Shahid Ali continues public spat with Shaykh Asrar

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

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    lol you seem to have scorched your palms at the same fireplace as myself.

    let's work it out from the other end:

    1. Which madhhab says that common people can be given a carte blanche permission to go to any masjid of their choosing - all year round - and should not even be tasked with knowing the differences between the different firaq that infest ther locality?
    2. If there is such a madhhab - does it include shia, rawafid, ahbash etc. in the ambit of their permission or does it exclude some?
    3. If it does, what criteria does it use for this exclusion? If we are to exempt people from learning about certain kinds of deviances while obligating them to learn about others - based on the "complexity " of the issue or the "incompetence" of the laymen - what are the bases for this? I mean objective standards.
    4. Knowing the effects of company on people's psyche, how does the said madhab prevent people from being indoctrinated with deviant ideas?
    5. Is there any historical community where people intermingled with deviants at mosques and yet were successfully able to preserve their congregation from going astray?
    6. How does this madhhab reply to the vast heresiological literature which is replete with dire warnings against mingling with, honoring and befriending deviants?
    7. How can all these things mentioned in point#6 be prevented if people are allowed to visit deviants all year round?
    8. If a proponent of this madhhab is labelled sulh kull by muftis of another madhhab - does the latter group of muftis deserve scorn and censure for following their own madhhab?
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2021
    Abdullah Ahmed likes this.
  2. AR Ahmed

    AR Ahmed Veteran

    A'lahazrat in one place mentions being believing a Najdi imam to be qabil-i-imamat which neither Arab ulama nor Shaykh Asrar fulfill nor does this fictitious "Mawlana" Zayd" do.

    A'lahazrat قدس الله سره states:

    جب صور ت ایسی ہو تو مسلمانوں پر فرض ہے کہ کسی مسلمان صالح امامت کو اپنا امام مقرر کریں اس کے پیچھے جمعہ و عیدین پڑھیں ، جمعہ قائم کرنے کے لئے اگر کوئی مسجد بنائیں تو اذن عام مسلمین واشتہار کے ساتھ کسی میدان خواہ مکان میں پڑھیں اور اگر اس پر قدرت نہ ہو اور سب مساجد کے امام دیوبندی یا وہابی یا غیرمقلد یا نیچری یا مرزائی وغیر ہم مرتدین ہیں تو فرض ہے کہ ظہر تنہا تنھا پڑھیں ان لوگوں کے پیچھے نماز باطل محض ہے جیسے کسی بت پرست یا آریہ کے پیچھے یہ ترکِ جمعہ نہ ہوا کہ وہ جو پڑھ رہے ہیں لغو و باطل حرکت ہے نمازہی نہیں، اور ان کی اقتداء بوجوہ حرام قطعی ہے بلکہ ان کے عقائد پر مطلع ہو کر پھر بھی انھیں قابل امامت جانے تو کافر ہوجائے
  3. AbdalQadir

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

    yes, let us talk about this fictitious mawlana Zayd that brother Shahid Ali described in his verbal istifta and the rulings issued

    based on the question presented and the answers given, were the muftis justified in labelling the fictitious mawlana as sulah kulli?

    does the objectivity required by fiqh and tafaqquh mandate that they just issue the ruling (haram, makruh tahrimi, etc.) based on their interpretation of fiqh (knowing full well that there are other SUNNI scholars who rule otherwise too) and stop at that? or that they also second guess this person being a muharrif on the meanings of the Quran, a closet deobandi, dall-mudill, and sulah kulli on batil 3aqidah unfit for leading salah?

    giving the ruling would have served the purpose of stating their position to their congregation or the questioner.

    i'm 99.99% sure that despite their sincerity and goodness, if anyone like me (a common person, not saying with hubris) was to speak to any of these muftis and tell them (indirectly, with adab) that they went overboard in their answer and was to present some more facts, situations, circumstances, ground realities, rulings of other SUNNI scholars, etc. and suggest that perhaps they should have just stopped at the hukme Shariat on the question and stuck to the point, we'd straight away be frowned at and given responses like 'i'm the mufti, not you'... or 'if you know so much, you issue a separate ruling. i responded to the questioner as i saw fit' ... or 'i agree that you're well-read, but 2-4 kitabein padh lene ka yeh matlab nahin hai aap ulama pe tanqid shuru kar dein' ... or 'ulama yeh sari baatein aap se behtar samajhte hain'... all with the attitude that we're common peasants and present day ulama can't be cross questioned or sought clarifications from - even nicely, with adab, to either clarify the matter in interests of Sunnis and Sunniyat or to learn more

    i say this from experience, my own as well as witnessing first hand such comments at others. those interested can try it out themselves!

    again, we're talking about this fictitious mawlana in the istifta, we're not talking about Shaykh Asrar.
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2021
  4. AR Ahmed

    AR Ahmed Veteran

    As a note, I do tend to stick to the opinion of salah behind them (Wahabis/Deobandis) as being impermissible/baatil but still....
    Unbeknown likes this.
  5. AR Ahmed

    AR Ahmed Veteran

    note also what i said at the end brother -

    My point is not to say you're wrong - just to say there might some difference between/within the madhahib depending on where you go. I do tend to stick to the opinion of salah behind them being impermissible but still....
  6. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    We are going off on a tangent. We are not talking about sh..asrar here.

    We are talking about a hypothetical mawlana zayd who says that sunnis can go to any mosque they like and need not even learn the aqida differences between Sunni and Deviants.

    What is your ruling on this hypothetical mawlna zayd?

    I think we had better keep issues separate.
    1. Following a deviant Imam when there is no Sunni mosque around
    2. Following a deviant Imam when there are sunni congregations
    3. Going regularly to a deviant mosques and attending their durus/lectures while believing that it's not mandatory to know about their deviance

    bear in mind that we are not talking about sh. asrar - we are talking about a fictitious mawlana who promotes the last two points.
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2021
  7. AR Ahmed

    AR Ahmed Veteran

    brother, that's fine but that's all the mufti's "you've spoken to" - that doesn't discount the fact that there are those who hypothetically follow Shaykh al-Buti's opinion or Shaykh Abd alQadir Isa or Shaykh Sa'd al-Din Murad or Shaykh Samir al-Nass (from the Hanafis) or the Haba`ib or Shaykh Abu Bakr Ba Dhib or other Shafi`i muftis/ulama of Yemen and Shaam.

    My point is not to say you're wrong - just to say there might some difference between/within the madhahib depending on where you go. I do tend to stick to the opinion of salah behind them being impermissible but still....
    Unbeknown likes this.
  8. Khanah

    Khanah Well-Known Member

    Ok bro- let's assume all the shafi's in the world and all the hanafis in the world are in agreement and it is prohibitively disliked to pray behind a deviant. Let's assume Shaykh Buti's opinion didn't exist.

    Does that mean the one who prays behind him is sulh kulli or the one who considers that prayer as valid is sulh kulli? Since it would be an error in fiqh and not aqeedah- is he not to be considered sunni any more due to a fiqh error?
  9. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    sorry - you seem to be missing the point by a very large margin.

    I am a shafi'i - and every single shafi'i Mufti I have spoken to has prohibited me from praying behind devbandits/gumrahs.

    Infact, the shafi'i Imam of one of our local mosques was boycotted for keeping cordial relations with wahabis in the locality. He was asked to do public tawbah before he would be allowed to lead the prayers. After dragging his heels for a long time, he did do tawbah but unfortunately went back to his old ways within a few months. As per our madhhab, a fasiq Imam will be put on probation even AFTER he has done tawbah, to ascertain if he remains steadfast on it. So eventually a lot of people stopped going to the masjid - and it remained an unresolved dispute because he passed away during the pandemic.

    This was a SUNNI in aqeeda who was boycotted based on the advice of no less than 4-5 shafi'i mawlanas - three of whom were muftis (and two from Kerala, the shafi'i capital of India, so to speak). And why? Not because he was a wahabi - but just because he had dealings with them.

    So it's not as simple as you are making it out to be.

    It was shahid sahib's moral and shara'i responsibility to apprise the Muftis of the madhhab and the aqida of the "mawlana Zayd" about whom he questioned them.
    I am sure you can find fataawa in FR shareef where Alahazrat assumes that zayd is hanafi in maslak - even though the question omits the mention.

    Unfortunately, shahid sab seemed more interested in getting an adverse ruling than in a detailed istiftaa.

    Allah knows best.
  10. AbdalQadir

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

    that's the whole point. the esteemed muftis went overboard in answering about 'a person' (even in the way Shahid framed it). i'm personally not interested in Shahid Ali's fickle behavior and believe discussing it is a waste of time and energy (probably even for the UK folks). you could well refute Asrar Rashid with all guns blazing and earn a big hug from brother Shahid, and next day you might as well expect him to refute your refutation and say no it was all a moment of madness on his and your part and Asrar Rashid was right all along.

    answering about 'a person' Zayd, Bakr etc. should have been similar to the Arab shaykh's response @AR Ahmed posted in post # 14 -

    and only now have we learnt to gradually administer the antidote to that poison. they start off with the basics of deen and islahe mu3ashra (supposedly), and then systematically inject their poison against us, whom they affectionately call qabar pujaris or laddus or 3ood-daan

    for example, they have been speaking against dowry (dahej, from girls side) since at least early 80's. we only started talking about it now. of course we have Ala Hazrat who answered serious questions in his time but we are guilty of showing Ala Hazrat's greatness only by chants and not his works and methodology, and they have spread their heresies by the opposite.

    alhamdulillah we see things changing now gradually. yes many things need to be ironed out like our celebrity glamor naatkhwani culture for example, but still subcontinental Sunniyat is gaining some traction

    their being rightly labelled qabza group grabbing mosques and mosque properties is another issue. it is a separate aspect of their strategy to spread misguidance.

    i'm really not a proponent of blaming the enemy for playing his part. it goes against our "miyanbhai ki taang oonchi" culture but we need to look at our own faults, rather than keep on defining the enemy as the enemy.

    we should see the reasons why they succeeded and we failed; and what can we do to reverse that, and attack or ambush them - lethally so.

    i have seen (early 90s) enough mosque-going, practicing, common people in my locality in UP india (ostensibly tanatan Barelvis/Sunnis) who didn't know what the 4 madhhabs are - whose fault was that? the area is a "Barelvi" stronghold with good ulama with good connections to the ulama in Bareilly itself; any devbandi individual or group even thinking of trying a land grab at the local mosque or its waqf controlled properties would be served a solid dose of reality sandwich

    i've seen intra-Sunni, inter-city marriage proposals between respectable families in my UP city and Hyderabad - Hyderabadi side says "we're Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat, we do Milad, Fatiha and so on" and people from my city are deer in headlights and they had to consult internally what Ahle Sunnat wa Jamaat means. i kid you not.

    back then, and possibly even today, try asking Sunni common folk if Ala Hazrat was Ash3ari or Maturidi? these are all not due to the evil designs of the devbandis.

    ... and the place too. again, that could also be attributed to Shahid. maybe he might have implied that he's talking about someone from the subcontinent itself.

    ironically, this going overboard makes it look like the other extreme of being an insular group and the enemy doesn't hesitate seizing the opportunity, and then we have the task of defending Ala Hazrat and/or our muftis like those shown in the video. that can be avoided by just being objective in fiqh and tafaqquh.

    it will really help us be more on the offense rather than the defense

    Allah help Sunnis and Sunniyat
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2021
    Unbeknown likes this.
  11. shahnawazgm

    shahnawazgm Veteran

    I think Mawlana Shahid Ali wanted a tawba from Sh Asrar, as he had mentioned several times, and he won't stop at anything other than that!

    I believe he needs to realize that a verdict against a person being a gumrah badmazab cannot directly be given without seeking clarification of the statements concerned from the person first. As a matter of fact even Ala Hazrat and the ulema of his time had sought clarifications from the deobandi elders for their statements prior to issuing the fatwas of kufr and the various heresies. The tawba is required if the heresy is absolutely confirmed and if the individual does not make tawba then he will be deemed a heretic (the deobandi elders did not do tawba hence they were deemed kafirs).

    In this case we accept that a few points raised by Shahid Ali against Shaykh Asrar needed clarifications (none were heresies in the first place, for example drinking poison is not a heresy and doesn't take one out of the folds of ahle sunnat), and Shaykh Asrar has clarified those already. If there is no gumrahi then there is no need for a tawba, it should be as simple as that!

    What I do not understand is why has Shahid Ali Sahib brought this back into the limelight after he made that public apology. Did Sh Asrar's camp continue their attacks on him (I don't know what goes on on social media unfortunately so I may be unaware)? In any case it does not make sense that a person has apologised and then suddenly brings the very same topic back into the public domain. The least he could have done was to speak to Sh Asrar directly to sort out any further clarifications that he needed.
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2021
  12. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    unfortunately, a great many of imams and speakers etc in our day fall into the category the muftis have described. they are hesitant to talk about husam or the kufriyat of devbandis and due to their ignorance and inferiority complex, they will try to maintain a safe distance from alahazrat. which is a classic case of sulh.

    as unbeknown pointed out we have seen many such people.

    in this case - you and i know that sh. asrar is not a deo sympathiser; and that he is an outspoken critic of deos and other deviants. the muftis who spoke do not have this information. plus he concealed (or ignored or overlooked) the information of sh.asrar replying to pointed questions on this forum. i do not understand the mind of a person - who is agitated by a talk and wants clarification. when sh. asrar specifically said that he considers prayer behind mubtadiys as makruh tahrimi or batil, why keep chewing on the old grouse and ask a question about an older clip which was already clarified?

    according to shahid ali, sh.asrar is misguiding etc etc - so in public he was asked to clarify his stance, which he did. the question to shahid ali is if you find the following answers unconvincing what else should have sh. asrar done? what would be YOUR answer, so that correct stance is made clear and we can follow the haqq?

    about accusing sh. asrar of being a sulh-kulli:
    if shahid ali is so worried about sunniyat and is so eager to guide the world, let HIM first start by defining sulh-kulli.
    what is the definition of sulh-kulli? so we can avoid being one.

    Allah taala knows best.
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2021
    Unbeknown and Surati like this.
  13. Surati

    Surati Well-Known Member

    I’m starting to notice a pattern…

    My conclusion from observing his dealings is that people should not get involved with him.
  14. Khanah

    Khanah Well-Known Member

    Yes- so they should stick to talking about deobandis. No need to name shaykh Asrar as sulh kulli.

    Although shaykh asrar was not named in the question, I still don't think the way the question was put warranted an accusation of sulh kulli. If the question had been about any Zayd, I don't see why someone would say that such and such is deviant when he could just be taking from a different madhab, for example.
    hasan and AbdalQadir like this.
  15. AR Ahmed

    AR Ahmed Veteran

    br. Unbeknown, due respect but i have.....

    I made it clear i don't allow it and disagree with shaykh asrar's position but i don't call it sullahkulliya. i'm from the subcontinent fyi.
    Unbeknown likes this.
  16. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    Sulh kulli is someone who doesn't make his stance clear on a deviant group, even when asked.

    How on earth is Shaykh Asrar a sulh kulli?!

    He has refuted the following deviants and groups, by name:

    Tahir ul
    Nasr and The Study Quran
    Hamza Yusuf

    He's actually the one scholar of the UK who is very clear in his stance on deviance. If Asrar is sulh kulli, then name me a UK scholar who has named deviants as above? Name me one.

    Update: forget named, he's debated or challenged these deviants. No other aalim in the UK does it so openly.
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2021
  17. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    You do not seem to appreciate where these Muftis are coming from.

    Perhaps you would if you had seen more than 90% of your extended family pass into fanatic gumrahi over the years merely because of attending deviant mosques. And even more if almost your ethnic group had become champions of gumrahi for the same reason.

    Fiqh is not just reading books. One must know the times one lives in - this principle applies to everyone.

    Sadly, Sh. Asrar's talk was de-contextualized and his anti-devbandi stance was not explained. His loud and clear defence of Hussam was also ignored. His recent putting-down of the devbandit clown Uthman and his encounter with Devbandi students in South Africa and his categorical saying that he had found the rafidis and devbandis the most ignoble and underhanded of opponents was forgotten.

    In the absence of all this info, no Sunni Mufti who has lived among pre-dominantly urdu speaking people and witnessed first-hand the ravages of mosque take-overs and gradual poisining of people's minds will hesitate to give the ruling of Sulh-Kull.

    "And the people of the Subcont know Devbandits inside out".

    Allah knows best.
    IslamIsTheTruth likes this.
  18. AR Ahmed

    AR Ahmed Veteran

    mawlana Abu Hasan would be correct if they didn't start shooting around the word sullah kulli and tahrif without tahqiq. Remember that A'lahazrat رحمة الله عليه said it is not allowed to do nisbah of any sin let alone kufr to a muslim without tahqiq (Fatawa Ridawiyya Sharif)

    One of hese 'muftis'- Mawlana Aslam Rida (whom i contacted) admits that their words were used for 'pangabazi' and that they are "bari" from taking out mistakes of others' but refuse to admit that their answer had any wrongdoing in it.
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2021
  19. Ashrafi1

    Ashrafi1 New Member

    Mufti Zahid Hussein Qadri Azhari said at 4:30:

    Many wahhabis are such that they don't know anything (jaahil hotey hain). If his misguidance hadn't reached kufr and somebody knew him ke woh sunniyon mein bhi chaley jhata wahan bhi chaley jhata and he didn't know of the kufriyyat, he didn't know, then in that case because he was completely jaahil - he had no idea about it, then if a person prays his janazah then we won't say he's become a kaafir, we will say has done wrong and he should do tawbah. So that's the answer to that question.

    Questioner asks: agar koi qabrestan main parhey toh bhi najaiz hain?

    Whether its in the wahhabi masjid - just going into the wahhabi masjid is not permissible it is not permissible. Going into a shia masjid or a deobandi masjid its not permissible. The Messenger of Allah () said: 'stay away from everything because of which you have to give an explanation." and "stay away from places because of which people accuse you."

    Mufti Sahib then says at 5:51:

    And we have been ordered that al-hukmu bi-zawahir, we must judge according to what is apparent upon us theek hain? Jo hum pe zaahir hain uske hisaab sey hum log faisla kartey hain.

    Somebody shows extreme love to you then I know that person loves me, somebody comes and says I am a doctor then we believe he is a doctor. Because the Prophet (ﷺ) himself said "I have been ordered that I judge people according to which is apparent.

    You know when people say don't judge a book by its cover? Hain na? That's when you can open the book and have a look. If you can't open the book and have a look - somebody gives you five books, they're all wrapped you can't open them, take one of them you have to judge it by its cover. You have no option.

    So in the same way you try and see whatever becomes apparent from the book, try and turn it around, see how thick it is, everything that's apparent - all the knowledge you have about it you use all of that to make a judgement. In the same way in regards to people we can't see what's in their hearts, we can't see what's in their hearts. Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala says: "It is Allah who looks at the hearts to judge people." and the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "we have been ordered to judge people according to that which has been made apparent.

