Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bibliophile's Corner' started by Qasim Hanafi Ridwi, Jan 11, 2014.
Dear brother Unbeknown I was not referring to you.
I put this questtion to a Shafi Mufti from Kerela. He replied:
1) If you define the sects as consisting of those individuals only whose bidah has reached the level of kufr - then others who ascribe to them but are unaware of and do not agree with their kufr shall belong to the group of muslims - albeit they will be classed as fasiq/grave sinners. In this cas one can say that all the other sects will have khulud-fin-naar. And those who held deviant beliefs that fall short of kufr - shall only have dukhool-fin-naar and will be ultimately saved.
Thus if one defines deobandis as that group of people who know of and agree with the kufr of the four murtadds (as Mufti shariful Haqq sahib seems to define them per translation and note by sidi Aqdas) - then those who ascribe themselves to the deobandiyyah but do njot agree to their kufr will not be called deobandis but influenced-by-deobandis instead. They will be said to be fasiq muslims. And then one can say that all the deobandiyyah shall be in hell forever.
Like wise for all other sects, who hold kufric beilefs.
2) The above point is also borne out by a hadith which states something to the effect that:
My community shall split into 73 sects, only one of them will be in the fire and they are the zindeeqs.
According to the above, all those whose bidah has reached the level of kufr get grouped into a single faction - without multiple names to identify them - and the rest have names and are classed as gumrah and fall into the remaining 71 - whereas the 73rd is the saved sect, that of the Ahlussunnah.
so as I was trying to point out in my previous post, depending on the semantics used the interpretations can change - as to the question about which is the best classification - that is not for me to decide.
we see that hukm regarding salah behind non-murtad bidyis is similar to that behind the fussaaq.
some other things allowed for them, as per Imam Abdul Qahir, are:
Everyone who professes all this and does not follow a heresy that might lead him to unbelief, he is an orthodox Sunnite, believing in the unity of Allah. If, to the accepted beliefs which we have mentioned he adds a hateful heresy, his case must be considered. And if he inclined to the heresy of the Batiniyah, or the Bayaniyah, or the Mughirah, or the Khattabiyah, who believe in the divine character of all the Imams, or of some of them at least, or if he follows the schools which believe in the incarnation of God, or one of the schools of the people believing in the transmigration of souls, or the school of the Maimuniyah of the Khawarij who allow marriage with one's daughter's daughter or one's son's daughter, or follow the school of the Yazidiyah from among the badiyah with their teaching that the law of Islam will be abrogated at the end of time, or if he permits as lawful what the text of the Koran forbids, or forbids that which the text of the Koran allows as lawful, and which does not admit of differing interpretation, such an one does not belong to the Ummat al-Islam, nor should he be esteemed.
But if his heresy is like the heresy of the Mu'tazilites, or the Khawarij, or the Rafidah of the Imamiyah, or the Zaidiyah heresies, or of the heresy of the Najjariyah, or the Jahmiyah, or the Darariyah, or the Mujassimah, then he would be of the Ummat al-Islam in some respects, namely: he would be entitled to be buried in the graveyard of the Moslems, and to have a share in the tribute and booty which is procured by the true believers in war with the idolators provided he fights with the true believers. Nor should he be prevented from praying in the mosques. But he is not of the Ummat in other respects, namely that no prayer should be allowed over his dead body, nor behind him (to the grave) ; moreover any animal slaughtered by him is not lawful food, nor may he marry an orthodox Moslem woman. It is also not lawful for an orthodox man to marry one of their women if she partake of their belief. 'Ali ibn abl-Talib said to the Khawarij : " There are three things binding upon us, that we should not start fighting with you, that we should not forbid you the mosques of Allah so that you may mention the name of Allah in them, and that we should not hinder you from sharing the booty as long as your allegiance is with us. Moreover, Allah knows best."
the Mufti Sahib also agrees to the most common interpretation that of the 72 sects - 'kulud' is only for those whose bidah has reached the level of kufr.
Allah knows best.
i have purchased both books and will read through them both and try to post a summary when I can.
the shaykh is not a murid of Mufti Sharif ul Haq raDiyAllahu 'anhu. He is a student of Mufti Sahib and Jalalat al Ilm Hudur Hafiz e Millat Mawlana Abdul Azeez Muhaddith e Muradabadi RadiyAllahu 'anhu. He is a Murid of the grand Shaykh, Mufti Azam e Hind Mawlana Mustafa Rida Khan RadiyAllahu 'anhu.
Thanks for this information.
i shall try and see whether it's possible for the book to be scanned and uploaded. The kitab is called 'bahattar firqe Jahannam me jayenge'. The Mawlana is very capable and is a murid of Hadrat Sharih e Bukhari raDiyallahu `anhu.
