AQ feedback - offshoot of UBK thread

Discussion in 'Hanafi Fiqh' started by AbdalQadir, Sep 29, 2015.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    Noori, i will post my question that i sent to the shaykh on here in a few hours. just as an fyi, it wasn't an "official" fatwa but rather the feedback/comments/whatever you wanna call it from a shaykh i trust.

    also i will respond to your and unbeknown's points in the preceding 3 or 4 posts in a bit
     
  2. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    at least you can post your question you sent to the shaykh despite that he has approved of the first fatwa. if the other side do not reject it because of anonymity then they would definitely like to know what did you post to the jilani shaykh.
     
  3. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    i too appreciate your initiative to get fatwa from an arab mufti, and I am glad that you acknowledged the truth, except that some statements are a bit harsh or not everybody may agree with you in that regard. you wrote.

    unbeknown has already commented on this, i just want to ask you that how did you come to this conclusion? is there any evidence? otherwise it is quite cheeky complaint , specially when uka is a farigh'ut tahsil molvi, did he not learn all this during those years of education?

    note that i am glad not for the sake of baraili winning over ashrafyah, but only because it is the truth. I would really love to see that ashrafyah muftiyan e kiram retract and do ruju', otherwise they will be responsible for a great divide among ahlussunah and putting the eman of their supporters at stake.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2015
  4. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    they know the blunder well. And for this I'll quote your own words:

     
  5. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    both the above statements presume a lot of things which are not evident to me at this point in time.

    just to remind you about what you have said regarding him:

     
    Noori likes this.
  6. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    first of all jazakAllahu khayran for taking the initiative and also posting the results of your endeavour here.

    More than anything else it gave me relief to know that in the arab world too there still are people who make such firm and unambiguous statements.

    However, it must be obvious to you too that an anonymous mufti and an unclaimed audio reply is not going to have any effect on ashrafiyans. They have been advised in person even before this fatwa was written but to no avail.

    The next two posts are just to show you my disagreement about certain things you've written below. Please don't take them as sarcasm or refutations.
     
  7. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    i have got back the reply from the Arab Jilani Sayyid shaykh. i sent him obaid's istifta and Nizamuddin sahab's fatwa translated in english.

    the shaykh's response is rephrased and summarized as follows (from an audio i was sent, which can't be shared due to privacy reasons):

    despite the person's intentions to get kafirs to stop killing Muslims and spare Muslim lives, what he did is kufr and that makes him a murtad. the fatwa is a blunder and the daleel presented doesn't apply here and it's silly to bring it here. yes, we can make certain compromises on certain issues to get kafirs to stop killing Muslims, but this certainly isn't one of them. it's simply unacceptable and it is kufr (making one a murtad) to praise an idol of the kuffar in front of them.

    i said on the other thread too, that the istifta of obaid and the fatwa by Nizamuddin sab pretty much has all the meat and potatoes on the issue. i did not mention to the shaykh peripheral issues like "should people listen to obaid's speeches?" and so on. i explained to him the situation well and the desi nuances, in (from my perspective) an honest and unbiased manner.

    the outside-of-Bareilly-Mubarakpur-conflict shaykh's position on the issue is AQ's position henceforth and please ignore all my previous posts (on this issue).

    my own analysis of what he said and an addition to my position:

    he didn't even bother looking at the bid3ah of mentioning jihad as defensive only. he stopped right at "praising an idol of the kuffar in front of people who worship it". since he considers the fatwa a blunder, that by extension ALSO implies that it is a blunder on the part of ALL those muftis who attested to it.

    -----


    if i didn't consider Nizamuddin sab as a good and qualified mufti, i wouldn't have adopted sukoot over the fatwa and the issue surrounding it, plus i'm not a mufti myself and given obaid's reasons mentioned in the istifta

    communal riots scenario and helping out other Muslims - i was really unsure if that is an admissible defense or not

    and the consideration and analysis of Nizamuddin sab's presented daleel - considering his high standing as a mufti and the stature of Ashrafiya - trying to interpret it as indictment of hindus from their own precepts.

    since there was nothing from the Bareilly side by way of refutation, there was nothing to compare it against;

    plus, as i stated multiple times, i wanted the perspective of a qualified shaykh (qualified in my estimation) outside of the Bareilly-Mubarakpur divide

    ---

    i hope and pray to Allah i have been honest and unbiased, and if i haven't i seek His refuge and forgiveness as well as forgiveness of the shuyukh or their "camp" that i have transgressed against.

    i have sent the question i drafted to brothers abu Hasan and sunnistudent; and also the shaykh's audio response - so that they can judge me if i have been honest or unbiased or not - and can add their comments/feedback on the forum as well -

    with the proviso that the privacy and anonymity of my contact contacting the shaykh be maintained. they are not allowed to (not an order; in the sense it's an amanah) to share the shaykh's audio here

    but they can give their analysis of his comments or any indian-context details he may have missed etc,

    or their comments on me.

    ----

    Nizamuddin sahab and the attesting muftis should be informed about the blunder and the inadmissibility of the daleel presented in the fatwa, or in the very least asked to provide a comprehensive and exhaustive defense of their fatwa and the application and relevance of the daleel presented.

    obaid should be informed and told to re-proclaim the shahadah with the intention of entering Islam again and should be taught the safe boundaries of discourse and political maneuvering with the kuffar (he has said in his istifta he values his iman).

    ---

    i think we should all draft general istiftas in the fiqh section, on the current secular and democratic and "war on terror" political circumstances and muftis should provide SOLUTIONS & ANSWERS to us on what we can and can't do and say in political dealings with kuffar. it's very easy to trash a politician and announce a problem (rightly or wrongly). our muftis - on BOTH SIDES - should publish SOLUTIONS & ANSWERS more than problems by only being reactive and responding only when something gets out of hands.

    if obaid is indeed sincere for Muslims of india, its simply a shame that he wasn't provided any working guidelines by the Sunni scholars of india (BOTH SIDES) on what he can and can't do/say in politics with hindus or other kafirs.

    the least that scholars of both sides can do is swallow their pride and differences and sit down together to provide some SOLUTIONS to the awam rather than merely announcing problems.

    like it or not - POLITICS IS RELEVANT to Muslims in these times.

    the "war on terror" is a REAL political instrument of the kuffar.

    secularism & democracy are political REALITIES here to stay for some time, at least till another generation or two, regardless of how hypocritical, evil and ugly they are.

    scholars must provide SOLUTIONS & ANSWERS to the awam on how to deal with these evils, lest people like tahir and jifry multiply, or supposedly sincere to Muslims politicians (like obaid, assuming he really is sincere for Muslim welfare) overstep their boundaries.

    our ulema must be PROACTIVE PROBLEM SOLVERS LIKE ALA HAZRAT - not problem announcers!
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2015
    Noori and Wadood like this.
  8. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    sorry for this confusion, I linked the youtube audio just to point out who was marHum Mufti Abdul Mannan sahib, in case someone was not aware.

    the speech which ghulam-e-raza linked to here: http://thesunniway.com/AllamahSaheb-UrsEFaqihEMillat2015.mp3

    wassalaam.
     
  9. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    brother the link is a 11:41 min audio on waqea-e-karbala. (didn't hear it in full but kept checking fast forwarding a few seconds)

    you got the right link?
     
  10. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    emphatic no. i hate the sight of idols and hindus with tilaks, the sound of bhajans etc and so on. not self-righteous but honestly, can't stand it.

    meant it in a sense of an IKT controversy in general

    the only reason this event is supposedly a "controversy" is because of Nizamuddin sab's fatwa, and the alleged backdrop of godhra riots, plus his admissible or inadmissible excuse that he did it to establish hujjat on hindus using their own religion.

    true, but when there's group politics and a real life game of chess involved and personal defamation based on it, more so in a religious context (this politics is between 2 religious groups), the person has the right to put things straight from both perspective, religious and political. i may be wrong, but that was the thought behind saying that.
     
  11. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    I too forgot to make a similar point which had come to my mind when listening aallmah sahib's speech.

    The barilley shareef fatwa spans muftis from various dar-ul-iftas

    1. Bareilly (Azhari Miyan et al.)
    2. Ghosi (Allamah Zia ul Mustafa et al.)
    3. Mubarakpur (Mufti Meraj ul Qadiri and Mufti Nazim 'Ali - both from ashrafiya)
    4. Jamda Shahi (Mufti Akhtar Hussain Aleemi, Jamia Aleemia)
    5. Nagpur (I guess since the fatwa was issued from here, muftis from the host madrash are also amongst the signatories)

    there might be others since there are about a 100 signatories.

    someone please check if Mufti Mujeeb Ashraf Sahib is a signatory or not since he is from Nagpur.

