Ameen PeaceandLove
This I think is the complete translation of the poem I mentioned above.
NEITHER HINDU NOR MUSLIM
Neither Hindu nor Muslim,
Sacrificing pride, let us sit together.
Neither Sunni nor Shia,
Let us walk the road of peace.
We are neither hungry nor replete,
Neither naked nor covered up.
Neither weeping nor laughing,
Neither ruined nor settled,
We are not sinners or pure and virtuous,
What is sin and what is virtue, this I do not know.
Says Bulhe Shah, one who attaches his self with the lord.
Gives up both hindu and muslim.
Partisans live in Dharamsalas, cheats in temples,
butchers reside in mosques;
while lovers (of the Lord) live apart.
Neither Hindu nor Muslim,
Sacrificing pride, let us sit together.
Neither Sunni nor Shia,
Let us walk the road of peace.
We are neither hungry nor replete,
Neither naked nor covered up.
Neither weeping nor laughing,
Neither ruined nor settled,
We are not sinners or pure and virtuous,
What is sin and what is virtue, this I do not know.
Says Bulhe Shah, one who attaches his self with the lord.
Gives up both hindu and muslim.
Partisans live in Dharamsalas, cheats in temples,
butchers reside in mosques;
while lovers (of the Lord) live apart
Beliefs that go beyond the Quran and Sunnah lead to shirk. Here is a video showing a young man kissing and bowing (clip 2:16 mins) at the tomb of Bulleh Shah. Na udhu Billah!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ2cIDPC4Qs&feature=related
Sufi's differ so don't paint them all with the same brush.
It's clear which type of 'sufi' we are discussing in this thread, hence there was no need to spell it out.
Troubled Soul: Finally, I think someone mentioned "Bilal Philips" on here, This person is affiliated with Dr Zakir Naik, A yazeed lover! His true colors were unveiled when he praised the KILLER of Imam Hussain hence I do not listen to people who hold such views...
When did Zakir Naik claim to love Yazeed?
Zakir Naik said, 'May Allah have mercy on him' during one of his speeches. He did this one basis that:
1. The majority of the Ulema have cautioned against cursing him based on the fact that it has not been established that Yazid himself killed Hussain (ra) or gave the order for him to be killed. Even if he did, this does make him a kaffir.
2. A muslim is forbidden from cursing the deceased.
3. There have been reports that he showed remorse at the actions of those who killed Hussain (ra).
4. There is no evidence, whereby Imaam Ghazali states that associating a sin against a muslim is not permissable without evidence.
5.. He goes on to say the killer/sinner may have repented before their death.
I agree with the views of Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdisi, and Ibn Taimyyah below. However Zakir Naik's comment does not make him a kafir or prove that he condoned Yazid's actions. You must remember he is only human and can make mistakes. he did not commit shirk or blasphemy. His work as a da'ee has done more good than harm inshaAllah.
Shaykh Al-Islam, ibn Taymiyyah, described people’s attitudes towards Yazid ibn Mu`awiyyah, saying: “People differed concerning Yazid ibn Mu`awiyyah, splitting into three groups, two extreme and one moderate.
One of the two extreme views said that he was a Kafir (non-Muslim) and a Munafiq (hypocrite), that he strove to kill the grandson of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, to spite the Messenger of Allah and to take revenge on him, and to avenge his grandfather `Utbah, his grandfather’s brother Shaybah and his maternal uncle Al-Walid ibn `Utbah and others who were killed by the Sahabah and by ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib on the day of Badr and other battles. To hold such a view is easy for the Rafidis (one of deviating groups) who regard Abu Bakr, `Umar and `Uthman as Kafirs, so it is much easier for them to regard Yazid as a Kafir.
The other extreme group think that he was a righteous man and a just leader, that he was one of the Sahabah who were born during the time of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and were blessed by him. Some of them accord him a status higher than that of Abu Bakr and `Umar; and some of them regard him as a Prophet.
The above two views are obviously false to one who has the least common sense and who has any knowledge of the lives and times of the early Muslims. This view is not attributable to any of the scholars who are known for following the Sunnah or to any reasonable person who has mind and experience.
However, the third view – which is the moderate one - is that he was one of the kings of the Muslims, who did good deeds and bad deeds. He was not born until the caliphate of `Uthman. He was not a Kafir, but it was because of him that the killing of Al-Husayn took place, and he did what he did to the people of Al-Harrah. He was not a Sahabi, nor was he one of the righteous devotees of Allah. This is the view of most of the people of reason and knowledge and of Ahl Al-Sunnah wal-Jama`ah.
Then the above group divided into three groups, one which cursed him, one which loved him, and one which neither cursed nor loved him. The last stance is what was reported from Imam Ahmad, and this is the view of the fair-minded among his companions and others among the Muslims.
Salih ibn Ahmad said: “I said to my father, some people say that they love Yazid.” He said: “O my son, is there any believer who believes in Allah and in the Day of Judgment and love Yazid?” I said: “O my father, why do you not curse him?” He said: “O my son, when did you ever see your father curse anybody?”
Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdisi said: “When he was asked about Yazid: ‘According to what I have heard he is neither to be cursed nor to be loved.’ He also said: ‘I heard that Abu `Abd-Allah ibn Taymiyyah was asked about Yazid and he said: We do not deny his good qualities nor exaggerate about them.’” This is the fairest opinion.” (Majmu` Fatawa Shaykh Al-Islam, part 4, pp. 481-484)”
Excerpted, with slight modifications, form:
www.islam-qa.com
Read more:
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503545536#ixzz0cK28FQks
:wa:
