Shahid Ali continues public spat with Shaykh Asrar

Moving forward, even if we were to hypothetically suppose that the question was completely accurate and contained all the appropriate information, then the answers still raise important questions.

Mufti Aslam Raza said that, “Common people are not obligated to know theological disputes in detail. However, common people must be aware of deviants by seeking guidance from Sunni scholars.”

Mufti Fida Husayn al-Ridawi said that: “Even though they are not obligated to know detailed theological disputes, they are obligated to ask Sunni scholars.”

From this, we gather that the former two Muftis agree in principle with Shaykh Asrar Rashid that a common person is not obligated to know of theological disputes in detail.

These comments by Mufti Aslam Raza and Mufti Fida Husayn al-Ridawi beg the question however: how is a totally ignorant common person (category (b)) able to discern a Sunni scholar in the first place, to then seek guidance from him, given his status as an ignorant commoner? An ignorant commoner by definition is ignorant of the particulars of theological disputes.

Consider the current global modern context where not only are groups claiming to be Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jama’ah or Barelwi but also pay lip-service to its details ie. Ash’ari/Maturidi/Athari + Hanafi/Shafi’i/Maliki/Hanbali + Tasawwuf/Tazkiyah/Ihsan; or they say they are ‘Barelwi’ but hold heretical beliefs such as shi’i/tafdili//hululi/khariji/perennialist etc. tendencies.

How is an ignorant commoner to discern that Scholar X is a true Sunni and Scholar Y is a fake if he himself is ignorant of theological details? Add the highly divisive mudslinging within Sunni ranks too, that Barelwi Scholar X is not ‘Sunni’ enough!

If the ignorant commoner is able to discern who a Sunni scholar is and who is a non-Sunni, then it is presupposed he has enough knowledge of theology to be able to make that distinction. As such, he ceases to be an ignorant commoner referenced by Shaykh Asrar Rashid and would be classed as a knowledgeable commoner (category (a)).

Mufti Fida Husayn al-Ridawi also said that “a person should only pray behind an Imam when he has certainty (yaqin) that he is a Sunni.”

This begs the same question raised above. How is an ignorant commoner to know if an Imam is Sunni when he is wholly unaware of the particulars of Sunni theology himself?

However, even if this point was ceded, then:

1. What constitutes ‘certainty’ here? Is predominant conviction based on the apparent sufficient ie. seeing a Muslim man appointed as an Imam by a group of people who reads his prayer like a normal Sunni Muslim?
   
   
2. If a person does not have complete certainty that the Imam of a congregation is a bonafide card-carrying Sunni, then is praying behind him permissible?
   
   
3. Would he be obligated to repeat his prayer in the presence of this minute uncertainty?
   
   
4. Is the person who prays behind such an Imam in this scenario considered a Sulh-Kulli?
   
   
5. Is a common person required to investigate the beliefs of the Imam prior to beginning the prayer with a series of Q/As?
   
   
6. Is he to bring forward Hussam al-Haramayn and the heresies of deviants and ask the Imam to endorse it or for his thoughts before beginning his prayer behind him?
   
   
7. How is he assured that the Imam is not engaging in chicanery (taqiyyah)?
   
   
8. How applicable and practical is this to a commoner living in metropolitan urban cities across the globe who sees Muslims congregating for prayer and joins them to fulfil his daily obligation?
   

Mufti Rashid Mahmud al-Ridawi said that “such a person is misguided (gumrah) and faithless (bey-din) who says that it is not obligatory upon commoners to know the heretical beliefs (‘aqa’iyd-e kufriyyah) of the Wahhabiyyah-Deobandiyyah.”

1. Is Mufti Rashid Mahmud al-Ridawi suggesting that commoners are obligated to know of detrimental statements of disbelief and heresy?
   
