AQ feedback - offshoot of UBK thread

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

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    I will try, but I think brother Aqib has a direct link and he already has posted a question before.

    however, i am really scratching my head that perhaps you too aren't reading well what unbeknown wrote, and i'm really unable to comprehend why a generic fatwa can't apply to an specific individual when fatwa is meant to be applied on anyone who has committed this kufr. i request you to re-think, and ask yourself if you are not being biased/prejudiced.
     
  2. AbdalQadir

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

    Noori, you suggested i should have solicited a fatwa response for the sake of Sunni awam. is it possible for you or someone else to send the attached istifta (post #80) to Azhari Miyan or his deputies?
     
  3. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    brother unbeknown, it is true to some degree, I too agree with you, but it is not kufr and AQ really has taken a step forward to save his iman. may be he has some personal experiences, or is miss informed, or assumes too much. you sound a bit harsh, let us not dig deeper when he has retracted from his actual point of dispute.
     
  4. AbdalQadir

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

    unbeknown, we can both go on with what my or your problem is, and a bunch of accusations based on who got what info from where, where you misunderstood me and where i misunderstood you and what not. you might have time to post slabs of text full of misunderstandings and accusations (no offense taken as we are both anonymous non-entities). i don't have the time to do the same to you or even respond point by point to your various accusations and misunderstandings and misreadings.

    let's cut to the chase and you can prove me wrong once and for all.

    here is my istifta for the Bareilly side. can you please forward it to the concerned people and get an answer (if i knew anyone i would have done it myself. in any case, i am going to be finding out who i can send it to). as Noori suggested, i should solicit a fatwa for the benefit of Sunni awam.

    i believe a general fatwa can't be applied on a specific person, and this point of contention with the Bareilly-Nagpur side seems to have struck a raw nerve with you, notwithstanding the fact that you keep ignoring that obaid added a bunch of variables in his istifta (i am not saying this out of sympathy for him, but out of legal fiqh technicalities. obaid did NOT just say he is the utterer of the speech mentioned in the general fatwa and leave it at that)

    istifta is attached.
     

    Attached Files:

  5. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    I'll tell you what I think your problem is:

    You have been consuming that rancid fitnah of a blog for too long and now you just can't bring yourself to shoot it straight and say that those muftis of ashrafiya who have favoured uka have committed a big crime and the BAREILLY-GHOSI-JAMDASHAHI-NAGPUR-ASHRAFIYA group have done the correct thing. You cannot bring yourself to do this. Go through all your posts and see how after every agreeable statement for the latter group you have to include a 'BUT'. You keep on saying you are on no side of the divide yet your choice of words for what YOU PERCEIVE as one side is markedly different to that of what YOU PERCEIVE as the other side.

    Let me make it plain: This is NOT a BAREILLY-ASHRAFIYA divide. It's a divide between those who want to support UKA unconditionally and at all costs, even if he commits kufr, and those who want to make truth prevail.

    And happily for me they come from a diverse background. UKA's supporters on the other hand are of the very institution he is a member of and is dearly attached with. WHY did he go to ashrafiya for an acquittal and not approach the original muftis - and make his uzr known to them? He's clearly running to momma because some people finally decided not to submit to his bullying.

    You can't see all this because you are in a state of cognitive dissonance because you have been taking you info from the wrong people - for a long time.

    This is what appears to me after the analysis of your posts in the past few months.

    Don't take this as a challenge or name-calling. I am speaking from my heart. You need an antidote to the mental poisoning that you have been afflicted with and i think one of this is, read the following paragraph in some lonely place and try to get as deep into it as you can and understand why these people just didn't cry "Politics!" and got over with it.

    “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.”


    -----------------------

    I think I've said all that I wanted to. You are free to correct me or perhaps abuse me if you like. I am growing up and am open to learning new things that take me out of my comfort zone.

    Allah ta'ala knows best.

    wasslaam.
     
  6. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    So:
    1. UKA commits kufr in multiple speeches,
    2. commits fisq and
    3. lies in his istifta (he even lied that no mufti's name was appended to the takfir fatwa)

    and yet you are all too ready to roll-out the red carpet of husn-Zann for him.

    But those who answered the call of duty are 'proud' and 'playing chess'?


    oh yes, FIVE MUTIS - committed an 'error' a 'blunder' - even after having been approached by people and asked to see reason. And no clear fatwa on tahir jhangvi, no refutation of khushtar noorani - all these are 'errors' which they should be reminded of.

