Mufti Akmal on Huzoor Tajush shariahs poetry

clearly, neither you, nor mufti akmal himself - and a whole lot of people - have understood the issue or realise the aqidah blunders. you think it is only because of the lines - especially because these lines are by a well-known scholar.

and mufti akmal thinks that everyone is jealous of him and his achievements - and makes it out to be only about himself.
and to prove it, he made a video which only proves the charge that his reasoning abilities are poor and lacks the ability to identify contradictions in his own speech.

in sha'Allah we will see this and the rest.
wa billahi't tawfiq.

 

Considering a very similar line of poetry is written in the Qasida Burdah, yes it would be defended from many other ulema as well.

But you rather post half-baked comments devoid of substance.

Just an observation.

 

Okay so let’s forget the poetry part and why don’t you start your refutation on the analysis by Mawlana Abu Hasan in the other thread?

 

I wonder if the poetry was written by someone other than Mufti Akhtar Rida Khan, it would be defended as vehemently as it is by the same sunni brothers. Just an observation

 

i listened to mufti akmal's new 'clarification' clip.

unfortunately, this also has errors - and it is sad to note that he misreads, misinterprets and makes grossly mistaken extrapolations.
the rate at which he was going - condemning his critics - one felt that mufti sahib would stop only at takfir. but alHamdulillah, he did not go beyond tafsiq.

---
the gist of his clarification is that he didn't even realise the howlers he made in the original clip - and he emphasizes that his reply was 'perfect'.

---

 

I pity your poor understanding brother.

Let's get to basics. The question was asked about an appropriateness of a stanza that signifies a belief of the ahlus sunna i.e. the purpose of creation the Prophet ﷺ. Then the second part which dealt with 'apni khatir'.
Mufti akmal proceeded his discussion with a reply by diving into aqeeda regarding Allah's af'aal. This was the main highlight of this issue.

1) mufti akmal himself did not understand the stanza.
2) his poor understanding of kalaam became evident

I highly doubt you heard muzzafar shah sahib clip properly. The very essence of his clip was that mufti akmal is weak in kalaam and he should not get into kalaam as he has a weak understanding and shah sahab mentioned a few incidents where this was evident too.

This issue is not about tajush shariah and his poetry, the issue has broader consequences as brother noori highlighted.

If someone asked mufti akmal, can we pray qaseeda Burda in public? What will his reply be? (Judging on his reply to TS's stanza) it will be No, we can't as many lay people will get confused due to the difficulty of reading the burdah I.e. Firstly it's in Arabic, secondly some parts are deep aqaid issue that commentaries will have to be read for them to be understood.
So is this correct? It can never be as we know that our Ulama have given us permission to recite the qaseeda despite it being difficult.

These things just give our enemies (deobandies) more ammunition to attack us such that they will use akmal sahibs clip and create videos against us, as done with asrar sahibs clips and clips of other sunni Ulama.

This is why it was necessary to address this issue now.

(Judging from your responses) I highly doubt you heard akmal sahibs wazahat 31 mins video either.

If you go under the original qna of akmal sahib immediately sunni awam notified the channel that this is Taajush shariah alayhir rahmas clip etc. Which could of gotten a clarification immediately. But seems like akmal sahab waited to play victim.

His video is pathetic. Such that he says Ulama should of contacted him and he would of made wazahat.
What shows his poor scholarship is: now his found out that the sher is indeed tajush shariahs and therefore no issues with it. In fact he says he endorses reading alahazrat, mawlana hasan raza and tajush shairahs poetry etc. So what happend to all that detailed partly wrong explanation?

What's also of concern is that he does not understand how to reply back to what type of question is being asked and who the questioner is. A scholar should reply back looking at who the questioner is. Surely If someone asked about the appropriatness of this stanza, it shows that the questioner has little knowledge about the basics of aqeeda, so why go into details for such a small question? E.g. how Alahazrat gave detailed responses to Ulama who could understand his answers as evident in fatawa ridawiyyah but simple answers to normal qna questions as evident in al-malfuz.

It's seems like akmal sahib is just on a rant about naat Khwani such that anything relating poetry is asked he gets into Jalaal to answer. This is also evident in his islahi bayaans where he screams at the public for showering money on naath khwans.

