Madina Archives

Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board

Bay Area CA:Celebrating the Life and Work of Rumi
Anonymous
03/07/02 at 05:59:12
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful The Spiritual Rumi: Celebrating the Life and Work of Maulana Jallaludin Rumi will held at the Hilton Hotel Grand Ballroom in Newark/Fremont, CA on Sunday March 31, 2002 from 6:00 pm to 10:30 pm. Speakers and topics include: Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi- "The Spiritual Rumi" Dr. Umar Faruq Abd-Allah- "Spirituality: A Historical Perspective" Shaykh Hamza Yusuf- "Rumi: The Muslim Scholar" Shaykh Kabir Helminski Al-Mevlavi- Rumi:Ancient Poet- Modern Times" Camille Helminski- Poetry Recitation For more information or to purchase tickets, visit www.rumibookstore.com
03/07/02 at 05:59:42
Anonymous

Re: Bay Area CA:Celebrating the Life and Work of R
se7en
03/07/02 at 12:34:03
as salaamu alaykum, I heard this was cancelled?!

Work of Rumi -Shakh Hamzah Yusuf
Hajjah
03/09/02 at 08:35:49
[slm] I am a big fan of Shakh Hamza Yusuf :) Does anyone know  ??? how I can organise his trip to Melbourne Australia to give a talk/lecture to his fans here? Pls help. :-)

Re: Bay Area CA:Celebrating the Life and Work of R
ahmer
03/09/02 at 08:58:25
[slm] from zaytuna.org..contact them..they will send you a form to fill.. and they are very responsive..insha'Allah please e-mail us at info@zaytuna.org, call us at (510) 582-1979, or write to us at 631 Jackson Street; Hayward, CA 94544-1533. To contact Shaykh Hamza regarding a speaking engagement, please send your requests to event_schedule@zaytuna.org i can also insha'Allah help you with this if you need any... [wlm] ahmer

Re: Bay Area CA:Celebrating the Life and Work of R
Abu_Hamza
03/10/02 at 18:54:03
[quote] "Rumi: The Muslim Scholar" [/quote] Rumi: the what ??? Am I the only one who thinks this whole thing is odd? Aren't there major question marks about Rumi and a lot his poems?
03/10/02 at 18:54:44
Abu_Hamza

Re: Bay Area CA:Celebrating the Life and Work of R
bhaloo
03/11/02 at 14:02:10
[slm] Abu Hamza I feel the same way as you do.  I was wondering if we should have even allowed for this to be posted.

Re: Bay Area CA:Celebrating the Life and Work of R
se7en
03/12/02 at 01:44:59
as salaamu alaykum, I don't think a Rumi conference is that odd, considering that Rumi is one of the most widely read poets in the United States today, and that his works and ideas are the sources of so much discussion and debate.  Also, he is a prominent (albeit controversial) figure in the tradition of tassawuf, and if you look at the scholars listed above, they are, in general, very tassawuf-oriented people. From what I know about Rumi, his writings are of two types.  The first are the gazals and rubayat - the lyrical poems, that use the conventions of classical Persian poetry, ie metaphors of wine and passionate love (and are thus the poems that are controversial.)  The Mathnawi and some of his other works do not have these sort of metaphors in them, from what I know. When reading his work - like when reading anyone's work - you just need to take the good and leave the bad.   wAllahu a'lam. wasalaamu alaykum wa rahmatAllah ps - what would be *really* cool is a Ghazali conference  8)
03/12/02 at 01:56:17
se7en

Re: Bay Area CA:Celebrating the Life and Work of R
AyeshaZ
03/12/02 at 11:24:49
Aslamu Alykum Wa RhamtuAllah, A lot of times when especially it comes to Sufi poets , unless and until, we are in their specific circles its impossible to interpret what they mean. Now it doesn't mean that we can't reflect on the poetry but it might be sooo differernt from what they are trying to say ( I guess thats why its poetry ....) And as sis Se7en said take the good and leave the bad. Wallau A'lam oooo an Imam Ghalazi conference would be da bomb :)

Re: Bay Area CA:Celebrating the Life and Work of R
bhaloo
03/12/02 at 18:34:06
[slm] I do have issues with his use of wine and love in his poetry, but it is not just limited to that.  The Mathnavi too has problems as it makes use of Wahdat al Wujud (unity of Creation) and many of the scholars of the past have spoken out against this concept (as many of you are aware), I won't go into a detailed presentation on this at this time. The best thing to do is to stay away from it all, as one will have a hard time knowing what is acceptable and what isn't, and thus you risk losing your Islam.

