Hamza Yussuf: a Shik or a Suufi

[Viking]

mizz,

I'm not a sis, a Viking was always a man. And, I missed the part where you said 'Salafi Sunni Muslims', I realise now it was not meant for the Muslims in general but rather a group among Muslims. Cheers!

[Final_Say]

lol sorry viking bother, my bad

 

i assumed frm da way ur were talking...any how sorry.

 

glad to sort dat out

 

salamz

[Final_Say]

lol sorry viking bother, my bad

 

i assumed frm da way ur were talking...any how sorry.

 

glad to sort dat out

 

salamz

[sahal]

The hadith does not speak about music as we know it, (don’t twist words). At the time of Rasuallah only the daf was allowed, other instruments often used today such as wind-instruments and string instruments are forbidden in Islam.

 

They are XARAAM and you know it, so don’t misuse the hadiths.

First of all i didn't speak about music and i didn't twist words, the HABASHA were singing in the prophet Mosque in the EID day... that's the hadith in SAHIH BUKHARI and nobody can deny it, the ULUMAS differ in intreperation and that's what i told you.

 

I myself, I don't listen any music or songs nor encouraging anybody to listen, what i want to make clear is we have to denounce the selfishness CULTERE, the culture that says ONLY me or MY sheikh knows, no other one !

 

The Salaf were saying that's my point of view which I think it's right but it could be wrong, and the others point of view is wrong but it could bev right.

 

we have to revive this CULTURE i.e if there is disbuted area, we have to say some ULUMA say this and some say that or the majority of ULUMA say this etc.

 

If you would say the majority of ULUMA make the songs HARAM, i wouldn't argue with you because it's true, but you said it's HARAM like RIBA etc.

 

this CULTURE which says I am the only one who knows, affected our society not only in religion side but also every aspect of our life.

 

If we let this culture to spread more in our society (which is actually already spreaded) it's our farewell.

 

Ther's a sister asked to you what about Sheikh Qaradawi who is also one of the Islamic scholars but you didn't answered ! , if i'm not here Salafi-dawa would mock him as he did b4, i was the only one who prevented him to do so.

 

i f i'm not here SOL would be one of their websites where ULUMA fleshes is the best DINNER.

 

Everyday MIDBAA KAWAANKA SAARAN. that's what he wanted to create here. he did actually and i remember you were defending Sheikh Salman al-awda and Safar Xawali (whom he stripped them SALAFIYAH label), but i'm defending all of them whether SCHOLAR is salafi or otherwise and also i will fight the SELFISHNESS culture particullarly in the religion.

 

 

I am not coming the political thread to argue with you that XAMAR (our beloved capital) is the most dangerous city on the earth (which it is according to an independant journalists) but i'm here to defend our ULUMAS and to fight against SELFESHNESS in religion.

 

I told you my view about these 3 ULUMA you mentioned in early thread and i said i see them as any other islamic ULUMA and i told you that they also differ in many things which some of them are fundamental, why don't you agree or disagree with me instead of repeating you're against salafiyah etc.

 

 

Salam

[Final_Say]

salam all:

 

sahal you have to change ur confrontational ways, ur tone is harsh, and is not the one you should use when giving dacwa or correcting someone one, its too defensive.

 

i don't no personally what goes no SOL, i just jumped on the wagon, so if what you say is true and salaf dawac makes a habit of attacking a labelling ulum's then the way to approach the matter is not to follow him to every thread and discredit him, but speak to him in private, show him why he is wrong.

 

i do agree with you, that there is no such a thing as my shirk is always right or my madhab is always right and i won't follow no other, all the four main imama's all said in their own ways that if you find evidence for matters that they have ruled on which contradicts their rulings then follow hat you found in the evidence and not their rulings, because they were humans, and humans are not free of human error.

 

i think if people want to learn from each other, you have to be open minded and aware that there are different translations and rulings concerning each issue which is not in the QUran or there is no clear ruling on it.

 

may allah guide us all, and forgive us for our sins; amen.

 

salamz ppl

[Rahima]

Sahal,

 

You’re confusing yourself akhi, let’s retrace the discussion (for clarification purposes)

 

Our sister writes to me:

 

so i think music issue is not agreed to be haram.

