Khalid Yasin with Omar Bakri?

[thefitrah]

Salaam,
Shaykh Khalid Yasin probably the most effective da'ee in the the field of Dawa to the Kuffar, has brought many thousands into the Deen. I was a bit baffled when i saw him sitting side by side with Omar Bakri at this conference:

http://islambase.co.uk/index.php?opt...600&Itemid=107

Im only saying this as the Shaykh has been experiencing trouble with the invesitfate police of America, and Britain recently so i hope his association? with OBM is not the cause otherwise that would not have been wise. Jeopardise the Dawa.

[Daniel]

Hmm, is it possible that Khaalid Yasin doesn't know the more questionable aspects of 'Omar Bakri?

[thefitrah]

Possibly, Coz he is originally from America but now resides in Sheffield. strange as i have heard him critiscising groups who continously bring up the Khilafah but yet 'dont attend the Fajr prayer!'.

[Suhaib Jobst]

Hmm, is it possible that Khaalid Yasin doesn't know the more questionable aspects of 'Omar Bakri?

I still don't understand this hatred of Omar Bakri which seems to be widespread among the brothers here. He may have been deviant in the past -and I realize many of you doubt his sincerity - but we should judge based on the apparent, and I have seen nothing from the man but beneficial knowledge. He has been criticized for his zeal in standing up for Islam, which some view as counterproductive. But can anyone really deny this is the exact trait they admire in many other individuals, yet for some reason deny it for Shaykh Omar (hafidahullah)?

[thefitrah]

With many of the other individuals whom people have an admiration of due to their willingness to speak on issues which many other speakers are reluctant to approach,there do exist stark differences with the likes of OBM.

people like Abu Hamza, Abu Baseer, Abu Qatada etc generally call for muslims to work together and are more balanced in their approach. many have a checkable history in the field in which they predominatly base their call (jihad)

OBM has show too much inconsistency over the past years and recieved too much airplay from the Kuffar media which makes one wonder about him.

people who have met him can confirm the contradictions of this individual.

[Daniel]

Because 'Omar Bakri says dubious things in the media and then when confronted about them denies that he said those things. Furthermore, he is the same person that made takfir of ibn Baaz. He is not being criticized for having zeal for Islam, but for being a shady person with a questionable agenda.

[abudurrah]

Because 'Omar Bakri says dubious things in the media and then when confronted about them denies that he said those things. Furthermore, he is the same person that made takfir of ibn Baaz. He is not being criticized for having zeal for Islam, but for being a shady person with a questionable agenda.

thats all fair enough, i know he treats the media like a toy, ive seen him. and you can accuse him of that
but why are people saying his a spy and that his with mi5,

[Suhaib Jobst]

OBM has show too much inconsistency over the past years and recieved too much airplay from the Kuffar media which makes one wonder about him.

The most I will admit is that the man often had emotional responses which led the Kuffar to exploit them. But there is no doubt in my mind the brother was and continues to be sincere.

I used to have no opinion on the man, since I simply did not know much about him one way or another. But then I began to read some of his statements and listen to excerpts from his lectures, and I must say I was impressed. I admit he's not a scholar on the level of those you mentioned, but the man does possess knowledge.

Furthermore, he is the same person that made takfir of ibn Baaz.

I personally don't make takfeer of Shaykh Ibn Baz (rahimahullah), but great calamities came from this man and those who do make takfeer of him, then that is their ijtihad and that should be respected. Are we to reject others merely because they made takfeer of someone, based on their understanding of the proper Islamic evidences?

For it is based upon the implementation of Tawheed, since - let's face it - Shaykh Ibn Baz issued a fatwa allowing what the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) had forbidden, i.e. Mushrikeen in Jazirat al-Arabiyah.

Now, I admit this was his Ijtihad, but it was based upon a faulty understanding of the reality and even the common person knew the Americans had long-term strategic designs to stay in the Peninsula. The immense harm this fatwa has done cannot be underestimated.

Tell me, I realize this is a very controversial issue, but what is it about the "Saudi" scholars which keeps them off-limits? So others who are part of what are clearly government institutions, in other countries, are fair-game but when it comes to those in "Saudi" Arabia, we should remain silent, even though the matter effects our entire Ummah?

He is not being criticized for having zeal for Islam, but for being a shady person with a questionable agenda.

