Yusuf Estes

[Gharib]

thanks for asking

Sayid Qutb is root of extremism in Egypt (takfirism)

Yufuf al Qaradawi is had new label Mufti al-NATO , he is one of whom allowed the suicide bombs , he had big role in voilence in Syria (encourage the voilence in Syria) ,when he suppose pray for peace .

When has Sayid Qutb done takfir against someone? Against who?

 

[Gharib]

As far as my knowledge of the different schools of thought In Islam I must admit is limited. I am somewhat familiar with the Sunni, and Shia. And a little about the Suffi. Thank you for your input Ghraib.

I know it is a difficult topic, unfortunately even many Muslims do not have much knowledge or know who is who and what is what when it comes to the schools of thought but it i very sad when someone who has always called himself a Muslim but never did anything Islamic in his life, one day follows the teachings of this group goes to pray his first prayer in the mosque and then comes out telling all those who are as he used to be that they are no longer Muslims while maintaining that he always was a Muslim even during the period he wasn't practicing.

That's all I wanted to say. I have seen how people are corrupted by this sort of thinking and how it turns a community into a hostile environment.

 

[Godobeyer]

When has Sayid Qutb done takfir against someone? Against who?

Salam brother


Thats very known !! he made accused the Egyptian community and all Muslim community by takfir , i think he judged for and executed because of that.
check this link :
http://www.islamagainstextremism.co...to-contemporary-takfiri-and-jihadi-groups.cfm


if you can read Arabic there is references from his books (in Arabic language)

check this link in Arabic :
http://www.djelfa.info/vb/showthread.php?t=989136


btw I personaly reject the idea of Madahib and sects (Maliki , Sunni, Shii, Qurani,hanafi , because we all Muslims in the end that's kind of dividing the unity

I am just Muslim ,without " Hanfi Muslim " or Sunni Muslim or Shiai Muslim" or "Ahmadi Muslim"

 

[Pastek]

I do not wish to go off onto a topic other than what David intended but Qaradawi and Qutb are both Shafi. They also happen to belong to the Muslim Brotherhood for which many Middle Eastern countries other than Qatar are trying to discredit them and show them in bad light just as the rules at the times of the great Imams did with Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik and Imam Ahmad.

As for any mistakes they may have made, try to remember that only Prophets do not make mistakes all Scholars make mistakes. I cannot say that anyone who I learn from doesn't make mistakes since I would be dishonest as I don't know everything about them. Rasulallah, salallahu alayhi wa salam, himself has said that if a Scholar makes a mistake in his fatwa/ruling he gets rewarded for it because of his efforts.

As for who doesn't like them, that's all those who are influenced by the Wahhabi/Salafi teachings of Ibn Abdul Wahhab, Bin Baz, Al Uthaymeen, Al Albani etc.

Like i said, i don't know about the works of Y.E.Qaradhawi and Said Qutub concerning the Madhabs, they can have achieved a good work.

But we should also be aware of the schoolars's attitudes, as said Godebeyer Y.E.Q made a fatwa saying to kill even civilians and oulemas who supported Bashar el Assad.
Prophet Muhammad (saw) said to not kill civilians. So even if some people are with the ennemy we shouldn't kill them because they are unarmed people.
I have a problem when a schoolar makes this kind of fatwa, then personnally i wouldn't study his work.

Again, i'm not judging his previous work.
I'm sorry if it's off topic because like you said this is more about Yusuf Estes.

 

[Gharib]

Like i said, i don't know about the works of Y.E.Qaradhawi and Said Qutub concerning the Madhabs, they can have achieved a good work.

But we should also be aware of the schoolars's attitudes, as said Godebeyer Y.E.Q made a fatwa saying to kill even civilians and oulemas who supported Bashar el Assad.
Prophet Muhammad (saw) said to not kill civilians. So even if some people are with the ennemy we shouldn't kill them because they are unarmed people.
I have a problem when a schoolar makes this kind of fatwa, then personnally i wouldn't study his work.

Again, i'm not judging his previous work.
I'm sorry if it's off topic because like you said this is more about Yusuf Estes.

Sister, you have mentioned a very good hadith, but in the process you have ignored the deeper meaning of both the context of the Hadith and the statement of Shaykh Qaradawi.