   
2. And that whoever disagrees with this ie. point [1], is misguided himself?
   
   
3. If so, to what extent are commoners obligated to know of these heresies?
   
   
4. Moreover, is it deviancy to disagree with the view that commoners are obligated to know of these blasphemies and sectarian problems?
   
   
5. Are commoners obligated to know of the specific disparaging passages present in Kitab al-Tawhid of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, Taqwiyat al-Iman of Isma’il al-Dihlawi or Hifdh al-Iman of Ashraf ‘Ali Thanwi, etc.?
   
   
6. What is the ruling upon scholars who are unaware of controversy X?
   
   
7. What about misguided passages found in the books and speeches of other deviants who are not limited to the Deobandi dispute like Ibn Hazm, Ibn Sina, Ibn Taymiyyah etc. to al-Harari, Hassan al-Saqqaf, Amina Wadud, etc.?
   
   
8. Are scholars themselves aware of the many modern heresies and their chief ideologues of today?
   
   
9. Or are commoners only obligated to know the general tenet that offense and insult of Allah, His Messengers, and the religion is disbelief - and not the particular passages per se?
   

Mufti Aslam Raza and Mufti Fida Husayn al-Ridawi have said that commoners are not obligated to know theological disputes in detail whereas Mufti Rashid Mahmud al-Ridawi states that claiming commoners are not obligated to know such-and-such grave dispute makes oneself misguided. Clarification around who is a Sulh-Kulli and its parameters is necessary. Especially if we are to consider Shaykh Asrar Rashid as one the way some people are wanting us to believe.

The Sulh-Kulli label is thrown around nowadays without any justification being provided. On the off-chance that any reason is provided, then it is often very weak, flimsy and does not hold to scrutiny (see case-in-point). If people are called Sulh-Kulli without any proof being provided, especially scholars like Shaykh Asrar Rashid, then this renders the term meaningless and it all becomes a futile joke. It ‘poisons the well’ as to who a real Sulh-Kulli is, and by extension who a Barelwi and Sunni is.

I hope individuals who wantonly use these terms without standard and thought can provide these necessary answers.

 

All those that are bringing up the poison issue 2 years after the event in public, clearly have an intolerant extremist, petty mindest.

How many incidents have there been of people emulating Shaykh Asrar and making poison challenges? None!

Shaykh Asrar himself made it clear in his post debate video that people shouldn't drink poison or jump off a cliff etc, it's is impermissible in sharia especially if you know you're not going to survive.

He's not endorsing it and it is clear from the debate it happened in the moment, yet some want to go on about. I can only assume there is another agenda at play.

 

Mawlana Shahid Ali has released a third video clip. In this video clip, he has attempted to respond to slander of his character by an anonymous YouTube account and Bilal Ibn Asif. Mawlana Shahid Ali fails to make mention of anything regarding the poison issue. This may be because he realises that his allegation was based upon a testimony by Mufti Zahid Hussain al-Ridawi and Hafiz Shakeel, whose source denied any contact or witness whatsoever.

Let’s address the very few responses of Mawlana Shahid Ali that relate to earlier posts. His gripe with a comment by a YouTube channel comment and Bilal Ibn Asif can be addressed among themselves.

Mawlana Shahid Ali says that he did not ask Mufti Aslam Bandyalwi because Mufti Aslam Bandyalwi was in (a) Pakistan and (b) is his teacher, so he may be biased. As for reason (a), then all the other Muftis consulted are also in Pakistan or abroad as well. Secondly, Shaykh Asrar Rashid was happy to have Mufti Aslam Bandyalwi oversee the meeting where both parties were present. No concerns over bias were raised then. If the reason was inconvenience, then surely Mufti Aslam Bandyalwi would have closed this case and asked for a public retraction or issued a fatwa of misguidance on Shaykh Asrar Rashid during the meeting?

If neutrality and convenience were the reasons, then why did Mawlana Shahid Ali not ask Mawlana Naveed Jameel for a fatwa on Shaykh Asrar Rashid? After all, not only was Mawlana Naveed Jameel present as a neutral arbitrator in the initial mediation, he is also in the UK and approachable for contact.

