Beware the haqqaniyyeen (12)
Bassam
Projects
The Resounding Voice of Moderation
A Beacon of Light in a Time of
Prevalent Darkness
CHAPTER 12: NAZIM AL-Q UBRUSI'S TWELFTH STATEMENT
"Eat unlawful (haram) meat."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
We all know that the abdomen of the human being is the first
part that rots in the grave. The Prophet said what means: << Hellfire is
more deserving of every flesh that grew from unlawful consumption.>>
In his book, MercyOceans, page 98-99, Nazim Qubrusi says:
"When I first met our Grandshaykh, " Shaykh Nazim
replied, "I was also very strict, very particular,
about my food. But he told me, 'It is not good manners
to be like that. When you are a guest, you must not
ask, 'Is this food clean?' No! You must give your host
the benefit of the doubt. When you know that the food
is pork, don't eat it, but say instead, 'I am a
vegetarian,' or something like this. You must have
good manners towards everybody. If you are in doubt as
to whether meat (assuming that it is not pork) is
halal or not, you may say, three times, 'Shahada,'
and, seventy times, 'astaghfirullah.' Then, as you
eat, and you say, 'Bismillah,' Allah Almighty will
make that food clean for you, in the time it takes for
you to raise it from your plate and put it in your
mouth!
"When you are buying meat and you think that it has
come in contact with pork, or utensils that have been
used to handle and prepare pork, you may wash it, and
repeat the formula we just said. If you can obtain
Halal (or Kosher) meat, of course it is best. But,
when you are somebody's guest, don't ask! Even if it
is known to you that they usually cook with lard, you
must assume that, this time, for you, they cleaned
their pots and pans and didn't use it. Only if you are
certain that pork or pork products were used may you
refrain from eating."
I say: There is not even one statement of any one of the scholars
to that effect; such meaning is not in the Qur'an;and there is
no confirmed hadith which gives such a meaning. Rather, what is
mentioned in the Qur'an and hadith and in the statements of the
scholars is quite contrary to Sheikh Nazim's saying. So, from
where did Sheikh Nazim get his statement!? How did Sheikh Nazim
come up with such a statement, i.e., haram meat would transform
to halalif one recites the shahadah and asks forgiveness? Allah,
the Exalted, said in (Al-Baqarah, 111)
what means: [Bring your proof if you are truthful.]
Nazim Qubrusi has no proof for his words. Allah is the One Who guides
to the acceptable deeds.
AbdulraHman Lomax
Bassam <us...@ecf.toronto.edu> wrote:
> The Association of Islamic Charitable
> Projects
> The Resounding Voice of Moderation
> A Beacon of Light in a Time of
> Prevalent Darkness
Since he keeps proclaiming this, I may occasionally mention that the
A.I.C.P. is a voice of narrow extremism, to the point of violence (and
the leader of the AICP recently was convicted in a violent assault), a
promoter of confusion, and, now we see, lies.
> CHAPTER 12: NAZIM AL-Q UBRUSI'S TWELFTH STATEMENT
>
> "Eat unlawful (haram) meat."
Of course, in what we see to follow, the Shaykh Nazim said no such
thing. Rather, he said that one does not, as a guest, refrain from
eating meat even though one does not know as a matter of certainty
that it has been properly slaughtered. If one knows that the meat is
haram, it is clear form the statement, one does not eat it. Therefore
the AICP knowingly lied in quoting him as above, and Bassam is
responsible for repeating this lie, since the evidence was plain for
him to see.
And contrary to the comments appended, I have seen ahadith precisely
on this point, and one was recently cited in this newsgroup. While
opinions may certainly vary, there *are* responsible scholars who have
asserted that doubt as to the lawfulness of meat does not make it
haram: this is an example of the norm: all things are halal until it
is known that they are haram.
