no detailed refutation required. simply put, istighatha, if i'm not badly mistaken, is and has been the practice of the jamhur since islam began. to call them all mushriks would be wrong because our master sallallahu 'alaihi wasallam said (1) my ummah will not unite on misguidance and that (2) my ummah will not commit shirk. thirdly, the sahaba ridwanullahi ta'ala 'alaihim ajma'in asked our master sayyidina muhammad sallallahu 'alaihi wasallam that when one muslim accuses the other of shirk, who will be the mushrik? aaqa 'alaihis salatu wassalam said with his blessed tongue, "the accuser". imho, i think the neo-deobandis dont like what desai writes because he portrays them as what they really are. when you compare his fatawa to a ghayr muqallid wahabi, you won't know which is by the muqallid deobandi and which is from the ghayr muqallid wahabi.
as-salamu alaikum sidi haroon, I don't agree with that fatwa of Mufti Desai just as I don't agree with the two or three fatwas of the barelwi shuyukh posted above. What about you akhi? Also, as I'm interested in the subject of istigatha maybe you can compile a detailed refutation of Mufti Desai in English furnished with proofs and explanation of why he has got it wrong?
What is fatwa on saying "Ya Shaykh Madad" ? I have seen people saying "Ya Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani give me 1000 dollars" "Ya Shaykh Raza Khan Barelwi give me a new car!!" is this allowed ? Answer: To seek the help of any deceased and pray to him is Shirk. It is not permissible to address any deceased by saying 'Yaa Shaykh Madad', 'Yaa Shaykh Raza Khan.', etc. If a Muslim does that, he is out of the fold of Islam, his Nikah will be broken. If he does not renew his Imaan and Nikah, his relationship with his wife will be Haraam. and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best Mufti Ebrahim Desai http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?askid=65aebbb67b709f15b1a9786cacacf4e0 no more ridiculous than the above!
why not name this thread "blanket takfir" there is another person on deenport obsessed with the so called "takfiri barelwis". infact there is more than one. they all happen to be deobandis or from deobandi backgrounds infact the issue is, if you want to give barelwis the benefit of the doubt on their takfiri trait, why not give the deobandis the benefit of the doubt on their wahabi traits? then the issue comes up, the deobandis are far too takfiri than even the barelwis, as one can see with clear eyes in the Sub Continent (As I saw myself) one can play around with the fatwas issued from the "barelwi" side, and can then justify it with the argument that the wahabi/deo fatwas were also being played around with then one can say, I am just following the simple english of the translated fatwas from the Barelwi side, perhaps because I am not Barelwi or Deobandi, I do not know where the meaning is coming from, though from the words it does seem blanket takfir. one can also "beat around the bush", the lovely phrase, about what the words of Shaykh Irfan Shah Mash-hadi "clearly" "CLEARLY" mean brother Abu Fadl agreed without beating around the bush, and then the purpose was done, opportunity in hand, but one still believes one is genuinely enquiring into the matter, because this seems interesting and why not the Barelwis (brothers) discuss it but there is still the possibility that this is all a truly innocent, genuine, unbiased, seeking clarification in concern, enquiry for brothers on Sunniport
as-salamu alaikum Here is another interesting fatwa I came across on Deenport: http://www.taajushshariah.com/Fatawa/jannaza_sun_wahabi.htm Looks like there is no hope for people like me, lol - don't bother coming to my janaza guys.
Jazzakallah Khair, Inshallah, we will get an answer from Qibla Peer Sayyid Irfan Shah Mashadi Moosvi Sahib, regarding this topic. Please allow some time, As Qibla Shah Sahib is currently Abroad
My point is that it is not the opinion of the ahlus sunnha scholars: all wahabis are kafir because all wahabis are ghustakh, or all shia for that matter. Ala Hazrat R.A. did not hold this view - see Hussam-ul-Haramyan, nor do all the ulama i have asked. Only those particular deobandis have been called kafir based on their kufri ibaraat/belief. Blanket takfir was never the opinion of Ala Hazrat. No disrespect to Mooswi Shah Sahib, but one cannot attribute this belief towards the Ahl us Sunnah and our great scholars.
brother faqir! on some threads I see that you appear to be sick of the criticism of deobandis and on the other hand you seem persistent to push your words in others mouth against ulama of ahlus sunnah, and trying to provoke issues again and again. why don't haq char yaar people ask allama irfan shah mashadi sahab directly and get a clear answer of his own statements.
Like, Brother Aqdas has correctly said: ANY Ghustakh is a Kaafir That is the View of the Shaykh, and the view of ALL the scholars, from the past 1400 years
As-salamu alaikum brothers, I think I will leave this discussion for now as it seems to be heading down a slippery slope that will lead us all into trouble on the Day of Judgement. Wasalam p.s. sidi aqdas: Ahmad al-Ghumari also declared Amir Muawiyah RA a Kafir. Needless to say, he holds some erroneous views.
what is the definition of a wahhabi? who is and who isnt a wahhabi? http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/wahhabi.htm and the line in the article Whoever adheres to that da'wa has committed unambiguous kufr and anyone who follows that da'wa is a wahhabi, right?
The respected Shaykh has said: Aqaa (Sallahu alaihiwasallam) kay ghustakh wahhabi hai -FACT The Insulters of the Messenger of Allah (Sallahu alaihiwasallam) ARE Wahhabis, and THESE Wahhabis are Kaafir, because they are Ghustakh-e-Rasool, and anyone who is a Ghustakh-e-Rasool is a KAAFIR. THE SHAYKH REFERS TO WHICH WAHHABIS, HE IS ON ABOUT, IN THE BEGGINING OF HIS SPEECH: SUCH AS THOSE WHO DENY THE ILM-E-GHAIB OF RASOOLULLAH-SALAHU ALAIHIWASALLAM AND BULL-DOZED JAANTH UL BAQEE
brother aqdas, all i am saying is that it is blanket takfir whatever his reasons are, and then yes, it would automatically apply that anyone denying the kufr of a kafir is also a kafir.
question answer anyone who has an issue of labelling an insulter as being a kafir is clearly a kafir himself because he considers an insulter of Allah and His Rasool to be a Muslim. do people here consider an insulter of Rasulullah sallallahu 'alaihi wasallam a kafir or not?
I am sorry brothers but i cannot beat round the bush, yes, that is what he says. You can agree or disagree with him but that does not change the fact of his views. I am not talking against Shah Sahib in anyway but just simply stating what he says.
may Allah reward you akhi for saying it as it clearly appears from his words. He also appears to say that those who do not consider all the Wahabbis [which apparently includes Deobandis] Kafir are kafir themselves. would you agree that this is what he is saying?
Please Note: Those who agree with the Kufr Aqaid of the Deobandi Mullahs (Thanvi etc), or the Kufr Aqaid of Shia (The Quran is not complete etc), then they KUFR Is proved cleary from QURAN AND SUNNAH. The Respected Shaykh, is quoting from Quran and Hadith, How can a Ghustakh-e-Rasool(Salahu alaihiwasallam) REMAIN Muslim ? How can a Ghustakh-e-Sahabah(Radiallahtaala anhuma) REMAIN MUSLIM ?
