LearnDeen.com

PART III: Sufis’ enmity to Ahl As-Sunnah

What is the truth about Wahhabism?
Support for secular governments

PART III: Sufis’ enmity to Ahl As-Sunnah

Hisham Kabbani, of the Islamic Supreme Council of America and a disciple of Nazim ‘Adil al-Qubrusi, declared at the US State Department:

"We would like to advise our government, our congressmen, that there is something big going on and people do not understand it. You have many mosques around the United States.... So the most dangerous things are going on in these mosques that have self appointed leaders throughout the United States. The extremist ideology makes them very active.”

"We can say that they took over 80 percent of the mosques in the United States….This means that the ideology of extremism has been spread to 80 percent of the Muslim population, mostly the youth and the new generation."

Kabbani equates extremism with Wahhabism.  He describes the rise and the development of Wahhabism as follows:

"The premise of this new, narrow ideology was to reject traditional scholars, scholarship, and practices under the guise of "reviving the true tenets of Islam" and protecting the concept of monotheism."

According to Kabbani:

“Ibn Abdal-Wahhab encouraged a new interpretation of Islamic law and permitted his acolytes to apply it in light of their own understanding, regardless of their level of expertise in juridical matters. Whoever did not agree with this revolutionary approach he considered outside of the fold of Islam – an apostate, disbeliever, or idolater – and thus someone whose blood could be shed, whose women could be raped, and whose wealth could be confiscated.”

Of course, the above statements are absolute lies that have no grounds.  What Sufis term Wahhabi or extremist are those people of Ahl As-Sunnah (Muslims who follow the true path of Sunnah).  Major Muslim Organizations condemned Kabbani’s statements.  This is a summary of Kabbani’s claim as released in a statement by American Muslim leaders:

In the State Department forum, Kabbani: 

1. Alleged that the "ideology of extremism has been spread to eighty percent of the [American] Muslim population." Having also stated that "extremists" gained control of American mosques through elections, Mr. Kabbani further strengthens the impression that the Muslim community as a whole is extremist.
2. Claimed that "there are many, many Muslim organizations, that they speak on behalf of the Muslim community, but in reality they are not moderate, but they are extremist...These people are very well supported, very well affiliated with outside regimes, that they have been sponsored by billions of dollars to be active within the United States..."
3. Claiming that the main national Muslim student organization is "being run mostly by extremist ideology," Mr. Kabbani raised the bizarre specter that the Bin Laden organization was "able to buy more than 20 atomic weapons, atomic nuclear heads, from some Mafias in the ex-Soviet Union...and now they are hiring thousands of scientists from the ex-Soviet in order to make these atomic warheads into smaller partitions, smaller particles, in order to be, like small chips to be put in any suit case, even in a handbag, and be shipped anyplace, anywhere in the world...If these small nuclear atomic warheads reach these (U.S.) universities, you don't know, these students, what they are going to do, because their way of thinking is brainwashed and limited."

Adding insult to injury, Mr. Kabbani even promoted and generalized an allegation that Muslim women in Europe "who are during the day, covered from top to bottom and, during the night, have dates. They are dating high officials in many countries around the world to take the information from them and to give it to the extremists."

Through outrageous statements such as these, Kabbani has put the entire American Muslim community under unjustified suspicion. In effect, Kabbani is telling government officials that the majority of American Muslims pose a danger to our society. Notice that not a single statement quoted above justified the false conclusion of the authors.

Kabbani’s statements are designed to justify the US government’s actions against Muslims in the United States.   His aim is to label anyone who adopts the correct Sunnah and rejects Sufism as an extremist.

Although Hamza Yusuf was amongst the signatories of the statement condemning Kabbani, his close associate Abdal-Hakim Murad had words of support for Kabbani. Murad wrote in his article “Recapturing Islam From the Terrorists”:

“Two years ago, Hisham Kabbani of the Islamic Supreme Council of America^[1], warned of the dangers of mass terrorism to American cities; and he was brushed aside as a dangerous alarmist. Muslim organizations are no doubt beginning to regret their treatment of him. The movement for traditional Islam^[2] will, we hope, become enormously strengthened in the aftermath of the recent events, accompanied by a mass exodus from Wahhabism, leaving behind only a merciless hardcore of well-financed zealots. Those who have tried to take over the controls of Islam, after reading books from we-know-where, will have to relinquish them, because we now know their destination.  When that happens, or perhaps even sooner, mainstream Islam will be able to make the loud declaration in public that it already feels in its heart: that terrorists are not Muslims.
…
I hope that the recent events will spur Muslims to consider the implications for the wider ethos in which we understand our religion of the shift, which we have witnessed over the past twenty years or so away from accommodationist and tolerant forms of Islam, and towards narrowmindedness. Al-Ghazali recommends a tolerant view of non-Muslims, and is prepared to grant that many of them may be saved in the next world; Ibn Taymiya, as Muhammad Memon has shown in his book on him, is vehement and adversarial. In our communities in the West, and indeed worldwide, we surely need the Ghazalian approach, not the rigorism of Ibn Taymiya.”

