Ta'seel Commons
  • Home
  • About
  • Politics
    • Innovations in Contemporary Islamic Governance
  • Theory/Practice
  • Philosophy
  • Podcasts
  • Technology
  • Arts/Culture
  • Sexuality
  • Recommended Books
  • Contact

PolitIcs

Wolves in Shepherds’ Clothing: Nouman Ali Khan, Hamza Yusuf, and Pastoral Power

9/27/2017

19 Comments

 
Hasan Azad
Columbia University
Picture
Picture
Absolute power, as they say, corrupts absolutely. There is a reason why power corrupts.  It deludes us into thinking we are the reference, we are all that we are because of our own doing.  We become to a certain degree gods unto ourselves.  The most powerful rulers through history, the most powerful rulers contemporary—and few and far between are those who never abused their powers—all of these people assumed at some level that they were and are indomitable, and that they are in some ways God’s gift to his people.  And it usually is the case that these figures were and are men.
 
Every so often, allegations emerge about famous Muslim celebrity-scholars abusing their power—although, in the case of Nouman Ali Khan, the details are still murky (and in some ways the details don’t matter too much if an abuse of power has occurred).  When Muslim celebrity-scholars abuse their power they in a very real sense scar the community, and this applies to any religious community of course—whether Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, or New Age.
When a community vests certain people with its trust and hope, believing wholeheartedly in some very real sense that their very salvation, that their very earthly and otherworldly salvation is happening through such people, so to speak, and then their trust (and hopes and dreams) are betrayed, then the community as a whole suffers spiritual trauma. ​
Picture

Of course, people will always be people—that is to say, people who are invested by their communities with adulation for certain undeniable gifts are bound to fail, even as new figures emerge to replace those who have fallen from grace. Humans as humans will always be human.  We are forever—insofar as forever applies to this temporal realm—trapped in these fleshy bodies, which are necessarily limiting, which are necessarily corrupting, insofar as they have these downward tendencies—seen from the viewpoint of traditional metaphysics. 

I myself was the victim of certain abuses, not by the person in question in wider social media speculation today, but by another, in some ways even more prominent, person—Hamza Yusuf.  I can already see people commenting and thinking:  How dare this Hasan Azad even raise questions regarding the great Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, through whom he has guided so many thousands of people to God—who does Hasan Azad think he is?  

The reality is that in 2001 I was attending the Rihla, the summer intensive at Zaytuna, which was then based in Santa Clara California. I was seeking the guidance, direction, and ‘inner transformation’ that Hamza Yusuf’s Rihla promised. I also had a history of mental health issues, and two summers previously I had been institutionalized in the UK and in Bangladesh where I was visiting together with my family at the time.  In 2001, when I was at the Rihla, I started having a breakdown. I was sleeping less and less, eating less and less—oftentimes the telltale markers for people with a history of mental health issues that they are on the verge of having a breakdown. I started acting up. I recall one time standing up in a class being led by Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi, and questioning the saintly shaykh whom everyone revered, including Hamza Yusuf, questioning his intent in teaching the class. I felt that he was being a hypocrite.  

That was really the extent of my acting up.  I did not harm anyone, apart from being disruptive and unpredictable.  And how did Hamza Yusuf handle my trying to speak to him?  I remember very well my mother advising me—before I left for the Rihla—“Tell Hamza Yusuf everything, he will know how to help you, as far as your health issues.”  He barely spoke to me—no more than a minute.  He told me to read a certain prayer, and this advice he imparted without even really looking at me. Instead of looking at me, he directed his shoulder towards me—hardly the prophetic example of how one is meant to greet those who are in need.  
​
Picture

Hamza Yusuf, through his coteries, subsequently called my father, saying that I was disrupting classes. My father pleaded with Hamza Yusuf saying:  
 
“My son is ill, please wait for me, I will come and get him.” 
 
Because Hamza Yusuf told him he was going to put me on the next flight out of Santa Clara back to London. But Hamza Yusuf didn’t listen.  Two of his coteries, one of whom, Nazim Baksh, is now a respected scholar in his own right, drove me to the nearest airport the following day and put me on the next flight out.  I had reached out for help. My behavior was taken as a reason to exclude me from the community rather than help me. They had done their “Islamic duty” by separating the problem from their vision of the right kind of seeker of knowledge. In sending me out on the next flight, they not only separated me from the community as a problem that could not be helped, but they sent me into the secular wilderness for the wolves of the nation-state to feed upon my vulnerability.

