Ahlus Sunnah & Maslak-e-Ala Hazrat

Khudawanda yeh teray sada dil banday kidhar jaein?
Keh Darweshi bhi ayyari hay Sultani bhi Ayyari

 

if you started another thread, your comments would not be construed as a reply to mine and hence the continuity problem. besides, i am not talking about a specific issue of video etc. it is the generic statement of youngsters these days: "if you disagree with alahazrat's fatwa you are not from maslak alahazrat etc."

my argument was concerning the principle; even though, imho, i consider alahazrat's research to be of the highest caliber and his powers of istidlal and istinbat are peerless; his accuracy in citation/context is so good that you eventually take his opinion, citation and context for granted.

---
to summarise your post - you seem to ask where to draw lines (concerning self-learning) and who can differ with furu'u.

---
nobody disagrees with every issue out there; first, we have agreed to follow madh'habs. you follow shafiyi madh'hab and i follow hanafi madh'hab. there is no question of disagreement with ancients except in contemporary problems. a scholar like alahazrat may have insights on the opinions of elders in the course of his research and he differs on a certain opinion and comments thus - but how many people do that in practice?

it is not like, a mufti says: 'hey okay. i will differ with imam ibn abidin shami' and start reading shami with a marker and randomly write: qawluh-aquul.

----
the argument was the general principle: "disagreeing on furu'u does not chuck out a mufti from ahl al-sunnah or the purported maslak of alahazrat".

obviously, someone cannot disagree without giving proofs; there are a number of muftis who will read it and then agree or disagree. some people say that peer-review was invented by muslims. in case of contentious issues between two major muftis, they sort it out by peer-review: sending the fatwa to a number of muftis who examine the fatwa and write their comments in the form of taqriz.

-----
once in a while you may encounter a genius like alahazrat or even ibn taymiyyah (who was quite learned) as autodidacts. but such people are rare - and to curb false claimants, we have the ijazah system. at least we know that the person has some background.

exactly. difference of opinion on furuyi matters regardless of the quality of research, does not expel a mufti from ahl al-sunnah or the "special" ahl al-sunnah.

because your post appeared to defend it; let it pass.

rather it appeared as if you objected to it. perhaps it was just me, but now that i understand, let it go.

actually, in imam nawawi's time, people would read entire books cover-to-cover with a teacher. imam ibn abidin says that he read major hanafi works more than once completely with a teacher and it was during these classes, he made copious notes which became basis for his hawashi. when you read biographies of these great men, you will notice that there is a mention of which books they read with teachers.

personally, i wish to read books cover to cover with a teacher and make notes - but such teachers are difficult to find in our age. i do not say that competent people are non-existent; rather, they are busy with many projects of their own - as muftis or authors, or inaccessible for one reason or the other.

let us take a step back to imam nawawi's time. the books they had were concise and short; mostly handbooks for the use of teachers. in fact, imam nawawi's books have the quality that both commoners and learned appreciate and benefit from them. arbayin, adhkar, tibyan, riyad al-salihin, bustan al-arifin; then came the time of the commentaries - even though we may not acquire ALL the insights gained by imam ibn abidin during his study with his teacher, his notes and glosses give us a part of that knowledge. alahazrat's fatawa are in a similar tradition - he explains his reasoning together with the usul, which gives insight into issuing fatawa.

---
one way to streamline the process is to have an examination system for self-taught pupils - as lateral entry. and a seminar upon the book of choice of the examiner; the examiner prescribes a book and the self-taught pupil should be able to provide a summary or gist of the book. thereafter, examiners ask them questions which they should be able to answer.

i don't know, but someone mentioned that such schemes already exist.

nobody can guarantee that every student who passes through a 8-year course has been attentive and grasped everything the teacher has said; the exam system is to verify whether they have learned anything.

---

as i have said, it is best to get certified. if a person has ijazah, then people will stop clamouring that he is self-taught.

---

actually, knowledge is an ongoing process. once you stop reading, you will forget everything that you were supposedly a master of; and you can easily tell that a brilliant teacher has lost his touch, when he gropes for answers.

let us ask the same question in another way: in case of people with certificates: how do we tell the exact period of his life when he ceased to be a master and forgot most of what he learned?

you cannot tell whether a person who was a master in his 30s continues to be a master, unless they continue to teach and write. many people write brilliant pieces in their youth - but after they reach forties, their output dwindles and they become busy in many other activities. nobody can rest on past laurels. many great imams continued to write until the end - imam ibn SalaH's muqaddimah, one of the seminal tracts of hadith principles was written in his late years. and you will notice that alahazrat issued fatwa until one or two months before his passing.

