Shaykh Asrar Rashid Shares the Same Sentiment Not Only should Refutations be Done In Written Form, The Language Employed should be Arabic He cites the Example of Shk.Abdul Haq Khairabadi & Shk. Abdul Hayy Lucknowi
@Aqdas does Khalifa Ayub Ashrafi Sahib and Mawlana Pir Madani Miya hold the same position as Nizam al Ashraf?
Videos have their place; kaate ko kaate se hi nikalna padta hai. But my point was about inter-Sunni polemics. YouTube, like anything invented by the Jews and still under their control, is something Muslims need to be wary of.
exactly much as I dislike YouTube and the easy access to a world wide audience it provides, there is simply no escaping the fact that it's a necessary evil. refuting YT fitnah in written format only, is akin to competing with a race car in an ox-cart.
Although I am also a fan of this approach, my questions is: Who is going to read these refutations, the public itself has become lazy when it comes to reading books on islamic literature? Videos have a far wider outreach in informing people in this day and age than books or written refutations will. If our ʿulamā' had stuck to just written refutation in this day and age then Mirza Jhelumi would become much bigger than what he is now. Mirza has accumulated over 2.9 million subscriber and his average viewership is over 100k per video, his channel includes a great deal of misinformation. If the likes of Mufti Rashid Mahmood and Syed Mushahid Ḥussain or any other sunni ʿulamā' had not made videos then were would the public be today.
bhai, don't take it seriously, ek sheyr yaad aagaya: daman pey koi cheent na khanjar pay koi daagh tum qatl karo ho kay karaamaat karo ho --- i took an exception to the so-called incident of scholars debating when baghdad fell. a number of such fantastical and most likely fictitious stories are usually narrated by people to chide scholars. so i pointed out the fallacy of such silly and most likely apocryphal illustrations. but you started defending it and bringing in juzyiyyat. khayr let it go. the rest of your post is valid in itself; i have nothing against it. in fact, i have myself made those points in my earlier posts. am a great fan of this approach.
Hazrat, you are strawmaning me. We all know the state of the awam. Allah have mercy on us—they are drifting further every day. That’s why we have scholars, imams, the inheritors of the Prophet ﷺ. People look up to them. If their priorities are misplaced, the society will undoubtedly go downhill as well. Every individual must contribute, even in small ways, especially when the situation is dire. I never said that discussing and refuting deviant beliefs isn’t necessary. My issue is with how it’s over-prioritized at the expense of addressing other critical matters. Warning against heresies isn’t mutually exclusive with tackling broader issues. Scholars can, and should, do much more than just that. The problem isn’t with young scholars addressing such issues; it’s their methodology. For instance, the khata issue and the Mufti Muneeb-ur-Rehman controversy have been ongoing for 3-4 years. These topics surface as breaking news, gain temporary attention from both awam and khawas, and then fade away. This is the problem with YouTube-style refutations: they thrive on back-and-forth debates, drawing in participants from both sides until the issue is forgotten. It’s rare to find a straightforward one on one refutation because a third party almost always intervenes, steering the discussion off course, and this is by design. Social media thrives on sensationalism and engagement, often amplifying negativity and hatred. Another overlooked point is the unprecedented public exposure scholars now face because of the internet. Our elders never had to navigate such a landscape. If a scholar uses the internet to propagate his teachings, he is bound to make mistakes. If another scholar decides to expose him, all he has to do is scrape the internet, analyze his content, and find an error—and most likely, he will succeed. Imagine if this becomes the norm (which already is). scholars spending all their time finding faults in one another under the guise of “necessary correction.” and other scholar spending most of his time answering them, doing ruju (which rarely happens these days. This approach feeds into sensationalism, garners attention from elders within our maslak, and creates a cycle of validation through public praise. Meanwhile, more pressing issues harming the ummah go unaddressed. The real red herring is when people deflect from this criticism by saying, “Warning against heresies is crucial.” While true, it doesn’t justify ignoring other priorities. How many of these young scholars channels are monetized? How many dummy channels capitalize on these debates to generate views? Isn’t it better to refute heresies through written works or by formally excommunicating those proven to hold deviant beliefs? What we see instead is a cycle of videos and counter-videos until the awam, weary of the infighting, dismisses it all as “Maulvi vs. Maulvi.” Over time, these issues lose their significance, reducing them to mere nuances of deen that seem irrelevant in today’s context. May Allah guide us all to what is best for the Ummah and keep us united in truth
so why is it that only scholars busy in debates mentioned as the reason for mongol hordes attacking or the reason for fall of baghdad? thus going by your objection, it is as if everyone capable to fight was at the front lines and it was only the scholars debating the length of miswak. tradesmen, businessmen, rich people, every able bodied man and even women were in the ranks. and since the scholars were busy debating trivial things they were the only ones who didn't defend. and unfortunately, it is because of their debates, baghdad fell. is that what you suggest? if not why single out scholars and their debates? "it is said that when the mongol hordes were at the gates, people were still buying and selling in the markets" ----- these are red herrings. people cite such examples only as an emotional trap to stop people from criticism. for some reason the young maulvi reminds me of tahir padri. please read my comments in the context of the khata-issue and now the second, that has snowballed - mufti muneeb's public display of affection with rawafid etc. these two are important issues and not trivial matters. in the first case, it is a bridge to acceptance of tafzili aqidah, which itself is a door to rifd. in the second, it is softening the awaam to accept heretics and heresies as part of "karna padta hai". ps: my comments were on the vid as posted in this thread. i assumed that he was also talking about it. i checked out hsi youtube channel and some vids are old - so he may not be directly addressing mufti mushahid sb's video. --- this is like saying - you must pray five times a day, and fast in ramadan. who disagrees with that? the fallacy here is that you have a perfectly valid advice which is not relevant here. one has to first prove that the issue such as the khata-issue (from sunni perspective) or mufti muneeb's hobnobbing with heretics is a trivial issue and counterproductive to the grand strategise, defense, prepare for counterattacks, mobilise the masses...or....ahem. btw, isn't mufti mushahid hussain doing the same? warning the public of the impending danger if things like these are brushed under the carpet? don't be deceived by people who speak sweetly and try to divert your attention. warning people of heresies is as important as preparing to fight invaders. without a strong aqidah and conviction, muslims will not be able to fight any enemy. and the foundation for that is sound aqidah that clearly differentiates from heresies. ---- i think you missed the context. i was not generalising at all. my comment was specifically about the current climate of senior muftis getting cozy with rafizis and deobandis and those rallying in their support. this tantamounts to an allegation, i won't deny that. and young maulvis calling out such activities/statements are upending the apple cart. this is a separate issue and i have no dispute with this. i have been lamenting about this and i go even further: how many sunni scholars, particularly young ones are even equipped to deal with the issues? most of them still need to spend time learning instead of wasting time on social media. this has nothing to do with why baghdad fell. please note that you began defending the "fall of baghdad due to scholars debating trivial issues" by bringing the fiqh juzyiyyah "everyone should fight when it is necessary". even if you mention it as an example, it is not valid because scholars of that time were erudite, competent, fearless, pious and Allah-fearing. according to dhahabi, the caliphate was weakened because al-musta'asim appointed a rafidi as his vizier, who amassed a fortune and did not spend enough on army, fortifications and in general the defence of baghdad. and it was this rafidi's machinations and betrayal - it is said that he consipired with the tartars / hulagu. Allah ta'ala knows best.
Apart from the bath faith practices of the side of the Jamia, could you elaborate how his conclusion was wrong, and in fact supported the view of the other side?
I respectfully disagree, Maulana. While it’s true that fighting may not be the primary role of scholars, the principle of fard ayn applies when a Muslim land is under attack. In such cases, defending the land becomes mandatory for every capable Muslim, including scholars. Please correct me if I’m mistaken. Perhaps the point he’s trying to make is that, when enemies surround you, discussing finer points of fiqh might seem misplaced. In such situations, the need of the hour is to strategize defense, prepare for counterattacks, mobilize the masses, or at the very least warn them of impending danger. This seems like a hasty generalization. How can such a conclusion be drawn? There could be countless reasons why young scholars, especially from Pakistan, start YouTube channels. Unfortunately, many of these channels (I counted more than 15) focus on inter-Sunni disputes or refuting deviants. often spending their energy responding to individuals like Plumber Mirza. "The energy spent on endless refutations and YouTube debates about sectarian issues could have been better directed toward challenging pseudo-philosophies, Hinduism, and Islamophobic narratives—or even targeting both simultaneously. These efforts are not mutually exclusive; one can address intra-Sunni disputes while also countering other ideologies." Taken from my own article https://medium.com/@mail2.nawazm/what-bareilly-scholars-are-doing-c4d9ff072690 How many of our Sunni scholars, particularly the younger ones, address broader, pressing issues? There’s a plethora to choose from.
I happened to watch this munazrah, it was so irritating to listen to jami'ah razawiyyah's side,i.e. molvi imtiaz, was shouting and unable to prove that it was a gustakhi, while the jalali sahib's party most of the time kept his patience. molvi imtiaz wasted an hour, so the debate started at 1:10:00. the poor guy could not read ibaraat properly while he was reading from books. and in the end, he nullified his stance by presenting ayat-e-tathir, yet he claimed he won the debate, how funny and stupid. it is also to be noted that molvi ishaq cleverly tried to take the side of molvi imtiaz, and tried his best to spoil the debate. clearly jami'ah razawiyyah (rafziyyah) is a proxy of rawafiD, they have pulled the veil off their face.
That mentions ijtihad regarding Fadak. There are varying opinions on Fadak. Some say ijtihad occurred, others say it didn't. That's not the problem. The problem is closet shiah trying to spread rifd by saying the qawl of khata is blasphemy.