It is typical of AICP publications to pretend that *their* position is
the single position accepted by the "people of truth." They have done
this with Qibla, with fasting, and with so many issues, the common
thread being that the community is divided. Very often, what is
vehemently rejected by the AICP is, in fact, the majority position. So
much for being "ahlu sunna waljamaa'," which they pretend.
AbdulraHman Lomax
mar...@vom.com
P.O. Box 423
Sonoma, CA 95476
USA
Fariduddien Rice
[...]
> In his book, MercyOceans, page 98-99, Nazim Qubrusi says:
>
> "When I first met our Grandshaykh, " Shaykh Nazim
> replied, "I was also very strict, very particular,
> about my food. But he told me, 'It is not good manners
> to be like that. When you are a guest, you must not
> ask, 'Is this food clean?' No! You must give your host
> the benefit of the doubt. [...]"
[...]
> I say: There is not even one statement of any one of the scholars
> to that effect; such meaning is not in the Qur'an;and there is
> no confirmed hadith which gives such a meaning.
[...]
> [Bring your proof if you are truthful.]
Here is the proof from the Prophet (s.a.w.):
Some people who had recently become Muslims said to the Prophet (peace
be on him), 'People bring us meat and we do not know whether they have
mentioned the name of Allah over it or not. Shall we eat of it or not?'
The Prophet (peace be on him) replied, 'Mention the name of Allah (over
it) and eat."
[Sahih al-Bukhari]
It seems clear that it is the substance of this hadith which Shaykh Nazim
is talking about in the quotes above (and those I deleted for brevity).
In his book "The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam," Yusuf al-Qaradawi
(an Islamic scholar educated at al-Azhar, and based in Qatar) wrote:
A Rule: What We Do Not See Should Not Be Probed Into
It is not required of the Muslim to inquire about what he has not
witnessed, i.e., How was the animal killed? Did the manner of slaughter
meet the Islamic conditions? Was the name of Allah mentioned while
slaughtering or not? If the animal was slaughtered by a Muslim, even if
he is ignorant or sinful, or by someone from among the People of the Book,
eating it is halal for us.
We have already narrated a hadith in which it wasaid to the Prophet
(peace be on him): "People bring us meat and we do not know whether they
have mentioned the name of Allah over it or not. Shall we eat it or not?"
and the Prophet (peace be on him) replied, "Mention the name of Allah
(over it) and eat." Concerning the application of this hadith, scholars
say: This is proof that the actions and practices of people are ordinarily
considered to be correct and appropriate, while deviation or error must be
proved.
>From this quote, it is clear that Yusuf al-Qaradawi confirms the correctness
of the essence of what Shaykh Nazim is teaching.
(Yusuf al-Qaradawi's web pages can be found at http://www.qaradawi.net )
> Nazim Qubrusi has no proof for his words. Allah is the One Who guides
> to the acceptable deeds.
Rather, in my opinion, it is wise to be careful when listening to the
words of the Ahbash when they speak about Shaykh Nazim. To me, they
seem to be very careless in their statements and their quotes, so that
much of what they say is incorrect (such as the above example).
And Allah is the best knower.
Wassalamu alaikum,
__________________________________________________________________________
Fariduddien Rice Email : drice @ mpce.mq.edu.au (remove the spaces)
Islamic Sufi Orders on the World Wide Web
http://www.haqq.com.au/~salam/sufilinks/
__________________________________________________________________________
Jeremiah McAuliffe
Its about time you and Lomax responded to these posts! ;-)
Fariduddien Rice <dr...@see.text.for.email.address> wrote:
>On 28 Aug 1998, Bassam wrote:
>Rather, in my opinion, it is wise to be careful when listening to the
>words of the Ahbash when they speak about Shaykh Nazim.
What is "Ahbash"??
Also, many of the quotes from Nazim's book *do* seem odd... any other
thoughts for me on what is going on here with these posts and these
two groups??
I have absolutely no way of forming any judgements about this.....
Upgrade-- Sneak Peek NOW for a limited time.