Murad spares no chance to attack those who follow the true Sunnah and expose the bida’as of Sufism and other misguided sects.  He attacks Ahl As-Sunnah and accuses them of being extremists and terrorists.  He tries to discredit Ahl As-Sunnah scholars by labeling them Wahhabis and/or Salafis.  In a sense, Sufis dubbed and encouraged the infamous phrase: “you’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists”.  If you are not a Sufi and do not accept Sufism as the traditional form of Islam, then you are a Wahhabi/terrorist.  He wrote in his article “The Poverty of Fanaticism” about why angry voices are raised against Sufism (of course, he means those who right about the bida’as of Sufism):

“There is the emergence of the Wahhabi da'wa. When Muhammad ibn Abdal-Wahhab, some two hundred years ago, teamed up with the Saudi tribe and attacked the neighbouring clans, he was doing so under the sign of an essentially neo-Kharijite version of Islam. Although he invoked Ibn Taymiya, he had reservations even about him. For Ibn Taymiya himself, although critical of the excesses of certain Sufi groups, had been committed to a branch of mainstream Sufism. This is clear, for instance, in Ibn Taymiya's work Sharh Futuh al-Ghayb, a commentary on some technical points in the Revelations of the Unseen, a key work by the sixth-century saint of Baghdad, Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani. Throughout the work Ibn Taymiya shows himself to be a loyal disciple of al-Jilani, whom he always refers to as shaykhuna ('our teacher'). This Qadiri affiliation is confirmed in the later literature of the Qadiri tariqa, which records Ibn Taymiya as a key link in the silsila, the chain of transmission of Qadiri teachings.”

In another article, Murad tries to discredit Ibn Taymiya by equating him to the Taliban.  He accuses the Taliban of shifting away from “traditional Islam” towards “Ibn Taymiya’s position”, as though one of the greatest Hanbali scholars, if not the greatest after Imam Ahmad himself, was not a “traditional Muslim”!  This new-wave mantra of “traditional Islam, traditional Muslim” is belied by institutions and movements that pay lip- service to the Four Madhhabs, yet conspicuously exclude the Hanbali madhhab, with all its outstanding scholars, from their curriculum.

The reader can clearly see the contradictions in Murad’s writings.  He first says, “We surely need the Ghazalian approach, not the rigorism of Ibn Taymiya”.  Then in a different article he says, “For Ibn Taymiya himself, although critical of the excesses of certain Sufi groups, had been committed to a branch of mainstream Sufism”.  So what are we to believe?  On the one hand, he says that Ibn Taymiya is rigorous and narrow-minded.  Then he claims that Ibn Taymiya, although a Sufi, was critical of the excesses of certain Sufis!!  So Murad is critical of Ibn Taymiya’s rebuke of Ibn Arabi, al-Hallaj and Ibn Sab’een.  Is Wahdat Al-Wujood an excess in some Sufi groups?!  Does he consider fana’ and itihad excesses of Sufis and that Ibn Taymiya was too rigorous in revealing their heresies?

Of course all the statements that Murad says about Ibn Taymiya are pure lies.  Murad claims, “For Ibn Taymiya himself, although critical of the excesses of certain Sufi groups, had been committed to a branch of mainstream Sufism. This is clear, for instance, in Ibn Taymiya's work Sharh Futuh al-Ghayb, a commentary on some technical points in the Revelations of the Unseen, a key work by the sixth-century saint of Baghdad, Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani.”

Anyone who reads the writings of Ibn Taymiya (this article provided some examples) realizes that Ibn Taymiya exposed the Bida’a of Sufism.  He refuted the masters of Sufism like Al-Hallaj, Ibn Arabi, and al-Bistami.  This article showed in Part I that Ibn Taymiya defended al-Jilani against the lies attributed to him by Sufis.  He spoke of al-Jilani as a scholar of Sunnah, not Sufism.  We showed Ibn Rajab’s commentary about the lies that were attributed to al-Jilani by Sufis and how most of them were fabricated by Abu al-Hassan As-Shantoofy al-Masry.

