The concept of religious innovation (Biddah) made easy to understand.

19 views
Skip to first unread message

seer...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00
to
Shahbaz Ahmed <shahbaz...@hotmail.com> writes:

>Brother,
>
>Asslaam Alaykum.

W’assallam Brother,


>The term bid'ah is overused, usually by Wahaabi's and Salafi's and other
>such groups, and this only reveals a doctrinnaire narrowmindedness in
>their way of thinking. Just because it was not practiced in earlier times
>does not make it bid'ah. This kind of belief is inherently irrational. The
>call to Adhaan was not made via a loudspeaker for example,
>and nobody sensible would call this a Bid'ah.
>
>We live in a modern world, and Islam is a religion for ALL times. To
>reinforce the point another brother made in his post, in our religion,
>unless something is explicitly considered haraam within the framework
>of the Shariah, then it is permissible.

According to this above judgment that all is allowed unless explicitly
ordered haram; how about making the Zhour (noon) prayer five Rakis
instead of four?
As far as I could research, there is not a single Qur’an verse, Hadith or
any tradition that explicitly prohibits this.
I could make Hundreds of other similar examples.

There is a great amount of misunderstanding and confusion concerning
the B’iddah concept in Islam, even among many mosque imams, even
among many knowledgeable individuals and even some scholars!

All this confusion while this concept is very simple and straight forward.
I will, inschallah, try to presented it in a few simple lines, read carefully
and don't forgot to send your corrections or suggestions, if any:

Actions and deeds in general could be divided into TWO categories:

1 - Actions and deeds that are of PURE RELIGIOUS nature such as praying,
fasting, pilgrimage, etc. (Ibadaat)

2 - Other actions

- For the FIRST category:

EVERYTHING IS PROHIBITED UNLESS EXPLICITLY ALLOWED (Or
ordered) BY ALLAH OR HIS PROPHET (No one else).

In Islam, There is ABSOLUTELY NO room for additions, changes or
improvements in this category. This category was completed and
PERFECTED before the passing away of the Prophet(SAW):

“This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My
favour unto you, and have chosen for you as religion al-Islam” [Qur’an 5:3]

Prophet Mohammed(SAW) was indeed the best model and example when
it comes to this category, no creature would ever even come close to his
rank (SAW).

Any additions or changes in this category are considered innovation in
religion (Cursed B’iddah) and it will end in hell fire, as the Prophet(SAW)
used to say and repeat in every major speech: “Every innovation in
religion is a B’iddah and every B’iddah shall end up in hell fire”

Allah(SWT) says:
“What! have they partners (in godhead), who have established for them
some religion without the permission of Allah?” [Qur’an 42:21]

The intention (niyah) for ALL the deeds that falls under this category MUST
be 100% PURE for the sake of Allah(SWT), otherwise those deeds will
NOT be accepted. Those deeds without the pure intention (niyah) will only
earn the wrath of Allah:

“So woe to the worshippers, Who are neglectful of their prayers, Those
who (want but) to be seen (of men)” [Qur’an 107:104-106]

The wisdom behind strictly limiting this category to what Allah and His
Prophet had ordered is: the deeds and actions of this category are meant
EXCLUSIVELY for the worship of Allah and for the gaining of His pleasure
(SWT). Only Allah(SWT) knows best how people should worship Him
(SWT), it is not for people to figure out themselves how to worship their
Lord. Those who relay on their own heads and fantasies to do this, end up
in the worst kinds of kufer (denial of truth) and Sherk (Associating
partners to God).

- For the SECOND category:
EVERYTHING IS ALLOWED UNLESS EXPLICITLY PROHIBTED.

People have here free hands, provided that they keep clear from what is
explicitly prohibited by Allah(SWT) and His Prophet(SAW) - (No other
creature, whoever, has the right to declare anything prohibited).

It is reported that the Prophet(SAW) said: “ You are more knowledgeable
and aware about your WORLDLY affairs”

Deeds and actions that falls under this category could also bring rewards
in the hereafter and the pleasure of Allah(SWT) if done with the right
intention (Niyah). If, for example, someone goes to work with the intention
to earn money so that he can take care of himself and his family and
spend the rest in the way of Allah, than his going to work is considered
also an act of worship (Ibadah) in Islam.

,,,and indeed Allah(SWT) knows best.

Q. What about the Mawlid celebration?

A. If this celebration is done with the intention that its a part of the first
category, than its clearly prohibited, for there is nothing explicitly about
doing it, neither in Qur’an nor in Sunnah.

At the other hand, if it was done with the intention that its in the second
category than its allowed.

,,,,and again, Allah(SWT) knows best.

I would welcome corrections and suggestions about all this.

W’assallam
Seeraj


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

GF Haddad

unread,
Jun 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/29/00
to
Salam `alaykum:

seer...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8j77hs$cnp$1...@samba.rahul.net>...

>According to this above judgment that all is allowed unless explicitly
>ordered haram; how about making the Zhour (noon) prayer five Rakis
>instead of four?
>As far as I could research, there is not a single Qur’an verse, Hadith or
>any tradition that explicitly prohibits this.

There are countless verses and hadiths explicitly prohibiting this when
put together. You obviously have no idea of the principles used to
determine the obligations and prohibitions of Islam from the sources of
the Shari`a nor how their degree of explicitness is determined.

>I could make Hundreds of other similar examples.

So can a trained parrot. Each, probably invalidated by hundreds of proofs.
Subhan Allah, what waste of time, just like your invented definitions of
what makes Bid`a and what does not!

By the way, why do you call yourself "Sesame oil" (seeraj)? Can you not
find an Islamic name and avoid Bid`a?

Hajj Gibril

--

GF Haddad
Qas...@cyberia.net.lb

seer...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jun 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/30/00
to
In article <8jfqe5$3fg$1...@samba.rahul.net>,
"GF Haddad" <Qas...@cyberia.net.lb> wrote:

>>According to this above judgment that all is allowed unless explicitly
>>ordered haram; how about making the Zhour (noon) prayer five Rakis
>>instead of four?
>>As far as I could research, there is not a single Qur'an verse, Hadith or
>>any tradition that explicitly prohibits this.
>
>There are countless verses and hadiths explicitly prohibiting this when
>put together.

Perhaps we are in need of the services of br. Lomax to explain for us the
meaning of the word “explicit”.

Haddad is very right about the existence of the many Verses and Hadits
that prohibits adding a further raket to the Zhour prayer.

