about amir e dawat e islami

Discussion in 'Bickering' started by abu Hasan, Mar 15, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    Mufti A3zdham Hind went for Hajj without a photo on his passport after having been granted a special permission for a special passport by indira gandhi herself (afaik). he (rahimahullah), afaik, stated that he wouldn't go for Hajj if it was based on a haram act of having his picture taken.

    Shaykh Ataullah Bandalwi was equally strict that he did not go for Hajj because the photo is must for passports, visas etc. (and he probably got no access to such a special passport as Mufti A3zdham had gotten)

    So now why don't so many desi Ridawi scholars follow these two role models of Ridawiyyat?

    They go for

    1) first Hajj (ok, this is fard for those who can afford it)
    2) second and subsequent Hajj's (not fard)
    3) so many multiple 3umrah's (not fard), AND
    4) also travel all over the world to deliver lectures and speeches and etc. (not fard at all. they can deliver their message through books, literature, conference calls, phone links etc.)

    so now what is the status of all these so many desi Ridawi scholars other than Huzur Mufti A3zdham Hind and Shaykh Ataullah?
  2. Taalib-e-Ilm

    Taalib-e-Ilm Well-Known Member

    We accept the ikhtilaf as a valid ikhtilaf. They are entitled to their stances and we to ours. We won't call them wrong doers as this ikhtilaf is between the mujtahjds which is allowed.

    You completely missed the point my friend. My point is that just because people or a person says 'this is fiqh ikthilaf and you can hold any opinion' doesn't make it so. If saqib shami thinks there's ikthilaf and both stances are valid then that's his shortcoming. Will DI accept him as a non Fasiq e muallin? Will they pray salah behind him? After all, it's 'only' fiqh.

    Taajush shariah gives khilafat with conditions, so not every khilafat he gives always stands. Meaning, if they abide by the rules then fair enough, if they go
    Against it then their fault.
    I personally believe that irfan shah sahibs khilafat doesn't stand as he allows qawwali and he goes against hazrats rulings. I can say with certainty that hazrat didn't know when he was giving khilafat that irfan shah sahib allows qawwali and I know for certain irfan shah sahib wouldn't dare mention it in front of hazrat (that he allows qawwali).

    Come on bro, this is getting daft now. Imam Ahmed ibn hanbal was was mujtahid mutlaq, if anyone follows him then that's fine. We
    Don't have a problem with that. We accept that they follow a Mujtahid who is qualified to derive rulings. Now using this argument to dismiss the video ikhtilaf is the straw man beyond doubt. We accept the ikhtilaf between the mujahids. We don't accept it between an mujtahid and a non mujtahid.

    Mufti azam e hind was alive when videos were present. So was qutb e madina.
    Also the mic, they both disallowed it. I don't see a big difference between the mic then and now. I actually don't even see a major zarurat for it. There's no need at all. But if you wish to follow the molvis nowadays, I'll follow the fatwa of mufti azam e hind who said mic is not jayiz and neither is video. A normal mufti who is a non mujtahid has to put his tahqeeq to the side and follow the mujtahid. Is there any mujtahid ( not just mujahid mutlaq) who allows videos?

    Actually. No, no shock there, I read it a whole back. Huzur taajish shariah has given an answer to it too. AlHamdu liLlah.

    Where on earth did I say anyone is a non sunni? Can you please stop
    Putting words in my mouth? If you want to remove yourself from
    Sunniyat then do it but as for me, I ain't removed anyone and I don't intend to either.
  3. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    accepting the fact that there is ikhtilaf on a matter does not necessitate accepting the mukhtalif position

    as Hanafis we accept that we have certain ikhtilafs with the Shafi3is on lets say wudu or the musafir's salah.

    mentioning saqib shami is a red herring because he is not a DI representative. DI in any case follows Ala Hazrat's position on beard.

    what about them?

    as far as i know, Akhtar Raza Sahib gave khilafah to Shaykh Irfan Shah Mashadi who believes qawwali to be permissible and he is on record defending and attending qawwalis. what do you have to say to that?

