Are Supporting and Siding with Tyrants Halal in Islam, Sh Hamza Yusuf?

I get it. I used to defend Sh Hamza Yusuf for certain things as well. You can search my Facebook posts. As late as 2016, even. So I get that some of you will react angrily to criticism of the man given how he is a scholar and has been teaching Islamic subjects for decades.

But, at a certain point, things can no longer be ignored. When there is a repeated pattern of statements and associations, we are left no choice but to revisit prior assumptions. I went through that revisiting process. And increasingly many others are as well with HY and with other select Muslim figures who repeatedly make choices against Islam and the interests of Muslims. [And I emphasize “select” because it is only a small group and the majority of our ulama are not like this alhamdulillah.]

I am not going to rehash every egregious error HY has made over the past 20 years. But here are some select, salient items:

  • He has repeatedly expressed support for secular governance and denounced any sort of political Islam, including non-violent political Islam. He finds the notion of Islam influencing government legislation “delusional” and akin to Zionism. [For examples of this, see below]
  • He has made highly questionable statements on the validity of religions other than Islam, statements which, at the very least, flirt with perennialism. [He claims he is not a perennialist.]
  • He has called for reforming traditional Islamic positions in order to make them compatible with modern notions of “religious freedom.”
  • He is closely tied to secular tyrants [in particular, the UAE], works for them in their institutions like the “Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies.”
  • He has praised these tyrants, chastised their political opponents, [seemingly] mocked their victims, and urged Muslims to remain loyal to them.
  • He has stated that the Muslim Brotherhood is on the same spectrum as terrorist groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda. He said this at a particularly sensitive time when the MB was being brutally suppressed in Egypt and the UAE designated Western Muslim groups, like CAIR, as terror organizations for being allegedly linked to the MB.
  • He is a member of a Trump State Department Commission on Human Rights, assembled by the former head of one of the biggest human rights abusers in the world: the CIA.

That is quite the resume.

Now recently, he has come under fire for a video clip of one of his talks where he criticizes Syrians for their plight in the aftermath of the Syrian Revolution. You can watch my take on the video here:

Reaction: Sh Hamza Yusuf on Syria and Tyrants

Can't believe he said this stuff.

Daniel Haqiqatjou 发布于 2019年9月10日周二

Many brothers and sisters are hurt and disappointed by those critiquing Sh Hamza’s comments in the video clip. But the problems with his statements here are huge:

  • He uses highly insensitive and hurtful words for Syrian victims of the brutal crimes of Assad. We can assume that he didn’t intend his words to be deliberately mocking. But intention is one thing and actual effect of words and actions is another.
  • He lays the blame for the situation of Syrians at the feet of Syrians who protested Assad. In reality, Assad and his puppet masters are solely responsible for the brutal crackdown of what were initially peaceful, non-violent protests in 2011. They are responsible for the destruction of Syria, not Syrians and not even the Syrian opposition (and this is not to defend the actions of the opposition, though many prominent scholars have defended their armed resistance; see below).
  • He uses a hadith in a highly selective and imbalanced way to suggest that any opposition to rulers leads to Allah’s punishment and, furthermore, that opposition to rulers is tantamount to oppression of the self!
  • He characterizes the rule of tyrants as “wisdom,” saying that there is wisdom that there are tyrants like Saddam Hussein ruling with an iron fist. He ignores the undeniable historical and geopolitical reality that these tyrants have been installed over the Muslim world by Western powers to control and exploit the Ummah.
  • He says that Muslims don’t deserve civil institutions and are better suited to be ruled over by tyrants like Saddam Hussein, and he cites Iraqis who supposedly wish Saddam had never been overthrown. Of course, HY completely glosses over the fact that Saddam was overthrown by US military invasion, not mass protest or revolution. The fact that many Iraqis lament the loss of Saddam is not some point in favor of tyrant rule, as HY seems to suggest. Rather, their lament speaks to the relatively worse situation the savage US invasion has created.

All of these points HY has made in other contexts, by him and, even more nakedly, by his teacher and mentor Sh Abdullah bin Bayyah, who has been deputized by the UAE to spread what has by now become a gospel of tyranny: All opposition to rulers, even non-violent, is Islamically forbidden. Only obedience and strict submission to them is Islamically acceptable, even when those rulers are secular tyrants who violate Islam and the most fundamental rights of their populations.

Sadly this is a long record of outright serving the interests of oppressors, some of whom are actively involved with the plight of millions of Muslims.

Red Herrings

Some have gone so far as to claim that criticizers of HY are defending the Syrian revolutionaries and the destructive results of the Revolution. But, putting my personal views aside, does criticizing Sh HY’s immoral, unjust statements means that one supports the Syrian revolutionaries?

No, this does not follow, logically. One could be opposed to both. It is indeed possible to denounce tyrants and their agents and ALSO not support armed revolution. At the very least, it is possible to remain silent and not go out of one’s way to praise tyrants and call their oppression “wisdom.” None of that logically entails supporting armed revolution.

We need to slow down and think logically.

It should be said: There is no traditional Islamic position that supports the aiding of tyrants or siding with them, as we see from the likes of HY and others. People have become very confused by these scholarly agents of tyrants, but some clarifications need to be made.

The way the issue is being framed now is incorrect. The main question being asked is: Is it permissible to rebel against a ostensibly Muslim ruler? This is a complex question with many details (and the complication that some of these Arab tyrants are not actually Muslim). I have never claimed that there is a clear answer to this question because it is all case-by-case and requires ijtihad from ulama. When it came to the Syrian Revolution, there were major scholars on both sides. Major scholars like Sh Kurayyim (teacher of Sh Ramadan al-Buti), Sh Sabuni, Sh Muhammad Hassan al-Didu, Sh Muhammad Yaqoubi, and Sh Qaradawi signed off on it and strongly condemned Assad.

BUT that is NOT the issue with HY. He should be asked: Is it permissible to aid, promote, defend, and otherwise side with a ruler who is massacring and oppressing Muslims?

The answer is NO. There is absolutely no ikhtilaf on this. Point to one scholar who has allowed this. In fact, most of the major ulama of our tradition suffered immensely for refusing to side with tyrant sultans, everyone from Imam Malik to Imam Ahmad to Ibn Taymiyya and countless others. And all those who did not directly oppose the injustice of the ruler remained silent and did not justify, whitewash, or otherwise cooperate with the ruler in his oppression.

And it should be noted here that HY is not the only prominent American Muslim figure making these mistakes of aligning with and servicing the project of tyrants. The reality is, American governments, including left-leaning ones, are also brutal oppressors of Muslims. How many of these figures were involved with the Obomber administration, on the payroll, or are still connected to the Democratic party in some form or fashion? The reality is, some of those throwing stones at HY are living in glass houses.

So, it is wrong to claim that HY is a quietist. If only he were promoting quietism. In reality, he is loudly pushing legitimization of tyrants. Why? What compels him to constantly do PR for these secularist tyrants and attend their Orwellian “peace” fora? Can’t he stay silent instead of blaming Syrians for their plight and all-but-explicitly telling Muslims around the world to be thankful for secular dictators?

Isn’t the danger and harm of siding with tyrants obvious? I have addressed this before. These tyrants are Western imperial agents meant to suppress the Muslim world for the interests of Western powers. This has undeniable perils for millions of Muslims. But there is also the religious danger. These tyrants are actively aiming to transform Islam, distort it for their purposes. Scholars who side with tyrants are lending legitimacy to such projects. And, furthermore, when respectable scholars are seen associating and defending blood-thirsty tyrants, many in the Muslim community become increasingly disillusioned with scholars, thinking that ulama are corrupt. Many have admitted recently of their disappointment with HY for his recent pro-tyrant statements despite having been dedicated students of his for many years. These are all major harms.

So, HY should address these concerns that so much of the community has with his actions. These are the community’s questions, not mine. So he should answer them. And why don’t his loudest defenders and closest students pressure him to answer, instead of bending over backwards with all kinds of ridiculous justifications for what is seen as unjustifiable? What’s going on there?