Remember that the wars our Prophet and the Khulafah fought mostly against were clans, tribes and even empires who had subdued others around them through their wealth and strength. The Roman empire had taken over Arab towns and villages, so too the Persians. So naturally some of those Arabs would not support Persia and Rome even though they were under their rule. So by Islamic law it is not permissible to kill them if they are not fighting us or not helping the Persian and Roman empire.

Now getting back to the video, Shaykh Qaradawi, based on the translation, said to kill those who support and work with the Assad regime. He didn't say to kill everyone in your path, only those who work with the regime. Anyone who supports Assad should be killed, just lie those who support ISIS. Then he mentioned people who hep the regime out of fear but don't really want to and want to leave, in this case we do not know what is in peoples heart, we can't tell who wants to leave and who not. If they get caught in the middle and are killed the Allah knows their intentions and will judge them by their intentions. There is a hadith about this, we as humans judge by actions, by what we see. Allah on the other hand judges by our intentions as well as our actions because he knows if someone was forced to to something or not, we don't.

 

[Godobeyer]

Now getting back to the video, Shaykh Qaradawi, based on the translation, said to kill those who support and work with the Assad regime. He didn't say to kill everyone in your path, only those who work with the regime..

look brother,

Yusuf Alqaradawi said :
as the translation said " Army , civilians , religious/scientists , ignorants" should be fighted if they with Assad . this is takfirism and terrorism

there is thousand or millions civilians among them teachers and doctors and polices and civilians , support Assad for your opinion they all should be killed ?

how about Syrian soldiers whom fighting ISIS , should be they killed too ?

 

[Sakeenah]

I was told I could post in this directory as long as it was respectful, so I have a question about this man ,Yusuf Estes. Godobeyer turned me on to him with some of his videos, which I have found very informative. (Thanks Godobeyer ) He being from very near to where I live and from an almost identical religious background to myself, has a good way of explaining Islam to someone from the USA. He does so in a manner that does not make fun of or belittle anyone. Of that I have a huge amount of respect. I guess my question to the Muslim people that participate in this forum is,: In your own opinion do the views he expresses in this video I posted represent Islam as you understand it, as well as his explanation of its differences as well as things in common with Judaism and Christianity? I know that in Christianity there are so many different branches that it is impossible to keep up with them all. Are his views agreeable to Islam in general? Thank you.

Hi ,

Personally I enjoy watching yusuf estes lectures.He's good at explaining the basics of islam to non muslims and does it in a respectfull way.
In my own opinion his views are agreeable to Islam, most of his lectures are about the basics of islam and not issues where there's a difference of opinion.

 

[Sakeenah]

Hi David, thanks for your questions and this thread.

I will be honest and upfront and say that although the specific video you have posted of Yusuf Estes is in line with the view of the majority of Muslims, the fact that he, and so many others like him are following and promoting the teachings of Muhammed bin Abdul Wahhab, the founder of Wahabism/Salafism is undeniable.

The bigger picture, if you are not aware of it, is that most of their teachings are correct, but their version of Islam and how they interpret verses and hadith is always on the violent extreme. (I am speaking of Wahhabism and not directly about Yusuf Estes). As you see from his video, the understanding of who and what Allah is, is the core of Islamic belief. Yet, their teachings on this matter contradict many verses, the view of the majority of Muslims and the views of the three best generations.

If you wish to know more about Islam then I suggest you look into the teachings of the 4 Madhhabs. These are the schools of thought which were founded by Abu Hanifah who belonged to the second generation after our Prophet, and Imam Malik, Imam Shafi and Imam Ahmad of the third generation after our Prophet. The majority of Muslims follow one of these schools. And the fact that the 4 of them coexist and do not speak ill of each other or declare the others as non-believers shows exactly the opposite of what we see in the media such as Islam being intolerable because that's the Wahhabi version of there being only one way and anyone who disagrees is an enemy.

Assalaamu alaikum brother

I don't agree that the interpretations of salafi scholars( I don't like to use the term wahabis) are always violent and extreme. Yes they are one the ultra orthodox side but not violent.

In regards to declaring takfiir on someone who doesnt agree with you in certain issues thats not from salafism (wahabism) maybe you're talking about those with a khawaarij /takfiri mentality?