Re: Bay Area CA:Celebrating the Life and Work of R
lightningatnite
03/14/02 at 13:32:02
[slm] The Rumi Conference on the Sunday date above was NOT cancelled, only the 2 day seminar that was preceding it.  They had originally planned a program all day Friday and Saturday, and that is what was cancelled. Bhaloo, it is unfair for you to represent only one side of the story about Rumi.  Many scholars, including shaykh Hamza and shaykh Mukhtar Magraoui regard Rumi as a scholar of Islam.  Of course, no one is immune to error, but these mistakes must be taken in the context of the scholars overall views.   There are two extremes of interpretation of Islam in the past:  The Khwarij took everything literally.  The Mutazilites took everything rationally.  The Ash'ari school of reason, to which most scholars belong to today found a middle ground.  Reading about this debate in our history will shed light on the present day interpretations of Islam cropping up around the world. I'm not sure what Wahdat al-Wajud is referring to, though I know that sh. Nuh Ha Mim Keller gave a good discourse on the issue in Reliance of the Traveller.  What I can say, is that one of the highest levels of Iman is the realization that everything is contingent upon Allah.  This means that without Allah's will, nothing would exist.  This can be understood from Allah's attribute of Reality.  Thus our lower reality is contingent on The Reality.  Beyond that, the ways of expressing or understanding this is dependent on the spiritual capacity of the individual.  I concur with Ayesha, that if you are in fourth grade and are trying to read dialectic philosophy, you will get very confused.  In the same way, if you are not a spiritual person, please do not read Rumi. I'm not going to get into the whole sufi-salafi debate, but I don't think anyone should bash Rumi as much as anyone should bash Abdul Wahab.  If you don't like either of them, don't read their works.  The fact of the matter is that a lot of people do consider Rumi one of the greatest contributors to Islam, and we shouldn't impose our views on them.  I even read an article the other day calling Imam Ghazali a deviant sufi (he was a sufi, by the way)!  I don't think its right for us to bash personalities.  If you don't like wahdat al wajood, then show the evidences for its falsehood.   But it seems like today there is a whole movement out there aimed at crushing and attacking anything *it* perceives to be wrong.  This isn't fair.
03/14/02 at 13:39:07
lightningatnite

