Book: maslak e ikhtilal

Discussion in 'General Topics' started by Unbeknown, Sep 7, 2019.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    no. for example, I am not saqib shami.

    great. so we can trust that whatever you say represents what saqib shaami has taught in his duroos. thanks for the confirmation. please don't go back on this.

    Are you trying to insinuate that anyone who wants to read and understand the book needs to meet the author and discuss with him in person? then why did he write the book?
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2017
  2. Rizvi_Qadri

    Rizvi_Qadri New Member

    No brother I am not his close confidante, however I try to attend his gatherings whenever I am in Birmingham and I am in contact with some of his mureeds. Are you trying to insinuate that anyone who has read and understood the book is Shaykh Saqib Shaami?

    Alhamdulillah I have read the book in its entirety, and specifically spoke with Shaykh Saqib in the duroos he holds after the Ihya gatherings at his centre in Birmingham, and I discussed the book with him. I'm surprised that not one of you has even attempted to meet with him to discuss the book or to even get hold of a copy?

    I will try to arrange for the book, I have copies that I can post out, if you were to kindly PM your address - if you don't want to reveal your true identity, I can attempt to send the book to your local Masjid, where you can then read it.
  3. Aqib alQadri

    Aqib alQadri Veteran

    either you are Saqib Shami himself or his close confidante.

    you have read the WHOLE book - kindly scan and send it in PM to brothers Abu Hasan, Unbeknown and to me. We will not put it in public domain for free.
  4. Aqib alQadri

    Aqib alQadri Veteran

    who am I? a nobody for sure. all what I do is to quote from the Ulema, nothing from my side.

    since you rattled off half a dozen names, please give ALL the references that you have quoted. scanned pages, from their books.

    nope; I did NOT compare Saqib Shami to murtadd tahir jhangvi. I just gave an example to show that it takes a LOT MORE TIME for our senior Ulema to give fatawa, than the speed at which we discuss on forums. that's it.

    my advice; don't take it personal even if you are a mureed of Saqib Shami.
  5. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator


    many thanks for your post. I'll reply by tonight if I can spare enough time.

    in the meantime, I invite brothers to think over this post - it shows most of the things that are wrong with this book and the approach to ahkaam that this book seeks to promote.

    also, I had asked you to explain what you gleaned from the quote in post#34.

    I recommend that you take the pains to read the fatwa I attached in post#25. If you can't, ask someone to read and explain it to you. Take it as a sincere advice rather than a challenge or rebuttal.
  6. Rizvi_Qadri

    Rizvi_Qadri New Member

    What are you trying to say brother unbeknown, are you implying that the prohibition of Qawali is Mujma Alay and not Mukhtalaf Feeh ? I have a feeling you have not read Shaykh Saqib’s book, if you have then you clearly have not understood it.

    My question for brother Abu Hassan is, how would you respond to the following objection of the ahlulhadith against Alahazrat rahimahullah? Ahmad Riza says Sama bil mazameer is Fisq, nevertheless he respects those Ulama who permit Sama bil Mazamir and those who have written on its permissibility.

    Ahmad Riza believes Ulama from Kichocha and some other sufis are Awliya even though being adherents of the permissibility of Qawali. Even whilst deeming Qawali to be haram in his writings, Ahmad Riza goes on to use honorific titles such as Arif Billah and Sayyidi in his fatawa ridawiya for a personality who is an advocate of Qawali, having even written specific treatise on this very subject’s permissibility, namely Abdul Ghani Nabulsi.

    Considering the above and keeping in mind Ahmad Riza’s recognised stance that to respect a Fasiq is Fisq, what Hukm should then be extended to the one who respects a Fasiq? Moreover, what Hukm would you extend and apply to Ahmad Riza himself? Ahmad Riza is one who not only respects those who permit Sama bil Mazamir, but is one who goes further to explicitly assert personalities, such as Abdul Ghani Nabulsi as Arif Billah. On the basis of your understanding, does Ala Hazrat not become a Fasiq based on his own Fatwa? Waliyadhubillah. How do you respond to this Brother Abu Hassan?

