Brother, please don't falsely accuse me of lying. Come to Mufti Gul Rehman's mosque for Friday prayers and all will be revealed. Mufti Gul Rehman told me directly a few years ago. Also i'm not the one causing fitna it's the Pir with a small beard going against the teachings of Imam Ahmed Raza.
Brother Shadhili, if you are telling the truth, I would love to know who you are and take you to Mufti Gul Rehman to clarify this.... Mufti Gul Rehman believes you are causing fitna He has not been well recently, spending most of the time in his masjid and has nothing to do with this..... Mufti Gul Rehman has a lot of respect for Pir Saqib This is a blatant lie, lying for what reason? You are causing fitna.
Please note the above statement is fabricated as one of the Mufti's approached by Pir saqib was Mufti Gul Rehman of Birmingham who mentioned the fatwa of Imam Ahmed Raza (May Allah's Mercy be upon him) and called him a fasiq. If you require any further information please contact Mufti Gul Rehman.
apart from the fact that leading questions have been posed to have the uncritical reader come to the conclusions which the writer (whoever he is) wants them to, the following piece is also quite amusing: since when has it become fashionable to post on facebook things which are "aimed primarily at the ulama"? whats more, most ulema can read only the arabic and the awaam just the english part. The Ulema (if at all they follow pir sahab diligently on facebook, I mean, who wouldn't?) will be left wondering what the point of all those quotes is and the layman will be left with the impression that pir sahib has finally vindicated himself and case closed. seriously, couldn't have thought of a better way to publish a clarification and defense of one's view point, primarily for the ulema: facebook.
here is a short work on music being haram. risalah fi istima'a al malahi. zirkly in al a'alam (6/103) mentions muHammad ibn Hasan ibn ali al-turi al-Hanafi al-qadiri; birth date not known, but passing 1138AH / 1726CE. he is the author credited with the takmilah of baHr al-rayiq of ibn nujaym (known as takmilah Turi).
what if a common man simply follows a senior mufti - alahazrat for example - and repeats that Hukm? is that classified as a common man giving fatwa or a common man following a mufti? what if a common man is just repeating the fatwa of a senior and widely accepted mufti, such as alahazrat for example. suppose a common man comes to know of another common man in a predominantly Hanafi locality not praying witr. this second common man prays according to Hanafi madh'hab otherwise. upon query the 2nd common man confirms that he is a Hanafi and also that he does not pray witr at all, except sometimes in ramaDan. would the first common man be at fault to call the second common man a fasiq? thus, if such a person wants to lead prayer - can the first one who considers himself Hanafi pray behind a person who habitually omits witr? ---------------- i would have wanted to argue about all quotes, but there is one quote in the written notes which caused me a little consternation. here is the bigger picture, [radd al-muHtar, bab al-ta'zir]. i have also highlighted the part cited in the notes below. there is some mention of not making madh'habs a game that people play with rulings etc.
there is no point in commenting on random quotes which are compiled without any context, and nor are there conclusions drawn from those quotes. the post also excludes common people from commenting. so i guess it is best for us to wait for ulama and muftis to explain the following. wa billahi't tawfiq.
by any chance, do you know who wrote this? I mean is it the handwriting of saqib sahab? And is this his personal research?
The refutation of those who declare the Ulama Fasiq on differed upon issues in the Madahib Arba’ah The following is a response to those who have been criticising the jurisdictive differences of opinion held by the Kanz ul Huda Intl. and its leadership pertaining to such topics as the use of Musical instruments in Sama, Videography, Photography, Raqs & the timings of Suhoor /Nisf ul Layl etc. On several occasions Kanz ul Huda Intl. has advised the Awaam (general public), and their termed “scholars” to desist in issuing out verdicts of Haram (impermissibility) and Fisq (impiety) on the Sunni Ulama (scholars) for matters that have no consensus and several differing opinions in the four Madahib. Although there is no consensus regarding the above mentioned issues, there is however a strong and clear consensus regarding the Hurmah (prohibition) of cursing and accusing Sunni Ulama of Fisq, which in itself is undoubtedly Haram Bil Ijmah (prohibited with consensus). Not only have the laymen fallen victim to this major blunder, but regrettably so have many Ulama. For several years the members of Kanz ul Huda Intl. have been discussing these issues privately via Social Media, and have not engaged in any public debates regarding these issues as not to allow confusion and dissension to befall the Ahlus Sunnah. However due to the collective efforts of a minority of the students of knowledge, who also call themselves Muftis, and the teachers of their respective institutes attempting to demotivate the active and enthused members of Kanz ul Huda, 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. The following are authentic and untranslated references provided by Pir Saqib Shaami (Hafidhahullah), aimed primarily at the Ulama. The Arabic language has been employed to allow the Ulama sufficient time to contemplate before accepting the opinions expressed or prior to providing a refutation before the Awaam. The following subjects are covered in the Arabic text below: 1. Does a common man have the right of declaring a scholar a Faasiq (sinner) on Mukhtalaf feeh issues (issues differed upon)? 2. Does a common person, who is not a scholar, have the right to declare a common man a Faasiq or accuse him of committing Haram based upon issues wherein there is ikhtilaf in the Madhab (school of jurisprudence) he follows or even the 4 Madahib? 3. Does a scholar have the right of declaring another scholar a Faasiq based upon issues wherein there is Ikhtilaaf (debate) of the Madahib Arba’ah, The 4 authentic schools? 4. Is it prohibited for a Hanafi to take legal rulings from the other schools and when is one guilty of Talfeeq? 5. When does the Hanafi ruling of Tahaquq of one of the Asbaab Sitta apply in Ifta? 6. What is the opinion of Ibn Abideen (alayhirahma) regarding the clause of Ind ad daroorah whilst taking from another Madhab? Is Ind ad daroorah also a condition in the personal practise of the Mukallaf or only in Ifta? In the above Arabic text sufficient answers have been presented with references from the works of the major Sunni Jurists that support the stance held by Kanz ul Huda Intl. for several years. 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. Kanz ul Huda Intl. believes that all Sunni Organisations working in the field of Dawah must take into consideration the above quoted works of the Major Sunni Ulama in order to avoid accusing others of committing Haram whilst explaining or admonishing the issues differed upon.
