Shahid Ali continues public spat with Shaykh Asrar

Discussion in 'Refutation' started by Paradise Seeker, Nov 28, 2021.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    What about this famous nearly or certainly mutawatir hadith, which expressly says

    مَنْ رَأَى مِنْكُمْ مُنْكَرًا فَلْيُغَيِّرْهُ بِيَدِهِ، فَإِنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ فَبِلِسَانِهِ، فَإِنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ فَبِقَلْبِهِ، وَذَلِكَ أَضْعَفُ الْإِيمَانِ

    What's Shahid's sharh on it?
     
  2. TheRidawiWay

    TheRidawiWay New Member

    Mawlana Abu Hasan said in another thread:
    Mawlana Shahid Ali claims that since Shaykh Asrar Rashid remained silent as an incorrect statement was made in his presence, his silence is therefore approval. Therefore, Shaykh Asrar Rashid approves of said deviancy.

    The incorrect statement in this situation is the burble spouted by Salman Fultoli. However, it could be any Statement X. Likewise, Shaykh Asrar Rashid could be any Person Y. For example, it is implied that Shaykh Asrar Rashid approves of ‘Tafdil’ because he was silent as a host made a remark about ‘Abd al-Qadir Shah of Walthamstow when introducing him to speak. In fact, it would not be far-fetched to say that the ‘silence is approval’ principle of these incompetent extremists is not limited to statements. The mere presence of a deviant individual entails the approval of his or her deviance according to them. Mawlana Shahid Ali does say after all, “You were in the presence of a deviant and you did not refute this. But instead, you silently accepted this.”

    Approval of deviancy is deviancy as I had mentioned before. Approval of disbelief is disbelief. In other words, if Shaykh Asrar Rashid’s silence is considered as approval, then he is also complicit in the heresy. At worst, this would be disbelief and at ‘best’, render him a heretical innovator outside of Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jama’ah.

    Note: I am not attempting to say that freely sitting with deviants is permissible, lest Mawlana Shahid Ali and his allies completely miss my point and take my words out of context. Rather, I am trying to highlight how he disastrously misapplies a maxim in order to forcibly declare Shaykh Asrar Rashid as a Sulh-Kulli and non-Sunni.

    The reason Mawlana Shahid Ali provides for his assumption that silence entails agreement is a juristic maxim.

    He says, “Let me remind Asrar Rashid of a principle: 'al-sukut fi ma’rid al-bayani bayanun' - that silence in a place of speech where you should be speaking, is equivalent to speaking.”

    I am seriously impressed by our Ifta’ and Fiqh prodigy, Allamah Mawlana Mufti Shahid Ali. We had already seen scholarly excellence in our Bandyalwi logician when his videos commenced with the few opening lines of al-Mirqat. Let’s examine this brilliance.

    Mawlana Shahid Ali’s quotation of “Silence in a circumstance of speech is speech” is similar to those who quote the verse “Do not approach Salah” whilst omitting “whilst you are intoxicated” in Surah al-Nisaa. It seems as if Mawlana Shahid Ali is wholly ignorant of legal maxims and juristic principles, or is confused and needs assistance, or is purposefully hiding the truth and is a victim of his ego - all guised as a guardian of the “Maslak” of Imam Ahmad Raza Khan.

    In order to better understand general maxims, one must refer to al-Allamah Ibn Nujaym’s al-Ashbah wa l-Nadha’ir and its subsequent commentary, Ghamz ‘Uyun al-Basa’ir by al-Sayyid Ahmad al-Hamawi. These two books are relied-upon works for Hanafi scholars about juristic maxims and principles. They are taught to students studying advanced Fiqh in the subcontinent and Islamic institutes across the world. The general maxim al-Allamah Ibn Nujaym outlines is as follows: “A statement cannot be attributed to the one who is silent.”

    Mawlana Shahid Ali did not mention the general maxim and stripped it from all context.

    Maxims are general rules and principles that help one to appreciate judicial consistency that undergirds rulings in the law. Scholars are very clear that these maxims should not be used to issue legal verdicts. Rather, they are descriptive principles and ought to be used to explain the general approach of the Mujtahid scholar regarding his deductions. Their aim is to assist the scholar and jurist in understanding the Fiqh so that they can correctly organise various rulings. They are not to be used as blanket prescriptive rules because their brevity and conciseness come at the expense of exceptions. The complex nature of the above considerations and qualifiers can be understood from the fact that scholars and jurists have dedicated entire books and epistles talking on these maxims, their exceptions, their qualifiers, the field of law in which it is applied, and so on. Al-Allamah Ibn Abideen al-Shami writes in his Sharh ‘Uqud Rasm al-Mufti: “It is not sufficient to give legal verdicts by merely quoting books such as [...] al-Ashbah wa l-Nadha’ir and others like this since they are cryptic due to their ambiguity and conciseness.”

    The general maxim “a statement cannot be attributed to the one who is silent” falls under civic dealings (mu’amalaat). This is simple to understand and is commonsensical. You cannot assert that a person’s silence means X, Y or Z. His or her silence is silence. Silence, by its very definition, is an absence of speech so one cannot forcibly attribute words to one who has not said anything. If the general principle was that “silence is speech” or “silence is acceptance” then this would lead to great corruption, an inversion of the law and natural order of things. Shams al-A’immah, al-Sarkhasi writes in al-Mabsut explaining this: “Silence cannot be taken as proof [of a thing].” It is important to understand that this is the default rule (al-asl).

    After mentioning the general maxim, certain exceptions to the rule are stated. This is what we call ‘aam makhsus al-bad’ for certain caveats made to the general rule. The general maxim here is that “a statement cannot be attributed to the one who is silent” and the exception is when a person’s silence must be taken as approval due to juristic necessity (hajah). Instances of juristic necessity are outlined clearly and exhaustively by authors. For example, the virgin bride’s silence is taken to mean acceptance. In these cases, the jurist has no choice except to assume that the silence is acceptance since anything else would contravene the norm of human dealings, and therefore “Silence in a circumstance of speech is speech.”

    Talking of these exceptions, Al-Allamah Ibn Nujaym writes: “And many legal cases are excluded from this general maxim [i.e. A statement cannot be attributed to the one who is silent] wherein silence is like speech.” He then outlines these 37 exceptions. Half of these exceptions pertain to commercial and transaction law. A quarter of them revolve around family law and marriage. The rest comprise of cases that would be bracketed under estate, trust, guardianship and endowment law, rules of civil procedure and so on.

    Al-Allamah Ibn Nujaym further emphasises this point in al-Fawa’id al-Zayniyyah. He says, “Silence is akin to speech in the above 30 cases, as mentioned in al-’Imadiyyah and Jami al-Fusulayn and other books.” It is incredibly sinister of Mawlana Shahid Ali to present the exception of the rule as the very default and use that to issue a verdict. Mawlana Shahid Ali fails to justify how his extension of the maxim is analogous to the precedents stipulated by the respective jurists. If one cannot haphazardly use general maxims, then how would it be permissible to use the ‘exception-rule’ - whose cases are clearly outlined - to start brandishing scholars as deviants? One can also consult the popular codification of juristic maxims in the Ottoman civil code, Majallat al-Ahkam al-’Adliyyah, and its commentaries such as Durar al-Hukkam for further information.

    Al-Allamah Ibn Abideen al-Shami says, “It is not enough to quote a similar case which resembles [the maxim] because a person cannot be sure that there is no difference between the case-in-hand and the general maxim which may have evaded his understanding. You will often see that there are differences between the maxim and resembling cases; so much so that the scholars compiled entire books on these differences. We would not understand the difference between them if the matter was left to our understanding.” See Sharh ‘Uqud Rasm al-Mufti.

    Al-Allamah Ibn Nujaym also explicitly says that it is not allowed to make judgements or give rulings carte blanche based on these principles. He writes, “It is not permitted to issue verdicts from general maxims and principles but rather a Mufti must quote an explicit statement as other jurists have stipulated.” This is a very important point regarding general maxims. Note that al-Allamah Ibn Nujaym wrote a masterpiece on this subject yet warns from taking these maxims upon face-value.

    The Mufti needs to be aware of the subsidiary cases the general maxim applies to so that he doesn’t forcibly issue a verdict where it cannot be applied. If a Mufti was to blindly start applying these maxims then there is a high chance that he would apply these maxims to a legal case where it is not applicable since it falls under one of the exceptions. Al-Allamah Ibn Nujaym explicates: “It is an accepted fact amongst the four schools that the legal principles reflect the majority of the cases (aghlabiyyah) and not all of them (kulliyah).” See al-Fawa’id al-Zayniyyah.