    And no 'if' followed by some shaming for them. Well I don't believe in this 'IF-then too bad too bad' theories. But you should atleast be consistent in your approach:

     
  7. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    sidi Noori beat me to it but this is what I was going to write:

    If I did not know that you are a desi I would have assumed that you are a racist. The off-hand manner in which you mention senior scholars and keep on harping that "they are not looking at this issue objectively" "they are playing pir politics" is sick. I asked this before but you ignored it: DID YOU TEAR OPEN THEIR HEARTS and see what's in them?

    I tried to make you see reason and be cautious when you mention ulema who do not have a single spot of deviance or dodgy behaviour on their shirts when I wrote this:

    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]


    But you still keep on saying things such as above.

    So if it is impossible for the breily-side (which is actually BAREILLY-GHOSI-JAMDASHAHI-NAGPUR-ASHRAFIYA side) to look at this issue 'objectively' then why on earth are you expecting them to write a fatwa in the first place.

    The least you could have done - after you got the reply from the source of your choice - and after having said all that you have - is acknowledged that the BAREILLY-GHOSI-JAMDASHAHI-NAGPUR-ASHRAFIYA muftis have done their duty in warning the awaam. Though uka is a politician they did not fear him and they did not give the lame excuse of 'want of evidence' to shirk their responsibility rather they did what they could. It's not a joke to gather 100 muftis in one place and come to an agreement and issue a fatwa. Mawlana Nazim 'Ali and Mi'raj-ul-Qadiri teach at ashrafiya but still went ahead and put their signatures. That's what is called ghayrat-e-eemani.

    No, all you have is - they have not done enough, they are also responsible, IF they don't do this and that blah blah.. their not objective, they are playing politics and games of chess an on and on.
     
    IslamIsTheTruth likes this.
  8. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    are you comparing apples to apples here?

    Rather YOU tell us why alahzrat did takfir of the 'Famous Five' but not of their 'Creedal Father' Ismail Dehlavi?

    I have said it before and you know it too:

    1. When the anti-uka fatwa was issued the ascription to him was not established and hence his name was omitted. Every thing in it pointed to him. He AGREES to this and runs to SOME -MUFTIS of ashrafiya and gets an illegal acquittal. HE PUT HIS OWN NAME IN THE FATWA.

    2. If the muftis were obsessed about him or if they are sent a new istifta they will issue the fatwa with his name.

    3. Are you trying to say that allmah zia-ul-mustafa is not scared to use such harsh words against SOME-MUFTIS of ashrafiya and publicly say that the fatwa applies to uka but somehow when it comes to put it on paper he is SCARED?
     
  9. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    I have told your earlier that maybe they GENUINELY think that their work is done. And now I think this is very highly probable because:

    1. I got a chance to speak to one of the signatories to the BAREILLY-GHOSI-JAMDASHAHI-NAGPUR-ASHRAFIYA fatwa and told him that some one was saying that the muftis who issued the general fatwa are scared to issue a specific fatwa for xyz reasons. To this he replied "YE TOH SIRF HAMAKAT HAI. Agar ye fatwa ubaidullah par fit nahi baithta to woh kyuN ashrafiya waloN ke paas gaya. Woh to ye keh sakta tha ke bhai pata nahi kis par fatwa laga hai. Mera naam to nahi hai."

    2. Unless and until someone sends a istifta with all the rest of the questions and they do not answer can it be said that something is amiss.

    3. Allamah sahib said in his speech - or rather left it unsaid but meant it - the ashrafiya fatwa is so childish that it is not worth refuting. To quote: " Ab mere samajh meiN nahi aata ke ye log fatwa likhte haiN to kya bhang khake likhte hai?"

    The fatwa refutes itself. It's that self-evident. For starters, if you think that the BAREILLY-GHOSI-JAMDASHAHI-NAGPUR-ASHRAFIYA signatories are in mood for some fatwa war then you're completely mistaken. People ARE doing what they can - to make them re-think their decision.

    not at all! most common people do not think like that. Unless a person has been fed a steady diet of anti-bariely propaganda he will not jump to such absurd conclusions. He will contact any local scholar he trusts - JUST AS I DID - and will ask which of the two is correct and if that local scholar is GENUINE he will point out the correct one.
     
  10. AbdalQadir

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

    as far as i know, that's the rule. if you know better, please provide a reference from fiqh books or books on rules and regulations of ifta that a general fatwa issued for a zayd, bakr etc. can and will be applied on a specific case of specific person.

    why didn't Ala Hazrat just issue general fatawa against blasphemies and kufriyat and leave it at that? why did he take the trouble of mentioning thanwi, gangohi etc. by name? (genuine questions. maybe you or abu Hasan or someone who knows better can reply)
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2015
  11. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    where did you pull this out from? If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then ....
     