---
surely, you know about the google page-ranking system?

when people cross link a certain webpage, that link is higher in the list; and if very popular sites like NYT or boing-boing or techcrunch link that page, it goes much higher.

similarly, all muftis are deemed equal. when certain muftis are cited by other muftis, and so on, the cited mufti becomes a reliable source. and when other prominent muftis recommend fatawa of such a mufti, they take a higher rank and so on.

you might have heard it before: alahazrat received istifta from scholars and muftis and even prominent muftis of his age; even the scholars of haramayn tasked him with ifta'a.

---
Allah ta'ala knows best.

wa's salam.

 

but that is not much to go by - who is or isn't a student like yourself - is there a scale or a reference we can measure a person's qualification against if he lacks an ijazah?

I am being as general as possible because I want to know the general ruling - not for a particular case.

come-on sidi, i may be bad but I am not evil - why would I try to bait you? if it does look like it - I assure you its unintentional.

both are qulaified - as far as I am aware. I did not say that their fatwa should be rejected, but soem people may want to give preference to other people's fatawa. either ways i am a shafi so it doesn't concern me.

those who have been through the standard madrasah system, have an ijazah and have spent time with a senior mufti- and even then they should give deference to the muftis who are senior and more experienced than themselves - unless of-course the senior has nothing but whims to go by.

you see you misunderstood me.

bin bayyah and his fans about reform and muslim-christian-jews unity due to changed circumstances. see reply to question seven here:http://sheikhhamza.com/transcript/Rethinking-Reform

as i have said earlier, I was asking questions to get replies and not using rhetoric to refute or slander you. I am sincerely sorry that my question gave such an impression. I was merely pointing out that the line "differing in furu' doesn't throw one out of ahlussunnah" must come with strings attached - please point them out to me. but we have covered this in the above.
----
let us go back to MY point. we said: difference in furu' is permissible - and the statement assumed that this is about the difference of opinion between two qualified muftis.

thank-you.

mm! two birds with one stone. excellent.

alright, he doesn't go out of ahlussunah, but he does go somewhere, where?
again this is a question, i don't know the answer.

yes and this is one of my arguments, is there a certain level of expertise needed beyond being a mufti to differ with past imams in fiqh?

no it is not impossible. but who will bell the cat and who will be the judge as to the accuracy and the need for differing?

no i didn't sweep it away: is being a qualified mufti enough - or there is some extra further qualification needed which is not gauged by certificates and number of admirers?

no. but again, will he go somewhere or not?

what if people better than him tell him that he is wrong and he can't see the error - should he or should he not change his position?

i did not restrict it to alaharat, but he is the closest in time.

my unintentional spin on things actually.

please answer this for me, I do not know the answer.
and these too:

do you think you are qualified to do that? why do you think did alahazrat differed with imam shami? and why would you want to do that - i mean is there a pressing need, have others agreed that the need is pressing, if some have not agreed, why not?

----

vehement opposition? I pointed out discrepancies in a certain groups claims because some people pointed them out in another group's - and I was seeking clarifications for those discrepancies but I was asked to pinpoint examples and when I did things spiralled out of hand. I assure you I don't go about telling people to oppose one group or another. just to make things more clear:

I posed those very questions to mufti aqib kharbe qadiri ridawi and he replied:
"All these things are speculative or not known with certainty so until there is definite proof of foul play - husn adhdhann is wajib. We pray that if these people are indeed doing something wrong then may Allah grant them tawfeeq to rectify their errors and grant them ikhlass."

all I say is that not all muftis are created equal and generally speaking the more experienced a mufti the more likely it is that his opinion is closer to the truth.

self-study after a thorough training is different from self-study without it.

----------

disclaimer: If there is anything in the above that you think I have misattributed to you please let me know. its not deliberate.

-----

i know the questions are long and may seem irrelevant. if so you may not answer them but I will appreciate a atleast a few lines of reply for the whole post.

jazakAllah.
wassalaam.

 

as this is question is in reference to a specific issue I don't want to answer it.

but if you ask me for a general case my answer is this: I cannot think for a moment that a senior/elder scholar will give fatwa on a mere whim. he must have ample of evidence for his position and I don't think he can be considered an elder in the first place if he is in a habit of giving fatwas without following the due course that has been pointed out to him by HIS elders.