And to those who want to defend HY’s position on revolution and uprising, what about this:

The most blatant contradiction from the UAE-backed “anti-rebellion” camp of HY and others is their deafening silence when it came to the UAE inciting revolt against Muhammad Morsi in Egypt. Where was their concern for law and order then? Where was their concern for chaos and loss of innocent life at that crucial time? This is clear inconsistency.

PS – Excerpt from HY’s The Prayer of the Oppressed, published in 2010:

“The modern Muslim obsession with so-called Islamic governance is a dangerous fantasy. It has led to a politicization of Islam that has eviscerated its spiritual power and exalted indiscriminate violence as a ‘justifiable means’ to Islamic ends.”

Philosophically, HY is completely opposed to the idea that Islam can have anything to do with government legislation. He says to think otherwise is “delusion.” He forcefully spells this out here.

UPDATE

Deen Intensive, which facilitates much of HY’s programming outside of Zaytuna, made a statement defending HY.

First of all, again, why are others constantly speaking up for HY instead of him directly addressing these major concerns?

Secondly, the statement is titled “What’s Your Intention?” But intention is irrelevant here as far as the community is concerned. The expression, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” is apropos. What matters to millions of Muslims around the world is the impact that these words and actions have and the larger foreign interests they serve. To try to justify damaging, harmful, Islamically deleterious words and actions by appealing to private intentions is categorically rejected in Islam. As Sayiddna Umar famously established: We judge by what is apparent.

Thirdly, the article does not address HY’s involvement with the UAE, which is the entire beef of contention. The whole thing glaringly skirts the entire issue.

Fourthly, they link a speech that HY made in 2012 at a Washington DC rally, where he condemns Assad and his father for being brutal tyrants. But what are we to make of this when in HY’s more recent comments above, he is characterizing Syrians as being humiliated by Allah for their opposition to the ruler? Didn’t HY express exactly the opposition he later characterizes as folly, worthy of Divine humiliation?

Deen Intensive claims that in the recent clip, HY was “only” criticizing the “architects” who “started the bloodshed,” but that is nowhere expressed in the lecture. In the full lecture, the context of HY’s statements are very clear: He considers it a grave metaphysical error for one to work to rectify the world of its problems without first rectifying one’s internal state. This is the discussion that leads to him speaking of Syria, the implication being that Syrians are suffering because of deficiency in their spiritual state.

Now, it is absolutely true, of course, that Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves, as HY cites from the Quran. But it is egregious to use this example of Allah’s Sunna in context of denouncing opposition to secular tyrants while simultaneously attacking the very notion of political Islam, as HY consistently does in an official capacity in his involvement with the UAE Peace Forum and elsewhere. Demanding justice and demanding that secular tyrants stop their rape and terrorizing of Muslim populations around the world does not require one to be spiritually complete or even spiritually healthy. Islamically, even the spiritually degenerate have rights and can demand those rights.

Fifthly, what is also interesting is Deen Intensive cites HY’s involvement with a “high level meeting in Rome with faith leaders, government officials, and academics.” HY’s teacher, Bin Bayyah, has been, of course, heavily involved with facilitating the Vatican’s recent tour of the Arab world and holding Catholic mass in Abu Dhabi earlier this year. Since then, the UAE has also announced the building of Churches and Hindu Temples in their country, which is a shocking development in terms of Islamic ethics and the clear-cut prohibition agreed upon by scholars of constructing such religious buildings in Muslim lands according to the Sharia. So, it is not clear what role HY played in such matters, but more burning questions are raised by his involvement with Bin Bayyah and the Vatican.

MuslimSkeptic Needs Your Support!

41 COMMENTS

  1. Many deviants will come in the name of sufism. America is replete with these types. They win the admiration of the simple minded as well as like-minded deviants (I’m not excusing American muslims here, they’ve made their bed and now they will lie in it) under cover of having reached spiritual enlightenment.

    Let me be frank and make it abundantly clear. ‘Spiritual rectification’ can NEVER be grounds for abandoning the deen or it’s teachings. Anybody who implies this implicitly with actions or explicitly with words is a jaahil and a wolf in sheeps clothing. The only reason many American muslims don’t see a problem with them is because they themselves are corrupt bootlickers.

    You made your bed. You WILL lie in it.

  2. Didn’t the RAND report you refered to some time back suggest the promotion of Sufism to pacify muslims?

    Yeah is sure does under the heading “SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES TO SUPPORT THE STRATEGY”

    On page 64.

    “— encouraging those with a greater affinity to modernism—such as the
    Hanafi law school as opposed to others to issue religious opinions that,
    by becoming popularized, can weaken the authority of backward
    Wahhabi religious rulings
    — encouraging the popularity and acceptance of Sufism.
    • Confront and oppose the fundamentalists, by
    — challenging and exposing the inaccuracies in their views on questions
    of Islamic interpretation
    — exposing their relationships with illegal groups and activities
    — publicizing the consequences of their violent acts
    — demonstrating their inability to rule to the benefit and positive development of their communities
    — targeting these messages especially to young people, to pious traditionalist populations, to Muslim minorities in the West, and to women
    — avoiding showing respect or admiration for the violent feats of fundamentalist extremists and terrorists, instead casting them as disturbed
    and cowardly rather than evil heroes
    — encouraging journalists to investigate issues of corruption, hypocrisy,
    and immorality in fundamentalist and terrorist circles.”

    https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1716.pdf

  3. Was the pressure to go after SHY that much where you have to play some sad Hollywoodish music in the background while completely taking what he meant out of context?

    Dont cuck to pressure Akhski. You are out of line with this one. Why? You just tried to chastise those who denied an angry and punishing God on twitter. Here you are going after SHY for doing the same.

    If God can punish, God can humiliate, so what if they are Syrians, Iraqis, Afghanis or innocent involved?

    Anyone that partake in the schemes of outsiders to destroy Muslim nations, even if the rulers are tyrants, deserve humiliation. What did these people get by aiding with those who labeled them terrorists left n right against Bashar Assad? Nothing.

    Also, SHY has alot to lose to go after people that can slaughter not just complete strangers but their own wholesale. You dont. Besides, he is consistent in his attitude. The UAE, and many in the West would love for SHY to come out and declare “JIHAD” in Syrian, like the Saudis did against the rulers of Afghanistan in the 80s. How did that turnout for the region, Muslims and the world?

    Perspective is important.

    • Here’s an orthodox, fire-brand scholar who regards most of these Arab rulers as Murtads, and doesn’t hold back in criticising them, also criticising the Muslim population:

      GENOCIDE OF MUSLIMS WORLDWIDE AND THE TYRANNY OF BRUTAL RULERSHIP IN GENERAL

      THERE IS ONLY ONE SOLUTION

      [Mujlisul Ulama]

      With the steady and perfectly natural increase of “Islamophobia”, oppression, plunder, pillage, mob-lynching and genocide of Muslims in Burma, India, Palestine, China, Chechnya, Syria, and almost all over the world, countless self-appointed and so-called experts and scholars have come crawling out offering a whole variety of “solutions” conjured up from their whims, most of which are utterly bereft of Quranic and Sunnah basis.

      Since many of these so-called “experts” and “scholars” are themselves drowning in sins, even committing the infinitely worse crime of halaalizing many of those sins, they are all extremely averse to mentioning the ONLY solution to the plight of the Burmese Muslims and the plight of oppressed Muslims the world over.

      Perhaps a feeble whisper, or even a murmur or two on this Quranic solution may be heard extremely faintly from a few of these self-appointed “experts”. However, on the whole these self-appointed “experts” excel in the art of deflecting attention from the actual problem since they all know very well, deep inside, that they form an integral part of the root-cause of the tyranny of brutal rulers and Kuffaar domination which NONE other than Allah Ta’ala has currently imposed upon the whole Ummah.

