Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Topics' started by Unbeknown, Nov 18, 2017.
I must proffer a special thanks to HH Saqib Shaami sahib, for allowing us to follow the opinion of any mufti irrespective of the strength of his evidence, or the lack thereof or the inclination and motives behind issuing a ruling. All we have to see is whether the person in question identifies himself as a mufti or scholar and has a sizable coterie of admirers around him who spare no pains in convincing us that he is indeed a scholar. If he also happens to wear shaami/misri caps manufactured in Turkey and designer jhubbas, preferably with gold borders, and travels in first-class exclusively, his status as a scholar in beyond question.
So now with pir sahib's permission, we can deem him a nafs-parast and fasiq as scores of muftis including muhaddith-e-kabeer have ruled him such.
And we, being utter commoners, are not obligated to question or investigate the ruling of these muftis and so the case is now settled.
Refutation of Faatih-e-Facebook, Taajdaar-e-Twitter, Shams-e-Shaam, Burj-e-Birmingham, HH Allamah Peer saqib shaami sahib by, Mufti Aftaab Cassim Ridawi (South Africa) and Mufti Zahid Hussain Sahib (Preston, U.K):
Lately, there has been a lot of hue and cry about whether photography etc. is an Ikhtilafi issue or not. Since, the Pardah of Huzoor Sayyidi Taajush Shariah(raHimahullah), the modernist lobby has attempted to plant their modernist views into the minds of the followers of Maslak e Aala Hazrat, trying to take advantage of a grieving nation, by using the name of Sayyidi Taajush Shariah ؓ◌ to peddle their modernist views.
I have presented in this document a translation of the decree of Huzoor Sayyidi Taajush Shariah Allama Mufti Mohammed Akhtar Raza Khan Qaadiri Azhari ؓ◌, supported by the Fatwa of Ghaus ul Waqt Huzoor Mufti e Azam Hind (raHimahullah), the gist of which was cited in his response to this issue by The Grand Mufti of the Time, Huzoor Sayyidi Taajush Shariah (raHimahullah).
Sag e Mufti e Azam Muhammad Afthab Cassim Qaadiri Razvi Noori
There are people I have known of who have been doing Sajdah to pictures of their Pir Sahib in Blackburn, UK for over twenty-five years and they argue that it is permissible and an ‘Ikhtilafi Mas’alah’. They listen to modern day ‘Qawwali’ with musical instruments and dance to it and argue that it is an ‘Ikhtilaafi Mas’alah’. They trim and shave their beards and claim it is the way of our Shuyookh and it is not Haraam to do so. Shame on those whose Shuyookh do not follow the Shariah and Sunnah and glad tidings are for those who found Taaj Al-Shariah Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan Al-Azhari, Allah is pleased with him for he upheld the Shariah and the Sunnah throughout his life. May Allah keep us all on the path of the Sahabah and the Ahl Al-Bayt which is the path of Imam Ahmed Raza and his household. May Allah reward our dear Sheikh Mufti Aaftab Qasim Sahib Qiblah for this work and increase the blessings of his Sheikh upon him and us all.
Zahid Hussain Al-Qadiri
The enlightened guidelines in the previous section and the quotes posted on facebook last year, enable us to peer into the not so distant future, in which the exchanges will be something like the following:
Question from an iblees inspired follower of neophyte, narrow-minded (as per the book) scholar, Allamah zia ul mustafa sahib:
Q: Why should we not do tafseeq of a hanafi who shaves his beard?
Answer by the ultra-learned, pious, compassionate, iblees-defying follower of World Renowned Research Scholar, HH Allamah Saqib Shaami:
1. Incorrect question:
"annal aamiyyah, laa madhhaba lahu" - "as for the aami, he has no maddhab" - so your question that a "hanafi" shaves his beard is fallacious, because it presumes the that there is something called as a "madhhab" for an aami. Whereas there is no such concept.
2. Better question:
"bal madhhabuhu madhhabal muftiyih" - "rather his madhhab is the madhhab of his mufti - the one he approaches for fatwa".
So a better question would be, "why can't we do tafseeq of a person who asks a hanafi mufti for fatwa on shaving?"
First, do tehqeeq and establish that zayd indeed asks a hanafi mufti for fatwa on beard.
