Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Topics' started by AR Ahmed, Oct 11, 2020.
Subtext. I wonder why they’ve have not been blocked yet by Mawlana.
that cannot be counted as assent. i am willing to accept the ta'wil of "silent but do not accept" for a muslim scholar who also happens to be a sayyid. until of course, there is proof against it.
as for the hadith he twisted, it is peer pressure and lack of courage and a cop-out to avoid severe criticism in the western press. i find it hard to believe that sh. yaqubi REALLY believes in that explanation. so i am willing to consider it as inability to stand up (i.e. lack of courage) rather than active support like his friend hamza/mark does.
it is the duty of pakistani scholars speaking english to apprise urdu-speaking scholars of this fitna brewing in pakistan when hamza is now in the deradicalisation committee with that idiot prime minister (ofc imran khan, who else?)
I too think that his deliberate silence on The Study Quran and twisting the hadith shareef to imply that the honor of those who created blasphemous caricatures is greater than the honour of the ka'ba are very serious issues - with repurcussions for one's Iman.
I see the technicality (or think i do).
But, i fail to see how pacifying blasphemers doesn't count as a zarooriyate deen issue, in effect, becoming aqidah issue.
It's not the same thing as khawarij/wahabis making kufr or shirk out of every sin or evil thing.
As in, under threat of life and limb by the powers that be? or maybe bribed with money, visas, the finer things in life?
it is an evil thing, but not an aqidah issue.
absolutely. he has called for sulh openly. this is why we warn against him. in spite of this, he has not himself -to the best of my knowledge - professed an anti-sunni aqidah. perhaps i am mistaken but i tend to think that most of these people are compromised in some manner and are forced to follow the line.
regardless, keep away from yaqubi. that should be the message.
a certain brother told me that sh.asrar actively promotes sh.samir and sajid zafar and fultalis (who are apparently sayyid ahmad barelwi followers).
what's the truth? can this message be trusted?
wrt yaqoubi, doesn't his appalling misrepresentation of hadith (kowtowing to the much worse european version of secularism as opposed to the murrican version) in the backdrop of the french blasphemies count as a serious aqidah issue?
that, notwithstanding knowing about hamza and tahirul and promoting them and/or trying to deter people from refuting them (which is different than just sharing a stage)
Agreed. But when asked, Shaykh Asrar needs to make his view clear on the aberrations of these Levantines.
As for those who accuse him of sulh kullism, this guilt by association business is absurd.
What counts is Shaykh Asrar's own view on these issues.
List your questions and ask him. You know where he is. This backhandedness is foolish.
We live in a global village. We will all sit with people who aren't precisely on Sunni methodology. Shall we just discount everyone?
I'm not calling for Sunni laypeople to take from Shaykhs Samir or Yaqubi. I myself have started to avoid Shaykh Yaqubi. But my point is, it doesn't make a learned aalim like Shaykh Asrar a sulh kulli if he goes and meets Shaykh Samir.
Shaykh Asrar will only be deemed a sulh kulli if he holds the same views:
1. Shaykh Yaqubi in Ashton saying we shouldnt refute devs and shiah and moaned about Sunni ulama refuting Hamza and Tahir ul.
2. Shaykh Samir saying devs are Maturidi Sufis etc.
there is no harm in considering him a sunni until he holds non-sunni positions.
some people - frogs in a pond - who think the whole world revolves around their teachers with affiliation to bareilly will be quick to dismiss this. they will not be satisfied with anything less than a public lynching.
however, those who have stepped out of their communities, travelled the world and interacted with arab scholars will have a broader perspective and will realise that it is common across the arab world. and the definition of sulh-kulli as in our communities is difficult to apply on arab scholars.
the incontrovertible fact is that syrian/arab scholars have more exposure to devbandis than us and lean towards them IN SPITE of them being closer to us in everything else. have we wondered why?
but first the question: does praising sh.samir make sh.asrar a sulh-kulli?
based on the above video AND sh. asrar's praise of sh. samir on another occasion, a brother puts two and two and declares that sh.asrar "promotes" sh.samir and hence he is sulh-kulli.
