Shahid Ali continues public spat with Shaykh Asrar

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

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Ibrahim

    Ibrahim New Member

    So is it okay for Shaykh Asrar to take digs at scholars on facebook and on Lives about fiqh issues? For example Mufti Zahid's opinion on moonsighting and hand sanitizer?

    Is the rule "as long as I don't say the name it is okay [even though everyone knows the context]?"

    The reality is that Sh Asrar is always taking shots at other Muslims but gets a pass because it is the way of a "Lion".

    He publicly embarassed that boxer Amer Khan and randomly said that he had a glass jaw and people jubilated over it but is that not speaking against the hurma of a Muslim?
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2021
    Mubashar Luqman likes this.
  2. Surati

    Surati Well-Known Member

    This whole saga: What an excellent demonstration of good manners from our seniors and Ulama! We should all follow their lead…

    ————
    It really shows how much some of the Aalim courses are focused on adab…
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2021
    Adham12 likes this.
  3. Juwayni

    Juwayni Veteran

    I did not contact Mufti Zahid Hussein Sahib because I have not made any public claims or accusations about him.

    The point is that if someone is going to accuse a scholar and spread it to others, then they must ensure that the information transmitted is reliable.

    Look at the uproar this has all caused. So many sunnis are becoming more and more disillusioned with the state of affairs. All of this fitna could been avoided with a simple phone call. Its not about if we like the opposite party or not, unity of the Ahlus Sunnah comes above our feelings.

    How much more fitna do we need amongst Sunnis before we can have an open and frank discussion?

    This type of behavior is the very spark that drives droves of awaam into the arms of doubtful personalities.

    Mawlana Asrar didn't bolster sullah kulliyat, this shadow character assassination style of social (mis)interaction did.

    A prominent Sunni Sayyid Aalim once told his murid who asked the shaykh whether he had an issue with Huzoor Tajush Shariah:

    I have no issue with him. You dont recite a kalimah of me and you dont recite a kalimah of Tajush Shariah. You recite the kalimah of Islam.

    The murid said: Hazrat, does that mean its about the principles and not (these) personalities?

    To which the Shaykh said: yes!
     
    Abdullah Ahmed likes this.
  4. IslamIsTheTruth

    IslamIsTheTruth Well-Known Member

    Why don't you contact Mufti Zahid and ask him?
     
  5. IslamIsTheTruth

    IslamIsTheTruth Well-Known Member

    Sheikh Asrar was quite critical of Mufti Zahid Hussain's view regarding hand sanitizers that contained alcohol. He (SA) was rather brash.
    There is obviously some tension between both parties.
    The funny thing is that Sheikh Asrar has himself said that we shouldn't attack those 'ridawis' who prefer to exercise caution and follow certain fatawa from Bareili sharif.
     
  6. Juwayni

    Juwayni Veteran

    On that note, it would be beneficial if Mufti Zahid Ṣaḥib could clarify the following:
    • Was any attempt made to ascertain the facts of the situation with Shaykh Asrar himself, and if not is there a reason why?
    • Is Shaykh Asrar Rashid a Sunni, and if so, is he an ʿĀlim?
     
  7. barelwi

    barelwi New Member

    Based on the video itself as well as some of the quotes in this post, it seems as though there is something going on behind the scenes between sh. Asrar and Mufti Zahid Hussain.

    It further seems as though there are some underhanded tactics being used, in particular, this point:

    although the potential sources of discrepancy seem to be incorrect. Barring a case of misunderstanding between the two scholars, (a) can be the source of discrepancy, but is not to blame for the public allegation.

    If the witness provided the information to Mufti Zahid Hussain and Hafiz Shakeel, then it was their duty to verify or assess whether the witness is reliable.
    • If he was, then he would not have turned back on his word
    • If he wasn't, then the information should not have been passed on.
    The further possibility is that the witness was not reliable and Mawlana Shahid was informed of this but still chose to go ahead with the allegation.

    Thus, we should be questioning (a) Mufti Zahid and Hafiz Shakeel, or (b) Mawlana Shahid as to where this issue came about.

    I don't think a witness who turned out to be unreliable can be blamed for having his information used publicly, and that responsibility should lie with the scholars.

    Perhaps I will be proven wrong but it definitely seems as though there is more to this situation than meets the eye.
     
  8. Ashrafi1

    Ashrafi1 New Member

    Mufti Zahid Sahib mentioned on his Facebook regarding whether he was of the opinion Dawate Islami were out of Ahlus Sunnah (he said he did not hold that view). In that post he mentioned some important points, and I quote [in blue]:

    "Allow me to remind you what the hukm is of disrespecting an Aalim-e-Deen of such calibre upon which every book of Islamic Law unanimously agrees,

    “He who disrespects an Aalim has committed kufr”."

    and

    "I thank Sarfaraz for calling me and asking me rather than just believing what one accused me of.

    It is a shame that a Scholar accused me of this and it is a shame if the Scholars present accepted it without seeking any evidence."

    and

    I stress this to all the people I associate with but tahqeeq in order to reach the correct opinion and to refute the wrong opinion with adab is essential and has been unanimously the way of our pious predecessors (I have added an example below for your benefit on the issue of photography and videos). [emphasis mine]

    We can only hope one day that Shaykh Asrar is extended said adab.

    If Mawlana Shahid feels that Mufti Zahid is a reliable scholar than he should heed his advice above. The full facts were not presented to the Muftis mentioned previously. Mis-istifta-ing and then publishing a fatwa that essentially accuses Shaykh Asrar of deviance and sullah kulliyat was not the responsible thing to do.

    Moreover, it is quite concerning that Mufti Zahid Sahib (who was once the subject of a mislabelling regarding Dawate Islami) provided testimony that contained severe irregularities and that too concerning the matter of a scholar's creedal uprightness.

    ---

    It is one thing to discuss the alleged act/deception of one individual. However what is more concerning is not that thousands of people will drink poison, but rather how they might spread poison.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2021
  9. Ghaus Muhammad

    Ghaus Muhammad New Member

    The milk of magnesia issue seems to be a red herring. I don't think anyone has publically addressed the substance of Mawlana Shahid Ali's critique on Shaykh Asrar's drinking poison in response to the challenge from the Christians.

    Shaykh Asrar and his students cite the example of Khalid bin Waleed, who also drank poison in response to a challenge from Christians. They mention that Shaykh Abdullah Sirajuddin authenticated this incident, but I doubt that he said it is ja'iz to follow Hazrat Khalid in that. On the other hand, both Imam Badruddin Ayni (Hanafi) and Imam Ibn Hajar (Shafi'i) explicitly say that Hazrat Khalid is not to be followed in this action.

    Maybe Shaykh Asrar was in a state of jazb when he did it, so maybe he is not at fault for that. However, even if he was in jazb, then why is this action being promoted? (The clip is still on Shaykh Asrar's official YouTube page.)

    If he wasn't in jazb, and simply did something haram, then again, why is this action being promoted?

    Alternately, is there a clear justification from our a'imma showing that Shaykh Asrar's action was at least ja'iz?

    I don't know if Mawlana Shahid has addressed this issue in the best way, but I don't understand why his objection hasn't been refuted. Even if he hadn't posted his video, others (other Sunnis or Deobandis) have criticised Shaykh Asrar along the same lines. They are using it to attack Shaykh Asrar's credibility, as well as the credibility of Sunni ulama more generally. It seems pertinent that the issue should be clarified.
     
  10. TheRidawiWay

    TheRidawiWay New Member

    I have been reading the answers by Shaykh Asrar Rashid on this forum in response to some of the questions posed to him. After watching Mawlana Shahid Ali’s two videos, a few things have come to the fore in regards to the debacle and other concerns in general.

    This is not a targeted or personal critique at anybody, but are important questions and issues that need to be reflected on and answered. I have only used information that is publicly available. Any questions and comments are welcome.

    Mawlana Shahid Ali cited Mufti Zahid Hussain al-Ridawi and Hafiz Shakeel as sources to support his claim that Shaykh Asrar Rashid consumed Milk of Magnesia, thereby alleging that Shaykh Asrar Rashid lied and engaged in a publicity stunt. Mawlana Shahid Ali says that a public retraction and apology is required for this.

    Considering the above:
    • Has Mawlana Shahid Ali asked Mufti Zahid Hussain al-Ridawi to sit down with Shaykh Asrar Rashid to discuss the issue?
    • Has Mufti Zahid Hussain al-Ridawi mentioned the Milk of Magnesia stunt to Shaykh Asrar Rashid himself?
    • If not, then since Mufti Zahid Hussain al-Ridawi saw this to be a condemnable issue that requires public retraction, why did he not contact Shaykh Asrar Rashid or warn the public himself?
    • Why did Mufti Zahid Hussain al-Ridawi feel the need to contact Mawlana Shahid Ali, a third party, to inform him of this?
    Other posters on this forum have mentioned that those in Preston have not been ‘fans’ of Shaykh Asrar Rashid for a long while.

    Is this why Mufti Zahid Hussain al-Ridawi saw the need to mention a largely irrelevant matter which occurred almost two years ago, to Mawlana Shahid Ali, adding further fuel to the fire?

    As for what transpired in the meeting with Shaykh Asrar Rashid, Mufti Aslam Bandyalwi, Mawlana Naveed Jameel, Ustadh Danyaal and others, then why did the witness cited by Mufti Zahid Hussain al-Ridawi and Hafiz Shakeel deny his testimony?

    If the witness actually denied his testimony, then there is a major discrepancy for the allegation either by (a) the witness, (b) Hafiz Shakeel and Mufti Zahid Hussain al-Ridawi, or (c) Mawlana Shahid Ali. Which party shall be held accountable for transmitting unverified information which has caused insinuations to be levied not upon any ordinary person, but upon a Sunni Shaykh, and that too, one that attacks his integrity?

    Is a public retraction not binding upon Mawlana Shahid Ali for insinuating something against Shaykh Asrar Rashid that has not been corroborated by the witness?

    Is the witness even an upright person whose testimony can be accepted according to Maslak-e AlaHazrat? If the person who organised the debate allows photography and videos, would his testimony be acceptable? Would this not fall under the verse in Surah al-Hujurat: “O you who have believed, if a transgressor comes to you with information then clarify it less you harm a people due to ignorance, and become over what you have done, regretful.”

    Shaykh Asrar Rashid in his Q/A thread on Sunniport has said that “Bilal did not divulge the name of the person who lied by saying he rang the organiser of the Manchester debate. When Mufti Aslam and Mawlana Naveed rang the organiser he said the person had not rang him, it was untrue.” Shaykh Asrar Rashid concludes, “This person, a fitna monger, misled Shahid with a false claim and then later lied by saying he had rang the organiser who had told him.”

    In summary:
    • Person X informed Mawlana Shahid Ali regarding the Milk of Magnesia allegation. Person X claims to have phoned the organiser of the debate.
    • In the meeting, Mawlana Naveed Jameel and Mufti Aslam Bandyalwi phoned the organiser of the debate.
    • The organiser informed Mawlana Naveed Jameel and Mufti Aslam Bandyalwi that Person X did not call him. It was untrue.
    • Shaykh Asrar thus concludes that Person X is “a fitnah monger who misled Shahid with a false claim and then later lied.”
    The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “It is enough for a man to prove himself a liar when he narrates whatever he hears.” Reference: Imam Muslim’s Sahih.

    What is the Hukm upon a person who transmits unverified claims against any Sunni Scholar and thus undermines his integrity?

    Shaykh Asrar Rashid has also mentioned in the forum that “Those Ulama and their students who slandered me on this and many other claims should face me and discuss my position face to face rather than using a front.” Shaykh Asrar Rashid said this in the context of his stance on Taqlid. However, it can be understood as a general comment on circulating rumours and casting aspersions.

    This further re-emphasises the point that people who engage in Chinese whispers in the shadows should speak to Shaykh Asrar Rashid directly or the public themselves rather than contacting third-parties like Mawlana Shahid Ali.
     
  11. AbdalQadir

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

    @Unbeknown @AR Ahmed @Khanah ok, i've heard brother Shahid's question again (wrt the fictitious mawlana in UK). transcribing here for now. will comment once i run into some time. jazakum Allahu khayra.

    more or less transcription sans salams, greetings etc.:

    ek aalime deen se sawal hua, kisi shakhs ne, saail ne kaha ke mere mahalle mein 3 masajid hain, ek Sunni ek deobandi aur ek Bengali. to hum kya karein hum kis taraf jayein? hum is masale mein pareshan hain.

    to mawlana sahab ne jawaban kaha la yukallifullahu nafsan illa wus3aha aap jo aam log hain aap mukallaf nahin is baat ke ke aap in mukhtalif girohon ke eteqadi aur ilmul kalam ke mutalliq jo mubahis aur ikhtilafat hain, in ka jaanna aap aam logon ke liye zaroori nahin.

    phir aage chalte inhone mawlana ne kuch fiqhi juziyye bayan kiye masalan ek imam ke peeche aap namaz padhte hain taareeki mein raat ke andhere mein aur aap ko pata nahin ke kis taraf uski matlab hai woh kis taraf mutawajjeh hai qible ki taraf us ka rukh hai ya kisi aur taraf to aap ki namaz ba har surat ho jayegi, kyunke aap jaante nahin.

    is hi tarah agar aap aise imam ke peeche namaz padhte hain jiske kapdon par dirham ki zyada miqdar ki najasat ho to aise imam ke peeche [incomprehensible] ke aap jaante nahin, to aap ki namaz aise imam ke peeche bhi ho jaati hai to ba har haal khulasae jawab yehi tha ke aap mukallaf nahin hain is baat ke ke aap in girohon ka, ke jo ikhtilafat hain, eteqadi aur ilmul kalam mein, aap, unka jaanna aap par lazim nahin hai, aap mukallaf hi nahin. lihaza aap ki namaz in jaise logon ke peeche, Sunni masjid ho, deobandi masjid, Bengali masjid, jo bhi ho, inke peeche aap ki namaz ho jayegi, kyunke la yukallifullahu nafsan illaa wus3aha.

    to mein ne is hi mawlana sahab se in hi se mein ne wazahat talab ki, mein ne in se poocha ke aap ki kya murad thi ke yeh jo eteqadi ikhtilafat hain to awam jin baaton ki mukallaf nahin to aap wazahat farmayein.

    wazahat mein inhone kaha ke imkane kadhib ka masala, pehli baat - iska jaanna awam ke liye zaroori nahin. doosri baat yeh ke deobandiyon ke jo akabir hain, unki gustakhana ibarton ka jaanna bhi zaroori nahin awam ke liye. aur phir teesri baat iske saath yeh bhi kaha ke bohot saare deobandi imam aise bhi hote hain yahan uk mein jo kufriya ibaraat ko jaante hi nahin. to yeh unki wazahat thi, yeh teen niqat mazeed inhone apni wazahat mein pesh kiye.

    to mufti sahab aap se yeh sawal hai ke aisa bayan dena aur aisi rehnumai farmana awam ki, kya yeh ... Shariat mein iski kya haysiyat hai? jabke awam ko yeh batana hai ... inhone awam ko yeh bataya hai ke aap mukallaf hi nahin is baat ke ke aap in mukhtalif girohon ke ikhtilafat jaanein aur aap ki namaz inke peeche ho bhi jaati hai kyunke aap mukallaf hi nahin aap awam hain. to ba har haal aap is silsila mein aap irshad farmayein.
     
    Ghulam Ali and Unbeknown like this.
  12. TheRidawiWay

    TheRidawiWay New Member

    Al-Salamu ‘Alaykum
    I have a series of questions for Mawlana Shahid Ali and his supporters behind-the-scenes:

    1. Why did Mawlana Shahid Ali say that he will resort to consulting matters privately in the future yet renege upon this in a matter of weeks?

    2. Why did Mawlana Shahid Ali not reference or engage the answers provided by Shaykh Asrar Rashid on Sunniport?

    3. If Mawlana Shahid Ali was left dissatisfied despite the arbitrated meeting and clarification, then why did Mawlana Shahid Ali not solicit a Fatwa from his own teacher, who was present in the previous meeting where both parties were present, namely Mufti Aslam Bandyalwi, regarding Shaykh Asrar Rashid?

    4. Why did Mawlana Shahid Ali not solicit a Fatwa from his own teacher, and the brother of the aforementioned Mufti Aslam Bandyalwi, namely Mufti Fazal Bandyalwi, regarding Shaykh Asrar Rashid?

    5. Posters on this forum have mentioned that the Muftis consulted by Mawlana Shahid Ali are all foreign.

    a. Why did Mawlana Shahid Ali not solicit a Fatwa from Mawlana Naveed Jameel, who was also present in the previous meeting where both parties were present, regarding Shaykh Asrar Rashid?

    b. Why did Mawlana Shahid Ali not solicit a Fatwa from Mufti Zahid Hussain al-Ridawi of Preston, who studied in Bareilly and is referenced in his video as the source for his Milk of Magnesia allegation, regarding Shaykh Asrar Rashid?​

    Mawlana Shahid Ali is in contact with both of them and they are native scholars of the UK who understand the ‘Urf and contexts better.
     
  13. Ibrahim

    Ibrahim New Member

    Many Alahazrat followers in Bangladesh feel like fultulis are Gumrah
     
  14. sherkhan

    sherkhan Veteran

    Brick Lane masjid (and Darul Hadith Latifia in the same borough) is affiliated to Fultali group, which I understand is among the very few sunni groups in Bangladesh. Fultalis are closer to Barelwi school than Deobandi, although they are very lax in making distinctions. Shadwell mosque (not very far from Brick Lane masjid) is another sunni masjid in Tower Hamlet (London); but lately it has been under the threat of being infiltrated by tablighi jamat. Besides Fultalis, I know of only one other sunni organisation in Sylhet.

    Most bangladeshis are either tablighi or deobandi or salafi, largely due to aggressive outreach of these groups in recent years. The annual tablighi ijtema in Bangladesh is one the largest gatherings in the world (Raiwind pales in comparison). My sense is that unlike in India and Pakistan, sunni organisations in Bangladesh haven't been successful in resisting the wahabi encroachment. Dawat-e-Islami has been gaining some traction lately in Bangladesh. All in all, sunnis are minorities in Bangladesh.
     
  15. Waqar786

    Waqar786 Veteran

    Unless Shaykh Asrar responds, it feels like this thread has run its natural course.
     
  16. Shadman

    Shadman Active Member

    I am New York born "Bengali" btw. We have petty disputes between Sylhetis and non Sylhetis. Depending on the region, some follow the maslak of 'Ala Hazrat, some follow maslak of Fultoli, others follow ahle hadith, etc.
     
  17. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    in sh.asrar's clip the host says it thus "i am not sure which maslak they follow and many pakistanis also go to the masjid." so in context, he is talking of pakistani/indian barelwi masjid; pak/ind deo masjid; bangladeshi masjid.

    also bangladeshis do not like to be called as 'bengalis' which is a term they use for either hindus or indian side of the ethnic divide (i.e. west bengal).
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2021
  18. shahnawazgm

    shahnawazgm Veteran

    When I worked in London I used to do jumma in Brick Lane Masjid run by Bangladeshis (it used to be a synagogue at one point in time). They even used to do Ala Hazrats Salaam (in broken urdu) on occasions (not after every jumma but specific occasions). They even did a Bengali version of Ya Nabi Salaam Alayka.

    And then there was East London mosque again close to Brick Lane mosque run by wahabis. I don't know why they consider Bengalis a separate sect in that video!
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2021
    Ahmet Tayfur likes this.
  19. AbdalQadir

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

    Before moving any further, why doesn't anyone seem to ask if Bengalis are a separate sect or not? :) What kind of an apple and orange comparison is it between a sect and ethnicity? Or is that the Pakistani bias at play here? Sorry, had to point it out. It's been bothering me since the op.
     
  20. Shadman

    Shadman Active Member

    Brother please forgive me if this come off wrongly but Shahid Ali didn't propose the scenario you stated to the three muftis. He used the term common person rather than sunnis. So how would we define a "common person"? By the way the question was presented, the Muftis had a preconceived notion of what a "common person" meant.

    I too think we are being unreasonably critical on the three Muftis in this scenario because Shahid Ali deceptively left off the previous statement of Shaykh Asrar's 3 categories.

    Going back to the original question, if there is a Sunni Masjid, a Deobandi Masjid, and a Bengali masjid which one should should we go to? This question doesn't make any logical sense because if a person was able at minimum categorize the masjid as "Sunni", "Deobandi", and "Bengali" then he is aware to some degree of the theological differences. Such person therefore doesn't fall into Shaykh Asrar's first category. Someone in category one wouldn't even be able to distinguish these differences in the first place.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2021
    Unbeknown likes this.

Share This Page