Mufti Zahid Hussain al-Ridawi who is involved in this is also not a teacher of Mawlana Shahid Ali and is not in Pakistan. Why did Mawlana Shahid Ali not seek a fatwa from him regarding Shaykh Asrar Rashid?

Mawlana Shahid Ali then says that soliciting a fatwa from a native UK-based scholar is irrelevant. He says that the Sunni-Deobandi dispute is known all the same transnationally, hence why asking a Mufti from India or Pakistan is okay. Mawlana Shahid Ali fails to do justice to the intricate nature of ‘Urf and the obvious differences in contexts which affect rulings.

In his question to the Muftis consulted, Mawlana Shahid Ali has presented only the following from Shaykh Asrar Rashid’s answer on Ummah Channel:

“The first group of people are not qualified or tasked to delve into theological disputes. If they cannot understand the basic terms of Islam [...] they are not tasked regarding those theological disputes.”

The questions fails to mention the following details:

1) Shaykh Asrar categorised the laity into:

a) Knowledgeable commoners - those who have knowledge of theology due to an attachment with scholars and students of knowledge; and

b) Ignorant commoners - those who are unaware of theological details.
​

2) Shaykh Asrar was only talking about the latter category of laymen. i.e the ignorant commoners.​

3) Shaykh Asrar Rashid has further clarified his position in the meeting, on SunniPort, and on Instagram - all of these being later than the Ummah Channel clip. He categorically believes that prayer behind heretics is not permitted.​

Note that a fatwa has not been issued against Shaykh Asrar Rashid but rather against a generic Zayd. Therefore, unless the question is 100% accurate, precisely relays all the relevant information, and corresponds with the statements and actions of Shaykh Asrar Rashid, only then one can cite the fatwa and apply it to him.

This is exactly what Mufti Aslam Raza says in his second audio clip. Mufti Aslam Raza also says that he did not know that this issue was part of a larger and ongoing debacle between two parties demonstrating that Mawlana Shahid Ali was not frank and upfront about the context of his question. This re-emphasises the point that native scholars already involved as arbitrators should have been approached by Mawlana Shahid Ali for a fatwa.

 

Bilal now announces that his previous statements are mansukh (abrogated).. He no longer believes that the dosage of poison was too weak to harm Sh Asrar. He now believes after some time out that this is indeed a miracle of Shaykh Asrar.

On sunniport, Shaykh Asrar previously said that he agreed with the crux of Bilal's original explanation but he could add more detail. It now appears that there is a difference of opinion and teacher and student no longer agree with one another.

It makes sense now why Bilal was calling others towards a poison drinking challenge with Sh Asrar because he believes the Shaykh can perform karamat at the drop of a hat because he is a wali. It also makes sense why it is added to promos because the team around Shaykh Asrar have firm conviction that he is an inheritor of Hazrat Khalid and has indeed performed a karama which must be promoted with yearly reminders.

I'm sure Shaykh asrar is anti promoting these kind of things. He is very outspoken about mind control tactics and those seeking fame. I guess the admin of his social media pages believe it is a miracle. Sh Asrar has said it isn't a miracle so how has he allowed his admin to promote a miracle that he rejects himself? That opens the doors for how much input shaykh Asrar has in his official social media pages. His admin might be sharing things with the Shaykh doesn't accept so how does the public know what to accept from his social media pages? What if the admin don't listen to him and do their own thing?

Bilal's words of frustration and rudeness are therefore like that of a mureed/disciple and follower of a peer who can drink poison against Christians and sunni scholars to prove his rank. All the years of wailing about objectivity, staying clear of emotions and cult mentality have turned around full swing. Bilal is unable to justify the shariah ruling on drinking poison so has gone down the peer/faqeer/hikma route. I also don't know why he is under the impression that no wali ever announces the action was a miracle.

