who do you follow?

[wheelworks]

thejellymill said

Zaytuna's Maliki? I never looked into it but somehow got the impression that they teach different perspectives...? ..maybe not?

They do teach all perspectives alhamdulillah, but their best and most classical scholars are from Mauritania who're mostly Maliki. Also alot of students are Maliki. There's a lot of scholars from other madhabs too though.

[thejellymill]

wheelworks said

They do teach all perspectives alhamdulillah, but their best and most classical scholars are from Mauritania who're mostly Maliki. Also alot of students are Maliki. There's a lot of scholars from other madhabs too though.

That's good to hear alhamdulillah, I want to attend there next year inshallah in the summer. I really hope I get to, I have a friend who went this summer and loved it!

[wheelworks]

thejellymill said

That's good to hear alhamdulillah, I want to attend there next year inshallah in the summer. I really hope I get to, I have a friend who went this summer and loved it!

Insha Allah Khair

[sixpakistan]

ShamilB said

You're kidding, right? I think you are confusing IslamicAwakening with Salafitalk or something. IslamicAwakening is a great resource for Muslims. The "poor adab" is a characteristic of all forums, not just IA.

No, I'm not kidding. IA is especially bad. There is constant takfir and cursing ("May Allah disgrace so & so") that takes place. I'm sure there are Salafi forums that are worse, though.

ShamilB said

Not true. Yasir Qadhi is loved by 90% of the forum. There were some that disagreed with him over the pledge, but they continue to respect him and hold him in high regard.

random search for yasir qadhi:

Shaykh Yasir Qadhi on "A Vision for Muslim Americans" - IA Forums

ShamilB said

He felt it was "Islamically fine" at one point but he has since renounced this position.

Really? Can you cite a source for his renouncing it? He stated this at RIS 2007.

[UmarOMC]

Rambo said

who do you follow?

salafi/whabhis?
sufis?
shias?
or others ?

out of all those i have the most respect for proper sufis.

If it is against Qur'aan, I try not to follow it, inshaallah. If it is against SunnatunNabi(saws) (and against Qur'aan) I try not to follow it, inshaallah. AnNabi Muhammad(saws) called himself a "Muslim" (one in a proactive state of peaceful submission in action and intention to Allah Alone) and Aisha(ra) referred to his(saws) character as (Allah knows best the intention behind the best translation) "The Character of Qur'aan..." or "The Living Qur'aan..."

Who is most correct? Allah will make it clear... but to wait for tomorrow or the stupor of death is, either way, most certainly foolish. And Allah knows best.

'aalaykum assalaamu wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh

[ShamilB]

sixpakistan said

No, I'm not kidding. IA is especially bad. There is constant takfir and cursing ("May Allah disgrace so & so") that takes place. I'm sure there are Salafi forums that are worse, though.

The site is not as heavily moderated as other sites, hence the insults and name-calling that frequently occur. I still think this is a general characteristic of all forums, not just IA.

random search for yasir qadhi:
Shaykh Yasir Qadhi on "A Vision for Muslim Americans" - IA Forums

What does this prove? So a few kids go on a little tirade against one of Sh. Yasir's lectures. Check out the other 100+ positive threads.

Really? Can you cite a source for his renouncing it? He stated this at RIS 2007.

[/quote]

I was at TDC in 2006 when he renounced this position. He said he made a mistake and asked Allah for istighfar. Couldn't find an actual recording/transcript but I'm sure there are others who attended his lecture that can confirm what he said.
To shake or not to shake - Page 2 - IA Forums

[Abu_Hind]

sixpakistan said

How exactly is Habib Ali Jifri not "conservative?" He's as orthodox as they come.

You cite a lecture by Yasir Qadhi. Yasir Qadhi thinks that it's Islamically fine to shake hands with na-mehrams, and goes around calling dead shaykhs mushrikeen. Is that conservative?

As for the hadra, group dhikr is supported by strong and authentic evidence from the Sunnah. You define "conservative" by whether someone participates in hadra or not? Do you consider Sh. Nuh Keller to be conservative?

Three syrian shyukh have written a damning critique of this two-faced snake. If you can understand arabic I can link you to it.

[Abu_Hind]

dreamdeferred said

Wow........that is basically exactly where I am right now....with the caveat that I am a little more open to modern day Sufism given that most tariqas don't include singing and dancing etc. I am a little wary of excessive concern about saints and am thoroughly uncomfortable with tawassul but on the whole I'm cool with legitimate Sufism and hope to sit with a Shaykh of tassawuf one day iA.

It's taken me a long time to get here but I find myself comfortable with people who adhere to the salaffiyah manhaj and those who ascribe to a more traditionalist paradigm.

That's nice. If you can read arabic check out "Rabbaniyah Laa Rahbaniyaah" by the late Allamah Sayyid Abul-Hassan Nadwi. Basically it is a small treatise about how tasswuf/tazkiyah can be relevant in today's soceity. Interestingly of all the 'sufi' personalities of the past the two he mentions as examplary are none other than; Shaykh 'Abd al-qadir al-jilani and Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Tayimiyyah. There's an urdu translation available too. I'm sure you'll like it.

Although I would add that I personally believe today the only people you can sit with and take ba'yah from while keeping your aqidah intact are deobandis.

Ok to answer Rambo's question: I'm Athari/Hanbali in aqeedah alhamdulilah. I did for about a little over a year waver and had my doubts and delved into sufiism, and I became a tafweedhi 'ashari for a while (I even started hating Ibn Tayimmiyah as an anthropomorphist) but then I prayed to Allah seeking true Guidance and safeguarding from Shirk, and after much thought and mental exeretion I came back to Atharism.

In fiqh I believe as a general rule laymen need taqlid, but it should act as a causeway between ignorance and knowldge, it shouldn't keep people static. My approach is that in basic fiqh of 'ibaadat people should study and stick to one madhhab, but when it comes to specific situations and questions they can ask from any 'aalim they trust as long as he remains within the framework of the four madhhahib. I also like some ahlul-hadith. And I also like the nadwi approach.

I don't reject tassawuf as a concept, but I wouldn't follow any sufi turuq present today. Oh and I think Asharism/Maturidism is obsolete.

WAllahu a'alam.

[sixpakistan]

Abu_Hind said

Three syrian shyukh have written a damning critique of this two-faced snake. If you can understand arabic I can link you to it.

There are three scholars mentioned in the quoted text. Referring to ulema as "two faced snakes" is bad regardless of which scholar you're speaking of, but which one were you attacking specifically?

Also, I can't understand Arabic. Who are the shuyukh and what is their basis for criticizing whichever scholar it was in question? What was so convincing about their arguments that it made you think it was OK to deride a scholar as a "two faced snake?"

[Abu_Hind]

sixpakistan said

There are three scholars mentioned in the quoted text. Referring to ulema as "two faced snakes" is bad regardless of which scholar you're speaking of, but which one were you attacking specifically?

Also, I can't understand Arabic. Who are the shuyukh and what is their basis for criticizing whichever scholar it was in question? What was so convincing about their arguments that it made you think it was OK to deride a scholar as a "two faced snake?"

I was talking about Habib Al al-jifri. I'm sorry but I don't exactly consider him a scholar, he may be one WAllahu a'alam. I mentioned the critique in case you were interested in an 'ilmi response. As for my reasons, I think I'll keep those to myself, I don't want this to turn into another polemical mud-slinging contest.