all those who make such stupid statements must also declare imam ibn abidin shami as sulh kulli (for calling ibn taymiyyah shaykh al-islam), and consider shaykh muhammad ibn alawi al-makki al-maliki as sulh kulli and dozens of well known sunni ulama from the levant as sulh-kulli because they do not condemn deobandis - worse, they even quote them (like sh. ibn al-alawi in his books) and most of them have ijazahs from deobandis.
but it should not stop there. every scholar who praises sh.muhammad ibn alawi should be considered a sulh kulli. we would like to know the opinion of real mujahids like allamah shahid ali and his teachers, and those whom allamah mufti shahid ali considers as "REAL sunnis".
what do they say about sh. ibn al-alawi? we know that the devbandis excoriate him and consider him as having 'barelwi beliefs'. some of the notorious deos label him a "bigger bidyi than ahmad raza..."
but why did we reach here? because deobandis reached there and we didn't. there are many reasons for that which is different topic (and i don't claim to know everything). and if we have to change this, we have to engage with arab scholars.
how do we engage with arab scholars and win their confidence to put across our point of view, if we 'other' them from the start?
people with zero interaction with arab shuyukh will not understand the seriousness of the problem and the reason why staunch sunnis (in their own beliefs) like sh.yaqubi and sh.gibril lean towards deos or brush aside sunnis and their objections (like sh.sayid foudeh). there could be other factors as well (supporters, influencers, promoters, etc etc) but if our shuyukh had maintained contact with arab sunni ulama, perhaps the scene would be different.
warning: those whose sole aim is to hang sh.asrar may please stop reading here. others may please continue.
1. sh. samir is an arab and we do not agree with his positions.
2. but sh.samir is a sunni until he claims non-sunni positions to be his beliefs.
3. it is the same with sh.yaqubi. we consider him sunni until there is proof that he holds non-sunni beliefs.
4. however, sh. yaqubi or sh.samir are not reliable - for they call towards this (misguided) unity which we reject. the wahabi has more confidence in his belief than people like the above because, wahabis are in no mood for compromise. why are these people bleeding their hearts to 'win' them by abandoning mawlids? in any case, we have serious differences with wahabis in aqidah - those who wish to blur those differences are unreliable at the least. they can also be sulh-kullis as they openly call towards it.
5. sh. asrar might have praised both of them.
before jumping on sh.asrar's throat, a sensible person should ask:
- was his praise absolute (regardless of what X says i consider him the greatest hanafi faqih)?
- when did he 'praise' him? is there any correlation to these vids and the praise?
- what does 'promotion' mean?
- can casual and incidental words of praise count as eulogies and promotion?
- does sh.asrar have the knowledge of all these videos of sh.samir?
- even if he does know about these videos - does sh. asrar agree with those videos?
we know for a fact that sh.asrar has expressly said that he does not permit praying behind deviants following the hanafi madh'hab. unless we are appointed as high inquisitors by the JTI, to ensure that he is saying it from his heart, we can take his word for it. unlike allamah shahid ali who seeks a fatwa for a previous ambiguous utterance, ignoring a recent explicit confirmation, we tend to give precedence to a recent express confirmation.
recall the comment made by sh.samir about how to respect a shaykh even if he has mistakes. so long as a shaykh does not have a serious aqidah issue, we can ignore their fiqh choices and their opinions on OUR disputes for which they are not qualified to comment upon, or other errors.
Allah ta'ala knows best.
ps: TRW and some others might have discussed these points in other posts; do read them.
I read Shaykh Abu Hasan's critique of Sayyidi Sh Samir al Nass. I'm compelled to agree with it in that the Shaykh should not speak about issues of Deobandis vs Sunnis when he does not speak Urdu and/or has no idea about these masa'il. I noticed also the Shaykh, with all respect, is prone to mass generalizations. (i.e. the usage of Sayyidina Abu Bakr al-Siddiq رضى الله عنه ) and mischaracterizations (i.e. reducing the ikhtilaf to mawlid and singing nashid).
I do still think the Shaykh is Sunni but is mistaken. I still respect Sh Samir though. I am fearful about the Shaykh's wanting unity and his view of salah behind npn-Sunnis. It's one thing to say that its tahrimi behind a Salafi unless there is no sign of deviation (which is mistaken - its impermissible according to our view). But it's another thing to say there should be one masjid and everyone pray behind each other there.
Due respect to Sh Samir hafizahullah. He is mistaken in all 4 videos and he belongs to a tabaqah of very lenient Sunni Arab scholars hafizahumullah.
i don't know much about this shaykh except bits and pieces we have seen on this forum. recently, i listened to another speech of his - pardon me for saying this, but his reasoning is bad and generalises generously. he easily moves between muqayyad and mutlaq without probably realising what he is doing, which would lead someone who doesn't know him (for ex. like me) to be misled that he doesn't seem to have an inkling of fiqh or application of principles. perhaps i am wrong, and he might be a faqih, but i felt that his answers are inaccurate and misleading. he might be a good man, a good and pious muslim, a good muslim with ijazahs - but i would think well before taking knowledge from him.
of course, i could be wrong.
now, now. don't come back with how big his ijazahs are and how big he is etc etc. people should get over this infatuation with degrees, authorisations and associations. real knowledge is more than having been in the company of great men...and hailing from syria.
let us talk about the mas'alah. the shaykh is patently wrong. if he thinks that our difference with wahabis is only about mawlid, and singing nashids, he probably needs to read some more on the history of differences. and also read some hadith.
when people give such lame answers, they should be cross questioned:
would you pray behind a mujassim?
would you pray behind a person who claims that Allah ta'ala can lie?
would you pray behind a person who claims that Allah is upon the arsh in reality, haqeeqatan?
would you pray behind a person who claims Allah ta'ala is jismu'n la ka'l ajsam?
would you pray behind a person who says the prophet should be honoured no more than you would honour your elder brother?
if you would, would you do that deeming him a sunni or a bidyi?
if you consider him a bidyi, what is the hanafi ruling of praying behind a bidyi?
would you pray behind a person who considers a dozen things shirk which you deem permissible - in effect consider you a mushrik?
would you pray behind a person who abuses your father and mother?
would you pray behind a person who implicitly or explicitly attempts to denigrate or lower the lofty status of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam?
would you pray behind the razor punk? or say amina wadud?
one of the major problems with arab scholars who call for unity (between sunni & devbandi), is their refusal to attempt to understand the issue; instead, they probably assume that people from the subcontinent are dumb peasants who have no minds of their own; and therefore they ought to be taught the correct thing.
when arab scholars talk of barelwi-deobandi unity, they should first ask themselves whether they are in a position to issue a ruling.
- have they properly acquainted themselves of the issues? or have they just formed an idea, a notion based on bits and pieces they have heard from those around them?
- if they have not read about the issues, if they do not know about the real issues, they should not act as if they know better. perhaps they should read books on 'adab of ilm' wherein it is stressed that a person should not pretend that they know something when they do not know about it in reality.
nuh keller is an excellent example of such 'know better without even looking' kind of scholarship in the sunni-devbandi dispute.
- scholarly rigour would lead a serious and sincere scholar to ask:
a) have i researched this matter well to have an opinion about it?
b) have i asked both parties or spoken to prominent leaders from either parties?
c) or read books written by both parties to have an informed opinion?
d) have i been influenced by people around me about a particular group and my love and affection for them makes me lean towards them?
in summary, do i have enough knowledge to comment on the issue? if not, should i act as if i have solutions for everything?
did the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam not say to the effect that one who judges by hearing the case from one party will make a mistake.
if the arab ulama cannot understand urdu works, nor have access, nor are convinced by translations (f'ex: husam) - isn't it safe to stay away than force their (uninformed) opinion upon us?
or behave like true ulama from the past, who gave their opinion conditionally: "if indeed, such a statement was made, then that person is a kafir." what stops them to state their opinion in that manner? instead of trying to convince us that 'the shaykh (accused of takfir) probably said this probably said that..."
long before alahazrat made takfir of qasim nanotvi, sh. abdur rahman siraj makki issued takfir and was published in egypt. probably those ulama did not know prudence or have fear of Allah like sh. samir? sub'HanAllah!
