"Med" wrote:

I meant no offence to any1.

Irfghan asked me a question, others have repeatedly asked me questions.

Today I answered, and fyo my ustaads havent told me to go insulting any1 either, I do not mean offence to any1, if in my view such people are spreading innovation in the ummah, then I will say so.

And Quran and Sunnah to establish bid'ah?

I think u missing the point, Bid'ah is the nemesis of sunnah.

YOU mean no offense to anyone, the way you named these scholars obviously you were using it in an offensive manner.

As angel asked name the innovation these scholars carried out? If you post something you have to back it up.

I can post saying your ustad is the one who commits shirk, and of course you will ask for proof.

As I previously said the likes of you call each and everything bidah, shirk, bidah, shirk!!!

Get a life, and most importantly learn Islamic knowledge from someone who knows what they are talking about and can clarify their arguments from Quran and Sunnah, I guess your ustad is not helping you in this matter. If he was a proper scholar then he would clearly understand the concept of bidah and shirk (and use it where it was relevant).

You are saying your ustad has nothing to do with your opinion, then where did you learn this from? Previously you said you had only one teacher????

"Med" wrote:

and unlike you , i wont say that arrogant muslims wont enter paradise, nor will i say muslim prostitues wont enter paradise.

.

put ur glasses on :roll:

"MuslimSisLilSis" wrote:

of course arrogant muslims can not enter heaven.

to lock or not to lock. That is the question.

Now beat that urdu!

(we have got an answer.. so the point of this topic has been met)

"Amber" wrote:

YOU mean no offense to anyone, the way you named these scholars obviously you were using it in an offensive manner.

I refute that statement. I mentioned the scholars with NO derogatory titles or with abusive text.

On a theological level I disagree with them, I think they are innovators on an intellectual and theological level.

This is a difference of opinion, a major one perhaps but it is a difference of opinion. I have not abused any of the people mentioned, I dont think I have offended apart from the fact that they are Ahlul Bid'ah, and that is on theological grounds.

i feel i must defend Med here he was asked a question and he answered it honestly he did not beat about the bush i respect that

the fact is that Med does not follow these scholars cos in his eyes they are not quite right in their akeeda- so what he is entitled to his opinion.

if he wants to take this further and provide evidence of their innovations then that is up to him and he is quite welcome to do so honestly i would like to know becuase i dont want to be in the dark about anything so it would greatly help me

tackling the whole list might be too much so one at a time please starting with Dr Tahirul Qadri - only if you want to Med and in your own time

"seema*" wrote:

i feel i must defend Med here he was asked a question and he answered it honestly he did not beat about the bush i respect that

the fact is that Med does not follow these scholars cos in his eyes they are not quite right in their akeeda- so what he is entitled to his opinion.

if he wants to take this further and provide evidence of their innovations then that is up to him and he is quite welcome to do so honestly i would like to know becuase i dont want to be in the dark about anything so it would greatly help me

tackling the whole list might be too much so one at a time please starting with Dr Tahirul Qadri - only if you want to Med and in your own time

I have to say I respect that post a lot.

I am unsure about going further into this topic, it cud get very ugly.

I am making effort here to not offend or to get into ''sectarianism'' so will have to think abt it.

In regards to the innovated practices that are taking place, I am considering restarting mutala'a of the relevant kutub.

I am in two minds, but Muhtarama May ALLAH reward you with mountains of guidance and forgive your sins and grant you and all of a place in highest paradise. ameen

"MuslimSisLilSis" wrote:

"Med" wrote:

and unlike you , i wont say that arrogant muslims wont enter paradise, nor will i say muslim prostitues wont enter paradise.

.

put ur glasses on :roll:

"MuslimSisLilSis" wrote:

of course arrogant muslims can not enter heaven.

sorry i dont understand abt my glasses. My post basically says I wont say arrogant muslims wont go to paradise, u say ofcourse they wont. We say diametrically opposed statements. Whats glasses got to do with it?

nah, i wanna knw whats wrong with Shaykh Hamza Yusuf?

he clearly states he rises above sectarianism.....and he appeals to all sects and people

i cant put a finger on why you would class him in the same group, the others - yeah i knw why you say, whethe i agree or not

I may as well lock.

anyone disagree?

the question has been answered.

Noone has asked a relevant followup question.

LOL.

ahlul cavepeople means People of CavePeople.

y no call us Ashaab e Kahf?

"Med" wrote:

LOL.

ahlul cavepeople means People of CavePeople.

y no call us Ashaab e Kahf?

coz that has a semblance of respect.

[edit]

well it does for those who have the relevant knowledge.

"Admin" wrote:

I may as well lock.

anyone disagree?

the question has been answered.

Noone has asked a relevant followup question.

it is up2 u admin. For information, relevant questions have been asked and that is what innovation these people are or were involved in.

I responded by being unsure about whether or not I should follow that question up. The decision is yours.

dont lock

i want an answer to SHaykh Hmaza Yusuf question i posted above^^

"Admin" wrote:

"Med" wrote:

LOL.

ahlul cavepeople means People of CavePeople.

y no call us Ashaab e Kahf?

coz that has a semblance of respect.

[edit]

well it does for those who have the relevant knowledge.

y do u think I wud prefer that name brother?

Ok.

For reference I will repost the question:

"Darth V-Hayder" wrote:

nah, i wanna knw whats wrong with Shaykh Hamza Yusuf?

he clearly states he rises above sectarianism.....and he appeals to all sects and people

i cant put a finger on why you would class him in the same group, the others - yeah i knw why you say, whether i agree or not

"irfghan" wrote:

Wow.

3 pages.

I thought it'd be gone by the time I came on again.

ITS ALIVE!!!

AAAALIVE!!!

"Med" wrote:

"Admin" wrote:

"Med" wrote:

LOL.

ahlul cavepeople means People of CavePeople.

y no call us Ashaab e Kahf?

coz that has a semblance of respect.

[edit]

well it does for those who have the relevant knowledge.

y do u think I wud prefer that name brother?

The people referred to in Surah Kahf.

hmmm hamza yusuf.

I have nothing good whatsoever to say about him.

I fear that if I open my tongue about him, I might go beyond the limits. I request to be excused because TRULY if I let loose on hamza yusuf, it would not be pretty in any shape or form.

So, it would be better for me not to go into it.

no, do say

"Darth V-Hayder" wrote:

no, do say

My answer and it will only go this far.

Hamza Yusuf is one from those who exist in every age, and their job is to be wooed by the rich and mighty and to alter the deen for a meagre price.
He is from amongst those who turn their backs on muslims in preference to the mighty and powerful on the earth.

okay

So I guess this has sommat to do with some calling him Bush's Mullah...

But that is a diferent issue. Not one of Bid'ah...

"Med" wrote:

"Amber" wrote:

YOU mean no offense to anyone, the way you named these scholars obviously you were using it in an offensive manner.

I refute that statement. I mentioned the scholars with NO derogatory titles or with abusive text.

On a theological level I disagree with them, I think they are innovators on an intellectual and theological level.

This is a difference of opinion, a major one perhaps but it is a difference of opinion. I have not abused any of the people mentioned, I dont think I have offended apart from the fact that they are Ahlul Bid'ah, and that is on theological grounds.

what theological grounds, may that be? Or r u going to dodge the question again?

"Admin" wrote:

I may as well lock.

anyone disagree?

the question has been answered.

Noone has asked a relevant followup question.

So what you are trying to say admin, is we can go around throwing accusations at each and everyone and not provide any arguments to back the accusations?

What I am sayign is that he answered a direct question.

He actually replied. This is is better than it has been in the past.

Now, we disagree with him. But that was not the point of the topic.

The point was we wanted to know who it is who he is always insulting.

Now we know.

If he uses the term again, people can jump on him, and demand an eplanation. However in this topic, it was asked for.

"Admin" wrote:

What I am sayign is that he answered a direct question.

He actually replied. This is is better than it has been in the past.

Now, we disagree with him. But that was not the point of the topic.

The point was we wanted to know who it is who he is always insulting.

Now we know.

If he uses the term again, people can jump on him, and demand an eplanation. However in this topic, it was asked for.

But he only accuses and he never backs it up, he just causes conflicts amongst people, I mean I respect other people's opinions, but petty accussations is another thing.

I was just going to say that, thanks for pointing that out irfghan