    Perhaps Mawlana Shahid Ali and his allies were too busy being lions of ‘Maslak-e AlaHazrat’ by making videos against Shaykh Asrar Rashid whilst these lessons on Sharh ‘Uqud Rasm al-Mufti and al-Ashbah were taking place. It comes as no surprise that Shaykh Asrar Rashid has referred to these graduates as “factory production line Muftis who do a course and earn a title” in the past. How apt.

    Then again, perhaps the ‘Maslaki’ court of law - alongside accepting failed testimonies - sanction the blind use of juristic maxims to form the bedrock of their verdicts. In which case, I wonder why juristic principles such as ‘Matters are per their objectives’ (al-umuru bi-maqasidiha), ‘The onus of proof rests on the claimant’ (al-bayyinatu ‘ala l-mudda’i), ‘Hardships bring about ease’ (al-mashaqqah tajlib al-taysir), ‘Certainty cannot be overridden by doubt’ (al-yaqin la yazulu bil-shakk) and so on were not used to establish initial claims and defend a Sunni scholar rather than to clobber him. Perhaps Mawlana Shahid Ali and his incompetent allies should be aware of the principle that ‘Harm must be removed’ (al-darar yuzal); lest they themselves be eliminated from the ranks and files of Sunni scholars and Muftis as fitnah-causing individuals.

    It is expedient for incompetent extremists to wield juristic maxims whilst quoting the Arabic to give the impression to their cliques that they are grand-masters in the Islamic scholarly disciplines. I am reminded of the sloganeering culture that animates such circles. Just as how chanting slogans compensates for lack of rigour and substance, blanket-citing maxims for their conciseness is also easy. It is appealing because like slogans, they are short, catchy and memorable. The uninformed audience is left oblivious of the legal precision that accompanies these maxims - the various qualifiers, exceptions, and so forth.

    Shaykh Asrar Rashid and I have asked these incompetent extremists have asked these incompetent extremists to delineate for us all the “qawanin, dawabit and usul” of what it means to be a ‘Sulh-Kulli’. One would expect these types to answer such a question about a topic that they are incredibly passionate about. To this date, there has been no response. But the lynching by the monopoly-masters of Maslak-e AlaHazrat continues. The reason why I had asked for “dawabit” and not juristic maxims (al-qawa’id al-fiqhiyyah) is because as I have touched upon, the latter’s application pervades multiple areas of substantive law. This is of note because due to the nature of juristic maxims, their broad application means that they are often caveated with multiple exceptions to maintain legal precision. In using them without demonstrating the tight analogous-nature of the cases in question, amateur Muftis may misapply the maxim where it does not fit. The former however, which we had asked for, would provide us with a similar universal rule as such but one that would pertain to the specific subject-matter at hand. Of course, precision and comprehension of complexities do not fit into their ‘Maslak’ paradigm. Hence why the eerie silence.

    If Mawlana Shahid Ali and his allies would lend an ear to some counsel then they should heed al-Allamah Ibn Abideen al-Shami’s advice in Sharh ‘Uqud Rasm al-Mufti: “If a Mufti does not find an explicit statement then he should refrain from giving an answer or he should ask someone who is more knowledgeable than him.”

    Perhaps it may be the case that Mawlana Shahid Ali and his allies could not find anyone more knowledgeable than themselves. This may be because they see themselves and the scholars in their clique to be the only ‘real’ Sunnis left in the world that are truly upon the ‘Maslak’ and way of Imam Ahmad Raza Khan. Or maybe they are just ignorant about the scholarly discourse as to when refuting deviants becomes an obligation. I do not have the time to extensively speak on this but one condition scholars such as Imam al-Bajuri list is that it is an obligation when Person X is assured that his or her doing so in that place and point in time will be effective. If Person X does not have predominant assurance in this then the obligation of forbidding evil is dropped.

    Instead, it is recommended if he has doubt as to whether the person will heed his advice and it is permissible if he is certain that it will be of no profit. This is a contested principle in that scholars say that what is considered in regards to the obligation is the very act of enjoining good and forbidding evil, not the acceptance or rejection thereof. Nonetheless, the point is that Mawlana Shahid Ali definitively asserting that Shaykh Asrar Rashid has foregone an agreed-upon ‘obligation’ and duty to refute Salman Fultoli and other deviants ‘there-and-then’ is not so clear and simple as he states it to be.

    Let us also see what Mufti Amjad Ali al-Azmi says in Bahar-e Shariat. Whether Mawlana Shahid Ali still considers Mufti Amjad Ali al-Azmi to be a Sunni-Barelwi remains to be seen because of what I had mentioned before about Imam Hamid Raza Khan. Readers are requested to have patience until I can elaborate on that further when time permits, In Shaa Allah.

    Mufti Amjad Ali al-Azmi writes in Bahar-e Shariat:

    “There are a multitude of scenarios when enjoining good:

    • If one has predominant conviction that if he were to say something to person X then he would accept it and repent from his incorrect statement, then it is necessary to enjoin good and it is not permissible to leave it.

    • If one has predominant conviction that person X will retort with slander and abuse then it is better not to say anything.

    • If one knows that person X will resort to violence and he would not be able to be patient, thereby causing commotion and unrest, then it is better not to say anything either.

    • If one knows that he will be able to be patient in the face of any violence then he should reprimand them. Such a person is a Mujahid.

    • If one knows that they will not accept what he has to say, but they will neither slander him nor resort to violence, then it is left to his discretion though it is better to enjoin good.”

    It is not difficult to find reasons that would ‘excuse’ fellow Sunni Muslims from charges of swift heresy. Shaykh Asrar Rashid may have been silent simply due to pondering over the consequences of bursting into a fit of fury or inducing a ‘moment of madness’ by all of a sudden refuting an ignorant host at an event in which he was a guest. It could have been something so simple as being absent-minded and lost in his own thoughts as a person on the podium speaks. Shaykh Asrar Rashid may have judged it best to speak with the person after building a civil rapport with him so that his words would be heeded.

    In conclusion, the attempted usage of a ‘maxim’ to try and brand Shaykh Asrar Rashid as a ‘Sulh-Kulli’ betrayed any serious juristic learning. Silence does not necessitate acceptance. It seems as if Shaykh Asrar Rashid is held hostage to a prophetic standard of tacit approval (taqrir). This is not to say that what the host said was fine, nor that mingling with deviants is fine too, but rather, there is a proper protocol to matters. Sometimes, scholars may opt not to speak out based on maslahah or if they feel that speaking out will be of little benefit. This does not mean acceptance. When he has deemed it fit, Shaykh Asrar Rashid has spoken out against those with false beliefs more than most, often being the first personality to do so publicly and with knowledge. He has even refuted them face-to-face and engages in private discourses to prove the veracity of the beliefs of the Ahl al-Sunnah so that deviants can return to the truth. If Mawlana Shahid Ali and his allies feel so strongly about this issue then they should just issue a Fatwa declaring Shaykh Asrar Rashid to be a Sulh-Kulli. Please also kindly delineate the “qawanin, dawabit and usul” of your newfangled Maslak. Based on what Mawlana Shahid Ali and his allies have said so far, it does not seem as if Aqaa’id, Fiqh and reason, in general, are well-comprehended by these tremendous scholars.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2022 at 7:46 AM
    Abdullah Ahmed and AbdalQadir like this.
  3. Ikhwaan

    Ikhwaan New Member

    Nothing more than a moment of madness!
     
  4. TheRidawiWay

    TheRidawiWay New Member

    Moving on, Mawlana Shahid Ali in his video cites Shaykh Asrar Rashid appearing on a stage with ‘Hizb al-Tahrir’ (hereby, HT) as another example of Shaykh Asrar Rashid fraternising with deviants.

    I had mentioned before that Shaykh Asrar Rashid is invited to such platforms to represent the Sunni-Ash’ari perspective on subjects of common concern. It ill behoves the short-sighted and myopic individuals the role Shaykh Asrar Rashid plays in these sorts of conferences. They simply want to be stuck in their ghettos. Shaykh Asrar Rashid spoke on the HT stage about socio-political agendas of reform pertaining to Muslims across the globe and our sentiments regarding the importance of Palestine. He is not there for mere ‘tokenism’ as he is a vocal and staunch advocate of Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jama’ah. Perhaps the very reason he is invited and taken seriously by others is because he is seen as one reasonable voice within a community that has had very little-to-no credible representatives. Add the fact that Shaykh Asrar Rashid is probably the foremost individual to speak on Islamic politics (al-siyasah al-shar’iyyah) within the Barelwi community in the UK.

    For comparison’s sake, I certainly would not be inviting Mawlana Shahid Ali to represent Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jama’ah nor to speak on topics that require any wider reading. With due respect, Mufti Aslam Bandyalwi would not be a choice on my list either. Speaking audible English without emotive and populist screaming in a mic is a start. “1, 2, 3! 1, 2, 3! 1, 2, 3!” would not make for respectable optics. Incompetent extremists forming lynch-mobs and cultish cliques to tear down those who serve Ahl al-Sunnah and do the ‘difficult work’ time and time again just means that the Barelwi community will end up with people and ‘leaders’ who simply cannot or do not do the hard work, are satisfied with ‘easy’ work ie. circuit tours, pacifying their audiences etc. Institutional progress will be curbed accordingly. See my previous posts.

    HT is primarily a political organisation (trivia: founded by a descendant of Imam Yusuf bin Ismail al-Nabhani) and I am unaware of a HT-manifesto on their official theology and creedal stances. Regardless, one can have vehement objections with their modus operandi, objectives, leaders and so forth - as I myself do - but simply cancelling Shaykh Asrar Rashid as a ‘Sulh-Kulli’ for speaking on al-Quds on a platform during a violent and bloody crisis with Dr. Abdul Wahid shows how much Mawlana Shahid Ali cares for the greater well-being and interests of the Ummah.

    These incompetent extremists have already shown us how the interests of the Muslims and the Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jama’ah pale in comparison to their own self-interests. Imam Ahmad Raza Khan and the ‘Maslak’ are simply convenient tools for their identitarian insecurities. Their ideological forefathers were the very ones who would criticise Sunni scholars and concoct false rumours about their ‘Sulh-Kullism’ to undermine them, as we had seen from the query posited to Sadr al-Shari’ah, Mufti Amjad Ali al-Azmi by Muhaddith-e A’zam-e Hind, Mufti Sayyid Muhammad al-Ashrafi al-Kichawchawi in my previous post.

    They are the ideological sons of the same inept mob who also slandered the eldest son of Imam Ahmad Raza Khan, Hujjat al-Islam, Imam Hamid Raza Khan - whom Imam Ahmad Raza Khan appointed as his successor in his life-time. Wicked rumours were ruthlessly circulated declaring Imam Hamid Raza Khan to be a ‘Sulh-Kulli’ along with other students of Imam Ahmad Raza Khan such as Sadr al-Shari’ah, Mufti Amjad Ali al-Azmi and Mawlana Rahm Ilahi al-Manglori. They said about him that he is ‘silent’ in front of deviants; that he is a ‘Sulh-Kulli’ because he attended a conference that was also attended by Wahhabi and Rafidi scholars for the critical need of Sunni representation and voice. The character-assassination against him occurred when Imam Hamid Raza Khan was ill too. Hmm. It strikes a remarkable coincidence, doesn’t it? These people were too ‘Sunni’ for scholars of the Ahl al-Sunnah. Too ‘Barelwi’ for even Barelwi figureheads. And too ‘Razvi’ for even Imam Hamid Raza. I shall speak more on the above later in detail.

    Mawlana Shahid Ali further alleges that Shaykh Asrar Rashid mixes with deviants because he is “seen in the presence of the followers of ‘Abd al-Qadir Shah, the Tafdili, from Walthamstow.” Mawlana Shahid Ali gives the impression that Shaykh Asrar Rashid mixes with Tafdilis. This is despite Shaykh Asrar Rashid having lectures against the Tafdili misguidance and even recently refuting it on a live-stream which spanned a few hours. Mawlana Shahid Ali’s tabloid allegation is alluding to a speech that Shaykh Asrar Rashid gave at a Sunni mosque in which the host of the programme, who ostensibly appeared as a simple layman, happened to announce that the mosque was ‘built’ by ‘Abd al-Qadir Shah (before he erred in his creed).

    Other posters have spoken about the lived contradictions of Mawlana Shahid Ali between his ‘talk’ and action. Mawlana Shahid Ali himself was silent when Zayn al-Aqtab Siddiqi, a deviant who believes that Allah indwells within His creation, spoke during his graduation ceremony. In contrast, it was Shaykh Asrar Rashid who said that Zayn al-Aqtab Siddiqi should not be invited to Sunni gatherings and that believing that Allah indwells within His creation is utter misguidance. Even Mufti Aslam Bandyalwi did not do this. Sure, Mawlana Shahid Ali and Mufti Aslam Bandyalwi may have even been unaware. But why the charity and reason for one individual and brute oppression for another?

    Is Mawlana Shahid Ali an exception to his understanding of the Shari’ah and it's rules? Did the agreed-upon obligation of refuting deviants suddenly disappear for Mawlana Shahid Ali? Was his silence not an acceptance? Is taking a salary and being employed by JTI - an organisation that also hosts Sayyid Irfan Shah - not the very definition of ‘Sulh-Kullism’ especially considering that Sayyid Irfan Shah is an outright Rafidi according to Mawlana Shahid Ali. There are individuals who are ‘Pir-brothers’. Mawlana Shahid Ali and Sayyid Irfan Shah are ‘Pound-partners’.

    Let Mawlana Shahid Ali heed his own words: “You failed to refute this great misguidance and deviation. We ask you, O Shahid Ali, make Tawbah to Allah Subhanahu Wa-Ta’ala. Have you forgotten your previous speeches and lectures? What has changed you? What has gone into you?”

    Posters have also spoken about Mufti Aslam Bandyalwi attending a gathering of ‘Abd al-Qadir Shah despite being aware of his misguidance. I will not dwell on this too much but readers will see more blatant hypocrisies and contradictions from these incompetent extremist types if they were to examine their actions and statements further. There is one “Maslak” for the in-group and another “Maslak” for the out-group.

    Allah Almighty says, “Do not let hatred of others lead you away from justice, but adhere to justice, for that is closer to awareness of God. Be mindful of God: God is well aware of all that you do.” [Surah al-Ma’idah, verse 8]

    To wrap up, Mawlana Shahid Ali and his allies continue to assert grave and serious charges against a Sunni scholar on incredibly flimsy grounds for the sake of the “Maslak”. They believe themselves to be brave and courageous custodians of the simple “truth”. In reality though, they have nothing to offer of any worth. This is exactly symptomatic of the incompetent and extremist mindset that I have speaken about. Their public lynching of Sunni scholars and brandishing of ‘Sulh-Kullism’ crumbles under the slightest scrutiny. I shall proceed to speak on his egregious claim that Shaykh Asrar Rashid approves of deviancy. Allah al-Musta’an.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2022 at 4:15 AM
  5. TheRidawiWay

    TheRidawiWay New Member

    The previous post was if we were to take Mawlana Shahid Ali at his word. We have no reason to though, especially considering a beaten track-record of imprecise transmission, failed testimony, and treacherous distortions.

    Beyond cursory knowledge of ‘Fultolis’, I profess ignorance about them. As such, I am not making any assertions about them. I do know that their order passes through Sayyid Ahmad of Rae-Bareilly (more on this later).

    Everything else that Mawlana Shahid Ali mentioned is up for further investigation - in particular his claims that ‘Fultolis’ affirm blasphemies and consider Ismail Dehlawi to be a veritable spiritual guide. In fact, there are reasons to assume otherwise. If Shaykh Asrar Rashid is expected to be held accountable to comments left under a social media page that is not even run by him, then it follows that Mawlana Shahid Ali should also be held accountable to heed comments left under a social media page that he himself manages, a fortiori.

    A commenter left a message under Mawlana Shahid Ali’s social media page stating, “As far as we know, Fultoli do not take from Ismaail Dehlvi because they know that he is a Wahhabi due to his books.”

    Then why did Mawlana Shahid Ali assert so brazenly that ‘Fultolis’ (a) consider Ismail Dehlawi to be a spiritual guide and (b) they affirm blasphemies written in his books? This comment alone does away with ⅔ of the allegations from Mawlana Shahid Ali.

