excellent mashaallah.

I have mixed feelings towards this new unity. Whilst I fully understand that at least in the west it is required, if we are at all to meet the continuously evolving challenges. I also have grave reservations.

I cannot speak from a Sufi perspective. But from a Salafi perspective I would ask: Who is representing us in this initiative?

Are the senior scholars divorced from this process? Have they even been consulted? Or is this going to be a new era where the old guard are left behind?

Salafis at least in the UK (including myself) are still looking to the likes of Shaikh Salih Al Fawzaan, Abdul Aziz Aal Ash Shaykh, Abdul Muhsin Al Abbaad and others for guidance even in ‘fiqh of the minorities’.

Maybe it is ignorance, but no Salafi I know has even heard of Abdullah Ibn Bayyah let alone considers him to be from the major scholars.

I remember when it was all: Allamah Falih Al Harbi. People heard the name and blindly followed thinking him to be a major scholar. I think many have learnt a harsh lesson that left a bitter taste in the mouth. I don’t think they will accept a ‘new’ ‘allamah’ all that easily, even if he is on the opposite side of the spectrum.

I think without addressing these issues you will get a few Salafis on the boat. But the majority are firmly attached to the scholars.

As much as I love Shaikh Yasir Qadhi and Shaikh Tawfique Chowdhury (may Allah allow us to benefit from them, always) I have never considered them from amongst the scholars. And the reality on the ground, at least in the UK is that most Salafis don’t either, and Allah knows best. (I hope this is not misunderstood and is no way negative on either of them, may Allah bless them and increase them in all good).

Then there is the issue of compromise. What is the extent of the unity and where are the lines drawn.

Sorry to say but without mentioning names, there are those in the UK, who whilst espousing unity are underhandedly trying to dismantle the dawah of Al Albani and the Ahlul Hadeeth. And if it continues then if Allah wills, there will be a response.

Otherwise how are these issues to be dealt with. It is like one side has an arms embargo on it but the other is free to do as it pleases.

There are a few elephants in the room that people are avoiding.

I think it’s better to discuss some issues head on, rather than put our heads in the sand and hope it all works out.

Anyhow, I’m all for it if we can come up with a practical paradigm that involves the scholars and not just the greater students of knowledge.

However, I think it is also important to recognize that there is some manipulation going on when conveying who the ulemaa are, “their stances on issues”, “who they give tazkiyah to” in regards to relaying these issues to the English speaking brothers.

I don’t think there is any doubt about the credibility or knowledge of Shaykhs Fowzaan, Abdul Azeez aal ash-Shaykh or Abdul Muhsin Al-Abbaad and if those mashaykh are the criterion for us here in the West, I don’t see what the problem would that would be. However, there are others as well and sometimes there is manipulation by some individuals as to who is known to us(the English speaking Muslim). Hope that makes sense.

The whole issue of Faalih Al-Harbee being conveyed to the masses as “Allaamah” and having his own website through SP was a good example of this manipulation.

Additionally, keeping the masses in the dark about the Shanqeetee ulemaa alive today, Muhammad Saalim wal Udood, Muhammad Ibn Mukhtar and Muhammad Hassan walid Ad-Dido is another example. I know many Salafees that if you were to mention these scholars, they would look at you funny and think maybe you are confusing these guys with “Muhammad Al-Amin ash-Shanqeetee”(since that is the only one of the tribe that many are familiar with). Another example perhaps of this manipulation; so I don’ t know if the fact that Salafees haven’t heard of Sh. Abdullah Ibn Bayyah is substantial evidence that he is not from the major ulemaa.

Assalamualaykum
I understand that we should respect these people because they are apart of sunni Islam, but at the same time how far should our unity extend. Like Anon said, if they differ in our fundamental beliefs mainly in Allah names and attributes, how are you to sit with them and have coversations about Allahs attributes for example. I am all for unity, but how far should my allegiance go? I dont know im all iffy about this, perhaps some one should enlighten me with more details.

@ Abu Muhammad

Well said.

Allah hu Akbar!

@ibnabeeomar

“that sounds like a leading question there”
I had a feeling you would say that. Just so you know, that wasn’t my intention.

“i thought i stated goals and concerns for the ummah in the west pretty clearly.”
Yeah I just noticed your first comment. I retract the question.

I hate to break it to you Abu Muhammad…but the vast majority of Muslims are not you. I mean to say, we could care less about this shaykh or that shaykh. Would you follow your Salafi shaykh for that matter on EVERYTHING? What if the shaykh left Islam what would you do then?

Most of us are not among the minority hard-core Salafis or Sufis, we are in-between.
In the interest of confusing the masses, I think this specific discussion should be dropped. And this really isn’t a beneficial issue to spend time discussing.

