Greensville: Charging for Salam in Madinah alMunawwarah

don't mean anything buddy. i've also personally shaken hands with nazim qubrusi and personally greeted nuh keller, and they could have been "kodak moments" back in the day, alhamdulillah they weren't so no one can post pics on the net.

posing for pics don't mean he knows about and/or subscribes to someone's jahl!

 

Alhamdullilah. Shaykh Asrar Rashid with our teacher Shaykh Ibrahim Osi Efa

 

Who is Sh Nooruddin Rashid?

 

Undoubtedly, Allah عَزَّوَجَلَّ has appointed an angel to my grave who has been granted the ability to hear the voice of every creature. Hence, whosoever recites Salat upon me until the Day of Judgement, he [angel] presents to me that
person’s name along with his father’s name [and] says: ‘So and so has recited Salat upon you this time.’

(Musnad Al-Bazzaar, vol. 4, pp. 255, Hadees 1425)

Copied and pasted from "Blessings of Salat and Salam", an English translation of "Zia e Durood O Salam" by Molana Ilyas Attar Qadri. I was reading the blessed hadith from said book last night, by coincidence.

 

Sidi Anser Hussain

 

Sidi Anser Hussain

 

He should mention it publicly then so that trolls like the one we have on this forum don't continue to defend something which even the perpetrator has now said is wrong. Rather than cover it up. Case isn't closed until the dodgy sufis admit their wrong doing publicly rather than for a few of us to hear about it second hand for sources belonging to posters on this forum

If he's publicly retracted, please let us know

 

The point is that people like this give ammo to wahabis to bark against Sunnis.

 

ok but that still doesn't exculpate Ali Jifry & Umar bin Hafeez from their fawning over christians or their unabashed support for heretics like hosein nasr, mark hanson, bin bayyah and the so many heretical/kufr positions and/or actions demeaning deen in front of kafirs.

post # 39 by Abdullah Ahmed should be framed and hung on every Sunni's wall. and yes, this has been an age old problem in the world of tasawwuf and mutasawwifeen ... all it takes is one out of line peer to turn the mureed-base into a cult all in the name of adab, using it as a shield against accountability. that's why MEN like imams Abdul Wahhab Sha3rani, Ghazali, Ala Hazrat and others always emphasized the unison of Shariat and Tariqat. the subcontinent too is rife with it.

 

I've been told by a very trusty source that this whole donation ordeal had nothing to do with Sh Habib Umar or Shaykh Kazim. Shaylh Amir Nawaz said this trying to fundraise and when Sh Haroon was informed he said this shouldn't be done. Sh Amir was advised and he accepted his mistake/lapse of judgement. Case closed. Time to move on.

 

Just wanted to point out a few things I’ve seen over the years with the Ba-Alawi scene.


This isn’t coming from someone looking in from the outside. I’ve been BaAlawi myself, spent time in Tarim back in 2007, met a lot of Habaib, sat with people there, and I still have family very deeply involved with them. So I’m not guessing here — I’ve seen the good and the bad up close.


This isn’t about tasawwuf or lineage in principle. It’s about how things actually play out.


One thing that’s always bothered me is how questioning just shuts everything down. If a Habib says something unclear or questionable, instead of a normal discussion it immediately turns into “bad adab,” “you don’t understand his maqam,” etc. End of conversation. No room to even clarify what was meant.


That’s not how serious scholarship works. That’s just making certain people untouchable.


Then there’s the constant talk about akhlaq and unity, which sounds nice, but in reality often turns into mudāhana. Things don’t get addressed because it would cause tension, or upset people, or affect relationships. Silence gets framed as wisdom. Anyone who speaks plainly is suddenly “causing fitnah.”


That’s not hikmah. That’s just avoiding discomfort.


The nasab thing is also real, even if no one says it openly. Lineage quietly becomes a shield. Certain people get the benefit of the doubt no matter what they say. Others don’t. That was never the Sunni approach. Nasab is an honor, not a free pass.


And honestly, the end-times / Mahdi-army type talk makes things worse. Vague language about being “prepared” or “positioned” gets thrown around with no solid grounding. It creates this weird sense of spiritual elitism, like disagreement means you’re opposing something bigger than just a scholar’s words.


Historically, that kind of talk always ends badly.