I consider mufti nizamuddin a competent and highly qualified mufti and I won't reject his fatwas even if he doesn't list the reasons for his position let alone if he does - yes, I may give preference to other people's fatwas if they are more learned than him. btw I am a shafi, so I am not bound to any hanafi's fatwa in any case.

please recall that I was the one quoting his position and you and brother AQ were disagreeing with it in the co-education thread. As for his belonging to the maslak -e- alahazrat according to the narrow definition- then you know the answer yourself so why ask - what you should have asked is whether I agree with the narrow definition - and my answer is the same as azhari miyan - that it is another name with which the ahlussunnah of the subcontinent distinguish themselves from those who claim to belong to the sawad-e-azam but don't. and you have put it wonderfully in your own post and I did not object to it so it follows that I agreed to it. it gets tideous, putting disclaimers with every post.

but this was my point exactly! may I ask, why did you overlook it? see:
We have people who have studied books on their own, the aalim who has done the dars-e-nizami and finally the muftis. And even in all these categories not all are equally talented.

what I was trying to say that there are three categories of people who can claim that they have a right to differ in furu':
1. people who have studied books on their own.
2. the aalim who has done just the dars-e-nizami.
3.the muftis.

and in all three categories people have varying degrees of competency. so how do we decide who is or isn't qualified? because he belongs to a particular category? or because he is competent irrespective of the category he currently belongs to?

why do you ask this question - what is the maslak of alahazrat in this matter? (maslak as in the generally accepted meaning).

yeah, i had read it when you posted it earlier but didn't ponder about it much. but I did mention it in passing to a friend who has done dars-e-nizami and he said that imam nawawi has disapproved of studying without a teacher. I'll let you know soon.

----

now these two seem to contradict - he should have an ijazah - which means he should have gone through the madrasah system - but ijazah is not enough, he should also be competent - so which is the necessary and sufficient condition? if it's competency - then how do we gauge it in the absence of an ijazah?

i don't want to get into this again. you have quoted alahazrat on self-learning but you also know that every self-taught is not necessarily a scholar so it's a case-by-case issue - and I don't want to comment on this particular case.
Another question that arises in case of self-taught people is: how do we tell the exact period of his life when he ceased to be a student and became a master - so which of his opinions should be given consideration and which should not?

this gets covered in the above replies.

 

when I saw the following line I thought I was going to get my answers but when I read further on I was dismayed.

I am sorry, I should have put a disclaimer but I did not realize that my questions will be seen as a sequel to the earlier posts in the thread. Infact they had nothing to do with anything that I have said or appear to have said in this or any other thread.

I was asking purely general questions based on the line I quoted, not for sake of rhetoric but to get answers. unfortunately, I have been asked to answer the questions which I wanted answered in the first place!

The questions were not regarding the pictures/videos controversy and the personalities involved in it. Now the situation has got complicated and I will have to attempt to resolve it as best as I can.

 

yes, that is a valid question. whose opinion counts and what is the criterion for acceptance?

perhaps, you did not notice my turning around the question. let me try again: will the opinion of a senior/elder scholar hold good even if it is not backed with sound proof? and should the opinion of a mufti like, say, mufti nizamuddin of mubarakpur be rejected even when he lists a number of references and drills down the istidlal (as a fatwa ought to be)?

what is the opinion of mufti nizamuddin sahib on a number of issues? and should he be considered in or out of the 'maslak' e alahazrat according to the narrow definition (posed below)?

at the risk of being called arrogant (which has happened before) i state a fact that many 'muftis' with certificates are incapable of describing the usul in usul shashi. i have interacted with many 'muftis' with certificates from very prestigious universities but they do not possess even rudimentary knowledge of hadith principles. as for kalam and aqidah, the less said the better.

why do you ask this question - what is the maslak of alahazrat in this matter? (maslak as in the generally accepted meaning).

----

why, there is the system of ijazahs - or is it obsolete already?

knowledge is a lengthy process that involves reading and experience - by obtaining an ijazah, one does not become qualified automatically. we have seen a lament by sadru'sh shariah on this matter some time ago.

for example, mawlana ilyas qadri is routinely slammed as a non-scholar; just because he did not attend a madrasah. suppose, he has read bahar e shariat, knows those masayil and is capable of extracting a fatwa from either bahar e shariat or fatawa ridawiyyah, can he be considered a scholar or not? if not, why not?

why should this standard not apply to certificate holders? if they are not capable of explaining the masayil - even by looking up bahar e shariat or such books; or the ability to explain fundamental principles of fiqh, hadith and usul - why should they continue to be touted as scholars just because they have a certificate? many of them, and particularly speakers have appalling tajwid - i have even seen celebrity muftis incorrectly reciting the qur'an and hence repeated my prayer afterward.

for example, in an issue like tobacco - where the harm is not just apparent, but sorely evident, and the illah has already been mentioned that "when it is conclusively proven that it harms health, it consequently takes the ruling" even a student like myself can assume the differing opinion.

but your objection is the fallacy of generalisation - and the followers of shuyukh in our time use it to brow-beat everyone else. let me take the bait.