The closest “every day” analog is being on heavy psychoactive drugs. If you can imagine someone high on LSD and having a bad trip being told to travel thousands of miles through three international airports, back to where they came from, then the gravity of the situation is clear.  However, I failed to get beyond the Detroit airport.   

To cut a long story short, I was picked up by a police car, I was held in a police cell, and I was later transferred to a mental health facility for observation and subsequently admitted, where I spent three weeks.
​
Picture

All of this is to say that I am today healthy and well, and, somewhat paradoxically, I am glad I went through what I went through, because I used to be a Hamza Yusuf acolyte, an idolater, in many ways, of the Hamza Yusuf image.  I believed I was going to tread the same path as him educationally and learn the way he did, and go to Muaritania and become a traditional shaykh.  Of course, that didn’t happen.  I have a PhD in Islamic Studies from Columbia University, and I am very much my own thinker.  It has all worked out well for me in the end, and I thank God for that. 
 
I do not, however, accept that people in positions of power, especially when it comes to spiritual matters, can do whatever they want.  And yet very often they are given a lot of leeway, far too much leeway—dangerous leeway because it is assumed that such people see and understand and act, all the time, by the light of God.  And that therefore, they are necessarily always doing what is right by the people, even if it might “outwardly” seem as though they are doing something wrong.  
 
The chances are that if it seems outwardly wrong, especially where other people’s rights, and their health and mental wellbeing (in all its vastly complex manifestations) are concerned, then such scholars—such people in positions of power—should not be given complete freedom to do whatsoever they wish, for that is at its core a recipe for destructiveness.  

We talk today about the president of the United States, shall we say, or rulers in various countries doing whatever they want—being tyrants.  And oftentimes these discourses are projected by many of our religious leaders—and rightly so.  The question that should be posed to them and to ourselves is to what extent are we ourselves tyrants of our own realms.
 
A prophetic tradition says: “Each of you is a shepherd put in charge of his/her flock.”  This is profound. The meaning I take in the context of this article is if the shepherd, instead of tending and protecting and loving and caring for this flock, sets upon it as a wolf, he or she is no longer fulfilling the function of a shepherd.  In light of the Khan controversy and my story, it also seems pertinent to not remain as sheep waiting for the emergence of a new shepherd of inner transformation and knowledge.  
 
We must ourselves face how many of our religious shepherds are in reality wolves in shepherds’ clothing.
 
 

19 Comments
Rehan Siddiqi
9/27/2017 12:57:33 pm

http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/news/dr-hasan-azads-journey-to-orthodox-christianity/

It seems like Dr. Hasan Azad had deep, deep problems with many facets of his spiritual and mental life unfortunately. I pray he finds the inner peace he so desperately is looking for.

Reply
Mohammed Hanif
9/27/2017 01:35:10 pm

What was the purpose of this one-sided muckraking?

Reply
Raji
9/27/2017 02:18:34 pm

There seems to be a lot of confusion about abuses of power. God gives us all power to breathe and talk and write and we sometimes abuse it. May God forgive us for using His blessings to disobey Him. Concerning NAK, please read the following piece:
------------------------------------------------------------
What is the hadd punishment for consensual conversation?

The NAK case has brought up so many issues of relevance to the Muslim Community in America that it will be studied and discussed for a long time. For those who are unaware, a very much admired male Muslim teacher of the Quran was accused by two prominent Muslim leaders of “inappropriate interactions” with females. The accusations were posted on social media. In response, this teacher denied the allegations. The following day, a website was created with images of chat screens purportedly showing conversations between this teacher and some females as evidence of his wrongdoing.
The reaction of the Muslim community was diverse with some happy that a “predator” had been exposed, seeing it as a victory for the “victims.” Others saw it quite differently and held that the teacher had apparently sinned and his sin was being publicized in contravention of the teachings of the blessed Prophet (saw) and the Quran which emphasize hiding the sins of our brothers and sisters. In general, from my perusal of Facebook posts, the number of those who lamented the posting of these accusations and private conversations by far exceeded those who saw it as a good thing. Also, there were probably tens of thousands of people who stated that they had benefited from this teacher’s lectures and that he was the reason why they returned to their faith.
One of the fundamental differences between the reactions was in people’s perception of “harm.” Were the women whom the teacher had pursued “victims?” Was a man who had consensual conversation or consensual sexual relationships “harming” women or merely committing a sin, minor in the case of conversation and major in the case of adultery?
Those who argued that there was indeed “harm” caused and “predatory” behavior aimed at “victims” brought up the idea of a “power dynamic” between a famous religious teacher, a “religious authority,” and gullible women. In fact, their argument could be summarized as (power dynamic -> harm -> victims -> protection -> shame the predator).
In fact, this argument can barely hold air let alone water. Let’s do a thought experiment. Let us suppose that conversing with women – or let us call it womanizing - constituted harm, warranting a criminal punishment and/or public shaming for the protection of victimized women. If that were the case, who would be the guilty party if the conversation were consensual? According to the power dynamic theory, it would be the man’s fault. In this theory, the women are in the position of a coerced party and so they are not morally obligated nor emotionally capable of saying no to the man’s overtures. Very well, going along with our suppositions, we would shame the man to protect the victims.
Now suppose that the man was only a little more famous than the women. Would he be the only guilty party or would the women also be a little bit guilty? If we begin to admit that the women are somewhat morally responsible beings, that they are capable of moral actions, then both the man and woman would be guilty. But due to the power dynamic theory, the man is still more guilty than the woman. Question: would we still want to publically expose the crime in this case in order to protect somewhat guilty women from becoming victimized?
If the man and woman are equally both famous, or equally not famous at all, then they would both be equally guilty of consensual conversation. I doubt anyone would argue for public shaming in this case.
The whole argument that legitimizes exposing the sins of our brothers and sisters in clear contravention of established Islamic moral principles rests on the idea of a power dynamic which presupposes that women are emotionally and morally weaker than men!
But there was one other piece of evidence that was revealed in this case, and it was a receipt which was purportedly showing money paid to one of the women to keep them quiet. This was said to be proof of coercion and harassment or “predatory” behavior. However, if the teacher paid the money to keep a women quiet, is that not proof that the woman was blackmailing the teacher? How could it be said that the teacher was in a stronger position in a “power dynamic” whilst he is being blackmailed?
There is one other point to be made concerning power dynamic. What if a woman seduces a man by promising sexual favors or simply shows a little skin or uses one of the many other arts of s

Reply
Raji
9/27/2017 02:26:02 pm

(continued)

There is one other point to be made concerning power dynamic. What if a woman seduces a man by promising sexual favors or simply shows a little skin or uses one of the many other arts of seduction well-known by the fairer sex? Can it be said that she has a “power” over the man that equals or surpasses his “power” over her gained from his position as a religious “authority.” Perhaps, even some die hard feminists would feel some sympathy for such a man. After all, if a women is not morally accountable in the face of power dynamic from the man’s side, shouldn’t the man also not be morally accountable in the face of power dynamic from the woman’s side?
Finally, who would decide who wins the power dynamic and therefore is morally accountable so that we can publically shame him or her and protect the victims? My guess is that it will be the one with the pictures.
The above analysis and the questions we have put forth aim to show the ridiculousness of the position of those who have justified exposing this teacher’s private conversations and possible sinful “inappropriate interactions.” Not only that, but it presupposes that women are not capable of moral action in difficult situations while men are always morally accountable.
We would hope that those who initiated this accusation and posted the private conversations issue a public apology to the teacher. We would also suggest that the rising tide of feminist ideology which originated in the West among the whites be thoroughly opposed in the Islamic community as it seems to be making inroads. It seems to be prevalent among religiously minded hijabi Muslims as it is amongst secular or atheistic cultural Muslims which makes its presence all the more pernicious.

Reply
Lana
9/29/2017 11:35:13 pm

Raji:

You basically defended the haram, harmful player behavior of a renowned Muslim leader whom many young Muslims look to for guidance.

Even if NAK was not a religious leader in a powerful position, he is still a man and men do have more power than women despite your silly misogynistic rant about women's looks being a source of power. The man still controls whether he pursues the woman or not, thus, the woman is always in the power down position because she is the one who most often gets rejected or cheated on by the man. Being a sexy, seductive woman doesn't mean she has power to not have her heart broken when she meets a player guy like NAK. The most beautiful women in the world get played by dogs like NAK everyday. A woman's heart is created fragile.

NAK was chatting up women in a romantic/sexual manner while not being married to them- multiple women who didn't know they were not the only ones he was doing that with. That is a PLAYER who HURTS women's hearts. You have no empathy for the women who were emotionally abused by him. You are victim-blaming them. When women are emotionally abused like this, this is why women are so jaded and don't trust men. Men who act like NAK are the kinds of men who destroy marriages chatting up girls on the internet and/or committing zina. You brushed off his behavior as being minor when it is not. Even this inappropriate sexual/romantic chatting is bad enough to have him ousted as a Muslim leader because that is the kind of thing which is causing fitnah all over the world for both non-Muslims and Muslims.

He is also supposed to set an example of proper conduct for Muslim men. If our leaders cannot act like dignified Muslim men, then how do you expect ayerage Muslim men to act dignified? Muslim men have turned into immature f*ckboys and players disrespecting women because Muslim male leadership is the same way. Women follow the lead of men - not the other way around. Imam Shafi'i even said that :"...if you're chaste, then your women will be chaste".

It's hypocritical of you to hate on feminism yet you think Muslim men should be leaders. If men are supposed to be the leaders and guiders in Islam, then how can they lead us if they are not righteous and moral? How can male leaders earn respect if they don't behave in exemplary, righteous ways? When you take ont he position of a leader- whether as an Imam, Shaikh, Daiee, Caliph, President, Husband, father, you have to set the tone of proper conduct for your subordinates.

Furthermore, this statement of yours totally twisted around the status quo that has existed for the past millennia:

"Not only that, but it presupposes that women are not capable of moral action in difficult situations while men are always morally accountable."

The status quo is such that women are ALWAYS held accountable when men do f*cked up shit with women! And here you and NAK supporters are doing the same exact thing. Men are NEVER held accountable for the emotional/mental, and sexual harm or abuse they incur on women. But you're making it seem like just because nowadays women are actually following Quran and Sunnah by chastizing a man's bad behaviors (munkar) that the tides have completely changed. Men ahve been getting away with munkar for a long time, and as Muslims we're commanded to forbid the evil (munkar).

And feminism is not entirely against the Islamic way of life. Feminism stands up to abuse against women as does Islam. Allah and His Prophet tell you that women's hearts are fragile and to take care of them - to protect them and to lead them. You are making up your own religion when you defend NAK's haram, player actions. You literally are defending his sins as being unimportant and trying to find every excuse in the book to make it seem like the women accusers are the evil party.

Ya'll wonder why the whole world hates Muslims 0 it's because our men are disgusting hypocrites who are no better than non-Muslim men. You wonder why Muslim women marry non-Muslim men- it's because of this sh*T.

Reply
Addallah Khan
9/27/2017 11:09:09 pm

What really bothers me about pseudo intellectualism is that they are not real. Me. As'ad, you forgot to mention why you were arrested in Chicago! Didn't you purposely missed your connecting flight to London and went to a motel for the night and then to the hotel's swimming pool NAKED. When people in the pool complain you walked NAKED on the streets of Chicago and that's why you were arrested. Maybe you should read the police report one more time. Oh and shouldn't you mention that you are no longer a Muslim? That you converted to Christianity. Oh maybe you forgot, here is the link to your conversion video by yourself. To my Christian friends, good luck with this guy, you can have him ...enjoy
http://journeytoorthodoxy.com/2017/08/dr-hasan-azads-journey-islam-orthodox-christianity/

Reply
Mahmood Mujtaba
9/27/2017 11:15:19 pm

Me. Azad has left Islam and now criticizing Muslim scholars. Here is the video

http://journeytoorthodoxy.com/2017/08/dr-hasan-azads-journey-islam-orthodox-christianity/

Reply
Lana
9/29/2017 11:41:41 pm

Whether he left Islam or not doesn't matter. NAK and Hamza Yousef are hypocrite miscreants. There are plenty of conservative Muslims , along with liberal Muslims, who are admonishing these two hypocritical, immoral Muslim preachers.

All you defenders of piece of these hypocritical Muslim scholars always deflect- this is why we never see change in Muslim men. We are NEVER allowed to criticize Muslim men ever. You guys always find a reason to deny or diminish the complaints of women.:( WE can never have any emotional care and protectiveness from our Muslim brothers when we are hurting.

Reply
Saeed Jaffar
9/27/2017 11:20:12 pm

What's the point of this? After 15 years you are still angry that someone didn't give you full attention? In a time that it seems like the world is falling apart, you are holding on to such pitty differences...shameful

Reply
Abdullah Khan
9/27/2017 11:27:27 pm

What really bothers me about pseudo intellectualism is that they are not real. Mr. Azad you forgot to mention why you were arrested in Chicago! Didn't you purposely missed your connecting flight to London and went to a motel for the night and then to the hotel's swimming pool NAKED. When people in the pool complain you walked NAKED on the streets of Chicago and that's why you were arrested. Maybe you should read the police report one more time. Oh and shouldn't you mention that you are no longer a Muslim? That you converted to Christianity. Oh maybe you forgot, here is the link to your conversion video by yourself. To my Christian friends, good luck with this guy, you can have him ...enjoy
http://journeytoorthodoxy.com/2017/08/dr-hasan-azads-journey-islam-orthodox-christianity/

Reply
Saad link
9/28/2017 02:34:38 am

Dear Dr. Hasan,

I am deeply moved by the account of your experiences in the Muslim community.

Hamza Yusuf did indeed betray the Prophetic ideal. Perhaps he too needs, like the Prophet, a Divine reprimand for this failing ("He frowned and turned away").

That gurus are humans is indeed a realization we all arrive at, sooner or later. Yet something in us persists in preventing us from grasping it. We want the teacher to be larger than life. We want desperately to find the Divine and in that desperation we are quick to ascribe divinity to the teacher. Nevermind if the teacher does everything to bare his/her humanity and to foster an 'appropriate' attitude in the disciple that does not involve excesses.

Perhaps charismatic figures themselves are not at fault for their charisma. Perhaps we can only really blame ourselves for being enamored and overtaken by charisma to the point of being blinded by it.

We need to learn to be disciples that do not deify the teacher. That recognize the humanity of the teacher, and respect him/her not despite their humanity, but precisely because of it.

In your case Dr. Hasan, if I may be allowed to say, your experience with Hamza Yusuf in that specific context and that particular state of mind was indeed genuine. One always feels the need to ask more of one's guru. And the more one expects, the greater the disappointment when those expectations aren't satisfied. This is specially true when we are seeking the solution to all our anxieties, insecurities and all the our problems, in the single person of the Shaykh.

As much as we might need it, perhaps it is not fair to any one person, for us to expect everything we seek in them.

If we only accept this human limitation, that one is not the master of all, might we be able to engage in a more healthy manner with our 'master'/teacher/guru.

Hamza Yusuf, despite his larger than life persona, is a limited human being. Seeking what he can give, without expecting more than he can give, we might be at peace.

As for mental health issues, Dr Hasan, we as a community are still learning to grapple with these, and to situate spirituality and morality in their context.

Perhaps our community must forgive us for our issues, but we too may begin by forgiving it for its issues. We are not perfect. We need each other to accept that.

Reply
Junaid
9/28/2017 06:37:25 am

Here is the statement from Nouman Ali Khan to put a context to the allegation

الحمد لله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله

السلام عليكم

I want to first thank those persons who have seen through the falseness of these allegations. Some individuals, unfortunately, have taken it upon themselves to pull matters out of my personal life, take them out of context, manipulate the facts, and present a narrative using these distortions to fulfill their own agenda. It left a lot to the imagination, so let me first state that I testify without hesitation or doubt that I have never used my public platform as a means to take advantage of anyone.

They also use the generic words ‘inappropriate interactions’ leading the imagination of a reader down the worst possible path. This itself is a grievous sin. The word used for slander is "ramy" in the Qur’an. It literally means to cast a stone. The crime isn’t that you come outright explicitly and say against someone that they’ve committed inappropriate acts. The crime is that you cast something in that direction and let the ripples carry their effect. This is what these people have done.

I have been speaking about the Book of Allah for nearly 20 years for one single motivation; I love this book and I love sharing what I learn about it. I have interacted with hundreds of thousands of individuals, men and women, young and old, around the world in person and done so with dignity. I would hope and pray that the countless people I did interact with in person of either gender will testify to the way I conducted myself with them, hoping for nothing more but a chance to earn their prayers. That’s where I have the most meaningful exchanges with the community. That is when people share their concerns and questions with me and there isn’t anything inappropriate about it. I’m sure the countless people that have been part of these exchanges will testify to that fact. I’d like to add that I’ve had female students at my own campus for years and no student ever has or ever will claim that I’ve been inappropriate in the least bit.

We all have things we have to repent for. I’m not a counselor and I’ve never claimed to be. I’m not an Imam and I’ve never claimed to be. I’m an avid and passionate student, teacher, and lecturer with a focus on Allah’s Book. I find it demeaning to have to speak about my personal life. I feel at some level though I don’t have a choice.

I have been divorced for nearly two years. The circumstances of my divorce are one of the most difficult and painful experiences of my life. Many rumors surrounded that event and I chose to remain silent to protect my children more than anyone else. After the passage of some time, I did in fact pursue remarriage with the help of my family. Along that process, I communicated with a few prospects with my family’s knowledge and consent and that has been used, distorted, and manipulated way out of proportion and turned into something it isn’t. All such communications took place between consenting adults and there was nothing malicious or predatory about them. I fail to see how such interaction can render anyone a victim. These communications took place for a dignified purpose. Yet these are the communications that are being alleged as predatory.

But when some individuals try to make it sound like one has to repent before Allah in a way that satisfies their delusional sense of self-righteousness, there’s a problem. Your taubah, for anything you may have done, is between you and your Maker. As many in the community have said, if my actions are in fact a threat to the community, show evidence of that.

Lies are best told with a grain of truth. The people who accused me are not interested in clarification nor in rectifying the matter. They came to me with their minds made up. Their allegations as they have now themselves outlined, I explicitly reject and deny. I have been blackmailed, threatened, harassed, and warned that if I was to give a single sermon, talk about a single ayah, post a single new video about the Qur’an or Islam, that they will go on a campaign to ensure I am painted as some sort of threat to the Muslim community.

My mission and sacrifice for two decades has been to help spread a better understanding of the Qur’an. With these threats, I was terrified at first that those years of service will be brought to ruin even if later these claims are proven false. Everyone’s attention will be on this nonsense and not the work and contribution that actually matters.

I deliberately avoided any public engagement for months

Reply
Zainab
9/28/2017 06:43:54 am

I don't think it's fair to the readers if they don't know about the author's belief. There should be a disclaimer that Hasan has left Islam and he is a Christian now.

Reply
Janet
9/28/2017 09:05:06 am

You went to a religious scholar for help with a mental illness and became upset when he didn't know how to manage your illness?

Would you go to a podiatrist for a brain tumor?

Really I can't even begin to understand what you were thinking. A dude who studied Islam in the desert is going to singlehandedly heal you during an intensive studies course???

Reply
Berkeley Bint
9/30/2017 02:16:18 am

Desert dirt dweller is one of Hamza's facades. He is a bougie San Francisco Bay Area Muslim and is also a wealthy diplomat. Further, he is a graduate student at a theological university in the Bay Area obtaining his Phd.

Reply
Basheer Nawab
9/28/2017 10:30:06 am

Most of these programs have about 200 to 300 attendees and teachers are unable to dedicate time for mentally illed attendees who decide to come to a program that teaches law, theology, and history to be healed from their illness. I know that most parents think that being in the right environment could help, but we have to treat mental illness as mental illness and not anything else.

Reply
Berkeley Bint
9/28/2017 11:46:08 pm

I am a Hamza Yusuf critic, but I found the decision to communicate with the parents, drive the young sick man to the airport and put him on the plane back to the UK to be rather impressive, especially after the disruption and insults.

They could have just expelled him and left him to make his own plans. It is also hardship for the parent to travel all the way to the US. Also, they did not involve authorities.

Also, given the way the way institutionalization work in the US and the ability to admit patients whether they or their families agree, it seems best for the young man to be sent back to his family and his country.

This happened in 2001, why the article now?

Reply
jafam_awsam
9/29/2017 09:28:39 pm

With all due respect, Hamza Yusuf is an academician and not a murshid. Blame instead the type of religion that treats medical issues as spiritual. I hope the brother has found the path that works best for him and his flock
في سبيل الله

Reply
Affy Bhatti link
9/30/2017 01:10:11 am

Sounds like you just needed the right mental help.

The Rihla is not designed to help you combat mental issues.

Perhaps you should have taken care of yourself firstly before attending and then blaming Hamza Yusuf for your issues.

Just a thought.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    October 2018
    December 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    February 2016
    December 2015
    September 2014
    July 2014
    November 2012

    Categories

    All
    Alterity
    Europe
    ISIS
    Islamaphobia
    Liberalism
    Media
    Modernity
    Myanmar
    Orientalism
    Religious Conflict
    Rohingya
    Southeast Asia
    Violence

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly
  • Home
  • About
  • Politics
    • Innovations in Contemporary Islamic Governance
  • Theory/Practice
  • Philosophy
  • Podcasts
  • Technology
  • Arts/Culture
  • Sexuality
  • Recommended Books
  • Contact