Also, there is a background story behind the book, and why Mawlana Usayd Al Haq wrote it etc and I think that's why Allama Akhtar Rida Khan has said what he has said. I'll try to find out and update you brothers
I also think that it's incorrect to say that all misguided individuals will go hell forever but there must be something we are overlooking, infact, I'm certain. As for AH's comments, the Shaykh has translated the book in Urdu so I'm pretty sure he's aware of the references you posted.
read p.263 onwards in mutaqad/ mustanad al-mu'tamad (new edition, muqattam press, cairo) imam faDl ar-rasul badayuni (the great grandfather of mawlana usayd al-haqq being discussed here) citing imam birgivi's Tariqah Muhammadiyyah and imam ghazali.
alahazrat in numerous works, including fatawa al-Haramayn insisted that only those who reject/deny any daruri aspect - an Essential of faith - is deemed a kafir.
Allah ta'ala knows best.
No! No! Astaghfirullah. That wasn't meant as such. I can see now why after reading it again why it could have been taken as such so much apologies for that. It's just that you reminded me of the big brother amongst his younger brothers. Please delete my post.
Btw: Even in talk I am very careful to label someone a deobandi until it is as clear as day that he is a deo. My friends can vouch for that. I normally refer to someone as being a deo-sympathiser or deo-inclined.
sorry, is it redicule, or am i not getting what's going on? I talk plain, and plain talk i understand, otherwise i am an abtuse.
lol. SubhanAllah! I love you brother!
What is the name? Can it be made available online, or if you have read it then can you please post the summary, what did he refute and what explanation he gave for the hadith sharif?
Mawlana Rizwan Shareefi has written a book in reply to the book of Mawlana usayd al haq. The book has gained quite some recognition in some parts of India.
i don't know on what point you brothers are quibbling. when deobandi, wahabi is used in fatwa (specifically in takfir) then only those 4 and their knowingly supporters are meant, but when we use them in our talk we mean everybody who is associated with these sects and here we should refrain to do takfir.
@chisit-raza: jazakAllah! this is exactly what i was referring to. infact i had seen this same notion - that of a restrictive definition of who the real deobandi/wahhabi are - in a different thread and it was in reply to some other website but, unfortunately, I can't locate it now.
this gave me the impression that where ever these terms occur in the books of our elders it is meant to refer to that specific group which has agreed upon kufr.
the quotes given by brother Noori also show that they have been used in both contexts - restricted and broad - or atleast it appears so at first glance.
Imam Abdul-Qahir Baghdadi, in al-Farq bayn al-firaq, states that sects are of two types:
1) those which had their beginnings in Islam but are not to be considered part of it - such as the batinites.
2)those which are out of the fold of orthodoxy but belong to one of the 72 sects of the Millat-al-Islam.
so depending on how you define them the status of the deobandis and wahhabis will change, won't it?
he also states in what respects the 72 are part of the millat and in what ways they are different to the Ahlussunnah.
Allah knows best.
if this statement is directed at me I would like to clarify that I do not consider innovators as kafir. I think that this point has been amply dealt with on sunniport and three books by sidi abu Hasan have touched on this topic. Besides, I am also in touch with scholars. Thus it is not possible for a person to remain ignorant about this issue even after having read all this.
this is just a clarification. I do not mean any offence to respected mawlana sahib.
this is explicit and defines the technical term 'deobandi' when used by 'Ulama. So the brother is also right that he read about this previously on Sunniport which was translated by Aqdas.
Brother Noori is right there is no ta'ameem in takfeer they were specific individuals only. This is a major problem in our 'awaam that they do not hesitate to call specific innovators kaafir unfortunately this disease is spreading. If only they actually read the books of the Imam rather than claiming to be his followers and ruining his name and way. Allahu Haadi
Yes, you are correct brother and have a point here.
This (below) is translated by Aqdas
indeed, otherwise i'll keep shooting arrows in the dark.
then you should read the book hadith-e-iftiraq, it is clearly explained in there.
jazakAllah. but my comment was based on something I had read on sunniport long back (I couldn't find it now even after a long search of the archives) that we find such phrases it the books of our elders that wahhabis/deobandis are kafir - and then soemone had said that it meant those of their times who knew and agreed with the kufr found in their books. The error in my statement was including the word 'all'.
because, is it not in one of the books (i forget the name) that 'we say that the deobandis are kafir but we do not make takfir of every individual'?
after stating the above principle did our elders restrict the use of the term 'deobandi' to refer to only those individuals whose heresy has reached the level of kufr or did they include in it those who simply ascribe themselves to the deobandiyyah unaware about their beliefs?
did they consider the deobandiyyah to be like the qadiyanis, such that it cannot even be called a deviant sect but an altogether different religion?
if not, then they are one of the 72 sects and yet those who agree with the kufr of the founders of this sect shall become murtads.
the point I am trying to get at is that if we do not include the rawafid/ wahhabis/deobandis in the 72 then we will have to consider them to belong to an altogether separate deen and if we include them in the 72 then we have to conclude that some (many?) people of these 72 will stay in hell forever so they are no longer included in the 'ummah-al-ijaabah'. In that case we cannot say that everyone belonging to these 72 will be saved eventually. Which brings us to the conclusion of al-qari.