Here are more examples of Ibn Taymiya’s refutation of what was attributed to al-Jilani.  He condemned the unlawful listening [to music] and drums, Sufi dancing, and the use of titles like Gauth and Qutub and that some of these titles can be Kufr:

• Ibn Taymiya said about the names Gauth, Qutub. Watad, and the likes: “these name are not found in the Book of Allah or Sunnah of the Prophet PBUH  (both correct or weak).  This titles of al-Gauth (the granter) and al-Gayath (the rescuer) are not deserving except of Allah SWT because he is the one rescues the desperate so it is not permissible to seek rescue from anyone else” (Majmu'a Fatawa, Vol. 11 p. 437).  Note that Sufis call al-Jilani by the title al-Gauth and note that Ibn Taymiya said that this title is only for Allah SWT.
• Ibn Taymiya said about listening to music, drums and dancing “in general, it is well-known in this Deen that the Prophet PBUH did not allow the righteous of this Ummah, its devotees or the Zuhad to listen to poetry that is composed with clapping or beating with an instrument.  But he PUBH allowed fun in weddings and the likes and he permitted for women to beat with duff (tabor) in weddings.  Since singing, beating of tabor and clapping are actions of women, our salaf (predecessors) used to call those men who do perform these actions are effeminate” (Majmu'a Fatawa, Vol. 11 p. 565).  “Many of these people commits while he’s listening [to music] many forbidden sins and those actions that lead to sins, then claims that these are actions of purifying the heart” (Majmu'a Fatawa, Vol. 11 p.584).

So how is it that Ibn Taymiya is a Sufi when he rebukes their practices, and how can he be a follower of al-Jilani if in fact al-Jilani committed these actions.  Although it was never proven that al-Jilani did these actions, it is reported that he had some infractions in Shariah and that Ibn Taymiya and others either rejected attributing them to him or openly criticized him for doing them.  Also, some of al-Jilani’s books like “al-Ghaniya li taliby tariq al-Haqq” and “Futooh al-Ghayb” contain weak and fabricated hadiths just like al-Gazali’s “Ihya’a uloom ad-Din”.  In Iman Zahabi’s book “Siyar an-Nubala’a”, he says “in general, sheikh abdul Qadir was of high stature, but there are some mistakes in his sayings and claims; and some of it is falsely attributed to him”.

So how can Murad claim that Ibn Taymiya was a Sufi?  Ibn Taymiya had many debates with Sufis in Egypt in which he defeated their arguments.  Furthermore, he was jailed twice for his opposition to Sufis.  Clearly we can no longer be surprised that Sufis claim that al-Jilani is a Sufi master.  If they dare to claim that Ibn Taymiya is Sufi, how difficult is it to claim that al-Jilani was a master of Sufism (especially since he committed some infractions)?  This shows the lies and deception that Sufis use to blind others.  

Murad continues his lies in his article “Muslim loyalty and belonging some reflections on the psychosocial background” that:

“For most religiously-active Muslims, the conservative option, with a variety of variations, is the most commonly pursued. Almost all senior Ulema in Sunni countries adhere to some form of conservatism, entailing adherence to one of the four Sunni madhhabs and to either the Ash‘ari or the Maturidi theology. Often, too, they will be actively involved in Sufism. This is a reality of which the West is largely unaware, given that it constructs its images of Muslim action from media images which inevitably focus on the frantic and the dangerous.”

Almost all ulema adhere to either Ash’ari or Maturidi theology and most of them are involved in Sufism?  These are absolute lies that have no basis of truth.  The reader can now see the pattern of lies in Murad’s speech.

Another Sufi, Nuh Ha Mim Keller, promotes hatred against Ahl As-Sunnah.  In an interview with the Voice of the Cape Radio Station^[3], Keller said:

“Moreover, everyone knows that they have a rather extreme interpretation, that of Wahhabism, which is radically different from all previous centuries of traditional Islamic practice and learning. It's different in fiqh, in that it doesn't emphasize the four traditional madhhabs, but rather emphasizes the ijtihad (or “juridical reasoning”) of just about anyone who thinks he’s qualified to make ijtihad.

It is pure Wahhabism. It is the result of the oil money that has flooded every single country where there are Muslims, in order to put this view across. No one wonders where it came from. I think that the Western intelligence agencies know it, and that some of the journalists know it as well.

The fact is that traditional Islam has been derailed in the twentieth century, especially during the 1970's and 1980's with all the Saudi-Wahhabi oil-money and the consequences of educating people at “Wahhabi U.” in Medina. Mainstream Sunni Islam has been derailed so completely in the last half of this century that nobody any longer realizes that this is what has happened. Of course, it is our obligation to tell people what's been going on.”

Keller repeats the old claim that the “Wahhabi sect” has “not been around for more than two and a half centuries.”  As the seasoned Wahhabi-bashers usually point out themselves, the movement of Shaykh Muhammad bin ‘Abdul Wahhab was a revival inspired by that of Ibn Taymiya (661-728 H).  So perhaps the “Wahhabi sect” has been around for seven centuries?  Or could it be that there have always been Muslims around who have maintained the purest worship of Allah, without invoking complicated arguments and fabricated ahadeeth to justify strange rituals and concepts borrowed from corrupted Eastern and Western religions?

What is the truth about Wahnabism?

