The Devil's Testimony [Archive]

View Full Version : The Devil's Testimony

Abuz Zubair

30th May 2006, 07:41 AM

As-Salaamu ‘alaikum dear brothers and sisters,

Praise be to Allah, who continues to aid Ahl al-Sunnah and humiliate the heretics by dividing them into groups and sects.

The attachment is an attack on Nuh Keller by the so-called Abu Ja’far al-Hanbali al-Kadhab.

No, it does not mean that he has repented, or that he is no more a con-artist. This is just a case of a Devil speaking the truth, even though he is a compulsive liar.

Here as an excerpt for those who are still unsure that some of these Sufis are in fact worse than pre-Islamic pagans (and therefore, beyond the pale of Islam):

There was an eyewitness account that the author was referred to in the United States in which followers of a certain ‘shaykh’ were actually told to make two units of prayer to their dead founder, intending him and praying specifically to him, attempting to visualise him. The ex-member explained that he believed this to be clear idolatry, but at the time was so overwhelmed with the responsibility of not dying without an oath of allegiance on his neck, that he acquiesced to the command. How many others submit their intellects in a matter that Allah has given no right? Has Allah not made the matter clear in His Proclamation in Surat ush-Shura (42), ayah 21?

NAveed

30th May 2006, 10:17 AM

Akhi ,I couldn't find any

clear reference to shaykh Nuh in this?

Shaghuri

30th May 2006, 11:31 AM

Your ignorance is astounding. Do you have any direct statement that attributes that to Shaykh Nuh?

I do not deny the veracity of what Abu Ja'far has narrated, but to assume on your part that it is Shaykh Nuh is just wrong- despite whatever views you have about him.

It is well known the Shaykh Nuh is a Murshid of the Tariqah al-Alawiyah ad-Darqawiyah ash-Shadhiliyah and that Tasawwur ash-Shaykh is not taught or encouraged in the Tariqah. More than likely, what Abu Ja'far has narrated is coming from someone claiming the Naqshabandi Haqqani Tariqah, as they actually do practice Tasawwur ash-Shaykh in their Tariqah.

Despite your problems with Shaykh Nuh, it is unjust on your part to assume that this quote is reffering to him. May Allah forgive you.

Shaghuri

30th May 2006, 01:09 PM

Abu Zubair, you said:

Here as an excerpt for those who are still unsure that some of these Sufis are in fact worse than pre-Islamic pagans (and therefore, beyond the pale of Islam):

So, since you attribute this to Shaykh Nuh, can we presume that you make open Takfir Mu'ayyan of him? If that is what you believe then why dont you just come out and say it? If you dont, then why not?

Abuz Zubair

30th May 2006, 06:35 PM

Well, I am not the one to assume that the article is against Keller. Its your friends at Sunni forums… Take it out with them, not me…

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14265

What makes them think its directed at Keller, is the following paragraph:

We have seen numerous examples within the past several decades of an almost Sanhedrin establishment of figures claiming themselves to be scholars. In Jordan, one figure proclaimed that in this day and age, polygamy would be impermissible, due to the emotional harm that results [a clear contravention to Surat un-Nisa’ (4) ayah 3] while another stated that the women veiling themselves completely is ‘bad da`awa’ (a contravention of the practice of the Prophet’s wives, may Allah be pleased with them) along with one claiming that ‘Father’ was one of the names of Allah that was abrogated later along with the Trinity (please see Surat ul-Ma’idah (5,), ayaat 72-75 regarding the consequences of such words). But their authority has often been left uncontested by those under their sway, which actually should elicit more concern than the statements which are clearly blasphemous.

Abu Zubair, you said:

Here as an excerpt for those who are still unsure that some of these Sufis are in fact worse than pre-Islamic pagans (and therefore, beyond the pale of Islam):

So, since you attribute this to Shaykh Nuh, can we presume that you make open Takfir Mu'ayyan of him? If that is what you believe then why dont you just come out and say it? If you dont, then why not?

