Book: maslak e ikhtilal

Discussion in 'General Topics' started by Unbeknown, Sep 7, 2019.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator



    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
     
  2. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2018
    Aqdas likes this.
  3. ridawi

    ridawi Muhammadi Sunni Hanafi

    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.
     
  4. ridawi

    ridawi Muhammadi Sunni Hanafi

    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.
     

    Attached Files:

  5. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    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.

    wa's salaam
     
    IslamIsTheTruth likes this.
  6. ghulam-e-raza

    ghulam-e-raza Well-Known Member

    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.
    4-08-2018

    -- Unbeknown: video removed --
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 11, 2019
  7. Alf

    Alf Active Member


    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.
     
  8. abu hamzah

    abu hamzah New Member

    View of Shah turabul haq qadri (madda zillahul aali) about photography and video, is as per Maulana akhtar raza khan (taajush Shariya).

    Question answered on ahlesunnat.net
     
  9. abu hamzah

    abu hamzah New Member

    View of Shah turabul haq qadri (raHimahullah) about keeping beard as per abdullah ibn e Umar (radiallhu anhu), four Noble Leaders (ayimma e arba) and in particular Shafai clerics.

    Question answered on ahlesunnat.net
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 2, 2018
    Unbeknown likes this.
  10. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    that is what Alahazrat said, that is what mufti Amjad Ali 'Azami said, that is what Imam Subki said, that is what every sane and learned scholar who really cares for the aamaal of the people and fears Allah ta'ala and wishes to close the doors to nafs-worship would say.

    As saqib shaami does not fulfill any of the above criteria - he says otherwise.

    -----

    We must not forget, this book was written to justify saqib's public actions, that is why it was essential that it be spread among common people, even if it meant destroying their aamaal and exposing them to temptations.

    ----

    I have several reasons to believe that, a t it's core, this book is actually an exercise in vendetta, and secondly a public relations tool, to project saqib as a 'scholar'.

    saqib cares little what is written in it and what effect it will have. He doesn't even care if it's patent falsehood. All he knows is that his objective has been achieved. His blind fans now believe that he some sort of a super-scholar, a Muftis' Mufti. That image is not going to be shed anytime soon.

    But as the hadith says - Everything in this world has a descent, a deterioration, a fall.

    Fame and popularity are fleeting moments, but the one who hankers after glory, has his mind and heart switched off. Only when the sun of their fame finally sets, do they realize (even if they don't give voice to this realization) how much destruction they have wreaked upon their souls and those of their followers. But by then it is always too late.

    Saqib's twenty minutes of fame will soon succumb to the natural forces of decay and obsolescence - he will soon be buried in the pages of history - a forgotten past - aw tasm'au lahum rikza?

    But the brightness of the Sun of Bareilly will continue to illuminate the hearts of millions, as it has been doing for the past century, for it is divinely ordained and is sustained by the Noor of him who:

    la zillu lahu, bal kaana Noora, tanaal ash shamsu minhu wal budoora, wa kullul kawn min anwaar i Taaha

    sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam

    and the fact will remain, in sha Allah ta'ala, centuries from now, when all of us who are alive today shall be lying under the turf:

    sab unse jalne waalon ke gul ho gaae chiraag,
    Ahmad Raza ki sham'a farozaan hai aaj bhi



    And Allah ta'ala knows best.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 2, 2018
  11. Juwayni

    Juwayni Well-Known Member

    I've seen this quoted often and it needs contextualization. Talfīq can occur for a layperson just as it can occur from someone apparently learned mixing opinions.

    Premise 1: the laiety must be protected from inadvertently breaking/nullifying their acts according to multiple madhhabs (e.g. touching one's wife after getting a cut).

    Premise 2: letting laypeople pick from amongst the various opinions can and most likely will lead to inadvertently breaking/nullifying acts according to multiple madhhabs.

    Conclusion 1: therefore, laypeople should not be allowed to blindly pick and choose from different madhhabs.

    Conclusion 2: and therefore a layperson should just follow one madhhab.
     
    Unbeknown likes this.
  12. ridawi

    ridawi Muhammadi Sunni Hanafi

    one thing that stands out to me is why he did not discuss the beard issue in the book? maybe he is preparing a full book on the issue.

    nevertheless, let me have a go at his argument. I think I’ve got the hang of it now -

    trimming the beard to less then a fistful is not haram by ijma. Hence, it is an ikhtilafi issue across the four madhhabs. Because of this, you cannot do tafsiq of a Hanafi who considers it permissible to trim the beard short. I think i've nailed it.

    someone may then ask him, which I assume many have: what about the fatawa of alahazrat where he has done tafsiq of a person who trims the beard short? saqib, thinking on the spot, replies: he is a mujaddid, he has the right to do tafsiq, we don’t (see clip).

    ajeeb. Perhaps saqib saheb has misunderstood the definition of mujaddid. Mujaddid according to him must mean a person who invents new principles in the religion – al-iyadhu billahi ta’ala. Why is the permission to do tafsiq exclusively the right of the mujaddid? maybe there is such a thing as mujaddid prerogative (cf royal prerogative), whereby the right to do tafsiq can only be used by a mujaddid.

    what if someone argues the same about the fatwa of kufr on the deobandi elders. 'he is a mujaddid, he can do takfir, we can't'. na'udhubillah min dhalik.

    pagalpan ki bhi koyi hadd hoti hai janab.
     
    Unbeknown likes this.
  13. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    if the laity is to be advised to refrain, why is the peer free to act as he likes?

    secondly, if a hanafi wants to follow a weak opinion within hanafi madhhab, then as per saqib, he must first intend to follow the dispensation of the shafi'i madhhab which allows acting on weak opinions, then he must intend to follow the weak opinion of the hanafi madhhab!