Jeremiah McAuliffe/ ali...@city-net.com
Visit Dr. Jihad! Page O' Heavy Issues
http://www.city-net.com/~alimhaq/miaha.html
indi...@my-dejanews.com
mar...@vom.com wrote:
> as-salamu 'alaykum.
>
> And contrary to the comments appended, I have seen ahadith precisely
> on this point, and one was recently cited in this newsgroup. While
> opinions may certainly vary, there *are* responsible scholars who have
> asserted that doubt as to the lawfulness of meat does not make it
> haram: this is an example of the norm: all things are halal until it
> is known that they are haram.
As-Salaamu Alaikum,
I'm not arguing with this hadith, but isn't there another in which the
Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was-sallam) said that what is halaal is clear, that
what is haraam is clear, and that there is an area of doubt, and to avoid
falling into haraam we should not fall into doubt?
Mat [Yusuf]
[NB. To reply to this, reply to indigojo@[delete-this]hotmail.com. Since I
have now left Aberystwyth, my old address at mt...@aber.ac.uk is no longer
valid.]
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Fariduddien Rice
> Salaams,
Wa alaikum salam :)
> >Rather, in my opinion, it is wise to be careful when listening to the
> >words of the Ahbash when they speak about Shaykh Nazim.
>
> What is "Ahbash"??
The Ahbash, or Habashis, is another name for the group that goes under
the name "Association of Islamic Charitable Projects," or AICP.
Apparently Bassam Usta (who has been posting here) is a member of this
group.
Apart from that, personally I don't have very much knowledge about them,
apart from what I have read on their web page (http://www.aicp.org ).
Personally, I prefer to be cautious about their statements, due to
mistakes which it seems to me they have made, from what are sometimes
quite obvious misinterpretations of Shaykh Nazim's words.
Furthermore, as Br. Lomax pointed out, the "quotes" they use at the
beginning of every article Bassam Usta has posted so far, are actually
deceptive. That is because these "quotes" state that Shaykh Nazim said
something which in fact he did not say. This technique they use seems
to be deceptive, so I am wary.
(Brother Yahya Grassl, if you read this, I understand you feel Shaykh
Nazim is a false Sufi, wa Allahu a`lam. Your knowledge of the
Naqshbandiyya seems to surpass my own meagre knowledge. However,
I suggest you examine closely the Ahbash before you ally yourself too
closely to them.)
> Also, many of the quotes from Nazim's book *do* seem odd... any other
> thoughts for me on what is going on here with these posts and these
> two groups??
I can only give my personal opinion. I have never met Shaykh Nazim or
Shaykh Hisham.
Regarding quotes from the Ahbash (Habashis), which Bassam Usta has been
posting, I would prefer to check them myself, and check their context,
before accepting that what Shaykh Nazim is quoted as saying is what he
really meant. I think I would want an explanation from students of
Shaykh Hisham or Shaykh Nazim to try to clarify the issue....
I remember once, I think a couple of years ago or so, this issue came
up. Br. Fouad Haddad mentioned that often books "written" by Shaykh
Nazim are in fact compilations of his talks which are in fact written
down by those around him. Therefore, it may be possible that he
doesn't really have a direct hand in the final book, but rather it is
done by those who are around him, who it is possible may also not be
very knowledgeable Islamically. In this way, perhaps mistakes can find
their way in to the book. And Allah is the best knower.
However, not being very familiar with Shaykh Nazim I can't make much
comment, really. I generally prefer to give people the benefit of any
doubt where possible.... If I feel uncertain about them, I prefer to
just leave them alone.
I remember reading a hadith once, which said that the Prophet (s.a.w.)
said something like, make 70 excuses for your Muslim brother.... I
guess that is what I try to do, if I can. :)
If you feel uncomfortable with Shaykh Nazim, then perhaps it is best to
leave him alone, and stick with those you feel more comfortable with.
I think Allah won't ask us to judge Shaykh Nazim on the Day of Judgement,
rather we should first worry about our own selves....
And as a caution about judging others, I think it is a good reminder to
read the story of Moses (a.s.) and Khidr, in Qur'an 18:60 onwards!
Wassalamu alaikum,
Fariduddien
Bassam
>
> The Ahbash, or Habashis, is another name for the group that goes under
> the name "Association of Islamic Charitable Projects," or AICP.
We are a group of Ahlussunna wa jama^a. We are a beacon of light in a
time of prevailing darkness. We teach the essential of beliefs as were
revealed to Prophet and as is the consensus of Ahlussunna. the one who
claims that we are teaching something that is not from the beliefs of
ahloussuna let him bring forward his proof.
> Apparently Bassam Usta (who has been posting here) is a member of this
> group.
That is no secret. Indeed i am.
> Furthermore, as Br. Lomax pointed out, the "quotes" they use at the
> beginning of every article Bassam Usta has posted so far, are actually
> deceptive. That is because these "quotes" state that Shaykh Nazim >said something which in fact he did not say. This technique they use seems to be deceptive, so I am wary.
Could oyu tell me where did we deceive you? This is not good. You claim
that we deceived the others with our quotes without mentioning where.
>
> I can only give my personal opinion. I have never met Shaykh Nazim or
> Shaykh Hisham.
> Regarding quotes from the Ahbash (Habashis), which Bassam Usta has >been posting, I would prefer to check them myself, and check their context,
Please go ahead and do it but come back and tell us about your finding.
No matter what context is Qubrusi's words are. he said the creation are
eternal and several other horrible claims. He included fabricated Hadith
and we ask him to tell us which scholar has ever said that those hadith
are authentic.
> but rather it is
> done by those who are around him, who it is possible may also not be
> very knowledgeable Islamically. In this way, perhaps mistakes can >find their way in to the book. And Allah is the best knower.
If you think so please be a good person and contact him and tell him to
to remove the misguidance that are published under his name.
> However, not being very familiar with Shaykh Nazim I can't make much
> comment, really. I generally prefer to give people the benefit of any
> doubt where possible.... If I feel uncertain about them, I prefer to
> just leave them alone.
Allah said " Kuntum khayra Ummatin ukhrijat lin-nasi ta'muruna bil
ma^rufi wa tanhawna ^anil munkar" how could oyu leave poeple who are
spreading false statements in the name of Islam. I swear that those
poeple are much more dangerous on Islam than jews are. When a jew say
that this thing is Halal or Haram in Islam you will be wary but when a
person who is wearing the cloth of scholars and good sufis spread false
statements few poeple may be wary.
>
> I remember reading a hadith once, which said that the Prophet (s.a.w.)
> said something like, make 70 excuses for your Muslim brother.... I
> guess that is what I try to do, if I can. :)
>
Have you ever gheard about the Hadith of the Prophet that means " A
person may utter a word that he sees no harm in it that would make him
fall in hellfire for seventy years" Do you know that scholars said that
this hadith is a proof that Ignorance in matters of beliefs is not an
excuse? I do urge all muslims to learn the essentials of beliefs and the
matter of fiqh that it is obligatory on them to learn.
Bassam
THE ASSOCIATION OF ISLAMIC
CHARITABLE PROJECTS
The ruling on meet that was not killed according to the rules set by
Sharti^a:
Do know that the lawful slaughter is done by cutting the throat and the main
blood vessels in the neck with a sharp tool on a condition that it is not made
of bone and the one who slaughters it is a Muslims, christian or a jew. If
those conditions are met and the kill is not among the prohibited animals the
kill is Halal . If the animal was killed with a tool that is not sharp, like
if he died because he fell off from a height, drowned or killed with a thing
that kills because of its weight (like a stone thrown on its head ) the meat
is not Halal. Also its unlawful to eat it if we are in doubt about the way it
was killed or if we are in doubt about the religion of the one that killed it,
because the matter of meat is different than the matter of cheese
or cake and similar stuff. If one has doubts that the cheese or cake has
something najass in it, he is allowed to it but meat is unlawful to eat from
if he has any doubts about the way it is killed as was stated by a lot of
scholars like ibn hajjar al hatamiyy and al suyitiyy from shafi^iyy and
Qirafiyy from Malikiiyya and several others. The unlawfulness of the meat
that we are uncertain of the way it was killed is among the matters scholars
have made consensus about.