    Ghawth-e-A3zdham radi Allahu 3anhu himself followed the Hanbali madhab. is Ala Hazrat wrong for revering him being a Hanafi or does his reverence for the Ghawth count for nothing?

    sure, but contemporary issues are not all answered by mujtahids as they were not present in their times, and the modern muftis can have ikhtilaf-e-raey in their qiyas

    and even contemporary issues change with time. the issue of radio and loudspeakers right now is poles apart from when the radio and loudspeakers were first born in india, and the ruling can be and has been changed. it is not something qat3i directly mentioned in Quran and Sunnah.

    read Fatawa Ridawiyya on the usage of ceiling fans in mosques and the consumption of electricity, and you will be in for a shock! please do yourself this favor.

    you guys are still not getting the point that ikhtilaf-e-raey or even mistakes in fiqh do not mean violating Sunniyat.
  4. Aqib alQadri

    Aqib alQadri Veteran

    I only wrote what I know: Hazrat went for Hajj, without having his photograph taken and fixed on his passport. He also gave a fatwa against this act.

    we are then talking about different things. Please scan and paste the fatwa regarding video, for everyone's benefit.

    He was also asked about a movie called "Khuda ka Ghar" (or some other name) which shows people going for hajj etc. He ruled against that too, saying it is haraam to make such movies.
  5. Taalib-e-Ilm

    Taalib-e-Ilm Well-Known Member

    Actually, with all due respect. You are wrong. There is a fatwa present where mufti azam e hind is asked whether a video on hajj is jayiz or not and he says it's haram. Please refer to fatwa e mustafawiya
  6. Aqib alQadri

    Aqib alQadri Veteran

    brother Talib Ilm: I think you mean to say that not every moulvi / mufti, is qualified enough to pass a judgement and then stick to it, citing it as "ikhtelaaf".

    then, yes you are absolutely right. for this will open up the pandora's box, where every one - even the ignoramus - will claim anything against the ruling of a mujtahid, and tout it as "acceptable" because of "ikhtelaaf".

    When Mufti e Azam e Hind (Maulana Mustafa Raza Khan - rehmatuAllahe Alayhe) gave a Fatwa against using loudspeakers for Salaat, another Sunni Mufti had given it in favour (without knowledge of Hazrat's Fatwa). Maulana Habeeb-ur-Rehmaan (Mujahid e Millat - alayhe rehmah) immediately informed the other Mufti that Mufti e Azam has given a Fatwa against it. As far as I know, the other Mufti preferred not to have his own fatwa published.

    May Allah give the same insight to our fresh Muftis..............

    Small correction: Regarding Mufti e Azam: He gave a Fatwa against "photograph" - not "video" for going for Hajj.
  7. Taalib-e-Ilm

    Taalib-e-Ilm Well-Known Member

    Whose ikthilaf is accepted? Is saqib shamis
    Ilthilaf accepted in the beard length? What about those who allow qawwali?

    I was under the assumption not every Zayd, amr,
    Bakr scholar is allowed to ikthilaf. I also remember a friend reading rasmul mufti that only ikthilaf between mujtahids is accepted. You must look at the previous scholars and what they've said and if there Is ikthilaf
    Then the awam can follow who they want but the scholar must follow the opinion which holds more weight. If we look at the previous scholars in the time
    Of mufti azam e hind such as hafiz e Millat, sadrul ulema meerthi, sadrush shariah, shaykh Qutb e madina, muhadith e azam etc.
    All agreed photos are haram.

    Mufti azam wrote a fatwa disallowing video for hajj. Now, there is no one on the level of mufti e azam in fiqh in this day and age. We
    Follow his fatwa. If there was been iktilaf e ulema in the past era regarding videos please let me know.