You mentioned the ulama like ibn othaymeen,bin Baz,sh.albani if you read about their life or listen to their lectures you will see that they respected the 4 madhaahib and wrote books about the lives of imam shaafi'i imam ahmed ibn hanbal, imam maalik and abu hanifa.
Ibn othaymeen and bin baaz followed the hanbali fiqh.
Ibn uthaymeen mentioned during one of his lectures that laymen should study a school of thought and follow it. But an important thing they mentioned is that one shouldnt blind follow.
Many salafis follow a madhab and there are those that dont follow one particular madhab because they take the opinion of sh.albaani who is ahlul hadith.

At the end of the day all 4 madhab are in regards to fiqh issues and not aqeedah so one can still be a salafi and shafi3i, hanbali,maliki or hanifi.

 

[Gharib]

Assalaamu alaikum brother

Wa alaykum salam wa rahmatullah.

I don't agree that the interpretations of salafi scholars( I don't like to use the term wahabis) are always violent and extreme. Yes they are one the ultra orthodox side but not violent.

In regards to declaring takfiir on someone who doesnt agree with you in certain issues thats not from salafism (wahabism) maybe you're talking about those with a khawaarij /takfiri mentality?

There are varying degrees within "salafism" as to how far they go in their rulings. For some, making takfir is like Bismilah, while others are a little more reserved on the matter.

As for violent interpretations/teachings, Muhammed bin Abdul Wahhab and the Saudi's formed and alliance to take over the land now known as Saudi Arabia from the Ottoman Empire (Khilafah) with the help of Britain. Their war was against the Khilafah whose people and soldiers were Muslims. So their interpretations of certain hadith and ayat had to include the permissibility of killing Muslims, which was done through declarations of takfir and that other Muslims are deviants, apostates, etc.

You must look at it from the beginning to understand the situation or even why I said what I have.

You mentioned the ulama like ibn othaymeen,bin Baz,sh.albani if you read about their life or listen to their lectures you will see that they respected the 4 madhaahib and wrote books about the lives of imam shaafi'i imam ahmed ibn hanbal, imam maalik and abu hanifa.
Ibn othaymeen and bin baaz followed the hanbali fiqh.
Ibn uthaymeen mentioned during one of his lectures that laymen should study a school of thought and follow it. But an important thing they mentioned is that one shouldnt blind follow.

I know what they have said about the Madhhabs, I have seen through their dishonesty though (I don't mean to be disrespectful).
How do you explain this 'blind following'? It is this matter of 'do not follow blindly' for which I call them dishonest although they appear to be saying that a Muslim must follow them. I do not wish to expand further on this point as I will wait for a reply to my question (How do you explain this 'blind following'?) But I will give you an example of what they are actually saying.

This is what they are saying,
If you are someone who is ill and you need to see a doctor, they tell you to go and see one, but do not follow his advice blindly and do not just take any medicine he prescribes you blindly, rather find the facts for yourself. Now my question is, if you could find the facts for yourself, why would you need a doctor, and if you shouldn't follow the advice of a doctor blindly (which every person does) why go to a doctor???

I have read the book called "The Evolution of Fiqh" by Bilal Philips (also a salafi/wahhabi alim). He explains the history of the madhhabs quite nicely to be honest, but then at the end of his book, although the whole time he explains how important it is to follow a madhhab, he says it's not necessary to follow one. You can read the book yourself if you think I am lying.

Many salafis follow a madhab and there are those that dont follow one particular madhab because they take the opinion of sh.albaani who is ahlul hadith.

Ahlul Hadith is bidah/an innovation. Those who claim to be Alhul Hadith basically reject anything anyone has to say because they supposedly follow the Prophet directly through the hadith. First of all, almost every sunni Muslim accepts the authenticity of Sahih Bukhari and Muslim. But, Shaykh Albani says there are weak hadith (about 70) in Sahih Bukhari. Secondly, who knows better about the sunnah and teachings of Rasulallah than Imam Abu Hanifah who was a student of the Sahaba. Sahih Bukhari and all the other kitab of hadith were written down and codified at least 200 years after the Prophet.

At the end of the day all 4 madhab are in regards to fiqh issues and not aqeedah so one can still be a salafi and shafi3i, hanbali,maliki or hanifi.