Why? Because a naaqil mufti is also an aami - he does not have a madhhab either!
4. Correct question:
"Why cant we do tafseeq of zayd who asks a naaqil mufti for fatwa on beard and this naaqil mufti asks a mujtahid-mufti for ruling on beard and the mujtahid-mufti considers trimming beard haram?"
"who said you can't? Of-course such a person is a fasiq!"
Zayd can follow any naaqil and the naaqil can follow any mujtahid. Unless, this chain of taqleed declares an act haraam you cannot do tafseeq of zayd for committing that act.
For example, the naaqil mufti who usually follows the hanafi madhhab can decide to follow the shafi position on beard for say just one month and zayd asks him for opinion in this month. zayd is also usually hanafi but since the mufti will give him the shafi ruling in this month - zayd is allowed to shave the beard. and his takleef of taqleed is lifted.
Please try to understand. Zayd's friend is "mostly" maliki - so he can sport a five-clock shadow and wear shorts and that do not cover his knees and are below the navel too and he goes to cheer messi during the soccer world cup. Poor zayd is "mostly" hanafi and wants to accompany his friend to the soccer. Now, he has to have a full beard and has to cover the region between navel and knee, both inclusive. How unfair?!
Same religion, same Holy Book, same Prophet, same aqeedah too. But zayd's friend can enjoy a river side siesta in ultra short pants and zayd has to observe all the etiquette in the world - he might as well be a nun in a convent.
Do you think this is fair? Will zayd be motivated to follow religion or abandon it when he sees this discrimination?
So dear friend, as the hadith says, "give glad tidings, do not scare and demotivate. Make ease and room, do not constrict".
And: The Prophet (peace be upon him) always chose the easier of the two actions, provided it wasn't a sin.
So, zayd should be allowed to live his life to the fullest and have fun with his friend and not be called a fasiq. What is good for the gander, why keep it from the goose?
8. Post Post-Script:
If you make an aami stand beside a cow or a buffalo, you will be hard put to decide which of the two if more thick. So how can you expect such a cattle-kin to differentiate between right and wrong, raajih and marjuh, mut'amad and da'eef, mufta-bihi etc.?
He can follow any mufti at anytime in any affair and even switch between them on a seasonal basis - for example, hanafi in winter (so the beard provides due warmth) and maliki in summer (no beard and no clothes) - and this is the wide and expansive deen that we want to spread among the masses and this is the meaning of "ikhtilaaf in the ummah is a Mercy".
See how merciful we are? and how open minded?
Mufti Ali jumah or Shaykh ul Islaam tahir ul qaadri or hakeem ul ummat ashrat ali thaanvi - anyone can be followed without restriction.
Because the aami is actually a buffalo in human shape - and since when have buffaloes been able to differentiate between hay and dung?
so what does this piece say, here's a translation:
In this age, the masses often complain that a particular sunni Mufti rules such and such an issue as permissible while another sunni mufti rules it impermissible and we people are confused and troubled which of the two is correct and whom to follow. When in fact, this difference should not have caused the masses any consternation, because differences in fiqh are a mercy, be they between two mujtahids or between non-mujtahid muftis following the madhab of a specific mujtahid. As is evident from the hadith which unrestrictedly declares all differences in the branches (furu') as a Mercy.
But some neophyte scholars (inexperienced and beginners) have deprived the masses of this mercy and put them into difficulty and constriction. Some people even say that the common man should research and look into the proofs himself, and then accept the fatwa of the mufti whose proofs he finds to be the strongest. The superficiality of this claim is evident to the people of knowledge. Because if the masses had knowledge required for research then they would have been scholars themselves and not counted as laity.
In this matter, some people present the following quote from shaami (sic):
Preference (tarjeeH) should be given on the basis of the strength of the most correct evidence.
(Unbeknown: The above is a translation from the Urdu translation of the arabic text, as it appears in the book. I don't agree with the Urdu translation.)
It is apparent that this ruling is for those scholars who are capable of giving tarjeeH. Whereas the mere copyists (i.e. the non-mujtahid naaqil mufti, or everyone today) are not even capable of tam'eez (differentiating between the strong and weak evidences) let alone putting this responsibility on the shoulders of the masses.
