The letter to Najran | Syed Hasnain Bukhari

Shaykh Monawwar was made aware of the issue as it was of concern and Alhamdulillah Shaykh replied.

I think brother Aqdas has said all that needs to be said.

 

i've seen it in bits and pieces on the forum, so don't exatly know what's what.

is Shaykh Monawwar a supporter of yaqoubi sab now? and if yes, does he have something to say regarding his aberrant actions and words?

 

alhumdu lillah..Shaykh Monawwar has set the bench mark - a sign of a true man & scholar.

 

alHamdulillah.

 

looks like Shaykh Monawwar Ateeq reads Sunniport, or maybe someone tipped him off (i don't know the shaykh), or whatever.

anyways, may Allah reward him, he has just issued a clarification on the points that hasnayn mentioned

http://scholarsink.wordpress.com/20...on-imam-husayn-may-allah-be-pleased-with-him/

 

i had made a sense that the indian Muslims being laid back largely, are more diplomatic, since they live under the constant critical eye of the hindu perennialist. While the Pakistanis, being dominated by martial races like Punjabis, Pathaans, and Baloch were driven, and prone to judgement and expression

DoorDarshan Urdu TV plays live programs of indian Muslims singing to the greatness of Krishna and Geeta; while i see muslim upon muslim in indian media appealing to the commonalities of the hindu religion; however, the rural Muslim of india turns out to be quite the opposite, and vehemently against polytheism

To see Muslims like brother @AbdalQadir is a sigh of relief that indian Muslims are in safe hands, and they are as fundamentalist of the principles of Imaan as it should be. There is no compromise. Religion is not about compromise. The relationship between Islam and Christianity is not the same as that between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Patriarchy of Constantinople, so that compromises can be made to achieve unity between them as has been unsuccessfully done between the two quite a number of times in past history.

Muslims were always called as Saracens by the Roman Catholic Church until modern times. The past Muslims never accepted legitmacy of Catholics.

 

it is extremely satisfying to see that there are indian muslims, like brother @AbdalQadir, who are totally aware of the perennialist agenda around the Islamic World and the Western World, and are not afraid to speak the truth, and call a spade a spade

the Hindus and their sidekicks (Sikhs) are the biggest perennialist groups in the world. Their religions are intrinsically perennialist yet contradictory, as they will destroy anyone who does not fit with their agenda. indian Muslims are in safe hands, if there are millions of brother @AbdalQadir s in india, starting in Kashmir Valley, down to KanyaKumari in Tamil Nadu

 

I made an earlier post on this topic citing Mufti Ahmad Yaar Khan Naeemi (rahmatullah alayh). You can find the extract/scans from both Noor ul-Irfan & Tafseer Naeemi in that post.

-----

While commenting on verse 17 of Surah Taubah, Mufti Ahmad Yaar Khan Naeemi (alayhir rahmah) in his commentary Noor-ul-Irfan clarifies that:
1. the delegation was never given the permission to worship, but they proceeded to do so while the Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) and his companions were offering Asr salah.
2. The Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) didn't stop them while they were engaged in their worship. He allowed them to complete the worship in the same manner as he allowed a bedouin to finish his act of urinating inside Masjid Nabawi (and later got the Masjid thoroughly washed).

The worship by Najran delegates was no different from the urination of bedouin!

 

check this:
http://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/the-salawat-ligature.12134/

 

they had not yet heard of the Prophet's da3wah and refutation of christianity (ie, the polytheistic distortion that became their religion, NOT the real message of 3Eisa 3alaihis salam) at that time.

now da3wah has reached everywhere. the revelation is complete and the laws of Islam have been cemented. christianity has been refuted plenty.

------

to add to what you said:

the christians of those days did believe 3Eisa 3alaihis salam to be god just as those of today, but they might have been doing the actual ritual prayers prescribed in Sayyidina 3Eisa 3alaihis salam's shari3ah (as far as the bodily actions of the ritual prayer is concerned), because they faced the east to start praying.

in 3Eisa 3alaihis salam's shari3at, they had ritual prayers prescribed for twice daily (afair).

in MFM, abu Hasan also mentioned this (the reports that it was time for their prayers and they started praying facing the east). honestly MFM is a great collation in english of the reports and narrations on the truth of the matter. it should be made a mandatory text book for any student of tahir or perennialists!

in present day further-distorted christianity, there's no such obligation to pray twice a day, facing any particular direction, regardless of denomination.

------

the Prophet, 3alaihis salam, didn't ask them to pray according to their traditions or permit them for it. they took the liberty of starting their prayers themselves.

i'm nobody and this is just my guess, so please feel free to shoot me down if i crossed any limits, but it just hit me, that in addition to the reasons abu Hasan highlighted in MFM (see below), another reason could also be -

that the Prophet 3alaihis salam let them continue is because despite their polytheistic beliefs inside, on the outside, at that moment they were acting on the Shari3ah of the previous prophet, Sayyidina 3Eisa 3alaihis salam.

this can also be seen in a somewhat similar manner as the permission to eat their slaughtered animals, or to marry their women.

------

reasons highlighted by aH:

------

aH:

1. i can't copy the Salawat image properly, so i inserted 3alaihis salam myself in the passage i quoted.

2. if what i said doesn't violate any scholars accounts, it may be an idea to add this reason too in the next version of MFM, along with a quick reference on the abrogated Shari3ah of Sayyidina 3Eisa 3alaihis salam prescribing its own ritual prayers twice daily, maybe even highlighting the requirement, if his Shari3ah had it, to pray facing east. i had heard it in a bayan. i'm sure it is present in one of the books of qasas of previous ambiyaa. i will also look for it.

i think this argument will give the refutation much additional strength, and also negate the perennialist agenda of trying to make mosques safe havens for the crucifix!

so then, perhaps you can accommodate an additional bullet point in that same passage as follows:

 

if it were so, shirk would be prohibited ONLY in Haram. conversely, it would allowed everywhere else. all over the world, in the skies, in Jannah etc. madness has no bounds.

khuda jab deen leta hain, to aqlein chheen leta hai

The only aspect of akhlaq of the Holy Prophet - when he did not stop them while they were in the Prophet's mosque was NOT to punish them or kick them out of the mosque.

For they were (1) present to learn about Islam (2) not aware about its laws (3) they were not actually prostrating to any idol or the cross.

Where is the (1) invitation and (2) permission to perform worship or even pray (without idols or the cross)?

 

​

Nawaz are you trying to say that this verse only applies to the haram?!

if you say that it is the Prophet's, 3alaihis salam, akhlaq to accept people being involved in shirk, much less inside his mosque, and contradicting the Quran

 

A.Q.Ψ

and yes. regards from me to Ψ:

 

[expletives edited]
as wadood says, those sayings of scholars are about merely entering.

merely entering mosques --- is different --- from doing their polytheistic worships inside mosques.

i mentioned in another thread you heretics in general (regardless of your classification of heresy) fundamentally follow a principle of comparing apples to bat droppings.

if you need any more help on the topic of permission of kafirs merely entering mosques, let me know.

i will provide you more information than what you have cited in your effort to quickly google a few things here and there to prove yourself, your dajjal-shaykh tahir, and your dajjalic pir bhai's right. qaatalakumullah.

Ala Hazrat has a few tahqeeqi fatawa in Fatawa Ridawiyya.

abu Hasan has also listed such rulings in MFM. like he suggested, do read it.

unlike you heretics, we Sunnis are honest to ourselves, as well as to others.

 

yes, brother hasnayn, but they are speaking of entring, not praying, or idol worship

 

A.Q.Ψ

I think you need to take a chill pill or prozac or something. Here is what al-Nawawi and al-Qurtubi say in al-majmu` and al-jami`, respectively:
قال أصحابنا : لا يمكن كافر من دخول حرم مكة ، وأما غيره فيجوز أن يدخل كل مسجد ويبيت به بإذن المسلمين ويمنع منه بغير إذن ، ولو كان الكافر جنبا فهل يمكن من اللبث في المسجد ؟ فيه وجهان مشهوران أصحهما : يمكن
http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?idfrom=1&idto=6505&lang=&bk_no=14&ID=1

Imam al-Qurtubi:
قال الشافعي رحمه الله : الآية عامة في سائر المشركين ، خاصة في المسجد الحرام ، ولا يمنعون من دخول غيره ، فأباح دخول اليهودي والنصراني في سائر المساجد
Imam al-Shafi1 says that the verse is specific to al-masjid al-haram and it is not prohibited enter other masjids and it is permissible for Jews and Christians to go into all the masjids.
http://www.islamweb.net/quran/display_book.php?idfrom=1597&idto=1597&bk_no=48&ID=1022

My advise: drink some thanda paani and smile. You have too much anger and hate and this will affect your health. Best Wishes. Wassalaam.

 

oh boy!

like, seriously?

you bring the 2nd imam of wahabi anthropomorphism, the "khalifa" of the blasted ibn taymiya, to try and prove a poor point?

do you also take the guy seriously for the rest of your 3aqidah and fiqh? issues like tafdil, for example.

seriously mate, do your integrity some favor, and stop scraping at the barrel.

it is true what Imam Ghazzali said. something along the lines of: more harm is done to deen at the hands of a foolish "person of religion" than at the hands of a proper enemy. in another place (and maybe by another imam) along the lines of: do not befriend a fool, for he will think he's benefiting you when he actually harms you.

the perennialists will only be too glad to quote this line to abet their agenda.

----

i think your methodology is to collect bits and pieces of valid and invalid opinions, and then apply your own spin on it, to suit your nafsanic thoughts! in that regard, you are no different than wahabis and tahiris, and it's bizarre that you use it to push shiite viewpoints!

 

A.Q.Ψ

Here is what Ibn Qayyim al-jawaziya (d. 751 AH) says in his famous book Zaad al-Ma'aad after relating the event of Mubahala. He says in the fiqh that ahl al-kitab can enter the masjids and also can pray in the masjid according to their faith but not on a regular basis.
في فقه هذه القصة
ففيها : جواز دخول أهل الكتاب مساجد المسلمين
وفيها : تمكين أهل الكتاب من صلاتهم بحضرة المسلمين وفى مساجدهم أيضا إذا كان ذلك عارضا ولا يمكنون من اعتياد ذلك

http://islamport.com/w/qym/Web/3188/608.htm

 

drinking, adultery, etc. are all lesser sins than shirk.

if you say that it is the Prophet's, 3alaihis salam, akhlaq to accept people being involved in shirk, much less inside his mosque, and contradicting the Quran, then you will have to say that Imam Hussein's, radi Allahu 3anhu, akhlaq should have accepted the sinful yazeed, wal 3eyadhu billahi ta3ala.

you need to grow some common sense and get an education.

then you need to avoid the company of the likes of faraz, who supports perennialists. or else people will identify you by him and his cohorts.