    In contrast the the ashrafiya fatwa consists of mostly their own muftis or those who have opened up their seminaries at other places after having been attached to ashrafiya for many long years. If I am wrong please correct me. But I don't see how anyone will as the signatures are not readable.

    Allah knows best.
     
  12. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    first: would you go to a ram-katha and praise rama in the first place? (al-iyadhu billah).

    alas. it should never be to prove a point.
     
  13. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    forgot to mention earlier on.

    i think obaidullah should have also sent his istifta with his full speech and excuses and reasons and contexts to Bareilly as well, to aid in Sunni unity.

    the same thing he said to Nizamuddin sab, he could have said to the Bareilly scholars as well:

    janab, it's a partial quote taken out of context that the mustafti sent you. this is the full speech. these were the circumstances. these were my intentions. these were my implications. etc. ..... NOW, what's your ruling upon me?

    and for establishing hujjah in his favor, also to other Sunni darul ifta's in other parts of the nation or the Muslim world.

    if it was me in his place and i wanted to vindicate myself being fully confident i'm honest (or fearing for certainty of my iman if i committed kufr if i wasn't sure of the ruling on my situation, may Allah protect me and all Muslims from kufr), i would have certainly sent the istifta to both sides of this divide and at least 4 or 5 other Sunni darul ifta's outside of Bareilly & Mubarakpur including inside and outside the subcontinent.

    that way if the others vindicated me, i could flash their fatawa in front of the Bareilly muftis and say "see you guys made takfeer out of hasad and spite". if there was an ikhtilaf, i'd still do tawba and tajdeed e iman and nikah, but still let the awam and both sides of the divide know that Muslim scholars in general are 50-50 on their ruling upon me.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2015
  14. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    i too think on both camps there probably are opportunistic and twisted individuals who have used and abused good shuyukh's principled characters. don't know who they are, what they did, how they caused mischief - but the divide speaks for itself.

    history is replete with such examples of ministers giving kings a bad name due to abuse of their positions and power and the king's trust, vice presidents being the cause of many things done by presidents, deputies abusing senior nawabs, etc. etc. and also where deputies, or crown princes, or vice presidents, have taken the reigns after the demise of the good predecessor and given their legacies a bad name, sons taking over the father's business and running it into the ground, etc at work a lot of times the main reason for the workers' woes is not upper management but middle management.

    it exists in all areas of life - politics, power, work, religious heirarchy, family etc

    even if you are a king, you can't work without the influence of other humans around you. such is human nature.

    for the record, i have excellent friends and relatives on both these sides.

    not being holier than thou.

    but this is my principal reason of investigating the rightness or the wrongness of the fatwa of Nizamuddin sab

    to understand it better from a Islamic knowledge and its principles of takfeer point of view. that the politics involved is somehow connected to it, or is being dragged into it, is unfortunate no matter how relevant

    and the issue is directly tied up with a bunch of other similar scenarios related to perennialism that we routinely comment on on this forum

    first quick reading suggested it was right and a simple case of indicting hindus according to their own understanding of ram. then i read again and i felt what i stated in this thread in post #6 (specially the jihad part). a lot more good points have come up on this thread that we need to pursue with the ulema.

    we could easily open up another thread for posting UBK videos and comment on them till the cows come home, but that means nothing.
     
    Unbeknown likes this.
  15. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    It will be beneficial if someone posts the relevant passage from fatwa ridawiyyah where Alahazrat has spoken about the differences between the sahaba and the scholars of past. On why Imam Bukhari said about Imam Azam what he is reported to have said.

    He did not start by assuming unscrupulous motives. His words are so perfect that one is moved to say, "subhanAllah!" and one's love for both of the opposing camps only increases rather than becoming prejudiced against one.

    Compare this to how hisham kabbani and some others have defended Imam Azam. They did not shy from calling Imam Bukhari names such as 'he was prejudiced against hanafis' etc. I had read the article many years ago and I remember having developed some negative opinions about Imam Bukhari after reading those articles.

    Here's an article (unfortunately it's originally from lamppost): https://asharis.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/imam-al-harith-al-muhasibi/

    The second and third centuries of Islamic History was the era of hadīth documentation and the development of the hadīth sciences. So most of the major scholars of the time were focused on the preservation of hadīth and distinguishing fabricated and weak reports from those that were sound.

