Shaykh Asrar Q/A

Shaykh, I do not mind the other questions...As I am taking out 24 hours just to reply to various misunderstandings. I believe the other issue is case closed now...

 

I have answered with regard to praying behind deviants earlier. Praying behind anyone with bida'h in belief is makruh tahrimi per our Hanafi school, if the bida'h is khafifah. If the bida'h is thaqila, then the prayer is not done as thaqila entails kufr luzumi or iltizami.

I do not know why you would think I do not approve of Husam alHaramayn? For instance, this lecture is from 2009:



I still have the same position.In my later lectures I get very technical which I believe some people who only think in black and white read into and misconstrue...

 

A part of this issue was the claim that Imam Shahid tampered with the fatwa, so I wanted to get the Shaykh's view on the fatwa. Do they agree with it

 

please understand that shaykh asrar has come here on the forum to address the various misunderstandings arising from imam shahid ali's video. everything else can be asked on other threads - the shaykh can choose to reply or not.

 

This is a slander perpetuated by some people and they even attempted to misinform the Ulama in South Africa regarding this.

I am Hanafi and personally never take rukhsa from other madhabs. I take a'zima, sometimes, from other madhabs.
Talfiq is totally haram.

My position, as mentioned in the dialogue video with Abdul Rahman Hasan, is found verbatim in Imam Ibrahim Bajuri's Sharh alJawharah. My position is the same as what Imam Suyuti states in Jazil alMawahib fi Ikhtilafil Madhahib. My position is the same as what Imam Abdul Wahab Sharani elucidates in his Mizan.

My position is the same as what Imam Abdul Ghani states in Khulasat alTahqiq, just read ch1, and to claim I have a Salafi position is baseless slander.

My position is the same as Imam Yusuf Nabahani as he states in the beginning of Shawahid alHaqq.

Those Ulama and their followers who slandered me on this and many other claims should face me and discuss my position face to face rather than using a front. They should also check those books I have mentioned and measure my claim in light of those works.

 

Bilal has removed the post (refer to his thread) and I have my view which I will not dwell on. Now let's move on...to the next question.

 

Salaam Shaykh. I know you mentioned that since the meeting that Imam Shahid has been in contact but do you not think that brother Bilal releasing the statement has just reignited issue?

We could/should've moved on.

 

Just a clarification: Maulana Danyal, a student of mine, was in the meeting and Mufti Aslam allowed him to sit within the private discussion and debate.

 

I do NOT pray behind Wahabis or any deviants. One sentence in the lecture was quoted where I say 'and they will see me praying behind the imam...' by which I meant that when I go Makkah and Madinah, ostensibly I do stand behind the imam as to not cause fitnah. This is clear from the context of my lecture where I mention that rather than sitting in the hotel lobby during jamat time it is better to attend the masjid. I alaways pray after with my own jamat in the haramayn sharifayn. This was the position of my teachers from Makkah too.

It was claimed a specific alim rang me for a clarification on this but not a single alim rang me for clarification. Even Maulana Naveed and other Ulama in the meeting who know English said it is very clear what you mean 'standing behind them praying SURATAN'.

If I am aware that the imam has bidah khafifah, like tafdil, my prayer is makruh tahrimi per the Hanafi school and that is the meaning of 'sallu khalfa kulli barin wa fajirin', to which we say that it is done with karaha tahrimi, if you refer to commentaries on Sharh alAqaid.

If the bidah is thaqila, inclusive of both kufr luzumi and iltizami, then the salah is not valid at all.

The muqtadi is responsible according to his knowledge of the imams state and the muqtadis level of comprehension, and this varies into those three categories.

When I was being interviewed on Ummah Tv, I simply said you are tasked according to your knowledge of the beliefs of the imam. If a person cannot understand the issues then his ruling is different to someone who can comprehend.

It should be noted that in the Shafi' school the prayer is done behind people of bid'ah yet some people ignorantly criticise Arab Shafi' shaykhs as being deviated due to this.

 

I am asking the following question because I have seen this issue brought up before (and it was part of the original 10 points)- I personally don’t think it’s a big deal but I think it’s better that it is clarified (as it’s been mentioned in the recent threads by posters also). I also take this as a learning opportunity so apologies to other posters if they feel I am hogging the mic, so to speak.


