are those who do qawwali fasiq

the thing is that your average guy on the street doesn't know the first thing about istidlal.

the average guy on the street gets told by those scholars taking those non-standard opinions that such and such action is permitted according to his tahqeeq.

sorry brother, i'm not being pedantic or difficult, but can you provide the basis for this statement if it is an actual ruling of a mufti? and if yes, is that mufti from Maslak-e-Ala Hazrat?

or is it your own ihtiyat based on that citation of Imam Subki above?

it's not very common these days.

 

Some common sense.

AlaHazrat is just one Sunni Mighty Scholar among many in this world. His duty was to pass us the Deen of Salaf as Salih, in India, and he did, and the proof of his being a Scholar par excellence, a Mujaddid, and a Wali, is the sheer number of Muslims in this world that save their Eeman by reading his books, and knowing about his way. He saved our Aqeeda.

Because deobandi/wahabi/Shiite books mean you loose your Eeman.

That is all that matters. It's not the first time that there are molvis giving fatwas against Ala Hazrat fatwas, deliberately [ in aqeeda and furu ], and it won't be the last time either. What matters is how much do the fatwas of those molvis [ on aqeeda and furu] weigh based on Usool of Deen? We can use Ala Hazrat's fatwas as a litmus test, or the fatwas of other great scholars of this Deen, as a litmus test to check the fatwas of those molvis in question. If someone says Ala Hazrat's fatwas are enough as a litmus test, then that is fine too. I believe they are.

I consider those who listen to music fussaq, like those who shave their beards deliberately, and my main source of information on these furu issues is non-subcontinental scholars. And AlaHazrat's arguments added weight even further.

I understand, that in Little England, where molvis call in wahabis, and become Sulah Kulli, and have opened the doors of ijtihad based on new age progress in the name of Islam; that this can cause young emerging Sunnis to go on the defensive, and become militant Sunnis. It's a reaction. It has advantages and disadvantages for the community as a whole.

Dr Tahir has not yet progressed to the state of Qaradawi or Ikhwanis yet.

Molvis, and Bawas even take over mosques, and kick the Sunnis out. The Molvis and Bawas follow their nufoos.

 

qawwali as it is known today, (with music and sung by fussaq) is haram. that some latter day scholars allowed it or participated in it is no proof for its permissibility.

if any scholar listens to qawwali in our time knowingly and by choice (not the kind of music forced upon us in public places, airports, waiting lounges etc.) in the name of sama'a and becoming near to Allah ta'ala, i will not consider him a fasiq, (as my flaws and shortcomings outnumber their laxity in one mas'alah) but i will not pray behind him - if he is a sayyid, i will pray behind him and repeat my prayer afterward.

Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

i have read half a dozen or more treatises and dozens of opinions of ulama that singing with instruments is haram.

concerning specific individuals and scholars among them, we do not say they are fasiq for taking a non-standard opinion. this was mentioned long ago when someone said that pir mihr ali shah would listen to music. to quote imam subki:

Yet, this is a debatable point – and if a scholar is convinced of its veracity, there is no harm in his choosing the opinion he is convinced with; the basis of leading or following [ijtihād taqlīd] is based on the strength of conviction.*
​

----
the actions of certain mashayikh cannot be proof or hujjah against the majority opinion. indeed, there could be some uzr or explanation or ijtihad on their part, but certainly it cannot be used by anyone else as proof of permissibility.


Allah ta'ala knows best.
-------------------
*update: imam subki was talking about a separate issue and not about qawwali; cited here to mention why a scholar can choose a different opinion if he is convinced that it is right.

 

i too consider Huzoor Mufti A3zdham Hind higher than the contemporaries of the subcontinent.

so here's a question:

despite knowing Mufti A3zdham Hind's ruling on qawwali, why was Shaykh Mukhtar Ashraf Jilani Kichochwi allowed to lead his namaz-e-janaza when everyone present knew full well that Shaykh Mukhtar Ashraf believed in the permissibility of qawwali and also participated in qawwalis WITH mazameer?

why didn't any of the khulafaa present tell someone else to lead Mufti A3zdham's namaz-e-janaza?

----

you can bash DI as much as you want, but do you have any explanation for this? DI was not even born then, and all of Mufti A3zdham Hind's closest khulafaa and aides were present at his janaza. radi Allahu 3anhum.

------

this is why, with the greatest respect to abu Hasan, i think he jumped the gun a bit in his passionate love for Ala Hazrat and his fatawa and dislike for qawwali also

----

we first need to get the definition of fasiq right and see who it applies on!

surely all kafirs

also all those who engage in kabaair - which are agreed upon by the entire ummah (alcohol, robbery, zina etc)

BUT - what about

1- ikhtilafat between madhabs (Hanafi Shafi3i ikhtilafat on beard for instance)

2 - ikhtilafat WITHIN madhabs - yes ifta, tarjih and ifta with proper tarjih is not everyone's forte, BUT

2a - what about the mujtahid (mutlaq or within the madhab) who has a difference of opinion within the madhab, or a mufti who issues a ruling on a contemporary matter, that might not be in line with some other opinions in the madhab?

2b - what about the poor commoner who follows a rare opinion from a mujtahid, or the contemporary mufti citing them?

not that i don't trust aH's comments, but still, we need detailed explanations from fiqh books or - big sigh - muftis we trust

----

after getting a detailed explanation on the meaning and definition of fasiq, we can move on to qawwali and fussaq.

it's a no-brainer qawwali is allowed by some esteemed scholars.

 

So what are the conditions for ijtihad? Nowadays molvis are giving all sorts of fatwas against the fatwas of ala hazrat. Just brcause you say so, doesn't meant you're right. The train issue, the witnessing over the phone, the photo issue, associating with people like obaidullah azmi (against the fatwa of ala hazrat) and other things which I can't remember. Are all these things completely jayiz now because a 'muftis' think times have changed? I mean, you're acting as if Islam can't be spread without the video camera. Rather funny.

So that means, DI who don't allow qawwali and follow the fatwa of ala hazrat have called Fussāq to their channel to promote them.

So brother abu hasan, are irfan shah sahib hashmi miya, their pir sahib sarkar e kalan, saqib shami Fussāq?

Also, if a Mawlana believes those who disagree with the picture issue as non mujtahids and therefore deem it as not accepted ijtihad, can they call those who do it Fasiq.

Personally don't see any differnce in ruling images haram and those who do it as Fasiq and qawwali being haram and those who do it as Fasiq. Same as a fistful beard.

I consider mufti azam e hind higher than these Mawlanas nowadays and I follow his fatwa that whoever does video are Fasiq. I just wanted to know bro abdul qadirs view

 

as-salamu 'alaykum dear shaykh abu Hasan

as a side question to some of what you have written,

i am following the qawl that a hanafi must have beard of a qubdah length, otherwise constantly (israr) trimming it below a qubdah makes you fasiq. (i am not right, please correct me).

if a shafi'i imam is following a qawl in his madhhab that it "not good" to trim it, but not fisq though. would it be makruh tahriman to pray behind him (only because of the beard)? based on which asl?

i am asking to learn the hukm... not for debate.

jazaka Llahu khayran kathiran

 

ps. i only saw Noori's comment after i replied to TI. had i seen it before, i would have complied with his request not to debate, although my questions on the thread are genuine.

 

for the record, i wasn't answering his question or trying to 'work' with him when i said 'let us work' or 'we need to establish'. i was listing out my own questions and queries that we need to look in fiqh books and/or ask muftis.

-------

which brings us to the issue of two muftis within the same madhab, at the same/similar standing - what does a commoner do then?

let's say the issue of movie recording and pictures?

sure tarjih in establishing rulings is not everyone's cup of tea, but then a common Akhtar Ali who follows Hashimi Miyan's fatwa on tv being permissible for propagating deen and a common Amjad Ali who follows Azhari Miyan's fatwa of impermissibility - what do they do? does Amjad Ali call Akhtar Ali a fasiq?

the issue of pictures is further complicated with the advent of digital pictures, which disappear upon a shut down of the device or a changing of the screen.

so if one group have a fatwa from one contemporary mufti, and another group also have a fatwa from another contemporary mufti, what then do we do about tafseeq?

this is why i left qawwali aside and was more curious about the issue of tafseeq in itself.

----

it's one thing if a position is accepted across the madhab or the overwhelming majority, like the witr masala you pointed out.

i do not know (and hence need to ask a mufti) - in regards to differences of opinion within the madhab

----

on the issue of qawwali, i believe it to be haram based on Ala Hazrat's ruling - seeing the subcontinental audience and culture i agree with everything you said. one can't help but admire Ala Hazrat's foresight

on the issue of music itself, i believe in permission of certain instruments, with certain reservations, based on the fatawa of some other non-subcontinental scholars who permit certain instruments for certain reasons - war drums in combat, marriages, Eid celebrations, etc.

-----

am i correct in understanding your comment if i say that if a mufti after Ala Hazrat gives a ruling not complying with Ala Hazrat's ruling, we won't do tafseeq of him or those who follow his opinion?

since i follow Ala Hazrat's fatwa of haram, i never bothered investigating the pro-qawwali fatawa and dalail.

all i know is that certain subcontinental scholars DO consider it permissible, and based on their rulings, a lot of their followers too.

according to what i understand from you, we or our shuyukh do not do tafseeq of those shaykhs and their students who believe in permissibility, like lets say Shaykh Irfan Shah Mashadi Sahab, am i right?

if we do, then there is also the issue of those poor followers who only listen or follow what is given to them by their muftis. shouldn't they be considered having an 3udhr if they are advised on the permissibility by a qualified mufti?

 

in which case, every time you need to know certain hukm and cannot find it written down, ask a mufti instead of groping in the dark trying to grab a vaporous hypothesis and build a castle of sand upon it.

simple. ask those who know.

 

the question of music is a specific matter of furu'u and ulama down the ages - shafiyis and hanafis have ruled music haram; this is not a modern occurrence and books have been written ruling it haram for centuries. the only exception is duff in musical instruments. i have heard (or read) that imam shafiyi did not permit drumming the fingers in rhythmically.

---
some ulama like imam nablusi have a broader definition of mazamir and on the permissibility of instruments, but nowhere does he give carte blanche to the ravings of pan-chewing fussaq who don't even know whether their braying has made them kafir or not.

the accidental utterance of words amounting to kufr in a state of ecstasy by pious people immersed in an experience is not the same as deliberate utterance of kufr (in a stage setting with accompanying music and orchestra) by people who don't seem to have even prayed prior to their braying.

---
qawwali as in recitation of chaste poetry (by pious men) that rekindles obedience of Allah ta'ala, reminds of the faults and shortcomings of one's own self juxtaposed to the forgiveness and mercy of the All-Forgiving, and love of those whom He loves...

gunah e rajaa* ka hisaab kya, woh agar karoroN se haiN siwa
magar ay afuww tere afw ka na Hisab hai, na shumar hai

tu aur rajaa se hisaab lena, rajaa bhi koyi hisaab meiN hai?

ay rajaa, aah ke yuN sahl kaTeyN jurm ke saal
do ghaDi ki bhi ibadat to baras jaane do

hai to rajaa niraa sitam, jurm pey gar lajaayeN hum
koyi bajaaye soz e gham, saz e Tarab bajaaye kyuN

​

but this should be sans merriment and frolicking, music and clapping, dancing, swaying, sashaying and such things which are against shari'ah.

----
and as for tarjih in fatawa, it is not everybody's cup of tea; (see unbeknown to us).

my point in the other thread was that a person does not go out of ahl al-sunnah by differing with imams on matters of fiqh, regardless of that person's being in the right or wrong.

where tafsiq is not done for a mufti who has committed an ijtihadi error, tafsiq might be done for a commoner doing it in spite of warning by muftis. (this also varies according to the hukm being haram or makruh; wajib or mustaHabb)

when they say that tafsiq is not done on ijtihadi matter, that means that two muftis have exercised ijtihad and both are right in their approach; but one of them is incorrect in the outcome. based on their approach - that is attempt to understand the qur'an and sunnah to best of their ability - it is not permissible to do tafsiq.

thus, witr is not wajib according to imam shafiyi and wajib according to our imam. a hanafi leaving out witr is a fasiq, but a shafiyi leaving out witr is NOT fasiq. (see vol.11 of FR concerning tarawih behind a shafiyi skipping witr).

this is why we follow madh'habs. a commoner cannot choose any of these opinions on his own - as picking fruits in a supermarket. because, he is following his own choice/desire rather than following the qur'an and sunnah. and thus a hanafi (or a commoner from a predominantly hanafi town) skips witr, he will be told that he is a fasiq.

he cannot argue that: 'why don't you make tafsiq of imam shafiyi?' [al-`iyadhu billah].

these matters of taqlid, talfiq ought to be made clear to the mutafaqqih of our times; particularly those who are in their final years of graduation.

----
it must be clear now also, that alahazrat's taHqiq, his erudition, his powers of reasoning, his ability to derive and interpolate, his linguistic skill and contextual accuracy is of the highest level during or after his times.

thus, it is safer to follow his opinion; and hence the 'maslak e alahazrat'. however, if another hanafi mufti, due to need of times, in a genuine attempt to address and resolve contemporary problems, disagrees with alahazrat, regardless of his being right or wrong, he will not go out of maslak e alahazrat.

Allah ta'ala knows best.


---
*though i am not a poet myself, i use the nom-de-plume rajaa (= hope) to alter alahazrat's verses which fit me perfectly; may Allah ta'ala forgive us and help us amend our state.

 

Taalib-e-Ilm bhai, i am not a mufti.

and you have raised an excellent question (nothing sneaky or sarcastic, i mean it, it's a question that occurred to me too)

let us work methodically.

let us first define fasiq from our fiqh books.

on what kind of violations of the Shar3i rulings does this word apply?

does it only apply to one category of people?

or does it apply to multiple categories of people?

from reading the Quran, we can say that obviously it applies to all kafirs too.

again, from reading the Quran and hadith and from reading basic and simple books, we know it applies also to those who violate rules on openly stated qat3i faraid and muharramaat due to their own ineptitude - obligation of prayers, fasting in Ramadan, Hajj, etc. or the prohibition of alcohol, zina, riba, 3uqooq al-walidayn, murder etc. not accepting those obligations like salah or prohibitions like prohibition of alcohol - as a part of deen - would make one a kafir.

as for violating rulings on non-qat3i matters - this is where we need to open our fiqh books and see if violating a certain DO or DON'T ruling also makes one a fasiq

if so, what are the conditions, criteria, parameters etc. for labeling such a person fasiq, as there are tonnes of rulings on non-qat3i matters where even the salaf differ, not just the khalaf, and many times the difference of opinion is in exact opposite directions.

furthermore, we surely need to address violating WHOSE do or don't ruling would make one a fasiq?

the ijma3 of the entire madhab?

or what about differences of opinion within the madhab? if someone follows the ruling of halal on something from Imam Ibn Abidin, but Imam Ali Al-Qari (just thinking loudly, i don't have any specific rulings in mind) has ruled it haram - what do we call this guy who takes Imam Ibn Abidin's ruling?

then we also need to establish if at all there is some sort of a rating system for fussaq. obviously even Muslim drunks are not as fasiq as kafirs!

it's an excellent topic, if people can discuss properly and give proper references from the masters.

 

please give him a rest and i wish that AQ doesn't jump into another debate. please.!

 

AbdalQadir bhai, do you consider those who do qawwali as Fussāq or not?