    Imam Al-Muhāsibī on the other hand, was inspired to focus on the purification of the heart and understanding the human psyche. So he would question his students about their thoughts and inclinations, try to understand them and how to cure those that were mischievous, and then he would write books inspired only by spiritual intuitiveness as opposed to what came in the form of scripture.

    For this reason, some of the scholars of his time severely criticized him, and cautioned people against reading his books. For instance, when Abu Zur’ah Al-Rāzī was asked about him and his books, he said:

    “Beware of these books…Innovations and deviances. Be obliged by what is transmitted. For verily, you’ll find in it what will avail you from these books.” It was then said to him, “But there is useful consideration (‘ibrah) in these books.” He replied, “Whoever doesn’t have useful consideration in the Book of Allah, then he has no useful consideration in these (books). Has it reached you that Mālik[1], Thaurī[2], Auzā’ī[3], or any of the Imams wrote books about insidious notions (khatarāt) and mischievous whisperings (wasāwis) and these things? These are people who have gone against the People of Knowledge. They come to us sometimes with Al-Muhāsibī, other times with ‘Abdur-Rahīm Ad-Dayabalī, and other times with Hātim Al-Asamm.” Then he said, “How quick are people to innovations!”[4]

    Anyone who is acquainted with the writings of Imam Al-Muhāsibī will quickly realize that these comments made by Imam Abu Zur’ah are unjustified and clearly shows the intolerance of those traditionally termed as Ahlul-Hadīth for anyone who took an approach different from theirs.

    If there is any bid’ah (innovation) that Al-Muhāsibī is guilty of it is merely that he didn’t take the same approach as that of those like Abu Zur’ah, while it escaped the Imam (Abu Zur’ah) that his approach was also a bid’ah, since it was something that neither the Prophet nor his companions embarked upon. So not every bid’ah is blameworthy.

    As for Imam Ahmad’s contention with Al-Muhāsibī, it isn’t totally clear except that scholars have given a few different reasons. Some say that Imam Ahmad criticized Al-Muhāsibī because of the books that he wrote in refutation of some deviant sects of Islam like the deniers of the divine decree (Qadarīyah). The problem was that in his books he would thoroughly explain or at least mention some of the arguments posed by the deviant groups. So he forbade people to read Al-Muhasibī’s, so they wouldn’t be exposed to the deviant doctrines.

    Some say that Imam Ahmad took issue with Al-Muhāsibī’s statement that Allah speaks without words or sound. Ahmad’s view was that such additions shouldn’t be made. Rather, one should limit one’s self to saying that Allah speaks and has the attribute of speech, since the Salaf didn’t go into detail about such matters. Al-Muhāsibī’s position on the other hand was the natural result of his debates with deviant sects who equated Allah’s speech to the speech of his creatures by saying that it is with letters and sound. And Allah says, ((There is nothing like unto Him)). So in defense of orthodox doctrine he indulged in such matters. So it was merely a difference in approach that resulted from the urgency of the situation.

    Another version has it that Imam Ahmad merely forbade people from reading Al-Muhāsibī’s books, because he knew that most people could not walk the steep path that he was on as Imam Al-Khatīb Al-Baghdādī reported with a sound chain that Imam Ahmad heard the words of Al-Muhāsibī during a lecture he gave to some of his students, and Ahmad said to one of his companions,

    “I’ve never heard about the realities (of things) the like of this man. My opinion is that you shouldn’t accompany them.”

    Ibn Hajar says,

    “He only forbade him from accompanying them due to his knowledge that he was below their state. For verily, he was in a straitened state that every one cannot pursue. And it is feared that the one who pursues it will not give it its due.”[5]

    But whatever the reason Imam Ahmad may have objected to the writings and approach of Al-Muhāsibī, from one Salaf to another, each was entitled to his own opinion, especially since the days of revelation had already passed. Only Allah can settle the dispute between the two of them.

    For this reason, Imam Tāj al-Dīn Ibn Al-Subkī says after commenting on what happened between these two great scholars,

    “It is proper for you – O ye seeking direction – to travel the path of discipline with the past Imams, and not look at the comments of some of them about others unless he brings clear proof. Then if you are able to give an interpretation and entertain a good opinion, then obligingly do so! Otherwise, ignore what happened between them. For verily, you haven’t been created for this. So be preoccupied with what concerns you, and leave off what does not concern you. And the seeker of knowledge remains noble in my eye until he indulges in what has happened between the Past Predecessors, and he judges in favor of some of them over others.