You have said in a lecture that you will pray behind the imams of Al Haramayn Sharifayn and a fatwa of Imam Kazmi was mentioned. According to a different thread on this forum, Imam Kazmi said:


1. Muslims who know the imam is deviant- he shouldn’t pray behind the imam.

2. Muslims who think the difference with the imam is on secondary issues- hopefully they’re prayer will be accepted because of their lack of knowledge

3. Muslims who don’t have a clue at all of any differences whatsoever- same conclusion as point 2


I understand other schools are different (I have heard the shafi scholars allow prayer behind the person of bidah, for example). As you would fall into the first category, as a Hanafi, why do you pray behind the najdi imams? Is there a valid difference of opinion amongst Hanafi’s (in which case, I would also be glad to follow it if I am blessed with Hajj in the future) or do you repeat the prayer or what’s the deal?

 

Actually, not a single student attended the meeting with me. Shafqat, who is a relative of Shahid Sahib accompanied me, and the other people also know Shahid Sahib personally.
Bilal is a student, who studied basics with me, turned up after on his own accord. He had an issue with Shahid Sahib due to certain Whatsapp messages that were sent. Now, Bilal is a student, but the responsibility of the Maulana was not to aggravate the situation, which was unfortunately done not only through a 35 minute video but also mentioning 'your safety is guaranteed' and innumerable other things like messages...If emotions went high then peace reigned after the meeting. Mufti Aslam and Maulana Naveed concluded that meeting and finished the issue, and they were well aware of any issues brought up here. We need to respect that decision and finish it there. One person has come on here, not with his real name, claiming to know intricate information, most of which is inaccurate. It would be better if he revealed who he was as I cannot deem information from a majhul credible.

I have already condemned any rude behaviour, on both sides, and do so again. Both sides have made up and the issue should be laid to rest.

(Note: non of the people who run my official social media accounts attended the meeting or were involved)

 

With my sincere respects Shaykh, I believe we need to be fair on the members of this forum and not be accusing anyone of slander. The posts made by Bilal and Co were put into the open on this forum, and that was the first time I and many others saw the language used by your students towards Mawlana Shahid Sahib. As you too have seen their posts I hope you can agree that the language, the slander, and the tone used was not befitting for any Muslim, forget for any student of knowledge, as they should be the ones acting on what they have learned so far.

As for Mawlana Shahid having a meal with them, then that can only be answered by him.

The rest of the points, the apology etc happened in private as pointed out by Mawlana Abu Hasan that we were not aware of.

 

This is an old dispute and still unsettled. I was the first to refute Hamza Yusuf in 2010 and a few times after, and my student Danyal wrote against him. I still have the same stance. This led to a dispute between myself and Sayyid Shaykh Yaqoubi, which then spiralled into a toxic environment due to many factors which I do not want to go into as they do not benefit the general public.
My stance is clear here and Is till have that stance:


But unlike some, because I do not keep talking about the same issue, they become suspicious. I have moved onto other endeavours and believe my obligation of clearing the matter has been done.

Why waste the majority of peoples time with things that do not benefit them in the long run? I would rather spend my time on more beneficial work as too much concentration can cause toxicity amongst Muslims, like the Ashrafi and Rizawi dispute for instance, where decades of peoples time and energy were wasted.

Refute and move on.

 

As far as I understand, I am allowed to post because the previous questions have been answered. If I am incorrect, I request the admin deletes my post and I will come back on a first come first serve basis when possible.


Shaykh, I am an ignoramus and am asking for the purposes of benefitting via your knowledge- what is your actual stance on Shaykh Yaqoobi and others similar to him considering his praise of Tahir and Hamza Yusuf despite the issues surrounding perennialism and the like?


What I mean is- if ‘a’ is a deviant/apostate and ‘b’ does not speak against him or rather praises him, on a fiqh level, is ‘b’ also a problem/sulh kulli now? Can c praise b? Where does it end?


If the above is considered asking multiple questions as opposed to one, please just answer- what is your opinion on shaykh yaqoubi in light of his connection to hamza yusuf and others.

 

Two points that should be clarified at this point to all:

1 The issues of contention raised by Shahid Sahib were debated, and debated heatedly. When we reached the fifth or sixth topic Mufti Aslam and Maulana Naveed repeatedly asked Shahid Sahib 'Is there any other issue?' at which Shahid Sahib became silent and conceded that there were no other issues, and he will not bring up any other issues. In that context the apology was given, in the context (siyaq and sibaq) the apology was for everything. Afterwards, it may be claimed otherwise, and this is why I wanted the meeting recorded, and if the meeting had been recorded other things would have a clearer context, like as to what actually happened between Shahid Sahib and two brothers.

2 At the end of the meeting Shahid Sahib was repeatedly asked what he wants from Bilal and Tayyib. It was agreed that they should delete any insults, to which they complied and deleted, and a similar deleting was done on request of the Instagram account, a day or two later because the Instagram admin was unaware of the meeting. Neither Mufti Aslam or Shahid Sahib demanded a public apology and accepted their apology then and there.
If Bilal was that threatening, and a thug as some people who have slandered him and the other brothers have claimed, then why would Shahid Sahib have a meal with him after midnight and spend a couple of hours in a friendly and jovial manner? Why would Shahid Sahib have hugged all the brothers involved and gift them books?

 

we are not active on social media. if those insults by bilal and friends were removed from facebook or instagram or wherever they were posted, all they had to do is inform us that the replies etc were removed on FB Insta etc. we would have deleted them pronto.

the insults were re-posted by @Ibrahim only yesterday and after the shaykh pointed out that these were before THE meeting (in bradford), i have deleted that post which had these screenshots.

i have deleted the post as requested.

---
however, a clarification is required:

1. we were not privy to the apologies to shahid; i asked a few folks who follow social media and they said that no public apology was posted by bilal and co. (they are aware of) so if a poster listed those screenshots in the absence of a public apology, why should he be blamed for committing haram of reposting something that was apologised for. [UPDATE: i didn't mean to say that sh. asrar has blamed him - just asking a rhetorical question because shahid is the ONLY second party]

shahid has expressly apologised, and ideally bilal should also have apologised for saying x,y,z. that is a proper apology.

---

just as shaykh asrar is not responsible for what his admirers/students do, why should shahid be responsible for some random person posting those things? unless of course, shahid asked his acquaintance to post it. i doubt that he would do it as no person would love to see insults against his own self.

so:

- apology was private with shahid and to the best of my knowledge, shahid has not reposted it.
- the repost was by a random member, and since there is no public apology by bilal and co, he cannot be blamed for reposting after apology.
​

---
2. why is the same courtesy not extended to shahid after his apology? shahid has clearly apologised and asked forgiveness for his mistake on video and has taken down his own video.

why then did bilal see the need to 'respond' publicly to those charges in the video? and as you can see, the post with 8 points is not charitable to shahid. the post is one-sided and tries to give an impression that shahid withdrew all the charges and apologised for EVERY thing. this is not true.

shahid withdrew in the interest of sunni unity. we consider shaykh asrar a sunni scholar until this moment, even though we have some differences which we hope to discuss in private and not make a show of it.

it takes a man immense courage to swallow his pride and apologise and ask for forgiveness. this should have been appreciated and let the man take a break. instead, in a manner similar to tying someone's hands and clobbering him - bilal posted this 'clarification' even as i personally requested shahid to not respond.


3. the start of this second round is solely due to bilal's post. we had deleted all the discussions related to shahid's video (which was deleted) and apology tendered. so we should not talk about shahid's mistake - which he has apologised for and moved on. we should start with bilal's clarification of the issues and that is where we are.

===
4. you can answer this later if you wish, but:
should bilal and co apologise to shahid for those posts on social media publicly or the private apology is sufficient.



====
jazakAllahu khayran shaykh for sparing time. feel free to correct my misconceptions or errors in my intervention here. i had to post the above in the spirit of being fair as Allah ta'ala has said (surah al-nisaa, 4:135)




and (surah al-nisaa, 4:58)




and (surah al-ma'idah, 5:8)




nas'alu Allah al-aafiyah.

wa billahi't tawfiq.

 

I initially didn't understand which statement you were referring to. I have read the statement written by Bilal, and agree with the summary he has given but believe I can give more detail. It should be noted that Shahid has contacted me on numerous occasions post meeting to clarify the ten points, thus Bilal posting eight points does not contravene the meeting agreement. Thus, I have taken out time now to answer any objections on here.

 

Thank you for commenting on the side note. I’m not gonna get into that.

Please can you answer my question. I’m asking about Bilal’s 8 point statement:

Do you agree with the statement that your student Bilal released post the meeting/apologies/amicable meal? If not, which parts do you disagree with?