      Contrast the crank ‘solutions’ blabbered on perpetually by the self-appointed “experts” of today with the ONLY solution prescribed by Hadhrat Hasan al-Basri, one of the great students of the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) – a solution that has been authentically transmitted and re-iterated by countless Fuqaha and Ulama-e-Haqq (true scholars) throughout the ages. (See Adab al-Hasan al-Basri of Ibn al-Jawzi, ash-Sharee’ah of Imam al-Ajurri, and other early books recording the statements of the Salaf).

      Hadhrat Hasan al-Basri (rahmatullah alayh) states that sincere repentance and rectification of ourselves and each other, are the only solutions to the oppression inflicted by a brutal rulership, and that any other so-called “solution”, such as those prescribed by the crank “experts” of today, will only make matters worse:

      “The Oppression of Kings (i.e. governments and rulers) is from the Punishments of Allah Ta’ala. The Punishment of Allah Ta’ala cannot be warded off with swords. Verily, safety (from Allah’s punishment) and warding it off are (possible) only by means of Dua, Taubah, Inaabat (turning to Him with repentance), and by eliminating sins. Verily, when the Punishment of Allah is confronted by swords, it (Allah’s Punishment) becomes WORSE.” [Adab al-Hasan al-Basri]

      Once when the people were complaining about the severe oppression of the ruler, Hajjaaj, Hadhrat Hasan Basri (Rahmatullah alayh) responded:

      “Verily, Hajjaaj is Allah’s Punishment. Therefore, do not (try to) ward off Allah’s punishment with your hands. On the contrary, submission and humility are obligatory on you, for verily, Allah Ta’ala said: “Verily, We have afflicted them with punishment. However, they did not submit to their Rabb nor did they become humble.” [Ahmad, Ibn Abi Dunya]

      The Qur’anic verse quoted by Hadhrat Hasan al-Basri, “…they did not submit to their Rabb, nor did they become humble” refers to the Muslims’ stubborn refusal to recognise and acknowledge their sins, to repent sincerely and wholeheartedly, and to rectify themselves, in similar manner to the crank “experts” of today whose “solutions” are satanically designed to deflect attention from their own sins and the sins of their flock which are the root-cause of Allah’s Punishment currently enveloping the whole Ummah.

      Hadhrat Talq Bin Habeeb (Rahmatullah alayh), another luminary of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen states:

      “Save (yourselves) from the Punishment with Taqwa. If you are obedient to Allah Ta’ala, then you can hope for the mercy of Allah. If you abandon disobedience to Allah Ta’ala, Allah’s Athaab will be warded off.” [Ahmad, Ibn Abi Dunya]

      Taqwa entails abandoning all Haraam and Mushtabah (doubtful) matters. But, today the word “Taqwa” tends to elicit violently allergic reactions, especially from these cranks masquerading as experts and scholars.

      In vivid contrast to the “solutions” blabbered on by these so-called “experts”, ALLAH TA’ALA declares Taqwa and Sabr as the solution for defeating the never-ending plots of the Kuffaar enemies of Islam:

      “If you adopt Sabr and you adopt Taqwa, never will their (i.e. the Kuffaar) plot harm you at all. And indeed, Allah is ever-encompassing of what they do.” (Surah Aal-e-Imran)

      Spiritually barren Muslims who are averse to this Quranic solution, and who are unable to appreciate the infinite wisdom contained in this and other similar verses of the Qur’an, should introspect deeply within themselves, accept the immeasurable damage sustained by their crassly materialistic and sinful lifestyle, and engage in frequent Muraaqabah (reflection) on the One who grants and snatches away Dominion and Power at will, in order to remedy the chronic spiritual cancers which have engulfed their severely diseased hearts.

      ‘Sabr’ in the context of this verse means complete submission to Allah Ta’ala, repentance, self-rectification and obedience. Allah Ta’ala, the All-Powerful, will then create the circumstances for either the change of the hearts of the rulers, substituting oppression with justice, or He will eliminate the oppressors and tyrants.

      Once when a group of people came to Hadhrat Hasan Basri during times of great oppression and anarchy, he advised them with the same Qur’anic solution as follows:

      “Remain within your homes and lock your doors. Wallaah! If people had to adopt Sabr when oppressed by their Sultan, Allah Azza Wa Jal will soon eliminate the oppression. However, when they resort to the sword (i.e. rebellion), they are assigned to it [i.e. Allah abandons them to their swords].” [ash-Sharee’ah of Imam al-Ajurri]

      Today, the catastrophic events that have transpired recently in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Arab Spring etc. are testimony to the fact that Allah’s Punishment only becomes worse, if the root-cause of His (azza wa jal) Punishment are not dealt with adequately.

      As long as the Ummah fails to adopt and propagate fervently the ONLY solution as prescribed by the Qur’an and Hadith, and as encapsulated in the aforementioned advices of Hadhrat Hasan al-Basri, Hadhrat Talq bin Habeeb, and countless other luminaries throughout the ages, NEVER will the Ummah be able to extricate itself from the reign of brutal tyrants, Kuffaar domination, frequent floods, droughts, earthquakes and other natural disasters which have been dispatched most deservingly upon this flagrantly sinful Ummah by NONE other than Allah Ta’ala, the Most Just.

      THE UMMAH WILL ONLY PROGRESS IF THE MUSLIMS BEGIN RE-DIRECTING THEIR ANGER AND FRUSTRATION AT THEIR OWN SINS FIRST AND AT THE INFINITELY WORSE CRIME OF HALAALIZATION (TRANSFORMING HARAAM INTO HALAAL) PERPETRATED BY THE “SCHOLARS” OF TODAY, WHICH ARE THE GREATEST CAUSES OF ALLAH’S IMPOSITION OF THE MOST BRUTAL OF TYRANTS UPON THIS UMMAH.

      We end here with the advice and command of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), who in stark contrast to the crank experts of today, explicitly declares that the imposition of brutal tyrannical rulers is a direct result of our terrible failure to rectify ourselves and each other:

      “Enjoin people towards righteous deeds and prohibit them from wrong-doing (i.e. breaking of Allah’s sacred Laws as clarified by the Salaf-us-Saaliheen and upheld by the Fuqaha for 1400 years). Otherwise, Allah will place in authority over you the worst of people amongst you (e.g. Burmese Monks, Bashar Assad, Sisi, Modi, Tramp, etc). Then the most pious amongst you will do Du’a, but their Du’as will not be answered.” (Authentic Hadith narrated by Tabarani, Bazzar, and many others)

      The Qur’anic and Sunnah solution for all Muslim communities who are undergoing naturally increasing levels of “islamophobia”, discrimination, and oppression, which inevitably and eventually always culminates in Andalusian-style genocide, is crystal-clear.

      “And it is only upon us to convey (the Haqq)”

      • To be honest, when I read it, I thought that he would mention Jihad as the only solution, boy was I wrong. He says many Muslims are not abiding by Allah’s laws. But the elephant in the room here remains: when Allah’s laws are not the laws of the land in the first place, how you expect from the Muslim masses to abide by it?

        5/44 No Sharia, equals kufr. This verse is talking about the leaders of Muslim majority countries first and foremost. I would say this is the biggest crime of all. If you want to say that Allah is punishing Syrians, I would say the main reason for this would be the fact the Syrians did not rise up earlier and allowed the Baathist secular tyrants to oppress the Muslims in the blessed land of Shaam for 50+ years. Basically, they allowed the secular tyrants to become more brutal which in the end led to the total destruction of Syria as a whole. Mark my words, same thing will happen in Saudi Arabia, as a punishment for the majority of the Saudis not speaking up against their own tyrant.

        If you think you will witness a day where all Muslims are not sinning, then you will be waiting for a long time, and thus according to your logic, these tyrants will remain forever oppressing the Muslims. I can also cite a hadith, paraphrasing, when you leave Jihad, Allah will put humiliation on you until you return to your Deen.

        Read what Thomas Friedman wrote 20 years ago about how American power (our world) works:

        The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist — McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the builder of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. ”Good ideas and technologies need a strong power that promotes those ideas by example and protects those ideas by winning on the battlefield,” says the foreign policy historian Robert Kagan. ”If a lesser power were promoting our ideas and technologies, they would not have the global currency that they have. And when a strong power, the Soviet Union, promoted its bad ideas, they had a lot of currency for more than half a century.”