    It's a shame that nowadays everything in fiqh basically means nothing if a scholar holds a differnt opinion. It's crazy. I asked a DI brother about qawwali and he said di believes it's haram and whoever does it is a Fasiq. Why not accept the ikthilaf then. You can't just label everything as ikthilaf just cause a 21st century Mawlana has done some tahqeeq. I've also read a mufti must put aside his tahqeeq and follow the fatwa of the mujtahid. Not every mufti is a mujtahid.
  8. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    brother unbeknown,

    please just note my final comments as well

    seeing your posts, it doesn't appear that you're just looking for arguments and scuffles or harbor jealousy to DI or anyone but rather have genuine concerns and questions and you deserve the answers you seek. to me you just appear confused about some issues both from a deeni perspective, as well as a social perspective and that's it

    i have no grudges or anything personal against you, despite my responses at times worded tough

    for me personally, i have seen that DI is broadminded towards intra-Sunni heterodoxy whereas comparatively speaking, a lot of other groups behave cultishly.

    you think vice versa and have your observations and reasons too.

    we might both be partially right or one of us may be completely right or wrong.

    i will just address your point below and sign off from this debate (for a while at least)

    the absolute obedience they talk about is not in the sense of Shar3i fard or wajib as far as i know. it's the way they believe their organization can help Sunniyat in current times.

    his associates can have husn az-zdhann of him and consider him a wali-e-kamil. as long as you don't see a person violating the Shari3ah, nothing stops you from have a zdhann that he is a wali

    if Akhtar Raza Sahib's mureeds or anyone else does or doesn't consider him a wali, that's solely their prerogative. personally, i consider them both awliyaa. awliyaa and the Prophet 3alaihis salam's sahaba themselves have disagreed on many matters, often very passionately, all for the good niyyah of helping Islam. being a wali is no reason not to disagree with another wali on a matter of furoo3.

    i may be mistaken, but with the greatest respect to all subcontinental Sunni scholars everywhere, after Ala Hazrat, and then after Shaykh Abdul Aleem Siddiqui and Mufti A3zdham Hind, rahimahumullah, i haven't seen a Sunni Shaykh be so concerned about instilling proper Sunniyat into desi sheeple and connecting them strongly to Sunniyat by actually teaching them deen, and then also achieve that objective with a massive level of success - than Shaykh Ilyas Attar Qadri

    maybe things might be different at senior mureed or scholars' levels, but a lot of credit for connecting ordinary desi sheeple to Sunniyat beyond just participation in na3tkhwanis and Mawlid marches and deobandi bashing (which can wear out very soon due to lack of knowledge of deen, and then the person falls prey to wahabis or sulah kullis), goes to DI.

    again, this is only my opinion and may not be true.

    as long as we wish the best for Sunniyat and hold tight to this maxim stated by Imam Ghazali, in sha Allah it's all good

    Ghulaam likes this.
  9. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    why should it change?

    these are furoo3i matters and as long as someone has their daleels, they have the right to stick to their methodology, regardless of how much you or i like or dislike it.

    sorry but this IS narrow mindedness and the kind of attitude that eventually wears people out and then either wahabis or sulah kullis prey on them

    the ulema of Bareily, or those who follow their methodology to the dot, with the greatest respect to them, are NOT the be-all and end-all of Sunniyat

    plus there's a million and one other masail where just within DESI HANAFIS or HANAFIS THEMSELVES, there's a bunch of disagreements, or matters of using certain permissions considering the times,

    ghaybana namaze janaza
    loud vs silent dhikr
    taravih with tasleem at 4 or 2 rak3ats

    and then ikhtilafat between madhabs.... the list is very long.

    and what if the shoe is on the other foot?

    what if DI had this same attitude towards Darul Uloom Amjadia, or Manzare Islam, or Jamia Ashrafia and wanted them to toe its line?

    See this quote of Imam Ghazali posted by Shaykh Abu Adam

    they are under no obligation to follow a furoo3i masala from someone else if they have their own daleels for what ever they are doing.

    just so you know, to the best of my knowledge (and i may be wrong), on the masala of na3t with dhikr, they stopped it following Turabul Haq Sahib's ruling against it and considering him as their elder.

    they probably didn't stop certain other practices

    and leaving the few good pirs like Akhtar Raza Sahib aside, just how are the over enthusiastic members of DI different than the overzealous people of any other group, or how are the Sunni-but-useless-rabblerouser pirs and their fan-followings any better

    you're talking like DI is a cult and the rest of the desi Sunnis all embrace each other with open arms fully respecting their heterodoxy in furoo3 and tasawwuf!

    please wake up and smell the coffee! this is certainly not the case with the rest of the real or perceived Sunnis either. if anything, this is the case with DI to a great extent - where they have no issues with furoo3i heterodoxy and tell the members they are free to follow the fatwa of any qualified Sunni scholar.

    in fact in these times, when rabble rousing pirs make furoo3i masail out to be usooli masail and excite the masses against each other, or are just beaming with their share of halwa and murgha at wah-wah subhan-Allah fan clubs, DI is actually working to teach people the deen as it is - Sunni 3aqaid, and fiqh and what not

    i may be wrong but i haven't seen any organization other than DI speak out against the kufriya ash3ar in hindi movie songs or speak about GENUINELY protecting iman at a general and holistic level.

    most of the talks in other circles on iman are just focused on deobandi bashing and that too is mainly for the purpose of political point scoring rather than actually safeguarding people's deen. of course, that is leaving aside the celebrated good pirs like Turabul Haq Sahib or Akhtar Raza Sahib and the few others like them.

    when a lot of other people are just busy guarding their khanqahs and shares of murgha, DI actually works to GENUINELY guard people's faiths, and that really beats any real or perceived dubious mistakes that they might make in matters of furoo3 or tasawwuf.

    honestly speaking, i can drop names of Sunni shaykhs or groups who are murids of other shaykhs, who are the same

    that is a general Muslim attitude problem and we should all work on it - DI AND OTHERS.
  10. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    final comments

    this is my last post - on this topic and on dawate-islami as far as this forum is concerned:

    true. there is no richter-scale with which we can measure a person's wilayah but it is also said that "only a wali can tell a wali". there have been people like alahadhrat whose wilayah has been attested to by the ummah. I did not bring in the wilayat point but because this is being used as a tool to proselytize the masses. sheeple will not think- no matter how much you exhort them to.

    I have contact with several ridawi scholars, I have also been fortunate enough to interact with some senior ones - even those who are either khalifas of or have been close to mufti-e-'azam-e-hind. Not once - in all their discourses have they claimed that sayyidi Akhtar Rida Khan is a wali, let alone a wali-e-kamil. Despite him being a scholar par excellence, despite him being from the family of alahadhrat, despite him having remained spotless all his life - never have they pitched him as a great wali.

    These senior scholars could easily have cast their votes in favour this august personality whom the masses themselves want to believe to be a wali. But they don't. Maybe they speak about his wilayah in their private circles but I haven't heard them announce his wilayah standing behind a microphone.

    The only thing they say is that hazrat's life has been spent in taqwa and following the sunnah, he is our elder, his strict adherence to the shari'ah has put him at such a station that when we see him assent to a thing we can safely assume that the thing is commendable in the eyes of the shariah too and vice-versa, he betrays all the signs of wilayah and it is not impossible that he is a wali.

    notice the caution and the level-headedness. please do not post a link now where some ridawi mukarrir may be calling him a wali - the ones who count are those who are themselves high in stature as regards ridawiyyat.

    now tell me which senior 'aalim has agreed that shaykh ilyas is a wali? we only see his associates chant day in and day out that he is a wali-e-kamil deserving absolute obedience. after seeing this stark difference do you still hold me to account for having doubts?

    and I say this, not with gloat but with a sadness that if you go through that cult-thread in the general section of the forum you will notice that almost all the traits are to be found in this organization. one can say that they are cult like - yes, sunni and with lots of benefits - but they don't have to be like a cult to be beneficial.

    mawlana ilyas is not going to be around forever, we do not know what the next 'ameer-e-ahle-sunnat' will be like - things can get out of hand if he doesn't make his organization more open and responsive to the advice of senior scholars (and I am not saying that azhari miyan is the only one. there are others too but even they are not given any recognition beyond having them praise the shaykh and say just how good DI is).