why should the fatwa of mufti nizamuddin or mufti madani miyaN be rejected? are they qualified to give fatwa, or if not, why not?

so according to you, who are qualified to give fatwa - and why ONLY them? what is the point of madrasahs and ijazahs for muftis then? just wrap it up and make an announcement: just like sayyiduna umar raDiyallahu anhu forbade everyone from issuing fatwa except a handful of saHabah, everybody is forbidden from fatwa except those on this special list.

that will make everybody's life easier.

altering usul and then based on these new usul, deriving furu'u in our time, is totally different from sticking to established usul and within those usul investigate issues that concern muslims in our age. claiming ijtihad is different from issuing a fatwa on a contemporary issue and doing ijtihad on a specific mas'alah. if not, give references on blood transfusion and using internet from books of our elders.

btw, what is bin bayyah's claim?

---

these are meaningless generalisations.

who is toying with furu'? and who is giving licence for anyone to differ on furu'. how did you decide that i advocate talfiq or encourage common people to do ijtihad. sub'HanAllah, you paint my position in colours of your own choice - according to you, i advocate DIY-ijtihad and encourage people to follow the maududi or salafi methodology for furu'u.

----
according to your description, i may as well say:

"oh, you pray four raka'ah sunnah in zuhr? see it is a matter of furu', and since difference in furu' is permissible, i won't pray four"

or: "you deem witr as wajib? oh, imam shafiyi did not and since it is permissible to differ on furu' without going out of ahl al sunnah, i will stop praying witr from tomorrow"

or did i ask you to tell the illiterate auto-rickshaw driver: "look difference in furu' is permissible. and there is a difference of opinion on nabidh - so start drinking nabidh from tomorrow; moreover, this is the opinion of imam a'azam".

who says such things?

----
let us go back to MY point. we said: difference in furu' is permissible - and the statement assumed that this is about the difference of opinion between two qualified muftis.

have you been reading keller's books? this is a strawman argument iced with generalisation and toppings of non sequitur.

let me restate my position:
alahazrat differed from certain imams of fiqh; this was mentioned to make a statement: if any mufti differs from alahazrat - whether justified or not, whether veritable or otherwise - he does not go out of ahl al-sunnah, JUST because he differs with alahazrat, as long as it does not concern usul.

your problems:

a) you cite alahazrat differed with certain imams of fiqh and use this for a mufti to differ with the same elder imams; (which is a different argument)

b) what is the criteria for a mufti to differ with alahazrat; does he have to be at the same level as alahazrat? is it impossible for a person to be right in a specific mas'alah and thus differ from alahazrat's opinion? why this one means all, and all or none.

c) where a qualified opinion was mentioned for the basis of difference, you sweep it away with a fancy: 'anybody can differ'

---
leave my objections as the ravings of a dimwit. you tell us:

a) irrespective of the quality of research, will a mufti go out of ahl al-sunnah merely by contradicting the fatwa of alahazrat (not in usul)?

b) what if such a mufti genuinely believes that his research is valid and based on usul regardless of his being in the right?

c) why is it restricted to alahazrat alone? and taking up your own spin on things: what if i choose ibn abidin's opinion against alahazrat's opinion in a specific issue where alahazrat has differed? why should i not take ibn abidin's opinion?

----

no.

but who made this claim?

no.

but who made this claim?

====
do you think others cannot raise such hypothetical and irrelevant questions? let us try:

1) should anybody other than prophets be deemed ma'sum?

2) why do you say that a person who differs with alahazrat goes out of ahl al-sunnah; if not, why do you oppose them so vehemently?

3) are you saying that only a specific class of muftis have the knowledge of usul and one should seek it only from them?

4) if self-study is invalid; then every mufti should read entirely, every book they cite or use. do all the muftis read the books they cite cover-to-cover in front of a teacher? if so, it is easy: let all those muftis say: i have read the following books from cover-to-cover under the following teacher.*

wa's salam.

Allah ta'ala knows best.
-----
*these fallacious questions are posed to illustrate a point; please don't bother answering them.

 

I just don't understand some of the claims of scholars to be following in the footsteps of A'la Hazrat in every issue.

For example they are extremely strict in not allowing video recordings as allegedly this was A'la Hazrats position but are happy to allow their audio recordings to be posted on youtube and on the internet. How can you post anything on youtube and then claim to be against video recordings when every single sidebar on youtube has video stills of a particular video?? In fact you really shouldn't be using the internet at all as even at the most basic level websites have pops ups with pictures and search engines inevitably have pictures/videos when giving results of searches.

And would therefore owning a mobile phone especially a smartphone be haram too as you can record videos on it....and perhaps its best not to have that temptation of recording?