I didn’t attribute that particular shirk to Keller. I said:

Here as an excerpt for those who are still unsure that some of these Sufis are in fact worse than pre-Islamic pagans (and therefore, beyond the pale of Islam):

Yet, if it is proven that this particular excerpt is in fact referring to Keller, then I will doubt the Iman of anyone who does not consider him a pagan. My guess is that it probably is referring to Keller, but disbelief is not imputed on guesses.

As I said… These orientalists simply wanted to win a few Muslims over to Catholicism. I also said that the bulk of these muqallids are just a cattle on leash, being led to the slaughter…

This is exactly what has happened.

bi'sa lidh-dhalimina badala - what an evil recompense for the oppressors!

wasalam

Shaghuri

30th May 2006, 06:55 PM

The way in which you have worded your initial post would lead most people to believe that you have assumed that Abu Ja'far was referring to Shaykh Nuh when he spoke of the so-called Shaykh asking his followers to pray to their "dead founder". That is what I, as well as brother Naveed understood from your post.

The question that is being raised on sunniforums*******in reality is whether or not Shaykh Nuh said that the Niqab is bad Da'wah, not whether he is the Shaykh who supposedly ordered his followers to pray to their "dead founder".

I, like you share in the disqust towards anyone that would order such a thing as praying to a dead founder of a Tariqah. But then again, if according to you Abu Ja'far lies, then maybe he is lying in this article of his as well.

Shaghuri

30th May 2006, 07:03 PM

You said:

"My guess is that it probably is referring to Keller"

That shows your ignorance of his positions and the Tariqah to which he belongs. It is no secret that some groups of the Naqshabandis,******* the Naqsahbandi Haqqanis to be precise (as opposed to the predominately Deobandi Naqshabandi Mujaddidis), have within their ranks such deviations as mentioned by Abu Ja'far. The issue of Tasawwur ash-Shaykh exists in the Naqsahbandi tradition as a whole, but some of these Haqqanis have strayed far from the intent of Shaykh Shah Khalid Naqshaband and Shaykh Sirhindi who were the heads of this Tariqah.

For you to take a blantantly obvious case of Tasawwur ash-Shaykh gone off the deep end, and then slyly say that it was probably Shaykh Nuh, shows your deep ignorance of not only Shaykh Nuh, but the realities of the various Tariqahs and their particulars.

NAveed

30th May 2006, 08:10 PM

Akhi Abu zubair.

What you say is interesting stuff.

Do you make takfeer of all of tablighi jam'aah

and mawlana zakariya khandalwi

The indian hadeeth expert and sufi

who allowed tasawur as shaykh in his famous

work shariah and tariqa

Would this extend to mawlana thanvi and qasim nanotwi and maulana gangohi and maulana hussain ahmad madani and many others from deoband who allowed tasawur-as-shaykh also?

In which case all of the taliban who don't make takfeer of those

and fought side by side with usama would be mushrik too right?

I'm a little confused

I mean does it mean shaykh kelhan and abu eesa nima'tullah who are doing talks with the chishti shaykh abu yusuf riyadh ul haq who has bay'ah with yusuf motala who has

bay'ah with zakariyya khandalwi the author of the book

allowing tasawur e shaykh are mushrik too?

Could you please clarify

suhail

30th May 2006, 08:53 PM

Assalaam o Alykum,

Brothers and especially naveed you have a habit of jumping your guns too loud. Why you keep asking questions with no benefit around them?

Abuz Zubair didnt do takfir on anyone. Regarding Ashraf Ali Thanvi and other ulema of deoband please go to deoband and you will find a group of deobandis who admonish the works and teachings of Ashraf Ali Thanvi and other tassawuf scholars. These deobandis are hanafis as well but they dont follow his and others teachings.

Regarding what you told about Maulana Zakariya Khandalvi then his books Faizail e Amal speaks volumes about his hadith expertise. It has all kinds of fabricated and weak narrations in that.

Since you are so highly impressed by these personality can u tell me that have you seen Khizr (Alyhis salam) as all the sufis gets visit from him routinely.