    I assure you that I do not secretly wish the organization any ill, I only wish that they rectify what shortcomings they have - for its better to nip errors in the bud.


    you might think that I am a troublemaker or jealous or an agent of some evil ridawi scholar but I request you to give me the benefit of doubt. I have not kept any of my views hidden - not been suggestive or manipulative - I have spoken my mind and given what references I could.

    I will add that what provoked me into speaking up was certain comments by brothers KS, AQ and Emir. In fact I can say that they gave me an incentive to express openly all the doubts I had kept bottled up for long. I was half expecting the mods to ban me or delete my posts but they have shown restraint - so far. I am grateful to them for this because the responses by brothers AQ and abuHasan have clarified some of my doubts even though many questions remain unanswered.

    at last I declare that I do not understand what's happening with dawate islami. I have some fears which I hope will turn out to be just that.


  11. Aqib alQadri

    Aqib alQadri Veteran

    the story is no different in other "peerkhanas"
  12. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    I really commend you for sticking to core issues. your words are comforting but there still are some lingering doubts. I understood all that you said above but I would like someone to address the other issue which is also borne by your following statement:

    and did anything change?

    this is the problem - they pay no attention to who says what, there is an air of self-sufficiency an attempt to remain aloof at all costs.

    If you watch the videos I posted above you will see that one of the adabs of the murshid (which is actually for a shaykh e murabbih) quoted is:

    "If you see the shaykh commit an error consider it to be like the case of Hazrat Musa and Hazrat Khidr ('alayhimussalaam)"

    i.e the error is actually a virtuous act only you don't know the wisdom behind it.

    tell me if after this any mureed will be able to think for himself? the shaykh becomes irreproachable and beyond all criticism!

    If on the one hand, by the use of blitzkrieg promotion, people are convinced that a person is a powerful spiritual master and then you quote alahadhrat and other giants of tasawwuf that the shaykh should be given complete and unreserved obedience - any criticism about him should be disregarded and if you yourself witness anything amiss you should ignore it - then what do you make him into?

    all of the above was for a shaykh e murabbih and his QUALIFIED mureeds - once you move it to every shaykh and every mureed - you are lost.

    A qualified mureed - alahadhrat says - is one who has reached the level of a muttaqi and is now at the threshold of his journey into the depths of tasawwuf. AFTER reaching this maqam he chooses a shaykh-e-Murabbih - not the one with the four conditions but a real Wali - who has traversed all the stages and is now fit to take others by the hand and guide them through the bewildering, wonder-filled and equally dangerous sojourn to Haqiqah.

    An unqualified mureed is not capable of choosing an irreproachable shaykh in the first palce - and if he does - the shaykh will only take from him the bayah of barakah and wait for him to reach the level of a muttaqi before allowing him to give the bayah of iraadah.

    It is the mark of an unqualified mureed to think that the shaykh should be defended even through use of threat and violence. Thus if he has already been brainwashed by other methods he is not likely to see reason no matter who tries to make him understand!