    Why then is Mawlana Shahid Ali so swift to make these charges which are being denied by the same source that he holds reputable for others? As an Allamah and Mufti, is Mawlana Shahid Ali ignorant of how serious of a charge it is to claim that Person(s) X affirm heinous blasphemies against the Messenger of Allah? As a public speaker and the valiant Conqueror of Deoband, should Mawlana Shahid Ali not know better? Is he unaware that ‘Fultolis’ do not vouch for Ismail Dehlawi because they know of his lunacy? Should he not have paid heed to a commenter under his own social media page? Is this not one rule for ‘us’ (Mawlana Shahid Ali and allies), and one rule for ‘them’ (Shaykh Asrar Rashid and his ‘Sulh-Kulli’ flock)? Are there two sides to the proverbial ‘Maslak’ coin?

    As a critical aside, it is important to note the difference between issuing a judgement about a particular person and a group. Further, consider the inherent difficulty in making sweeping generalisations regarding any people or ‘group’ due to possible internal contestations or diversities about their belief and practice. Mawlana Shahid Ali is yet to particularly delineate as to whom he is speaking about: ‘Fultolis’, their leader ‘Abd al-Latif Chowdhury Fultoli, or Salman Fultoli (the individual in the clip).

    There is only one charge (1) left to consider. Mawlana Shahid Ali’s reasoning for (1) is as follows: The Fultoli order passes through Sayyid Ahmad of Rae-Bareilly. Sayyid Ahmad of Rae-Bareilly is a deviant. A people whose order passes through a deviant are deviants themselves.

    Now it is indeed the case that the Fultoli order passes through Sayyid Ahmad of Rae-Bareilly. However, is this sufficient to conclude that ‘Fultolis’ are deviants? Does possessing a chain of transmission via a deviant make a person a deviant, or is it the fact of (a) knowing of misguidance and (b) considering said misguidance to be valid, deviancy? If the former, then does this apply to other disciplines too? Does Mawlana Shahid Ali also assert that possessing a chain of transmission (ijazah) in Hadith that passes through, say, Zakariyya Kandehlawi or Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri etc. make a person a deviant? What about permissions in the Hanbali school of law that pass through certain scholars that hailed from Najd, or those that pass through Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah?

    Or is the actual locus of concern whether Person X affirms Heresy Y? Imagine a ‘Fultoli’ layperson who commemorates the Mawlid with ‘Abd al-Latif Chowdhury Fultoli. Is he a deviant because it so happens that this speaker whom he listens to holds a spiritual chain that passes through Sayyid Ahmad of Rae-Bareilly? The crux of my point is that it seems insufficient that an order, chain or permission merely passes through Deviant Y entailing the deviancy of ‘Fultolis’ or the holder(s) of that transmission.

    Let’s see what the commenter had to say in regards to the ‘Fultolis’ and Sayyid Ahmad of Rae-Bareilly. The commenter remarked, “they are confused regarding Ahmad Raebareli because he pretended to be a Sunni Sufi and gave many Ijazaat to the Bengalis and NEVER wrote any books that expose his Wahhabism.”

    So, the commenter informs Mawlana Shahid Ali that ‘Fultolis’ consider Sayyid Ahmad of Rae-Bareilly to be a Sunni Sufi spiritual guide because that is what they know of him. The case would be very different if ‘Fultolis’ thought Sayyid Ahmad of Rae-Bareilly to be a deviant and yet vouched for his deviancy. Unlike Ismail Dehlawi, regarding whom - according to the commenter - ‘Fultolis’ reject and regard as a Wahhabi because of his books and writings, ‘Fultolis’ view Sayyid Ahmad of Rae-Bareilly to be a Sunni Sufi because he never exposed his misguidance to them. Nonetheless, the Fultoli order does not even pass through Ismail Dehlawi but rather, another student of Sayyid Ahmad whom ‘Fultolis’ view as a typical Sunni Sufi Muslim.

    The situation seems akin to Haji Imdadullah al-Muhajir al-Makki and his students. One camp features the Deobandis and the other group is composed of Sunni scholars like Mawlana ‘Abd al-Samee’ Rampuri. People familiar with the history and details of the Sunni-Deobandi conflict reject the Deobandi clique as an aberration to the teachings of their Sufi spiritual guide. Likewise, it seems as if ‘Fultolis’ reject Ismail Dehlawi as a Wahhabi defect to the Sunni Sufi teachings of Sayyid Ahmad of Rae-Bareilly. They follow his other students - those very students that the Fultoli order passes through believing them to be Sunni Muslims. Remember that ‘Fultolis’ also practice Mawlid and even perform Qiyam to read Salawat. As far as I am aware, they also consider ‘Istighathah’ to be valid. Now, regardless of whether the Fultoli assessment of Sayyid Ahmad of Rae-Bareilly is correct or not, the point is that as we have often seen in this debacle, affairs are more layered than what incompetent extremists will attempt to clobber us to believe.
     
    Juwayni likes this.
  6. TheRidawiWay

    TheRidawiWay New Member

    Now, let us examine the reasons that Mawlana Shahid Ali provides for his claims.

    Mawlana Shahid Ali claims that Shaykh Asrar Rashid mixes with deviants. This is because Shaykh Asrar Rashid attended an event organised by ‘Fultolis’. The ‘Fultolis’ are a deviant cult, Mawlana Shahid Ali asserts. The ‘Fultolis’ are deviant for the reasons that: (1) the Fultoli order passes through Sayyid Ahmad of Rae-Bareilly (2) the ‘Fultolis’ consider Sayyid Ahmad of Rae-Bareilly and Ismail Dehlawi to be their guides and (3) the ‘Fultolis’ affirm blasphemies against the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) found in Sirat-e Mustaqim and Taqwiyat al-Iman.

    Mawlana Shahid Ali adds that Shaykh Asrar Rashid ought to have been aware of the Fultoli cult because he is an influential speaker. Moreover, Shaykh Asrar Rashid should have also known of the Fultoli cult because a comment was left on his social media page informing Shaykh Asrar Rashid about them. The commenter, merely called ‘Nasir Uddin’, mentioned that Shaykh Asrar Rashid should be careful of ‘Fultolis’ because they follow Sayyid Ahmad of Rae-Bareilly and are “semi-Wahhabis”.

    Prior to scrutinising Mawlana Shahid Ali, let’s take him for his word here. Let us suppose that Mawlana Shahid Ali is completely correct in his assessment of the ‘Fultoli’ cult. The ‘Fultolis’ are a heretical group who affirm the blasphemies of Ismail Dehlawi found in Taqwiyat al-Iman etc. and consider him a veritable guide. If indeed that is the case, then, what is preventing Mawlana Shahid Ali from calling ‘Fultolis’ apostates for affirming blasphemies that disrespect the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)? As is obvious, anyone who affirms blasphemies are blasphemers themselves. Secondly, if Shaykh Asrar Rashid is aware of the Fultolis’ positive appraisal of the blasphemies found in Taqwiyat al-Iman and Sirat-e Mustaqim, and he still considers them his Muslim brothers, then - since Mawlana Shahid Ali has a penchant for his principles (more on this later) - according to the principle of “whosoever doubts his disbelief is a disbeliever himself” (man shakka fi kufrihi…) - would not Shaykh Asrar Rashid himself be considered a blasphemer (gustakh) and an apostate?

    A possible objection here may be raised that Imam Ahmad Raza Khan did not anathematise Ismail Dehlawi, though scholars such as Imam Fazl-e Haqq al-Khayrabadi and others did in Tahqiq al-Fatwa. Ismail Dehlawi was excused by Imam Ahmad Raza Khan on the grounds of ambiguity in the state of the person in question (mutakallim) or in the statements themselves, thereby adopting the precautionary stance of the theologians. If ‘Fultolis’ affirm these blasphemies a century later, and there is no legal excuse for them, then could our ‘Allamah and Mufti elucidate what the ruling is (a) upon ‘Fultolis’ as well as upon (b) those who view them in a positive light? Will a jurist not rule that they have to renew their faith and if applicable, their Nikah contract? Elucidate, and you shall be rewarded.

    At first, the extent of the criticism by Mawlana Shahid Ali and his allies went only as far (and how far!) to declare Shaykh Asrar Rashid as a non-Sunni. Now it seems as if the faith of Shaykh Asrar Rashid is up for question - his only saving grace being possible ignorance of the Fultoli heresy. It has long been established that the flesh of Shaykh Asrar Rashid is licit to consume for these incompetent extremists, but it seems they are now lusting for his blood too.

    La hawl wa la quwwah illa billah.
     
    Juwayni and Unbeknown like this.
  7. Surati

    Surati Well-Known Member

    @TheRidawiWay

    Shahid Ali’s approach is argumentum ad baculum. Not only that, his sense of entitlement and hypocrisy goes as far as him being free from giving anybody an explanation (regarding his silence about JTI or Pir Maroof and Zayn ul-Aktab to protect his job and his teacher) when he demands one from everybody.

    I saw posts on social media where people are questioning him about it. Multiple fake accounts sprout up in the valiant defence of Imam Shahid Ali, saying that “the public pays his wage at JTI, JTI is only an organisation”. Interesting. So if you’re not paid by JTI, why are you hesitating to start your stance about them and Pir Maroof?

    The multiple fake accounts also said that a video will be coming up soon about Zayn ul-Aktab… I wonder why clarifying his stance about this is not more important than him going after Shaykh Asrar, given that this is him sharing the stage with a deviant. Do as I say, but not as I do.

    Clearly, Imam Shahid Ali has not any work since his graduation… apart from “refuting” Shaykh Asrar which according to him is work for the “cause of sunniyat” and rooting out “bad-aqeedah” (like his multiple posts suggest).


    Well, videos about Shaykh Asrar Rashid has no doubt spurred his number of “views” on his channel.
     
  8. TheRidawiWay

    TheRidawiWay New Member

    Mawlana Shahid Ali has made another video on his YouTube channel in which he asserts that Shaykh Asrar Rashid has to publicly repent for yet another egregious wrong-doing. This supposed crime is only one among many others, including Shaykh Asrar Rashid’s consumption of rat poison (or Milk of Magnesia) and his answer regarding an ignorant lay-person performing Salah behind a deviant Imam. I shall speak on this new video here.

    Note that none of my previous questions and points have been addressed by Mawlana Shahid Ali and his allies. At most, the only engagement I have received here has been over the use of a term. Discrepancies over a failed testimony provided by Mufti Zahid Hussain al-Ridawi over the Milk of Magnesia allegation, glaring omissions and distortions in queries to Muftis, sensationalist headlines, swift declarations of heresy and other broader points about particular cohorts and a toxic culture have been met with silence. After the previous bemusing claim of ijma’, I suppose that I could follow suit and claim a ‘tacit consensus’ (ijma’ sukuti) on my thoughts.

    In his latest video uploaded on YouTube, Mawlana Shahid Ali claims that Shaykh Asrar Rashid mixes with deviants, approves of their misguidance and resolves to further strengthen friendship and camaraderie with them. Shaykh Asrar Rashid must publicly repent from this, Mawlana Shahid Ali argues.

    Of course, if any person approves of deviancy, then he himself is complicit in the heresy and thus is a deviant himself. As such, Shaykh Asrar Rashid is a deviant if we are to take Mawlana Shahid Ali’s logic to its inevitable conclusion. Let me repeat: according to Mawlana Shahid Ali and his allies, Shaykh Asrar Rashid is a non-Sunni. He is outside the folds of Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jama’ah. This is because he not only mixes with deviants, but more crucially, approves of their misguidance as well.

    Before I even investigate Mawlana Shahid Ali’s claims and his reasoning for them, it is once again of note that despite Shaykh Asrar Rashid’s alleged enumeration of multiple crimes, a clear Fatwa has not been stamped upon his head declaring him an outright Sulh-Kulli and non-Sunni. I have deconstructed Mawlana Shahid Ali’s previous queries to Muftis in my previous posts but they were generic answers anyway. Here, I am speaking about a Fatwa by name - similar to the one that Mawlana Shahid Ali played a role in with regards to Sayyid Irfan Shah Mashhadi.

    I suspect that no such Fatwa has been forthcoming due to what I had spoken about in my previous posts. It would require a commendable idiocy for Mawlana Shahid Ali and his allies to openly sign a Fatwa declaring Shaykh Asrar Rashid a non-Sunni with their names, loudly and proudly. Nonetheless, I would not put it past them. Some will hide in the background because they fear being outed as incredible laughing-stocks. Others, in their stupid naivete, will persist in doing a foolish public bidding. A scheming attitude of declaring someone as a Sulh-Kulli and non-Sunni in all but explicit and definite terms is disgusting cowardice of the highest order. See my previous posts for more.

    Comments on the video to follow.
     
    Juwayni likes this.
  9. Khanah

    Khanah Active Member

    I don't know anything about them myself. Apparently they're followers of syed Ahmed barelwi, whoever that is. And thus not sunni.

    There was an event organised where one of the speakers is affiliated with this fultalis group. However, it wasn't obvious that this is the case as there were other legitimate sunni scholars there. Now I think about it, I'm not sure why only shaykh asrar is being called out for sharing the stage with this unknown fultalis guy but the other scholars that were there aren't being mentioned?
     
  10. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    As expected, that devbandi clown is cashing in on the dispute



    I suspect irfanis, tafzilis (paqs), minhajis, wahabis, even qadianis maybe, all are gonna follow suit in some capacity.

    Mufti Aslam Bandyalwi sahab should be very proud of his student's services to Sunniyat.
     
  11. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    I've not delved into fultalis (at least by this name) so dunno abt them. However, what was Asrar Rashid's appearance with them regarding?

    I think this is it. If he's trying to score against Asrar Rashid as if he's playing some 20-20 match, then any neutral observer like me will be forced to say this.
     
  12. Khanah

    Khanah Active Member

    Another video by imam shahid. This time to refute shaykh asrar for appearing with fultalis. He says that it would be a weak argument to claim he was unaware of their deviance because as a public figure, he should be aware and someone commented in this regard on his fb page anyway.

    My question - why did imam shahids teacher invite zayn aqtab to a dastar bandi when he, as a public figure, should have been aware of his deviance? Will imam shahid make videos refuting mufti aslam in order to be consistent?

    In fact, imam shahid was present and knew of the deviance of zainul aqtab- shouldn't he have spoken up against him in that gathering as per the principles he espouses in his most recent video?

    Don't get me wrong. I think shaykh asrar has made some mis steps especially how he answered the question re praying behind deviants. He didn't need to give a nuanced answer which created confusion. The answer regarding boxing etc was also kind of ludicrous. But if imam shahid wants consistency from shaykh asrar - then I want consistency from imam shahid also. And more than anything, I want him to stop making videos about a sunni and focus on actual problems instead
     
  13. Waqar786

    Waqar786 Veteran

    Imam Shahid's refutations of Shaykh Asrar on YouTube get more traction and appear more readily on the deo channel headed by the terrible deo duo, who Imam Shahid (and Shaykh Asrar) had refuted. This should make clear to Imam Sahib about who is actually benefiting from his videos.

    @TheRidawiWay point in relation to the kharji mentality of some Sunnis is a powerful one because Islam in general and the Sunni path in particular is all about the middle path. The Veering towards extremism in whatever direction is dangerous, and like we are seeing with the Saudis, extremism breeds just that... extremism. For decades they deployed a puritanical interpretation of Islam and today they are moving at pace in their pontificating of secularism and liberalism.
     
  14. Surati

    Surati Well-Known Member

    In the end, Maulana Shahid Ali is amoral. If an appeal to bigotry wins him support, if it is in the interest of his need to be relevant or to be right, he will make those appeals without hesitation or shame. His bile aimed at Shaykh Asrar stems above all from the latter’s positive criticism of him, and is slyly disguised as a “fight for the truth”. He is mimicking the thinking of the “Barelwis” he hopes to attract.

    Maulana Shahid Ali’s campaigns against Shaykh Asrar Rashid appear to be matters of pure personal interest, never principle or the good of Sunniyat. If it was, then he would have responded sanely to Shaykh Asrar Rashid’s attempts to contact him and to numerous clarifications provided. He would also have exercised patience and taken Maulana Abu Hasan’s offer to write to Shaykh Asrar Rashid and listened to the advice of the people who urged him to think before acting.

    If polarisation works to his interest, so be it. The fact that Maulana Shahid Ali’s hateful stratagems of bigotry and conspiracy are causing rifts and fitna will never cause him a moment of hesitation. Why would they? What matters to Maulana Shahid Ali is Maulana Shahid Ali.
     
  15. TheRidawiWay

    TheRidawiWay New Member

    Ask yourself, what leading research scholars have they produced? What is their contribution to serious Sunni scholarship? I have heard some even refer to these individuals who live in isolated detached chambers (and literally have contributed zilch to scholarship) as the greatest scholars residing in the Anglosphere. This is often purely on the grounds of the ‘names’ of their teachers and the Khilafats that they have received.

    It may be that this insecurity stems from the fact that these individuals inwardly realise they have nothing to offer to the world despite their positions of authority and influence or want thereof. A lack of knowledge, know-how, competence, and so on breeds an inferiority complex no matter how much one may attempt to delude themselves. They thus are forced to retreat into identity politics, sham sectarianism, the run-of-the-mill oratory speeches, social media circuit, nationwide annual tours and cult-think. It is all about consolidating their influence, status quo and public perception.

    It reeks of envy when they snipe at someone like Shaykh Asrar Rashid who is not affiliated with any Pir, Khanqah, Astana, Dargah, Shaykh etc. or leeches off inherited acclaim. Rather, he has earned esteem on his own merit. They feel incredibly threatened. Similar is the case with Mawlana Abu Hasan. Some even consider Mawlana Abu Hasan to be ‘unreliable’ because he is ‘anonymous’ (majhul)!

    Perhaps they are unaware of what Sadr al-Shari’ah, Mufti Amjad Ali al-Azmi says in Bahar-e Shariat with reference to Radd al-Muhtar of Imam Ibn ‘Abidin al-Shami:

    “Issue:- It is seen that Person X is asked religious questions by people and that he answers them. People view him with respect even though they are unaware who the person is and what his background is. Nevertheless, it is permitted to ask him religious questions since Muslims treating him in such a manner is itself evidence of him being a trustworthy individual.”

    Moreover, as Shaykh Asrar Rashid noted, they “claim to be Barelwi but have done zero work on AlaHazrat's Arabic heritage.” Or in English or any other language for that matter. These people simply leech off titles and a grand image they have created for themselves while focusing on petty bickering. Mufti X has received Khilafah Z from Shaykh Y or is his son. It is easy to see past their empty rhetoric. Ironically, their self-aggrandisation is met with zero quality work in comparison to the people they try to mock or undermine.

    At best, they will bring you something and consider it to be the work of the decade or century. They are so myopic and stuck within a bubble that they are not even aware of how much it is lacking in quality. It pales in comparison to anything the ‘Other’ has done in the same field. Yet still, it is seen as a milestone achievement in our circles because "in the street of the blind, the one-eyed man is called the Guiding Light." Since these people live in isolated echo chambers, all their cronies and supporters who have been kept dull for years and know no better and simply applaud them without honest reflection and feedback. “Naarey Takbir!” “Naarey Risalat!” etc.

    Sunnis as a whole should ignore these armchair critics who label them as ‘Sulh-Kulli’ or other terms until they are first able to coherently define them and their parameters. This is not to say that Sulh Kullism is not a major fitnah but the term and others like it has lost value due to it being used inappropriately by these Maslak fanatics. When a Sunni is a Sulh-Kulli then anything goes. Words and meanings ‘explode’. A man is a woman, a woman is a man, a Sunni is a deviant, and a deviant is a Sunni etc.

    In practice, they have also created a limbo state between being a true Sunni and a Non-Sunni. “You are Sunni, but not Sunni… enough.” They will keep people at arms length fearing sedition out of paranoia or insecurity. Scholars from the Ummah who are Ash’ari/Maturidi, follow a Madhhab, are Sufi, pious and have no overt creedal problems are treated deficiently as if there is something missing just because they are not card-carrying “Barelwis”.

    These people have innovated a 'Manzilah bayn al-Manzilatayn' theology in regards to those who do not meet their particular threshold of Sunni-Barelwi doctrinal practice. The person cannot be Sunni for X reason, but he is not a Non-Sunni either for he, for all purposes, is one. Thus, they confine him to the category of neither Sunni nor Non-Sunni or, paradoxically, both.

    For example, let’s consider Shaykh Asrar Rashid. One ‘evidence’ that Shaykh Asrar Rashid is supposedly Sulh-Kulli is that he shared a virtual stage with individuals from other groups such as Hizb al-Tahrir. The topic was on Islamically-informed politics, current geopolitical affairs, and the caliphate. For some, Shaykh Asrar Rashid is a Sunni, and a wonderful representative at that. However, for some of these Barelwi-Ahbash-Khariji-Wahhabi individuals, Shaykh Asrar Rashid is in the Manzilah bayn al-Manzilatayn state - he is a Sunni-non-Sunni for participating on the panel, or for the more brash among them, a Non-Sunni de facto.

    There is also the affair of chain takfir and chain tabdi’. Person X will be hastily declared a Sulh-Kulli or deviant. If Person Y considers Person X to be a Sunni Muslim, Person Y will also be declared a deviant. Person Z who is congenial with Person Y will be labelled a deviant. Also Person W who considers Person Z a Sunni Muslim, ad infinitum. This extends as far as even being seen in the same setting with Person X or Person Y.

    How individuals who have never come forward into the field and uphold their scholarly duties with respect can say Shaykh Asrar Rashid is a ‘Sulh-Kulli’ or is misguiding people is beyond me. This is the more deadly ‘poison’ circulating among our ranks. This is the actual ‘stunt’ and ‘deception’.

    People should earn their merit. Parasites sucking the life and blood from Ahl al-Sunnah by their nefarious actions, behaviour and words should not get a free-pass. Parasites is an apt metaphor for these individuals because they are killing the very host entity upon which they existentially survive. Without the efforts of those whom they hate, where would Barelwism even be?

    These are the individuals Imam Ahmad Raza Khan was alluding to when he said, “Those capable of doing work don’t have the means/support; those who have the means are utterly incapable.”

    na kaam karo, na kaam karne do

    Neither do work yourselves, and stop others from doing so too

    Who has taught Sunni Muslims the correct Sunni creed regarding the necessary, impossible and possible attributes of Allah and His prophets? Shaykh Asrar Rashid and Mawlana Abu Hasan.

    Who popularised Sunni theology and it’s study before these folk had any idea what it is? Shaykh Asrar Rashid and Mawlana Abu Hasan.

    Who has popularised a studious culture within the Barelwi community? Shaykh Asrar Rashid and Mawlana Abu Hasan.

    Who has represented Muslims against atheists, skeptics and agnostics and has written a work that meets the demand of the time? Shaykh Asrar Rashid.

    Who has represented Muslims against Christian missionaries? Shaykh Asrar Rashid. .

    Who has represented the Ahl al-Sunnah in multiple debates against anthropomorphists and the Salafiyyah? Shaykh Asrar Rashid.

    Who has wonderfully dismantled the Kadhhabiyyah? Shaykh Asrar Rashid and Mawlana Abu Hasan.

    Who has represented the Ahl al-Sunnah in both word and deed against the Deobandis? Shaykh Asrar Rashid and Mawlana Abu Hasan.

    Who bore the collective responsibility of representing the Ahl al-Sunnah when Shi’ites challenged us? Shaykh Asrar Rashid.

    Who refuted the tafdili fitnah whilst it was still taking root? Shaykh Asrar Rashid and Mawlana Abu Hasan.

    Who shredded Shaykh Nuh Keller’s ‘Iman, Kufr and Takfir’? Shaykh Asrar Rashid and Mawlana Abu Hasan.

    Who has refuted ‘razor-punk’ Abu Layth and other modernists? Shaykh Asrar Rashid and Mawlana Abu Hasan.

    Who refuted the Neo-Mu’tazili and quack Hanafi, Atabek Shukurov? Shaykh Asrar Rashid and Mawlana Abu Hasan.

    Who tackled the issue of perennialism and The Study Quran? Shaykh Asrar Rashid and Mawlana Abu Hasan.

    Who debated and critiqued the Salafi ‘Abdur Rahman Hasan and ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Dimashqiyyah? Shaykh Asrar Rashid.

    Who has written a wonderful book on the Sirah of the Beloved Messenger [peace be upon him]? Mawlana Abu Hasan.

    I have missed more than I have listed, and I could go on and on but fursat kahan keh is ki tamanna karey koi. Shaykh Asrar Rashid and Mawlana Abu Hasan have done more beyond polemical contributions but I have only listed an incomplete list about those since it is the only thing these people ‘appreciate’.

    And we are now meant to accept that Shaykh Asrar Rashid, who has done more work for the Ahl al-Sunnah than these Muftis and Khulafa’ of X, Y and Z is a Sulh-Kulli? Absolutely hilarious.

    It is not that I revel in such critiques and criticism but some things need to be said. My tone may be harsh but so too is the truth. al-Haqq murun wa law kana duran. If anything I have said is wrong or incorrect, then do not beat around the bush. Do come and engage me on this forum, Sunniport. Perhaps Sunniport is 'biased', or maybe anonymous folk are not worth responding to; because that would actually mean addressing the point rather than attacking the individual.



    tum ho aapas meiN ghazabnaak woh aapas meiN raheem
    tum khaTa-kaar o khaTa-beeN; woh khaTa-posh o kareem
    chahtey sab haiN ke hoN auj e surayya pe muqeem
    pahle waysa koyi payda to karey qalb e saleem
    takht e faghfur bhi unkaa tha, sareer e kay bhi
    yuN hi bateN haiN, ke tum meiN woh Hamiyyat hai bhi?


    you are angry towards one another; and they (the early exemplar muslims) were kind to one another
    you are sinners and eager to find others' faults - they concealed the faults of their brothers and were gracious
    everyone wishes to rise as high as pleiades
    but one should first develop such a sound heart
    [thus the early muslims] ruled over the chinese and persian thrones
    but you? you are only talk - do you have that determination and zeal?


    khud kushi sheywa tumhara, woh ghayur o khud-daar
    tum ukhuwwat se gureyzaN woh ukhuwwat pe nisaar
    tum ho guftaar saraapaa woh saraapaa kirdaar
    tum taraste ho kalee ko, woh gulistaN ba kinaar
    ab talak yaad hai qawmoN ko hikayat un ki
    naqsh hai Saf'Hah e hasti pey Sadaqat un ki


    you display suicidal traits and are killing yourselves, but they (the early muslims) were self-respecting and dignified
    you avoid and keep distance from your brothers - but they sacrificed everything for brotherhood
    you are only talk from head-to-toe, and they were action from head-to-toe
    you impore and entreat for a single bud and they basked in lush gardens in full bloom
    all nations remember their stories until now,
    their truthfulness is etched on the pages of history
     
  16. TheRidawiWay

    TheRidawiWay New Member

    In response to @Abdullah Ahmed,

    I am not here to defend Shaykh Asrar Rashid nor do I agree with everything that Shaykh Asrar Rashid has said. Rather, the broader point that I am highlighting is the streak of extremism that exists within certain factions of the Barelwi community that I have spoken of before.

    No attempt is made to think of possible excuses for a fellow Muslim or understand what Shaykh Asrar Rashid is trying to say. The principle of charitable interpretation (tawjih) seems to have been wholly absent in the supposedly stellar training of the critics. This is a sign of scholarly aptitude and knowledge rather than an ability to pick faults with statements.

    Nasha pila ke girana to sab ko aata hai
    Mazah to tab he ke girton ko thaam le saaqi!


    Spiking their drinks and knocking them drunk is easy work
    True ecstasy is in providing a helping hand to the flailing drunks, winekeeper!

    Even my choice of word 'excuses' betrays the true intent of the skill. Instead of considering a meaning that would allow for Shaykh Asrar Rashid's statement to be true and compatible in lieu of all that he has said before and holds to be true himself (even though he may not have worded it the best), these amatuer literalists still insist for a public retraction and repentance based upon an ambiguity and dismiss all subsequent clarifications.

    As I had mentioned before, we could hold these individuals and their scholars according to the measure of their own grandiose titles. Likewise, one can easily hold another mirror to their faces. This would be to subject their own innocuous statements and speeches to the most awkwardly pedantic and hypercritical standards. In reality, this is atrocious decorum (su' al-adab) with scholars and knowledge. I could present examples from our classical heritage to demonstrate this. After all, these individuals betray all their talk of respect and veneration outside of their own cliques.

    The first thing that comes to mind for the polemical Khariji-Barelwi mind is to try and crucify Shaykh Asrar Rashid or engage in a smear campaign against him. This is because they do not know anything else and are products of a toxic culture themselves. Do not be fooled into thinking that the spreading of the "Milk of Magnesia'' rumour was anything less than an attempt at character assasination by those who have had long-standing grudge matches against Shaykh Asrar Rashid. We are all aware of the failed testimony provided by Mawlana Shahid Ali's allegedly trustworthy sources. Shaykh Asrar Rashid is not the first nor will he be the last in this firing line. Anyone who poses a threat to their backwards way of thinking is an Other; an enemy to be suspected, blacklisted and cancelled.

    The above is what distinguishes the etiquette and mannerisms of people of knowledge and foresight from fakes. Mawlana Abu Hasan has mentioned that he disagrees with Shaykh Asrar Rashid on issues. I do too, and I am sure others do as well. However, navigating disagreement and understanding priorities, the weight of issues etc. is a mark of wisdom and common-sense tact. Do you see Mawlana Abu Hasan behave like a wanton Khariji-Barelwi polemicist? Not at all. Does he fan the flames of unnecessary discord on the pretext of ambiguities or unfounded allegations? No. This is the sign of a true scholar.

    Imam Ahmad Raza Khan, with his saintly prescience, writes regarding these very parochial people: “We talk of unity amongst the scholars but the ‘Market of Envy’ is thriving. If there are even slight murmurs that someone is gaining popularity then these “paragons of truth” will rush to oppose him. They will side with deviants in insulting him and cursing him, and they'll say—“What?! People are honouring him and not us!” Now you tell me, this group who cannot even recognise the talented from amongst their own; how on earth will they hone the weak and deficient from them thereby making them capable and complete?” See al-Fatawa al-Rizwiyyah.

    Ah! These words are like music to my ears. These people have hardly ever read Imam Ahmad Raza Khan despite their acclaim. All they know of AlaHazrat is from the same lacklustre and bog-standard speeches which they hear every year. The same pomp, emotional rhetoric and so on without real substantive engagement with his work. All of a sudden, they become experts on AlaHazrat and his scholastic approach and claim a monopoly over him; simply because they may even be disciples in his Sufi chain. They only know of a smoky 'image' and a chimera of Imam Ahmad Raza Khan. To understand a scholar, you must engage with him by reading his works in depth, his contemporaries, forebears and the wider tradition that he is situated in; understanding his contexts and subtexts, analysing them and diving deep inside the ocean of knowledge that he brings.

    If Imam Ahmad Raza Khan was alive, I am certain that he would lament the Barelwi situation and distance himself from these types. He would declare himself free from them but knowing how these Khariji types work, they would have already cancelled him before he got a chance.

    I am reminded of what Imam al-Subki writes in the Tabaqat which I shall adapt for our purposes:

    “There is extremism amongst them which is not present in others. It is that they permit lying if done to support their own group and lying against those who do not. They believe that only they are true Muslims and only they are the true Ahl al-Sunnah. If you counted the number of their scholars - and there is no real scholar in their ranks anyways - then they would not reach a number that can be taken seriously by any measure. They brandish scholars of the Ummah as heretics or lukewarm Sunnis. They attribute themselves to Imam X but he is free from them.”

    Imam al-Subki was speaking of the anthropomorphists from amongst the Hanbalis but his description is not far-off from some camps amongst Sunnis.

    He continues and says, “I saw this in the writing of Taqi al-Din ibn Salah that Allah has trialled two Imams by their followers:

    1. Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal - who has been tested by the Mujassimah;
    2. Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq - who has been tested by the Rafidah

    I add:

    3. Imam Ahmad Raza Khan - who has been tested by Khariji-Barelwis and the like.

    Whether people like it or not, Shaykh Asrar Rashid is an outspoken representative of Barelwis in the UK and in the Anglosphere at large. This is despite Shaykh Asrar Rashid not calling himself a 'Barelwi'. Does it even matter, when for all intents and purposes, Shaykh Asrar Rashid has resuscitated a largely failing community that has been stuck in the stronghold of Pirs, ignorance and the Mawlid/'Urs circuits since the 60’s? Maybe this is what irks them - that it is a ‘Non-Barelwi’ who has done the most service for ‘Barelwism’ whilst they have been busy proudly championing ‘Barelwism’ merely by and in name.

    These hyper-literalists assume that raising the word of Barelwism (i’yla-e barelwiyyat) means raising the literal word ‘Barelwi’. They spend their time and expend all their energy talking about the ‘Barelwi’ moniker rather than actually being one. How much have they propagated and worked on the actual works of Imam Ahmad Raza Khan? They use the label as a skin hiding a lifeless corpse lying underneath.

    If you want to be a Barelwi then forget ‘calling’ yourself one and engaging in identity politics - be one by educating yourself, learning and teaching sacred knowledge, authoring useful works and continuing the masterful legacies of the scholars of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jama’ah, from the east and the west. Make Barelwis known for scholarship like their opponents are known for.

    ‘al-Ibrah bi’l Maqasid wa al-Ma’ani wa laysat bi l-Alfadh wa l-Ma’bani’.

    What is important are the aims and meanings, not words and forms.