Better to gain knowledge first and practice it than wasting time asking foolish questions.

And another thing you need to take heed of is that TALEBAN is not the criteria for the haqq. Quran and Sunnah is the criteria for the haqq. No personality or group is the criteria of haqq except Rasullallah Sallahu Alyhe wa sallam and the salaf.

Jazakallah Khair
Suhail

NAveed

30th May 2006, 09:15 PM

Suhayl said

"Brothers and especially naveed you have a habit of jumping your guns too loud. Why you keep asking questions with no benefit around them?

Abuz Zubair didnt do takfir on anyone"

Abu Zubair said

"Yet, if it is proven that this particular excerpt is in fact referring to Keller, then I will doubt the Iman of anyone who does not consider him a pagan. My guess is that it probably is referring to Keller...."

In which case raising the issue of tasawur as shaykh is pertinent to the discussion

Suhayl,if you are not familiar with this term,perhaps you could let

akhi abu zubair answer- as the purpose of such a forum

is to discuss and learn surely

Abuz Zubair

30th May 2006, 09:54 PM

Firstly, the problem is between you and Abu Ja’far, and your mates at Sunni forums who are divided between Keller and Abu Ja’far.

Secondly, Tasawwur al-Sheikh has been confirmed to be a part of Shadhili tariqa, amongst some of the mashaykh.

Read this:
http://www.allah.com/download/SufiABC.doc

and this:
http://www.saaid.net/book/8/1500.doc

Thirdly, I am not 100% sure about what tasawwur al-Sheikh actually involves, and whether that itself expels one from Islam. My argument is not about tasawwur al-sheikh; it is about actually praying to a Sheikh, as mentioned in the above quoted excerpt.

Fourthly, I clearly stated that the incident may or may not be applicable to him, yet it is quite probable that he is being referred to here. Don’t debate this with me, and find out from Abu Ja’far who is he referring to in particular? Whoever he may be referring to, it is one of you lot, and hence the divide amongst you.

Fifthly, dear Naveed, yes the purpose of this forum is to learn. Your dilemma is, dear friend, that you have already decided to make taqlid in your own words, and hence, learning is of no benefit to you.

wasalam

suhail

30th May 2006, 09:57 PM

Assalaam o Alykum,

Abuz zubair said that if this article is talking about Keller then yes this makes him a pagan not the other way you wanna believe.

Regarding Tassawwuf as Shiekh i dont really need to know it as it is something invented and not from the salaf. It is better to not know these invented matter then delving into stuff which will corrupt your aqeeda. Did you ever wonder brother naveed why the salaf where so righteous? Please think about it. That will make you learn more.

JazakAllah Khair
Suhail

abu imaan an-nepalee

30th May 2006, 10:23 PM

let me ask the ashari brothers something.

HT say 'adhabul qabr is doubtful and not sinful to doubt and a shara' opinion.

G F Haddad states in his sunna notes volume 1 that it is kufr to reject and nfact he told me it was bidaa' to doubt as well and no way a shara' opinion.

Nuh ha min keller and shaykh abu zahra(rh) are reference points for HT when they say 'adhabul qabr is not qati'e (which is not the position of ahl sunnah at all!)

so according to this logic does it make these 2 (keller and abu zahra) mubtadi' in this issue if you follow g f haddad's position?

I would say no, why? because there is always a ta'weel and excuse made for some and not others.....so if ht are mubtadi' in this point why not others?

go learn consistency!

danish al hyderabadee

31st May 2006, 05:05 AM

As Shaykh ahmed Jibril said, "People dont know how to say the shahaada properly but they wanna call people khawaarij, and they wanna refute. One thing to note about all the groups out there is they become so big (full of themselves) they ended up refuting themselves and within themselves."

Shaghuri

31st May 2006, 05:22 PM

A brother on sunniforum.com said:

"Just to clarify, I asked Brother Abu Ja'far whether he was referring to Shaykh Nuh or not. He said, 'No I am not and was not.'