    Hitherto, the only response I have found for this dangerous objection against Alahazrat Rahimahullah was in the Usool presented by Shaykh Saqib in Maslak e I'tidal, where In Mukhtalaf feeh Masail the i'tiqad (position) of Murtakib is considered.

    Even if you find generalisations in the verdict of a Mufti, it will still be specific to those who are the followers of his particular opinion. Subsequently, when Alahazrat rahimahullah says the one who listens to Qawali is a Fasiq, this Fatwa must only be understood as an isolated particular for those individuals who follow Alaharat rahimahulla’s Fatwa. Whereas, those who follow the opinions of other Ulama, such as Shaykh Abdul Ghani Nabulsi rahimahullah, they cannot be termed be a Fasiq due to rulings as such being Mukhtalaf Feeh in nature. Hence, does Ala Hazrat remember esteemed Ulama with high honorifics.

    The reason for the Shiddah and high emphasis placed on the prohibition of Qawali in Alahazrat rahimahullas Fatawa is due to him being placed ranks higher than a common Mufti, onto the authoritative station of a Mujaddid. Only from this station of authority does Alahazrat rahimahullah tackle the possible dangers of Kufriyat and Fisq in Qawalli and for sad ad zarai did shiddah whilst retaining esteem for and honouring the personalities who prove the permissibility of Qawali with Daleel as Awliya Allah.

    This ruling is only for Mukhtalaf feeh Masail, as for impermissible actions that are Mujma Aalaih the Position of Murtakib will not be considered as explained by Shaykh Saqib in Maslak e Itidal. For example, if Ulama permit free mixing (men and women Makhloot gatherings) and adherents of that Aalim hold the stance it is permissible due to the opinion of so and so Aalim and that one must consider the position of the one permitting the act, we would still attest to the impermissibly of free mixing due to the consensual agreement (Mujma Alayh) of all the four schools. Due to freemixing being Haram in nature as attested to by consensual agreement and not classified as an act differed upon, any scholar or pir who meets ghair mehram women is therefore a fasiq.

    In Maslak e Itidal, Shaykh Saqib presents evidences for this Usool from the Madahib Arba’ah (Four schools) and the Usool of Alahazrat rahimahullah himself as quaoted in Fatawa Rizwiyah..” la tafseeq bil ijtihadiyat.” (There is no Tafseeq in Ijtihadi Mukhtalaf feeh Masail).

    However, one may think we have examples where Alahazrat rahimahullah himself did Tafseeq on Ikhtilafi Masail and I specifically remember You brother Abu Hasan in your posts some time back also raising this question as to why did Alahazrat deem others as fasiq. Previously you have also declared that in the Ittiba of Alahazrat rahimahullah, we believe so and so is a Fasiq because they listen to qawali.

    The answer to this confusion is in the above Usool mentioned by Shaykh Saqib. If we do not accept this Usool then how would you eliminate the contradiction between Alahazrats rahimahullah position “la tafseeq bil ijtihadiyat” and He himself calling others Fasiq based on Mukhtalaf Feeh haram? The answer is simple, the Itiqat of Murtakib is considered.

    My question for brother Abu Hasan is again, is that if we do not accept the Usool mentioned by Shaykh Saqib in defence of AlaHazrat rahimahullah then how else would you defend Alahazrat rahimahullah when the deviants accuse Alahazrat rahimahullah of Fisq based on Alahazrat rahimahullas own fatwa? Eespecially recalling that Alahazrat rahimahullah himself says that one who listens to qawali is a fasiq whislt going on to remember those “Fussaq” as Awlia Allah.

    Tazeem of a Fasiq is Fisq itself. The above is what I have understood from Maslak e Itidal and some Duroos of Shaykh Saqib after ihya gatherings. I can be wrong in my understanding of the book, so once again I request you to read the book, but before that I want to know how else can we respond to this objection of the deviants if Shaykh Saqib’s Tabeer is incorrect ?