  4. “The Muslim Brotherhood is on the same spectrum as ISIS and al-Qaeda and Hamas etc.”

    How so?

    Just note that I am no member of the Brotherhood, and consider Syed Qutb and Qaradawi heretics. But I fail to see how the Brotherhood is the same thing as ISIS.

    How is ISIS and Hamas on the same spectrum? What do you mean by that?

    If you are Salafi, tell us who are the Salafi scholars you think are right.

    As for Hamza Yusuf, there is nothing Sufi about him other than claims. He is a chameleon who changes colors according to the audience. He is a Sufi or Salafi or Christian or Jew or Buddhist or atheist all depending on who he is talking to. He is a man with no moral compass, shame or integrity. 19 yr old MSA boys and girls who do not have a good grounding in fundamental Islamic knowledge, might get mesmerized by his talks and articles, but to anyone who knows his deen, the reality is what I have just stated – SHY does *not* have a moral compass, shame, integrity or faith – *at all*.

    He is a consumer of suht (in context, unlawful grants from kafirs, sinners, tyrants etc. to say what they want to hear) who has misguided many many people. He is really preparing his followers to get ready to greet the dajjal with open arms.

    وَتَرَىٰ كَثِيرًا مِّنْهُمْ يُسَارِعُونَ فِي الْإِثْمِ وَالْعُدْوَانِ وَأَكْلِهِمُ السُّحْتَ ۚ لَبِئْسَ مَا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ – 5:62

      • What about those who deposed Morsi forcefully and those who bankrolled them? Are their ways not the same as those of the communists?

        And how does Hamas tie in to this spectrum? Their ways the same as the communists too?

        So who according to you are the good Salafis?

    • @Ahmad

      “As for Hamza Yusuf, there is nothing Sufi about him other than claims. He is a chameleon who changes colors according to the audience. He is a Sufi or Salafi or Christian or Jew or Buddhist or atheist all depending on who he is talking to. He is a man with no moral compass, shame or integrity. ”

      “– SHY does *not* have a moral compass, shame, integrity or faith – *at all*.”

      So we are speaking in absolutes now? You are one sentence away from labeling him a “CIS White male convert to Islam who doesn’t know anything about this brown religion”.

      Please provide your evidence for,

      He doesn’t have shame = what shameful thing he did?
      He doesn’t have a moral compass = proof an immoral action?
      He has no integrity = proof of no integrity?
      He has no faith = proof of his apostasy or lack of faith?

      • I said: “all the other groups mentioned in the verse (Jews, Sabians, Christians, Magians) and the Quran (idolaters) to hellfire.”

        Idolators are also mentioned in verse 22:17, along with elsewhere in the Quran. Inconsequential slip in the wording.

      • Blatant proofs quickly summarized for the comments section of this website.

        Each of these are proofs in themselves for all 4 counts mentioned above (no shame, no moral compass, no integrity, no faith), but still mentioning separately:

        1) No shame: He is a signatory to a shameless open letter to the former pope Benedict XVI when he reviled our Beloved Prophet, salAllahu ^alayhi wasallam.

        See here for a profound example of “shame” by 38 “Muslim” scholars, of whom SHY is one – islamicity.org/7706/muslim-scholars-letter-to-pope-benedict/ :

        To address someone who reviles our Prophet, as “Your Holiness” begging and pleading to him. Aside from the fact that calling the heads of disbelievers as “Your Holiness” is apostasy in itself, much less a reviler of the Prophet, that letter is fill of many other kufr statements from both Ash^ari and Salafi points of view.

        If you want to know what Benedict the XVI said, lookup his infamous Regensburg Lecture that he gave on Sept 12, 2006.

        2) No moral compass: He advised Dubya on what to call his attack on Muslim nations

        theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/08/religion.uk

        From the link: “Yusuf, an Islamic teacher, was indeed with the president. At the meeting, he advised Bush that the military term Operation Infinite Justice was blasphemous to Muslims. The president listened. He said he was sorry that the Pentagon, which chose the title, had no theologians on staff. The name was changed.”

        As a “Muslim” scholar, if there was nothing in his reach to stop the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims, the very least he could have done was to not advise the guy who launched the wars.

        Never once did he condemn Dubya or the slaughter of the so many Muslims, something many disbelievers themselves did.

        And now he’s at it again, serving as an adviser to Trump.

        3) No integrity: He says he isn’t a perennialist, but he is a co-author in major perennialist works, and also serves on the advisory board of Fons Vitae, a publication entity actively promoting perennialism

        fonsvitae.com/advisory-boards/board-of-scholars/hamza-yusuf/

        But two examples of his contributions –

        Example 1: islambuddhism.com/docs/CommonGround.pdf :

        He has an essay in this book that is replete with perennialist thought and apostasy, as will be shown below. He serves as a bleeding apologist for Buddhism and lies against an Islamic scholar and his book (Imam Shahrastani’s Al-Milal wa Al-Nihal). He has co-authored in the book with the main author Reza Shah Kazemi, who belongs to the Institute for Ismaili Studies, is an Ismaili and a perennialist. The book was also introduced by the Dalai Lama, whom the author and Yusuf generously address as “His Holiness”

        Example 2: Heard of ‘The Study Quran’? It is a shameful project in perennialism, spearheaded by the Rafidi perennialist head honcho, Seyyed Hossein Nasr? Guess what? Hamza Yusuf is a contributor to it, who has contributed a 39 page essay titled ‘Death, Dying and Afterlife in the Quran.’ That too is replete with perennialist thought and apologia for the disbelievers. To give you a glimpse on the kind of thoughts that ‘The Study Quran’ promotes, here is an excerpt from another essay “The Quranic View of Sacred History and Other Religions” by Joseph Lumbard:

        “Despite these affirmations of Jesus’ Divinely given powers, the concept of Trinity is criticized in the Quran: And say not “Three.” Refrain! It is better for you. God is only one God. Glory be to Him. (4:171) Another verse is more severe, condemning those who claim that God is one of three: They certainly disbelieve, those who say, “Truly God is the third of three,” while there is no god save one God. If they refrain not from what they say, a painful punishment will befall those among them who disbelieved. (5:73) This, however, is not a direct condemnation of Christian theology, for trinitarian theology does not make God one of three, but rather speaks of the triune God, Who is both one and three in a manner that transcends human understanding. Viewed in this light, 5:73 does not oppose the various forms of orthodox trinitarian doctrines that have prevailed most of Christian history. Rather, it appears to oppose crude misunderstandings of it that would lead one to believe that there are three gods instead of one.”

        For anyone who has an iota of iman, he will recognize that ‘The Study Quran’ has nothing to do with the Quran, but is rather an apologia for the disbelievers, trying to get Muslims to doubt sound verses of the Quran and become apostates.

        More to come…

      • 4) Apostasy: Come back to the book “Common Ground Between Islam & Buddhism” – islambuddhism.com/docs/CommonGround.pdf

        Just presenting two of the many kufr statements in SHY’s essay:

        On page 114, HY says:

        “As for the Muslims, the Jews, the Sabians, the Christians, the Magians, and the polytheists, God will decide among them on the day of resurrection” (22:17). The weighty import of this verse is that it is theologically prohibited for us to condemn any individual, irrespective of his or her faith, to damnation or punishment in the afterlife because ultimate judgment belongs to God alone. Many hadith and statements of the companions of the Prophet also affirm this fundamental article of faith.”

        He has mistranslated the verse very cunningly and deliberately, and committed kufr after that.

        This is the verse:
        إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَالَّذِينَ هَادُوا وَالصَّابِئِينَ وَالنَّصَارَىٰ وَالْمَجُوسَ وَالَّذِينَ أَشْرَكُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَفْصِلُ بَيْنَهُمْ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ

        The verse mentions “Indeed, those who believe, and the Jews and the Sabians, and the Christians, and the Magians…”

        HY translates “those who believe” to “Muslims” very cleverly and cunningly.

        Because he is working to an agenda *against* the message of the verse itself.

        By projecting “those who believe” against the Jews, Sabians, Christians, and Magians, the Quranic verse is projecting these people as *other than those who believe*, that is, disbelievers.

        By translating “those who believe” to “Muslims” HY is deliberately trying to obfuscate the dichotomy contained in the verse, and project Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sabians, and Magians all on a level playing field. That is certainly the very anti-thesis of the verse!

        He goes ahead and utters open kufr: “The weighty import of this verse is that it is theologically prohibited for us to condemn any individual, irrespective of his or her faith, to damnation or punishment in the afterlife because ultimate judgment belongs to God alone. Many hadith and statements of the companions of the Prophet also affirm this fundamental article of faith.”

        Read the books of tafsir. The meaning of this verse is just that Allah will send “those who believe” to paradise, and those who don’t believe, that is, all the other groups mentioned in the verse (Jews, Sabians, Christians, Magians, and idolaters) to hellfire.

        He deliberately tries to fan the flames of apostasy by trying to get people to stop believing in open verses of the Quran and well known ahadith that hellfire awaits anyone who dies outside of Islam. It is a *requirement* of Islamic ^aqidah to consider those outside of Islam (Christians, Jews, etc.) as kafirs and not doubt their punishment in hellfire, because this is manifestly stated in the Quran.

        On page 115 of the same book, he says:
        “Before we explore that assertion, it is worth noting that Imam al-Shahrastani identifies the Buddhists as Sabians, which is a consequential categorization, given the status that Sabians have in the Qur’an as a saved group.”

        This is baloney. Neither do Sabians have a status of a saved group on the Quran, nor in hadith, and al-Shahrastani considers Buddhists as a sort of a subset of the Hindu Brahmins, aside from the fact that he considers both Buddhists and Sabians as disbelievers. In that essay there are multiple statements of kufr, as well as outright distortions and lies against the Quran or hadith or scholars and their works. But you would need to read the original Arabic works of the scholars that he supposedly cites, in order to see what I’m saying.

        See what the books of tafsir, ^aqidah and fiqh mention in regards to the Sabians. HY also mistranslated verse 2:62 just like most perennialists and apologists for disbelievers. The saved people mentioned in that verse are those people who truly followed the prophets sent to them in their times.

        I presented just two examples. Exposing all of the kufr statements of the chameleon HY in his various discourses is a lengthy project requiring an entire book with the relevant evidences from the Islamic “tradition” (as HY likes to euphemistically mention “deen”)

        See also the video linked by Daniel – youtube.com/watch?v=jIwleRGjGR0 (it’s kufr to call the idol of the Hindus as “Lord Krishna”)

        If you can’t see the kufr in those statements of HY, I suggest you stop posting smart comments on websites and go learn fundamental Islamic ^aqidah, or restrict yourself to talking only about the NFL playoffs or the weather.

        I am not piqued that you asked me for proofs for my comments. I have myself stated that demanding evidence for our stances is the cornerstone of our deen.

        I *am* piqued that you try to put words in my mouth:

        “So we are speaking in absolutes now?”

        Yes.

        Firstly, because HY himself over the last 18 yrs since 911 hasn’t given us any room to doubt his status as the traitor within.

        Secondly, he has facilitated a personality cult with a culture of doubtfulness and inconclusiveness on core matters of Islamic belief, read apostasy. The only antidote to that is conclusiveness, certainty, and absoluteness.

        “You are one sentence away from labeling him a “CIS White male convert to Islam who doesn’t know anything about this brown religion”.”

        This is where you’re trying to either play smart or just put words in my mouth.

        What does being a convert or skin color or cisgender have to do with this?

        There were most-probably-brown munaafiqeen in the Prophet’s own times in Madinah itself. The Quran says:

        وَمِمَّنْ حَوْلَكُم مِّنَ الْأَعْرَابِ مُنَافِقُونَ ۖ وَمِنْ أَهْلِ الْمَدِينَةِ – 9:101

        Who told you Islam is a “brown” religion? Did I say it? Why the insinuations that I suggest it or might want to suggest it?

        My guess is that you’re exposing your own guilty conscience as being one of those MSA boys infatuated by HY and other western converts (it don’t matter if they’re black or white) and wish to see your religion or religious teachings validated by western converts. I know that type of western Muslims who consider it below their dignity and maybe even unIslamic to listen to a talk from an import imam from Egypt or Bangladesh who can’t talk with a New England accent or talk ‘hood. For such people, deen is a newfound hobby complementing their pursuit of the American dream. I certainly hope you’re not one of them.

        Enjoy your day.

      • @Ahmad

        1) The Pope OFFICIAL title is “His/Your Holiness”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Holiness. Letters addressed to the Pope would begin with that as proper protocol. It’s like a non-Muslim calling the Prophet Muhammad the “Prophet Muhammad”, would you assume on their part to have accepted Islam? And how would you want them to address the Prophet Muhammad in letters/communications? Your reasoning is pitiful. AND, he was a signatory on a letter to ADDRESS the pope disparaging comments. I am not sure if he was one of the authors.

        Ashari & Salafis, these guys are making rounds in the YouTube Dawah scene as we speak calling each other murtads, fornicators, lairs, abusers..Muhammad Hijab/Shamsi. Each has set a kuffr trap for the other.

        2) I don’t know what you were doing on 9/11. Some of you were most likely going through puberty, playing Nintendo, or hide and seek. The environment for Muslims was pretty bad. Many Muslims were rounded up, detained, without due process or legal representation before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan even started. People literally disappeared without a trace and their families didn’t hear from them for months. Around that time anyone that could be considered a leader was approached, including SHY, by the families and representatives of these Muslims to work with the government and its many agencies to represent their cases. Point here is, the relationship between people like SHY and the Bush government started way before his invitation to a meeting and that too was out of necessity.

        SHY has denounced the wars many times, you can google it. However to what extent? It’s ALL SUBJECTIVE.

        3) I don’t know much on the matter, and see your point on the verses. However, how the concept that all nations were sent Prophets with the same message differ from the type of perennial views SHY supposedly hold?

        4) All Subjective. You have raised valid points, you can point out the inaccuracies. BUT you can’t assume his intentions. They fall short from a clear case of apostasy or lack of faith. I hope you realize that. The miss-translations, interpretations, I get that and wont argue against. Yet none warrants ABSOLUTES. Which does not clear doubts rather would increase them in the hearts of Muslims against a fellow Muslim who holds position of leadership. A Muslim that has served the community for decades and during the most testing times. Not only that, the source of what SHY did at the meeting with Bush is non-Muslim.

        (((I presented just two examples. Exposing all of the kufr statements of the chameleon HY in his various discourses is a lengthy project requiring an entire book with the relevant evidences from the Islamic “tradition” (as HY likes to euphemistically mention “deen”) See also the video linked by Daniel – (it’s kufr to call the idol of the Hindus as “Lord Krishna”

        If you can’t see the kufr in those statements of HY, I suggest you stop posting smart comments on websites and go learn fundamental Islamic ^aqidah, or restrict yourself to talking only about the NFL playoffs or the weather.)))

        A video full of repetitive sound bites made by a murtad who left Islam after discovering his roots aren’t Qureshi i.e. Arab, so he became a Hindu like his ancestors is a piece against SHY? As I have said above, referring to Lord Krishna as Lord Krishna is no different than a Hindu, Christian, Buddhist referring to the Prophet Muhammad as “Prophet Muhammad”. That doesn’t mean they believe that He is the Prophet of Allah SWT, or do we automatically accept it as their conversion to Islam. I’m sure the Hindus feel the same way. He referred to their deities with respect as they would, and we expect them to refers to our religious figures as we would.

        Your examples provided, at most, can question SHY understanding and adherence to the principles of his own faith but they fall short from clear cut apostasy. Even those who openly renounce Islam are given the chance to rescind their statements.

        (((I am not piqued that you asked me for proofs for my comments. I have myself stated that demanding evidence for our stances is the cornerstone of our deen.)))

        You are literally making takfir on a Muslim here. Come on now.

        (((I *am* piqued that you try to put words in my mouth:
        “So we are speaking in absolutes now?” Yes.)))

        I can use that against you as a statement of kuffr since the absolute truth is with God. Only Allah SWT knows whats in the hearts of the believers. You are not claiming to be omniscient are you? I hope not.
        Nothing you presented absolutely validates your ABSOLUTE STATEMENTS. All you have are instances where SHY has said some questionable things, and that to according to a particular view, which is perfectly fine with me and I ABSOLUTELY SEE why someone would raise them. Though I’d stop short of making takfir, or make personal attacks on his character.

        (((Firstly, because HY himself over the last 18 yrs since 911 hasn’t given us any room to doubt his status as the traitor within.)))

        He has, this is why you and I are arguing over it. Otherwise I’ll be in your camp.

        (((Secondly, he has facilitated a personality cult with a culture of doubtfulness and inconclusiveness on core matters of Islamic belief, read apostasy. The only antidote to that is conclusiveness, certainty, and absoluteness.)))

        Or maybe you are envious of a brother who has so many admirers that would defend him even with faults? Maybe that’s the problem, and you’d have to attack him the way you did with absolutes to some how feel relevant. But I don’t know whats in your heart.

        When I defended Daniel, people accuse me of cult mentality. Particularly that one braying mule. So what that gives you the right to make takfir on him? Silly you.

        (((“You are one sentence away from labeling him a “CIS White male convert to Islam who doesn’t know anything about this brown religion”.” This is where you’re trying to either play smart or just put words in my mouth. What does being a convert or skin color or cisgender have to do with this?
        There were most-probably-brown munaafiqeen in the Prophet’s own times in Madinah itself. The Quran says: ????????? ????????? ????? ???????????? ???????????? ? ?????? ?????? ???????????? – 9:101
        Who told you Islam is a “brown” religion? Did I say it? Why the insinuations that I suggest it or might want to suggest it?)))

        Just trying to point out that you came off sounding a lot like those we criticism = SJW/Liberals/Secularists/Murtads.

        (((My guess is that you’re exposing your own guilty conscience as being one of those MSA boys infatuated by HY and other western converts (it don’t matter if they’re black or white) and wish to see your religion or religious teachings validated by western converts. I know that type of western Muslims who consider it below their dignity and maybe even unIslamic to listen to a talk from an import imam from Egypt or Bangladesh who can’t talk with a New England accent or talk ‘hood. For such people, deen is a newfound hobby complementing their pursuit of the American dream. I certainly hope you’re not one of them.)))

        I never been to an MSA, nor a huge fan boy of SHY. I just know the political environment of the past 2 decades and how SHY has constantly been attacked by both liberal/feminist SJW pundits and Muslims for not picking a side. I think he can’t, it isn’t that clear cut for him. His position and background makes him unique and different. His Catholic past gives him a perspective that most Muslims will not have from Egypt or Bangladesh. The Church was destroyed by the same powers using the same tactics. He knows what will happen to him and his organization if he takes concrete stance on matters. He is in trouble if seen too LEFTY or too RIGHTY. You have to watch his older material to get a perspective on the man, where he is coming from, and what transpired to make him what he is today.

        When 9/11 happened, many of these Egyptians, Bangalis, Pakistanis, and Saudis leaders and imams disappeared on the next plane to their home nations. SHY had to deal with it because the nation that was attacked was his home. The MSA going 19 year olds that come to him come with problems that no scholar from any Muslim nation today or in the past faced coming from multi-ethnic, multi-culture, multi-sexual, multi-gender, multi-sexual, cesspool of a melting pot. Give credit where it’s due.

        Salam

      • Just wanted to point out one more thing. The standards to which SHY is being held, will that be applied to the millions of Muslims from Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh? Millions of them have mushrik elements in their “Islam” and they will go to great lengths to defend it including their scholars, imams, and mulvis. Are those who are following authentic and “truest” form of Islam ready to make takfir on them, declare them faithless, shameless, and that they lack integrity?

        “MUH KASHMIRIS” dance in the Hindu festivals. I can say that Allah SWT is PUNISHING them now, and HUMILIATING them, and I be right both according to Daniel and SHY.

      • ***”1) The Pope OFFICIAL title is “His/Your Holiness”.”***

        It is “official” only for the adherents of that faith.

        Even western media addresses the pope as Pope Francis or Pope Benedict and so on.

        From that same wiki link you sent, the title “His Holiness” can pretty much be taken by the head of any cult like Qadiyanis too.

        There’s no international protocol for this. Even if there was one, since when were Muslims bound by the laws of the kuffar?

        It is apostasy in itself to address disbelievers as “his holiness” much less someone who reviled the Prophet, salAllahu ^alayhi wasallam.

        As for disbelievers saying “Prophet Muhammad”, firstly they don’t. Many of them just use the name directly for him, and even for those prophets whom they revere, like saying “Moses” and “Jesus.” Even if they did add the “Prophet” before mentioning his name, there is no reciprocity between Islam and kufr on faith. Just because they address our Prophet as “Prophet”, it doesn’t mean we address their priests as “His Holiness.” What’s next, if they say Prophet before our Prophet’s name, will we also call Jesus as “Our Lord and Savior” or will we call sitna Maryam as “Mother of God”? na^udhu billahi min dhalik. If they sit and eat halal meat in our restaurants, are we obligated to consume alcohol with them? Not counting the fact that the status of prophethood and priesthood are nowhere same!

        It’s not mine, but your reasoning as well as sense of shame that is pitiful. Otherwise you wouldn’t be making excuses for honoring someone who disparaged your Prophet.

        ***”I am not sure if he was one of the authors.”***

        Same difference. Signing on to it means he attests to its contents.

        As for Ash^aris and Salafis both being wrong, I take it you belong to some third group separate from both of these. Shia perhaps?

        ***”2) I don’t know what you were doing on 9/11.”***

        I was a few years into my career after college. So don’t give me that puberty and Nintendo talk. Plus the aftermath of 911 for Muslims is severely sensationalized by you. I know of enough Muslims who were in the US at that time and no what was going on in the country.

        There was no life and death pressing necessity. The least he could have done was keep his pie-hole shut rather than abet warmongers!

        Don’t make it sound like the US turned into Nazi Germany for Muslims overnight in the aftermath of 911. It didn’t.

        ***”SHY has denounced the wars many times, you can google it. However to what extent?”***

        Care to give us a link or two where he *explicitly* condemned Dubya and the massacre of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan by the US? It’s a great PR exercise to denounce an unjust war in general.

        ***”3) I don’t know much on the matter,”***

        Ok, study it. See what perennialism is about and see the stances, and the people in it that Hamza supports.

        The fact that every past nation was sent a prophet is an open part of Islamic ^aqidah. It has nothing to do with the ideology of perennialism that deems all religions as correct and leading to salvation.

        ***”4) All Subjective. You have raised valid points, you can point out the inaccuracies. BUT you can’t assume his intentions.”***

        Not assuming his intentions at all. We judge by the apparent.

        The apparent is that he mistranslated, and then upon that mistranslation built up a case for the exact opposite of the Quran’s teachings and the ^aqidah of all Muslims (Sfui, Salafi, and Shia too) saying that Christians, Jews, and Sabians are a “saved group.”

        “Inaccuracies” is a very mild word. The right word is “tampering”.

        ***”Yet none warrants ABSOLUTES. Which does not clear doubts rather would increase them in the hearts of Muslims against a fellow Muslim who holds position of leadership.”***

        Pathetic!

        You are worried about the doubts in the hearts of Muslims in regards to a man.

        Yet you are not worried about the doubts on *basic* Quranic ^aqidah in the hearts of Muslims that this person is planting, meaning causing them to lose iman.

        Of course it warrants absolutes. It is the absolutes of the Quran that this person is violating, so he too has to be rebuked in the same absolutes.

        Read the books of fiqh and the chapters on apostasy. Doubting that Christians, Jews, Sabians etc. are disbelievers or doubting their punishment in hellfire renders one a murtad.

        ***”A Muslim that has served the community for decades and during the most testing times. Not only that, the source of what SHY did at the meeting with Bush is non-Muslim.”***

        Even more pathetic.

        If someone did something for the community in the past, it doesn’t mean he is immune from falling into folly or even apostasy. In fact hadith states that a person who takes his iman for granted will most probably lose it before he dies.

        Read the famous sahih hadith that Allah helps His deen even by sinners and/or kafirs. By your logic, we might even consider Khomeini as our imam!

        As for mentioning the nonMuslim source, that’s a really childish excuse. If the nonMuslim source is wrong, did HY come out and issue a statement that he is an outspoken opponent of Dubya and the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan?

        To follow…

      • ***”A video full of repetitive sound bites made by a murtad who left Islam after discovering his roots aren’t Qureshi i.e. Arab, so he became a Hindu like his ancestors is a piece against SHY?”***

        I don’t know if the guy who posted it is a murtad or not.

        Regardless, is the depiction of HY correct or not. If he did not address the Hindu idol as “Lord Krishna” you or him should clarify that the video is fudged!

        Besides, just note that you too are calling someone a murtad. I assume you know of his apostasy.

        ***”As I have said above, referring to Lord Krishna as Lord Krishna is no different than a Hindu, Christian, Buddhist referring to the Prophet Muhammad as “Prophet Muhammad”. That doesn’t mean they believe that He is the Prophet of Allah SWT, or do we automatically accept it as their conversion to Islam. I’m sure the Hindus feel the same way. He referred to their deities with respect as they would, and we expect them to refers to our religious figures as we would.”***

        Seriously pathetic.

        Do you know why Surah al-Kafirun was revealed? The idolaters asked the Prophet to worship their idols for an year and for an year they too would worship Allah, and also acknowledge him as Allah’s Prophet. They even insisted that if our Prophet didn’t want to worship their idols, he could just touch them and that would be enough.

        Surah al-Kafirun was revealed telling him and through him salAllahu ^alayhi wa sallam, teaching us, to tell the disbelievers we will never adhere to their ways!

        There’s no nice way to say this, but you need to get some basic lessons in Islamic ^aqidah and what is and what isn’t Islam.

        If they call our Prophet as “Prophet” it doesn’t mean we call their idols as “Lord.” Again what stops you from calling Maryam ^alaiha al-salam, as “Mother of God” in the presence of a Christian, if he just called our Prophet as “Prophet Muhammad” (salAllahu ^alayhi wasallam).

        Read a good fiqh book or two on apostasy.

        And once again, that honorific is only “official” for the adherents of that faith.

        ***”Your examples provided, at most, can question SHY understanding and adherence to the principles of his own faith but they fall short from clear cut apostasy.”***

        *Basic* principles on what makes one a Muslim and what doesn’t.

        *At least*, not at most.

        Denying basic Islamic precepts and worse yet causing others to do the same very openly makes a case for “clear cut apostasy.”

        ***”Even those who openly renounce Islam are given the chance to rescind their statements.”***

        Of course! Who denied that?

        We would love for HY to publicly retract his so many kufr statements and renew his iman and nikah.

        Btw, the “chance to rescind” that you are talking about is from a Muslim government – a chance to retract from apostasy, or face capital punishment. Since that is not the case for HY in USA, he always has the chance to retract his kufr statements and adopt the correct Islamic beliefs.

        ***”I can use that against you as a statement of kuffr since the absolute truth is with God. Only Allah SWT knows whats in the hearts of the believers. You are not claiming to be omniscient are you? I hope not.
        Nothing you presented absolutely validates your ABSOLUTE STATEMENTS. All you have are instances where SHY has said some questionable things, and that to according to a particular view, which is perfectly fine with me and I ABSOLUTELY SEE why someone would raise them. Though I’d stop short of making takfir, or make personal attacks on his character.”***

        Allah knows what is in the hearts of believers or other than believers.

        You’re missing the point.

        Faith is about *absolutes*, not doubts or uncertainties, or denials. When someone violates the basic and *absolute* injunctions of Islam, it can and does warrant takfeer. Those are not “questionable things” or according to some particular view of Sufis or Salafis or Hanafis or Malikis. Doubting the disbeliever status or the never ending punishment in hellfire for Christians, Jews, idolaters etc. is clear cut apostasy.

        Of course we don’t know the hearts. But we are commanded to judge based on the apparent.

        As for the attacks on his character, we are only concerned with his public actions being a public figure; and in those public actions, over the course of the last 2 decades he has shown himself to be shameless and lacking in integrity. It’s not a one-off case of clumsiness.

        ***”He has, this is why you and I are arguing over it. Otherwise I’ll be in your camp.”***

        You and I are arguing because you neither know enough about HY’s heresies nor about sound ^aqidah and apostasy rulings.

        ***”So what that gives you the right to make takfir on him? Silly you.”***

        To be envious of him, I’d have to be on the same footing as him – another “Islamic” public figure. Since I’m not, that doesn’t apply.

        I don’t have any rights other than those Allah gave me. His denial and furthermore propagating it to unsuspecting Muslims, regarding the *absolute essentials* of Islam warrants takfeer from any Muslim.

        ***”I think he can’t, it isn’t that clear cut for him.”***

        That may be the problem or a part of it – his desire to please everyone at all times. It is a logical impossibility to be on every side, specially for Muslims.

        As far as Muslims are concerned, he had to take a stance on at least the core matters of Islamic faith like prohibition of LGBT actions, calling Christians as disbelievers and Christianity leading to never ending hellfire, and so on. Sadly he succumbed to pluralistic liberal secularism and consequentially to perennialism.

        The rest of the right vs left stuff is just about taxes and healthcare and so on. Not my concern.

        ***”When 9/11 happened, many of these Egyptians, Bangalis, Pakistanis, and Saudis leaders and imams disappeared on the next plane to their home nations. “***

        Let’s not sensationalize. Don’t make it look like the US was depleted of all its immigrant imams overnight.

        ***”The MSA going 19 year olds that come to him come with problems that no scholar from any Muslim nation today or in the past faced coming from multi-ethnic, multi-culture, multi-sexual, multi-gender, multi-sexual, cesspool of a melting pot. Give credit where it’s due.”***

        I wish I could and tried my best too until I saw that open letter and that apologia for Buddhism and so many other heresies.

        He had a golden opportunity to be a role model for Muslim American youth and deliver sound Islamic principles to them. Instead, he ended up a daall and mudill mouthpiece of the establishment, giving those youth an establishment-compliant “Islam”!

        ***”Just wanted to point out one more thing. The standards to which SHY is being held, will that be applied to the millions of Muslims from Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh?”***

        Indeed. Islam doesn’t change from Makkah to Kashmir to Cincinnati.

        ***”Millions of them have mushrik elements in their “Islam” and they will go to great lengths to defend it including their scholars, imams, and mulvis. Are those who are following authentic and “truest” form of Islam ready to make takfir on them, declare them faithless, shameless, and that they lack integrity?”***

        It happens every day. You have to be there to know about it.

        ***”“MUH KASHMIRIS” dance in the Hindu festivals. I can say that Allah SWT is PUNISHING them now, and HUMILIATING them, and I be right both according to Daniel and SHY.”***

        For those who do dance in Hindu festivals, there are Muslims who call them as apostates. Same for Bollywood stars who worship idols, both in movies, as well as in their homes.

        As for Allah humiliating the Kashmiris en masse, He Knows best if it is a trial and affliction to elevate their ranks or really a punishment. But those Hindu festival dancing “Muslims” are certainly not the norm in Kashmir.

        Sincere advice to you – study basic Islamic ^aqidah and read a good fiqh book or two on apostasy by some well acknowledged jurists.

        Peace. (No point arguing any further, for me at least. Our stances are clear to each other.)

  5. Salam.

    I tried posting twice but apparently the moderators decided to not let it happen. I understand my tone was more aggressive than was necessary. I do apologize for that I’m just taken aback by this blatant (and frankly way over the line in my opinion) calling out of Shaykh Hamza. Nonetheless, I do hope you read and carefully consider what was said even if it isn’t posted (which is probably better as I may have been over the line myself).

  6. “this blatant (and frankly way over the line in my opinion) calling out of Shaykh Hamza.”

    @Jonaid

    Can you please substantiate your claim?

    What is over the line?

    Did Daniel give any wrong information on Hamza Yusuf?

    Did he misrepresent the facts?

    Did he slander?

    If you think Daniel did anything devious, please show us all how. Prove it.

    But please man, do not waste people’s time with the “SHY is a sacred cow above and beyond scrutiny, accountability, and reproach” mantra!

    It is sick, disgusting, and nauseating and reeks of a personality cult.

    If your only retorts are, “but he’s SHY” or “he’s my shaykh” or “he’s approved by Donald Trump” or “he’s a wali” or “he’s a knowledgeable person” and so on, please don’t waste people’s times.

    No one is above criticism and accountability in Islam. Our “tradition” teaches us that even the rightly guided caliphs told people to question themselves and indeed they were too. We are *the only* nation on the face of this earth who invented, formulated, and perfected the science of jarh and ta^deel and rijaal (the science of critically analyzing all the narrators in the chain of transmission). The imams of our ummah encouraged, welcomed and faced many serious inquiries into their various actions and stances. We did not come this far in Islam by considering people above accountability.

    This is not backbiting or talebearing or slander or lack of adab.

    Our first and foremost adab is to the deen and the preservation of its orthodoxy and authenticity.

    And yet, we have people like HY and his team sqeualing and whining at the social media equivalent of a paper cut!

    Public actions and sayings by public figures, or any figures, that concern the public interest are everyone’s business and we can and will call people out on those. The deen is not the personal fiefdom of any celebrity shaykh, much less, a dajjal like Hamza Yusuf who honors Hindu idols anjd commits kufr by saying “Lord Krishna” in the same sentence where he audaciously mentions our beloved Prophet as just “Muhammad” without saying salawat on him (salAllahu ^alayhi wasallam). See this video – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIwleRGjGR0

    And please spare me the adab preaching of “you should advise him in private.” That line is for personal indiscretions. If you see me going to a bar, pull me aside in private and counsel me. If I’m a public figure or doing something publicly (like posting this comment on this open-to-public website), then if it is harmful to public welfare, it is your *duty* to call me out on it publicly.

    I look forward to your substantiated claims in defense of HY.

    Enjoy your day.

  7. Clearly the Muslim Skeptic isn’t all about the “Haqq” as they claim to be if its refusing to post comments that it finds problematic (and no we’re not talking about the vulgar or potentially violence-igniting ones).

    • @Daniel

      Will you edit your video in light of this, that SHY stated the hadith accurately OR does that level of ethical standard only apply to SHY and not his critics..?

  8. Shaykh hamza Yusuf publically apologised and clarified his position regarding tyrants and Syrians. I accept it and also apologise to him for slandering him. May allah help us all.

  9. I posted two long replies to Proud Meshuggahite. They were first held back for moderation, then disappeared. Can you guys at least mail them back to me.

  10. i bet if he was syrian and experienced the tyranny of assad he would be the first one to rebel but he is privileged and he doesn’t realize it , the worst part is calling syrian refugees humiliated for simply being refugees

  11. @Proud Meshuggahite

    The comments box kills the comments if they contain links.

    I replied to your comments in two long posts above. See them. 1/2 and 2/2 (both numbered 1/2 in hurry)

    Just be sure to enter the www. for the links.

      • Yes indeed, no amount of seeking forgiveness is enough.

        I should also keep in mind not to flaunt it publicly as a holier than thou person above all error, accountability, and reprimand.

  12. Respected brother Daniel, below you can read how I reverted to Islam from Shiism.

    Overcoming Kurdish nationalism, Twelver Shiism and Saddam Hussain’s Baathism on the path towards Tawheed

    Salam Alaikom,

    Brothers, I had to overcome, not one, not two but at least three obstacles on my way to find true Islam.

    The first of these obstacles was Twelver Shiism. I was born in a country where they were forming the majority (including my own family), but like in today’s Syria were ruled by a minority dictator (Saddam). The victim mentality was strong. “They” are killing us for our faith. “They” have been doing this since the time of Hussain (ra).

    The second obstacle was Kurdish nationalism. We are the largest ethnic group in the world without a country. “They” are killing us for our ethnicity. Kurdish nationalist and Rafidi, just great.

    The third obstacle came in the form of Saddam’s Baathist regime during the Iran-Iraq war in the 80’s. His regime took all our properties and belongings (we lived in Baghdad) and deported my family to Iran, while others with the same background were thrown in massgraves. The victim mentality here was stronger than ever. “They” did this to us because of our faith and ethnicity combined, the victimhood now became reality and not just words.

    So, as you can imagine, when the time came for the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 when I was 18, it was clear on which side I was. Even though I was not the dumbest kid on the block, and had read about the violent and despicable history of the U.S. regimes, I could never ever side with the Baathist tyrants in Iraq, especially not as a Kurdish Shia who was actually directly harmed by that regime.

    And this is how history placed me side by side with the crusaders. I did not actually fought alongside them, alhamdulillah, and I was not in Iraq during the conflict, because as I said, our family was deported in the 80’s to Iran. Ironically, Iraqi Shias had no equal rights in Rafidi Iran like the Iranian people, for example, you were not allowed to go to the university there, so our family left Iran for the West where I grew up.

    During the war in Iraq in 2003 and beyond, things turned ugly. Civil war broke out, many car bombs, Shia masses were being targeted, Shia shrine blown to pieces in 2006, etc. Saddam was executed later that year. So here you have “them again” killing us for our faith, while at the same time the ignorant Arab masses were calling Saddam a Shaheed of the Ummah. In the meantime amidst the chaos, the Americans did not know what the hell they were doing there and were mismanaging the entire country. 2006 is also when the war in Lebanon broke out, and the “Shia Mujahideen of Hezbol-lat were fighting back”, while some in Saudi Arabia were siding with Israel or against “the Muslims”, which added to my confusion.

    As I was growing older, I was doing my religious research, I also watched a lot of Muslim-Christian debates, by Ahmad Deedat (rahimullah), so I knew that Islam was the true religion of God. But when it came to Sunni-Shia debates, it remained vague for me, especially with my background and the events that were unfolding at the time.

    This continued until the Arab Spring came late in 2010, I hated the dictators with a passion due to my historical personal hatred for the Baathists in my own country, so I sided with the mass uprisings, regardless of whether they were Sunni or Shia (like in Bahrain). In the meantime I was also coming across rightheous Sunni shuyookh (who were doing kufr bit taghut), and they really clarified a lot for me and gave me a great tool to judge others by it.

    Then the revolution reached Libya in 2011. Iran sided against Qaddafi because in the past a Shia priest (Musa al-Sadr) had dissappeared while visiting Libya. But when the revolution reached the blessed land of Shaam, Iran and its mouthpieces everywhere suddenly were speaking about a Zionist Conspiracy in Syria, while at the same time cheering for the Uprising in Bahrain. I disliked this hypocrisy from Iran very much.

    By this time I had listened to thousands of hours of Islamic lessons by the righteous shuyookh who were anti-tawagheet, this in combination with the revolutions in the Arab world, especially the one in the blessed land of Shaam which crushed Iran’s image (idol) in my eyes, and the martyrdom of several shuyookh who were on the haqq in 2011, which made me revert back to true Islam, more than 500 years after Ismail Safavi the dog had converted my ancestors from Sunnism to Shiism by the sword (my forefathers migrated from Persia to the Ottoman empire, this is why we as Kurdish Shias lived in Baghdad and not in Iraqi Kurdistan in the North of Iraq).

    Brothers, continue with striving on the straigth path, your kufr bit taghut is destroying idols and bringing many people to Islam. Those who slander you as khawaarij are despicable bootlickers of the tawagheet. Only Allah truly knows the major benefits that have come out of the tribulations in Shaam. All praise belongs to Allah (swt).

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here