    I can see that things are here to stay and we have to accept them as qadr.
  13. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    just wanted to add, DI is one of the very few places where the awam learns this.

    sound Sunniyat and Shari3ah are our yardsticks for measuring anything

    despite all the over-enthusiasm and enchantment of the muballighs and mureeds, Shaykh Ilyas is on record multiple times for stating that he is not a miracle worker of some sort and that joining DI or becoming his mureed is in no way, shape or form, a call to ending their life's miseries

    you are confused brother.

    wilayah is a moot point in this regard really. only Allah knows all His awliyaa.

    you have no way of ascertaining if he is or isn't a wali.

    you only have the yardstick of the Sunni 3aqidah and Shari3ah to know if he does or doesn't adhere to it.

    that's all it boils down to, and ironically for you, really that's what he propagates.
  14. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    brother unbeknown,

    i will leave the tasawwuf questions for someone knowledgeable to comment on. will touch on the crux of the matter and what you addressed to me

    yes, even though you worded your question strangely.

    yes threats of violence, political maneuvering, media hassles and international support to minhajians from kafir nations and other Arab and western heretics are NOT deterrents exclusive to DI

    and that is precisely the reason that when it comes to tahir, most big-name scholars and institutes in pakistan are more or less the same. i can drop non-DI big names (who are also not pro-DI) who haven't publicly called tahir a murtad or are hesitant to sign and seal a fatwa stating such and yet in private gatherings they call him murtad verbally and caution against him.

    (i mention tahir since we started out by discussing DI hasn't done much and therefore we got into politics and violence and media etc.)


    your grouse with them is on mistakes in matters of tasawwuf - this in an age when people are below fiqh too and don't even have sound 3aqaid. minhajians are chanting "my very very very eminent christian brothers and sisters" and regurgitating tahir la3een's shameless lies against the Prophet 3alaihis salam everyday (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5BfMSyuJrM)

    no, not if they do not violate Sunniyat.

    Shah Turabul Haq Sahib has many ikhtilafat with them on matters of fiqh and has said "ghalat hai" on plentiful matters of fiqh and furoo3 to DI activities.

    if you want to drill down to mistakes (assuming what you mentioned are mistakes, i don't know either way) and/or differences of opinion in furoo3 or tasawwuf, then you might as well hold just about any other Sunni person or group in contempt, be they Ridawi or Ashrafi or Chishti or Hanafi or Maliki or Shafi3i or UP-wala or hyderabadi or punjabi or what have you


    i will just touch on this one thing coz in my opinion too, the harmful effects of this are more than the benefits for our times (my opinion is just that, it may be wrong)

    no it's not and i have major issues with it (within Sunniyat)

    i've had arguments with DI brothers on this issue of narrating dreams and karamaat and those for it, say that it is a way of instilling targheeb towards Sunniyat among those people who don't know better. as for narrating karamaat, the narrations of the various karamaat of various celebrated awliyaa wouldn't have reached us if people didn't narrate them, this was perfectly healthy for Sunniyat and still is

    my counter-argument is, and i stand by it - it was healthy for Sunniyat in the past, is not healthy now - we are not living in the age of BaYazid Bastami or Ghawth-e-A3zdham, radi Allahu 3anhum. sure, i'm no one to cast aspersions on the karamaat of a noble Sunni, but we are very close to the times of the dajjal, and when people born in Muslim homes also start believing that hindu jogis too can exhibit karamaat then we need to pull back before the awam starts thinking that astonishing feats like lifting a 100 kg weight by one hand are the criteria for establishing someones truthfulness, more so in deen itself. (this 100 kg karamat or something along these lines is attributed to paqs)

    the same goes for dreams of seeing awliyaa or the Prophet, 3alaihis salam. in fact the very dajjal tahir too narrates dreams (i don't know if he has any (non-)karamaat to his credit)

    BUT - that is only a zanni argument over which method is or isn't better. the act itself, of narrating TRUTHFUL dreams or REAL karamaat has precedence in the ways of our elders before us. in either case, people need to be taught that the shaytan too can do many astonishing feats. the reason we respect the truthful dreams of the awliyaa or their karamaat are NOT because of the dreams or the feats in themselves, but rather because they rest on the foundations of sound Sunniyat!

    all said and done, this really is the individual members fault (if you count it as a fault) unless and until DI or its Ameer themselves advocate it.

    again, as you too agree, any other real or perceived faults or differences of opinions in fiqh or tasawwuf do not amount to violating Sunniyat
  15. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    3. Why, you may ask, am I so obsessed with analysing his wilayah. Let me make it plain that I have no desire to do that. He may have born as a wali - I do not know. I won't argue any further if DI members say that he is a born-wali. If not, then the above questions beg a clear reply.

    But why bother? because it is incumbent for the people who claim to be the 'muhsins' of the ummah to keep their record very clear. they just cant go on keeping people in the dark especially when the absolute obidience sought in the above video can have - and is having - undesirable effects on people's minds. To brother AQ: threats and violence are not exclusive to anti-DI and anti-truth parties alone - you get the drift?

    4. Is it prudent to narrate visions and dreams to the extent that the DI members do? If there is any one organization that surpasses the modernists and minhajis put together in extolling their shaykh using personal anecdotes this is the one.

    5. It is true that all of the above do not make them into heretics or supporters of heresies but is this not bad enough? Would it not have been more beneficial if they had used those 2 hours to explain alahazrat's fatwa in full instead of canvassing and telephones?


    Please, I have nothing personal against the DI - I have said several times that I have benefited a lot from their activities - but I fear that this state of affairs will worsen if things continue like this.

    I reiterate - it is quite possible that Mawlana Ilyas Qadri is a born wali or that he was granted wilayah without a shaykh's tarbiyyah (people can argue against this but...). If that is truly the case then I have nothing against him - how could I?

  16. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    4. For bayah of iraadat the conditions for both the peer and the mureed are very severe - to the best of my knowledge, none of the members (including the muftis) of DI are qualified to give the bayah of iradah. Mufti Qasim has himself hinted at this in the part1 linked in point no. 2 above.

    5. Now please watch these videos:
    Adab e Murshid e Kamil Part-1
    Adab e Murshid e Kamil Part-2

    you may skip the naath, manqabats and karamats to make it quick but I request the brothers to watch it in full - 2hrs approx. - then tell me the following:

    1. Do you find nothing amiss? No quotations out of context? Misapplying the passages that speak about the rights and stations of a shaykh-murabbih to that of a shaykh-e-barakah? No nudges and implicit messages being sent at all?

    2. Perhaps DI will claim that Mawlana Ilyas is Shaykh-e-Murabbih. Lets talk about that a bit:

    In the first video Gulam Rasul sahib quotes Imam Sha'arani and says, " Look at this, this great Imam had studied the Ihya and many other great books that instruct in tasawwuf but he didn't reach the station of a kamil one until he gave allegiance to his murshid. you see? merely studying the books is not enough - even Gawth-e-Paak took the bayah at the hands of a Shaykh and even Imam Ghazzali needed instructors etc. etc. ".

    So my simple question is: Who did Mawlana Ilyas give the bayah of iraadat to? how many years did he spend in the company of his shayklh to traverse the stages of wilayah? how does all this fit in with his other activities?

    Before replying please read carefully about the qualifications AND conditions that a mureed should possess and fulfil before he give bayah of iraadat. you will find it in ihya too and the conditions are not easy.

    After you have established all of the above we can then talk about those who are giving the bayah of iraadat to him.

    But if you agree that he is not a shaykh-e-murabbih then why are the DI scholars misapplying alahadhrat's passages to extol him?

    I can think of only two reasons both of which are not very pleasant and so I'll wait for a reply, just in case someone is capable of furnishing a satisfactory explanation.
  17. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    a disturbing trend

    alright. as I've said earlier, I can say a lot of things but much of it is based on personal experiences and, undeniably, my own understanding. For example:

    1. Anyone who has studied the relevant fatwa from fatawa-Africa will know the difference between a shaykh-e-islaal and a shaykh-ittisaal. please go through this thread: http://sunniport.com/masabih/showthread.php?t=10688

    2. That the muftis of DI have studied this fatwa in detail is certain as they keep quoting passages out of it - see these videos part2, part1.

    3. Now in the said fatwa alahazrat opines, and I quote brother KS's summary:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page