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14265&page=3&pp=10 (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14265&page=3&pp=10)

abu hafs

31st May 2006, 06:08 PM

so whos the shaikh before refuted by Abu Ja'far ?

Abuz Zubair

1st June 2006, 08:54 AM

Yes, of course!

How silly of us to have thought that he’s referring to Keller…

He is only referring to those Sufis who jump and dance, like this guy:
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=45515&postcount=115

Or those who believe in seclusion like this guys:
http://www.allaahuakbar.net/individual_callers/nuh_ha_mim/a_review_of_tareeqa_notes_of_nuh_ha_mim.htm

Or those who must obey their Sheikhs, even if they face death, like this guy:
http://www.allaahuakbar.net/individual_callers/nuh_ha_mim/invocations_of_shaadhili_order.htm

Or those Jordanian Sufis who say that Niqab in the West is bad Dawah, like this guy:
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=7123&CATE=375

Hold on… OMG! It’s him!

Shaghuri

1st June 2006, 09:46 AM

So from those issues you have deduced that it was Shaykh Nuh who told his followers to pray to their dead founding Shaykh? Ma sha Allah, what Tahqiq you have!

regarding the Hadra, it is allowed in the Shafi school and many Malikiyah also allow it. It is reported from many Hanbalis as well.

Regarding Khalwah, havent you read al Suhab al Wabilah and all of the Hanbalis who took a Tariqah, among them, turuq that include Khalwah as a means?

Taking the deviated views reported by Abu Ja'far regarding some so called sufis and lumping them with Shaykh Nuh and his Tariqah is just like someone claiming that you love King Fahd and beleive that he was the Amir of Salafiyah because someone reads that from Madhkhalis and lumps you with them because of the shared name of salafiyah.

Please employ justice even against those who you hate.

Abuz Zubair

1st June 2006, 11:16 AM

So from those issues you have deduced that it was Shaykh Nuh who told his followers to pray to their dead founding Shaykh? Ma sha Allah, what Tahqiq you have!

For the 10th time, I never said that Keller is the one being referred to here. I said it is possible, for acts of Shirk like praying to a dead is a hallmark of zanadiqa mutasawwifa.

I also said, that even if it is NOT referring to him in particular, it is referring to one of you lot in Jordon who has murids in the US. You guys are, essentially, a gateway to Catholicism – apostasy in broad daylight.

Louis Massignon was stupid to have written a 3-volume biography on Hallaj the pantheist, in an attempt to give legitimacy to heretics amongst the Muslims, and thereby, bridging the gap between Catholicism and Islam.

Keller, et al, have proven to be more clever. Just pretend to be Sufis, establish a cult, gain a following of some cattle on leash, and lead them right into Catholicism. Now, the comments about the abrogation of the concept of Father and Trinity, all fit in place. Keller’s followers, if they already haven’t paid with their Iman, then surely soon will. Hope you are not from them.

Forget about justifying the zandaqa of Hadra and shameful sufi practices that are regarded to be amongst khawarim al-muru’a, which demote a person to a non-upright person, whose testimony is not accepted; and deal with the facts here:

Did Abu Ja’far criticise dancing and singing? Yes. Is Keller guilty thereof? Yes

Did Abu Ja’far criticise Khalwa? Yes. Is Keller guilty thereof? Yes.

Did Abu Ja’far criticise blind obedience to the Sheikh? Yes. Is Keller guilty thereof? Yes.

Did Abu Ja’far refer to Jordanian Sheikh who thinks Niqab is bad Da’wah? Yes. Did Keller say that? Yes.

This is where it ends.

wasalam

Shaghuri

1st June 2006, 11:46 AM

---

For the 10th time, I never said that Keller is the one being referred to here. I said it is possible, for acts of Shirk like praying to a dead is a hallmark of zanadiqa mutasawwifa.
---

so you believe that Shaykh Nuh is from the zanadiqah mutasawifa? What are zanadiqah but Kuffar?

---

I also said, that even if it is NOT referring to him in particular, it is referring to one of you lot in Jordon who has murids in the US. You guys are, essentially, a gateway to Catholicism – apostasy in broad daylight.
---

one of our lot? lol, i dont even follow a Tariqah or have a "lot". I am just someone who doesnt like your sweeping statements.

---

Louis Massignon was stupid to have written a 3-volume biography on Hallaj the pantheist, in an attempt to give legitimacy to heretics amongst the Muslims, and thereby, bridging the gap between Catholicism and Islam.
---

I am not familiar with that book but I am aware that some scholars, correct or incorrect have cast doubts about Hallaj being a Kafir-even though they rebuked his statements. I am aware though, that Shaykh Nuh doesnt advise his Murids to read Ibn Arabis books, much less those of Hallaj.

---

Keller, et al, have proven to be more clever. Just pretend to be Sufis, establish a cult, gain a following of some cattle on leash, and lead them right into Catholicism. Now, the comments about the abrogation of the concept of Father and Trinity, all fit in place. Keller’s followers, if they already haven’t paid with their Iman, then surely soon will. Hope you are not from them.

---

Pretend? Do you even know Shaykh Nuh's background and who he studied with? Are you suggesting that he follows a cult-a "cult" that was also followed by Sultan al-Ulama, Izz ibn Abdis Salam, Ibn Daqiq al-Eid, Imam as Suyuti, al Hafidh al Mundhiri (that being the Shadhili tariqah)? So do you say that these great scholars of this Ummah were alse pretenders and cult followers?

---

Forget about justifying the zandaqa of Hadra and shameful sufi practices that are regarded to be amongst khawarim al-muru’a, which demote a person to a non-upright person, whose testimony is not accepted

---

Since when was participating in a Hadra "zandaqa"? Do you realize what you are suggesting? That swaying in Dhikr is Zandaqah? If you dont like it fine. If you think that it is an innovation, fine, thats your opinion. But to say that it is outright Zandaqah? Who has proceeded you in that?

Do you also suggest that the above mentioned Shadhili scholars were also guilty of commiting acts that are from the khawarim al Muru'ah? Do you think that their testimony would have been rejected?

NAveed

1st June 2006, 05:16 PM

Subhanallah.
Akhi Abu Zubair,yOU HAve shockingly bad adab.

I am greatful to have sat with brothers like abu muntasir

and shaykh Kehlan, to realise that the adab you have

is not typical of men of the salafi way!

suhail

1st June 2006, 09:17 PM

Brothers dont hurl insults at each other on public forums. If you dont like someone or his language pls do that in PM.

Adab goes both way. Critisizing certain actions of individual is different then hurling insults. So please do that in PMs and sort out your issues privately rather then insulting in public.

Remember brothers we are in this world to please our lord and we should always fear him.

Another thing to remember is noone on this earth is away from mistakes. Everybody has some problems with his ownself. So it is always better to give Nasiha in private then in public.

Jazakallah Khair
Suhail

danish al hyderabadee

2nd June 2006, 04:15 AM

Originally Posted by NAveed

Subhanallah.
Akhi Abu Zubair,yOU HAve shockingly bad adab.

I am greatful to have sat with brothers like abu muntasir

and shaykh Kehlan, to realise that the adab you have

is not typical of men of the salafi way!

I dont know about others but I think one shouldnt advise peopel about their faults publicly it is bad adab in and of itself.

Abuz Zubair

2nd June 2006, 06:35 AM

The pro-Sufi brothers, who are not here to learn, but to debate, should do their homework instead of asking me questions about 101 issues, wasting my time, when they are all bent on taqlid anyway.

so you believe that Shaykh Nuh is from the zanadiqah mutasawifa? What are zanadiah but Kuffar?

Don’t ask me questions. Find out yourself the different meanings of zandaqa.

I am not familiar with that book but I am aware that some scholars, correct or incorrect have cast doubts about Hallaj being a Kafir-even though they rebuked his statements. I am aware though, that Shaykh Nuh doesnt advise his Murids to read Ibn Arabis books, much less those of Hallaj.

This only shows your lack of familiarity with the garbage that your own figureheads like Keller, GF Haddad and Winter have been churning out. Again, do your homework before debating.

Plus, just read up al-Hallaj’s bio by al-Dhahabi in his siyar, and that is not even the tip of the ice berg.

Pretend? Do you even know Shaykh Nuh's background and who he studied with? Are you suggesting that he follows a cult-a "cult" that was also followed by Sultan al-Ulama, Izz ibn Abdis Salam, Ibn Daqiq al-Eid, Imam as Suyuti, al Hafidh al Mundhiri (that being the Shadhili tariqah)? So do you say that these great scholars of this Ummah were alse pretenders and cult followers?

World of difference between Sultan al-‘Ulama and al-Suyuti, just as there is a world of difference between them a Keller. Just because someone follows a Tariqa, is not automatically considered a deviant. The Wahhabis historically did not even oppose the Tariqas, so long as they remained within the Shara’i bounds. Again, do your homework before debating.

Since when was participating in a Hadra "zandaqa"? Do you realize what you are suggesting? That swaying in Dhikr is Zandaqah? If you dont like it fine. If you think that it is an innovation, fine, thats your opinion. But to say that it is outright Zandaqah? Who has proceeded you in that?

Again, read up the Fiqh books of scholars up until 6th, 7th and 8th century, and in particular, the section on shahadat and ‘adala. Read up Jarh and Ta’dil with respect to khawarim al-muru’ah. Read up al-Adab al-Shar’iyah by scholars as late as al-Saffarini, and do not ask me questions.

Most importantly, read up on the feud between Imam Ahmad and Imam al-Muhasibi who was 101 times better than al-Junayd, Abu Talib al-Makki, let alone Ibn Faridh and Ibn ‘Arabi.

The bottom line is, there are those who come here to teach and learn. There are those who come here to just argue, and when they are cornered, they say: ‘I better make taqlid of ash’ari scholars, instead of making taqlid of some guy on these forums’. Go ahead with taqlid, but do not waste people’s time debating when your intention is clearly not to seek the truth.

wasalam

Abu_Abdallah

2nd June 2006, 12:02 PM

JazakAllah Akhi Abuz Zubair. This is exactly what I thought of these people. In fact, I've send a private message to one asking him about things that are of the greatest importance that are mentioned in this thread such as the innovative things etc. but he wouldn't respond on that: rather he focussed on one thing - so tiny compared to what is really of importance at this moment - thereby revealing himself..

..I'm sure he will read this, so: If you like to publicize things, then do so. Post my question and your answer. And then answer my question, which I asked in all sincerity. And if you have questions, ask them to.

Hasbuna'Allah wa-ni'ma'l-wakil!

asharee_salafi

2nd June 2006, 07:29 PM

Hang on a tic Naveed,

Shouldn't you be picking on the Sufi's. Look at their so called spiritual enlightenment, and then see how the behave with their lies, slander, and backbiting. good sufi's don't even debate in the 1st place.

This proves that the sufism espoused by Keller et al is nothing but a farce behind which they attack the Sunni Ulema, calling them mujassima.

The Sufi's at Sunniforum have not bothered once to reply or have a debate on any of these issues. Rather what they do, and are famous for doing, is lowering the worth of the character rather then discussing the evidence at hand.

Look at how*******Sunniforum's oranges, apples, Banana's, Melons etc etc******* became rotten, the best*******they could come out with is quoting a few things from SPubs on*******Abu Zubair's**************character, calling him a child etc ( which******* is quite strange as I didn't know children had long beards, were grown men, and themslves had children, dear me, haven't todays children evolved!) I mean, is that the best that they could come out with? Again where is there sufism to stop them ruining his character*******?

ws

NAveed

2nd June 2006, 09:14 PM

The issue was about bad character.

And if all the brothers at sunniforum have bad character

they will be accounted for it.

And if you have bad character you and I will be accounted for it.

All im saying is that in terms of husn-al-ikhlaaq

one can learn from the great salafiya of uk

like abu muntasir and shaykh abu abdullah kehlan.

Alhamdulillah