are those who do qawwali fasiq

inquisitive, can you provide a reference for what you say? i ask because Mufti A3zdham Hind's quote says that these people save themselves from the hukm of fisq despite committing haram.

 

Ala Hazrat has also declared the one who listenes to qawwali with instruments as Fasiq

 

Noori posted the relevant snapshot in post #23. edit - he did mention the pg no.

 

I have been told that Mufti Azam-e-Hind (raHimahullah) has written towards the end of some fatwa that due to fulaN fulaN reasons the scholars who permit sama have "apne aap ko hukm-e-fisq se bacha liya".

I don not know the exact words but perhaps someone can post the fatwa here?

to be precise, 'must' as in 'waajib'.

Which is same as the ruling for the imamat of a fasiq (from what I learned in the 'beard-length' thread).

 

according to Waqarul Fatawa (volume 1, pg 167), a prayer behind someone who listens to qawwali is makrooh and must be repeated.

 

boring????????

what is this?

 

"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"

Brother you really shouldn't be using the internet if that is what you believe. How can you use the internet and avoid videos or pictures???

 

are you saying he has the right to have his photo taken, just because he did the tahqeeq and said photos are haram?

you also said in post # 9:

so do you or some others also consider Turabul Haq Sahib as a fasiq? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggsaxkoqQO8

(just youtube search for Allama Turabul Haq)

i'm addressing those things just in case other people also want to engage in similar discussion, they will have info.

is it? you invited me bhai. i didn't invite you.

i don't have your email, but chalo, at least the air is cleared that Mufti A3zdham Hind doesn't consider those who do qawwali as fussaq (unless i read his ruling wrong). your or my word doesn't count for anything in front of him.

i appreciate your being frustrated with me brother. fi amanillah.

 

Abdul qadir bhai, khwaja sahib was the one who did tahqeeq and said photos are haram. So you posting a photo of him with khustar doesn't mean anything. It's getting boring now, and it's actually wasting a lot of time. Bro abdul qadir, you have my email, you can email me if you wish and we can continue this discussion. I have no access to a laptop and answering long posts from a phon is very frustrating. Khuda hafiz

 

Taalib-e-Ilm bhai, before you reply to my post # 21, where i asked:

please go through your post # 9 once more. you said:

 

jazak Allah khayr Noori.

that clears the air.

if i am reading Huzoor Mufti A3zdham Hind's fatwa correctly, he says that qawwali is impermissible and the jumhoor is against it, BUT those who engage in it, can't be ruled fussaq, as this issue is of ikhtilaf, even if the people of ikhtilaf don't have sturdy evidences, and even if they will incur 2 sins by engaging in qawwali - one of doing a haram, another of considering it permissible contrary to the authentic ruling of the jumhoor.

---

please correct me if my understanding of his fatwa is wrong.

 

this is from fataawa Mustafawiyyah page 456 (pdf 513)

 

see post 20

 

@Taalibe-e-Ilm

that doesn't answer my question.

why was he allowed to lead any salah at all? were the khulafaa present not concerned about innocent mureeds of Huzoor Mufti A3zdham praying behind someone who engaged in qawwali?

it was their turf. they could have stopped him easily.

---

in any case, let us work on getting the definition of fasiq. i have stated honestly that in regards to non-qat3i matters of do/don't ikhtilafat, i have to ask a mufti or read fiqh books. (with much respect to abu Hasan, i don't find his post # 4 much helpful for me. besides, his post isn't a fatwa anyways)

you are very welcome to help me.

but yes, i consider those who engage in music for merry-making as fussaq.

in terms of music coupled with na3tiya ash3ar and things of a religious nature, i consider it impermissible BUT i reserve judgement on calling 'fasiq' until i have a credible source to inform me.

obviously i'm far below respectable shuyukh to do tafseeq of them - in regards to them, i have a similar understanding like abu Hasan (post # 12). but my point is about the common man who gets told by shuyukh that he can listen to qawwali. how can he be called a fasiq if he is only acting on a fatwa from a mufti he trusts? he doesn't have any means to assign or apply tarjih on fatawa.

i'm being completely honest here.

---

do you consider those who do qawwali a fasiq?

if yes, do you consider Hashmi Miyan a fasiq? what about his everyday common people mureeds?

or do you too have a similar idea like Abu Hasan mentioned in post # 12?

---

additionally, do you consider people who follow all the subcontinental scholars on movies being permissible as fussaq?

what do you have to say about Khwaja-e-Ilm o Fan Shaykh Muzaffar Hussain Ridawi having a photo taken with Khushtar Noorani ? http://www.sunniport.com/masabih/showpost.php?p=45108&postcount=11

isn't the issue of tasweer more serious than the issue of movies?

please give a straight forward answer. i answered you very candidly.

 

this might help

 

Clearly you are unaware of the history. There was actually two janazah salahs going on at the same time. Some ulema including mushahid e Millat, and other scholars present didnt pray behind sarkar kalan rather taajush shariah also lead a janazah salah purely on the basis sarkar kalan did qawwali. The janasheen of mufti azam e hind who was made his successor in his life time, lead the janazah salah so people did refuse.

 

no, pir Mehr Ali Shah rahimahullah didn't allow it for common people, it can be verified from his fatawa, i will try to find the reference inshaAllah.

 

استفت قلبك، واستفت نفْسَك البر ما اطمأنت إليه النفس، والإثم ما حاك في النفس، وتردد في الصدر، وإن أفتاك الناس وأفتوك
​

 

which is why we say music is haram.

of course, this is about deliberate listening to music - i have even sat in a bus in india (unlike scholars and prominent people, we may have to take public transport and do not have cars at our disposal everywhere) which was playing a hindu-religious movie blaring songs of shirk - that is when i researched and found out about noise canceling earphones. these days, we get to hear pop music and beats in masjid and even in the middle of juma'h prayer - some people are so pious and focused on their salah, that they won't move a little and switch off that phone singing in their pockets.

---
instead of making distinctions, we just say that music is haram. inadvertent music is pardonable, but switching it on and listening to music by one's own choice is haram.

Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

for example, nabidh was not deemed haram by imam abu hanifah, but later ulama ruled it haram; imam a'azam withheld from ruling it haram because it would necessitate tafsiq of saHabah; scholars ruled it haram because SaHabah knew the limits, and understood subtleties of aHkam far better than anybody else; and they knew where to stop - people who came later may not understand this and admitting it as a difference of opinion is opening the door to fitnah. hence the khalaf ruled nabidh as haram. (in fact it was differed upon since the times of salaf)

---
sama'a and music are two different things and music/instruments have been permitted only of late.

---
suppose, ulama and mashayikh such as pir mihr ali shah sahib and sarkar e kalan permitted qawwali with music (assuming the reports are true) it still remains to be ascertained that unlike an occasional foray, they avidly pursued this act and expressly permitted it for one and all.

even then, music as recent as thirty-forty years ago was not as pervasive as it is today. and people who were around mashayikh were not as irreligious as they are today.

and if they permit music for qawwali, why should it be haram outside? why should it be impermissible for film songs and pop music? or even beethoven and mozart?

how do those who permit music for qawwali propose to prevent the common man from listening to any kind of music? and what is the differentiator? if it is only the passion-inciting poetry, can one listen to concerts without any vocals?

shaikh yaqubi mentioned in one of his talks that a "professor" of hadith would listen to umm kulthoum while writing hadith. why should he be deemed a fasiq?