Re: Bay Area CA:Celebrating the Life and Work of R
bhaloo
03/14/02 at 15:55:13
[slm] [quote] If you don't like wahdat al wajood, then show the evidences for its falsehood. [/quote] Al-Hussain Bin Mansoor Al-Hallaj believed in this concept of wahdat al wajood and its what led to his being beheaded.    Al-Shiblee said "I and Al-Hussain Bin Mansorr were on one thing (i.e. regarding 'Aqeedah) except that he disclosed it while I kept it concealed."  (Taha Abdul Baaqi Suroor's book Al-Hallaj p.104) The one who strove to have al-Hallaj executed and who held a council in which he ruled that he deserved to be executed was al-Qaadi Abu ‘Umar Muhammad ibn Yoosuf al-Maaliki (may Allaah have mercy on him). Ibn Katheer praised him for that and said, “One of his greatest and most correct judgements was his ruling that al-Husayn ibn Mansoor al-Hallaaj was to be executed.” (al-Bidaayah wa’l-Nihaayah, 11/172) Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “Whoever believes what al-Hallaaj believed in and agrees with the ideas for which al-Hallaaj was executed, is a kaafir and an apostate, according to the consensus of the Muslims. For the Muslims executed him because of his belief in incarnation, union with the Divine and other heretical beliefs, such as his saying, ‘I am Allaah,’ and, ‘There is a god in the heavens and a god on earth.’ … Al-Hallaaj performed extraordinary feats and various kinds of magic, and there are books of magic which are attributed to him. In conclusion, there is no dispute among the ummah that whoever believes that Allaah can be incarnated in a human being and be as one with him, or that a human being can be a god, is a kaafir whose blood it is permissible to shed. On this basis al-Hallaaj was executed.” (Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 2/480) He also said: “We do not know of anyone among the imams of the Muslims who spoke well of al-Hallaaj, neither among the scholars nor among the shaykhs. But some of the people did not comment on him because they did not know about him.” (Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 2/483) Al-Haafith Ibn Hajar asserted that Ibn 'Arabi followed Al-Hallaj's corrupt creed of Wahdat Al-Wujud and that he, Ibn 'Arabi, used to magnify Al-Hallaj (see Ibn Hajar's Lissan Al-Meezan, v.2, p.360, published by Daar Al-Kutub Al-'Ilmiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon (1st edition, 1996) And here we see what the scholars have said within the book ‘Aqeedah Ibn ‘Arabi wa Hayaatuhu by Taqiy al-Deen al-Faasi , scholars such as Al-Qaadi Badr al-Deen ibn Jamaa’ah, Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn Hajar, Ibn Khaldoon,  Al-Subki, Abu Zar'ah ibn al-Haafiz al-'Iraaqi, speaking out against Ibn Arabi.   Al- Subki "These later Sufis, such as Ibn ‘Arabi and his followers, are misguided and ignorant and beyond the pale of Islam; those among them who have knowledge are even worse. "  (p. 55 of the above book) Ibn Hajar "Some confusing words of Ibn ‘Arabi were mentioned to our master Shaykh al-Islam Siraaj al-Deen al-Balqeeni, and he was asked about Ibn ‘Arabi. Our Shaykh al-Balqeeni said: he is a kaafir. " (p. 41 of the above book). And there is much more said within that book.  If we have seen what these great scholars of scholars have said, shouldn't we be fearful to even open such books?  If these people, among the greatest scholars this Ummah has known have said this, then who are we to even question them? Yes, I'm aware of Keller's discourse in the Reliance of the Traveller about wahdat al wujud, and have read, and admit when i first read it, i thought it was pretty convincing, till I bought a book a few years back that took apart Keller's comments completely. I was actually going to send this book to your home last year, but I didn't yet. http://store.yahoo.com/talkislam/b4486.html You touched on some good things in your post that I want to address in more detail, insha'Allah. :)
03/14/02 at 15:56:15
bhaloo