You can go through numerous other such things which are different to those which were in A'la Hazrat's period or even Mufti-e-Azam's period such as the use of microphones.

I personally believe that if A'la Hazrat was alive today he would have allowed video recordings as a Scholar of that intelligence wouldn't give a fatwa which turns 99.9% of all Muslims into fasiqs!

 

a related question is who are those whose opinion counts? - we have all sorts of people around dishing out references from here and there trying to argue that their opinion carries weight and since it is not a matter of usul they are free to do what they choose.

We have people who have studied books on their own, the aalim who has done the dars-e-nizami and finally the muftis. And even in all these categories not all are equally talented. So how can we stop the unqualified from passing off his own limited understanding as a difference of opinion?

Who is or isn't qualified to revise the rulings of the imams of the past? Doesn't bin bayyah claim to be one possessing such qualifications? Where exactly do we draw the line, considering that al-'ilm has reduced to an all time low and even the muftis of today are mere naqileens at best?

Can the fact that alahadhrat differed with certain imams of fiqh give some mufti today, who doesn't possess even a fraction of his knowledge, a right to give a ruling that contradicts the rulings of those imams? Should every claimant to knowledge be given a licence to differ in furu' at will? are the furu' really so worthless that they can be toyed around with?

please clarify.

jazakAllah.
wassalaam.

 

if this is the definition of maslak e alahazrat, then i am compelled to say that i do not belong to this purported maslak.

my definition of maslak e alahazrat is that alahazrat was the imam of ahl al-sunnah and thus we follow him; creating a separate group of exclusive membership is the definition of a cult; which is incidentally the same charge on dawateislami. devbandis and others will be happy to cite this shortsighted and narrow definition to further slander alahazrat.

maslak of alahazrat in my understanding is defined as:

a) ahl al-sunnah in aqidah (ash'ari, maturidi and non-ghuluww hanbalis)

b) follow one of the four madh'habs as practiced by ulama since fourth century; and that it is wajib for people to follow one of the four madh'habs in our time.

c) follow the knowledgeable imams as imam ghazali and others in tasawwuf; and strictly remain within bounds of shariah - reject all practices which are against shariah, such as singing, music, mixing of sexes and dozens of things which mutasawwifah of our time indulge in.

d) deem as acceptable and mustaHabb, practices that are accepted by many great ulama/sufiyah for centuries such as celebration of mawlid, tawassul, istighatha, urs etc. (even though opponents term it varyingly: ranging from bida'ah to shirk).

e) refute anything against the sunni creed - whether neo-mutazili heresies such as: "falsehood is included in the Divine Power of Allah" or neo-mushabbihs who say that "istiwa" is literal in meaning. (wa ghayr dhalik); in other words all the non-sunni denominations - shiah, rafizi, wahabi and devbandi etc.

f) among heresies alahazrat refuted (or we are faced with in our times): they are concerning two major categories: concerning daruriyat; and others. anyone contradicting daruriyat is kafir; and other issues are mostly heresies but some of them overlap into daruriyat. regardless, the maslak of imam ahmed rida khan on takfir is evident from his gloss mustanad on imam faDl al-rasul badayuni's mutaqad - and it can summed in one line as: one who contradicts daruri (whether expressly or implied) is kafir, and one who does not is a heretic.

---
however, we do not say that Haqq or ahl al-sunnah is confined or constrained ONLY to alahazrat or his khulafa. then what would be the difference between us and devbandis? rashid ahmed gangohi has famously said (according to his biographer he said this many times):

"listen carefully! truth is only that which is uttered by rashid ahmed's tongue. and i say this by oath (qasam) that in our time, i am nothing but guidance and salvation is dependent upon following me." [tazkiratu'r rashid, v2/17]
​

we do not do ghuluww like the rafidah or some other denominations that restrict guidance and knowledge only to a specific family - and alahazrat himself clarified this in his waSiyyah (which was explained by mawlana akhtar raza khan in one of his speeches or writing) that his madh'hab is apparent from his (alahazrat) books.

---
now, do we chuck out anyone who disagrees with alahazrat out of ahl al-sunnah (just because he disagrees with alahazrat)?

no.