Dr. Jaafar Shaykh Idris, a renowned scholar in North America and the Middle East, writes in an article refuting accusations against him of being Wahhabi and dispelling the myth of Wahhabism:

“The writer calls me an Imam, which I am not; I am a professor of philosophy. She groups me with what she calls salafi and Wahhabi groups (her definition of which is ridiculous) while I consider myself to be an independent scholar who is not a member of any group or party or a blind follower of any leader; my only ultimate leader is Prophet Muhammad. I am certainly not a Wahhabi, and do not know of any scholar even in Saudi Arabia who calls himself a Wahhabi. There is no sect in Islam called Wahhabism.
…
One might wonder why have the teachings of this man suddenly, and after more than two hundred years, become a threat to America? The answer is that what is now perceived by some to be a danger is not what is called Wahhabism. The epithet ‘Wahhabi’ is now being exploited by many in America to describe any Muslim who takes his religion seriously.  If you are a serious adherent to Islam, you are Wahhabi; if you are Wahhabi you must be a terrorist; and if you are a terrorist you are a legitimate target.
…
Thus in Islam a distinction is made between beliefs and believers. As far as beliefs are concerned there is absolutely no compromise: any belief that contradicts Islam is false, and must be criticized. But those who adhere to such false beliefs are to be tolerated, nicely treated and invited to the truth in the best of ways. It is because of this that Jews and Christians found their safest haven in the Muslim world long before the West started to talk about human rights and freedom of religion. “Jews familiar with history might note that from Spain to Baghdad, it was the Islamic world that offered the Jews of the Middle Ages a fair degree of toleration -- not the Christian West’, so tells us Richard Cohen in an article in the Post.; non-Muslims  continue to live peacefully among Muslims. Islamic teachings, corroborated by our historical experience, teach us that the best atmosphere for the spread of Islam is the peaceful atmosphere.”^[4]

Indeed, Wahahbism is a myth.  It was a label first used by the English Colonialists against the Muslim insurgency in the Arabian Peninsula during the Colonial time.  It has then been used by those who begrudge Islam and Sunnah of the Prophet to drive the common Muslim away from the true teachings of Sunnah and into the teachings of Sufism and the likes.

Sufis hate Ibn Taymiya because he completely exposed their practices and refuted every single claim they had.  His writings are very clear and strong against Sufism as was demonstrated in this article (as a matter of fact, he was very strong in his refutation against all sects).  Sufis hate and begrudge Mohamad ibn Abdal-Wahab because he revived the correct Sunnah in the Arabian Peninsula.  Ahl As-Sunnah scholars consider Mohamad ibn Abdal-Wahab a revivalist because of his effort to abolish all the Shirk acts of grave and awliya’a worshipping.  He demolished domes and raised graves that were erected in the Arabian Peninsula to facilitate grave worship.  In essence, he put an end to Sufism in Arabia.  Sheikh Mohamad Rasheed Rida says “Sheikh Mohamad Abdal-Wahab, may Allah have mercy on him, was a revivalist of Islam on Najd (Arabia) because he saved its people from Shirk and Bida’a which had infected them in their Tawhid and Sunnah”.  He continues, “Sheikh Mohamad Abdal-Wahab, who was from Najd, was among the just revivalists [of Islam].  He established his Dawa to purify Tawhid and make Ibada sincere to Allah SWT alone based on what Allah SWT commanded in His Book and on the tongue of His final messenger PBUH, to leave Bida’a and sins, to establish the neglected rituals of Islam, and to glorify the sanctity of Allah which was abused and transgressed against.”

Support for secular governments

Any group that manages to gain the support of an anti-Islamic Government must be suspicious. During the reign of the tyrant Mustafa Kemal, under whose leadership thousands of scholars were executed and Islamic practices banned, special permission was granted by the Turkish government in 1954 allowing the Mawlawi dervishes of Konya to perform their ritual dances. In fact, they have become a regular attraction nowadays, performing around the world along with their Turkish Mystical Music State Ensemble.

The Sufi influence undoubtedly contributed greatly to the decline of the Ottoman Empire. The pacifist views they spread, the lack of Shari'ah knowledge, and their befriending of the disbelievers, made sure that no one would oppose the vast changes being made to the Ottoman Laws. By 1880, the Tanzimat period was in full force, where Shari'ah was replaced by European Laws (except in limited circumstances such as in Hadd punishments), yet little opposition was heard. Whilst the masses were busy in the construction of extravagant mosques and spinning around in circles, the Ottoman Empire was overtaken by Masons and eventually torn to parts.

The Sufi's have left a lasting impression on the image of Islam, portraying it as one of peace and apolitical, and anyone who contravenes this is an impostor and considered an extremist. By relying on forged hadith such as the 'bigger Jihad is Jihad'ul Nafs (i.e. struggle against the self)' and its like, Muslims have been made to believe that work and family is the greatest Jihad, rather than establishing Allah's religion on Earth.^[5]

We saw the example of Hisham Kabbani’s address to the State Department.  We saw his picture posing with the current U.S. President, George W. Bush.  The head of Naqshibandis in America was also greeted and received praises from former president Bill Clinton. And why shouldn't he, since the 'Islam' he portrays is one of pacifism and unity with the secularists.

Hamza Yusuf also served as an advisor to U.S. President George W. Bush after the events of Sept. 11, 2001.  In a lecture on Sept. 30th, 2001 at Zaytuna Academy, Hamza Yusuf spoke very highly of Bush.  Hamza said: “I thought he seemed to be listening very attentively to what I had to say. When I mentioned a couple things, he confirmed them: he said, "I agree with you wholeheartedly." He also mentioned to one of the aides that what we had to say was useful. I think about four or five times, he came up to me and shook my hand very firmly and thanked me as what seemed to be very hearty thanks for just coming and edifying him. So, that was my take on it. I was impressed: there were only three of us who spoke in the meeting, including Franklin Graham, who said he was willing to go wherever to service the troops if there was going to be a war; and the Jewish man, who said that he hoped that the President would reconsider the war and that he thought that war was the worst thing that they could do. He also asked people to pray, to go back to their communities and pray.”

Hamza Yusuf defended Bush’s use of the word “crusade” against Muslims.  Hamza Yusuf said: “He [George W. Bush] said that he was rebuked for using the word "crusade." He said when he said it he did not mean any religious connotation, but it was the first word that came to him, so there seems to be a real concern here. I think that there was deliberation here because it looked like they were just going to go bomb like crazy at first, and I'm really hoping and praying to Allah that it doesn't escalate.”

Well now that puts everything in perspective!  Thanks to Hamza Yusuf, we can now trust that Bush and his right-wing Neo-Conservative Evangelical Zionist Christians are not after Muslims after all.  It seems that we all misunderstood Bush’s sincerity.  What a shame!!!

On Sat. June 9th 2001, Hamza Yusuf spoke on the "American Muslim" hour, Hamza Yusuf engaged in his usual spin on words.  Here is a skeletal look on some of the baseless points that he mentioned we won't editorialize each point because these points are entirely ridiculous, with out any merit & are nothing but typical products of Hamza's mind.  It contains a lot of info but as usual, he is bereft of concrete points that point to a direction:

• "He said that the majority of the US constitution is Islamic, yes, let me repeat, IS Islamic!!!
• He first said that he does not like the word "state" - from experience, he holds this opinion because at one time he surfaced the "deen wa dawla" dichotomy, where he said that the deen is dynamic & dawla or state is static, which leads to a static environment!
• He said that there are Muslims who treat Islam as nothing but a political ideology and this is wrong because this connotes "control" whereas Islam means submission
• He said the prophet PBUH was not a dictator (he prefaced this statement by mentioning that amongst the Jews, there is a group that was solely geared to bringing about an Israeli state).
• He also said that those who want to establish an Islamic society are necessarily talking about a utopian society.
• He said that when he spoke to a Moroccan 'alim, the 'alim said that if Buddhist teachings were applied, we would be closer to Islam
• He said that he does not like the word "ideology" because God does not have ideas & He does not have fikr^{" [6]}

In an interview with Hamza Yusuf Hanson conducted on CBC by Michael Enright events, Hamza Yusuf said “Well, that’s one of the meanings. It literally means – if you look at the word, the root word is "jihad" which means to struggle, and juhd in the Arabic language means a struggle literally. So jihad is the act of struggling. And the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, said that the greatest jihad is to struggle with your own soul’s insidious suggestions. “

He claimed “Jihad means struggle. The Prophet said the greatest jihad is the struggle of a man against his own evil influences. It also refers to what Christians call a “just war,'' which is fought against tyranny or oppression -- but under a legitimate state authority.  And I think that really clarifies to the Muslims. Building a hospital in the Arab world – and I’ve lived in the Arab world, I speak Arabic very well – building a hospital, the Arabs will literally say what a great jihad that was when it was completed.

… But the word jihad is probably one of the highest concepts that the Arabs and the Muslims have. It represents really the best of humankind. In the Quran it is never once used to express a military meaning. Not once.

… The idea of spending money for anything good… those firefighters who were pulling people out of the World Trade Towers, they would be considered, that’s an act of jihad. They would be considered mujahideen if they were described in Arabic. And I’m not exaggerating at all. That really is at the essence of this word.

Hamza Yusuf said: If there are any martyrs in this affair it would certainly be those brave firefighters and police that went in there to save human lives and in that process lost their own.