Re: Bay Area CA:Celebrating the Life and Work of R
bhaloo
03/14/02 at 16:12:08
[slm] [quote author=lightningatnite link=board=news;num=1015498752;start=0#9 date=03/14/02 at 13:32:02] There are two extremes of interpretation of Islam in the past:  The Khwarij took everything literally.  The Mutazilites took everything rationally.  The Ash'ari school of reason, to which most scholars belong to today found a middle ground.  Reading about this debate in our history will shed light on the present day interpretations of Islam cropping up around the world. [/quote] This was an email I received from a brother a few months back. There is a problem that has arisen in the west today as a result of not properly understanding what `aqeedah is. I studied Ash`ari `aqeedah for a number of years part of which was under an Ash`ari sufi Shaykh in Makkah. After being disillusioned with the bad manners of the Neo-Salafi movement, I was involved with the Sufi movement for some time in which I investigated it with an open mind, then eventually left it after seeing its errors clearly, al-Hamdu lillaah. After studying `aqeedah in depth I have not found comfort in any other school of `aqeedah other than that of Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal (raHimahumullaah). `Aqeedah (ÚÞíÏÉ) is fundamentally belief itself. It is referred to widely as "al-I`tiqaad" (áÅÚÊÞÇÏ) by the scholars in Islamic history. The root of the word is "`aqd" (ÚÞÏ) which means "to bind". The word "`aqd" also commonly refers to a contract or covenant by which one is bound. They are all related meanings and all contribute to the understanding of this word. One's `aqeedah in Islam is how one believes in Allah, thereby, how one understands the Names, Attributes, and Ways of Allaah, subHaanahu wa ta`aala. Of the four Imaams of the Ahl as-Sunnah, Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal (raHimahullaah) is the one whose school is both a school of `Aqeedah as well as Fiqh/Shari`ah. The other Imams contributed greatly to the various `Aqaa'id (pl. of `aqeedah) and the evidences they present, yet none other actually has a school of `aqeedah centered around his beliefs. So one can, for example, be a Shaafi`ee and a Hanbali at the same time if one believes in the `aqeedah of Ahmad bin Hanbal, yet who follows the fiqh/shari`ah rules of Imaam ash-Shaafi`ee (raHimahumullaah). The fact of the matter is that the Sufis of today who call themselves "Ash`ari" are in no way followes of Imaam Abu-l Hasan al-Ash`ari (raHimahumullaah) in ANY context.  The "litmus test" in `aqeedah is the interpretation of Allaah's Divine Names and Attributes (Asmaa' waS-Siffaat). This is what can quickly determine whether one is a Hanbali, Ash`ari, Mu`tazili, Jahmiy, RaafiDi, etc. There are many different schools of `aqeedah that I will not get into to escape the risk of writing a novel out of this email. Nonetheless, expect this to be an extremely long email so be forewarned. Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal was primarily a scholar of Hadeeth, or "muHaddith". It is said that he knew 1 million aHadeeth (pl. of "Hadeeth") by memory with their full asaaneed (pl. or "isnaad" - "chain of transmission") and the nature of the narrators in those asaaneed (whether they were defective or strong). He has not had an equal in history. Thus, the great corpus of his work is based on very "text-based" evidences. However, Imaam ash-Shaafi`ee, for example, was known as a master of "qiyaas" or "analogy". His ability to deduce rulings on obscure matters from evidences found in the Qur'an and/or Sunnah which may not be so evidently related to the matter with great sharpness and ease is to his laudable merit. However, his evidences are not as "text-based" as Imaam Ahmad's. There was another group which gained prominence in the 9th century called the "Mu`tazilah". They are called "Mu`tazilah" from the word "I`tizaal" (ÅÚÊÒÇá) meaning to withdraw. The `Abbasid Caliph Ma`moon declared the Mu`tazili school of thought to be the official state dogma. For 100 years they dominated the `Abbasid Empire on a state level, but never in the hearts of the people who adhered mostly to the doctrines of Imaam Ahmad who was tortured, whipped and imprisoned during this time of Mu`tazili dominance. They're key trait was so-called "rationalism". They believed everything Divine could be rationalized with the human faculty of reason and logic. Thus, they went on to say that the "yad" in the Qur'anic text was a "metaphor" for "dominion" or "power". This led to "negation through alteration" (ÊÚØíá) of Allaah's Attributes. Everything became a metaphor and allegory for them and nothing remained literal. Even the Israa' wa-l Mi`raaj, the miraculous Night Journey, of the Prophet (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam) was not a real incident but a metaphor, wa-l `eeyaathu billaah. This led to one of the greatest heresies