Last but not least. We all know that muzzafar shah sahib called him out regarding his previous blunder on praying behind deos. Mufti muneebur rahman resolved the matter by asking akmal sahab to clarify and ask for maafi. Seems like old wounds don't heal quickly. Which is why he brings in the video fatawa of taajush shariah against shah sahab. This again is trivial to the matter as he barely responded back to shah sahab about his blunders on aqeeda but diverts the topic. Till date I haven't seen a clip where shah sahab spoke about videos being jaiz or not. Neither has he stopped others from doing so. So what was the point of this?

I guess we living in times where people don't have the capability to call a spade a spade. They freely do as they please and when people raise questions they just want to play victim.

If this is the state now I'm forced to Ponder about the future of the youth. Allah protect us all.

 

But that's the point I'm making- if videos against him were being generated for serious issues or problems with aqidah, it would be fair enough. But the videos are raising the issue only so far as the couplet is concerned and it's not a serious issue in and of itself, is it?

I'm not speaking against any analysis that aH will be providing- that is a seperate issue that does not appear to be being discussed by akmals critics. As far as what is being criticised, this is exactly the type of non issue that people should not be focusing on and which definitely turns people off. If there is an aqidah issue, that is what should be discussed in these response videos.

If anything, the fact aH appears to be the only person who is addressing a potentially graver issue proves the point. Why jump on a non issue if there is a real issue that should be addressed?

 

it is the trait of ahlul haq that they don't spare there own people when they go against sunni aqidah or make serious mistakes; whereas deviants even don't bother kufriyat and blasphemies.

yes, it is necessary to correct serious mistakes made in public, otherwise people would think that whatever objection(s) he raised were correct, and they will not stop here, they will generalize it to other couplets as well and draw conclusions by themelves, and as a result, sooner or later, they may distance from ahlussunnah aqidah. nobody objects on his personal shortcomings, if there are any but definitely he is not masum; however, mistakes in aqidah and sharai masail should always be corrected.

Also, you don't realize that it was not only his objection on the couplet, which was perfectly fine, rather it was his faulty and confused explanation of the aqidh. sidi abu hasan has not completed his analysis of mufti akmal's video yet, i leave it on him because there is no one better than him who can properly analyze it, even other ulama who replied to mufti akmal failed to catch or mention those mistakes.

also, this is not the only mistake, there has been a track record of many small well as big mistakes, yet nobody has called him a deviant to date, we still consider him a sunni alim.

 

mufti akaml's response is just fooling common people. in this video, he clearly says that his explanation was perfect, but we know that it wasn't. it was quite confusing and problematic, whereas there was nothing wrong in the couplet, it was his poor understanding that made him think so.

his saying that ala hazrat alaihi rahmah refrained from takifr for 30 years is also a deception. ala hazrat refrained from takfir but refuted the heresies from the start. does akmal sahib want that ulama should keep quiet about his mistakes for several years? only then he will acknowledge them and correct himself. no sane person would make this argument.

his complaint that ulama just sent him a couple of messages on WhatsApp and then refuted him by making videos is again a lame excuse; yes he would have 500+ messages on regular bases and he need not or may not answer all of them, but those messages were to inform him about his mistake which maligns senior ulama, and that his explanation of the aqidah was faulty. why did he wait and not clear up doubts? at least he should have replied to the ulama and informed them that he will rectify the error. why is it that he can take time to prepare a proper video response, and not bother to reply just in few lines to those scholars, if they are really guilty of not contacting him properly then he also has done the same.

mufti akaml sahib also tried to play smart by brining up the video permissibility issue in the light of fatwa of huzur tajushshariah rahimahullah, it was nothing but to change grounds and pacify his own grudge. those who objected to akaml sahib's video may not be staunch akhtari, that is they may not agree with every single ancillary issue, yet they defended a senior scholar because the couplet was perfectly fine (whereas mufti akmal's explanation of aqidah was not perfect at all).

 

In case I missed it I cannot recollect Mufti Akmal sahib acknowledging in the video that in spite of a lack of knowledge on the subject he still continued to give a response to the couplet, when in fact there was nothing wrong with it.