When asked about the meaning of martyr, Hamza Yusuf said: “Shaheed. It means witness. The martyr is the one who witnesses the truth and gives his life for it. There are people in this country like Martin Luther King who would be considered a martyr for his cause. Also, if your home, your family, your property or your land or religion is threatened, then you may defend it with your life. That person is a martyr. But so is anybody who dies of terminal illness; it's a martyr's death. Because it's such a purification that whatever wrongs they once did, they're now in a state of purity.”

When Hamza Yusuf was later questioned in a lecture about his belief that non-Muslim Fire Fighters are martyrs, he replied “I think that is for Allah to judge. I believe people are taken to account based on what they know. According to Imam Al-Ghazali, and Murabit al-Hajj told me this as well, if people have not heard the message of Islam, they are not taken to account for Islam. I think that people who do good deeds, according to our beliefs, are rewarded for the good that they do.” Hamza Yusuf claims that non-believers are not accountable on the Day of Judgment for their disbelief because they do not understand the message of Islam. He uses Al-Ghazail's to imply that Al-Ghazail gave the same opinion. Of course, many scholars of past and present disputed this fallacy. There's a clear difference between "ثبوب الحجة" and "بلوغ  الحجة" (i.e. receiving the message of Islam and establishing the proof of Islam). The scholars of Ahl As-Sunnah said that Allah SWT judges people who heard the message of Islam, not only those who understood the proof of Islam, as Hamza Yusuf falsely claims.

Hamza Yusuf’s misleading and misguided comments only serve to protect and justify the policies of the Government of the US.  One of his own students wrote a letter refuting Hamza’s claims and asking him to repent to Allah SWT.  In his long letter entitled “The Path of Ascent From the Abyss of Enticement”, Hamza Yusuf’s student writes about his teacher’s claim that Jihad “is never once used to express a military meaning. Not once.”:

“if the above statement is your real view, then you are wrong, and I believe you know this. There are at least eight places, in which the Quran clearly mentions the concept of jihad, and expresses it in a military context.
...
My purpose is to clarify that no one, not even you, have the license to say about this Quran what is not fitting for it. It has been related by at-Tirmidhi on the authority of Ibn Abass:

“Whoever speaks about the Quran without knowledge, should prepare for his place in the Fire.”

The scholars, without exception have said that this statement is a clear condemnation of those who give exegesis of the Quran based upon ignorance. If this is the case, then what of those who know that what they are saying is false or that it is contrary to consensus? WE SEEK REFUGE WITH ALLAH FROM THAT!”

The letter then lays out proofs from Quran regarding the correct use of the word “Jihad”.  He then writes:

“Sidi Hamza, look at the issues that the above verses address. Not only does it demonstrate that the military conception of the term jihad is firmly understood from this verse, it also threatens those who deem it permissible to neglect the jihad that they will be replaced and substituted with another people. These people whom Allah ta`ala replaces them with will be compassionate, humble and yielding towards the believers. Allah ta`ala describes them with a trait which actually certifies and confirms the act of military struggle. Allah ta`ala says that these people will be strong, severe and conquering against the disbelievers. It is because of this trait of military activity for the cause of Allah ta`ala that He loves them by His guidance of them and giving them success, but He also makes them to love Him through their obedience in conducting the jihad and their avoidance of the disobedience resulting from neglecting the jihad. Is this not a warning for us not to assist the disbelievers in attacking other Muslims? Is this not an admonition against encouraging the disbelievers and the collaborators of harming those Muslims who are making the jihad? Examine how the scholars of the Sunna describe the hypocrites. Their trait is diametrically opposed to those who conduct the jihad. That is, they fear making the jihad due to their fear of the criticism of the Jews, whom they have taken as protecting friends. It is amazing how the Quran speaks directly to the situation that we find ourselves in today. Not only does this verse prove that the military conception of the term jihad is what is intended when the term is unqualified. It also encourages the Mujahiduun in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bosnia, Sudan, Algeria, Palestine, Lebanon, Indonesia and even in the United States to push on with the jihad in spite of the criticism of the disbelievers and the hypocrites that collaborate with them.
…
Again, the above verse states clearly and explicitly that the concept of jihad in the Quran when it is unqualified has a military and combative meaning. It also defines those who are distinguished with making the jihad as being those who are sincere, as opposed to those who neglect the jihad and render its legality null and void. More importantly, Allah ta`ala gives an additional trait of the mujahideen that they take none except Allah, His Messenger and the believers as intimate friends to whom they reveal their secrets. Is this not a clear admonition and warning against acting as spies for the United States government and other disbelieving nations? Does this verse not openly prohibit joining the disbelievers in opposition against the believers? The final statement of the verse: ‘Allah is Aware of what you do’, is a proof that whoever takes the disbelievers as protecting friends (awliyya), associates (bataana) or intimates (waleeja) to whom he reveals his secrets and the secrets of the Muslims has acted reprehensibly, regardless of who he is or what he claims his reason for doing so. It is as though Allah ta`ala says: ‘He is aware of the real motives and selfish interests behind taking the disbelievers for protecting friends, regardless what that person may claim, or regardless of who he is.’
…
Furthermore, in the prophetic tradition, the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace has given an interpretation of the Qur’anic concept of jihad, which is clearly military in meaning. One particular tradition was related by Abu Dawuud, on the authority of Anas that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace said:

“Make the jihad against the polytheist by means of your wealth, your selves and your tongues.”

Al-Asadi said in his Awn’l-Ma`buud the commentary upon the Sunan of Abu Dawuud: “This prophetic tradition is a proof of the obligation of making the jihad in the above three manners. There is the jihad using the self, which is by going out and encountering the disbelievers in military war. There is the jihad using the wealth, which is expending it to establish the jihad, purchasing weapons and the like. There is the jihad using the tongue, which is establishing proofs against the disbelievers, inviting them to Allah ta`ala, rebuking them. And all other means which brings damage and harm against the enemies (nikaayat ‘l-`adu).”
…
Sidi Hamza, Imam an-Nawawi has said that whoever neglects the jihad or disclaims it, resembles the hypocrites who refused to make the jihad, he said: ‘Whoever neglects the jihad has taken on one of the traits of hypocrisy (shu`ab ‘n-nifaaq).’

Thus, Sidi Hamza, there is not a single verse in which the term jihad is used in the Quran that it does not have military contexts. Your statement: “In the Quran it is never once used to express a military meaning. Not once.”; is ignorance on your part, or it is an open distortion of the truth. What is sad about this entire affair is that the disbelievers know that you know. The intelligence community of the US is well aware of our traditions. Islamic studies and Middle Eastern studies programs in all the universities in the US cannot provide classrooms or teachers due to the demand for knowledge about Islam. Their professors are aware of the verses about jihad and the causative factors behind the verses. By you saying publicly what you said, gives the image to them (that know better) that you are ignorant at best, or that you are being disingenuous at worst. If you feel that they will trust you before they trust the Middle Eastern experts and ‘islamicists’ whom they drink and party with – is pure naiveté on your part. Even if you claim that you are doing all of this in order to call the people to Islam, by showing a good face, much in the same manner that Yusef Ali misinterpreted the Quran in order to give a demilitarized picture of Islam. This too, is wrong because, it is not you who delivers the message to the hearts of the people, it is Allah ta`ala who makes them Muslim and enters belief into their hearts. In fact, we are about to witness a miracle from Allah ta`ala where almost every literate member of this country will be thoroughly aware of the message of Islam. How else can you explain the fact that books on Islam are being sold out in bookstores all over the United States. Islamic books are being ordered in every area of the country. Some may say this may lead to the conversion of many people who would not have known about Islam before. But, it also means that we can no longer hide behind the lie that we are obligated to remain in this country in order to give the call and invitation to those who have not received the message. THIS WILL NO LONGER BE VALID! Examine how Allah ta`ala works in His Omnipotent wisdom! All this testifies that these are the DAYS OF ALLAH. They have plotted against Islam and Allah plots using their own plots! Why is it, Sidi Hamza, that you cannot see this? Why are you trying to seek their contentment when Allah ta`ala has warned you:

“The Jews and Christians will never be content with you until you follow their system.”

What is worse, your desire for their contentment and friendship has pushed you to go as far as corrupting the doctrine of beliefs of the Muslims. In the past, ignorant people have accused you of things, which you were innocent of. I often warned you of doing actions that would bring criticism from other people. You ignored me then, but I pray you heed my warnings to you now.”

Hamza Yusuf’s student then addresses another subject that Hamza Yusuf discussed in his interview with Michael Enright:

Hamza: “…If you look in the Quran about the pleasures of paradise, the definitive verse in the Quran is that the pleasures of paradise are those which no eye has seen, no ear has heard of, and has never occurred to the heart of a human being. So that is the definitive verse about the pleasures of paradise. Now, there are some hadith, it's not in the Quran, there is mention of beautiful youths as well as beautiful women, and that's more metonymy in rhetoric.

Michael: It's an allegory.

Hamza: Exactly, it's an allegory, exactly. And the thing about it is that our scholars say that the highest sensual experience in the world is orgasm and it's quite literal. I mean this is a traditional opinion; Imam al-Ghazali, one of the early theologians said that the orgasm that a human being experiences in sexual intercourse is the closest sensual experience that one can taste of what the delights of paradise are like. The Muslims traditionally saw it as almost - and the Hindus have this concept as well - that there's almost a mystical experience. Now, the vast majority of human beings do not have profound mystical experiences. The mystic has experiences that transcend sexuality and in fact, it's well known that a lot of mystics lose their appetite for those types of things because of their own internal experiences.

Hamza Yusuf claims that the pleasures in paradise are allegoric (i.e. symbolic, not real).  He promotes this idea in his courses. The description of one of Hamza's courses reads "Are we required to understand eschatological references literally? When is allegory allowed or even desirable?"

After providing many proof from Quran and Sunnah about the physical existence of Heaven & Hellfire and that the pleasures and punishments are real, Hamza’s student writes:
 
”TELL ME SIDI HAMZA, WILL ALL THESE PUNISHMENTS IN THE HELL FIRES BE ALLEGORICAL? ARE THESE DESCRIPTIONS METONYNYM IN RHETORIC? ARE THESE DIVERSE PUNISHMENTS AND TORMENTS MYSTICAL AFFLICTIONS THAT WILL ONLY AFFECT THE SPIRIT AND THE SOUL? VERILY WE BELONG TO ALLAH AND TO HIM IS OUR RETURN AND WE SEEK REFUGE WITH HIM FROM FALSEHOOD AND IGNORANCE! 

Sidi Hamza, may Allah ta`ala forgive you and open the door of repentance to you! The statements you made accompanied with your actions indicate something that few of us want to conclude about you. There is no one who loves you and wants to continue to have a good opinion of you, except that he has not fallen into a quandary concerning you. People around the world are wrestling in their hearts and minds about your statements and the implications they confirm regarding your beliefs. I shudder to think that you transmitted these types of ideas in your Zaytuna Institute. It has to be that you said what you said out of taqiyya (dissimulation). If this was the case, you have applied dissimulation where the Shariah does not permit it. Nothing but doubt can occur in those who accept that the pleasures of Paradise are allegorical or as you said ‘metonymy in rhetoric’. If Paradise is as you claimed then it would be a denial of the veracity of the Prophets and Messengers, since they were ordered to deliver the Good News of the Hereafter clearly and not to conceal anything. Negation of concealment of the message is an obligation with regard the Messengers, even if that concealment was done under the veil of allegorical and symbolic language. This would also mean that the prohibitions and obligations are no longer valid because the Divine Incentive for doing things and avoiding things would be invalidated. How could you have taught the basic aqeeda of Imam al-Ash`ari, Imam at-Tahaawi and the fundamentals of the al-Akhdaari and allow contradictory doctrines to come out of your mouth? How many young men and woman, who cling to your every word, have been flung into the chasms of doubt and skepticism due to your statements? It is hard to believe that someone of your status does not know the dreadful implications of your statement.

There is no confusion about the judgment of someone who says the above, or who alludes to something similar to it. So, what is the judgment regarding the statements you made, Sidi Hamza? The least that we can say, is that you must make repentance, and your repentance has to be open and public, like the open and public statements you said that distorted the beliefs of the Muslims. You are obligated to inform those unfortunate Muslims, whom your statements led astray. If you do not, then your knowledge and everything that is the outcome of your work is mere enticement (al-istidraaj). There are thousands, if not millions of young Muslims, who really trust you and take your words as the gospel truth. For you to lead these young people by their noses until you plop them into, first, degrading their Islam to the arrogance of Anglo-American culture, and then, by utterly invalidating their beliefs and the foundation of the deen, speaks to the age that we are in. We are in the last times in which corruption gets the upper hand over righteousness, corrupt passions prevails over the truth and heretical innovation prevails over the sunna - except for those whom Allah ta`ala has singled out and they are few. Therefore, Sidi Hamza, you should not allow yourself to be deceived due to number of people who listen to you. You should not let the invitation to the White House and the House of Congress go to your head. When the MSA, ICNA and ISNA and other immigrant groups look up to you, you should not be comfortable and feel safe from the plot of Allah ta`ala. You should be grateful to Him and fulfill the trust that Allah ta`ala has honored you with. Fame, fortune, prestige is not always a sign of good and well-being from Allah ta`ala, as you know. It could mean the very opposite by which Allah ta`ala, in His wisdom, leads many unsuspecting people astray. I recall the lecture that Sidi Hatim Bazian made where he showed how the umma suffered the same kind of gradual enticement (istidraaj) at the hands of the modernist. He showed how the elite in the Arab and Indian societies, among the scholars and the notables, opened the door of European colonialism and imperialism. The reason for this is because the masses of the people looked up to these scholars and notables to guide them in the direction of good and well-being. Examine how these people opened the door of tribulation and humiliation due their capitulation to the disbelievers. They opened a door of tribulation, which has not been closed for the past 5 centuries. And it does not look like it will be closed again until the appearance of our Imam al-Mahdi.

Now military jihad is condemned and altered by those who profess to be scholars. They even neglect the jihad of speaking the truth in the face of tyrants.”

These are the words of a person who was fed up with the lies and deceptions of Hamza Yusuf in favor of pleasing politicians and unjust rulers.