in the history of the Muslim world, the Mu`tazili belief that the Qur'an was created and not the eternal speech of Allaah. They were widely resented by the people and this led to a worldwide revolt against them by such well known revolutionary scholars as Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi in Spain, Abu Ja`far at-TaHaawi in Egypt, Abu Mansur al-Maturidi in Transoxania (Central Asia), and Abu-l Hasan al-Ash`ari in Iraq. Now Imaam Ahmad's approach to the Divine Names and Attributes was based solely on the Qur'an and Sunnah with very little interpretation, unless where it was expressly necessary. His is a very straight-forward and simple approach. How did he handle matters which were seemingly unexplainable? For example Allaah says in the Qur'aan that Ha has a "yad" (íÏ). Allaah says in the Qur'an in Surat al-FatH, "yadu-llaahi fawqa aydeehim.." ("the hand of Allaah is above their hands..) about those who pledged allegiance to the Prophet (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam) by giving "bay`ah", wherewith, they would put their hands in the blessed hands of the Prophet (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam) and pledge fealty to him. The word "yad" in the Arabic language means "hand". But Allaah says in the Qur'an "laysa ka-mithlihi shay'" meaning "there is none like unto Him". So if Allaah says He has a "yad", and, yet, says "there is nothing like unto Him", the resolution for Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal was simple and clear. You take it for face value and don't question it. This precept is an echo of when the man asked Ali (karram Allaahu wajhah), "How is Allaah?" Ali (`alayhis-salaam) replied, "You are asking 'how' about the one who created the 'how'" The conclusion is that Allah indeed has a "yad", but the nature of it is unknown and it is a "yad" which befits His majesty. It is literal, but unlike anything in His creation. In the 10th century arose a keen student of the Mu`tazilah by the name of Abu-l Hasan `Ali al-Ash`ari who was a descendent of Abu Musa al-Ash`ari (raDee Allaahu `anhu), the companion of the Prophet (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam) who used to recite the Qur'an to his admiration. To make a long story short it is said the turning point in his life was when he asked his Mu`tazili Shaykh, Abu `Ali al-Jubbaa'i, a question regarding qadr. He asked al-Jubbaa'i, "If there are three brothers, one dies a Muslim, one dies a kaafir, and one dies while in infancy, where do they go?" Al-Jubbaa'i replied, "The Muslim goes to Paradise, the Kaafir goes to hell, and the infant somewhere in-between." Then al-Ash`ari asked his shaykh, what if the child inquired Allaah as to why he was not allowed Paradise. Al-Jubbaa'i replied, "Allaah would say: Your brother earned his place in Paradise through good deeds throughout his life, and you have earned no such deeds." Then al-Ash`ari further hypothetized, "Why did you not let me grow up and allow me to earn those deeds then?" Al-Jubbaa'i replied, "Allaah would say: I knew that had you grown up you would have waged a life of sin and earned hell so I thought of your betterment and took you while you were young." Then al-Ash`ari asked, "Then the kaafir will ask: Why did you not think of *my* betterment?" Al-Jubbaa'i was dumbfounded and silent and without an answer. Not everything could be rationalized. The first place al-Ash`ari went sas into the arms of the Hanbalis, particularly Imaam al-Barbahari. He wrote "al-Ibaana `an USool ad-Deeyaana" which in part detailed his beliefs regarding the Names and Attributes of Allaah. Here is an excerpt of this book: ÞÏ ÓÆáäÇ ÃÊÞæáæä Åä ááå íÏíä ¿ Þíá: äÞæá Ðáß ÈáÇ ßíÝ¡ æÞÏ Ïá Úáíå Þæáå ÊÚÇáì: (íÏ Çááå ÝæÞ ÃíÏíåã) ãä ÇáÂíÉ 10/48 æÞæáå ÊÚÇáì: (áãÇ ÎáÞÊ ÈíÏí) ãä ÇáÂíÉ 75/38 æÑæí Úä ÇáäÈí Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã Ãäå ÞÇá: Åä Çááå ãÓÍ ÙåÑ ÂÏã ÈíÏå ÝÇÓÊÎÑÌ ãäå ÐÑíÊÉ ÝËÈÊÊ ÇáíÏ ÈáÇ ßíÝ "It is asked of us if we say Allaah has "yad-ayn" ("two hands")? In response to that we say such without asking "how" ("bi-laa kayf"). Proof for this is where Allaah says: "The hand of Allaah is above their hands.." from verse 48:10. Also, when Allaah says, "..which I created with my 'two hands' (yad-ayy)" from verse 38:75 Also it has been narrated from the Prophet (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam), "Verily, Allaah anointed the back of Adam with his hand (Inn Allaaha masaHa THahar Aadam bi-yadihi..) and drew therefrom his progeny." This establishes the "hand" (yad) without asking "how" (bi-laa kayf)" [al-Ibaana `an USool ad-Deeyaanah, Imaam Abu-l Hasan al-Ash`ari] Today many of the modern-day Sufis will say that this book is not authentic and has been altered by...guess who? Yes, the "Wahhabi booey-man" who it seems is responsible for everything bad that ever happens in the world. In reality there is no concrete evidence that