RUMOURS AND RESPONSES

[Disclaimer: I personally take no sides on the issue of Qadr or subscribe to any particular point of view at this stage. Thus I am neutral on this subject. Nor am I in anyway associated with the questioner. Br. Shabir Ally clarifies his position regarding Qadr and also responds to certain claims made against him by an individual.]

RUMOURS AND RESPONSES

QUESTIONS FROM A MUSLIM BROTHER

Asalamu’alaikum wa’rahmatullah! I hope you are well insha’allah. I would just like to ask you a few questions as i’ve recieved an email from someone and they highlighted a few ‘problems’ about you. after hearing rumours, following the sunnah, you have to verify the news so this is what i have come to do. I dont mean to ask in a rude manner or offend you in any way, i was hoping to find the truth so that i could tell this person to stop slandering and backbiting others as they have done before. anyhow, the person has laid a few accusations which are listed as below:

Shabir ‘Ally claims that Allaah does not know the deeds of people until they happen.
He says that all Ahadeeth related to Qadr are not accepted (like the hadeeth of Adam to send people of hell 999) this hadith he said is contrary to Allaah’s mercy.
Using Aqal (intellect) to judge the Deen.
He believes that the Sahabah made lots of mistakes in their narrations of Hadeeth and also the Qur’aan (so he thinks there is only one correct Riwayah).
He accuses our scholars like Imam Ahmad, Bukhari, Muslim and others like the scholars of Jews and Christians.
In one of the discussions he said that our salaf did not do a good job in replying to deviant groups like for instance; Mu’tazili and Qadaris.
He accuses the salaf of intellectual stagnation.
He described the Jihad of the prophet (sallahu alayhe wa salaam) as Olympic games because at the time of the prophet ( sallahu alayhe wa salaam) the tribes of Arabs in the peninsula were attacking each other, the Jihad was a must and no way to get out of it.
He also described the Muslim prayer as a mixture of western sports and Buddhist mediation.

please could you respond insha’allah and clarify this. jazakallahu khair akhi.
wa’alaikum’asalaam wa’rahmatullah

SHABIR ALLY REPLIES:

July 23, 2006

Dear Brother in Islam,

Assalaamu Alaykum,

Thanks for asking for clarification. You are indeed following the dictates of Islam in doing so. You could of course do even better. You can, and should, ask the people who are circulating these rumours to furnish the proof for their claims. According to a hadith the burden of proof is on someone who makes a claim. Those who claim that I said what you are asking about have the obligation to substantiate their claim. We should ask them for the exact words I said, and the context of those words. Although the reported statements have some connection with things I have said, they can be best understood if they are reported in the original words I uttered, and if they are given together with the evidence I have advanced from the Quran and the Sunnah in their support. Many of the statements you have asked about have been put in a form that I find ridiculous, and which I immediately reject.

UNDERSTANDING THE RULES REGARDING THE USE OF SCHOLARLY CITATIONS

UNDERSTANDING THE RULES REGARDING THE USE OF SCHOLARLY CITATIONS

Shabir Ally

May 29, 2006

Much of the discussion between James White and I during and after our recent debate seems to be on the question of who is a worthwhile scholar to cite. I have noticed over the years, and now again with this debate, that this issue has been much misunderstood. It seems that if I cite a scholar in favour of my view the other side dismisses the scholar as being unworthy. On the other hand, the other side would naturally cite scholars who disagree with my view. Moreover, my fellow debater may insist that I support my position with reference to only those scholars whom the fellow debater deems admissible. This can be frustrating, for, if I did not hold a position at odds with that of my opponent there would be no debate to begin with. And, the position I hold, which is the point of contention in the debate, would naturally be opposed by the scholars from the other debater’s camp. Equally frustrating is the fact that one of my fellow debaters would recommend a source which another rejects. More frustrating is the fact that a debater may not budge from his positions even when I am citing the very scholar whom he otherwise recommends.