On top of that, there’s the whole celebrity-shaykh culture — controlled platforms, selective engagement, comments getting shut down fast when criticism shows up. Meanwhile, others do the uncomfortable work of actually drawing lines and addressing problems, and then get looked down on for being “polemical.”


You can’t avoid responsibility and still claim the moral high ground.


At the end of the day, the issue is simple: authority without accountability. Influence is expected, guidance is expected, but questioning is treated like disrespect. Pushback becomes a tone issue instead of a substance issue.


That’s not leadership. That’s image protection.


None of this is an attack on tasawwuf or the Ba-Alawi lineage historically. It’s about the modern culture that’s formed — personality protection dressed up as adab, mudāhana dressed up as wisdom, and a real discomfort with being questioned.


Just sharing what I’ve actually seen. That’s all.

 

What exactly are you suggesting about your teachers?


There are only two logical possibilities here:

1. That they knowingly understand what suḥt is, yet still promote or facilitate it—meaning they are consciously endorsing sinful conduct.
2. Or that they were well-intentioned, but unaware or mistaken about the ruling—meaning this was an error born of ignorance, not malice.

Which of the two do you prefer?


Because the first option is far more severe, and no sincere Muslim would rush to accuse scholars of knowingly committing or promoting sin. The second option, however, is entirely plausible—and being mistaken is not a crime. Scholars are corrected all the time; this is how fiqh has always functioned.


There is nothing shameful about being unaware of a ruling at a certain level, and there is no loss of dignity in accepting correction when evidence is presented. What is problematic is allowing loyalty to personalities to override clear principles.


Correcting an error does not mean disrespecting a teacher.

It does not mean attacking intentions.

And it certainly should not trigger defensiveness or ego.


This is a matter of principles over personalities—always has been.


If the evidence shows something is impermissible, then the correct response is to accept it, regardless of who said otherwise. That is the methodology of Ahl al-Sunnah, not blind attachment.

 

can you please also ask him (or ask your contact to ask him) regarding the antics of Ali Jifry and Umar bin Hafeez fawning over christians and Jifry's infamous "merry xmas" greetings to his "christian brothers", and supporting all the other underhanded tactics of the Royal Aal a-Bayt Institute in Jordan. he's even so meticulous to mark the russian orthodox chritsmas in january.

ermmm... that's quote-unquote buddy! and the entire phrase 'defenders of Alahazrat' needs to be in quotations. you might thing i'm amused or being smart or just a grammar nazi but i feel more hurt than you identifying pendu desi trolls on the internet. i'm least bothered by my stupid phone autocorrecting my words too and idiotic spelling mistakes, but i can identify when it's a machine messing up or the writer has genuine bad diction and grammar!

anyways, the $21 question and refutation to your jahl is - if nothing's rotten in denmark, why have shuyukh from the Habaib (not counting the 2 that i mentioned) themselves spoken against this scam?

you beat me to it. also for the sender of salawat and salams, i believe there is hadith that he 3alaihis salatu was salam is not just told about the person's name, but also told of the father's name - as in, fulan ibn fulan. if someone has a reference to the hadith handy, please do cite it or correct me if i'm wrong.

 

As if the Prophet ﷺ requires a third party “introduce” his own ummatis to him…

What type of Aqeedah is this?

The Prophet ﷺ is profoundly aware of the state of each of his ummatis.

 

If you really believe your defending the Rasul then why not meet with Sh Amir, Sh Haroon or Shaykh Ibrahim in person at Mustafa Mount in Bradford.

If you truly believed your defending the Rasul then you would come in person. Chocolate biscuits and hob nobs would be provided.

The problem with the so called Barelwis is that they and their scholars lack maru'a and true chivarly.

 

https://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/spring-lodge-retreat.12305/page-2#post-51474

 

again, if you are afraid that your greed will be debated in public, don't make it public.

a man dances naked on the street.
x asks if it is permissible.
y says it is haram.

z comes to preach not to be judgemental and go sit with the man who dances on the street to understand whether he is mad.

strange thinking.

 

there is no backbiting as i can see. you need to understand the meaning of backbiting - is when private dealings or conversations are discussed in public.

this demand for money was in public and we refuted a public action.

the thread stays. you can leave if you are not happy.

 

If anyone truly was sincere they would approach Shaykh Amir directly not sit on forums. Not one single scholar has approached him as of today.

 

Again, sidna ba'alawi servant who can't be bothered to make an actual justification for the haram his teachers are committing, booohooooooo..