    My question for brother Aqib al Qadri is that do you seriously believe that anyone who listens to Qawali is a Fasiq even if he follows Sunni Ulama, who hold the position of its permissibility? Thus, I gather you understand Maslak e Alahazrat better than Huzur Mufti e Azam Hind rahimahullah who in Fatawa Mustafaviya says that since some Sunni Ulama believe in its permissibility, we cannot declare these people Fasiq. Do you have the courage to do Tafseeq of Ibn e Abideen, Muhadis e Azam Hind Kichochavi, Ata Muhammad Bandiyalvi , Ahmad Saeed Kazmi, Abdul Ghani Nablusi and many more (rahimahumullahi ajmaeen).

    Brother Aqib what really shocked me was you mentioning Shaykh Saqib with Tahir Jhangavi. Brother we are talking about a Sunni here who publicly refutes heretic deviants and even the likes of modern Azharis who are known as Awliya by many Sunnis but permit free mixing and promote Khurooj from Madahib Arba’ah. Shaykh Saqib believes they are deviants because they have deviated from Madahib Arba’ah.
  7. Aqib alQadri

    Aqib alQadri Veteran

    frankly, you must not accuse anyone on this forum without actually providing the "ratifications" of those senior Ulema. until then, it is just a claim.

    fair enough; please tell us which book sellers have it - will try to get copies.

    most senior Ulema do not access the net and most haven't even heard of the book it seems. it took quite some time to give a fatwa even on murtadd tahir jhangvi's glaring blasphemies. so let's wait and see.

    seriously, those who are enamored by Ala Hazrat will not be influenced by reading it.

    you accept that this is a contentious issue. please give details and the outcome of the "debates and discussions"

    so Saqib Shami knows he is walking a thin line, and could have faulted!

    Verily, the lawful is clear and the unlawful is clear, and between the two of them are doubtful matters about which many people do not know. Thus, he who avoids doubtful matters clears himself in regard to his religion and his honor, and he who falls into doubtful matters will fall into the unlawful as the shepherd who pastures near a sanctuary, all but grazing therein. Verily, every king has a sanctum and the sanctum of Allah is his prohibitions. Verily, in the body there is a piece of flesh which if upright then the entire body is upright, and if corrupt then the entire body is corrupt. No doubt it is the heart. (Bukhari & Muslim)

    PS: We have NO DOUBT about the impermissibility of the use of mazameer.

    will comment only after reading the book.
    Ghulam Ali and Unbeknown like this.
  8. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    who are they? why no taqareez? we just have to believe it on hearsay?

    misinterpreted. that's the escape word. have you read the book yourself brother?

    why don't you prove your statements? where are those refutations of free pick and choose? I am waiting to hear them.

    I guess alahazrat is not a classical sunni faqih. And saqib shaami has understood the works of fiqh better than alahazrat.

    This book does not represent the maslak of alahazrat. at least have the guts to say that.

    maybe you are misinformed?

    The hadith and it's "fahm" and "understanding" has been provided by alahazrat himself. If you and saqib don't consider him a sunni aalim - just say so. We won't bother.

    it is obvious you cannot read Urdu or else you did not bother to read alahazrat's fatwa.

    If you can read urdu - tell us what alahazrat says in this image - re-attaching for your benefit:


    If you do not explain we will be forced to conclude that you cannot read Urdu and hence, you too have not read the book.

    wa's salaam
  9. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i haven't commented on the book per se as i have not seen the book, and i have said it so too. here.
  10. Rizvi_Qadri

    Rizvi_Qadri New Member

    This book has been read, endorsed and ratified by many of the most senior scholars of Ahlus Sunnah. It seems that the positions within the book, mentioned by Shaykh Saqib, are being misinterpreted by brothers here to the extent that the concepts refuted by Shaykh Saqib in his book are being ascribed to him.

    Brother Abu Hasan, from my knowledge the book is widely available in the UK, Pakistan & India especially in Madaris, darululm libraries or you may contact senior sunni muftiyan e kiram for a copy. I believe it is only fair to comment on the book once you have fully read it yourself, as nothing in the book is based on the Shaykhs personal opinion.

    Every claim he made is proven with references from classical fuqaha of ahlussunnah, perhaps this is why it has not been refuted by senior ulama as of yet?

    From my knowledge, Maslak e itidal was sent to senior sunni Muftiyan e kiram in India and Pakistan, 6 months before publishing and after many debates and discussions with ulama, only then was the book published.

    Shaykh Saqib had made it very clear in the very begining that if senior muftiyan e kiram can prove the content of the book is against the sunni islam, he would make tauba and not publish the book.

    I humbly request the brothers to read the book and discuss with sunni ulama before commenting. Brother Aqib al qadri, you should get hold of the book as well, there is a chapter on Sama bil Mazamir in the book which covers the ikhtilaf of Sunni ulama in this regard... as for the ahadith you have quoted regarding mazameer, the common answer shaykh saqib has given for such objections in his public talks is that we are not mujtahid, we are muqallidoon and we present the understanding of our ulama regarding these ahadith when we discuss with fellow sunnis. If a salafi presents ahadith to refute us, we would respond with ahadith and even that, in light of the fahm of our Sunni Ulama.
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2017
  11. Aqib alQadri

    Aqib alQadri Veteran

    In the video interview Saqib Shami clearly says in relation to the words of the Hadeeth, "Balkeh main is mein lafze 'mazameer' ka istemaal karta huN" - In fact, in this instance, I use the word 'mazameer' (instead of the words in the Hadeeth)" Does this classify as tahreef of the noble words of the Hadeeth or not?

    He then proceeds to say, "hum koshish kartey hain keh is lafz (mazameer) ko raaej kiya jaaye aur mazameer ke saath mehfil samaa ka ehtemaam kiya jaaye"; "Our efforts are to make this word (mazameer) popular and to hold "sama" gatherings along with the "mazameer".

    While the Hadeeth of Bukhaari Shareef mentions, "there will certainly be people among my Ummah who will deem permissible the private parts of women, i.e. (committing) fornication, and (wearing ) silk garments, and (drinking) alcohol, and (the use of) mazameer. "

    and in another hadeeth, the Noble Prophet (Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) said, "I have been sent to destroy the "mazameer".

    I have purposely left out translating the word "mazameer", in order to highlight the common usage of the same word, and how it conflicts with the impermissibility mentioned by the Noble Prophet, and the permission being granted by Saqib Shami.
    Ghulaam and Unbeknown like this.
  12. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    is the book available as pdf? not even for the benefit of the ummah?
  13. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    The correct procedure of seeking a ruling about an issue as per the enlightened research of HH pir saqib shami is as follows:

    If you ask a mufti whether some thing is halal - well sir, you are an idiot. The correct question to ask is:

    Is there any scholar (status is no bar) in any madhhab who has permitted this?

    Few examples:

    If you want to sport a five o clock shadow then you had better not approach a hanafi mufti. go to a shafi'i or maliki mufti. will save you a lot of trouble.

    If you have just touched your wife after performing wudu and you are feeling too lazy to repeat the wudu - well, just follow the hanafi madhhab.

    If you want to perform ghusl and the water is just about two qullah and you notice a dead rat in it, well no issues - just follow shafi'i madhhab and continue with your ghusl (rats!).

    you are at a restaurant and you wish to eat prawns - follow shafi madhhab.

    and the list goes on.

    basically, since you are an aami (a totally clueless and brain-dead layman), HH saqib shami has proven that you have no madhhab - I repeat, no madhhab whatsoever.

    So you can follow any ruling you like, any time you like. and keep changing too. you can even roll a dice to decide according to which madhhab you will offer the current salah.

    this is maslak-e-iytidaal. this is the enlightened reading of the hadith "differences in my ummah are a mercy" (peace be upon him).


    now if anyone can prove the above incorrect from the book 'maslak-i-iytidaal' I will be happy to hear his reasoning.
  14. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    The rules of the game are carefully crafted - you have no earthly way of proving that person x is a fasiq.

    anything you have an issue with will have to be proven haram by ijma' qatyi - which will have to be ijma' -e- ummat - which will have to have taken place before 200 AH.

    ijma' of the four madhabs? inconsequential.
    ijma' of ahlussunnah? inconsequential.
    ijma' of ummat but zanni? inconsequential.
    hadith mutawatir and explicit verses from the qur'an? all subject to ta'weel, besides you can always find some shaadh opinion in some book or another which will prove that they mean exactly the opposite of what they read.
    Alahazrat said it? oh, he is not ma'sum!


    So what problems do you have?

    musician? - not fasiq.
    clean-shaven? - not fasiq.
    dyes hair black? not fasiq.
    wears metal bracelets, 10 rings, and chains? some scholar in some book will have differed about it's ruling or others will have misattributed it to him - which is good enough.
    hairs extend below shoulders? - prove it's haram by ijma'-e-ummat.
    reads kufri verses? prove they are kufr iltezami by ijma'-e-ummat.
    attends events with rawafid and other deviants? not our concern
    sits with be-purdah women? - not his fault
    offers salah? who knows? and seriously, who cares?
    omits witr? allowed in shafi'i madhhab
    goes around in just undergarments - allowed in maliki madhhab.
    drinks nabeedh? well, the real hanafis have ruled it halal

    feel free to add to the list but you will always find HH saqib shami one step ahead of you.

    sorry sidi you are out-witted...
    Ghulaam, Aqdas, Ghulam Ali and 2 others like this.
  15. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    for the sake of argument, even if you ignore the poor mr.harmonium and make it halal, does the maslak e iytidal permit the rest of the samaa (atmosphere) in the so-called majlis-e-sama'a?

    fussaq who sing fasiq poetry otherwise, become devout naat-singers with mr.harmonium of course. so under the guise of (regardless of its being a contention) permitting mazameer, they permit the whole thing.

    all that remains is break-dance that tahir permitted as raqS.
    Ghulaam likes this.
  16. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    with the internet, the viewers number in thousands and the number will keep increasing as more and more people watch it - just imagine the cumulative effect of the sins of all of them!
  17. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    The following is a rough translation of the first question (there are five) in Alahazrat's 'Masail-e-Samaa' (a short booklet of approx. 20 pages):

    Sufi claimants of our times (mutasawwif e zamāna), who organize gatherings of song and mirth (majlis e samà wa surūr) which include melodies (rāg) and dancing (raqs) and musical instruments (mazāmeer o màazif) of all varieties and besides such embellishments (takallufāt) as (ornamental) trees and lanterns, awnings (shāmiyana) and carpets and other unnecessary extravagances, no restrictions are imposed in regards to eligible and ineligible (ahal o na-ahal), pious and wicked (șālih o fāsiq), learnt and ignorant (àalim o jāhil), muslim and non-muslim (hindu o musalmān) etc.; everyone is free to attend, absolutely and without prejudice (izn-e-aam), with letters and advertisements being sent out to invite people from near and far (atrāf o aknāf). Are these activities proven to have a basis (asl) in the Qur'an and Hadith or Fiqh and Tasawwuf, and transmitted records of actions or statements (qawli ya fìli naql) of the honorable law-giver (peace be upon him) and the companions (rađyiAllahuànhum), or the mujtahids and scholars of the shariàh and tariqāh (i.e. is there asl and naql)?

    And if not, then if a person,considering it not just permissible (mubaaH) but also commendable (mustaHab) and canonical (masnun) and helpful in attaining the nearness of Allah ta'ala (mūjib e taqarrub ila Allah), keeps committing it and also exhorting others to it to the extent that owing to his instigation, in some locations (which are free of it), the act begins to attract notice and continues (to gain prominence or becomes established), will such a person be deemed as misguided and a propagator of misguidance or not?

    The question specifically mentions, "considering it halal and sunnah".

    Excerpts from the answer:


    In the above snippet alahazrat says that the ahadith on prohibition of mazameer have reached the extent of tawatur.


    The following is from PDF page 6 and 7:

    In the above he says that all attendees are sinners and their combined sins will add to those of the qawwal and the combination of all of these will add to those of the organizers (saqib shaami in the current case) - and considering it halal - does not exonerate them but in fact it is "dhitaai" adamance over sin and is even worse.

    NOW where is that great 'maslak-e-i'tidaal' according to which considering musical qawwali halal automatically makes it halal?