this book is not authentic other than that it says things that they WISH were not authentic. This book has been documented and recorded by Ibn `Asaakir (which Keller acknowledges in  his refutation on this topic) and others. Their "evidence" is purely circumstancial such as "it contradicts other writings of his". So based on that logic why don't we hold this as authentic and the "other works" as spurious? Such speculation holds no weight whatsoever as evidence. The fact of the matter is that Imaam Abu-l Hasan al-Ash`ari was a revolutionary figure who went through many changes in his life and his transition out of the Mu`tazilah movement was not an overnight phenomena. It was definitely gradual and his works reflect this. Thus, the position of Imaam Abu-l Hasan al-Ash`ari was not all that different from Imaam Ahmad's. For it was the beliefs of Imaam Ahmad's school that lured Imaam al-Ash`ari out of the Mu`tazilah movement. While the Mu`tazilah were dominating the Muslim world and enveloping it in darkness for 100 years, while Imaam al-Ash`ari was still a Mu`tazili it were the Hanbalis who were refuting them in the face of torture, imprisonment and death. The Attributes of Allaah were to be taken at face value without ta'weel, for the Companions, nor the Prophet (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam), himself, ever extrapolated upon these Divine and Sacred Attributes. From this came the famous precedent of Imaam al-Ash`ari "bi-laa kayf" or "bi-laa takyeef", which was the belief that we take what Allah says about His attributes without asking "how", and without speculative inquisition? However, in today's modern-day Sufi movement you have those claiming to be the torchbearers of "Ash`ari `aqeedah" in the face of the scheming global domination at the hands of the "Wahhabi boogy-man", also known as, "Wahhabizilla". These modern Sufis claim that the "yad" of Allaah is AT ALL TIMES a metaphor for "power", and that to say otherwise is "tajseem" or "anthropomorphim", the belief that Allah has a physical body like a man's, wa-l `eeyaathu billaah. This is not a belief that was held by Abu-l Hasan al-Ash`ari, but by the Mu`tazilah. Therefore, in this past 20th century we saw a great surge of the Mu`tazilah born again into the, now, 21st century. A picture is painted of those who follow the Hanbali `aqeedah as "Wahhabis who believe God is a man in the sky with hands, eyes and other body parts like ours" (wa-l `eeyaathu billaah). The Hanbalis believe no such thing. This is called a "straw man" argument in which one fabricates and invents an argument which is easily dismantled (but which his opponent does NOT believe) in order to lend credence and credibility to what he is saying. The person than places his foot on the slain "straw man" and declares victory. Hundreds of High School debate students fail out of class due to this all over America every year. This is extremely brief and a very general summary. Its difficult to compose a single email that consists of two centuries, and this is a mere attempt and may Allah forgive me if I have fallen short of anything in it. As far as what the `aqeedah of Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah, ath-Thahabi, ibn al-Qayyum was none other than the `aqeedah of the Hanaabilah (pl. of "Hanbali"), hence the name of Ibn Taymiyyah, Taqiyud-deen Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah al-Hanbali (pronounced "Hum-bali"). Imaam ath-Thahabi is a master of Hadeeth sciences whom no one fails to refer to whether they be Salafi or Sufi. He was a Hanbali student of Imaam ibn Taymiyyah. He was also a Shaafi`ee in his mathhab of fiqh and shari`ah. Ibn Taymiyyah's students were from a variety of mathhabs, but their `aqeedah was indisputably Hanbali. [quote] I'm not going to get into the whole sufi-salafi debate, [/quote] The brother continued and said: In my opinion, we should avoid labels that are not traditional or that have taken on a sectarian context in our times. Everyone respects the 4 mathhabs without exclusion so I see no harm in calling one's self a "Hanbali". However, names like Sufi and Salafi have caused some problems. If by "Sufi" you mean you are one who struggles to achieve "zuhd" (rejection of the dunya through asceticism allowed in the Sunnah) then you are a devout and orthodox Muslim and there is no need for a label beyond that. If by "Salafi" you mean you are someone who follows the ways of the "SalafuS-SaaliH", the generation of the Prophet (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam) and his companions, the taabi`een, and tabi` tabi`een (raDee Allaahu `anhum) then you are a devout and orthodox Muslim and I don't see any label necessary beyond that. If you follow the `aqeedah of Ahmad bin Hanbal I see no problem with the title "Hanbali". What you call yourself does not win you the pleasure of Allaah. Its what you ARE that wins the pleasure of Allaah.