In "Al Fatawa al Kubra vol. 1 page 45/46" for ibn hajar al haytamiyy "
he (ibn hajjar) was asked about a sheep that was found in a town where
idol worshipers live and where no Christian or jew is living among them,
is it permissible to eat from it? So he (ibn hajar) answered:
If there is a town where Muslims, christians or jews live with idols
worshipers and other people who is not permissible to eat from the meat they
slaughtered and a slaughtered sheep was seen there, and there was doubts about
the way it was killed(who killed), IT NOT PERMISSIBLE TO EAT FROM IT."
In his book "Al Ashbah wal Naza'ir page 74) Al Suyutiyy said " The second
note: Our shaykh Abu hamid al 'isfarayiniy said: Doubt could fall in one
of three categories. Doubt about something that its origin is haram, doubt
about something that its origin is halal and doubts abut something that its
origin is unknown. Of the first category , someone find a slaughtered sheep
in a town where Muslims and fireworshipers live, it is HARAM to eat from it
unless we are sure about the way it was killed (who killed)
because its origins is Haram and we have doubts if it was lawfully slaughtered"
In his book " Al tajj wal iklil li mukhtasar khalil which is found on the
margins of the book mawahib al jalil sharh mukhtasar khalil for al hattab al
malikiyy vol. 1 page 301) chapter about Wudu' narrating what
Shihabuddeen al Qirafiyy said: The fourty fourth difference between doubting
in the cause and doubting in the condition. Some of the pious people were
confused about it he said; Allah set rules and set causes for it and among
things that Allah set rules about it is doubt, which falls in three cat
egories which, by consensus, are taken into considerations like the one
who doubted if a sheep that was slaughtered and the sheep that died of other
causes and like the one who was unsure if a woman is not a relative or if she
is his sister because they were breastfed by the same woman."
It means that it is by consensus, that the if we doubt if a sheep is lawfully
slaughtered it is HARAM to eat from it so we don't give any consideration to
what some ignorants have in this era, which is against the consensus, in some
Arabic countries, Europe and North America. Those had made a lot of harm to
poeple with their opinion that is clearly against the consensus of scholars.
Some of them mentioned the Hadith narrated by Bukhariyy in order to prove
their false saying. The hadith was about meat that was slaughtered by people
who are new converter and Aisha was in doubt if they said Bismillah when they
slaughtered so the Prophet told her to say bismillah and eat. The meaning of
the Hadith that it is Ok to eat from meat that if you don't know if they
said bismillah when they killed it or not, because saying bismillah is not
obligatory when you slaughter it is rather sunna. In this hadith ^Aysha did
not say we are in doubt as to how this meat was slaughtered. How did these
people understand that from this Hadith. It is only because they want to cover
their unlawful saying by a saying of the Prophet. Those people would be as
if they are saying that the prophet said that it is permissible, by saying
bismillah, to eat from meat even if you did not know whether the one who
slaughtered it is a Muslim or budhist and that was never ever said by any
scholar. Those people should fear Allah and they must know that a person is
going to be asked on the day of judgement about his sayings, doings and beliefs.
After knowing what great scholars have said and after knowing that it is a
matter of consensus that it HARAM to eat from a doubtful meat, how could
Qubrusi, Qurdawi and other deviants claim that it is permissible to eat from
it by just saying bismillah before eating it.
Note that it is not the only saying of Qurdawi in which he broke consensus.
Qurdawi is a very arrogant person and Qubrusi is worse.
We ask Allah to protect us from believing in the sayings of such ignorant.