    Nevermind Barelwis, people of different denominational backgrounds and persuasions recognise Shaykh Asrar Rashid as a voice of reason and representative of the Barelwi community.

    'al-fadl ma shahidat bihi l-a'da'u'.

    Real acclaim is when even the enemy testifies for you.

    This is why Shaykh Asrar Rashid is invited to panels and podcasts to represent the traditional Sunni Ash'ari-Sufi paradigm. On many facets, especially on a public intellectual front, Shaykh Asrar Rashid has done great service for the Sunni Barelwi community. Note: You do not have many such individuals, and beggars can’t be choosers. Are Mawlana Shahid Ali, Mufti Zahid Hussain al-Ridawi and the other Muftis mentioned in this drama who are based in the UK and the Anglosphere recognised on such a scale? With all of Shaykh Asrar Rashid's shortcomings, would you even want Mawlana Shahid Ali and his allies to represent Sunni Muslims? I surely would not.

    Is the reward for all of Shaykh Asrar Rashid’s hard work in trying to elevate Sunni discourse and edifying the masses, representing the Barelwi community and giving them a 'face' that is worthy or being shown that he be baselessly called a Sulh-Kulli and a Non-Sunni? Is that what any Muslim deserves let alone a Sunni scholar?

    Why is it that these detractors in the shadows are undermining Sunni individuals but are yet to openly voice a declaration of their deviance by name? Is it because they fear that names will then be finally assigned amongst cowboys, so instead they grovel in the shadows? Mawlana Shahid Ali is a pawn in this circus; a sacrificial lamb, and by the time he realised it, a cheap-cut mutton curry was brought to a simmer and served up as langar to the gullible Sunni masses.

    Sowing the seeds of discord and conflict are hobbies for these folk. This is their fuel. They thrive off it just as a parasite feeds off its host. A true Hujjah al-Islam, one upon whom the title fits right, Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali says in Bidayat al-Hidayah:

    “Because they are just waiting for adversity to befall you, wallowing in jealousy. They shall hack you with their misgivings. [...] They will not aid you when you stumble nor forgive you your missteps. They won’t hide your faults and call into account every big or small thing. They will be envious of everything, whether a little or a lot. They will provoke other brothers to censure you. They will attribute far-fetched things to you and slander you.” [taken from the RidawiPress]

    Could Shaykh Asrar Rashid have answered in a more clear manner? Yes. Was his answer perfect and detailed? No. Did it warrant the blowback that it has received years later? No. Did the smear campaign by Muftis internal to Barelwis stop after clarifications? No. Have allegations within the campaign even been established? No. Does the answer of Shaykh Asrar Rashid make him a Sulh-Kulli or a promoter thereof? No.

    Shaykh Asrar Rashid was on TV. He is not speaking directly to the questioner but a larger audience that is not restricted to just him. Thus, we can surmise that Shaykh Asrar Rashid was mindful of the wider audience and saw it fit to provide an answer that functions as a heuristic ie. something that is applicable in other contexts. Shaykh Asrar Rashid prefaced his answer by dividing the Ummah into three groups. Al-Allamah Sayyid Ahmad Saeed al-Kazmi also outlined this three-fold categorisation. The answer is not incorrect but perhaps Shaykh Asrar Rashid should have been mindful that people within the Barelwi community are preying to find any ambiguity to lynch him on a heresy tree - they only appreciate simplistic and homogenous answers.

    These folks have been around for some time and have been a thorn in the sides of Sunni scholars for several decades. They masquerade as our own but work to undermine the Ahl al-Sunnah in the long-run.

    The khalifah of AlaHazrat, known as ‘Muhaddith-e A’zam-e Hind’, Mufti Sayyid Muhammad al-Ashrafi al-Kichawchawi sent a question regarding one such person to Sadr al-Shari’ah, Mufti Amjad Ali al-Azmi:

    “Question: Zayd calls sincere Sunni organisations who work to aid the religion and raise the banner of the Ahl al-Sunnah as ‘Nadwis’ [aka Sulh-Kullis] and tries to poison the minds of Sunni Muslims against these organisations.

    The very same Zayd has already falsely labelled honourable scholars as ‘soft/lenient’, ‘slippery’ and even accused them of being members of the ‘Muslim league’ in an attempt to turn the Sunni Muslims against them. He is yet to show any signs of stopping this behaviour. What is the legal ruling on his modus operandi?

    Answer: What Zayd is doing is completely impermissible and forbidden.” See Fatawa Amjadiyyah.

    It seems as if Mufti Sayyid Muhammad al-Ashrafi al-Kichawchawi was alive in our times and writing against the Khariji-Barelwi ilk who nitpick against Sunni scholars and movements unjustly.
     
  17. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    Some people might think the madkhalis are soft on Mawlid and Sufis and getting some common sense now. It may seem so to a lot of us, however it's only an incidental benefit to us Sunnis coz they're working towards a bigger agenda of massaging the egos of their puppet masters, so they can't pull the bid3ah card on us anymore if they're actively promoting valentine's day and halloween

    It's very tragicomic that they've proscribed the tablighis as qutubis. these are guys who loved to lick the boots of the wahabis, and this is what they got rewarded with. i think that dhobi ka kutta proverb should be officially changed to 'maslak ka devbandi'
     
    Alf likes this.
  18. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    that's what, conservatively speaking - 80% of the desi Urdu/Punjabi speaking Muslim? in effect, a neutral, for all practical intents and purposes. for the aam aadmi, a "Barelvi" is someone who puts a chadar on a dargah and DOES listen to qawwalis. and a "deobandi" is someone who doesn't do teeja, chaliswan, etc. that's IN the subcontinent

    outside the subcontinent, it'll be even more murky.

    correct me if i sound wrong.

    i'm not teaching anyone to suck eggs, but this is similar to the typical SaaS-bahu problem in every home. even the wahabis have the good and bad wahabis and some of their common folk are confused about who the real torchbearers are of maslake ibn taymiyyah or iaw

    the madkhalis are the typical bhakts of the khaleeji governments, as well as the sulah kullis of their manhaj - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madkhalism

    the qutubis are the reformists and the revolutionaries. at one point in time, the wahabis promoted qutub and even gave an award to mawdudi - now they're the black sheep of wahabism and the punching bag and the boogeyman who are the declared kharji deviants by kharji deviants (yup this is similar to when you go to agra pagalkhana and madmen point a finger at their comrades and call them madmen!) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutbism

    the sahwis are in a way similar to the qutubis, but they don't actively function as activists, rather their dissent is limited only to intellectual discussions in the drawing rooms (as far as i understand) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahwa_movement

    the jihadists are the typical isis and al-qaeda types, proscribed worldwide by all Muslims, who believe that fiqh rules and regulations can go take a hike, they just need to pick up arms and shoot blindly - this is a sort of a post-qutub qutubism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_jihadism

    the madkhalis and qutubis use the other's eponym in a very pejorative manner, and are known for kicking each other off of the maslak and the manhaj, just as we do in sweet home UP

    so yeah, it's a universal problem in every group. after a certain passage of time, conflicting people will appear who will claim to be on the right path of the said group
     
    Unbeknown likes this.
  19. Waqar786

    Waqar786 Veteran

    Surely, Imam Shahid should be considering his position at the JTI affiliated masjid he is the Imam of. By inviting Syed Irfan Shah to their annual Mawlid, after learning about the fatwa on them, Syed Ahsan Shah have indicated the fatwa placed on Shah Sahib was incorrect.

    Why has Imam Shahid not refuted this? This has happened on their watch. Surely, Imam Sahib is indirectly being paid by someone who by his standards is a 'sullah kulli'.
     
    Ghulam Ali, AbdalQadir and Sunni Jaag like this.
  20. Waqar786

    Waqar786 Veteran

    Just a little side note to this discussion. Imam Shahid Ali's attitude towards this issue with Shaykh Asrar is very similar to how most of the ulema dealt with the Jalali Sahib issue. Every attempt at clarification was met with derision and a 'contradiction' was pointed out. Nothing less than repentance and an apology would do. No interest in understanding what the mutakallim meant. If I remember correctly, it was Imam Shahid and his teacher who intimated this incorrect treatment of Jalali Sahib. What has changed now?

    Tomorrow when someone brings up an issue about Imam Shahid, which in this day and age is an occupational hazard for a public speaker. We will not listen to any clarifications or an attempt to contextualize the issue. We will expect a public apology and repentance. Imam Shahid may even claim that he would not hesitate to do so but it's a different ball game when you are put in that position.
     
    AbdalQadir likes this.

Share This Page