Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Topics' started by Unbeknown, Nov 18, 2017.
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].
saqib sahib is singing a different tune now.
One die-hard supporter of saqib told me months ago - when his book was published - "saqib sahib ka sar bohot ooncha hai. wahan tak kisi ka danda nahi ponhchega".
Look how the tables have been turned now - they forgot that Allah ta'ala has His slaves whose "dandas" are higher than saqib's head.
It was amusing to see him splutter - he forgot what he has written in his own book - or does not have the guts to stand by it.
He says "shafi agar hanafi ko na roke to woh gunahgaar hoga - shafi pe wajib hai ke hanafi ko roke - agarche woh khud is par amal karta ho"
saqib sahib - how quickly have you forgotten your own quote - "ye koi aisa gunaah nahi jis par inkaar waajib ho".
this is just the starting.
aage aage dekhiya hota hai kya
reminds me of a story someone told me. that a man pronounce three talaq and went to various muftis - and they were either sunni or devbandi. then he approached shafiyis and they too deemed it final. so he was very sad and upset and someone told him that salafis don't consider it as final and 3 given in one sitting is one according to them. the man said, 'who are these salafis?' the reply came, those who are in saudia. the man was exhilarated. "i have lived for 7-8 years in saudi, i am a salafi." and ever since he is a salafi and lives with his divorced wife. not sure if they have any issues but they are living as a man and wife.
heard it from a person whom i can trust in this matter.
in general masayil, everyone knows that we do not do tafsiq of any person from another madhhab who carries out something that is haram according to us but halal in his madhhab. i do not know of any person who expresses a view otherwise. it's clear that the book was not written to clarify this point.
why was the book written then? the book was written to forward the proposition that unless there is ijma', tafsiq must be withheld. so if there is no ijma', then it is apparent that it must be an issue in which there is a difference of opinion across the four madhhabs. if that is the case, then you can only do tafsiq if the doer himself considers the act haram. if he himself considers the act halal, but the madhhab he follows states that the act he is engaging in is haram, you still cannot do tafsiq. the keyword here is 'doer', which refers to the laity in general, knowledgeable or not, irrespective of their madhhab.
what is the issue? this would mean that a hanafi mufti cannot do tafsiq of a hanafi who is engaging in (non-ijmai) haram, if the doer does not believe the act to be haram. a hanafi can, therefore, pick the easier position from another madhhab in a particular matter, and avoid tafsiq from the muftis of his own madhhab, because tafsiq is dependent on his personal belief regarding the act, not the madhhab he considers himself to be a follower of. therefore, by stipulating the condition that the the ruling of fisq is contingent upon the doer's belief of whether it is haram or not, it opens the doors for people to follow their nafs and pick whatever is easier for them whenever they feel like it.
see the following to know whether you can do tafsiq or not according to the book -
is the act haram by ijma?
> yes it is haram by ijma - tafsiq is permissible
> no it is not haram by ijma (hence ikhtilafi) > does the doer personally consider the act halal or haram?
the doer considers it haram - tafsiq is permissible
the doer considers it halal - tafsiq is not permissible
remember this and pay attention.
pick any position and consider it correct, even if the position is weak.
everyone knows it is not difficult to find differences of opinion or weak positions in fiqh books. a lot of the time, in fiqh books, ‘qeela’ is used to mention weak positions regarding a matter. in fact, you will find positions in certain texts that have been given preference by the author but when you pick up the various commentaries on that text, you will learn that the preference given by the author is not actually the preferred position in the madhhab. many examples of this can be seen particularly in al-durr al-mukhtar when read alongside radd al-muhtar.
For instance: in mukhtarat al-nawazil of murghinani (the author of al-hidayah), a book cited often by commentators of hidayah and other commentaries of fiqh books, he mentions a ruling regarding blood nullifying wudu in two separate chapters. the summary of which is:
If blood exits a wound in small amounts and it is wiped with a cloth, then if the total amount was such that if it were not wiped it would have flowed, then the wudu does not break. It is also said (qeela) that if the blood is such that were it not wiped, it would have flown, then the wudu breaks.
by using qeela, the author of hidayah has indicated that the second position he has mentioned is the weak position while the position he has mentioned first is the preferred position. but this is not the case. the second position which the author of hidayah has indicated as a weak position is actually the preferred position: that if the blood is such that were it not wiped, it would have flown, then the wudu breaks [see radd al-muhtar 1/286; fatawa ridawiyyah 1/281]. this, therefore, means that the position indicated by the author of hidayah as the preferred position is the weak position.
mind you, the author of hidayah is considered to be from among the ashab al-tarjih [see radd al-muhtar 1/77]. if a person, according to maslak e i'tidal, reads mukhtarat al-nawazil and acts upon this weak stance because he does not feel like doing wudu again, it is fine, because remember, acting upon a weak stance is fine according to shafi'is.
so what then is the purpose of tarjih, tashih and all the chapters written by ulema on the matter of mufta bihi? all of it is rendered void and useless.
this is opening the doors for people following their nafs by choosing any position, weak or strong, from their own madhhab or any other madhhab. na'udhubillah min dhalik.
Masha Allah brother.
JazakAllahu khayran katheeran
May Allah ta'ala reward you abundantly.
After huzur taaj al-shari'ah passed away, Huzur Muhaddith e Kabeer was my last hope.
He did his duty by the deen.
Whenever fitan have reared their heads - these two ulama have always been seen in the frontlines of the battle against them.
It is with scholars such as these that I would like to be resurrected.
May Allah ta'ala prolong his cool shade over us for many long years. Ameen.
Saikdo Olema e Kiraam Muftiyaan e Kiraam ki Maujoodgi mai
Huzoor e Sayyedi Muhaddis e Kabeer Maddazillahul Aali Ke Faisla kun Kalimaat
“ Saqib Shami ke Bayan mai Shirkat Naa Jaayiz, Aise log Taqreer karne ke Mustaheq nahi hai, Unko Taqreer karna Naa-Jaayiz aur Uski taqreer sunna Naa Jaayiz Deen se munharif karne wali taqreeren Logo ko Deen se beZaar karne wali baate karta hai aur aazadi e tab’a aur Nafs parasti ki Dawat deta hai.”
Ba-Mauqa e Urs e Amjadi, Mumbai.
As per Imam Shaafi ( radi Allahu anhu) shaving the beard is haraam. But according to later shaafi imams such as Imam Nawawi ( rahimahullah) it is makruh not haraam, which happens to be the more relied upon view within the maddhab. Regarding the length of the beard, the hanafis consider the optimum length being one fist long, while the dominant view in the shafi maddhab is that the beard is not to be trimmed at all.