By the way, why doesn't Bilal apologise for spreading fake news about Mufti Aslam Raza? Is he waiting for a dream, a spiritual sign, some type of inspiration, or another miracle?

If you believe Shaykh Asrar is a wali then when he says something in the future then please listen to it. Unfortunately, he has experience that many around him do not listen in his presence. Those who disobey walis might be destroyed.

 

Bilal, you should not be replying in the first place considering what happened last time.

Either you emulate your shaykh by being silent (as that appears to be his current policy) or people will assume that you are speaking in his behalf because he is fighting a war of words by proxy. Clearly, the latter is not the impression you want to give so just leave it well alone.

Should you be unable to stop your fingers from typing, you'll be as stubborn as shahid Ali.

As for shahid Ali, I'm sorry to say that he is behaving like a classic keyboard warrior. If he has a problem with shaykh asrar, talk to him behind the scenes and use your teacher mufti aslam as a mediator if needed.

The fact shahid can barely wait a couple weeks before going public with YouTube videos is a joke. Is that your level of patience and perseverance? We all considered you a bit of a hero because of your public apology. Yet you have squandered that goodwill by trying to nitpick shaykh asrar on the most minor of points, quite frankly.

Also, can we now assume that mufti aslam is backing his student in his little fitna project? Otherwise, someone please contact him and get him to reign his student in for the good of the community.

 

I am afraid that Shahid is lying in his video and I haven't lied. Shahid and Zaid have already lied previously and were caught out and they should openly repent for that. Shahid is a proven liar who has repeatedly lied. He is not trustworthy. He lied again about me being a thug. As for apologies, I did apologise previously and yet Shahid did more lying about me and the other brothers. What he says in his new video is also unreliable.

As for claiming that I am contradicting myself, I had removed that previous statement and therefore it is mansukh and what I have stated on this thread is what I stand by now. I do not claim to speak for Sh Asrar anymore than Ibrahim speaks for Shahid.

As for Sh Asrar's Ummah channel statement, he has clarified it in the Q and A thread and in later speeches. In a vague statement only the one who has made the statement can clarify and people cannot read into what they think was said.

This is my last post on this thread and I will not be posting any longer.

 

Bilal is a confused mind (contradicted himself many times via social media and Sunniport)
He should keep quiet and let his teacher speak. Different case would be if Shaykh Asrar didnt have a tongue, then it would be nice for him to come and speak!

Mawlana Shahid just exposed his (bilals) nonsense again in his new video.

To be honest Mawlana shahid has got some good points for shaykh asrar to consider.

Shaykh Asrar Must Retract from his blunders made on ummah channel!

Mawlana Shahid must REPENT for being disrespectful at times and ask for forgiveness all over again!

Bilal must repent for being disrespectful (who seems to fan mawlana shahids flame via facebook).

Case closed!

 

In Mawlana Shahid Ali's new video title "Response to Slander"

Bilal ibn Asif and other followers of Shaykh Asrar are called out for sharing false information regarding the Mufti Aslam Raza video. Mawlana Shahid has asked Bilal or anyone else to bring forth their evidence.

Mawlana Shahid said that Mufti Aslam did not contact him and Shaykh Asrar must retract his ummah channel position.

 

Imam Shahid is going live again later to respond to the slander... so the to and fro tit for tat will no doubt resume. i say it clear that it is just embarrassing. @Aqdas Take note and don't give this spat any more airtime. Sunniport is above this nonsense.

 

For anyone that needs further clarification please contact me Bilal Ibn Asif.
Please see Below:

1. It turned out that the source that claimed it was milk of magnesia was a lie and no one actually rang the organisers. This was a baseless claim and the source was discredited as a liar. As for the drinking of poison, the riwayah of Khalid Bin Walid (radiyAllahu anhu) was presented as accepted and approved by Imam Abdullah Siraj alDin. So this issue was closed, and Sh Asrar made it absolutely clear that he does not claim a karama but such an insignificant amount of poison did not kill him.