Which I then reply

 

Nabiga s.c.w already said that people would make xalaal what is xaraam. It is of no relevance for people to disagree on matters which are clear as daylight. The music issue is like the riba issue. Clearly xaraam, some argue it but it is baseless and not worth reading it (unless a knowledgeable person seeks to refute it).

Which you then state:

 

If the song issue is clear HARAM as RIBA it would not be held in the Prophet Mosque in the EID DAY and also Wedding Ceremony (look at SAHIH BUKHARI).

Which I then state as a response:

 

The hadith does not speak about music as we know it, (don’t twist words). At the time of Rasuallah only the daf was allowed, other instruments often used today such as wind-instruments and string instruments are forbidden in Islam.They are XARAAM and you know it, so don’t misuse the hadiths.

Which you then respond with:

 

 

First of all i didn't speak about music and i didn't twist words, the HABASHA were singing in the prophet Mosque in the EID day... that's the hadith in SAHIH BUKHARI and nobody can deny it, the ULUMAS differ in intreperation and that's what i told you.

So now I ask you, was I saying music all along or singing? I did not say that singing was xaraam, I said that music (as in musical instruments) aside from the daf were xaraam.So why did you use the Habasha hadith in the prophets mosque. Was there music? NO, SO IT DOES NOT APPLY TO WHAT I WAS SAYING!

 

So what is the argument here anyway? You are twisting the xadith akhi or if I give you the benefit of the doubt you don’t realize that there is a difference between signing as in with the voice and music with instruments. Do you realize that there is a difference?

 

Sure I acknowledge that there are different interpretations for certain issues, but issues such as Riba and Music are clearly xaraam (Sh. Qaradawi last i knew does not believe so). I don’t need to hear this stuff on different interpretations. I don’t take my religion from just anyone, I want hard-core proof. With these particular issues I have it, so why the need for other interpretations. If I go on and on about different interpretations, I’d begin believing that temporary marriges are xalaal or that smoking is xalaal or I can lead the prayer or homosexuality is not xaraam. This interpretation thing is so over-used. I acknowledged and yes it is needed at times, but why must we resort to it with even clear cut issues. What next? I need to look at different interpretations to decide whether or not I can bid at the pokies. This is redicilous and like I said over-used by many people for what is clear.

 

Rasuallah s.c.w said:

 

“What is Halal is clear and what is Haram is clear. Midway between them are things which people do not know whether they are Halal or Haram. He who keeps away from them will protect his religion and will be saved. He who aproaches them is very near to Haram, like a shepherd wandering his flock near Hima (protected grazing land), who could soon enter the forbidden area, and Allah's protected area is what He has declared forbidden.†(Bukhari and Muslim)

 

 

The other issue is Sahal, like i said cut the crusade stuff. I did not defame any scholars so no need to put on the armour as far as i am concerned. Also if you want to discuss Mogadishu be my guest (my life does not depend on it and it is open to wrong and right thoughts-not to mention that has to do with this issue how so? Please do explain). What is important however and not open to wrong thoughts is Islam and the need some of us have to paint gray clear matters.

 

As for Sh. Qaradawi, he is not Rasuallah. He makes mistakes and on the issue of music he has.

On one side of the debate, we have many of the respected shuyuukh with clear cut saxiix proof and then on this matter i have the proof of shuyuukh such as Sh. Qaradawi who don't provide me with such clear and saxiix proof. I take that opinion which is stronger. If it were Sh. Qaradawi who held the opinion over say Sh. Ibn Baz, i would take the opinion of the former. I follow blindly none but Rasuallah. It matters not to me who has a particular opinion, rather i am concerned with the daleels of the opinion. The stronger, the more to my liking.

 

I am done with this !

 

Bilan,

 

 

Have a look:

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=5000&dgn=4

[sahal]

First of all, Sis Miz lander I agree with you ...you have to be open minded and aware that there are different translations and rulings concerning each issue which is not in the QUran or there is no clear ruling on it.

 

 

Sis Rahima You wrote:

So now I ask you, was I saying music all along or singing? I did not say that singing was xaraam, I said that music (as in musical instruments) aside from the daf were xaraam.So why did you use the Habasha hadith in the prophets mosque. Was there music? NO, SO IT DOES NOT APPLY TO WHAT I WAS SAYING!