    In the last sentence he says that to consider this thing as a 'means of attaining closeness to Allah' is "ignorance and deviance" (obvious: deviance is worse than fisq) and insistence on it is "an enormous and extreme calamity" and calling others to it is "exhortation to and advertisement of abomination and a deception/misguidance".


    Now read all of the above and the question translated above and watch the following video, the fatwa fits shaami accurately:

    This book is an iftira, a lie, against alahazrat and a clever weapon of vendetta against those sunni scholars whom he considers his rivals.

    The worst hit are his mureeds who have put their faith in such an unscrupulous person.

    We seek Allah's refuge from the evil of created things.

    Attached Files:

    Ghulaam and Aqib alQadri like this.
  18. sunni12

    sunni12 New Member

    Jama kartey ho kyun raqibon ko
    Ek tamasha huwa, gila na huwa
    Unbeknown likes this.
  19. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    HH saqib shami has a history of making whimsical claims.

    To see the complete picture, it is imperative to put this book in the wider context of his earlier shenanigans.

    1. See this thread for his empty boasts regarding qawwali and sidi abu hasan's forceful refutation.

    2. Here's the thread where he is openly claiming that sticking to a madhhab is not mandatory and one can change at will.

    3. The same post was repeated in this thread.

    As can be seen from #2 above he always appears unsure whether to address the scholars or the common people. Stuff intended "exclusively" for scholars tends to appear on facebook and also gets printed and then promoted on facebook.

    btw, just look at this insanity - providing your facebook profile link is a "required" field for the bayah request. I guess HH has found an ijma'a qati' for facebook profiles being integral to tasawwuf - hence the insistence...
  20. ridawi

    ridawi Muhammadi Sunni Hanafi

    Let’s see, shall we?

    In the section of 'using black dye’, saqib saheb says it is not permissible to call a person who uses black dye a fasiq or sinful if he considers black dye permissible. Why? Because the ulema, even within the ahnaf, differ upon its hurmat [pgs 106-107]. He references alahazrat’s risala on this topic, showing that alahazrat consideres it mutlaqan haram.

    However, in that very risala, alahazrat writes that most mashayikh and ulema consider black dye to be prohibited (mana’). When the ulema use the word karahat, they mean karahat e tahrim, the doer of which is sinful and deserving of punishment [fatawa ridawiyyah 23/501]. Saqib saheb conveniently forgets that this part exists when quoting elsewhere from the risala.

    In fatawa amjadiyyah, in answering a question regarding praying salah behind an imam who applies black dye, sadr al-shari’ah writes: if he habitually applies black dye, then his imamat is makruh e tahrimi [fatawa amjadiyyah 1/160].

    Qadi 'abd al-Rahim bastawi writes in one fatwa:
    The imam who applies black dye is a fasiq e mu’lin and as such salah behind him is makruh e tahrimi [fatawa bareilly sharif, pg 69].

    Maybe all these ulema never got the memo saqib saheb got.

    As for qawwali with musical instruments-
    again, saqib saheb takes the position that tafsiq cannot be done of those who indulge in qawwali while considering it to be permissible.

    Alahazrat, when asked about the imamat of a person who listens to qawwali with musical instruments, writes:
    To hold a gathering of musical instruments is fisq [fatawa ridawiyyah 6/608].

    Elsewhere, in answering a similar question, alahazrat writes:
    If a person openly does so [qawwali with musical instruments], do not make him the imam and it is not free from karahat in any case [6/596].

    Contemporary qawwali mehfils are held by qawwals who have clean shaven beards, who have long hair beyond their shoulders, who wear more than one ring made from all sorts of materials, miss salah intentionally - because of all this they are all fussaq. We all know the ruling of respecting fussaq. Does it suit the ulema to sit among such fussaq? Tafsiq of someone who attends such qawwali mehfils isn’t just based on musical instruments alone. If, for arguments, we agree that you can’t do tafsiq of those who do musical instruments because of the ikhtilaf, there are plenty of other reasons why an attendant of a qawwali mehfil becomes a fasiq.

    But I guess saqib saheb truly does know the books and fatawa of alahazrat really well. Better than most "Barelvis" these days. Let’s leave it to him to explain to us the books of alahazrat.
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2017
    Ghulaam likes this.

Share This Page