Thank you Abu Hassan for your reply and patience with me I do not think the Mufti Sahib has general problems with praise. He quoted kalam from Alahazrat in the clip including "nahi mera tera" "malik kahun ya mola" etc He highlighted the sheyr which he felt problematic. That sheyr can be read in a way that suggests graduation to higher then Hamd of Allah.
so what is the opinion of this maulvi sahib on this verse and other such verses? khuda ki raza chahtey haiN do aalam khuda chahta hai raza e muHammad (sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam) ---- if you cannot stomach this, then you are a closet wahabi/ismayil-dihlawi murid. don't cheat yourself. ---
in the hadith of muslim, #1659 from ibn mas'ud raDiyAllahu anhu: that he was beating his slave and his slave said: "i seek the refuge of Allah". he continued to beat him. the slave said: "i seek the refuge of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam". [ibn mas'ud] left him [i.e. stopped beating] RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam said: "by Allah. Allah has more power on you, than you have on this slave". [ibn mas'ud] says that he set the slave free. ==== what is the status of the slave according to the enlightened evaluation of these nouveau maulvis? did he raise RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam above Allah? or did anyone - the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam or the sahabi criticise him? did any of the commentators accuse him of committing shirk or that he equated the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam with Allah? (al-iyadhu billah?) hope those who call themselves sunnis stop secretly admiring the mutanaTTiun.
no one argues against the rule that the shariah is binding on all of us - including ulama. when certain statements appear problematic, assess them whether a plausible explanation can exist for such statements. if the explanation is not far-fetched, and is acceptable usage (in the language), then we ignore it. as for recognising multiple meanings and connotations: that comes by one's expertise in language; in-depth knowledge of idioms and usage that comes with a lot of reading, and reading a lot of GOOD authors, experience in other languages (so one can correlate idioms and gives a bigger perspective of how language can be used), poetry, appreciation of poetry, criticism etc. of course, one needs to have good knowledge of basic aqidah and a clear understanding of the proverbial red lines. again those who have exposure to statements from numerous ulama who are acknowledged as authorities, usage of sahabah and their successors (in case of praise of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam) will be able to quickly resolve whether a statement is problematic or not. a good starting point is to read aqidah works, qur'an, tafsir, hadith and shuruh - which provide numerous examples for comparison, and help us derive good analogies. --- having said that, every case is to be treated individually on its own merit; i don't think we can write a problematic-text-multiple-meaning-recognition algorithm. that is my opinion, your mileage may vary. Allah ta'ala knows best. wa's salam.
The Mufti tried to deal with the issue of texts which create waham or shayba. Can you please thoroughly address the issue of these texts which can be read in multiple ways and give undesirable impressions?
i heard him out all the 6.48 mins. maulvi sahib should learn that generalisation is dangerous. just because this maulvi sahib made an error, how would he like it, if he is portrayed as 'a person who makes absurd ta'wils' or that all furqan institute grads make absurd ta'wils? while it is true that some people do exaggerations, we cannot generalise the actions of a few uninformed individuals and claim that 'hamara ye rawaiyyah ho gaya hai'. certainly, we must criticise those statements which are not compatible with the shariah; but in our zeal to correct people, we cannot draw the most extreme and far-fetched inferences from harmless statements. he talks of some sunni asking to raise both hands for nara risalat and once for nara takbir. and according to maulvi sahib this action means, one is raising the prophet higher than Allah. al-iyadhu billah. my question to him is: if a person says more salawat (i.e. durud sharif) than say tasbiH - would you accuse that person of elevating the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam higher than Allah? --- the very premise is unfounded - and it is accepting the accusation of devs/wahabis - that we raise the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam higher than Allah. al-iyadhu billah. this is a false accusation, and certainly not our madh'hab. some people eager to please devs/wahabis or to look good in the eyes of enemies, tacitly accept these charges and acting holier-than-thou and condemn them. i am extremely offended at the wahabi/devbandi false-allegation that this maulvi sahib pipes: "itna mubalagha karna ke ma'adhAllah sarkar ko khuda bana dena ya khuda se badha dena; chahe uska shayba bhi ho. ye hamari shari'at ki taraf se ijazat nahin di gayi." d-uh. who does such a thing maulvi sahib? which muslim will make the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam into a god or raise him above God? it is an absurd statement and the slander that wahabis and devbandis love to throw on sunnis. maulvi sahib should take a break and read shifa sharif and some refreshng works like sharh hamziyyah, then come back to the podium to speak. wa billahi't tawfiq.
the sheyr is indeed from mawlana hasan raza khan's diwan zawq e na'at. this small kid should still be learning instead of doling out fatwas. and he makes extrapolations which are crafted from his own mind. looks more like inferiority complex in these people who probably think devbandi/wahabi are more 'knowledgeable'. am sorry, but his idiotic comments need to be answered. he says: @1.51 ya'ani is ka natijah ye nikal raha hai, ke pahle hum hamd is liye padhtey hain; ke hamd padh lenge to hamari zaban paak ho jayegi. phir hum sarkar alayhi's salatu wa's salam ka naam len. to is se natija ye nikla ke ma'adh Allah, agar hum Allah tabaraka wa ta'ala ka naam agar naapaak zabaan se bhi lete hain to koyi mas'alah nahin hai. according to this kid, one cannot take the name of Allah tabaraka wa ta'ala with sinful tongues. he says ma'adhAllah; so is it haram or kufr or what? give me a fatwa from whichever school of thought you want for this question: "is it a sin to take the name of Allah with sinful tongues?" for a man who has committed a number of sins - what is the priority? should he first do tawbah and cleanse himself or busy himself in other prayers, such as salwat etc.? here, i make this emphatic statement, i dare him to issue a fatwa on my name: "the name of Allah should be taken by every tongue - clean (as in those of pious people) and unclean (as in sinful ones). there is no harm for sinful tongues to utter the name of Allah ta'ala". === before one thinks they are capable of faulting senior ulama, they should at least learn the language and try to understand what is being said; the 'paak ho le' here is not about ritual paki/cleanliness. which brings to his foolish extrapolation. haalaN-ke hamari shari'at ne ta'alim ye di hai ke koyi aysa shakhs hai ke jis par ghusl farz hai to woh qur'an ki tilawat nahin kar sakta. jo ke Allah ka kalaam hai. lekin woh hadith parh sakta hai, agarche hadison ka padhna bhi makruh hai. lekin gunah nahin hai. this is a stupid analogy and logically absurd. did mawlana Hasan raza khan say: "ke pahle zabaN qur'an se paak ho le" ? or did he say "Hamd"? if he said Hamd, then show me any fiqh book that says: "it is haram to utter the hamd of Allah in the state of impurity". in fact, the fresher-maulvi probably doesn't know that it is permissible for a person in a state of ritual impurity, to recite the surah fatihah, with the intention of duaa - and not with the intention of reciting the qur'an. like the basmalah: bismillahi'r raHmani'r rahim is actually a verse of the qur'an. but anyone in a state of impurity (junub or menstruating woman) can say this (rather SHOULD say this) when beginning any good/mubah activity, as it is said as a dua, not as reciting the qur'an. --- the second idiotic 'natija' of his extrapolation, is that he equates: 'Hamd' with 'reciting the qur'an'; and the 'name of the prophet' sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam with 'reciting the hadith'. ==== this is a glimpse of the over-enthusiastic zeal of 'being restrictive in praising the prophet - sallAllahu `alayhi wa sallam' that led ismayil and his followers for the shameful analogies and led to the tafwiyat of their iman. nas'alu Allaha al-aafiyah. ----- thirdly, find me a book that has salawat on the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam, before the Hamd of Allah ta'ala. it is a fact and common practice that we say the Hamd of Allah ta'ala - and then say the salawat on the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. so also, the kalimah, where the name of Allah comes first and then the name of the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. --- coming to the sheyr: ke pahle zabaN Hamd se paak ho le to phir naam le woh Habib e khudaa kaa first, let him cleanse his tongue by uttering the Hamd (Praise of Allah) thereafter, let him take the name of the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. this actually means, that one should cleanse his tongue from sins and then talk about the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. it is only incidental that Hamd is mentioned and that his tongue is cleansed by uttering the name of Allah ta'ala. so the focus is on US taking the name of the prophet - sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam, to whom respect is due. not that Hamd of Allah is lesser than the prophet - al-iyadhu billah. only a diseased mind or an abjectly unimaginative mind which can only think in monochrome, will think about 'cleansing' as in water and gargle. ---- phir, or 'thereafter' is 'thumma' in arabic. now ask this maulvi sahib to issue fatwa of ghuluww on these ulama; two sprung immediately to my mind: === have husn zann of our ulama. this is a quick reply. probably will revisit it soon. Allah ta'ala knows best.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1487035991429611&id=173324246134132 Learned scholars, please share your thoughts on this issue. Aren't the ashaar he quotes from Zauq e Naat of Mawlana Hassan Raza Khan?