If you follow this issue, the singing and music are interchangeable, so accept my appology if you misunderstand me, it seems that we afree the main point which is singing with/out drum, desbite the fact that some ULUMA said even this is HARAM as we can see the FATWA that you provide us.

 

let's return to main point, my point was not the music/songs issue but the selfishness culture, particullarly in the disputed area.

 

I/you and everybody can agree/disagree with one or many Sheikhs on particullar disputed issue, but this doesn't mean that there is no other point of view in this issue. this is what i was fighting for whole my membership in SOL.

 

some ppl were always saying Sheikh fulan said so and that's it! and i was saying is there any evidence from KITAAB & SUNNAH? and their answer again was Sheikh fulan said ...

 

My point is DO YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT ULUMA CAN DIFFIR IN DISPUTED AREA, BUT THEY CAN'T DIFFER IN UN-DISPUTED AREA? IN OTHER WORDS; THEY CAN DIFFER IN WHAT OUR SALAF SALAH HAVE ALREADY DISPUTED AND THEY CAN'T DIFFER IN WHAT THEY HAVEN'T DISPUTED?

 

 

if you agree with me this why some ppl are making this issue (ULUMA differing in disputeable areas) BIGGER, while they make BIG issue (ALIM/ULMA who are disputing in in-disputeable areas)?

 

I will give you examples after you respond my question.

[Rahima]

You don't need to give examples, because there is no disagreement. You keep honing in on issues which we all agree on.

 

 

DO YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT ULUMA CAN DIFFIR IN DISPUTED AREA, BUT THEY CAN'T DIFFER IN UN-DISPUTED AREA? IN OTHER WORDS; THEY CAN DIFFER IN WHAT OUR SALAF SALAH HAVE ALREADY DISPUTED AND THEY CAN'T DIFFER IN WHAT THEY HAVEN'T DISPUTED?

See the problem here brother is, THIS IS NOT THE POINT.

 

Can I remind you, for me it is not about what Shaykh said what but rather what daleel they provide (i will be rewarded on the daleel i followed not the shaykh i followed, the former can award me paradise, the later not). If it so happens that the same group of shuyuukh are providing the strongest proofs on most occasions, then it often is that they are more knowledgeable and not simply because I value him as a person because he is hebel hebel. I value them because of their stance and their knowledge which is the foundation for their stance (often the one based on the strongest and most sound proofs).

 

There is no reason for you to go on and on regarding this different interpretation issue. WE ALL KNOW AKHI, no person including our brother Salafi Dacwa will deny this. There are saxiix hadiths attesting to this, we don’t need to argue over the obvious like any of us are oblivious to this. You don’t need to attack brother Salafi (I may not agree with him on certain issues but we have to be fair) or those of the Salafi Manhaj (which I like to think I am favourable to) based on this like they fail to acknowledge. NO ONE DENIES IT, WE KNOW!

 

The issue is attributing every issue even if it is one clear as day to different interpretations. Like I said we have over-used and abused this. Sometimes enough is enough, most of this religion is clear but many Muslims nowadays often portray it to be otherwise. Always you will see the interpretation argument even in unnecessary situations like the music debate. There is no need for other interpretations because simply they are wrong. Why would I even value these different interpretations when I have clear proofs from the established Quran and Sunnah? Why should I care what Sh. Qaradawi has said on the matter (no disrespect to the shaykh), when I have clear proof? It doesn’t make sense. Any of us here, if we were told to answer a question for a million dollars and we were provide with two lots of answers with different proofs, however one had stronger arguments based on established research but the other lacked all this, I can guarantee you all the money in the world that any sane thinking human being would select the first answer because the arguments are stronger. I ask you then, is not paradise worth more than a million dollars? Why would I put my diin and prospect for jannah in jepordy. It doesn’t make sense to me. I am not a scholar, if I make a mistake I will not get my ajar. I will be punished unless I am saved by the mercy of the Almighty Allah.

 

I am not saying I am sinless. I even commitsins I know to be xaraam but I have to be honest with myself and at the very least be honest about the xaraam and the xalaal. Putting an established xaraam or xalaal into discrepancy (as in declaring it the opposite), puts my religion in danger and can push me into the pit of kufr. Why would I take such a chance? It is unnecessary akhi.