Re: Bay Area CA:Celebrating the Life and Work of R
lightningatnite
03/14/02 at 19:40:36
Jazakallahu khairan brother Bhaloo, thank you for the kind words of advice.  Please, I hope you didn't feel I disrespected you, as I could never do that to someone who invited me into his home.  I pray that you forgive me if you feel that I have done you wrong.  I hope we can discuss this further in a one-on-one basis in the future :)

Re: Bay Area CA:Celebrating the Life and Work of R
bhaloo
03/14/02 at 22:31:41
[slm] Wa iyyakum. Lightningatnite, how could I possibly ever be offended by the one that has addressed his emails to his siblings and me at times, "Dear family".  ???   Brother there is no need to even ask.  It is I that should be humbly asking for your forgiveness if my words have offended you.  I remember the wonderful manners and behavior you displayed towards me when we met.  I was in total amazement. Maybe next time we meet it will be over some kabobs at Afghan kabob house #4. ;)
03/14/02 at 22:32:25
bhaloo

Re: Bay Area CA:Celebrating the Life and Work of R
Mohja
03/15/02 at 01:12:55
[slm] When i first read this thread this morning i was really afraid that it was going become a heated debate and people will end up offending each other. Alhamdulillah things didn't turn out that way. Subhan'Allah, br. lighningatnite and br. bhaloo, both of you have set an excellent example for us to follow! No matter how strongly we believe in something, it should not stand in the way of showing kindness and being merciful to each other. May Allah[swt] bless you and reward you amply for the beautiful lesson. [wlm]

Re: Bay Area CA:Celebrating the Life and Work of R
Aabidah
03/15/02 at 12:19:38
[slm] As like everyone else who replied to this thread, I'm a great fan of Rumi also.  His poems are so deep SubhanAllah that he attempted to write about what other poets haven't even dared to.   He's a very spiritual poet and his works are mainly of Allah, devotion to Allah, etc. Here's one of his poems that is awesome: Sometimes in order to help He makes us cry. Happy the eye that sheds tears for His sake. Fortunate the heart that burns for His sake. Laughter always follows tears. Blessed are those who understand. Life blossoms wherever water flows. Where tears are shed divine mercy is shown. -Rumi, "Mathnawi" [wlm] Betul

Re: Bay Area CA:Celebrating the Life and Work of R
Kashif
03/16/02 at 06:47:50
assalaamu alaikum Also, my understanding of the khawarij is that they are not the people who take Islamic texts literally, but the ones who believe that committing any major sin (like, zina for instance) causes one to become a kaafir. I have a tape on their history sitting behind me, and it is so chock-a-block filled with historical info about the emergence of the khawarij, i don't know if i could make a brief posting on it. But where there is a will, there is a way (insha'Allah). *smile* Kashif Wa Salaam
NS
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board A R C H I V E S Individual posts do not necessarily reflect the views of Jannah.org, Islam, or all Muslims. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster and may not be used without consent of the author. The rest © Jannah.Org