salah behind salafis

brother Mohammad Hassan, you forced me to respond through i had ended up with this thread.

because there are narrations from our elders, the companions and their successors raDiAllāhu ánhum, which side with the other opinion that is salah is makruh tanzihi, and it is not as straight as you think. if I am not wrong then majority of contemporary sunni Arab scholars, or at least those who are well known, follow this position. there is a valid difference of opinion. however we follow the position of sayyiduna āála ĥaDrat álaihi raĥmah wa riDwān as we feel that he has given the most sound proofs and reasoning.

he was no doubt a reviver (mujaddid) but i don't know if we can rank mjuaddideen as great, greater and the greatest.

thak you for your seggestion, but have you applied it to yourself? can you honestly tell me how many rasail of sayyiduna āála ĥaDrat álaihi raĥmah wa riDwān have you read? and if you really have read his works then did you comprehend without any difficulty and mistakes ( even in pronouncing words)? for example have you read An-Nahyi’l Akīd áni’s Şalāti Warā’a Ádda’t Taqlīd and understood it completely or you were lost at some points?

I honestly tell you that I read it twice, understood 90%-95% and to fully comprehend I need to consult scholars and dictionaries, and it happens with all of his rasāil when i try to read and understand them.

now this thread is locked, except that if the mods want to continue.

 

Assalaamu 'Alaykum

Noori Bhaijaan , I am really amused and agree 200 % to ur first statement.. I do not understand why do many people just keep wandering in search of the answer about Salaah Behind Bedeen and Badaqeedah and Gustaakh .. The Greatest Mujaddid Huzoor Sarkaar Sayyidi A'ala Hazrat Raziallahu Ta'alah 'Anhu has given a Solid Proof and Statement on this .. And Hwen He presents it , it is acoompanied Such Genuine Proofs and Hawalah that any person with a Bit of Islami Knowledge Will get Content Insha Allah Ta'alah 'Azzawajal .. Except for The Wahabies themselves, as ity is their Fitrat to Object The Righteous One ..

My Suggestion and Reference To Each and Every Person For Any Masaail :-

Fatawa Razawiyyah By Mujaddid-e-A'azam Huzoor Sarkaar Sayyidi A'ala Hazrat Raziallahu Ta'alah 'Anhu

The only thing which I think everyone can contribute to this thread is scan proofs or Provide links on this site for this issue from Fatawa Razawiyyah itself ..

ALLAH HAAFIZ

 

this is strange that we give long tirades against wahabi beliefs all the time and when it is time for prayer we say forget differences, we are not certain that imam is a wahabi.

i do not consider those sunnis who pray behind wahabis non-sunni or puny sunni (pilpila sunni as many say in urdu) as we know there is differences of opinion.

as for your saying that identifying person x as being on such and such aqidah, if you are doubtful about imams of harmain sharifain then there is no single wahabi in saudi arabia, even if there are published books by them, who knows unknown wahabis would have colluded to defame that person x and printed books in his name, or those unknown wahabis give written speeches full of wahabism to read in khutbah of jumuáh and that x imam (incuding imams of harmain sharifain) cannot make out that khutbah but simply utters it.

here i end up now because i don't find any useful information. usually i do not partake in threads a lot, though i am one of the mods. i participated because i was interested to investigate this issue further and was hoping to get some lucid arguments but so far there is nothing.

i follow ála ĥaDrat's position and have respect for those sunnis who differ on this issue. I do pray jumuáh and éidain as jamāáh is a condition for these prayers and then repeat my dhur prayer.

 

something posted some time ago.

----
the ahlu's sunnah are unanimously agreed on the possibility for one who strives (mujtahid) to make errors. we do not consider them infallible (ma'Sum), as only anbiya'a are ma'Sum.

clearly, you are not acquainted with risk-management methodologies. the reason why i would be extra-careful in this matter is because salat is at stake. and the Lord Almighty has said: 'those who safeguard their prayers'. not just offering prayer - but safeguard it. strive hard to ensure that all the conditions are fulfilled.

we have stated the ikhtilaf and we have acknowledged it; what does it take, to take us out, of the 'narrow-minded' street?

----
Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

my bad akhi... i was either thinking faster than i was writing or writing faster than i was thinking

in no way shape or form i was trying to comment on the usul of the madhab or suggesting we (ie, commoners) choose positions of mujtahids willy nilly or start a DIY fatwa hobby ... a cursory look at the way I phrased my questions in Urdu will probably give you an indication to my level of knowledge, I can forward the rest of the questions to you if you enjoy a good laugh

the aim was just to mention the fact that ikhtilaf DOES exist, even within the madhab

however, as taught by our elders, as muqallids, we ARE at liberty to choose between muftis/'ulema at par

for instance, if Shah Turabul Haq sahab gives one opinion, and Maulana Kaukab Noorani gives another opinion, as a muqallid of the madhab, them both being Sunni 'aalims of my madhab, I AM indeed at liberty to take either of their opinions.

coming to the matter at hand, I personally DO consider the Jamia Nizamia 'ulema to be Sunni Hanafi 'ulema at par with the Barelvi 'ulema, as I do Sheikh Abu Adam and the Sunni Hanafi 'ulema of the Arab world.

the common person IS allowed to go to a mufti of his madhab and if he is faced with 2 opposing opinions from two muftis he trusts, he can chose either... correct me if I am wrong. One what grounds will you bind a common person to mufti fulan or mufti fulan? (when both are of the Ahlus Sunnah ... and here we are talking about at par contemporary muftis)

the mention of the Imam vs. Sahibayn ikhtilaaf was to mention that fiqh, unlike 'aqidah is not as rigid as some of us would like to make it to be*

the whole deal with fiqh and ijtihad is that there can be, is, and always will be ikhtilaf and matters are open to legislative interpretation

now a person would be a bleeding moron to say the least, to suggest that he can sit and judge Imam al-A'zdham's knowledge and comprehension, or that of Ghawth al-A'zdham

however, even though we are no where equal to even the dust under either of their blessed shoes or something even more insignificant than that, we accept that the imams of the other madhabs could have been rightER or right as opposed to him on any given matter, and their muqallids (ie from the other madhahib) think so likewise

Sahaba and Ummhaatul Mumineen too had ijtihaadi and fiqhi ikhtilaaf. If Seyyidina 'Umar radi Allahu 'anhu can admit ijtihad or judgmental errors on the mimbar, then surely, it just is logical that indeed somewhere a mujtahid mutlaq too would have erred (once again, I am not suggesting in any way shape or form that modern day fools like me who can barely spell their names, are in a position to judge the towering minarets of 'aqidah and fiqh and tasawwuf and other sciences whose names I cannot even pronounce)

I did not want to say it bluntly on this forum but my entire point was

anyone is welcome to adopt a "'ulema of Bareily or bust" attitude for themselves... its their right and definitely should be accepted, more so since they have their daleels

* what i do have a problem with is "if you don't follow the select few 'ulema we have named, you are not on the right path... you HAVE to follow mufti fulan" or "mufti fulan and fulan and fulan are right and they are the only Sunnis"

every ethnicity and every sect has this problem but us desis are especially good/bad at being followers** who either can't think for themselves or can't accord people with differing opinions their intellectual space

** i have deliberately used "follower" in English and I imply shakhsiyat parasti in Urdu, not a muqallid of madhab from a religious point of view

---

I find it very ironic that on furoo'iy matters some of us have to at times adopt such a narrow minded approach whereas Ala Hazrat himself compared and contrasted and collated opinions of various other Sunni 'ulema from other parts of the world even on matters of 'aqaid and usul, as you probably know leagues better than me

im not talking about who is right or wrong or who is right and who is rightER here, and of course every person will defend the position he follows, but i guess some of us could be a little less persistent

---

how so? not that i condone of what you have written, but as long as a person adheres to basic Ashari/Maturidi 'aqidah, how can he end up worse than salafis even if does adopt a DIY fatwa strategy from within the imams of his madhab or in fact even if he jumps across madahib?

jazak Allah, I did not know that... out of curiosity, what are they

---

on a personal note akhi, its not personal and i honestly did enjoy and benefit from your posts ... Seyyidina Umar radi Allahu 'anhu praised and prayed for the person who pointed out his mistakes to him and if he could climb the mimbar and admit his error, needless to talk about people of today ... i am indeed a sinful person with a million and one nafsanic fancies, (may Allah forgive me and your duas are needed too) ... if this issue is or isn't one, Allah knows ... i hope you won't take my posts as being antagonistic

---

Chishti-Raza, Hasan Raza and Noori:

There is no issues in regards to the fact that praying behind a mubtadi is makruh tahrimi (at least as far as this thread is concerned)

The only difference of opinion is on identifying PERSON X as being on such and such aqidah. One opinion of contemporary 'ulema asks for solid blatant proofs, the other I guess goes by the "isn't it obvious?" logic.

You might have valid reasonings, however, I tend to follow the fatwa of the Jamina Nizamia and Sheikh Abu Adam's instructions on this issuse (btw, I asked the qn to Sheikh Abu Adam last year and he got back to me after a month, I have good reason to believe he went and asked HIS senior shuyukh)

as we all know, deen is by commandment, not by reasonings of men. with due respect (and i may be wrong in my comprehension) the reasoning you provided pales in front of this hadith of the Blessed Prophet, 'alaihis salaatu was salaam. The situation in the hadith is even more blatant than the stuff you brothers mention, and the Prophet's blessed guidance is also crystal clear:

It was narrated by Muslim and Al-Bukħaariy that Usaamah ibn Zayd was sent to Al-Ĥuraqaat and during the fighting Usaamah killed a pagan that professed Islam just as he was about to be struck by his sword. Usaamah killed him anyway. After hearing about this the Prophet was very upset and said: "He said there is no god but Allah and you killed him?" Usaamah told him: "He only said it out of fear from the weapons." The Prophet answered, "Did you open his heart and saw that he was not sincere?"

Allah and His Messenger know best, 'azza wa jall wa sal Allahu 'alaihi wa 'ala aalihi wa sahbihi wa sallam.

 

Assalaamu 'Alaykum

Brothers it is best to follow the Advice of Sunni Ulama-e-Karaam on this matter.. Before jumping to the decisions plz ponder the following facts

1) Will the saudi Govt. employ Sunni Imaams when they themselves are hell-bend on spreading corrupt Wahabi Aqaaids?

2) If they be Sunni, why did Many 'Ulama-e-Karaam offer Ahl-e-Sunnat wa al-Jama'at make their own Different Jama'ats when the Go on Hajj and/or 'Umrah Shareef ?

3) If their Aqeedah-e-Baatil is not proved, why then the Sunni Ulama-e-Karaam like Huzoor Taajush Shariah, Huzoor Ghazi-e-Millat and deegar Blessed Ulama-e-Karaam do not offer Salaah after them ..


Plz do Answer ..

ALLAH HAAFIZ

 

lets cut the story short:NO!!!we cannot pray behind the imaams of Saudi
even on few ocassions

 

------

 

here is the excerpt from maqalat-e-kazmi vol 3 which i quoted above in my own words. you can find it here

 

wallah, I was in the Haram Sharif, after Maghrib, and the whole Haram was shaking with the sounds of the wahhabi shaykh shouting in Arabic "where does it say that it is must to visit the grave of the Prophet salAllaho 'alaihi wa sallam". Big loudspeakers all around.

wallah. I was listening to this blasphemy for more than 15 minutes. There were tens of thousands of people sitting, and also listening all over the Haram al-Sharif and outside. I took a look at the wahabi shaykh, and saw arabs kissing him after the speech.

I was shocked, just shocked. Could not believe it. Then the favourite word 'bid'ah' resounded throughout the Makkah valley.

I was so disheartened, I had to leave immediately and run to jannat al-ma'la, to the maqam of Sayyida Khadijah, and cry there for a few minutes and then contemplate at the state of this ummah. May Allah save us.

 

not at all, the key word in sidi abu Hasan's post was 'unknown',whereas the whole world knows that only wahabis control all shari'ah matters in these holy places, imams of harmain sharifain are not just wahabis but the top dogs of wahabis. jamiáāh niZāmih fatwa mentioned that 'jab tak kisi ki tahreer, taqreer, ya iqaraar say..', do the masses who understand Arabi have not listened to their speeches and read their books (even translations in many languages)? was sidi Muahmmed Maliki not forced to quit his hadith sessions in haram sharif?

it is very simple to find out in ĥarmain sharifain whether mutawwas there are wahabis are not, simply touch the glass of maqām ibrahim with your hands and kiss them in front of mutawwas who are guarding against shirk and bidáah in front of it, or start reciting qaşeedah burdah with just a little higher voice so that a nearby mutawwa can listen to you; and if still you are doubtful as these actions are not fundamentals then go to dar-al-ifta section in the two holy mosques and ask whether Allāh subĥanu wa táāla has a direction or not, they will not arrest you but willl answer you with their dalail.

yes, if there are poeple who really don't know about issues with wahabis, their beliefs and fatawa about them then they are excused. hazrat ahmed sáeed kaZmi álaihi raĥmah wa riDwān replied to a question that if salah of Muslims was invalid in harmain sharifain, and he said (not verbatim translation, it is from my memory)

there are three kinds of people regarding this issue and can be understood with an analogy of people having impurity on their clothes;

1. 1. one has filth on his clothes and he doesn't know at all that he has impurity (najasah) on his cloth - his salah is valid as he is axcused
2. one has filth on his clothes and he knows about it, but he doesn't know that this much impurity invalidates his prayer, threfore he prays in good faith - his salah is valid because he is also excused though it was makruh to pray
3. one knows that he has impurity on his clothes which invalidates prayer - if he prays then his prayer is invalid because he is not excused

from this analogy it can be deduced that

1. 1. those who don't know who wahabis are and what are their beliefs and that salah behind them is makruh taĥrimi then they are excused.
2. those who know a little about wahabis but don't know that salah behind them is makruh taĥrimi then they are also excused
3. those who know their beliefs and that salah behind them is makruh taĥrimi, they should not pray behind them.

 

According this, the Imams in of haramayn will fit well in this category for someone like me and other travellers to the Kingdom. I will probably (Allah willing) only visit there for hajj or umrah, so chances are, wouldn't pray there more then a few occassions.

Jazakallah khair to Abu Hassan and AbdulQadir for their contributions. I benefitted from their posts.

 

So........we should not pray behind the imams of KSA??

 

bypassing the as'Hab at-tarjih?

the endless bless series for all its benefits crams in a lot of things and confuses some issues. there are also errors in it. only a qualified mufti (not copyists who are termed 'mufti' in our time) who has an eye on the proofs can choose/prioritize a position.

for one to talk about how to handle fatwa in the Hanafi madh'hab, one must have at least read ibn abidin's 'rasm al-mufti'. moreover, it* is not a furu'u opinion (which is usually a 'how-to-do' or 'what-to-do' statement) that one can further without caring about consequences.

one can state ikhtilaaf on dozens of masayil within the madh'hab itself and if the common person is allowed to choose what they deem right (legitimized by the an oversimplified view of SaHibayn vs. Imam methodology) we will end up worse than the salafis. it becomes a game then, and people will compete with each other find the easiest way out or that which catches their fancy.

these days, many people exercise their qiyas based on furu'u. this is similar to wahabi/salafi methodology except that they derive furu'u from hadith/qur'an itself and 'sunnis' derive from the furu'u of the madh'hab.

----
as for having good faith of the imam, yes if it is once or twice in an unknown place where you don't frequent, there is no need to investigate. but if you pray there regularly, it is better to investigate.

-----
as for the aSr prayer: three opinions are stated from the imam himself.

wAllahu ta'ala a'alam.


*that is to exercise prioritization in the statements of fuqaha.

 

it is true that we should keep good opinion about Muslim fellows and you need not to investigate to perform your salah if you are not sure whether the imam is deviant or a sunni, but this is true only for places where you are uncertain for example during your traveling or when you don't know which faction runs the mosque. when you know with certainty that a particular masajid is run by a certain deviant sect then here husn adh-dhan will not work, even if by chance imam of that masjid is sunni (and you don't know) then still you have to be cautions and not perform salah behind him because of his apprent association, the imam should have avoided associating with the deviants lest common people consider him among deviants.

fatwa is given on what is apparent, therefore even if you don't know about the aqidah of imams of harmain sharifain their infamy as wahabis is more than enough to avoid praying behind them.

it is mentioned in talbees al-iblees by imam ibn jawzi rahimahullah that once in haram sharif people were assembled for a funeral prayer and they saw sufyān thowri approaching, but he did not stop for the funeral for the deceased was infamous to be a deviant. it is not mentioned whether the imam of that funeral was a sunni or deviant.what if the imam himself is infamous of being among deviants?

their are several reasons to consider all imams in k.s.a being wahabi until explicitly known that a certain imam is sunni;

-imams are not appointed until they go through certain procedures and investigation by mutawwas
-association of masajid with dawat wal-irshaad
-the rants of the imams on shirk, bida'ah in jumu'ah sermons
-only wahabi material is available in masajid

also, even if the imams in harmain sharifain are not wahabi which is least likely then still there are differences of fiqh which will dictate that salah behind them should not be performed. i cannot believe that any saudi hanabli imam would be taking care of the wajibs of wudu and salah according to hanafi fiqh. the truth is that saudi hanbli mutawwas actually are only titular hanbli otherwise they pick and choose between madahib.

have you guys read ala-ĥazrat's book i mentioned in my previous post? sidi ala-hâzrat already has answered these reservations.

 

Brothers, please look into your hearts and answer this. I commend caution in all aspects, so if you abstain from calling those Imams [meaning the current Imams of the Haramayn Sharafayn who are appointed by the undisputed saudi wahabi regime] 'Wahabi' or 'Salafi' (or any sect of bidah), would you honestly in your heart then call them Sunni (or would you be cautious concerning that too)?

 

It is generally said that the men leading the prayer in the Haram al-Shareef are Hanbali. But if you see Sudais binding his hands, and the others, they are doing contrary to the Hanbali fiqh in just that single issue. If you look at the Saf behind sudais and others, they dont even fill in the gaps in between. A lot of silly mistakes. Jahils I tell you. And they ALL believe in a god that is sitting in the sky and that has eyes, hands, fingers, and a chair. Write it down. Believe it. They are not ash'aris or maturidis. They are wahabis. I heard Sudais say it himself. He lives right next to the shayateen outside Makkah in one of his huge mansions. One of the recent Imams they put on was the new black Muslim kalbani. He shouts mushrik and bid'a on everybody.

 

brother see my above post with the fatwa ... people are only going by the apparent. a lot of the saudis claim to be hanbalis rather than "salafi" or "wahabi" ... sure it might be camouflage but still we need proof for it

the meaning of the fatwa is go by that for which you have SOLID PROOF

 

i would just like to state some issues pertinent to the topic here that i have learnt from my betters

1) that differences of opinion amongst scholars are a rahmah

2) as long as scholars are on the aqidah of Ahlus Sunnah and from one's madhab, he is free to follow any of them and this is perfectly legal and allowed with no karahah, especially on matters of darura and avoiding fitnah. [not trying to make a case for myself, but Sheikh Abu Adam is a staunch Sunni and Hanafi and his anti-wahabism can be seen, and Jamia Nizamia is a very well reputed and trusted Sunni University in India]

3) there are plenty of differences in our OWN Hanafi madhab on fiqhi matters, between fuqahaa. Amongst the founding fathers of the madhab, for example, to the best of my knowledge, Imam Abu Hanifa forbids janaza prayers in absence of the deceased, while both of his great students Imams Abu Yusuf and Imam Muhammad, permitted it and a lot of the Turkish Hanafis follow this opinion. As far as I know, for 'Asr time, Imam Al-A'zdham deemed it to be of two lengths while the two great students deemed it at one length just like the Shawafi', again a lot of Turkish Hanafis, especially those living in the west follow this opinion to align with the Arab brother's Shafi timings. Imam Ibn Humam considered it makruh (I don't remember tahriman or tanzihan) to lift the finger during the tashahhud during the qa'dah. As I know, the rule of the Hanafi madhab is: Imam Al-A'zdham's opinion takes precedence. Then Imam Abu Yusuf then Imam Muhammad. If Imam al-A'zdham has one opinion and his two great students unanimously have another opinion, then either his opinion can be adopted or the unified opinion of his 2 great students, although following Imam al-A;zdham is better. [If any of this is wrong, please correct me. It is paraphrased from memory and also available in the Endless Bliss series of Hakikat Kitabevi in various places] (may Allah be well pleased with the imams of the ummah)

My point is, even great mujtahid mutalq's had differences of opinions and as muqallids of the madhab, we are at liberty to follow either of such opinions, although granted we must do our best to follow the 'azdheema (more superior and conservative) position.

-----

I personally feel it is more impractical for a variety of reasons in our times to follow the ruling that some of our other brethren follow from Bareily to just totally avoid praying behind the imam in the Haram, as opposed to what Sheikh Abu Adam and the instructions of the fatwa from Jamia Nizamia.

-----

For one thing, like believer of the unseen said, we need PROOF that the imam IS in fact of corrupt aqidah, rather than just going by gut feeling. The Prophet peace be upon him had the knowledge of many unseen things given to him and he knew who was a hypocrite, yet he did not execute the hypocrites. Rather, he commanded us to act on the apparent. He said words to the effect of "let it be known that Muhammad ('alaihis salam) did not kill his companions" (ie people should not accuse him of causing fitnah and make allegations against him or have room for breeding fitnah... of course there's no sensible reason to execute his REAL companions ... as far as I know, what is implied here is that the fitnah mongers would spread allegations that he ('alaihis salam) killed his companions and spread fitnah, if he executed the hypocrites .... a knowledgeable brother please correct me if i'm wrong)

Secondly it will cause fitnah (as stated in the analogy about hypocrites in preceding para) and in fact will breed more ignorance, as the impulsive and less knowledgeable ones will not understand and since humans are like springs, they will go the opposite direction and become more antagonistic.

Three, if we say we NEED to investigate the imam's aqidah before offering salah behind him like Hasan Raza suggested, then do we apply this to just the imams in a country that has a lot of wahabis or every imam in every mosque worldwide? Surely, we need some consistency here. The shias of Iran are a different case, as one can see their deviancies with his own eyes, at least in Iran, so you have all the proof you need. Things between Sunnis and wahabis are not so simple and far more entangled.

Considering the times we live in, a LOT of people INCLUDING imams, are not knowledgeable. Some people who claim to be "wahabis" might as well not have corrupt 'aqaid and yet some who claim to be "Sunnis" might have more corrupt 'aqaid than them. As for common folk, I like to use the word "lurkers" where most people only carry a label without actually knowing the depths of the 'aqaid of the group they are associated with. Sure, there's the knowledgeable ones too who know about their manhaj but thats not the majority.

Not everyone who is assumed to be wahabi will be a wahabi on the mujassima and mushabbiha beliefs just because he happens to be associated with them, and not everyone who calls himself a Sunni is in fact a true Sunni even though he might be associated to some Sunni 'ulema or claim to be an admirer of Ala Hazrat.

I have myself seen a "Sunni 'aalim" use the word "uparwala" for Allah. Personally to me, this guy doesn't qualify as an 'aalim or imam.

Is it a REQUIREMENT by shari'a to "investigate" the 'aqidah of an imam (even if it is only one isolated opinion, please advise) as Hasan Raza suggested? If it is, then it means it has to be applied to every imam everywhere and not just the Haram. We will have to investigate every imam in every country and every mosque before we pray behind them. It will leave very few mosques where one can pray by jama'ah for a person - just the places where he has explicitly asked the imam for the details of his aqidah will qualify, and even a place where the imam has the right aqidah, but it has not been verified won't qualify, if we go by this rule. This will only breed more fitnah in our times.

Allah and His Messenger know best; 'azza wa jall wa sal Allahu 'alaihi wa 'ala aalihi wa sahbihi wa sallam.

 

Bro AQ......are the imams of Haram Shareef not Najdis?? I didn't think they believed in any of the Imams of the Sunni Aqaid......gosh now I am really confused by this Fatwa which states that the Imams are of Hanbali fiqh ...hmmmm