---
we respect alahazrat as ANOTHER imam in the glorious chain of imams - but we do not restrict guidance and salvation only upon following him. sub'HanAllah, we do not do that for imams of fiqh like imam abu Hanifah and imam shafiyi - and imams of Tariqah like sayyiduna ghawth al-a'azam and imam shadhili; we do not do that for imams of hadith like imam bukhari or imam bayhaqi - nor for imams of tafsir like imam tabari or imam nasafi. [raDiyallahu `anhum wa `anna bi barakatihim].

then why would we do that for alahazrat? indeed, alahazrat himself does not like this as he replied to a person who referred to him as: "seal of jurists" (or something like that - i quote from memory) and he said, fuqaha will keep coming until imam mahdi to clarify and elucidate.

imam malik is reported to have said: "the saying of everybody can be accepted or rejected except for the saying of the Master in this grave (sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam)" [imam malik said "Sahibu hadha'l qabr" which i have translated with a little tweak to maintain the respect of the Master sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.]

---
yes, difference with alahazrat in matters of aqidah, is as good as difference from ahl al-sunnah because he was the representative of the jama'ah; and this is evident from his books. but still, the fact remains that whatever is handed down as the aqidah of ahl al-sunnah scholars down the ages is the standard. other than this, in matters of furu' if anybody disagrees with alahazrat or refuses to accept his fatwa - regardless of whether he is right in his disagreement or not - cannot be deemed out of ahl al-sunnah or against "maslak" e alahazrat.

if not, we ask those who want to restrict it to fatawa of alahazrat: whether alahazrat was a greater jurist or mujtahid than kamal ibn humam and others?

which principle of usul says that fatwa should be given only according to the opinion of imam azam OR according to fatawa ridawiyyah? what about those who claim to be hanafis in our times, but have never ever seen fatawa ridawiyyah?

if there is a difference of opinion between imam ibn abidin and alahazrat, what is the status of the person who chooses imam ibn abidin's position?

if you say yes, then state it clearly that: 'after imam azam, we take only the fatwa of alahazrat as absolute; and as the greatest hanafi fiqh imam after imam azam' and we will leave you alone - debating on such a stand is futile.

if not, then why did alahazrat disagree or comment upon opinions of many fuqaha prior to him? personally, i have the highest regard for alahazrat's fatawa and where there is any disagreement, i incline towards alahazrat's opinion; i trust his research far more than anybody (after his time). but that does not stop me from stating the generic principle: anybody can disagree with alahazrat on furu' and regardless of their being right or wrong, they remain in ahl al-sunnah (except on matters of aqidah).

the statement: "for a mujtahid - there is an equal possibility to be right or to commit an error" is well-known. do you accept or reject this proposition?

-----
i won't comment on the contentious issues debated among sunni ulama on prayer on microphone, or photos or videos etc. but take the issue of tobacco.

sayyidi alahazrat wrote decisively on this issue, drawing from previous fuqaha such as sayyidi abd al-ghani al-nablusi proving the permissibility of tobacco and refuting claims of wahabis who deemed it haram.

but it was then; and we are here now.

i personally believe that tobacco should be ruled haram - and i strongly discourage anyone from smoking. and the proof for ruling this haram can be found in the work of imam abd al-ghani nablusi himself. this is not going against alahazrat or trying to be better than alahazrat or forsaking alahazrat. it is following alahazrat in spirit. alahazrat was right for his time (concerning tobacco) but that fatwa is not applicable in our time; tobacco has been conclusively proven to be the major reason for cancer and to ignore that is a serious error.

ijtihad in specific issues is obligatory in every age. we do not claim nor admit claim of absolute ijtihad in our times - but for hawadis e zamana, circumstances and the need of the age, we have to do ijtihad in specific issues. [disclaimer: before some hot-headed brothers misinterpret it as a subtle hint of my claiming ijtihad: NO. i do not claim this.]

----
the maslak of alahazrat and his raison d'etre as described by the imam himself in ijazaatul matinah:

1. to defend the honour and repel those who attempt to attack upon the august station of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam - whether it is a wahabi or anyone else.

2. to refute every heretic who contradicts the aqidah of ahl al-sunnah.

3. to issue fatwa according to the hanafi madh'hab (to the best of his ability).

---
unfortunately, people ask loaded questions to ulama like mawlana akhtar raza khan, just to prove their own point and regardless of his answer, they insist that their loaded question is the position of the shaykh.


here is my istifta:

1. we acknowledge that alahazrat's fatawa on usul are representative of the jama'ah and thus contradicting his fatwa on usuli issues is as good as contradicting the jama'ah - but: is it wajib to follow alahazrat's fatwa in every issue? even for a hanafi, is it wajib to follow alahazrat's fatwa in every issue?

what is the status of a person who contradicts alahazrat's fatwa based on his own research? supposing the person has committed errors of derivation and is mistaken in his istidlal, yet, he contradicts alahazrat in some fiqhi matter. is such a person out of ahl al-sunnah? if such a person (who has contradicted alahazrat in furu'u) is a shaykh who gives bay'ah - is it permissible to become his murid? has alahazrat ever specified a condition that one who does not agree with every fatwa of his is ineligible to be a shaykh.

we hear an implied situation - a person allowing movies/images is acting against the shariah, and hence he is a fasiq, and hence bay'ah to such a person is invalid. we ask - is it permissible to do tafsiq on difference of opinion on ANY matter outside usul? which brings us to the question - is allowing movies/images a matter of usul?

----
Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

a question related to above email:

Q.Aap ne Ameer E Dawate Islami Ilyas Qadri Saheb Ko Pichhle Session Mein Ameer E Ahle Sunnat farmaya tha? Kya Woh SAWAAD E AZAM AHLESUNNAT K Ameer Hain?

Jo Hazraat Tasweer wa Video Kashi k Haqq mein hain wo Aetraz kartay hian k wo Ulama jo TASAWEER Ki Mukhalifat To Karte Hain lekin HAJJ E FARZ K ALAWA NAFLI HAJJO ZIYARAT Aur GAIR ZAROORI Gair Mulkon Ka SAFAR Karte Hain To Kiya NAFL ke liye HARAM ka IRTEKAAB karna Durust Hay? Wazahat farma dein.

TV Movie Islah-e-muashira Aur Badmazhabo ki Sarkoobi ka Zariya Hay Iss per Jamhoor Ulema ka ITTEFAAQ ho chukka Aur Faisala JAMHOOR Ulema Ka Mana jayega Ya Chund Ulema Ka?

http://www.jamiaturraza.com/compone...n_id,6778/view,question/#sthash.lzg79rK3.dpuf


jazakAllah.
Wassalaam.

 

lets end the stalemate:

Q.maslake aalahazrat kehna kaisa hai ispar jawab diya gaya hai k bola jasakta hi isme koi khabahat nahi par lazim nahi karna chahiye agar koi na bole to woh sunni nahi aisa bhi nahi aur agar koi kahe to usko roka jaye ye bhi nahi. kya ye jawaab sahi hai?

http://www.jamiaturraza.com/component/option,com_ask/question_id,3003/view,question/





disclaimer: I am not the the secret correspondent who precipitated this thread.

jazakAllah.
Wassalaam.

 

please let's keep personal issues and opinions aside. you or anyone else who 'feels the need' can answer the questions

Huzoor did not email me. the brother who emailed me should be the one clearing the air for me.

i was kind enough to make his job easier by opening the discussion up to others who can assist him in enlightening me.

----

before getting into anything else:

are we talking about usool or furoo3 here?

does that pertain to EVERY SINGLE fatwa of Ala Hazrat?

what about people of other madhabs?

will an aspiring Shafi3i from south india who admires Ala Hazrat, and Zia ul Mustafa Sahab and Huzoor Tajush Shari3ah, not be accepted as a mureed of the Ridawi tareeqa by Zia ul Mustafa Sahab or Huzoor Tajush Shari3ah?

will he (the Shafi3i person) be accepted as a mureed but he will be counted as only belonging to Ahlus Sunnah but not Maslak-e-Ala Hazrat, since Ala Hazrat is Sunni in 3aqidah and Hanafi in madhab, which are the bases of his rulings?

aam and khaas in what?

fadeelah, knowledge, taqwa, etc?

or are you implying that Ahlus Sunnah is the larger group and Maslak-e-Ala Hazrat is a specific subset of that group which strictly follows the fatawa of Ala Hazrat?

that's all for now. will touch on your other points once this much is cleared, by you or anyone else who has the time.

 

Reply to AQ

Maslak e Aala Hazrat is the following of the Fatawa of Imam Ahmad Raza.
The difference between Ahl Al-Sunnah Wa Al-Jamaa'ah and the Maslak of Imam Ahmad Raza is that the Ahl Al-Sunnah is aam and Maslak e Aala Hazrat is Khaas.

There are many Scholars who follow the Maslak of Aala Hazrat but in terms of Jaanasheen, the representing body is Huzoor Taaj Al-Shariah Allamah Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan Al-Azhari.

Allamah Sahib's mother is the one who began the Madrasah, when she passed away Allamah Sahib had to take over and many scholars objected mainly Mufti Shareef Al-Haq. Allamah Sahib held a conference for all the great Ulema, which included many eminent scholars including Mufti Jalal Al-Deen Ahmad Amjadi, Mufti Shareef Al-Haq and Mufti Bahr Al-Uloom.

After discussing upon the topic, all the Ulema unanimously agreed on the necessity of teaching women their religion and that due to necessity the hukm is that now we must teach our women. Mufti Shareef Al-Haq who was against this now had agreed it was correct and sent his own daughters to study there too. Ijma' of the Ulema is source of evidence which changes the hukm in the Maslak. There is an Ijma' of the Scholars that now it is permissible to send our women to a Madrasah. Where is there an Ijma' of the Ulema that the TV is permissible? Where is there an Ijma' that the mic is permissible in Salah?