Incorrect, the 4 madhhabs cover both fiqh and aqidah. The Hanafi madhhab follows the Maturidi aqidah, while the other three follow the Ash'ari aqidah. So each madhhab calls it's followers onto their aqidah. To be Shafi means to be Ash'ari, same for Hanbali and Maliki. But the notion that the 'salafis' follow the Hanbali madhhab while rejecting it's aqidah and follow that of Muhammed bin Abdul Wahhab is just a cover up. There are very few followers of the Hanbali Madhhab, so the 'salafis' have hijacked it in order to ward of criticism from the rest of the ulama who are against the teachings of Muhammed bin Abdul Wahhab.

If you go somewhere where the majority follow the hanafi madhhab, those who are 'salafi' say they follow the hanafi madhhab to avoid being criticized, but on the other hand they do not do what the Hanafi madhhab teaches. They perform their salah differently, their dhikr differently etc. So how can you follow the Hanafi madhhab (of any other) but do differently to it's teachings unless you follow something else.[/QUOTE]

 

[Sakeenah]

@Gharib


I've read about the history of muhammed ibn abdulwahab and he didn't rebel against the ottoman empire . If you read the work of ibn abdulwahab you will see that he believed that listening and obeying the imams (leaders) was waijb
He mentions this in a letter to the people of al qaseem you can look it up in majmoo'aat al mo'allafaat al shaykh 5/11

When you read about the history of najd during the ottoman empire you will see that najd never came under Ottoman rule. Because the rule of ottoman state never reached that far no ottoman governer was appointed over that region and the ottoman soldiers never marched in that region during the period that preceded the emergence of the call of ibn abdulwahab.
The ottoman state was divided into 23 provinces .. 14 were arabic provinces and najd wasnt one of them.
You can look this up in a document called ' Qawaneen aal uthmaan mudaameen daftar al deewaan' written by yameen ali efendi.

Najd consisted of small emirates and each town or village was ruled by an emir. Between these emirates there was a lot of war,disputes so muhammad ibn abdulwahaab didnt rebel against the ottoman empire but against the corrupt situation in his land.

Again I belief the claim that the british were helping in the war against the ottoman empire is incorrect. The movement of ibn abdulwahab started in 1811 and the khilafa was abolished in 1922. The british were against the movement of muhammad ibn abdulwahab and wanted to help Ibrahim Pesha against the wahabi movement. So why would they help muhammad ibn abdulwahab ?

In regards to the salafi scholars and the 4 madhaahib..
What they mean with 'do not follow blindly' is that one shouldnt say 'I only take from one particular madhab even if someone comes to me with clear proof that one of the other madhabs is correct in a certain issue. '

I've read the book by Bilal Philips and you're right he does mention that its not necessary to follow one particular madhab. With that he means you take the stronger opinion from the 4 madhaahib. All 4 imams were mujtahids meaning that they could be right in a matter or sometimes wrong and they will be rewarded for their ijtihaad.


Ahlul hadith doesnt mean they only take ahadith and reject the rest. They are called ahlul hadith because of their in depth knowledge of hadith.
Shaykh Albani never said that there are weak ahadith in sahih al bukhari.
The weak ahadith he was referring to were those in the book adab al mufrad written by imam al bukhari.

If you look at muslim countries and the different madhabs you see that majority people follow the madhab of their region it doesnt have to do with avoiding anything or 'hijacking' it. Where I'm originally from majority of the salafis follow the shafi'i madhab while salafis mauritania and morroco follow the maliki madhab and those in pakistan and india follow the hanafi madhab etc.

Allahu a'lam

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

wow this has really gone off course

 

[David1967]

wow this has really gone off course

Oh well, it happens. But at least I am learning some more stuff I didn't know before. And at least it is respectful.

 

[Gharib]

My apologies, I started the whole thing. I realized it was only going to get further away from the topic so I didn't reply to Sakeenah (sorry sister).

 

[TashaN]

I like Yusuf Estes lectures and enjoy them very much. And to answer your question, yes it goes in accordance with what i believe in regarding Islam.

Brother Gharib, will you be interested in discussing the "wahabism" issue in a separate thread? since Islam DIR is mainly for information and discussion, how about we debate it below?
http://www.religiousforums.com/forums/same-faith-debates.63/

Please start a thread there and mention why you think Ibn Baz, Ibn athimeen, etc have problematic teachings. Thank you.