    So beware! Then beware to turn your attention to what unexpectedly happened between Abu Hanīfah and Sufyān Al-Thaurī, between Mālik and Ibn Abī Dhi’b, between Ahmad ibn Sālih and Al-Nasā’ī, between Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Al-Hārith Al-Muhāsibī, etc. until the time of ‘Izz al-Dīn ibn ‘Abd al-Salām and Sheikh Taqī al-Dīn Ibn Al-Salāh! For if you become preoccupied with that, I fear your destruction. The men are distinguished Imams. And there are ways of construing their words. Perhaps, some of them weren’t understood. So we have no right but to be pleased with them and to keep silent about them as is done regarding what happened between the Companions (Sahābah) – may Allah be pleased with them.” [6]


    Allah ta'ala knows best.
     
  16. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    So am I saying no one in the anti-ashrafiya camp is politically suave? Not at all.

    Which group does not have black sheep? There definitely are an unhealthy number of people who are using the duo for their own personal ends. They don't give a dime what happens to sunni unity or the image of the shuyookh. I have heard some outrageous accounts of their doings but cant post them here for obvious reasons.

    I am almost always reminded of the battle of Jamal and the differences between hazrat Ali and Mu'awiyah (raDiyAllahuanhu) when I see tensions between two sunni scholars whom I know to be upright and learned.

    The world has never been free of pot-stirrers and opportunists!

    MY PERSONAL OPINION:

    These two are surrounded by some cunning and opportunistic individuals and they are the cause of some of the things we hear form them.
    I will not name names for I do not know anything for certain.

    This is my personal opinion and other mureeds may not agree with my point of view but for now this is the best I can make of it.

    Shaykh Khalid Sabit in his work Insaf al-Imam has written about azhari sahib something to the effect:

    He is of the siddiqun. A characteristic of the siddiqun is that they do not stay put but move with the truth wherever it leads them.
     
  17. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    Diplomacy is the bread and butter of politics and these two shuyookh are two of the bluntest duo I have ever come across!

    They are blunt and naive when it comes to quite a few things a friend even described azhari miya as 'bholey' not in the negative sense but in the sense of trusting everyone and hence people have taken advantage of them. Close ones too. I don't think it's appropriate to go into the details of this here.

    I can relate not a few examples of their bluntness where if they had remained silent or diplomatic they could have won over many of their enemies.
     
  18. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    As can be seen, if the zahir is considered, these shuyookh have been losing at every frontier and because of their staunch opposition to video-graphy they haven't even been able to make themselves into celebrities (not that it matters to them).

    How many of his speeches have I heard? I can count on my fingers.

    The times when they were touring village after village doing munazara's with wahhabis and deobandis were the ones where any type of recording was still not popular or a taboo and literally hundreds of their speeches and victories have got buried under the sand-dunes of time forever.
     
  19. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    On politics:

    1. Ubaidullah is a politician. He is on the advisory board of ashrafiya. I do not know since when. But if he studied there and later joined politics in late 80s then he could well have been a member for a good long while.

    2. He has clearly said in one speech I saw on youtube that ulema should join politics as it is the need of the hour.

    3. That he is calling the shots in ashrafiya and making the muftis dance to his tunes can be surmised from the urs speech in which he praised ram and about every name he could think of was said to have done jihad on the stage in ashrafiya and no one uttered so much as a squeak.

    4. Allamah sahib joined ashrafiya as a student and apparently remained there until a ripe old age and the last office he held there was of the principal.

    5. Then, so I am told, he took a stance about uak and things escalated and I am also told one of his own relatives was involved in forcing him to leave ashrafiya or he voluntarily left, whichever.

    6. In one speech he himself narrated how he had to leave (or was unjustly removed from) his position as a member of the chief-muftis group who preside over the annual fiqhi-seminars.
     
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  20. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    well, to be frank I don't think this is could be a reason. Bareill-shareef is not his constituency so far as I know and I am sure these shuyookh have their admirers who must be well-connect and can protect them against such a threat.

    PERHAPS they simply think that their duty is done once they have given the fatwa on ek-shaks and that shaks came forward and said, "hey, it's me!"

    Brother Aqib alQadiri mentioned that he has sent an istifta, maybe we will get to hear something soon.
     

Share This Page