@Dawud Israel

Please reread the main post and then my comment. It might click eventually.

I think you got the wrong end of the stick. Don’t worry about it.

If one holds the opinion that the Ash’aree/Maturi’dee schools of creed are not within the framework of Ahlul Sunnah and is afraid of himself/herself and his/her brothers/sisters, then that is valid.

However, keep in mind that most lecturers from the aforementioned schools do not publicly advertise their beliefs either in general seminars/lectures. One should have a framework of the aqeedah of the Salaf us-Saalih and understand it to a basic level and then insha’Allaah an individual can filter out anything that is incorrect (but most of what they say in large gatherings seems to be agreeable or at worst case, issues of ikhtilaaf).

as-salaamu ‘alaykum…

Here is an edited version of what I posted on brother AE’s blog in response:

Cooperation on that which Islam considers good is not limited to Ash’aris, Maturidis, etc. But the command in the Quran encompasses the entire creation, which includes the Jews, the Christians, the Socialists, BNP, Gays and Lesbians and what have you. In that sense, I am a fierce promoter of cooperation with all, and especially our Ash’ari and Maturidi brethren.

However, the current climate and whatever is going on has absolutely nothing at all to do with cooperation upon righteousness. Nothing at all. It is all to do with recognising the Ash’arism and Maturidism as legitimate Sunni schools, and legitimising deviant and heretic practises that are rampant amongst majority of the Sufis today. You can count the references to our ‘Sunni brothers’ in this thread alone, referring to Ash’aris and Maturidis.

The most saddening part of the episode is that the Ash’aris and Maturidis in this regard haven’t changed one bit. They still consider us anthropomorphists. The ‘Athari’ in their Sunni trinity refers to a mufawwidh, who cannot be bothered to understand ‘ilm al-kalam and therefore he subdues his intellect to kalami conclusions and instead of making ta’wil, he opts for tafweedh.

We are not part of the equation at all.

So here we have our elders, so-called leaders of the Salafi Dawah in the West who once couldn’t stand outside of al-Muntada, lest their orthodoxy is attacked, are now calling for cooperation with those whom they regarded as heretics, but in reality, what we read and hear from them is pure legitimisation of what they previously regarded to be heresies. It is only the ‘Salafis’ that are having a change of heart. Not the Ash’aris or others, and that is the most saddening part of the episode.

The brother who wrote the original article, did once say to me that he does not take much interest in ‘aqida issues, as far as I remember. If that is true, he is not in a position to determine who are the extremes or the mainstreams in either of the groups, and whether or not the difference between them are minor or major.

I don’t think the brother in question, or even other brothers will be willing to objectively discuss who are or aren’t the mainstream in both camps and whether or not the differences are major or minor. It seems that they’ve already made up their mind, and therefore, wouldn’t dare to venture into that kind of objective discussion to begin with. And if this is the case, then we would like to know honestly, who is evading a fruitful and truth-seeking discussion here? After all, as some of the brothers here know that this has been my only complaint: say what you want, but at least discuss with an open mind and heart instead of shying away from such discussions, fearing their inevitable outcome.

The belief in the creation of the Quran, is it major or minor difference?

The view that faith only consists of beliefs and not actions, is it a major or minor difference?

Legitimisation of ‘ilm al-kalam, is it a major of minor difference?

Negating Allah’s elevation upon the throne, is it a major or minor difference?

Belief in determinism, is it major or minor?

Are all these issues minor? If that’s the case then I guess the entire generation of Imam Ahmad were foolish to get lashed, banged up in prisons and die of starvation.

Yes, these difference have existed for a thousand years, and for a thousand years these views have been regarded as heretical by the Sunnis. So what has changed now that we suddenly feel the need to disregard our 1000 years tradition and accept them as orthodox? In fact, the Shi’as have also existed for more than a 1000 years, longer than the Ash’aris. In that sense, they would have more right over recognition than the Ash’aris. Yet, when Israel attacked Lebanon, it was suggested that somehow it was good to see the oppressors kill each other.

As far as I am concerned, I am all for cooperation with the Shi’as, even. I have no problems with playing football, snooker, or campaigning for our rights with Shi’as, socialist, etc… And I am very eager about the idea bringing the Maturidi and Ash’ari brothers closer to us to at least create a channel of communication and dialogue…

But I guess, once you accept them whole heartedly as Ahl al-Sunnah, there is no gap to bridge then, is there? So this our strategy for unity?

The bottomline is this. Most of the people are sick and tired of people shoving their agendas down their throat. We are all as much thirsty for the truth as we are for unity, and we cannot get one without the other. Unity and cooperation based on lies will collapse, just as the agendas set by our respected elders, which was based upon lies and deception, collapsed. This is inevitable.

We would rather work with our Ash’ari and Maturidi brothers, knowing that we both consider each other deviants, than to lie to ourselves and the general public about our history, facts and beliefs.

We are all for cooperation, but NOT for hiding the truth and another wishy-washy agenda that is bound to fail like all the other agendas in the past.

How about unity with Abu Hamza et al? After all, he also condemned 7/7 and 9/11, etc; yes, his other statements are probably as nasty as those we heard on the Dispatches. The difference is that The Sun was on his case. Just wait till The Sun is on your case, then there hardly will be a difference left. Not that it would change anything.

I will use AE’s response again :) as he sums up my sentiments

A lot of statements, a lot of assumptions and all based upon…what exactly?

My advice: wait a few days for something to materialise and then attack/critique/destroy/objectively discuss it.

Really, who talked about the “trinity Aqeedah”? Do people think that the students of knowledge from the “athari” side who are part of this don’t know about the tafweedi issues? Do people think that there is a massive game of trickery going on from the ashari side to fool the poor salafi aqeedah-holders into a trinity that they are not part of? Sometimes, I think we take a leap of faith that jumps over reality into our own perceptions… Give peace a chance ;)

And meanwhile, along comes some massive bomb that doesn’t distinguish between Salafee and Soofee and Shee’ah and ends the argument once and for all.

Dear brother Amad, JK for clarification. I had thought there must be some problem with the way cookies are being handled.

Yasir, what good are the emails if they are not responded to? On the list that we’re on, I was the only one commending you for the controversial lecture you delivered. It is a shame that the audience were intellectually shallow to appreciate it. But the deafening silence from your side made me think that perhaps you, too, really have join the ‘elders’ you were up against, not only in views but also in their ‘right to remain silent’. Well, this is what happens when communication breaks down.

Besides, I was not commenting on this new agreement you just mentioned (agreements? lol, have we been there before? :) ) And to be honest, I am not even concerned about what the agreement says. I am more concerned about the message the people are getting from a number of things that are happening:

i) Sh Suhayb’s introduction to HY’s translation of al-Tahawiyya. This is NOT a cooperation on righteousness by any stretch of the word.

ii) Exposing the Sunni Muslims to the figureheads of heresies today, as it happens in JIMAS.

iii) Constant, albeit, mild criticisms of the Salafis engaged in internet feud with the Ash’aris. (And come on, how many Salafis do you know are engaged in this?)

Besides, the message that people have been getting after reading AE’s post and his further comments, is that the Ash’aris and Maturidis are Sunnis, and that those who say otherwise are extremists, and that there aren’t any major differences between us. This is the people’s understanding of what is going on as clearly reflected here and elsewhere.

And it is this, about which I said, has nothing at all to do with cooperation and everything to do with recognising them as Sunnis. And to counter that, you can easily say: ‘Sorry, but you misunderstood. Ash’aris are deviants and not Sunnis. However, we are talking about adab al-khilaf, or whatever else.’ It would go a long way clarifying matters for the average Muslim who might have got the wrong message after reading AE’s post and comments.

Lastly, dear Yasir, if you remember couple of years ago, on a certain list, we were all being encouraged to talk to each other, understand and consult before taking a step, without consultation that could have adverse affects on other people’s concerns/projects. And as far as I remember, you agreed and further disliked that certain ‘elders’ have taken a route which is adversely affecting the da’wah and that since we’re all together, we should be consulted. Well, it seems something happened and you pulled out of the list and disappeared; and ended up doing exactly what you disliked others for doing, namely, making decisions that did adversely affect others without any consultation. Why then expect an email from me or anyone else when you’re not bothered about consultation to begin with? Honestly, you’ve become so distant since you left the list we haven’t a clue what you’re thinking and why you’re doing what you’re doing. Why should you now expect us to consult you before complaining? Communication goes both ways.

Anyway, out of all those who attended that meeting, you are still the only one I expect NOT to accept Ash’arism and Maturidism as two legitimate Sunni schools. (The rest of the ‘salafis’ who attended often do not have a clue what they’re talking about) And frankly, I am not interested in this new agreement. It has nothing to do with me or anyone else. It is between those who worded and signed it. But I am all for bridging the gap between the Ash’aris and the Sunnis and furthering cooperation, as I have stated numerous times. Now please do the honours and clarify to the confused people here that unity and cooperation does not mean accepting them as Sunnis. That would go a long way bridging the gaps between us, Salafis (as these gaps, too, ought to be bridged, I suppose)

Absolutely agree with brother/sister Tarannum. However, the point of contention is slightly different.

Ibn Taymiyya’s statement is very accurate:
““They (i.e. Ash’aris) are the closest to the Ahl-al-Sunnah”

Meaning, they are not Ahl al-Sunnah, but are closest.

“because they are the closest of kalaam groups to the Ahl-al-Sunnah and the People of Hadith”

Meaning, they are a group of mutakallimun, and NOT Ahl al-Sunnah, yet they are still the closest of the mutkallimun to Ahl al-Sunnah.

Doesn’t need explanation, really. It is quite self explanatory.

The term ‘Ahl al-Sunnah’ is used in different senses.

In a sense it refers to anyone who opposes the Shi’ah, including the Mu’tazila and the Jahmiyya; i.e. whoever isn’t a Shi’i is a Sunni.

In another sense it refers to all those who adhere to the four madhabs, including the many Mu’tazilis Hanafis had in their ranks.

In another sense, when a country only has Mu’tazila against the Shi’a, then the Mu’tazila ARE the Ahl al-Sunnah in that land. Ash’aris in that regard are no different.

However, by default whenever we use the term ‘Ahl al-Sunnah’, we mean it in its strict context, i.e. the one sect out of 73, about which al-Saffarini spoke in his poem and said that the saved sect is none but one, i.e. Ahl al-Athar. In that sense, as Ibn Taymiyya has made clear, Ahl al-Sunnah strictly refers to those who affirm all of Allah’s attributes without negating any. So Ash’aris, Maturidis and the Mu’tazila in that regard are beyond the pale of Ahl al-Sunnah.

Besides, I feel I have gone beyond the culture where we would satisfy/refute each other by quoting statements of scholars here and there. In that sense, I couldn’t careless even if Ibn Taymiyya said Ash’aris were Ahl al-Sunnah (which he doesn’t). We have Imams from Ahmad b. Hanbal, through to al-Sijzi, Ibn Qudama and others, even Ibn al-Jawzi, who regarded the Ash’aris to be deviants and not Ahl al-Sunnah.

What I want to know is, why are the Mu’tazila declared as heretics, beyond the scope of Ahl al-Sunnah, whilst the Ash’aris are shown leniency and considered Sunnis, whereas BOTH believe in the creation of the Quran (without exaggerations). Why this inconsistency? If you want to convince people, do so on grounds of logic and reasoning, and not Sh fulan or allan said, and this must be it. At least for me, those days are gone. I wouldn’t give two hoots if I was shown Sh Ibn Baz’s statement. I am more interested in knowing the underlying reasoning for his words. thereafter, if I am convinced, al-hamdulillah, if not, so be it. Be I see no reason why I must toe the Saudi line and follow their agenda, or any other agendas that are being drawn up for us – without our consultation – in the West.

Moreover, we are told that this is a coalition of the ‘traditionalist’ and the ‘salafists’ against the progressives? Let’s see, how many Salafis attended this meeting? I can only think of Yasir Qadhi. Usama Hasan and AE do not even consider themselves Salafis. Yasir may represent us in many of our beliefs and practices, but people like Usama Hasan, who did he represent in that meeting? Tariq Ramadan? Who did AE represent? The Cheadle crowd?

So who represnted the Salafis exactly?

Secondly, we are told it is a coalition against the progressives, yet, we have members within this coalition who support and promote some of the progressive views, such as Abd al-Hakim Murad and Usama Hasan who has made, even the hijab a subject of debate, not niqab, but hijab (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/6970298.stm)

So what does coalition exactly mean? A coalition against itself?

Is it not obviously clear to all that there is more going on than this flower-power Peace and Love bandwagon? that people are continuing to evolve and change their entire DNA structure?

Is it too hard for us to admit the obvious to the public: ‘guys, don’t take our word for anything… we are still undergoing evolution. Come back when we’ve settled’?

And before it is implied that I am still on the madkhali manhaj, well, here is the newsflash: I was never ever a madkhali in my life, and I am glad. Otherwise, I would too be evolving with everyone else. In fact, I am all for cooperation, love and understanding amongst not only Muslims of difference sects, groups and parties, but the Muslims and the wider public. I am all for minority fiqh. I am as much sick and tired of Saudi agenda as you guys are. But I just don’t see why must the Saudi agenda be replaced with yours?

Lastly, I realise my posts have been very stinging, so I would like to thank the admin to allow me to post here. Only with frank and open dialogues where we all pour our hearts out, can real bonds of love and brotherhood be created.

JK

Assalaamu alaikum.

What does Al-Harrani mean by the “saudi agenda” ? Did shaikh bin baz have an agenda that we dont know about?

I asked a very respected Sheikh in Houston, Amad bhai and Sh Yasir Qadhi know him very well, about praying behind brelvis. He said anyone who claims to be from a deviant sect, like shia, brelvi etc, we can not pray behind him, nor we can eat their slaughtered meat. Period.

I think there is no such thing as unity with these deviants, it could be only co-operation. I know it feels and sounds nice to talk about unity and being tolerant, but how am I supposed to feel any love for such people?

Umm Layth, after reading entirely what you wrote and how you wrote, I feel honored to have you disgusted.

Hassan, there is a different of opinion on praying behind a heretic whose heresy hasn’t reached the level of kufr. But people like the Barelwis, and some elements in the so-called traditionalist movement who believe in praying to other than God, one may not pray behind them at all.

“I think there is no such thing as unity with these deviants, it could be only co-operation”

You raised an important point here that there is still much confusion about what essentially these terms mean. Is ‘unity’ the same as ‘cooperation’ or different? Also, although we are all promoting cooperation, no one has yet penned down the Shara’i guidelines for such cooperation, and the lack thereof can cause a lot of chaos, with people accusing each other of going too far or falling short in enough cooperation. It is all very ambiguous, which is why the general ppl like us are ought to be cautious.

UmmLayth, I hope you realise that you are given the freedoms on a Sunni platform which you do not provide us in your own platforms. And all this talk about ‘Why not try and see why they believe such, where their proofs come from’; well, we did that on your forums and then what happened? We were accused of lying, distorting and finally banned for the reasons as stated by your own husband: ‘Though I am not an ‘Asha’ri or Maaturidi, this debate is an unfair debate in the sense that no one on this forum will be able to respond adequately to the claims of the anti-orthodox way of Harrani’

And this is where the story ends. So much for ‘go and read their books yourselves.’ Here you go yourself, have a read this: http://aqeedah.files.wordpress.com/2006/09/bayjuri-quran-created.gif

‘It isn’t permissible to say that Quran is created, except in a classroom setting’ This isn’t coming from a Salafi book. This is coming from a standard Ash’ari manual on creed.

Go and read for yourself, sure!

And what is the point of posting that HY video link? To further prove to us that HY lies upon the Prophet – and the girl, that illiterate slave girl who was more aware of her Lord’s whereabouts than our half-witted Muslim intellectuals?

Give us a break :)

Al-Harrani,

I also agree w/ Sh. Yasir that the Saudi ulemaa cannot give fatawaa on many issues we face here and for us to ask them is unfair to us and unfair to them as well.

As for Shaykh Ibn Bayyah and his credentials to give relevant fatawaa, from what I know about him he is pretty well exposed to the West and knows what is going on here which would make him qualified.

The issue is as you mentioned, “Who is representing the Salafees?”. I even disagree that Sh. Yasir is representing the Salafees, because for one, he doesn’t refer to himself as one. How can he represent the Salafees when the people who are all about the label of ‘ad-dawatus Salafiyyah” are the same people who would not consider him to be one? Honestly, I don’t think there is a single da’ee out there who can do so…because the concept of gathering with “deviants” would get one thrown out of “Salafiyyah”. This is unless one has the backup of the kibaar ul ulemaa, which brings us back to that point and for that, at least the du’aat should have that connection with their mashaykh and do their best to explain to them what is going on here. Right now, it seems that no one is trying; things are already being blown off by the reasoning that “they don’t understand our situation” which might be true, but one has to try and give them the benefit of the doubt. The major scholars I would believe are people of wisdom and if the situation is broken down to them, why wouldn’t they give the proper advice?

BTW akh..I for one would never mistake you for a “Madkhalee” as it is obvious you weren’t when you questioned the “Saudi agenda”. I don’t like the term “Madkhalee” either for what it’s worth.

Umm Layth,

I have to agree with alot of what you said. I am a Salafee and I know that much of the Salafee propaganda about the Soofees is baatil, because it doesn’t add up to what I hear from the mouths of the Soofees themselves.

However, ulemaa from across the spectrum call to their da’wah and against those that oppose it, they call us to avoid sitting with ‘Ahlul Bi’dah’.

“Do Not Lend Your Ear to the Innovator”- Sh. Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi (Soofee/Asharee)

From the Salafee side, how many quotes do we have about boycotting and not sitting with the people of desires and innovation??? They are countless. It’s hard to pick one.

As for the brother’s stance on the Shi’aa, then know that ulemaa have preceded him in this…Shaykh Saalih Al-Fowzaan (hafidhahullaah) has the opinion that the Raafidah are not from Ahlul Kitaab and that they are not Muslims, so it is not permissible to eat their meat not marry their women. He is on the Permanent Committee for Fatwa and Research in Saudi and many of the ulemaa agree with him on this.

I have a friend who is a Deobandi student of knowledge and he refuses to give salaams to Shi’a or eat their meat; he won’t even return their salaam because he believes their asl to be of kufr.