     
  14. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    that question has already been answered by saqib - as per him a layperson (which includes everyone below the lowest status of ijtihaad) has no madhhab whatsoever. His madhhab is the madhhab of the Mufti he is asking - and in this case, it is not the Mufti naaqil but the Mufti mujtahid - i.e. - who holds a rank from one of the varying ranks of ijtihaad.

    THIS is the conclusion derived from "annal aamiya, la madhhaba lahu" by saqib and those muqallids who subscribe to the philosophy of carte blanch frolicking between madhhabs.

    see this and this.

    So "Aami" as per this theory includes Alahazrat himself - when Alahazrat wrote himself as a "hanafi", as per saqib, he had no idea of this asl whose discovery is to be credited to saqib shaami alone.

    subHan Allah
     
  15. Juwayni

    Juwayni Well-Known Member

    Elephant of a question in the room: why even have madhabs? If the layperson is considered sahib-e-tarjeeh why do they stop there?
     
  16. ridawi

    ridawi Muhammadi Sunni Hanafi

    with regards to acting upon a weak stance (qawl e da'eef), page 75 has the following discussion (summarised):

    there are two distinct cases:

    (1) to give effect to a weak stance for the sake of another
    (2) to act upon a weak stance yourself.

    with regards to the first case, (1) to give effect to a weak stance for the sake of another consists of two scenarios:

    a. a mufti who issues a fatwa on a certain stance for the questioner
    b. a judge who issues a judgement upon a certain stance for the one seeking the decision

    in both these scenarios, to issue a fatwa or judgment on a weak stance is haram by ijma’.

    as for the second case ((2) to act upon a weak stance yourself):

    acting upon a weak stance that has not been rendered severely void, even if it is without any need or necessity, is differed upon. In hanafi fiqh, the ruling is that to act upon it is not permissible. However, according to shafi’i fiqh, it is permissible.

    therefore, whoever acts upon a weak stance, his action is correct according to some imams. Although he will be sinful for not acquiring the ilm and for not asking the fatwa, but the laity will be kindly told the ruling and advised to refrain.

    citing fatawa ridawiyyah: alahazrat did not do tafsiq of members of the public who pray or make dua loudly between the two jumu'ah khutbahs even though their action is contrary to the rajih stance.

    [end of summary]
    -------------

    subHan Allah! contradiction upon contradiction. When you do not know basic usul, this is what happens.

    first of all, if acting upon a weak qawl is not haram by ijma because according to the shafi’i position it is allowed, then why will the laity be kindly told the [rajih] ruling and told to refrain from the weak stance?

    remember on page 77 he writes, citing fatawa ridawiyyah which cites al-hadiqah al-nadiyyah:
    when the position of permissibility for a ruling can be derived from a stance within our madhhab or from the position of another madhhab, then it is not that type of rejected action [munkar] which must be denied and is necessary to stop. but rejected is that whose hurmat and prohibition is proven by ijma.

    based on this quote, as acting upon a weak qawl is not haram by ijma, it should not be necessary to stop it. so why does saqib write a few lines later that the laity should be told to refrain. does he even know what he is writing? he picks a quote and applies it wherever he feels like it.

    'alahazrat did not do tafsiq of members of the public who pray or make dua loudly between the two jumu'ah khutbahs even though their action is contrary to the rajih stance.' citing this as evidence in the chapter of acting upon weak positions does not make sense whatsoever. because in this ruling (ie for the follower to pray or make dua loudly between two khutbahs) there are varying positions all of which have received tarjih and tashih [see fatawa ridawiyyah 8/488]. so the differing positions are not 'weak' per se. hence no one is acting upon a weak position when they pray loudly between two khutbahs. they are acting upon a position that has also been considered rajih and sahih, and the principle is that when there are various positions that have been given tarjih, then a person has the choice to act upon either and there is no objection upon him [see fatawa ridawiyyah 8/490].

    so why is this included in the chapter of 'acting upon weak positions'?

    looks like the entire concept of rajih and differing tarjih has saqib saheb confused. a quick read of sharah uqud rasm al-mufti by allamah shami and ajalla al-i'lam by alahazrat should solve that.
     
    Aqdas and Unbeknown like this.
  17. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

  18. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    "that is not OUR problem. we are not worried about implications. we will argue for freedom of choice." [/sarky]

    yeah, so when it is convenient, you make him the mujtahid. when it is not conducive to you, even muftis are unable to make a call.

    "one can choose from any of the schools anytime and swap it back and forth as many times as he likes. at the same time, you cannot follow a prominent mufti - even if he is at the level of mujaddid for certain things that are not convenient for us."

    saqib and his cheerleaders have one of the most messed up madh'hab ever!

    ---
    http://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/taking-rulings-from-different-schools.13813/page-2#post-63872


    [disclaimer: nobody said what is mentioned in quotes. am just articulating the implications of what some people passionately argue about.]
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2018
    Unbeknown likes this.
  19. Juwayni

    Juwayni Well-Known Member

    To be honest, I sympathize with the layperson witnessing this. Man perhaps just wants a clear statement of law on matters that pertain to him while holding down a 9-5 and paying bills. Someone explain to me how we're expecting laypeople to functionally do tarjeeh...
     
  20. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    this is what we feared at the passing of taj al-shariah raHimahullah.

    ===
    i wonder: would saqib dare to do these stunts in bareilly, so long as taj al-shariah was present? (i have heard saqib has even gone to bareilly and held gatherings. please confirm).
     
    Bazdawi likes this.

Share This Page