What is he obviously not able (or not wanting) to comprehend is the fact
that those very same Verses and Hadits not only prohibits the adding of
anything to ritual prayers but also prohibits the inventing, modifying or
changing in any act that is intended as an act of worship (ibadah), that is
exactly what is called “cursed b’idah”.

>You obviously have no idea of the principles used to
>determine the obligations and prohibitions of Islam from the sources of
>the Shari`a nor how their degree of explicitness is determined.

If you mean the principles that you are using, for example, to derive
your “proofs” about the Mawlid from the Qur’an and from the lives of the
Sahaba, than I must admit that I am very ignorant. May Allah increase this
particular ignorance of mine and help me preserving it, ameen.

>>I could make Hundreds of other similar examples.
>
>So can a trained parrot. Each, probably invalidated by hundreds of proofs.
>Subhan Allah, what waste of time, just like your invented definitions of
>what makes Bid`a and what does not!

The presented definitions of what makes Bid’ah are, by the way, NOT
mine and NOT invented, those definitions are what Allah and His Prophet
had given. I think I had provided clear proofs and references both from the
Book of Allah(SWT) and from the Sunnah of His Prophet(SAW).

The way those definitions were presented is something I actually worked
out myself, of course in light of what many scholars and Qur’an
commentators had written. Let me emphasis once again that only the idea
of how to PRESENT the definitions was mine and NOT the definitions
themselves. Most certainly this way of presenting those definitions is not
entirely new, I am only saying that I personally haven’t come across it in
some books or references.
I am not claiming either that this way of presenting those definitions is
100% error free, but I have talked with some individuals whom I consider
very knowledgeable and they approved the idea.

So instead of rambling around, why wouldn’t Haddad try to expose the
fallacies of what I wrote in a rational and intellectual manner if he
thinks that there are fallacies, how about this Haddad?
I would sincerely consider drawing my attention to my possible mistakes
as a great favor and I promise to be thankful for it.

>By the way, why do you call yourself "Sesame oil" (seeraj)? Can you not
>find an Islamic name and avoid Bid`a?

I can only consider the above childish remarks as a clear indication of
intellectual bankruptcy and shallowness.

I am in fact very happy and proud about my beautiful ISLAMIC name.
Seeraj is one of the names of the Prophet(SAW), it appears in Qur’an in
many passages, for example:

“O Prophet! Truly We have sent thee as a Witness, a Bearer of Glad
Tidings, and Warner,- And as one who invites to Allah's (grace) by His
leave, AND AS A LAMP SPREADING LIGHT (SEERAJ).” [Qur’an 33:45-46]

I have no idea about this “Sesame oil” that haddad is talking about. At the
other hand, it seems Haddad had never heard about the above Qur’an
passage!!

mar...@vom.com

unread,
Jul 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/1/00
to
as-salaamu ^alaykum.

seer...@my-deja.com wrote:

>In article <8jfqe5$3fg$1...@samba.rahul.net>,
> "GF Haddad" <Qas...@cyberia.net.lb> wrote:
>
>>>According to this above judgment that all is allowed unless explicitly
>>>ordered haram; how about making the Zhour (noon) prayer five Rakis
>>>instead of four?
>>>As far as I could research, there is not a single Qur'an verse, Hadith or
>>>any tradition that explicitly prohibits this.
>>
>>There are countless verses and hadiths explicitly prohibiting this when
>>put together.
>
>Perhaps we are in need of the services of br. Lomax to explain for us the
>meaning of the word “explicit”.

It would seem that, on this narrow point, Seeraj may be correct and
Br. Haddad, respected scholar that he is, may have incorrectly used
the term "explicit." If it is necessary to "put together" separate
reports in order to derive a prohibition, the prohibition is not
explicit, but may well be implicit.

To give an example, if I were to say, "All Christians are kaafir," and
were also to say, elsewhere, "Jochen Katz is a Christian," I would
*not* have said, *explicitly*, that Mr. Katz is a kaafir. Rather, it
would be something implied (strongly, in this case) by what I wrote.
To be explicit, something like "Mr. Katz is a kaafir," or "among the
kafiriyn are Mr. Katz and his friends," or even the conjoined "Katz is
a Christian and Christians are kaafir." In the latter case there is an
inference, but I would have *explicitly* made the inference and thus
would have made explicit the charge of kufr.

To clarify this, I might, for example, state, as many scholars have
stated, "The followers of Ahmad of Qadian are kaafir." Then I might
note, elsewhere, that Muhammad 'Ali, the well known Ahmadiyya
translator of the Qur'aan, was a follower of Ahmad of Qadian. This
would *not* be an explicit claim that Muhammad 'Ali was a kaafir. In
this case, the general statement stated as a premise (about the
followers) may be true as to the general but may fail to cover all
possible cases and therefore the inference made by another from the
two statements is not an explicit charge.

It is forbidden to eat pork.

Br. Fulaan ate pork.

Did, therefore, Br. Fulaan do something forbidden? Anyone who knows
Islamic law will know that the answer is "not necessarily." More must
be known about the circumstances.

Is pork explicitly forbidden in the Qur'aan? Yes.

Is alcohol (as a beverage) explicitly forbidden in the Qur'aan? No.

Is the use of alcoholic beverages forbidden? The consensus is yes.

But where a prohibition was not explicit, it is not uncommon to find
that a few scholars have disagreed. For example, it is my information
that some early Hanafi scholars considered beer lawful because it was
not explicitly prohibited. (Now, khamr, usually translated as wine,
*was* considered forbidden by these scholars, even though it, too, was
not explicitly prohibited in the Qur'aan. But it is clear that the
early Muslims considered khamr forbidden, even though the Qur'aan
really only suggests abstinence and warns about khamr, so these
scholars apparently derived the prohibition of khamr from the sunna.)

This post is about the term "explicit" and its implications, not about
the alleged kufr of certain Christians or the lawfulness of alcohol!
--and no conclusion about my opinions on these subjects can be drawn
>from the examples I chose.

>Haddad is very right about the existence of the many Verses and Hadits
>that prohibits adding a further raket to the Zhour prayer.

Uh, explicitly?

>.... I must admit that I am very ignorant. May Allah increase this


>particular ignorance of mine and help me preserving it, ameen.

Oops!

We should be careful what we say. It is one thing to not understand an
argument and consider it reprehensible on the basis that one does not
like the conclusions another draws from the argument, but it is
another to cling to ignorance *of any kind* when that ignorance
prevents one from understanding matters which might bear on our
religion. Seeraj here has attempted to make into a virtue his lack of
understanding of the shari'a proofs offered by Br. Haddad, whereas if
he were behaving as a believer, he would know that understanding even
defective arguments is better than not understanding them, for to know
that an argument is false one must understand it.

Br. Seeraj is eager to deny Br. Haddad's argument without, he admits,
understanding it. This kind of behavior is characteristic of kubriyya
and kufr, not of imaan.

Do not deny what you don't understand. It is not necessary to accept
an argument one does not understand, indeed, I recommend against it,
unless one deeply trusts the one presenting the argument; and even
then one does not become qualified to correct others but merely is
allowed to follow one better in knowledge.

The teacher who knows may say "This is wrong, that is right." The one
who is only a follower may only say, "According to my understanding of
my teacher, this is wrong and that is right."

What I have said about this does not depend on any opinion that the
celebration of mawlid is lawful, though it is, in fact, my opinion
that such celebration is lawful *in itself,* that is, as long as one
does not make such celebration an essential element of religion and
does not commit other unlawful acts in the course of such celebration.
To consider otherwise would essentially be to consider expressions of
love unlawful merely on the basis that the one loved was a messenger
of Allah, a strange position indeed.

There is clearly no consensus on the position that mawlid is unlawful;
indeed, if there is a consensus, it is in the other direction;
certainly the majority view is in the other direction. And Br. Haddad
has written long and well on this subject, here and elsewhere.

That a thing is the majority view does not make it correct, but it
should, at least, cause one to be careful before declaring a majority
of the scholars kaafir!


AbdulraHman Lomax
mar...@vom.com
P.O. Box 690
El Verano, CA 95433
USA

seer...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jul 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/5/00
to
In article <8jkn41$2p3$1...@samba.rahul.net>,
mar...@vom.com wrote:
> as-salaamu ^alaykum.

>>
>>Perhaps we are in need of the services of br. Lomax to explain for us
>> the meaning of the word “explicit”.
>
> It would seem that, on this narrow point, Seeraj may be correct and
> Br. Haddad, respected scholar that he is,

Watch the careful choosing of words by Lomax. It is something very sad
that this, once distinguished writer in this forum, had reduced himself to
hardly anything more than a propagandist.

What about the “Wider” points, br. Lomax? I am waiting for you and your
scholar to enlighten me and others. So far, there is nothing from you and
your scholar other than aimless rambling.

>may have incorrectly used
> the term "explicit." If it is necessary to "put together" separate

Your scholar has no idea of what the word “explicit” implies, a “narrow
point” that a grade four pupil would easily recognize. So how could you
trust him in wider issues?

>
> >.... I must admit that I am very ignorant. May Allah increase this
> >particular ignorance of mine and help me preserving it, ameen.
>
> Oops!
>
> We should be careful what we say.

I would suggest that br. Lomax is in a desperate need to seriously
consider this above advice for his own benefit, especially those days.

Thank you for the advice, anyway.


>It is one thing to not understand an
> argument and consider it reprehensible on the basis that one does not
> like the conclusions another draws from the argument, but it is
> another to cling to ignorance *of any kind* when that ignorance
> prevents one from understanding matters which might bear on our
> religion. Seeraj here has attempted to make into a virtue his lack of
> understanding of the shari'a proofs offered by Br. Haddad,

Considering what Hadadd is writing as “shari’a proofs” is something utterly
ridiculous, it also displays some fatal ignorance of the most Islam basics,
and maybe also some arrogance of insisting on some position, come what
may.

I made my views about what Hadadd is writing more than clear in several
occasions, but it seems that br. Lomax is having some troubles; it might
be that he is not reading carefully, or that he is not understanding what he
is reading,, or maybe he is not knowing what he is writing.

>whereas if
> he were behaving as a believer, he would know that understanding even
> defective arguments is better than not understanding them, for to know
> that an argument is false one must understand it.

Lomax is, once again, hopelessly mixing and confusing things together.

It is very obvious that I had understand enough extent of those so
called “arguments” that I was able to take a clear position about them. So
I can claim that I was already in possession of the knowledge that Lomax
is talking about (Which is used to identify evil and avoid it)

Investing resources and time to know any more of evil and useless
knowledge is a clear waste of resources and time, lack of such knowledge
is a gift that a believer should be thankful for..

It is reported that the Prophet(SAW) used to utter those words in some of
his famous supplications: “O’ Allah, we seek our refuge in you from a
knowledge that is useless”. I am writing from memory and don't have at
this moment the reference for this, but I could look it out if someone
so wishes.

So the Prophet(SAW) was seeking refuge in Allah from a knowledge that
is “useless”. Where do you think knowledge that is not only useless but
also harmful should be positioned

> What I have said about this does not depend on any opinion that the
> celebration of mawlid is lawful, though it is, in fact, my opinion
> that such celebration is lawful *in itself,* that is, as long as one
> does not make such celebration an essential element of religion and
> does not commit other unlawful acts in the course of such celebration.
> To consider otherwise would essentially be to consider expressions of
> love unlawful merely on the basis that the one loved was a messenger
> of Allah, a strange position indeed.

Your way of understanding is indeed strange.

It is NOT about the Love of the messenger. It is about the WAY this love is
offered.

Some people think that the lawful and best way of offering this love is by
strictly adhering to what Allah and His Prophet had prescribed. Those
people firmly believe that therein is enough for them.

Others obviously think that they can surpass Allah and His Prophet and do
even better!!!!!!

I have made this more than clear in my original posting and in many other
places, perhaps it is time for Lomax to take a moment and try to learn
something that might benefit him, of course after taking permission from
his “scholar”.

>
> There is clearly no consensus on the position that mawlid is unlawful;
> indeed, if there is a consensus, it is in the other direction;
> certainly the majority view is in the other direction.

How about the majority of the BEST of all generations? It was, by the way,
a 100% majority. Does Lomax knows that this Bi’dah had started more
than 400 years after the passing away of the Prophet. It had started
during the era of the Fatiemien sect, an especially dark period in the
history of Islam.

I feel that enough is been said about this topic for now.

Shibli Zaman

unread,
Jul 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/6/00
to
bismillaah wa-l Hamdu lillaah waS-Salaatu was-salaamu `alaa
rasoolillaah,

as-salaamu `alaykum,

Upon his death bed the Prophet Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ordered
that the disbelievers must be removed from Jazeeratu-l `Arab (the
Arabian Peninsula) forever.

"The Prophet on his death-bed, gave three orders saying, "Expel the
pagans from the Arabian Peninsula..." [al-Bukhari 4:288]

The Abbasid Caliph al-Mu`tasim prepared the Empire's entire forces to
invade Byzantium simply because a Muslima's hijab was disheveled by
some hooligan disbelievers in the Roman territory. He wrote a letter
to the Byzantine Emperor in which he stated, "Oh you Roman Dog!...I
have an army of men, which when lined up stretches from where I stand
to where you stand, who love to fight and be killed and much as your
men love to live!"

Yet, today in our lifetime the so-called "Khaadim al-Haramayn" King
Fahd, armed with the fatawa of the "eminent" Salafi scholars invited
the armies of the kufaar from all over the world to settle in the
Arabian Peninsula. Had al-Mu`tasim been alive he would have razed the
Saudi heresy to the ground and executed every last member of this cult
which calls for the disbanding of jihad against the Jewish occupation
of Palestine and the invitation of disbelieving armies into the
Arabian Peninsula. Had the Prophet Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam been
alive they would have been dealth with in the same way the
ahl-Qaynuqa, Khaybar, etc were dealt with.

The greatest bida`ah is to rule with a law other than Allah's
impeccable Shari`ah. The forbiddance in "Saudi" Arabia of the basic
freedom's Allah has given women is a great bida`ah, which according to
many scholars is outright kufr since it is an unfounded amendment to
the Shari`ah. Yet, you have these cultists labeling most of the
Muslims in the world "mushrikeen" and complaining over "Milad an-Nabi"
celebrations.

In the Russian/Afghan war in the 80's there was a leader who heralded
>from a place called Kunar which is in the north of Afghanistan. Their
Salafi leader was called "Shaykh Jameel ar-Rahman" and the Gulf
nations heralded him as the officially endorsed future ruler of
Afghanistan. While Gulbudeen's forces were fighting the Russians, they
were being attacked simultaneously by Jameel al-Rahman's militia. The
reason? Because some of Gulbuddin's army were wearing amulets of
Qur'anic script and this supposedly made them disbelievers against
whom jihad needed to be waged! Russians are slaughtering the entire
population, yet the Salafis saw a danger not in them, but in the
Muslim Mujaahideen. Gulbuddin tolerated the attacks against his forces
without recourse for a brief period. Then he invaded Kunar and killed
every last one of them, decapitating them with bayonettes (which is
not a quick and easy method of decapitation). That was the end of
Jameel al-Rahman and the beginning of the war against the Salafis in
Afghanistan. [note: Needless to say, Gulbuddin is not the admired
figure today that he was back then. Love for the dunya can bring even
the most pious folk to the depths of its lowliness. Only Allah knows
his heart, and may Allah forgive him and bring him on the right path.]

Stop whining about ta`weeth and Milad. If you want to wage war on
those who do bida`ah, start by continuing what was done in al-Khobar
in the mid 90's. Fight for the sake of Allah against those who occupy
the land of the two holiest cities. Then, not only will most of the
Muslim world respect your war against bida`ah, THEY WILL JOIN YOU!

was-salaamu `alaykum,

Shibli Zaman
Shi...@Zaman.Net

mar...@vom.com

unread,
Jul 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/6/00
to
as-salaamu ^alaykum.

seer...@my-deja.com wrote:

>In article <8jkn41$2p3$1...@samba.rahul.net>,
> mar...@vom.com wrote:

[seeraj had written:]


>>>Perhaps we are in need of the services of br. Lomax to explain for us
>>> the meaning of the word “explicit”.
>>
>> It would seem that, on this narrow point, Seeraj may be correct and
>> Br. Haddad, respected scholar that he is,
>
>Watch the careful choosing of words by Lomax.

Thank you very much, Seeraj. I do try to choose my words carefully.

>It is something very sad
>that this, once distinguished writer in this forum, had reduced himself to
>hardly anything more than a propagandist.

One great thing about being a writer is that once one has written
something "distinguished," one is, from then on, a "distinguished
writer," because one's writing lives on even though one's faculties
fade. The obituary will describe the writer at his peak, not as he
became in his decline.

But I'm not dead yet.

Anyway, Seeraj apparently considers me "distinguished" when I write
something with which he agrees, and a mere "propagandist" when I write
something with which he disagrees. Since I don't think he was
disagreeing with my comment that he was correct on the particular
point mentioned, he must find my reference to Br. Haddad as a
"respected scholar" offensive.

But Br. Haddad *is* a respected scholar. My proof:

He is a scholar. One might quibble about the term, as to the degree of
his authorization, but he is a professor of English literature, I
understand, which is saying something for a person whose native tongue
was Arabic, not English, and he left the U.S. to pursue Islamic
studies in Syria. My memory is not always completely accurate, so I'd
appreciate correction from Br. Haddad if I got any of it wrong.

Anyway, that is the first item, he is a scholar. As to "respected," I
respect him, which establishes the second item. Others respect him
too, including some people who, themselves, could qualify as scholars
(and who certainly exceed the qualifications of any writer for this
newsgroup, excepting Br. Haddad himself.)

Does this mean that Br. Haddad is necessarily right on all issues? Of
course not. But what he writes is definitely worthy of careful
consideration, and, when I find myself disagreeing with him, you can
be sure I will take a second look at myself. And maybe a third look.

>What about the “Wider” points, br. Lomax? I am waiting for you and your
>scholar to enlighten me and others. So far, there is nothing from you and
>your scholar other than aimless rambling.

It looks like life itself was generated by God out of what might be
called "aimless rambling." Of course, *nothing* is aimless; this is
what the believers understand.

I stated that I did not want to argue mawlid beyond stating my opinion
that to celebrate a birthday, of the Prophet or another, is not
forbidden. Like many permitted things, it might be done in such a way
as to associate with it forbidden things, but it is not forbidden in
itself, and I have never seen a proof that even approached
establishing that it was forbidden.

Attempts at such proofs have always depending on asserting that the
particular is general: that is, that, because person A, celebrating
mawlid, is claimed to be worshipping other than Allah, typically on
accidentals, not the essentials of mawlid, therefore -- it is claimed
-- mawlid is worshipping other than Allah. This does not follow.

>>may have incorrectly used
>> the term "explicit." If it is necessary to "put together" separate
>
>Your scholar has no idea of what the word “explicit” implies, a “narrow
>point” that a grade four pupil would easily recognize. So how could you
>trust him in wider issues?

I mentioned above that English is not Br. Haddad's native language. I
have seen a few occasions where he has misused a word. But this
particular error, and I do consider it an error, is nevertheless a
very common one, even among quite literate people. It's like the
similarly common use of "literally" when what is meant is a strong
figure. I've heard a person say, "I literally *died*" when what was
meant was that the person was very embarrassed.

In any case, so what? Seeraj makes *many* grammatical errors. I
wouldn't normally mention it. This is a newsgroup about Islam, not
about correct English.

[...]


>I feel that enough is been said about this topic for now.

Too much, in fact. Seeraj wrote many things on which comment might
easily be made, but life is broader than this newsgroup, and it is
time for prayer and rest.

Mr Mahdi

unread,
Jul 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/7/00
to
As-salaamu `alaikum,

>Yet, today in our lifetime the so-called "Khaadim al-Haramayn" King
>Fahd, armed with the fatawa of the "eminent" Salafi scholars invited
>the armies of the kufaar from all over the world to settle in the
>Arabian Peninsula.

Brother Shibli Zaman describes some examples of how the Ummah has sunk to such
a low level that so-called "shuyookh" has invited the disbelieving Kuffar to
come to the Holy Land to murder Muslims and commit the worse atrocities
imaginable. Muslims now are like lost sheep embracing anything that will
betray them, such as kufr systems and beliefs and imitating the Kuffar when
Allah said the best example of Muhammad (saaw). Br. Shibli Zaman also
mentioned the famous incident when a sister who was molested (and as far as I
remembered also kidnapped) by the disbelieving Romans and Caliph al-Mu`taSim
was threatening to have an army to wipe out them if they didn't release the
sister. Now Muslim sisters are raped everyday and no one is there to protect
them and exact revenge on the criminals. We have abandoned the system that
Allah gave us and Allah in return has abandoned us. Why should Allah answer
our prayers when we don't answer the call of Allah to obey Him and His
Messenger and implement what He has revealed to us?

>The greatest bida`ah is to rule with a law other than Allah's
>impeccable Shari`ah.

Very true indeed. To rule by other than what Allah has revealed is shirk,
plain and simple. The Hakamiyyah (sovereignty) belongs to Allah. Allah is the
only legitimate Legislator and to Him belongs the Hukm. Muslims have lost
their priorities in life, they get all upset if a Muslim comes in the masjid
with his left foot and yet say nothing about the ash-shirk al-akbar when a
leader does not rule by what Allah has revealed. At the same time, many
masaajid invite people to beg Muslims to participate in this wicked shirk by
electing a kaafir (or Muslim) to rule by what Allah has not revealed or allowed
during election time. Muslims have lost their understanding of Islam that
shirk can be passed off in front of many ignorant Muslims as Halaal while
calling for things like the Caliphate becomes a "fitnah" for them. Many
Muslims including myself have been banned from masjids because we inform
Muslims about the Haraam of participating in kufr politics and because we call
for Khilafah and yet they allow a Kaafir to come in the masjid and ask Muslims
to vote for him!

>Yet, you have these cultists labeling most of the
>Muslims in the world "mushrikeen" and complaining over "Milad an-Nabi"
>celebrations.

The double-standards of these so-called "Salafi" and "Wahhabi" is sickening to
those who are truly sincere and aware of the issues facing the Muslims. Like I
said, when you have "king" Fahd ruling by kufr, allowing the Kuffar to steal
our resources, come and kill Muslims, bring their filth over to a land where
Islam once ruled, etc., and have these same "scholars" turn a blind eye to all
of this to waste time on whether or not women are allowed to drive is crazy.
Allah has humilated the Ummah so much that was still haven't waken up from our
coma. We abandoned Allah's Laws for that of kufr and many of us are still
wondering why is Allah is punishing us!

>Because some of Gulbuddin's army were wearing amulets of
>Qur'anic script and this supposedly made them disbelievers against
>whom jihad needed to be waged! Russians are slaughtering the entire
>population, yet the Salafis saw a danger not in them, but in the
>Muslim Mujaahideen.

Look at the level of ignorance and disobedience the Muslims have subjected
themselves to. There is a group in Pakistan named "Sipah Sahabah" that is
dedicated to killing the Shi`ah while this same group does nothing to the
Christian missionaries who are converting Muslims to Christianity. And of
course such a group does not even care about Pakistan being ruled by kufr,
which is like you said the biggest shirk. There is a solution to all of this
madness. We must return to the Islamic system of life where Islam is the
culture, the sentiments, the ideas, the systems, the schools, the talk of the
day, the news, EVERYTHING. This can only happen if we establish an entity that
will allow all of this to happen and that is the Khilafah.

>Stop whining about ta`weeth and Milad. If you want to wage war on
>those who do bida`ah, start by continuing what was done in al-Khobar
>in the mid 90's. Fight for the sake of Allah against those who occupy
>the land of the two holiest cities. Then, not only will most of the
>Muslim world respect your war against bida`ah, THEY WILL JOIN YOU!

I agree that it is utter ignorance that a Muslim will spend his time "waging a
war" on things like Mawlid. But to warn in a way where it does not make a
person distracted from the number one priority of seeing Islam return as a
system about the kufr of Mawlid is not wrong. You must remember that some
Muslims here are trying to flood this forum with the notion that such a bid`ah
is Halaal and a good way to "show your love" of Muhammad (saaw).

Mahdi

http://members.xoom.com/mrmahdi/caliphate.html

nostri...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jul 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/8/00
to
SHIBLI

> Stop whining about ta`weeth and Milad. If you want to wage war on
> those who do bida`ah, start by continuing what was done in al-Khobar
> in the mid 90's. Fight for the sake of Allah against those who occupy
> the land of the two holiest cities. Then, not only will most of the
> Muslim world respect your war against bida`ah, THEY WILL JOIN YOU!

A brother in an islamic community recently was appointed Imam by the
masjid "committe" (sp)...he feels it is in the community's best
interest to stop celebrating milad an nabi - obviously since it doesn't
have a basis in the earliest generations of muslims. He's afghani, he
has fought in jihad and lost a leg in battle; the community is also
afghani, so naturally there is great respect for the Imam's naseehah.

My question is: He has the ability to end this celebration. Is he to
forget about it, not worry about it, and push it off to the side in the
name of "There are more important issues (e.g. the Saudi government) to
talk about?"

Shibli Zaman

unread,
Jul 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/9/00
to
On 8 Jul 2000 05:05:35 GMT, nostri...@my-deja.com wrote:

>My question is: He has the ability to end this celebration. Is he to
>forget about it, not worry about it, and push it off to the side in the
>name of "There are more important issues (e.g. the Saudi government) to
>talk about?"

"NOSTRIL" missed the point.

Questions:
Did he have to kill anyone to do it? Did he wage a qital against those
who opposed it? Was he killing people over it while those people were
struggling in jihad against kufaar?

Obviously, this is not the case and from what you say (whether that is
actually the case or not) it has not stirred any fitnah. Thus, I see
no problem in it if thats what the Muslims actually want in that
locality and there is no opposition. My point was crying about
bida`ah, shirk, and `aqeedah at the cost of renting the Muslim Ummah
into pieces. This is what is happening on a GLOBAL scale. Your
locality's example does not apply. Its the same logic as smokers
saying, "I know someone who smoked all his life but lived to be 100
years old". That does not apply to the GENERAL concensus.

Saabirah

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00
to


> as-salaamu `alaykum,

waAlaikum AsSalaamu Brother,

Please correct me if I am wrong. I have always thought that the
term "bid'ah" refers to innovation specifically as it affects
worship.

waAllahu 'Alim,


--
Saabirah

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not everything that is faced can be changed
But, nothing can be changed until it is faced.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Contemporary Muslim Calligraphy by Saabirah

http://users.sgi.net/~saabirah

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

seer...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00
to

According to the line of reasoning that Shibli is using here, one can also
argue and spread around phrases such as:

“Believe, Believe, Believe,,, What is your problem!”
“Pray, Pray, Pray,,,, what is your problem!”
“Spend, Spend, Spend,,, what is your problem!”

If Br. Shibli thinks that there is a difference, than perhaps he could
elaborate on that.

>Upon his death bed the Prophet Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ordered
>that the disbelievers must be removed from Jazeeratu-l `Arab (the
>Arabian Peninsula) forever.
>
>"The Prophet on his death-bed, gave three orders saying, "Expel the
>pagans from the Arabian Peninsula..." [al-Bukhari 4:288]

And the noble Prophet(SAW), in every major speech, used also to say and
warn: “Every innovation in religion is a cursed Bida’ah, and every Bida’ah
is in hell fire”

Is Shibil one of those who “Believe in some of the book and reject some”?

I agree that Muslims should sort-out their priorities, but this important
objective will never be reached with the kind of rhetoric that Shibli is
making here.

>Yet, today in our lifetime the so-called "Khaadim al-Haramayn" King
>Fahd, armed with the fatawa of the "eminent" Salafi scholars invited
>the armies of the kufaar from all over the world to settle in the

>Arabian Peninsula. Had al-Mu`tasim been alive he would have razed the

Br. Shibli is definitely misinformed here.
As far as I know, those who call themselves Salafies were the most critical
voices of that move by the SECULAR corrupted Saudi government to invite
kufaar armies. Many of the prominent and leading Salafi scholars such as
Salman Al-Aouda, Safar Al-Holie, and others ended up in the jails of the
Saudi government in connection with their sharp criticism of this particular
accident, some of those are still in jails until this very day after more than
ten years.

Some accounts claim that Schich Ibn Baz (May Allah have mercy on him
and forgive him) gave a clarification of the permissibility of the calling of
non-Muslims to help in certain circumstances. He had based his “fatwa” on
some accidents that happened during the life-time of the Prophet(SAW)
and the fact that he(SAW) had made some treaties with some non-
Muslims. MOST Salafies, though, consider this fatwa by Ibn Baz as one of
his most grave mistakes.

The Saudi government is actually a SECULAR regime that MIS-USES Islam
to gain legitimacy, connecting it with the Salafies is nothing but mere
propaganda.

>The greatest bida`ah is to rule with a law other than Allah's

>impeccable Shari`ah. The forbiddance in "Saudi" Arabia of the basic
>freedom's Allah has given women is a great bida`ah, which according to
>many scholars is outright kufr since it is an unfounded amendment to

>the Shari`ah. Yet, you have these cultists labeling most of the


>Muslims in the world "mushrikeen" and complaining over "Milad an-Nabi"
>celebrations.

That is true, I think Shibili is right on what he is asserting above.
He is, at the other hand, wrong on the assumption that something can
replace the other.
Many of what the Saudi regime is practicing is indeed Bida’ah, this so
called Mawlid is also a Bida’ah.

Sincere Muslims, EACH WITHIN HIS POWER, should strive to prevent and
eliminate all those bida’ahs.

>In the Russian/Afghan war in the 80's there was a leader who heralded
>from a place called Kunar which is in the north of Afghanistan. Their
>Salafi leader was called "Shaykh Jameel ar-Rahman" and the Gulf
>nations heralded him as the officially endorsed future ruler of
>Afghanistan. While Gulbudeen's forces were fighting the Russians, they
>were being attacked simultaneously by Jameel al-Rahman's militia. The

>reason? Because some of Gulbuddin's army were wearing amulets of


>Qur'anic script and this supposedly made them disbelievers against
>whom jihad needed to be waged!

Personally, I can’t buy this story that Shibil is trying to sell. I have no
doubt about the existence of some misguided zealots who are capable of many
extreme things, but I can hardly believe that it could go that far. Even if
this story is true, which I greatly doubt, it certainly represents only an
extremely small minority and can not be generalized.

The great majority of those who are rushing to the rescue of oppressed
Muslims and are giving their lives in the way of Allah, be it in Afghansitan,
Bosnia, Chechnya or elsewhere, are those who call
themselves “Salafies” .

With this most likely fabricated story, Shibil is in fact insulting thousands
of those who gave their lives for the sake of Allah and for the defending of
persecuted and oppressed Muslims.

“O ye who believe! If a wicked person comes to you with any news,
ascertain the truth, lest ye harm people unwittingly, and afterwards
become full of repentance for what ye have done.” [Qur’an 49:6]

W’assallam,
Seeraj

asim...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jul 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/11/00
to

>
> And the noble Prophet(SAW), in every major speech, used also to say
and
> warn: “Every innovation in religion is a cursed Bida’ah, and every
Bida’ah
> is in hell fire”


Salaam

I hear this everytime, but one wonders where the proof is. Is it in the
final khutba in which the many witnesses of various tribes of Arabia
stood to listen to the noble Prophet (S)? It seems a fundamental notion
of certain Muslims to make it a priority to quote this saying at every
speech as if it is an article of faith. Undoubtedly bidah is wrong and
the deen has been perfected, but the approach of some of our brothers is
also wrong.

>
> Is Shibil one of those who “Believe in some of the book and reject
some”?
>

Brother Shibli's answer is in much more accordance to the spirit of
Islam more than Brother Seeraj's. One reason I say this is that
Shibli did not pronounce any validity on Mawlid or not. But mainly, The
Prophet (S) told Hadhrat Aisha (R) that he would have reconstructed the
kaaba on its original foundations on which Ibraheem (AS) built it if it
weren't for causing any fitna. The people were not suited for this, and
the Prophet (s) inspired by the revelation of the Quran understood the
fact that man is created in haste. The Quran was revealed over 23
years. But this isn't the place to speak about the psychology of human
nature as it relates to gaining understanding, and the Quranic approach
to it. I am merely pointing out how man takes things in 'portions'.

> I agree that Muslims should sort-out their priorities, but this
important
> objective will never be reached with the kind of rhetoric that Shibli
is
> making here.
>

The prayer is instituted at fixed times. Why? Everything has its
place. It is strange that certain people boast so much about what they
consider aqeedah, getting into ridiculous wavelengths about how the
Prophet (S) spent 13 years preaching what they term is tawheed, (i.e.
which amounts to dialectics with the ashaaris, maturiidis, and everybody
else without absolutely any understanding of the issues that surround
kalaam), then go off attacking practices such as mawlid. They claim the
proclamation of aqeedah, yet find the time to attack practices which are
not at the root of the Muslim's problems.

It's a shame that many of our Muslims influenced by such mentalities
never ask themselves "There has to be more to this deen."


> >The greatest bida`ah is to rule with a law other than Allah's
> >impeccable Shari`ah. The forbiddance in "Saudi" Arabia of the basic
> >freedom's Allah has given women is a great bida`ah, which according
to
> >many scholars is outright kufr since it is an unfounded amendment to
> >the Shari`ah. Yet, you have these cultists labeling most of the
> >Muslims in the world "mushrikeen" and complaining over "Milad
an-Nabi"
> >celebrations.
>
> That is true, I think Shibili is right on what he is asserting above.
> He is, at the other hand, wrong on the assumption that something can
> replace the other.
> Many of what the Saudi regime is practicing is indeed Bida’ah, this so
> called Mawlid is also a Bida’ah.
>
> Sincere Muslims, EACH WITHIN HIS POWER, should strive to prevent and
> eliminate all those bida’ahs.
>

When one consumes his time with trivialities, he loses time for bigger
issues. It is indeed sad that those same people, so diluted in their
attacking such practices, waste countless hours writing treatise and
arguing that time is lost in priorities.


> The great majority of those who are rushing to the rescue of oppressed
> Muslims and are giving their lives in the way of Allah, be it in
Afghansitan,
> Bosnia, Chechnya or elsewhere, are those who call
> themselves “Salafies” .
>

Omar Mukhtar was sufi, as was the leader of the algerian resistance
against French colonialism. The Sanousi movement in Egypt was a sufi
movement. The great Sayyid Ahmed Shaheed, the famous author of
taqweeyatul imaan published by even the hard core salafis, and his
leader Sayyid Ahmed of Braeli were sufis and they fought and led the
resistance against the sikhs. Shah Waliullah was another sufi, the
mehdi of Sudan as far as I know was sufi. The great Imam Shamil of
Chechnya was a Naqshbandi sufi. There are in fact many sufis in
Chechnya fighting. Afghanistan is full of them.


> With this most likely fabricated story, Shibil is in fact insulting
thousands
> of those who gave their lives for the sake of Allah and for the
defending of
> persecuted and oppressed Muslims.

And one is also insulting 'confused' Naqshbandis. Seeraj had insulted
countless thousands who gave there lives for the deen by calling them
confused. Why the double standard?

Salaam

seer...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jul 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/13/00
to
In article <smncl2r...@corp.supernews.com>,

asim...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
>> And the noble Prophet(SAW), in every major speech, used also to say
>>and warn: "Every innovation in religion is a cursed Bida'ah, and every
>>Bida'ah is in hell fire"
>
>Salaam

W’assallam

>
>I hear this everytime, but one wonders where the proof is.
>

Here you go:

Sahih Al-Buchary - Book 004, Number 1885:
Jabir b. Abdullah (RA) described when Allah's Messenger (may peace be
upon him) deliveries a sermon, he said: The messenger(may peace be
upon him) would say:" The best of the speech is embodied in the Book of
Allah, and the beet of the guidance is the guidance given by Muhammad.
And the most evil affairs are their innovations; and every innovation in
religion is error."

>It seems a fundamental notion
>of certain Muslims to make it a priority to quote this saying at every
>speech as if it is an article of faith. Undoubtedly bidah is wrong and
>the deen has been perfected, but the approach of some of our brothers is
>also wrong.

,,so following the Sunnah of Mohammed(SAW) has became
something wrong those days!
It is an established fact that the noble Prophet(SAW) had always used to
start his Jummah Khutba with those words that condemns every sort of
innovation in religion. Is following his example(SAW) something not
especially desirable those days?

He(SAW) used to say those words, at least every Friday, to the best
generation in the history of mankind. And here, someone is preaching that
it is wrong to remind people about those words in this age where Biddah
and miss-guidance are flooding this earth!

>Brother Shibli's answer is in much more accordance to the spirit of
>Islam more than Brother Seeraj's. One reason I say this is that
>Shibli did not pronounce any validity on Mawlid or not.

You are mixing and confusing things. Nobody is arguing the issue of
Mawlid here, re-read what I wrote before you start throwing judgments
left and right.

I haven’t, by the way, brought this Mawlid issue into this newsgroup.
Some miss-guided folks started flooding this forum with plenty of
falsehood and fabrications in connection with this Mawlid thing. Because
brother Asim, and other Muslims, were busy with more serious and bigger
affairs, I found myself with little choice but to do what I consider to be my
duty before Allah(SWT), namely of convoying what I believe to be the
truth about this matter.

This Mawlid issue, at least as far as I am concerned, is in fact less
important. If Br. Asim would just open his eyes he would see that the
discussion had evolved and became about a complete approach of whither
to obey Allah(SWT) and His Prophet(SAW) and keep Islam pure as
revealed by Allah(SWT) and practiced by His Prophet(SAW) or else.

If Asim thinks that this is a trivial issue, than maybe he would kindly come
forward and enlighten us as to what is non-trivial according to his wisdom.

>But mainly, The
>Prophet (S) told Hadhrat Aisha (R) that he would have reconstructed the
>kaaba on its original foundations on which Ibraheem (AS) built it if it
>weren't for causing any fitna. The people were not suited for this, and
>the Prophet (s) inspired by the revelation of the Quran understood the
>fact that man is created in haste. The Quran was revealed over 23
>years. But this isn't the place to speak about the psychology of human
>nature as it relates to gaining understanding, and the Quranic approach
>to it.

,,,and, frankly, I think it is also not the place to demonstrate confusion and
disorder.

So Br. Asim is apparently suggesting that we should hold back and leave
the ignorant to spread his ignorance so that we may not cause a fitna!

The example he is citing above has, by the way, not an ounce to do with
what we are about here. The citing of this example demonstrates only the
immaturity of the understanding of some Muslims.

Whither the Kaaba is on its original foundation or not was NOT that crucial
issue that would motivate the Prophet(SAW) to take the risks involved in
its reconstruction. There is a Hadith in which the Prophet(SAW) says that
the blood of a believer is more important and sacred than the Kaaba (I
unfortunately don’t have the reference handy at the moment). This, of
course, not meant to imply that the Kaaba is not important or not sacred.

In matters that has to do with belief and religion, the Prophet(SAW) never
ever made any compromises or fifty-fifties, he(SAW) was always clear
and firm. As displayed above, in this particular matter of innovation in
religion he(SAW) was very clear and firm.

>The prayer is instituted at fixed times. Why? Everything has its
>place. It is strange that certain people boast so much about what they
>consider aqeedah, getting into ridiculous wavelengths about how the
>Prophet (S) spent 13 years preaching what they term is tawheed, (i.e.
>which amounts to dialectics with the ashaaris, maturiidis, and everybody
>else without absolutely any understanding of the issues that surround
>kalaam), then go off attacking practices such as mawlid.

I have little idea of what Asim is attempting to say here,,, and I have little
time to speculate on what he is at.

>They claim the proclamation of aqeedah, yet find the time to attack
>practices which are not at the root of the Muslim's problems.
>

Perhaps Br. Asim is just arriving from the moon. The Prophet(SAW) used
to warn his Sahaba about Bid’ah at least once every week. That was in the
time where the Prophet(SAW) was still honoring this earth by walking on
its face, in a time where Islam was as pure as it was reveled by Allah
(SWT).

In this darkened age, miss-guided innovators are in every corner and in
every internet newsgroup, religious innovations are practiced almost in
every house and almost in every mosque and people ignorantly assume it
as genuine Islam. Despite all that, Asim doesn’t think that all this is among
that which is in the root of the Muslim problems.
What had corrupted the religions before Mohammed(SAW) Br. Asim?
Wasn’t it some miss-guided and greedy folks adding and subtracting from
Allah’s revelations?? Think about it for a while and read the Qur’an and
you will, with the will of Allah, know the answer.

I am not implying here that the only problem is Bid’ah, certainly not. But I
am convinced that this phenomena of being NOT satisfied with what Allah
and His Prophet had ordered and prescribed and trying to add or to alter
in religion is nothing but schemes of the Satan, cursed is he.

>It's a shame that many of our Muslims influenced by such mentalities
>never ask themselves "There has to be more to this deen."
>

,,,and it is a shame that some Muslims rush to judge and write before they
understand, and even worse; when they write, they hardly make a
coherent and clear thought.

>>
>> Sincere Muslims, EACH WITHIN HIS POWER, should strive to prevent
>>and eliminate all those bida'ahs.
>>
>
>When one consumes his time with trivialities, he loses time for bigger
>issues.

I am so thrilled about the “bigger issues” of Asim, if he only would share
them with us, at least the names of those “bigger issues”!

>It is indeed sad that those same people, so diluted in their
>attacking such practices, waste countless hours writing treatise and
>arguing that time is lost in priorities.

So we may deduce, according to this fine logic, that the Prophet(SAW)
had also wasted some of his time with some of those “trivialities” when he
(SAW) was preaching his companions every time and warning them of
those “trivialities”.

Why wouldn’t Asim take some time to put together his scattered thoughts
and than reflect upon them, or better consult some knowledgeable about
them, before firing them in the air?

>>The great majority of those who are rushing to the rescue of
>>oppressed Muslims and are giving their lives in the way of Allah, be it in
>>Afghansitan, Bosnia, Chechnya or elsewhere, are those who call
>> themselves "Salafies" .
>
>Omar Mukhtar was sufi, as was the leader of the algerian resistance
>against French colonialism. The Sanousi movement in Egypt was a sufi
>movement.

I have read some books about the legendary Omar Al-Mukhtar, nothing in
those books suggested that he was a Sufi in the way most people would
typically understand this word, in fact far from it. This could also be said,
to a great extent, about AbdulKadar Algazzarie the leader of the Algerian
resistance. The Sanousi movement was, by the way, not in Egypt, it was
mainly in Libya and in some central African countries. Many compare this
Senousi movement with the Wahabbi movement by Schich Mohammed
Abdulwahb in the Arabian peninsula,,,,,, but what is the point here?? Why
Asim wants to drag me, with all means, into one of those Salafi vs. Sufi
nonsense?!

Besides, I was talking about what is currently taking place and not what
happened before many decades, those who call themselves Salafies are
today in the forefront of those who rush, with whatever means they have,
to the defense of oppressed Muslims, this is hardly a disputed fact.

>> With this most likely fabricated story, Shibil is in fact insulting
>>thousands of those who gave their lives for the sake of Allah and for the
>>defending of persecuted and oppressed Muslims.
>
>And one is also insulting 'confused' Naqshbandis. Seeraj had insulted
>countless thousands who gave there lives for the deen by calling them
>confused. Why the double standard?

This is indeed getting too much. What is the point of Br. Asim endlessly
whining about my personal views of a certain sect?!!

I made it clear that I never care the least about any of those invented
names. I made it also more than clear, in a previous occasion, that I was
writting according to my own experience. I saw some folks calling
themselves NaQshabandies, I read some material written by
NaQshabandies, I heard stories about NaQshabandies. In all those
sources, I found nothing but confusion, deception and miss-guidance.


W’assallam,
Seeraj

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages