the false allegation was that sh.hamid raza was supporting the league and was displeased with anyone speaking ill of the league. it WAS false - and when asked about he refuted it. in other words, shaykh hamid rida khan did NOT support the league. shaykh asrar, however is seen on stages with people who are either not sunni, or are sulh-kulli (such as the guy who praises taqi usmani or tahir etc). regardless of our view about sh.asrar, this is not comparable with imam hamid's situation where he was subject to false accusation. sh.asrar whereas may have justifications for his attendance, he is not being falsely accused of attending a gathering or meeting someone [to the best of my knowledge]. in fact, people like us are in a position similar to imam hamid rida, because we do not consider sh. asrar sulh-kulli just because he attended an event that also had non-sunnis. ---- 1. imam hamid raza's silence was perceived as support to the league by those hwo made allegations. 2. however, upon being asked, shaykh hamid did not ignore the issue - he clarified that he does not consider the league to be right - BUT does not criticise sunni muslims joining the league either due to reasons known to them (i.e. joining the league) OR due to ignorance. he says: I do not look upon the League favourably (nazar e istihsan) in its present condition because of many violations of shariah [sharayi mafasid] and that a number of deviant, heretical and irreligious people are members of this league. And it is on this basis that I have never allowed anyone to participate in this League. However, at the same time, I do not like to issue a harsh statement [sakht hukm] against staunch Sunni Razawi Muslims, who have joined the League if their participation is due to a sharayi point of view. Let alone takfir, we cannot issue the ruling upon them as deviants or even sinners [fasiq]. as i said, 3. shahid sahib's accusation upon sh.asrar is indeed similar to the 'silence is acceptance' accusation; but the silence of imam hamid rida about staunch sunni muslims is not the same as sh.asrar's not speaking about someone who is a known sulh-kulli or a deviant. [disclaimer: i am not saying sh.asrar does not speak against deviants; but only pointing out how the two situations are different]. as is obvious, there is not comparison in the two cases.