  12. AbdalQadir

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

    brother Noor, really i'm not someone or something worth getting pedantic over and all your nitpicking!

    re post #71 - yes, politics exist between all ulema worldwide. that's why on any such matter involving their internal politics, an outside opinion is the best. conversely, if there were two factions of Arab ulema involved in politics, i would ask a desi scholar's take on it, or another Arab not involved in the politics.

    and just who/what am i to the Sunni awam? you might be a community leader of desi Muslims somewhere (i dunno, just guessing) but i'm a nobody. like i said i did a hurried query to clear my doubt, and fwiw, inform any members of the forum who might be interested.

    of course we can all get fatawa from outside scholars and i support this initiative. (see my reply to chisti-raza on the other thread). if you want fatawa from Arab scholars, please draft a formal istifta in Arabic, and i will send it to any dar al-ifta i know. likewise you and others can do the same.

    don't forget the first fatwa was GENERAL. it CANNOT be applied to a specific person.

    as for obaid accepting to making the speech, he didn't just stop at that. he presented an 3udhr and a context and that changes the variables.

    i am no one to "demand" something from the ulema of Azhari Miyan's camp. it's just a wish.

    and it's a fair statement to make since they are right in the thick of the matter as are the Ashrafiya ulema! they should refute the Nizamuddin fatwa and make things clear for the awam

    you missed the point. my question to the Arab shaykh was - is the fatwa correct, because my own judgement on it was clouded? if it was another mufti, i could could have said the fatwa is nonsense.

    see post #5 of this thread.

    i said i accept the GENERAL fatwa from Bareilly wholeheartedly.

    sorry but as far as the Bareilly side scholars are concerned, they simply can't apply the GENERAL fatwa they issued on a specific case of UBK.

    i don't understand what prevents them from issuing a refutation of Nizamuddin or a specific by name fatwa on UBK

    only the distrust in the people involved in the conflict. you have yourself said tin this very post that i wish for istifta to be sent to multiple dar al-ifta's of the subcontinent.

    yes on any matters that are not a part of the dispute.

    no for any matters that involve the dispute itself or are a part of it.

    in any case, even as far as looking at the matter objectively is concerned, i was confused. (and as i said multiple times, there was nothing SPECIFIC on obaid or a refutation of Nizamuddin - by the Bareilly side - to help evade my doubts!!!!!)

    hope that clarifies things for you.
     
  13. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    dear brother this politics is not just among desi ulma, but among ulama in every part of the world, arab ulama are no exception, is it only that we don't deal with them much, and i guess (pardon me for not doing a search and providing quote) you (or perhaps unbeknown) mentioned about this politics among turk ulama as well.

    note that i'm not objecting for consulting an arab scholar, everybody would try to consult scholars they trust (specially if they are out of the dispute) when they are confused, therefore it is of course a valid reason on your part.

    anyway it is really highly appreciable that you didn't turn a blind eye, it is really not very easy. jazakAllahu khyra. May Allah subh'anu wa ta'ala keep all of us safe in our eman.
     
  14. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    not at all, just heartily appreciation.

    but what really looks silly on your part to me is that you didn't ask a fatwa for the benefit of sunni awam, it was only for the clarification for yourself. on the other hand you have been demanding a detailed refutation of ashrafyah fatwa specially with mention of ubk from the signatories of the first fatwa, and demanding those who already had accepted the first fatwa that they should send istifta to all muftiyan e kiram all over india/pakistan. you are comparing just an opinion shared by a respected arab jilani sayed haziahullahu ta'ala with a legal verdict issued by indian muftiyan e kiram, is it that you call comparing apples with apples? the respected jilani syed didn't present any daleel, whereas the first fatwa had given reference from ghamzat'ul u'yun, but it was not acceptable for you. this shows a distrust in our subon ulama. yes there are disputes among them but we don't know the reasons behind with certainty, beside we can leave the disputes aside and look at the matters objectively without any bias for any side.
     