@IbnAsif your clarification said that such an insignificant amount of poison did not kill him. Now you are claiming a miracle?

 

Can you or anyone else advise when was this?

I'm not interested in discussing Shahid Ali's antics. Just that thing caught my eye as a stand alone issue.

 

Now answer my questions.

 

Where have you heard Sh Asrar say it was alow dosage? Even if he did, maybe it wasn't as he took two big swigs in the video.

I believe it's a karamat. Awliya also do not admit miracles. Is that a sin? Do I have to do tawba?

Is Shahid jealous that people like me say its a karamat and may believe Asrar is a wali? Get a life.

 

Asif there you go again.

The awliya did karamat. Shaykh Asrar is admitting it was not a miracle. He just drank low dosage. Not a miracle. Rather deception.

Do you believe Shaykh Asrar did a miracle?

Saying Zahid instead of Mufti Zahid and saying he played sly games shows the kind of tarbiya you have. You have apologised for being rude and now backtracked again

 

Do Shahid Ali and Zaid have to do tawba for spreading slander and a lie that it was milk of magnesia? Does Shahid have to do tawba for saying multiple ulama said this to him when it was Zaid alone and even then he lied that he talked to the organiser when in reality it was his nephew Shakeel who said it? And Shakeel had read it on some informal conversation on a whatsapp group where someone made a jok... Is this the credibility of this 'tawba police'?

Also why doesn't Shahid repent for referring to me and a few others as thugs when we are not thugs? If I were a thug why did he have dinner with me after and hug me? Why did he beg me to ring Shaykh Asrar to ring Sayyid Ahsan Shah of Bradford to tell him not to fire Shahid which Shaykh did, and said to Ahsan Shah to be OK with Shahid. Then all of a sudden he has slandered me and others again, even though I did apologise. Why did Shahid say in the apology video that in future he will talk in private and never go public, then two weeks later he goes public again? Is this the credibility of Shahid and Zaid? And yes Sh Asrar has refuted Zaid on issues of fiqh, but unlike Zaid he never played a sly game like this and made a major lie about Zaid.

With regard to poison: Why doesn't Shahid realise that it was in challenge to Khatoun Tash who inults the Rasul (peace be upon him)? In fact what efforts and work have Shahid and Zaid done against gustakhs like Khatoun? If it was against gustakhs why has Shahid got a stomach ache?

If Sh Asrar survived the poison do all those people who did dangerous things like walk on fire had to do tawba? All those incidents mentioned in Jami Karamat Awliya of Yusuf Nabahani?

Last and final question for you who are behaving like tawba polic: Dr Jalali did takfir of Khadim Rizwi, yet Shahid defends Dr Jalaili. Has Shahid, who is still studying basic books like me (Nukhbat al Fikr), got a tawba from Dr Jalali for doing takfir of Khadim Rizwi Sahib?

Answer all these points...

 

What is the need to lock any thread connected to Shaykh Asrar?

He just needs to give an honest answer and say that he committed wrong/haram by drinking poison and then telling people to come and do poison drinking challenge (whilst he was holding a tea/coffee) against him if they doubted him.

 

I agree with @Surati and it should really have been done earlier. The issues surrounding Shaykh Asrar were settled before Imam Shahid's latest video. Yes there were/are things that we might disagree with Shaykh on but need to keep the big picture in mind. Let us leave it here.

 

I think this topic has been beaten to a pulp; admin should consider locking the thread.

 

Is casual slander, character assassination, omissions in istifita leading to fatwas declaring misguidance and sullah kulliyyat, and the use of witnesses who deny your assertions acceptable?

 

People are refusing to be objective about the matter.

Poison drinking is not halal. Shaykh Asrar should just apologize publicly and move on.