How is he a "shady person" and what is his "questionable agenda"? If he was shady and had a secret agenda, then why is he so open with his beliefs? Would he not try to hide them or sugar-coat them in some fashion?

but why are people saying his a spy and that his with mi5

Exactly, this is clearly slander. Like I mentioned before, some people have said the same thing about Shaykh Abu Qatadah (faka Allahu asrah): We reject such a filthy accusation in this case, but for some reason the Islamic etiquettes don't apply in the case of OBM?

If there is anyone with ties to MI5, it would be the establishment "Muslim" groups and those who have become the spokespeople of your communities. It most certainly would not be an iconoclast like Omar Bakri Mohammad, with his "in-your-face" approach and "tell-it-like-it-is" mentality.

And Allah (Subhanahu wa-Ta'ala) knows best.

[Abu Ilyas]

Subhanallah - There is absolutely no justification whatsoever on making takfir of Shaykh Bin Baaz due to his fatwaa on letting the American forces into the peninsula, as you mentioned this was an issue of Ijtihad.

If someone is wrong in Ijtihad does not justify takfir. Whoever, made Takfir of Ibn Baaz on that basis deserves no respect for his opinion - because it would be baseless. We are obliged to think good of our scholars.

If OBM's takfir of Bin Baz is true it just confirms his unstable nature to me.

[Daniel]

The most I will admit is that the man often had emotional responses which led the Kuffar to exploit them. But there is no doubt in my mind the brother was and continues to be sincere.

It is a little more than emotional responses. He deliberately seeks to media out to make controvesy and gain attention for himself.

I used to have no opinion on the man, since I simply did not know much about him one way or another. But then I began to read some of his statements and listen to excerpts from his lectures, and I must say I was impressed. I admit he's not a scholar on the level of those you mentioned, but the man does possess knowledge.

Indeed, he is not a scholar.

I personally don't make takfeer of Shaykh Ibn Baz (rahimahullah), but great calamities came from this man and those who do make takfeer of him, then that is their ijtihad and that should be respected.

'Omar Bakri is a mujtahid? Please, that it is ridiculous thing say.

Are we to reject others merely because they made takfeer of someone, based on their understanding of the proper Islamic evidences?

It depends, but 'Omar Bakri is not someone who has any right or business making takfir, nor does he understand "proper Islamic evidence". Is takfir such a light matter to people nowadays?

For it is based upon the implementation of Tawheed, since - let's face it - Shaykh Ibn Baz issued a fatwa allowing what the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) had forbidden, i.e. Mushrikeen in Jazirat al-Arabiyah.

But the scholars differ as to what degree that the mushrikeen are banned for the peninsula (as to which areas, etc).

Now, I admit this was his Ijtihad, but it was based upon a faulty understanding of the reality and even the common person knew the Americans had long-term strategic designs to stay in the Peninsula. The immense harm this fatwa has done cannot be underestimated.

I agree, but where is the out right kufr involved?

Tell me, I realize this is a very controversial issue, but what is it about the "Saudi" scholars which keeps them off-limits? So others who are part of what are clearly government institutions, in other countries, are fair-game but when it comes to those in "Saudi" Arabia, we should remain silent, even though the matter effects our entire Ummah?

When did I say they are "off-limits"? Rather I am saying that takfir is a very grave matter, not something to be taken lightly. Again, is what ibn Baaz did kufr?

How is he a "shady person" and what is his "questionable agenda"? If he was shady and had a secret agenda, then why is he so open with his beliefs? Would he not try to hide them or sugar-coat them in some fashion?

I explained why, he is someone who is a media-holic and says one thing and then when confronted about it, says something else entirely. As for sugar-coating, well he used to brag about his involvement with Shaykh Usamah bin Ladin and praise 9/11 much (Magnificant 19, etc), but when he was interviewed in Lebanon he said he didn't know who carried out 9/11 and said he had no opinion on al-Qae'da (good or bad). I have been following this mans career for many years and used to be one of those who heaped many praises upon the man, so I do have some idea of what I'm talking about here.

Exactly, this is clearly slander. Like I mentioned before, some people have said the same thing about Shaykh Abu Qatadah (faka Allahu asrah): We reject such a filthy accusation in this case, but for some reason the Islamic etiquettes don't apply in the case of OBM?

I never claimed he was an agent, nor do I believe him to be so.