Some others say that it is obligatory and compulsory (wajib o laazim) to follow the fatwa of the mufti who is most knowledgable and most pious. Whereas, in this day and age even deciding which one of the muftis is higher in knowledge and piety is extremely difficult for the masses. Therefore, the masses are obligated only to the extent to which they can act without getting into difficulties.
In other words, in case of differing verdicts, it is enough for the common man to act on the fatwa of any mufti without attempting to understand the evidences of any one of them (i.e. blindly follow any mufti).
that is not to say that he did not refute the core message of the book.
Echoing Alahazrat and sadr-al-shari'ah he said (paraphrasing his own word):
"agar ahkaam murtakib ke i'itiqaad ke mutaabiq badalne lage to shari'at o deen se amaan uth jaae - har koyi ye da'wa karega ke main jaaiz samahjhta hun so mere liye halaal hai"
"if the rulings change with the belief of the one who commits it - then shari'at and religion will lose their security and foundation. Every person will claim that I personally consider it halaal so it's halaal for me"
these words of Allamah sahib (same in meaning to those of Alahazrat and sadr al shari'ah) are worth more than a hundred theses on the subject of taqleed-shakhsi/iltizaam-al-madhhab-al-mu'ayyan.
this is the crux of the matter and the core of the issue and the final and sufficient word against epicurean muqallids of every age.
And Allah knows best.
apparently, Allamah sahib does not consider the book worth discussing at length. He made a passing reference to it that apart from the jawaaz for printed pics in positions of ihaanah (disrespect, such as, a door mat) there is nothing in the book.
He dismissed it outright.
Brother Unbeknown, does Allama Sahib deal with anything in Saqib Shami’s book in this lecture?
around 50 mins hazrat also mentions that huzur taaj al-shari'ah had written an essay in refutation of the supporters of obaidullah aazmi. This should lay to rest the doubts of those who were saying that the essay cannot be attributed to hazrat.
in the beginning, hazrat has also recounted faith-refreshing anecdotes of Alahazrat's time.
some reflections on these later:
Is he basically saying its ok for a person to pick and choose from different Imams? And as long as 1 scholar somewhere has declared an issue as permissible then that person cannot be regarded as a fasiq if he followsthat scholars ruling? If this is the case then whats the point of taqleed??
20: TaaHaa 90-94
And undoubtedly Haroon had told them before it that, “O my people - you have needlessly fallen into trial because of this; and indeed your Lord is the Most Gracious, therefore follow me and obey my command.” They said, “We will continue to squat* before it, till Moosa returns to us.” (*Continue worshipping it.) Said Moosa, “O Haroon - what prevented you when you saw them going astray?” “That you did not come after me? So did you disobey my order?” He said, “O son of my mother, do not clutch my beard nor the hair on my head; I feared that you may say, "You have caused a division among the Descendants of Israel and did not wait for my advice.‟
At around 31:25, he admits that a fistful beard is wajib according to hanafis; that those hanafis who consider it permissible to trim it less than a fistful are mistaken, and that he does not support their stance.
as he is a hanafi (as far as I am aware, if anyone has information otherwise, please correct me), and considers fistful beard wajib, then in light of his book and his own words, we have the right to call saqib a fasiq e mu’lin due to his short beard.
we know the ruling regarding a fasiq e mu’lin: that he should not be appointed as the imam to lead salah, that he should not be made a pir, that he should not be permitted to deliver lectures, that he must not be shown respect (let alone be referred to as allamah). This position is mentioned in fatawa ridawiyyah in numerous places.
When a fasiq is praised, Allah is angered and the Mighty Throne trembles because of it [shu’ab al-Iman].
And the miracle is in the fact that he managed to do in a day what would have taken us years regarding getting Saqib Sahib to do a reversal on his positions outlined in this book.
with the newfangled rules in his latest "reply to muhaddith e kabeer", he has essentially disowned most of what he has written in his book and quoted inn the images below and tried to take refuge in "I have done this for rizviyyat" "I respect hazrat" "humne zindagi bhar ghayr muqallidon ka radd kiya hai" etc.
He also said "humne hazrat ki karaamtein bhi suni hai".
One can even say that it is a karaamat of mufti zia-ul-mustafa sahib that listening to just a few minutes of saqib's speech, without getting side-tracked by saqib's "Azhari miyan ki hikmatein aur unki shaan bhi humne is kitaab mein bayan ki hai", he struck at the heart of the matter, understood very clearly the implications of saqib's sweet-poison laced words and issued a definitive ruling asking the common man to keep away from him.
That is the mark of a scholar.
And praise is for Allah ta'ala.
brother don't go by anything saqib shaib says. he concocts rules and usul on the fly - to suit the audience and, occaisonally, to ward off criticism.
See these images which he had released with much fanfare on facebook, exactly two years ago.
At the time, his fans had come out blazing guns in hand, declaring him as having vindicated his stance which, to quote:
we are now providing the references cited by Pir Saqib Shaami (Hafidhahullah) from the works of the major and widely accepted Sunni Ulama. Additionally 3 years ago Pir Saqib Shaami (Hafidhahullah) expressed His opinion on these subjects to several Major Muftis of the Ahlus Sunah, whilst also providing some references. This was a cause of concern for many and till now no response has been received.
They further declared that not only the common people but even the ulama have "blundered":
Not only have the laymen fallen victim to this major blunder, but regrettably so have many Ulama.
And then derided his opponents by referring to them with condescending quotation marks:
It would now be interesting to know what these "Muftis" and their teachers have to say about the position of these great Sunni Ulama. An extensive lecture by Pir Saqib Shaami will soon also be released to further clarify and explore these subjects.
But even after two years, the prematurely acclaimed "extensive lecture" is not forthcoming and doesn't appear to be happening anytime soon.
Re-attaching the images for reference:
From what I understood, saqib shami sahab is saying, a ashrafi,if he happens to see a ridwi in the qawwali mehfil, should tell him to refrain from it for he knows the other person considers it haram. If that is what he said and is the right view on the matter, does that mean, a non scholar can seek and follow only one mufti or markaz on every single matter? Can a ridwi seek or follow the opinion of the hanafi muftis who say making videos of islamic lectures is permissible?
regarding black dye – on page 106 of the book
the position of the book is that tafsiq cannot be done of those who apply black dye considering it to be permissible, due to the difference of opinion.
however, the Hanafi standpoint -
within the ahanaf, the position of most of the mashayikh is that it is makruh [tahrimi] to apply pure black dye [except in the case when one is a soldier]. This is the position that most of the mashayikh have adopted [see radd al-muhtar 6/756; al-fatawa al-hindiyyah 5/359].
in al-durr al-mukhtar: wa yukrahu bi’sawadi wa qeela la
After mentioning the position which has been adopted by most of the mashayikh (that it is makruh), qeela has been used to introduce another position (the position that it is not makruh). qeela is usually used to introduce weak positions or positions that have not been given preference in the madhhab. In this case, qeela has been used to mention the position of imam abu yusuf, which is that black dye is permissible in order to adorn yourself for your spouse [see radd al-muhtar 6/756].
This position of permissibility is, therefore, not the rajih (preferred) stance. It is marjuh (unaccepted) as indicated by 'qeela'. And to give a fatwa on a marjuh stance is impermissible by ijma (which saqib accepts on page 75). Alahazrat has written this specifically about the black dye issue in fatawa ridawiyyah [23/492]:
Now, if giving a fatwa on a marjuh stance is haram by ijma, then the mufti who gives a fatwa on the permissibility of black dye intentionally, which is the marjuh stance, is he not a fasiq by ijma? see what alahazrat says regarding issuing fatwa on a marjuh qawl: he is definitely an ignoramus and a fasiq - [fatawa ridawiyyah 22/515]
According to the ahnaf, to act upon a marjuh stance is not permissible either, so the one who acts upon the marjuh stance in this case knowing that it is marjuh, is he not a fasiq according to the ahnaf at least?
based on what i've written above, and based on his recent 'clarifications' it is obvious that he has no idea what he is talking about. contradictions upon contradictions.
the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said: what i fear the most for my ummah are the misguiding scholars (innama akhafu ala ummati al-a'immah al-mudallin) [abu daud and tirmidhi].