 

[Godobeyer]

Please start a thread there and mention why you think Ibn Baz, Ibn athimeen, etc have problematic teachings. Thank you.

Plus I think Ibn Taymiha is also had problematic teachings which lead to extremists today .

 

[David1967]

Plus I think Ibn Taymiha is also had problematic teachings which lead to extremists today .

Who is Ibn Taymiha? (Shia, Sunni or other) And what teaching is problematic that leads to extremism?

 

[Sakeenah]

You accuse a great scholar of Islam then you say and i quote "I don't have much information about this issue" and "i guess .. maybe"?

Sorry guys but we really should be more wise than to say things without doing our research. Please let's discuss this somewhere else as i mentioned in my previous post because we are heading toward a debate which is not allowed in this section of the forum.

I agree lets discuss this somewhere else..sorry @David1967 for going of topic.

 

[David1967]

I agree lets discuss this somewhere else..sorry @David1967 for going of topic..we muslims hijacked your thread

No problem at all. This thread was after all to "you Muslims" . Feel free to discuss whatever you feel is in any way relative to this thread. Its all a learning experience for me.

 

[TashaN]

@Gharib


I've read about the history of muhammed ibn abdulwahab and he didn't rebel against the ottoman empire . If you read the work of ibn abdulwahab you will see that he believed that listening and obeying the imams (leaders) was waijb
He mentions this in a letter to the people of al qaseem you can look it up in majmoo'aat al mo'allafaat al shaykh 5/11

When you read about the history of najd during the ottoman empire you will see that najd never came under Ottoman rule. Because the rule of ottoman state never reached that far no ottoman governer was appointed over that region and the ottoman soldiers never marched in that region during the period that preceded the emergence of the call of ibn abdulwahab.
The ottoman state was divided into 23 provinces .. 14 were arabic provinces and najd wasnt one of them.
You can look this up in a document called ' Qawaneen aal uthmaan mudaameen daftar al deewaan' written by yameen ali efendi.

Najd consisted of small emirates and each town or village was ruled by an emir. Between these emirates there was a lot of war,disputes so muhammad ibn abdulwahaab didnt rebel against the ottoman empire but against the corrupt situation in his land.

Again I belief the claim that the british were helping in the war against the ottoman empire is incorrect. The movement of ibn abdulwahab started in 1811 and the khilafa was abolished in 1922. The british were against the movement of muhammad ibn abdulwahab and wanted to help Ibrahim Pesha against the wahabi movement. So why would they help muhammad ibn abdulwahab ?

In regards to the salafi scholars and the 4 madhaahib..
What they mean with 'do not follow blindly' is that one shouldnt say 'I only take from one particular madhab even if someone comes to me with clear proof that one of the other madhabs is correct in a certain issue. '

I've read the book by Bilal Philips and you're right he does mention that its not necessary to follow one particular madhab. With that he means you take the stronger opinion from the 4 madhaahib. All 4 imams were mujtahids meaning that they could be right in a matter or sometimes wrong and they will be rewarded for their ijtihaad.


Ahlul hadith doesnt mean they only take ahadith and reject the rest. They are called ahlul hadith because of their in depth knowledge of hadith.
Shaykh Albani never said that there are weak ahadith in sahih al bukhari.
The weak ahadith he was referring to were those in the book adab al mufrad written by imam al bukhari.

If you look at muslim countries and the different madhabs you see that majority people follow the madhab of their region it doesnt have to do with avoiding anything or 'hijacking' it. Where I'm originally from majority of the salafis follow the shafi'i madhab while salafis mauritania and morroco follow the maliki madhab and those in pakistan and india follow the hanafi madhab etc.

Allahu a'lam

True, my father was Maliki because we are originally from Mali, but for me i was born and raised in saudi arabia and i really didn't know differences in madhabs till i moved outside Saudi Arabia. I was wahabi i guess, lol.

I don't think i belong to any madhabs strictly, wherever i'm, i take the local fatwas usually depending on the region i live in because there aren't that much difference, really.

 

[Gharib]

I haven't had much time lately other than just browse the threads and still won't have time until next month. Insha Allah once I am able to after that time I will open a thread about Wahhabism and discuss the matter in detail insha Allah.