Please no personal attack on my character. Neither of you know me, and
I don't know you. I did not attack you, please give me the same benefit
Islam is THE Answer...
maslam
--
maslama
Hatem Soliman <h.so...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in article
<5lq07b$d01$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>...
> I'd rather say (Ssommon Bokmon 'omyon, fahum la yafqahoon).
>
> May Allah reward every one who fights the Shirk for his sake
> May Allah swt crush his enemies so hard and so suddenly
> May Allah forgive the sins of the Muslims. Aaameeen
I do not mean to insult you, that is not my intention; Please recognize
that Sufism is a knowledge, like Physics, it has its own language,
terminology, thought. If you wanted to learn physics, why then you would go
to certain university and follow a curiculum of study. After completing a
level of rigor you will be awarded a commensurate degree to that rigor.
Similarly, if you want to understand Sufism, you will have to go to Sufi
School. AFTER you have mastered it if you choose, you can abandon it. Like
someone who got a PhD in Physics, then left it for carpentry. But my guess
is that you may be an unfotunate individual who may not have the necessary
prerequisits. In the meantime, it appears that your reaction to Sufi
Science is akin to someone cursing calculus because he can't solve a math
problem that he desperately need to, or someone who curses physics because
everytime he touches electrical leads, he gets shocked out his skin, and
somehow he links his problem with Physics BELIEVE ME when I tell you, you
do not know what Sufism is, and is not likely to learn any time soon.
In America, we have a saying "when *praying*, be carefull for what you ask,
because you may get it"
Go in peace, and spend your energy in doing something that gives you
genuine joy. I can't believe you enjoy pursuing Sufis the way YOU do.
Maslama
AbdulraHman Lomax
as-salamu 'alaykum.
tar...@aol.com (Tariq N) wrote:
>I am disappointed that both Mr. Lomax and Mr. Haddad misunderstood my
>question, and decided to relentlessly attack me. I will not attack them
>though...
He is the better man for it. And my apologies. Perhaps I have
misunderstood Br. Tariq.
>Let me reiterate my question...
>I am not talking about learning from a learned man (i.e. a shaykh). Please
>do not try to make it look as if I am against the Ulemah. You read too
>much into what I am asking...
When one is in the middle of a battle with people wearing red armbands
who have a characteristic greeting -- even if the greeting is not all
that uncommon, perhaps we may be forgiven for thinking that one who
stands up wearing a red armband, even if it has nothing to do with
those people, making the same greeting, is one of them. And, again, my
apologies. Established, Tariq is not against learning from the 'ulema.
>I am asking for daleel for GOING THROUGH a shaykh to get closer to Allah.
>In other words, I and other average Muslims are too sinful, so therefore
>we need a shaykh to get closer to Allah. What is the daleel for this?
The argument is defective, so there is no daleel for it. It is not
about being too sinful. It is about the means that Allah has
established. Some of these means involve a shaykh, some do not. As to
a formal daliyl, again, I will leave that to Br. Fouad, if he cares to
answer further. I think he did answer to some degree, but I do not
have it in front of me. I am not in the business of providing formal
dalaa'il.
It is not that we need a shaykh to get closer to Allah. Allah can
bring close whomever he chooses, and he can teach whomever he chooses
whatever he chooses. Rather, we are commanded to seek the means, and
our seeking is the sign of our sincerity, it is the tongue of our
intention. This seeking may take many forms, and taking a shaykh is
one of them.
There are those who would say that it is an essential one, and I am
not about to argue with them, though I have no single person who is my
shaykh. One who is wandering in the wilderness cannot pick a cactus
and say, this is my shaykh, when he knows that Allah is the guide. But
one in such a wilderness will not turn away from a guide if he
appears.
Ever here the story of the Eskimos? For lack of time, I will not tell
it now....
>And Please no personal attack on my character. Neither of you know me, and
>I don't know you. I did not attack you, please give me the same benefit
>Islam is THE Answer...