So while I see your point and advice to the brother based on the situation you witnessed, we cannot disregard the statements of our scholars either.

jazakallahu khair Abu Zubair. I’m glad someone is here to ask the right questions.

Question. Did no one think of inviting Sh. Ja’far Shaikh Idris? If you’re looking for someone who combines Islamic knowledge with experience of the West, he’s the man, and i can’t believe his name hasn’t been mentioned.

I wonder if it has been ever suggested/in the works for one of the Kibaar or even a high student of knowledge to come and LIVE here in the West. Like 4 real one of them just come over here and post up and see what’s happening over here for an extended period of time.

Would they answer a call such as this to come here when we’re in need or would it be one of those things where they find it’s a greater good to stay where they are and do what they do…

Unfortunately I think that they’d be disgusted with what they’d experience here and disgusted with us maybe? and want to dip all the way back to where they came from.

On a more serious note…I think we can’t make light of the wisdom/knowledge/experience of the Ulema no matter where they’re from. I have no doubt that there is a HUGE difference between someone READING a book about say a lower-income neighborhood vs. LIVING in a low-income neighborhood…as the two experiences are NOT the same.

However, what do you do when you have on one side the knowledge of experience vs. knowledge of the religion. How do you reconcile it?

I can’t see how someone SO knowledgeable in the deen can’t understand a situation if it’s layed out to them properly? I just can’t see it. I mean trying to lay out the WHOLE picture….not just a specific fatwa like “can we buy car insurance”…I’m talking about the WHOLE picture.

Just the other day we were talking about (it’s probably paranoia) how EVERYTHING we do here has a lil bit of “haraam” in it? Our taxes funding wars, our clothes/food we buy are from child labor or evil corporations, you “die” or live miserably without insurance….but then can’t afford it at the same time…and on top of all that, the principle of insurance is wrong, secular schools, money in the banks support riba, blah blah list goes on. Now what the hell are we supposed to do. We got all this crap to deal with and a scholar can’t understand this? I can’t see it. Allah’hu’alim.

I think we need to make more Dua…4 real 4 real.

For those that think I’m being “madkhali” for saying that in my previous comment…go right ahead. I aint one and I could care less if people branded me as one.

I am saddened that you guys left the Deobandees, Traditonalists and Shias. Why not heal the 1000 year old wound of the death of Hussain! Can we sunnis just admit that we’re sorry for what yazid did and let the healing begin?

Maybe their contemporary scholars such as Al-Khoei and “Wa-Amma Fee-Saqeefah!” and Baqir Hakim, Ayatollah Sistaani can also shed some light on how to deal with the spiraling problem in Iraq. In fact Amad, could you invite Muqtada Sadr to your online conference next time and start the kumbaya healing process?

Heh… Shaykh Chao, you strongly remind me of my father! I think you guys would get along pretty well :)

compliment*

@ Amad:

LOL ….

Oh you just make your way to MD after Ramadan … and Kabobing we will go, inshallah!

: )

I dare not take this matter to day of judgment, no matter how convinced or accurate my information is. Hence I apologize sincerely and openly to following:

1. Accusing “someone” to call someone following madhab kaafir. Now I remember it was rather accusing them of shirk, but regardless, I may be dreaming, and incident may have never occurred. So I apologize sincerely for that accusation. And ramdan is month of forgiveness, and I hope the person forgives, because Allah would forgive his/her sins as well.

2. Accusing muslimmatters of “supporting” tom dick harrys aqeedah. Since I personally know most of people I can not imagine them supporting it.

Things I am still not comfortable with:

1. Although I know people at muslimmatters do not support tom dick and harrys aqeedah, yet they have given (seemingly) a platform for them to speak without being corrected/refuted by their prestigious scholars on the blogs.

2. Trying to soften themselves and blog readers towards other groups beliefs. If thats what muslimmatters want, what can I do, except to stop coming here.

3. Only criticizing super-salafis (justifiably) yet ignoring others.

4. The site gives impression to me of anyone but salafi site. I would understand if it was not “salafi-only” site.

5. Unity mantra. Again I do not own the site, so muslimmatters can do what they want.

6. (Not accusing) The attitude comes across as smugness that we are better than the person who is regular salafi (like me), because I may not be intellectual enough and tolerant enough, evolved enough etc to “understand” the non-salafis.

I am sure muslimmatters have made many friends, but they may loose some, but who cares about them, they are not good enough because they do not agree or see eye to eye to muslimmatters.

Imam Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab was asked from his students, why you spend all this time on tawheed, can we move on to something else.

One day, he said in so and so village, man fornicated with his mother, and all students were shocked and disgusted and was thinking of doing something about this. He then said, yet you guys show no disgust when people commit shirk and put tawakul on trees. That is why I spend time on tawheed to make you feel disgusted with shirk more than you feel disgusted with man fornicating with his mother.

Why not criticize all muslims? Muslimmatters is a muslim website, not salafi site???

Brother Hassan, I’m also very sorry that you find the attitude of MM writers to be “smug” and “patronizing” – because I’m sure, and Allah knows best, that it’s something that was definitely not intended.

Perhaps you could point out an example of where exactly we come off as smug and patronizing, so that we can see where we went ‘wrong’ and improve/ correct ourselves on that?
(Here, I speak for myself – the other writers are of course free to decide to change their tone/ wording or not.)

And if you guys sincerely do not get what I am saying then I cant explain it better either. The site is muslimmatters not salafimatters, we should not have any guilt to handle any issue openly about muslims and deviances among them. We should not target salafis to correct themselves only, we should target muslims. And as I said, it may be the niyyah of the bloggers of muslimmatters, but due to themselves being salafis, it seems in their subconscious not to offend anyone other or say or raise any issue that may stop non-salafis coming here. As I said, this is my perception, based on following this blog for months.

Sister AnonyMouse, I find it condescending to be repeatedly told what unity and co-operation means. Thanks.

@ Amad: Birds of Feather Flock Together.

Working together for non-Islamic issues are okay. But working together to solve “islamic-issue” will definately affect us all. It’s this “pan-unity” poison that will make us like ikhwaanees. The Ikhwaanees are masters of this type of work. They said, we work with what is good and leave that is bad. They got poisoned by this because all the ranks of the innovators joined and tarnished their dawah.

At the same time, how could there be any sort of guidance and renewal and healing when the people of innovation do not use the Quran and Sunnah as a means of guidance?

The Prophet (PBUH) said, “And the best of guidance is the guidance of Muhammad”. Are these innovators seeking a way of guidance through that of the sunnah? By what means and what type of guidance are you seeking to unify with them? I agree that working with them does not necessitate changing/agreeing with their beliefs, BUT can you guarantee the masses that reads this blog and beg to sideline themselves theologically with them after finding you guys working with them? I guess we differ on the means on how to work with these groups. :)

Also, the idea of healing is the same. Allah tells us that he sent this Quran down as a form of healing. The Quran is the way of healing. But when people deny outright from the attributes of Allah that Allah’s hand is power, by what means are they going to heal? Are they going to pick and chose of they use to heal and revive or choose to take all?

@ Ibnabeeomar: Thanks for the reminder about the ayah, but remember Wallahu Alam that the verse is saying that we should cooperate in the good (enjoining the good), and not get together to (enjoining the evil). No where does it imply that you should work with innovators for the good which in my humble view might have adverse ramifications on the followers in the future.

Wallahu Alam.

Good point Amad…I just noticed that little clause in the article about a ‘soon to be released’ document outlying the proposal. LOL..my bad..84 posts for nothing then I guess.

May Allah forgive us all for any words that we’ve spoken heedlessly, without knowledge or benefit, ameen.

The shi’a are our brothers. May Allah make their Ramadan a blessed one. Ameen.

@ Umm Layth:

“The shi’a are our brothers. May Allah make their Ramadan a blessed one. Ameen.”

If the shia are our brothers, then the Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Confucianists, Taoists, Falung Gong, Sikhs, Bahais, Wiccans, Satanists, Scientologists, Gnostics, Babists, Rastafarianists, Sabians, Zoroastrians, Shintoists, Jews & Christians are our dear brothers.

If I may add, there is a specific fatwaa from Shaykh Saalih Al-Fowzaan(who’s on the Permanent Committee for Fatwa and Research) saying that it is not permissible to eat the meat of the Shi’a because they are not Muslims and they are not Ahlul Kitaab. The shaykh also mentions that it is not permissible for men to marry their women based upon the same logic.

Such understanding is not restricted to the Salafee ulemaa..you find this with the Deobandees as well to the point that they will not return the salaams of the average Shi’a in Dearborn. (I did..and my friend who is a Deobandi student of knowledge reprimanded me for it) He also will not eat their meat.

@Amad…I agree that the Qadianis are worse than the Shi’a.

However, since the da’wah of the Sunnis(in the most general broad term) is stronger than the Shi’a in the West; there is no need whatsoever to compromise and work with them. On a practical level, there are enough Sunni groups out there doing good worthwhile projects that we can jump in with; there is no need to join with the Shi’a. Of course, if the Shi’a want to participate in such projects, then they can do so. I don’t think we should even entertain the idea of reaching out to them though.

Amongst others – calling upon Ali, Hassan, and Hussein (radhiAllahu anhum) instead of directly to Allah. This, I know because of a woman who accepted Islam, who came from a Shi’a family and told us of their common practices.

By saying “Yaa Ali/ Hassan/ Hussein, grant me such-and-such, or protect so-and-so, etc.”

Basically, making du’aa to them the way Catholics call upon their saints.

as-salaamu ‘alaikum,

I would like to remind us all once again that my comments were entirely in response to AE’s comment posted here, his latter comments, and the mixed messages people have been getting from this post, i.e. that Ash’aris and Maturidis are within the fold of ahl al-Sunnah wal-jama’ah. I was not at all concerned about this pact that was signed. I haven’t a clue as to what it contains and frankly I am not even bothered.

My only concern is the message that people have been getting, and as it has been explicitly stated by some that Ash’aris and Maturidis are Sunnis.

Looking at this thread alone shows how much confusion this whole issue has caused. Mainly because no one here seems to have any legal maxims as to the whole issue of cooperation. Those who are leading the show should be the ones participating more in this thread and clarifying for the people all the necessary maxims surrounding this issue. It is their responsibility since they started it all.

For instance, someone here suggested that it is OK to cooperate with Ash’aris and Maturidis, but not with the Shi’as. What is the Shara’i basis for this when Allah commands us to cooperate with all on righteousness? If we can cooperate with Socialists and the liberals, why cannot we cooperate with even Qadiyanis if it means cooperating upon righteousness and no greater harm resulting from it? What are our dawabit? Do we even have any?

Unless of course, if you mean by ‘cooperation’, more than just cooperation, so as to include the Ash’aris and Maturidis and exclude everyone else. So what do we exactly mean when we say cooperation?

Besides, there are other issues I raised that have been sidelined in this discussion:

a) Is this coalition really that of the Salafis+Sufis against the progressives? If this is the case, why are people like Usama Hasan and Abd al-Hakim Murad (he is a hardcore neocon kabbanite) on it?

b) More than 50% of the mosques in the UK are controlled by the Deobandis who have recently come under attack. The people who signed that contract hardly have any role to play in the UK. The deobandis seem to be completely absent from the whole drama. Why don’t we extend our hands of friendship towards the deobandis when they need us?

c) HTs are as deviants as Ash’aris, and to their credit, they have been at the forefront of defending the political aspects of Islam, and hence the government+ media are on their case. Why aren’t we also signing agreements with them when they need us? Instead, we are suggesting that they should be disbanded. It seems, it isn’t even about friendship with Ash’aris as a genre, but only the happy-clappy and wishy-washy ones amongst the Ash’aris.

d) I have stated numerous times that I am all for cooperation with everyone under the sun. However, the only thing I am worried about is the mixed messages that people are getting here. And all it would take is for brother Yasir to say: ‘Sorry, we’ve been misunderstood. Ash’aris and Maturidis ARE heretics, however, our remit here is merely to cooperate upon what Islam considers good.’ This is all it will take to clear up the confusion, but even this has proven to be so difficult to utter.

On a side note, I remember in 2005 (or was it 2004?) when we all spoke at a conference organised in Manchester by AE, Yasir gave a lecture on Unity. The lecture was along the lines of ‘Unity, but based on what? Based on tawheed and sunnah, etc…’ the usual salafi stuff.

After the lecture I approached him and said: ‘well, that was a good lecture generally, but I found it too ‘salafi’ in approach. You should have mentioned that unity aside, we can, and should still cooperate with those we differ with.’ At that point Yasir laughed for labelling his lecture ‘too salafi’, since he didn’t find the ‘salafi’ bit as a compliment, although he did agree with my point and said that he simply didn’t have time to discuss that aspect.

Well, the irony of the incident aside, the point here is that I was and still am all for cooperation with the entire human race, irrespective of their creed, colour or sex.

The *only* thing I am concerned about here is the reluctance to call the Ash’aris ‘deviants’ which is resulting in people receiving mixed messages about the whole thing.

I apologize. I would assume this is the culmination of my frustration towards this Unity Posting.

Dear all,

remember that this discussion is not about us vs. them. There is no debate going on here, and there is no reason to make sarcy comments about each other. Last time I checked we are still one and not different camps. May Allah keep us that way. All we are doing is trying to understand where we are coming from and in that spirit, we should avoid at all costs, throwing accusations at each other or exaggerating facts. Otherwise, the discussion becomes fruitless and we get side-tracked from issues that are central to the discussion.

It might be beneficial to now close these comments. Or delete this post? I think we’re all shooting in the dark of hypothetical situations and don’t even know what’s going on exactly.

We should maybe wait till the “what if” arrives, then get the ruling for it insha’Allah.