  15. AbdalQadir

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

    this is what i sent to the shaykh in writing

    it was a hurried translation at work and the desi or other explanations were also quick without the double-checking, so please spare the cosmetic surgery unless you feel i employed sleight of hand and drafted it in a way to elicit a specific response.

    i never gave the shaykh my own analysis or anything. just wanted an independent feedback on an as-is basis based on the iman and kufr part of the istifta and the fatwa presented
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2015
  16. AbdalQadir

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

    afaik, obaid isn't a mufti. i did mention to the shaykh that he's a scholar and a graduate of an Islamic seminary
     
  17. AbdalQadir

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

    i don't know if it is a snide remark or just a casual comment. either way, without sounding disrespectful to anyone from either camp, because of the politics going on, generally speaking, i have good reason not to trust one side against the other. as far as this particular issue is concerned, i was genuinely in a state of confusion and hence my silence initially.

    sorry but there's a game of chess going on from both sides - such is my limited understanding. of course i may be dead wrong, but this is just my perception.

    the evidence of obaid not knowing how to play his allegedly pro-Muslim politics is his speech itself

    i am not aware of his qualifications in Darse Nizami or something, but many of the mawlanas and maulvis these days are simply ignorant beyond the ahkam of wudu and salah.

    my point was that the major great minds and the madrasa systems of both sides should have formulated some fiqh guidelines for Muslim political engagement in modern india (since Muslim indians right now HAVE TO engage in the political process lest they become irrelevant) - rather than being reactive on an as-fitnah-erupts basis. it was something aimed generally at... shoot me... "the system" (in a Sunni context, hence the allusion to both sides)

    i too wish that they retract and do ruju3 for the sake of deen.

    i think for starters the Bareilly side, all those ulema who issued the first general fatwa, should now ACTIVELY & ACADEMICALLY refute Nizamuddin sab's fatwa - on document.

    then both sides should work as brothers and come up with some fiqh guidelines for SUNNI Muslim indian politics that ensure that no person following those guidelines can be labelled a sulah kulli (be it in a Sunni-wahabi-shia context OR a Muslim-hindu-sikh-esai-bhai-bhai context) - this is a MUST.

    if i was a celebrity and if these ulema were on twitter, i would have started a hashtag #doitfortheSunniawam

    if the Bareilly side doesn't issue a refutation, then very sorry to say, they too will be knowingly or unknowingly a contributor to the fitnah and divide and endangerment of iman that you allude to, because then neutral outsiders like me will be inclined to think many things like "maybe Ashrafiya is right" or "maybe they have similar gaffes they wanna hide" or "they don't have a comeback" or anything else. i'm not attacking them, just doing a what-if analysis out loud!

    i will post the question i sent to the Jilani shaykh after some time
     
  18. Wadood

    Wadood Veteran

    brother Asif, your understanding of Islam should be ONLY pure pristine Sunni Islam, nothing else. Please stop it!
     
    Noori likes this.
  19. Rumi786

    Rumi786 ghulam-i-Shams-Tabrizam

    AQ,
    I know you hate me and consider me a zindiq but I have to be honest and say I've been following the posts on the Obaid issue and been very impressed by your honesty and the way you treat every one the same wrt your interpretation of Islam. That takes guts and shows your hatred is not personal. Even though I have a different understanding of Islam to you my humanity made me write this. Even though you will probably abuse me and say you don't care what a zindiq thinks!
     
  20. AbdalQadir

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

    the Prophet 3alaihis salam said that iman will be protected from Madinah (the person i asked doesn't live in Madinah). as great as indo-pak scholars are i don't think that sincerity and Sunniyat are restricted to desi ulema and no one else.

    the shaykh's feedback is only for me doing my due diligence for myself as a Muslim, and for what its worth, in case any forum members wish to trust me or take my word for it, in my capacity as a member of the forum.

    i think BOTH sides know of enough mashayekh and ulema in the rest of the world to send detailed queries and get their feedback on the issue and publish them transparently.

    our beloved Ala Hazrat went to the ulema of the Haramayn didn't he?

    ---

    reply to unbeknown post #59

    bro, the comments of mine that you quoted are general exasperation at desi Sunnis and what i'd like to see in an ideal world scenario and speaking from a bigger picture point of view. read the entire post and see it in that context.

    i said "if" obaid is indeed sincere for indian Muslims. do note that he did mention in his istifta that he did what he did for communal harmony and protection of Muslims, and that he values his iman. the idiocy and zandaqah of the audio bayans is exclusive of his sincerity (or lack thereof) towards indian Muslims.

    as for the pride part on one or both sides, it is evident to me by virtue of the fact that the conflict exists. aimed at no one in particular.

    ---

    reply to post #60

    again, speaking of an ideal world scenario. plus there's no harm in reminding them of the error
     

Share This Page