38 ulama attested to husam al-haramayn, and shaykh barzanji even reiterated it in his refutation of what he mistakenly believed to be alahazrat's position:
scholars who are serious take a stand. they are not equivocal. in the example above, the shaykh lists the kufriyat of deobandis as conveyed to him by alahazrat - and said: "if these things are proven, then they are kafir".
what remains to be established then is: whether the translations presented to him are accurate, and whether the scholar has a proper understanding of the statements before issuing his opinion.
in the case above, shaykh barzanji repeats the charge on nanautvi and gangohi and thanawi WHICH he deems kufr. now compare this with the urdu statements - and put 2 and 2 together.
the canard of: ahmad raza deceived ulama of haramayn so they approved khalil ambhetvi's 'we approve of mawlid' answer in muhannad which is a refutation of husam can be dismissed without hesitation.
of course, shaykh barzanji started off on an incorrect premise for his refutation of alahazrat in the above risalah; i.e., he thought alahazrat believed that the knowledge of Allah and His Messenger are equal except for Allah's knowledge being own and pre-eternal (zaati, qadim) and that of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam was given (by ALlah) and an accident (atayi, haadith).
the facts are clear: alahazrat did not claim this as is clear from his hawashi. he refuted this inaccurate allegation in his Hasim al-Muftari ala al-Sayyid al-Bariy. [note: dawlah was the original work; then there were hawashi - old and new; then alahazrat added a new section to the original dawlah and named it: inba'a al-Hayy; this is nearly three times bigger than dawlah. then he added a special hashiya to inba'a al-hayy and named it Hasim al-muftariy, which specifically addresses the objections of ghayatal ma'mul and alahazrat proves how the risalah of shaykh barzanji refutes itself!
for perspective: al-dawlatu'l makkiyah with hawashi is 178 pages (with attestations is 546 pages). inba'a al-hayy with hashiyah and appendix in two volumes adds up to 686 pages. [both published in recent years by Dar Ahl al-Sunnah, Karachi]
@20.19 he says: "some educated shaykh from india...couldn't bring one point to prove that the other side is kafir"
if that person was from devbandi side, shaykh is probably right. but if you ask us, we have many reasons which he will be compelled to admit.
especially the devbandi leaders - unless of course, samir al-nass is greater than all the 38 scholars of haramayn who attested husam! besides, khalil ambhetvi was lurking in makkah when the fatwa was being attested. and the fraud of muhannad - not one point refutes husam directly or indirectly. nor withdrawal of the attestations DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY.
all the claims of 'refutation' and 'rescinding attestations' is by devbandis who designed the cover page with false claims to cheat common muslims. no such thing is INSIDE that muhannad book.
as for common people who follow devbandis today, we do not do takfir of them unless the person knows of the kufriyat and attests them.
his talk is mostly beating around the bush and offering vague solutions, which we generally agree upon. there are plenty of such fatawa by alahazrat on the need to ignore minor differences and unite in ahl al-sunnah. however, our differences with wahabi/devbandi are in core aqidah - it is not about disrespecting shuyukh but disrespecting RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam. why does he studiously avoid that issue and instead make it out as if it is about shuyukh?
if the shaykh thinks that the difference between wahabis and sunnis is only celebrating mawlid in the masjid, we must leave him to his khush-fahmi and move on. he is not the right person to ask these important questions.
a brother forwarded the following video, and pointed me to listen around 12.45
in this video he is comparing apples and fire-hydrants.
i strongly feel we will be asked this question: 'how come i left you..on the day of my death, i looked at you, all together praying behind abu bakr al-siddiq." what did happen? this is mistake of the prophet sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam? no. he left us in this pattern. this is our mistake. this is our misbehaviour.
if the shaykh was talking to the rafizis and tafzilis, it makes sense. but as is obvious, he has generalised this to "be united behind an imam" and ignoring fiqh and hadith books that detail the conditions for an imam and precludes a mubtadiy. a quick sample from umdatul qari:
firstly, we did not abandon sayyiduna abu bakr. we are still behind him. but if you want to use that as an allegory for unity, we say: 'we will still stand behind that person, that imam, who will be like abu bakr al-siddiq in our time.'
and what will we do about the hadith of iftiraq? and the numerous ulama from every age who zealously defended ahl al-sunnah and refuted heresies in their time? it is our good fortune that such shuyukh and their misplaced love did not exist in the time of al-ash'ari, else we would be praying behind 'our brothers' (al-iyadhu billah) the mutazilah and the jahmiyyah.
Allah ta'ala knows best.