The only thing I get from his response is that if the statement came from an established senior alim then he is fine with it (as he now understands that it is Huzoor Tajush Shariah's) and if not then there could have been an incorrect interpretation. So how can the very same statement be correct and incorrect at the same time? Hasn't he seen examples of the senior ulema where they kept quiet and acknowledged when they didn't know the answer? So is he tacitly acknowledging that he does not have an understanding of the couplet yet proceeded to provide an incorrect response?

There are quite a few people that refuted him on this. Is refutation now disallowed? Tbh I haven't seen any of the video responses to mufti Akmal's video so I am not aware of if anyone explicitly labelled him anything or were they academic responses like that of brother Abu Hasan. But I think Mufti Akmal also went a bit too far with his response video even though a couple of points may have been valid!

Not to mention not long ago he also stated that it is permissible to pray behind deobandis and other Ahlul bidah (only mentioned this is in his response he stated to give one example where he has done or said anything against the Ahle Sunnat)!

 

To be honest, this is something about the desi maulvi community that boggles the mind. I'm not sure whether the Arab maulvi community is similar since I don't have access to it. But in this case, akmal has said x poem shouldn't be read in public and then look at the disproportionate response in the form of videos by people who should have better things to be doing with their time.

Even if he is wrong, the disproportionate response would be far more suitable for someone who has committed some kind of a major sin, which surely this isn't.

Plus the level of offence is a bit much. It is clear that certain things shouldn't be mentioned in front of the awaam, it's just a question of identifying what those things are. Imam malik didn't like certain hadith to be mentioned in front of the awaam as the awaam may understand.

It is things like this which turn people off the barelwi maslak. The average person will see a YouTube battle over a couplet, no matter who is right or wrong and think... This is the focus huh? Although pursuing akmal for his blunder on this couplet could be technically fine (meaning halal, as opposed to sinful in the way implied in akmal's response video), is it necessary or wise? Not every mistake needs to be pounced on.

 

in spite of being his mukhalif (on the opposing side), i'll be fair - Mufti Akmal sahib's one point is well-taken - okay, maybe Hazrat 'Allama Mufti Sayyid zulfiqar shah sahib should have waited before putting this in public and asked mufti sahib to do wazahat by sending someone.

but now mufti sahib has gone quite arrogantly far by accusing his opponents of attacking him - and accusing his opponents of isha'at e fahisha.

as for the example of balaghah , i'll let shaykh abu hasan answer

 

another issue i saw starkly missing - so i had to listen to his speech a second time from beginning to end.

according to mufti e akmal sahib, these are the thirteen kamaalat that will take you close to Allah.

1. dunya mein aamad ka maqsad

2. ibadat ki ma'rifat

3. jaza e ibadat ka intikhab

4. ilm e zahir ki ahmiyyat

5. ma'rifat e tawba ka husul

6. tawbah par istiqamat

7. haram o naapaak ke silsile mein wasawis se najat

8. kasrat e ibadat matlub e shara' nahin hai

9. 9 rukawateN o ubur

10. ma'rifat e qalb o safayi ka husul

11. murshid e kamil ki talash

12. murshid ke aadab

13. fana fi'l murshid
​

===
i have not seen the book, and perhaps this topic is covered in one of the thirteen kamalat. but it is flabbergasting that the mention of sahih aqidah is not prominent and on its own - whereas it should be the FIRST kamaal and the foundation upon which the rest is built. especially in our age - when teaching the basic aqidah of islam to common people is perhaps the most important thing in bring them towards Allah.

 

at 3.55 he says: "akhirat mein koi girift nahin hai aur na aap ke darajat ki bulandi muta'assir hogi"

one could argue how can he be sure in zanni matters? though it is just a superficial thing, but since this is a 'kamalat' work, a mufti who has not reached kamal can be excused in saying so, but an akmal mufti would say: "it is sincerely hoped that akhirat mein girift na hogi" or "Allah ta'ala se ummeed ke girift na farmayega" aur "in sha'Allah, taraqqi e darajat par asar na hoga".

wa billahi't tawfiq.

 

post #12
https://sunniport.com/index.php?thr...mi-regarding-bahare-shariat.15212/#post-76311

post 5 and 6 on the same thread
https://sunniport.com/index.php?thr...mi-regarding-bahare-shariat.15212/#post-76302

post 25 on BeS -
https://sunniport.com/index.php?thr...arding-bahare-shariat.15212/page-2#post-76362

===