 

All in all, the majority of issues in this religion are clear, Allah has perfected this religion. We accept different opinions on a small number of issues, but they certainly are often not the forefront of issues.

[Final_Say]

sahal and rahima u guys are dancing around the same point;

ur saying the same things in different words;

 

chill u both agree on the main point,

 

 

salamz

[Rahima]

^ Sahal seems to think i am saying otherwise.

 

I don't know why really, i thought i made myself very clear in earlier posts.

[sahal]

Rahima this is my point, if you agree with me then Mizz lasnder is right to say that we're saying same things in different words, if not then let's see where you stand.

 

This is my Quote:

 

With regard to the 3 ULUMA's (Sh. Albani. Bin Baz. and Sh. Cuthaymiin) that you mentioned, there is no doubt that they were some of the greatest ULUMA in our time and i'm too small to criticise them let alone to attack them.

 

What i disagree with you is however, to call them as SALAFIS, rather i would like to call them ISLAMIC SCHOLARS. and of course as other ISLAMIC SCHOLARS they had different views in many ISSUES which some of them are fundamental issues; like the MUSLIM who don't perform 5 daily prayers.

 

Sheikh Albani see taarikal salaat as MUSLIM, while the other two Sheikhs (Bin BAz and Cuthaymiin) see as KAAFIR who should be divorced his wife and not be buried at the MUSLIm graves etc.

 

The other issue is entering Democratic process and becoming member of the parliament in Muslim countries, Sheikh Albani see as KUFR action to join these parliaments while other two Sheikhs see as necessary to join the political process and to become member of the parliament enz.

 

on the basis of these and many other facts like American troops in Arabian Penisula, Palestine struggle, Niqab which most of them are actually fundamental issues, I consider them as part of MUSLIM SCHOLARS who can differ in some issues while they agree in many issues and not as particullar group. because if they're in one particullar group, as you mentioned, they would at least agree on fundamental issues.

[Final_Say]

salamz sahal:

 

okay that ur point;

 

two things i would like to point out:

 

1) Salaf is not a GROUP; with the knowledge u portray i assumed u knew this; its a word which has been personified to describe an action.

 

2) the three scholars you have named differ in opinions based on the hadith and evidence that wz available to them, each wz more convinced by another evidence; they are each therefore following their predecessors , but on issues where there is no clarity using their knowledge to interpret what they think is correct.

 

What rahima is saying to you is that, depending on the ISSUE that is being interpreted, and the shikah that has the most convincing evidence, she will follow him; Example; the person who does not pray; it is not as simple as you said; the three ulam agree that 1) if the person does not pray because they don't believe in the prayer as part of islam, or a command of allah, or that they don't like it, then it takes them out of islam;

2) if the person does not pray out of laziness and or lack of motivation, time duya etc, but they believe in the prayer, the are aware they are doing wrong, (inshallah one day I’ll pray sort of person) then they are in a state of disobedience (according to some shiks) or minor kufur (according to other), but they cannot be called a kafur (agreed on) What the ulam disagree on is the 2ed point, not the first. The reason being that the other two shiks did not want to burden themselves of taking someone out of islam, but they all agree, that as a muslim you should not live or marry a person in this sate and if they die and you knew they died in that state you have NO RIGHT ASKING PPL TO PRAY ON HIM-- instead dug him a whole in the dessert and bury him there, (I have not heard bury him the non muslim section, but I’ll check inshallah).

 

Rahima is saying that just because alban said does not mean she will follow that interpretation, instead if ibn baz sounds more correct she will follow him (I’m I correct Rahima or have I misunderstood too) I agree with this, u should not limit ur self to one shik and take him word as if it is the prophet or allahs words, see what other ulams have to offer in terms of interpretation.

 

 

This is all frm my memory, I’ll double check when I reach home inshallah, anything I said wrong is frm me and the shiytan, and if you no it is wrong then plz do correct me)

 

Salamz

[sahal]

Salaf is not a GROUP; with the knowledge u portray i assumed u knew this; its a word which has been personified to describe an action.

Mizz Lander R U Sure abouut that? According to their testemonies they're GROUP, but they insist that they're not like other groups, they always say we follow the KITAAB & SUNNAH and according the SALAF SALAH understanding.

 

However, each group claims exactly the above claim or similar, therefore it's difficult for some people to differ who's claiming and who's right?

 

This was the base of the debate between me and Salfi-Da'wa.

[Final_Say]

salamz:

 

sahal:

sorry my bad, i did't see that in the thread, might be another one.

 

it depends of what individual u are talking about when u say "they"

 

alot of people say they are things they are not!!

 

so it is best to focus on individuals rather than groups; dats my policy; and i will always double check any new information i get even if the sources say i'm a salaf wid one that i trust;

 

the reason i said it is not a group is the follow:

 

1) there is no one leader, or founder of the a xizib/party; although the prophet (PBUP) was the first to use it when he said to fadumo i am ur salaf;

 

2) they don't have party policy or agend's on the side; for example a lot of groups have a party policy direction towards building a khalifa.

 

3) the word it self describes the actions of people, rather than the name or the group or the founder, which differes it frm the existing groups!!

 

in any case the ulum's said that as it is not good to attach ur self to any group, saying i follow salafiya takes you out of all groups and distinguish u frm deviant groups, and so that you know who to take ur knowledge frm..

 

 

salamz

[sahal]

the reason i said it is not a group is the follow:

 

1) there is no one leader, or founder of the a xizib/party; although the prophet (PBUP) was the first to use it when he said to fadumo i am ur salaf;

 

Sister I would like if Salafi Dawa would give you his answer aniut this, but what i want to tell you is "these are the some of the tricks that they decieve the innocent people" but if you looked them deeply they are more cohesion and more systematic than any other group since they don't accept as member anyone who didn't agree with them 100% if you agree with them 99.9999% you'll not become one of them.

 

For example I asked Salafi Dawa several times for some ULUMA and Shuyukhs whether they're Salafiyah or not and he was saying NO, NO, NO .... desbite the fact that some of these Shuyukhs see themselves as Salafiyah but because they don't agree with this group 100% they were dismissed as outside saliyah fold.

 

Srcondly Sis. this Hdaith which they always bring forward as EVIDENCE i.e "prophet (PBUP) was the first to use it when he said to fadumo i am ur salaf;"

 

Sister anyone who has little knowledege in Islam will see that there is no evidence in this HADITH to call yourself as salafi rather than ISLAM. the word SALAF means Predecessor in ARABIC and as any other ARABIC word it could be in QURAN as well as in HADITH.

 

strangely this word (SALAF) is in QURAN but they don't illustrate as an evidence; You know why? not because they don't know that it's in the QURAN nor becaues they don't know ARABIC language but there is another reason.

The reason is because this time the SALAF is FIRCOON and his group, so they didn't like it to show the ppl that this could be used good as well as bad.

 

and this is a proof of what i already mentioned which is this is an ARABIC word and it could be used for its meanings (good or bad).

 

Sis. read these three AYAS from SUURATUL ZUKHRUF and you'll understand why they didn't take this AYAH as an evidence of calling themselves as SALAF.

 

 

So he (Pharoah) incited his people to levity and they obeyed him: surely they were a transgressing people. 043.054

 

 

Then when they displeased Us, We inflicted a retribution on them, so We drowned them all together, 043.055

 

 

And We made them a precedent (SALAFAN) and example to the later generations. 043.056

 

Did you get it?

 

So don't be decieved by the above HADITH, because it doesn't mean that we can call ourselves as SALAF rater than the ISLAM the same is valid as this AYAH.

 

2) they don't have party policy or agend's on the side; for example a lot of groups have a party policy direction towards building a khalifa.

This is neither true nor good thing to not have a policy or agenda in other words; They have their own policies and if the building of khilaafah is not among their agendas it's not good thing, it should be one of their agendas.

 

3) the word it self describes the actions of people, rather than the name or the group or the founder, which differes it frm the existing groups!!

 

Absouletly true! and this is what Sheikh Said Ramadan Budhi said he said: "SALAF IS PLEASED ERA AND NOT ISLAMIC MADHAB" which is literaly true but you don't know how they attacked this sheikh ...... they insist that it's a AMDHAB i.e they have their own agenda, policy etc. and you say they don't have .. so where are they now?

 

Where is Salaf dawa and his copy & paste articles he would be our judge! in this case.