Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Topics' started by azharimiyan, Nov 19, 2018.
that is, when he is not in a state of jazb; when he has not lost his reason.
alahazrat made a statement - and then gave an example to illustrate his point.
the statement is as above and the illustration is that the qaDi ordered him to change his clothes and come to prayer. here he says:
kabhi is understood to mean, in context, that knowingly, when he has not lost his reason etc. kabhi doesn't mean 'absolutely'.
alahazrat says in the course of his anecdote that he uses to illustrate his point: "he did not refuse or oppose the qaDi".
the citations from other works just clarify this point.
Allah ta'ala knows best.
you must understand that al-malfuz is the transcribing of an informal talk. those around alahazrat understood his tone and his language very well; it is not the same as an author's writing; while writing, we mull on various word choices and have the luxury of altering the sentences to remove any ambiguity before it reaches the audience.
that said, in this particular case, a native urdu speaker can easily understand the statement and it is impossible for anyone to mistake it. this particular saying is not problematic at all.
alahazrat was saying that a majzub will not oppose the shariah when he is not in a state of jazb. that is bleedingly obvious. because if a true majzub will never oppose the shariah (as in absolutely), then what is the point of exempting them from it?
as it happens often, this too is lost in translation.
let us go back to the original. i was thinking of supporting my argument by a few quotes from fatawa riDawiyyah, but thankfully, dawat e islami edition has already done so. may Allah reward them for their thoughtfulness. this is also proof for those sunni brothers who hate dawat e islami.
footnote by majlis ilmiyah:
Brother abu Hasan, shariah requires men to dress like men at all times. It could have been in his conscious state, but if we read: "..he will never oppose the commands of the pristine Shari'ah.", as the brother quoted, the import of that seems to be, that such a man in a state of jazb will never oppose the commands of the shariah, and therefore to say such men are excused when in that special state, seems to contradict the quote. Allah knows best.
if he is indeed not sane, he is exempt. but whether he is majzub (meaning not just mad, but a waliy who is lost his mind in his love for Allah ta'ala), mad or a fraud, Allah ta'ala knows best.
the hukm for a person who has lost is mind - majzub or not - is, they are deemed exempt by the shariah.
but those who are in their right minds are held liable by the shariah and are responsible to conduct themselves according to the hukm of shariah. women should not visit him - al-iyadhu billah. if the man needs to be fed, men should feed him. he should be given clothes by men. if the person tears them off and is generally deemed unsound of mind, and he is not just acting, he is excused.
how can we know that he is acting or not - one indicator is whether he is like this always, sitting on the roadside/park whatever, whether he interacts with others, accepts money and makes murids etc. regardless, we can deem him unsound of mind unless there is evidence otherwise.
نسأل الله العافية
Allah ta'ala knows best.
would this ruling count for the infamous 'Nanga Peer'?
majzub - means someone who is absorbed in a state that the shariah exempts him.
when the qaDi ordered the majzub, he obeyed him - because the shariah requires him to dress like a man and go to friday prayer. most likely, that was in his conscious state. there is nothing to get confused about.
the pen of shariah is lifted from three; that is they are not held responsible (they are not mukallaf).
a sleeping person until he wakes up; an afflicted person (i.e. who has lost his mind) until he recovers, and the child until he/she becomes pubert.
read more in this from p52. (see p.96, 97)
In the image attached (from the English translation of Al Malfuz of Ala Hazrat) is the mention of visiting (Sayyidi) Musa Suhagh's mazaar in India, followed by a short anecdote about him.
Upon first reading I was struck that such a man was respected by Ala Hazrat, but of course we can not know the true status of such people, and in particular if Ala Hazrat was respectful of him then I thought to myself surely we should be too. I did not want to fall into the trap of disrespecting a wali(?) based on my own poor judgement.
However, as the day grew it concerned me more as I thought about it, in particular I thought about if this was a person revered by the other sects, how we would most likely be in opposition of this fact.
I would just like to ask if anyone could help me understand or explain as I do not want to be unintentionally disrespectful. There are hadith where the Prophet ﷺ cursed against those who imitated the opposite gender, and at the start of the excerpt I have posted it states:
"..he will never oppose the commands of the pristine Shari'ah."
Is dressing as a female not opposing the Shari'ah?
May Allah forgive me for any wrongdoing I have committed in the creation of this post, I would just like some clarity on a matter that I feel is conflicting to me.