    And that is why the Ulama say when you see a person go into a church, he is a Christian, when you see a person go into a synagogue he is a Jew, when you see a person go to a gurdwara he is a Sikh, when you see a person going into a temple then he is a Hindu - that is the apparent judgement.

    If something else because apparent upon you, for example the church has an opening for all faiths board outside, then something else has become apparent and you may say he might not be a Christian, because its an opening he might be going in to have a look. You use the apparent to make a judgement. Theek hain? So that's the situation.

    You must not go into a wahhabi masjid because when people see you they will assume that you are a wahhabi and therefore the Prophet Muhammad () said: "stay away from places because of which people assume things of you and accuse you of." That's why you shouldn't enter a pub because entering a pub and having a drink of pepsi or water is permissible. Biz-zaat jaiz hain. Because you are entering a place of tuhmah it is not permissible. That's why it is not permissible to enter a pub because people will say 'yeh sharaabi hain'. You can't go into a brothel, its not permissible because people will see you will accuse you.

    I gathered a few things from Mufti Sahib's clip:
    • There are wahhabis who do not reach the hadd of kufr.
    • To perform their janaza is sinful.
    • We must judge on the apparent using all of the indicators that are apparent to us.
    Mawlana @abu Hasan , based on what Mawlana Asrar said in his Q&A, how is what he said different to the principles Mufti Zahid put forth?

    If it is possible there are muslims who don't know much about sectarian disputes (except for staying away from Shia and Qadiyanis) and someone appears to be a sunni imam who follows a maddhab and he prays behind him and asks him questions in matters pertaining to Islamic knowledge, isn't that exactly what Mufti Zahid said we should do because we can't look into his heart - judge on the apparent? How else would he be able to tell apart one individual claiming to be a Hanafi, Maturidi, Sunni, Tasawwufi from another?

    And if that Imam who appears Sunni advises the layperson to stay away from group xyz because they engage in innovation and shirk, is the layperson blamed for not investigating for fear of entering a building of a group who he has been told are innovators and he fears entering what he was told is a place of tuhmah?

  20. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    before sh. asrar's admirer's direct their ire towards the muftis and ulama who answered shahid sahib's question, they should stop and ask themselves, what would THEIR answer be, if the same question was asked about "a person" without naming him or without the background of this question.

    i don't know about you folk, but if anyone asked me that question without giving the background or naming sh. asrar, i too would have said the same.

    the muftis are not to blame - as their answer is based on the question. shahid has skillfully stripped the context and reworded it in a manner that would elicit such a response. he even spruced it up with his 'personal conversation' with sh. asrar wherein he has purportedly said that imkan al-kadhib is not an issue that awaam should get involved in or learn about. it could have been said in a context which only shahid or sh.asrar would be able to comment upon.

    one can frame questions in a manner to frame someone.

    instead of getting upset with the response of the muftis, one should examine shahid's question to these muftis. one should analyse shahid's reworded question vis-a-vis the old video of sh. asrar. notice that sh.asrar divided people in three groups in that video:

    1. the awam who have no clue
    2. students and scholars who are aware
    3. associates of category2

    and shahid ali either missed this or deliberately ignored this as it would dilute his accusation.

    another member has pointed out here (which i think was a screenshot from facebook) and shahid is well aware of this response:

    and it is dishonesty to cite a seemingly ambiguous clipped audio and omit a recently clarified answer. unless of course you want to lynch him.


    and he also clarified here:


    while i disagree with some answers of shaykh asrar, and i wanted to clarify my own views, i did not want to do it in this atmosphere. i told shahid ali that i would answer sometime, but not now. i even told him that in the ummahTV answer sh. asrar mentions valid points, even though i felt there are mistakes in some aspects.

    shahid ali knows that sh. asrar is not a deo-promoter and has been refuting deos. after the muftis answered, he could have asked them again with additional details - but that requires one to be sincere and just. especially the latter attribute.

    wAllahu a'alam.

    Last edited: Nov 29, 2021
    Ghulam Ali, Aqdas and Unbeknown like this.

Share This Page