1.Where has Alaa Hazrat said that it is impermissible to teach women how to read?
2.Who said that Allamah Sahib's Madrasah teaches women to write?

Pictures are the issue, which automatically means pictures of Muballigh Ilyas Qadri are also an issue. Please carefully read Kitaab Al-Tasaaweer in Mishkaat Shareef to understand how pictures are an issue.

D.I is not from the Maslak of Imam Ahmad Raza due to the following points:
1. Aala Hazrat's Maslak as clearly emphasised in his Fatawa is to refute the deviants openly.
2. Alaa Hazrat's Fatawa clearly indicate the impermissibility of Tasaaweer.
3. Aala Hazrat has clearly emphasised that a leader for the Muslims must be an Aalim.
4. Aala Hazrat has emphasised it is Haram to perform salah behind the wahabies.

I can't recall other reasons at the moment but these are more than enough.

Blood transfusion is impermissible according to the unanimous opinion of the Hanafi Fuqaha, Huzoor Taaj Al-Shariah gives Fatwa accordingly.
The Daleel is that the Muslim Ummah unanimously agrees that
تغيير في خلق الله

I felt the need to answer some of your points. Sadly, I do not have as much free time as yourself to waste on a futile discussion. If you have further queries please write a question to Huzoor Taajush Shariah and they will address for yourself.

 

What is the difference between Ahlus Sunnah and Maslak-e-Ala Hazrat?

1. Please define clearly in a detailed manner what you mean by Maslak-e-Ala Hazrat. (No changing this later)

2. Who are the scholars and/or organizations who represent Maslak-e-Ala Hazrat?

3. How or why are DI & SDI NOT representatives of Maslak-e-Ala Hazrat?

According to this line, the person implies that Ahlus Sunnah and Maslak-e-Ala Hazrat are not the same things.

4. Therefore, please explain the difference between Ahlus Sunnah and Maslak-e-Ala Hazrat.

5. Please explain clearly what you mean by "green men".

Ala Hazrat says that girls should not be taught to WRITE.

Shaykh Zia ul Mustafa Sahib runs a madrassa for girls where they learn to read and write.

6. Will he be considered to have violated Maslak-e-Ala Hazrat?

7. What is the issue with pictures - too many pictures of Shaykh Ilyas or pictures in and of themselves? Please tell clearly if PICTURES are the issue?.... or pictures OF SHAYKH ILYAS are the issue?

No, it doesn't, but it is futile to bring this example and analogy once you have admitted that DI/SDI belong to Ahlus Sunnah.

8. No, it doesn't; but once again, why on the one hand declare DI/SDI to be Ahlus Sunnah and then bring this example or analogy of people who were against the Ahlus Sunnah?

9. If you consider DI & SDI to be FROM Ahlus Sunnah, then why all this criticism?

10. Please pinpoint to the exact FIQH POSITION or POLICY or TEACHING of DI that violates Maslak-e-Ala Hazrat - after you have defined what the Maslak is and how it is different from Ahlus Sunnah.

11. Who criticised Shaykhs Akhtar Raza or Shaykh Zia ul Mustafa? Asking for clarifications is not criticism.

12. What is Shaykh Akhtar Raza's fatwa on blood transfusion? What is the evidence for it from the Hanafi madhab?

All mureeds of shuyukh exaggerate the praise of their shaykhs and this is permissible in tasawwuf.

Shaykh Akhtar Raza Sahib's mureeds shout "patti patti kariya kariya Tajush Shari3ah Tajush Shari3ah" even in majalis organized in honor of Ghawth-e-A3zdham and Imam-e-A3zdham radi Allahu 3anhum. Having husn az-zdhann we believe perhaps it is because Shaykh Akhtar Raza is an outstanding representative of Sayyidina Imam-e-A3zdham and Sayyidina Ghawth-e-A3zdham.

Other issues will be addressed later once these 12 questions are addressed from an academic perspective. Please leave aside my character faults and fits and focus on the matter. (I have too many and seek Allah's refuge from the evils of my own self)

If the brother who emailed me so wishes, he can state his nickname and answer the questions himself. Anyone else is also welcome to address the issues as they concern all Sunnis. Since the brother has categorically stated that DI/SDI are Ahlus Sunnah, this discussion is only an intra-Sunni ikhtilaf aimed at bettering our situation.

 

salams

a brother sent me an email in which he stated. i will leave the personal attacks/issues aside and just deal with the core matters as this is a topic of benefit to all