on the title: mujaddid e a'azam

shukran; but what I meant was that one can then ask the same [meaning proof for] from the actual wording from hadith.

also with regards to the other useage of this esteemed title in the books of fiqh; how did it find it's way therein? [please don't take this question in any other way other than information gathering for myself ]

 

imam e a'azam is considered as imam e a'azam for his age and thereafter until imam mahdi. moreover there is another use for this title which you will find in fiqh books. look it up.

wa billahi't tawfiq.

 

mufti a'azam is mufti a'azam e hind and that is - in his time. we refer to mawlana mustafa raza raHimahullah as mufti a'azam e hind; this only means he was a senior mufti of his time - else, it would necessitate that he was greater than alahazrat as well. so also mufti a'azam e pakistan etc.

there can be hundreds, thousands of muftis in the same generation; so also faqih, munazir, khatib. so the a'azam (not necessary anyway) just denotes that the person is most prominent in his age or he holds a post in islamic countries.

----
but mujaddid is different. you don't find hundreds of mujaddid in the same age. in fact, can you name twenty ulama or more who have been described as mujaddid in the past 14 centuries?*

ulama state many conditions on who can be termed a mujaddid. mere proficiency in islamic sciences is not enough - one should have actively worked to restore islam to the way of our elders and actively defended ahl as-sunnah against bid'ah in addition to knowledge.

sometimes, they say, there can be more than one mujaddid; but that doesn't mean there will be twenty mujaddids in a century and one is mujaddid-e-a'azam among them.

when such is the case, saying mujaddid-e-a'azam in the context of mujaddid being a rare distinction, draws a false image that [we claim,] he is greater than other mujaddidin; like, let us say al-ghazali or imam rabbani.

we love alahazrat ahmed rida khan and revere him as our imam. but we should not use exaggerated titles to allow enemies to make fun of us or criticize alahazrat for poor choices made by his followers.

wAllahu ta'ala a'alam.
--------------------




*going by the number of names included in al-suyuti's tuhfatu'l mujtahidin fi asma'a al-mujaddidin.

 

and one may then ask the proof [from the hadith] for imam-e-a'azam.

 

What about:

Mufti A'azam
Faqih A'azam
Munaazir A'azam
Khatib A'azam...the list goes on

Why is Mujaddid A'azam such an issue?

 

Salaam

I have read the Hadeeth Mubarak about the title mujadid but what is the proof for the title mujadidi i azam?

 

is it impermissible to use the title?

 

is it necessary to agree with everything they say?

 

As I said before
Sharih ul Bukhari Shaykh Mufti Sharif ul Haq al Amjadi rahimahullahu Ta'ala, Shaykh Muhammad Hanif Khan al Ridwi hafizahullahu Ta’ala and probably many more great responsible 'ulamaa that know how to use their words correctly al Hamdulillah.

bihamdillahi Tabaarak wa Ta'ala

 

i think you have not read aqdas' comment properly. given that there can be many mujaddids in one era, if mujaddid a'azam means greatest mujaddid of his era and perhaps after his, then it is fine.

and even then, what do five lines of titles convey anyway? there are so many people in our time, with nothing but empty titles given by others like themselves. pardon me for saying this, but sometimes lengthy titles appear like an attempt to make up for the incompetence or lack of knowledge.

many great ulama in the past have become so well-known, that mere appellations (of family or domicile) is sufficient to identify the value of their opinion. if you mention ghazali or qadi iyad or nawawi or subki or ibn hajar or ibn humam or suyuti - they are immediately identified and the opinion attributed to them automatically sounds authoritative. whether you add a shaykh al-islam or taqiyuddin or omit a jalaluddin or tajuddin makes no difference.

similarly for alahazrat, i think, there is little need for titles. the short title alahazrat has become synonymous with genius, knowledge, piety and love for RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. just like we consider 'ghazali of his time' as a honorific, 'alahazrat of his time' is itself a lofty title.

instead of arguing about titles, or finding yet another one, let us read alahazrat's books and try to understand them. an urdu phrase conveys it best: 'one need not hold candles to show the brilliance of the sun'.

wAllahu ta'ala a'alam.

 

​

 

The title has been used by Sharih ul Bukhari Shaykh Mufti Sharif ul Haq al Amjadi rahimahullahu Ta'ala in in Munsifaanah Jaaizah and Tahqiqaat. It was also used in the title of Jami al Ahaadith by Shaykh Muhammad Hanif Khan al Ridwi hafizahullahu Ta’ala. So there is no need to refrain from using it and it is not an exaggeration.

Shaykh ul Islam Mujaddid A’azam A’ala Hadrat Imam Ahmad Rida rahimahullahu Ta’ala.

May Allah Tabaarak wa Ta’ala grant us the ability to read his remarkable works and benefit from them.
Aameen bi jaah in Nabi al Kareem sall Allahu ‘alaihi wa Aalihi wasallam

 

imam abu hanifa: imam al aimmah, siraj al-ummah

 

Assalaamu 'Alaykum

I have heard many Sunni scholars, addressed as Hujjat-ul-Islam like Huzoor Haamid Raza Qutb-e-Aalam Rahmatullah 'Alayh ..

ALLAH HAAFIZ

 

i know akhi, but i was talking in addition to those popular ones

 

the renowned titles of imam abu hanifa and imam ghazali are:

imam abu hanifa: imam e aazam
imam ghazali: hujjatul-islam

i think most people understand that when referring to syeddi ala hadrat mujaddid-e azam is meant only of ala hadrats blessed time

 

isn't mujaddid-e-azam used for Imam Abu Hanifa or Imam Ghazali? rahimahumullaah