Let me clarify - I respectfully do not agree with either answers.
I disagree respectfully with the shaykh here in the vid you provided- note in the other video the shaykh said its tahrimi unless one doesnt notice any beliefs against ahl al sunna
My practice is the standard desi ridawi way but i respect sh samir
At around 27:00 min, Shaykh Samir Al-Nass says in response to a question regarding wahabis and Sunnis having their own Masajid, that there should only be 1 masjid where everyone prays.
Is it just me, or does something seem off?
While it is the view of some Shami scholars to believe in tanzihi, the majority of Hanafis including the Syrian Shaykh Dr Samir al-Nass believe it to.be tahrimi
As for what you're saying, yes - I see now. He is not what I thought he was. He is clearly a Deobandi in disguise. The worst part is quoting Deobandi "scholars" and using tanzihi that way. It reminds me of the answers given by certain pseudo-Deobandi/Deobandi-wannabe scholars justifying praying behind anyone.
yes, if he claims to be sunni and knows Urdu and studies Alahazrat's works (which he apparently does), then this is the real problem.
if someone pretends not to see a large pink elephant sitting on the sofa and keeps talking about the weather while making pointed references to "large wild animals" - it must immediately put us on our guard.
Right, I understand that much. But this book mentions that: "the correct position is that it is valid but disliked." And in the page prior mentions that it is "tanzeehi" in a matter-of-fact manner. There is no discussion regarding minority position vs majority position. He does not even entertain the idea that there is a majority position that it is "tahreemi," and goes straight to making a claim as if it is the final say on the matter. And he does all of this AFTER having gone through numerous books on fiqh and referencing them. Its not as if he relied on one book for all of his references, and it just so happened that this one book happened to have this minority position and therefore he just stated that. Rather, he went through numerous texts and has them all referenced. Furthermore, he has references to a bunch of deobandi works, which itself is problematic.
Please check the forum. The majority opinion is tahrimi (and that is my view as well) but some Hanafis have said it is tanzihi
So I ordered a few books from Madani Propagations website.
There are a couple books written by a "Safaruk Z. Chowdhury"
As I was reading through them, I came across a few things that raised my eyebrows:
In the book "Introducing the Fiqh of Prayer," he mentions about the matter of the "validity of Imamah*," that it is "Makruh Tanzeehi" and not "Tahreemi" to pray behind the Mubtadi'. And he uses the hadith: "Pray behind every Pious and Impious" as his proof.
(In BahareShariat, it is mentioned that this is Makruh Tahreemi).
In the same book, even though at times he references classic works such as those of Ibn Abidin, or Ala Hazrat (he even refers to Imam Ahmad Ridha as Ala Hazrat) and his Fawata Ridhawiyya, he also references Taqi Usmani, Ashraf Thanwi, Ebrahim Desai, and Ibn Adam Kawthari and their works. He also has references to Sunnipath and Faraz Rabbani.
As I continued flipping through the pages, I came across a section on "kissing the thumbs and rubbing one's eyes" and here is the page:
Even though he references Ibn Abidin everywhere else, in this matter he doesnt reference him for this specific matter. And instead mentions that "its an established practice in certain places" and then references Ala Hazrat.
To me this looks like he is saying "yeah, some people do it and its established in some places. You barelwis can do it if you want, your Ala Hazrat supports it" rather than saying "this is an established practice that even Ibn Abidin mentions as Mustahab and Ala Hazrat also has a book on it"
It seems like hes trying to appease both sides, and would rather support the Barelwi belief with "their own" scholar rather than a classical Scholar that precedes the division and is accepted by everybody.
Because doing so would bring down the deobandi scholars which he is not willing to do.
(maybe because he himself is a deobandi pretending to be open-minded and trying to infiltrate Sunni Awaam and deceive them into accepting deobandi ulema as valid).
So the tactic is:
1. Use references from classic scholars (to show legitimacy)
2. Mention Ala Hazrat (to get sunnis excited)
3. Mention references to deobandis works (to show them as valid)
4. Make praying behind deobandis okay (in case one has a doubt)
Allahu Alam, but this is what I am seeing.
*This is the image of the page where its mentioned about Mubtadi' as Imam being Makruh Tanzeehi and not Tahrimi: