usaid ul haq strange position on alahazrat

a lot can be said but let time speak its mind. suffice it to say that many a people have had to eat their words in the past.

Some people have more baseerah than others. they are reproached for stating the unapparent. in the end Allah is the judge.

wassalaam.

 

a good shaykh (from the UK) told me that these are the two ways in which e3la' kalimatul haqq can be done

that is simply preposterous. Darul Iftaa has a million and one fiqh issues to address - taharah, hajj, zakat, contemporary issues like internet matrimonials, prayer times in scandinavia, etc

trashing murtad padris is not the only job of a Darul Iftaa

in the fatwa that you posted, the questioner asked if tahir is a Sunni, and in the reply, the mufti just quoted Waqarul Fatawa, which is directly relevant to the point seeing the question in the way it was asked.

this flicking the question elsewhere spiel is ridiculous. the greatest beauty and authority of Fatawa Ridawiyya is that Ala Hazrat always quoted the authorities before himself with their texts directly addressing the question being asked, or Ala Hazrat applying qiyas on their quotes and reasoning if it was a contemporary issue.

besides, who ever told you that every fatwa has to be publicized. many muftis answer many questions privately, even polemics related.

as far as this murtad tahir is concerned, i have a grouse with pretty much all Sunni shuyukh in the subcontinent - DI or not.

personally speaking, i will only be happy if this dajjal is unanimously declared a murtad and an outcast and hung out to dry by a concerted effort of ALL desi Sunni ulema - JUST LIKE THE QADIANIS. right now the efforts of even the good and genuine Sunni elders, in dealing with the fitnah of dajjal tahir are scattered, and not very helpful to the average Sunni on the street.

around march 2012, i too asked an aalim at a reputable darul uloom in pakistan. i sent him the istiftaa regarding the wembley event.

just so you know, these people are not DI, but still i was told that any decent Sunni already knows this guy's a murtad, and that in pakistan there are actual and real threats from kafir friendly politicians and political parties and mafia groups against ulema who openly trash tahir; not withstanding the lashing from pakistan's also sold out media channels like geo, dunya news, etc etc. at the end of the day, this dajjal's case is a major political, media & mafia mess to get into

i called my aalim friend for around a month and pleaded with him to 'ok try this allama sahib, or this darul uloom' and so on.... and he obliged with my requests and went to two or three good Shuyukh and darul ulooms in pakistan (well-respected and well-known to Sunni bachcha-bachcha).

in the end i was told that there is no need to send istiftaa as Akhtar Raza Sahib's audio on the internet already dealt with the issue and "him (Akhtar Raza Sahib) being our elder, his fatwa is our fatwa" ("unka fatwa hamara fatwa hai")

anyway, sorry brother, but like I said, unless you can prove that DI supports this or that heretical position, or this or that individual/group WITH FULL AWARENESS of their heresies, you or anyone else has got nothing on them in terms of Sunniyat

anything anyone says against DI can only be counted as

intra-Sunni-envy, jalaapa, and sadraapa at worst; or
simply a disagreement with their furoo3 in deen and strategy in duniya at best!

 

brother Abdal Qadir; if DI chose "option 1" (as per your classification), DI should not have opened a Darul Iftaa, for then it is incumbent to say the truth; when they did, they should mention the FACTS, not just "flick" the question elsewhere.

 

DI's openly stated policy is (as mentioned in my words) - do not poke anyone, and do not let anyone poke you

-----
in regards to heresies, there are 3 things:

a) heretical position/concept
b) heretic individuals
c) heretic organizations/groups

at the end of the day the heretic individuals and organizations are the bearers, followers & propagators of the heretical position

-------

there are two ways to propagate the truth and negate & refute heresies and heretics:

1. just stating the correct 3aqaid and principles, and negating heresies - all at a conceptual level (only (a))

eg. Islamic nikah is a perpetual contract done with 2 adult Muslim witnesses, a set mahr amount, and ijab and qubool of the man and woman concerned, without stipulating any pre-determined time of expiry. any contract that stipulates a pre-determined time of expiry is not an Islamic nikah but rather adultery/fornication.

2. stating the correct 3aqaid and principles, and negating heresies - mentioning the heretical groups and personalities (all of (a), (b), and (c), mentioned above)

eg. Islamic nikah is a perpetual contract done with 2 adult Muslim witnesses, a set mahr amount, and ijab and qubool of the man and woman concerned, without stipulating any pre-determined time of expiry. the mut3ah of the shias does not fulfill these requirements and is adultery/fornication in the eyes of the Islamic Shari3ah.

---

both of these ways of propagating the truth and negating heresy are proven from the ways of our elders, and have their applications in regards to time, place, audience, and the aims & objectives of the mufti/shaykh/organization concerned.

as long as the job of calling to the truth and negating heresy is done properly and honestly without any khiyanah, you really can't hold it against anyone if they choose the first method and not the second or vice versa.

DI has taken the first method and is doing that job well with full honesty to the Ahlus Sunnah.

on the other hand, many a shaykh/orgs who think they have taken the second approach, have somewhere or the other lapsed due to unawareness about certain heretical groups/individuals or deliberate PC or politics or money or any other reason

you can and SHOULD have a problem, if a shaykh/mufti/organization is a supporter of a heretical position (or a heretical individual or organization, having full awareness of their heretical positions).

unless and until you can prove that DI is a supporter of this or that heretical position or knowingly supports this or that heretic individual or organization with full knowledge of their heresies, you got nothing on them brother.

--------

in the current times, with heretics like ali jifry and tahir padri, any Sunni who follows either of the two approaches in refuting their fitnah is hated

people who choose the first option, are frowned upon, and called backward fools who are not in touch with the times and circumstances, should they even as a matter of principle mention that it is haram to celebrate christmas

people who choose the second option of openly naming and shaming them, are referred to as intellectual and verbal terrorists, takfiris, possessors of inflated egos, and having no fear of Allah in their hearts for openly showing the Shari3ah to a wali who is supposedly above the Shari3ah or knows it better than all that was said by the scholars of Islam for the last 1435 years

in fact, even the first group is called takfiris and speech terrorists if they mention the principles of takfir like stating that wearing the cross takes one outside of Islam.
-------
edit - furoo3i ikhtilafat do NOT count as heresies

 

Not refuting anyone openly has been the "hallmark" of DI. probably part of the charter (call it "manshoor' if you may).

But then DI formed its own "Darul Ifta": and it then becomes compulsory, (farz) for an Aalim to speak up and warn people regarding the trials (fitnas) encircling them; especially if the fitna is DIRECTLY associated with Imaan, and is as filthy as Dr Tahir, the murtad.

For example, we posed the question regarding TuQ, in March 2012 (long after the infamous Wembley Circus), and the reply we got, was "You can refer to Waqar ul Fatawa, Volume x".

In late 2013, probably under pressure, DI issued a "fatwa" if you can call it one; that too is actually not a Fatwa in itself, but a reference again to the the Fatwa by Mufti Waqaruddin Sahab (rehmatuAllahe alayhe), which is very old (probably of 1991-92): i.e. much, much earlier than the OPEN INFIDELITY committed by Dr Padri in 2011, and onward. It seems to suggest that instead of Padri being a MURTAD, Padri is just a "non-sunni". Astaghferullah. Please see attached scan: no date, and just a copy paste from Waqar ul Fatawa..

A fresh Fatwa should have been issued by DI, showing the scoundrel Padri's REAL, CURRENT state of affairs: or at the very least, they should have referred to the dozens of fresh fatawa issued by various Sunni Ulema.

The Holy Prophet said, “He who is asked something he knows and conceals it will have a bridle of fire put on him on the Day of Resurrection.” (Abu Dawood)

 

@Emir:

Please be specific. Your statement can be considered valid if and only if the rizvis you speak of are indeed the representatives of rizviyyat. Otherwise I too can make such sweeping statements about almost every silsilah - and we all know the standard reply: oh, they don't represent us, you are defaming us for no reason, you are jelaous etc.

I am sure many members of this forum will be aware of ill disposed people and unacceptable incidents relating to various silsilahs. I know things about certain rizvis that will make any sensible person's head spin. but it always comes down to individuals versus his associations.

We are living in the end of times and all of us are full of weaknesses, there are exceptions ofcourse but I think we have enough number of prople with faults aplenty to keep us bickering forever. sometimes it becomes necessary for some people to speak up - but i wonder if anyone ever listens.

Unfortunately such sweeping statements do not help at all, they will simply earn you the ire of even good people who are associated with the group being implicated. You have spoken about 'indian-rizvi-scholars'. i request you to consider the import of these words.

I respect Mawlana Usaid(rahimahullah) and some scholars I have the good fortune to interact with also respect him while I also know scholars who have had their reservations about him. No one has said he was not a sunni. As to your claim of 'guilt by association' or whatever all i can say is, England door ast!

I regret getting involved in this discussion at all.
Sorry if I have hurt anyone's feelings and I seek forgiveness of Allah if I have been unjust to anyone.

Wassalaam

 

No he is not. The only person who sits in the darul ifta is mufti abul hasan. Who has been removed from sunniyat and by whom ? Please do let us know instead of just insinuating.

 

And if guilt by association with Jame Noor is the criteria to cast doubts on Mowlana Usaid ul Haq then you will end up casting doubts on hundreds of scholars including the likes of Mufti A'le Mustafa Misbahi Ashrafi who was a regular contributor and who is chief Mufti at Allama Zia ul Mustapha Sahibs darul uloom

 

These days there seems to be almost an obsession with removing people from sunniyat or raising doubts about their beliefs. People are struck out on a whim usually without a) approaching that individual to seek clarification or at the very least giving any benefit of doubt.

The worst culprits unfortunately are Indian so called 'rizwi' scholars who are as far away as possible to the conduct of A'la Hazrat and Mufti-e-Azam-e-Hind and Hujjatul Islam (rehmatullahialay) who never removed anyone from sunniyat unless they had done thorough research.

 

for the record: qasim sahib did not post a new thread; but when the original thread was split, unfortunately, his post was the first and therefore this thread appears to have been started by him.

it is also true that the moderator who moved it gave it a name which qasim sahib did not (and he has taken exception to that); but at the same time we cannot avoid moving it to another thread. starting a thread is not a crime and i have renamed it to the main content of his post (first in this thread).

---
wa's salam.

 

JazakAllahu khayran. I agree with what you say. Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

actually that thread was a mess.

where did i say anything pro or anti Khushtar Noorani, whose doings (+ve or -ve) i am not aware of?

i can only pre-emptively state that tahir is the perfect litmus test, tahir's friend is an enemy of the Ahlus Sunnah and Muslims themselves

my only question to Qasim Ridawi is very simple:

What is the evidence that Usayd ul Haq was on the board of Jama-e-Noor?

there is nothing implied and nothing in between the lines.

i just want proof that Usayd ul Haq was on the board of the said magazine.

 

its evident that some khulafa of Mufti A'zam E Hind no longer follow his fatwa. The ones that don't seem to praise DI a lot. Just saying.

 

The view of another Khalifah of Huzoor Mufti-e-Azam Hind regarding DI:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh1y5pbCJu0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1tgrjqmgx8

PS: I'm not a follower of DI and do not neccessarily agree with the manqabat in the video.

 

brother AQ do you know about this person Khushtar Noorani? if you don't, you should enquire about his doings and then re-evaluate the whole thing at the touchstone of shariah. given you own statement, "one strike and you are out " I trust you'll see things in a different light.

 

but of course, no uff will be uttered at the jahil liar-paqs' lies about sahaba and tongue in cheek insults at celebrated dead scholars like Imam Bukhari & Ghazali

rafidis who live in glass houses!

mr. qasim ridawi, again, can you please provide proof for this....

 

brother KS I have been forced to reply because of your comments:

1. This is the 2nd time you have dragged a whole silsila in just because of what some individuals have done. Can't you give it a rest? what's mawlana Ilyas or madni miyan got to do with this thread?

If you had to say something in defence of mawlana usaid sahib (rahimahullah) you should have done that instead of telling everyone else is committing errors too. that 's not news, is it? and you seem to have overlooked Hashmi Miya's meeting with known minhaji supporters. But that's neither here nor there. I think most people on this forum have agreed that we do not follow personalities - WHOEVER they may be.

2. Your are simply parroting DI members about non-scholars not being qualified to refute. there are many other things that non-scholars are not supposed to do but that's not spoken about. anyways, who's the non-scholar?

"Ikkeeswi sadee ki azeem 'ilmi aur roohani shaksiyyat, shaykh-e-tareeqat, ameer-e-ahle-sunnat................."?

doesn't match up does it? besides I have posted elsewhere how Shaykh Asra's own statement that DI was founded at the behest Allama Arshad is not accepted by the DI members. In their 'history of DI' they simply removed his name. I had posted the link, you can check for yourself.

Then listen to this video: http://sunniport.com/masabih/showpost.php?p=44276&postcount=23 you will note the carefully chosen words - and something else if you listen in objectively. the reason stated by mawlana ilyas as to why he chose mawlana ziyaudeen madani instead of mufti-e-aazam-e-hind for bayah is also quite interesting, you may want to enlighten yourself about it.

and you have read 'fatwa-africa', yeah? can you tell the DI scholars what the difference between a shaykh-e-isaal and shaykh-e-ittisaal is? because in one episode dedicated to discussing the topic of peeri-mureedi they seemed to think that every peer - even mawlana ilyas - is should be given absolute obedience - like the corpse in the hands of the ghassaal! they apply all those stipulations that are for a shaykh-e-murabbih to others.

and aren't the attaris also ridawis at the end of the day?

then you have mawlana ilyas stating that he is not sure that Shaykh Fariduddeen Attar is a wali-Allah and then saying 'I take back my words in which I called him a wali because no one, to the best of my knowledge, has said that he is a wali!' And what about the DI, across it ranks, calling mawlana Ilyas a wali-e-Kamil at the drop of a hat?

finally, the only reason a sunni scholar is ever given air-time on madani channel, is when they are praising mawalana ilyas. that's all they are supposed to do. Hsahmi Miyan is good, Mawlana Kaukab noorani is good, Sayyid Muzaffar Hussain Shah is good, Mufti Shams ul Huda is good - but not good enough to be given half an hours of lecture time on their channel, no this 'channel of sunnis' is reserved for the DI only. I don't get it. maybe you can.

3. Anything you want to say to mawlana qasim, can't it be said in another thread?

-----------------------------

I know that all this could have some innocent interpretations and I don't want to destroy my akhira by insisting that the people I talked about above are dunyadaar or bigoted. at any rate, all of them are loads better than poor myself.

the point is: two wrongs do not make a right. I expected you to be more cautious than this. why do you fire up every time someone criticises a non-ridawi? does prudence not demand us to be academic, as both aH and QHR were? at the least this keeps pot-stirrers like nawaz at bay.

I respect you immensely and though my answer might make you feel that I am refuting you rest assured that it is not so, I only want you to be reasonable.

Allah knows best.

Wassalaam.

 

nawaz, either way. According to Mawlana usayd [Allah forgive him], you'd probably be a deviant anyway so stop getting into matters involving Sunnis cause this ain't your field son.

As for Mufti Akhtar Rida being a sunni, I think you should concentrate on the ijma (or is there jamhur?) of you being a deviant according to your belief that Sayyidina Ali (May Allah ennoble his face) being superior to Sayyiduna abu Bakr (May Allah be well pleased with the most superior of mankind after the prophets according to the ijma)

I seriously do not know what you are doing on this forum. You belong to that so called islamic forum where you're busy making up your own Islam and passing it off as what all the scholars have believed till today.

 

Shah Jee do you remember when Mufakkir Ph.D was misquoting Maqalat al-Islamiyyin?

When he said to Ninowy 'come here my Arabic is the best'

So when did Mufakkir complete his Ph.D in Islamic Normative Sciences?

Sad that you have become Kasavis. Syeds do not sell their Deen

 

KS, because you can't and all you have is mish-mash. I feel sorry for your deliberate blindness. There is no cure for your ailment. I may sound harsh but brother if some jahil says something, I can accept. But when a seemingly learned person says the same it is pretty hurtful. I figured out when it your elder brother said that juwayni's ghalib zann means qati!!?? he was unaware that al-juwayni himself explicitly states elsewhere what he meant by it!! so much tahqiq is damaging for health. and where is the hashiya on zulal sharif. four years ago you said next year!!... There is legitimate difference through out the centuries by the Imams of ahl al-sunnat on the issue yet you guys are treating it like Jatt and Raja fight!!


as for being a sunni, well, mawlana akhtar raza's sunniyyat has been also rescinded by his own peer khana but i suppose this will be censored! as it hurts the pure white self proclaimed righteous mellow x's

it is astonishing how you guys are talking about a dead person and his crime was that he thought his ancestors more learned than alahazrat. Uff! Khuda ka khauf karo!