Shahid Ali continues public spat with Shaykh Asrar

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

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Brother Barry

    Brother Barry Veteran

    That was during the meeting with Mufti Qasim sahib posted on Shaykh Asrars Facebook account https://fb.watch/aXtc141Khl/

    "Faqir Banda e Nacheez" is in reality "Faqir Banda e bohtcheez"
     
  2. AbdalQadir

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

    that part really got to me, all that melodrama and emotional blackmail - as if Shahid is the last disciple standing of The Ghawth radi Allahu 3anhu.

    In the same vein, others too (Sunni or wahabi) can ask Shahid - are you against saying ya Allah? or do you believe ya Ghawth is a valid substitute for saying ya Allah?

    he tried insanely hard to build a case for lynching Asrar Rashid.

    @UK brothers, if he manages to put together his risalah of all of Asrar Rashid's allegedly notorious quotes sans context, and gets a fatwa from the scholars of the subcontinent (and there are many super duper tanatan Sunnis who'd gladly oblige), be prepared to have your very own intra-Sunni local-to-uk muhannad

    Sorry for saying this, but this guy is the usman iqbal of the UK Sunnis
     
  3. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    shaykh asrar is a sunni aalim
    mufti qasim zia is a sunni aalim

    i might have missed it, but where did shaykh asrar "challenge" fazil-e-jaleel aalim-e-nabeel allamah mufti shahid ali sahib? please remind me.

    ---
    there could be aberrations in fiqh on their part, but unless you cite a single authentic source where either of the above two ulama have 'gone against' sunni aqidah, you cannot consider them out of ahl al-sunnah or accuse them of being sulh-kulli.

    i don't know if people read through the long posts of brother TRW, who was highlighting this very point from the fatwa of hujjatu'l islam. do not take my technical objections to mean that i reject TRW's idea per se. i have said that i agree with the central idea of TRW's argument and the gist of the fatwa which is:

    if a sunni aalim joins a group that also has heretics or corrupt folk for a valid sharayi reason or due to compulsion or due to lesser evil or ignorance about the state of those involved or to represent sunnis, they cannot be branded sulh-kulli or be chucked out of ahl-e-sunnat.
    those who associate with heretics do not automatically become sulh-kullis; and unless they have approved of (or praise) their beliefs either implicitly or explicitly they cannot be sulh-kullis. associating with deviants is also not good because it confuses the common public - but this is a separate issue. associating with deviants, seen together with deviants or attending events with deviants should be avoided by sunni ulama UNLESS there is a compelling and valid sharayi reason.

    ---
    maulvi shahid ali's accusations on shaykh asrar are frivolous and even if they were grave issues, they are not matters of aqidah.

    he threatens to compile a risalah on the aberrations of shaykh asrar - it better be logically sound and unlike the istifta/fatwa against irfan shah, because if it is so, people will logically analyse it. the irfan shah istifta/fatwa was spared because there was no need to refute our own, even though it was poorly crafted.

    posting bits and pieces of shaykh asrar's speeches without context will count as deception and is unethical anyway. one cannot take soundbites from separate speeches and build a narrative. every of those sound bites one uses must be accompanied by the context in which it was said. otherwise, it reflects poorly on those who conferred the status of mufti upon such a person. a mufti should not be vindictive or an opportunist, trying to look for a loophole to hang the subject. any mufti who does not understand this particular concept is a jahil and should be prevented from issuing fatawa.

    take the case of maulvi shahid ali's accusation that shaykh asrar prevents people from saying "ya ghawth". this is not true. in fact, a permission to say so (as a form of istighatha) is being misused by juhala and certainly needs to be corrected. this is why i mentioned shaykh abdul hakim sharaf qadri's risalah: "khuda ko yaad kar pyare".

    unless of course, allamah sharaf was also a wahabi in shahid ali's view.

    ====
    maulvi shahid ali needs to end this drama and stop his attacks on shaykh asrar and other sunni ulama. citing a verse of hujurat is good, and reading the tafsir of the entire surah with the focus on one's own actions (whether they are compatible) is even better.

    -----
    wAllahu a'alam.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2022
  4. Brother Barry

    Brother Barry Veteran

    It's the whole super Sunni syndrome some people have, in their mind nobody is a greater more pukhta Sunni than them. In the case of Shahid I once mentioned to him how I find Mufti Akmal sahib a very level headed and balanced individual who I enjoy listening to... Surprise surprise Shahid had somethings to say against him aswell. Nobody is off limits I guess when you're the most tanno tan kid on the block.
     
  5. AbdalQadir

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

    Jazak Allah for your post. Makes a lot of sense.

    This is precisely one of the reasons I'm against using the Barelwi title in general. Reasons to follow but tl;dr who among the current crop of ulama can be considered a true representative or defender of Ala Hazrat? I feel like crawling out of my skin when i see the likes of Shahid Ali claiming to be torchbearers and defenders of the maslak and manhaj of Ala Hazrat and he's (Shahid) certainly not alone, there's many many more like him, even high and mighty ones.
     
    Brother Barry likes this.
  6. Brother Barry

    Brother Barry Veteran

    Shahids track record is that he isn't interested in answers unless of course they suite his agenda.

    Shahid Ali is the same guy who in previous correspondence between us started whining when I didn't put Mowlana before his name but put Shaykh before Asrar Rashids name. Yet here he is calling a competent Sunni Mufti a molvi just because the said Mufti sahib hasn't blindly sided with him.

    Shahid Ali is a clown for insinuating this, I have family members who have studied under mufti sahib and many a time I have asked mufti sahib questions pertaining to deviants and he has given answers that you'd expect from a Sunni mufti. Anyone who is doubtful about anything can contact Mufti sahib and I'm sure he will be willing to answer any concerns and questions.

    Initially I supported Shahid Ali due to what I saw as bullying, partybaazi and low blows against him from Sh Asrars side and I was unconvinced by Sh Asrars condemnation of his students whilst simultaneously saying Shahid didn't help matters by saying "your safety is guaranteed".

    But over the past weeks/months it's become more apparent that Shahid isn't interested in anything in the way of explanation. He has a agenda/vendetta to carry out and will throw anyone under the bus to get his preceived target. Can't support a guy like that, he seriously needs to inspect the state of his inner self in my view.

    This doesn't mean I endorse everything Sh Asrar has been doing or coming out with either recently, he needs to calm down with the whole brailvi this that and ensure he furnishes his audience with a clear explanation of who he is talking about rather than doing verbal gymnastics after he's ignited the fire. The answers by him on MMA are silly and he should clarify and retract in my view.
     
  7. AbdalQadir

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

    I'm personally not big on being against the usage, and have indeed used the term 'Molwi' for others, but the sarcasm and condescension is certainly not lost on any proper desi listener when MOLWI Shahid Ali calls MUFTI Qasim Zia as a molwi. To his credit, he did justify his usage of molwi by leveling allegations of alliances with minhajis, tafzilis and sulah kulliyat, so in context, he obviously would be furious in addressing such a person he deems as a minhaji supporting sulah kulli.

    (While Molwi and Mullah were esteemed alqabat for scholars in the past, in current times, people have made them out to be sarcastic euphemisms for deriding those they don't like or consider inept and untrained or junior or unsophisticated scholars. Mullah is generally used by secularists or modernists to deride religious people in general. Another problem with us desi Sunnis, and might I add, with the full blessing of contemporary ulama aka mujaddideen.

    In the same vein, people also have their own versions of demoting scholars by addressing muftis or peers as molwis or qari or so on.

    In my humble suggestion we use only two titles and get rid of this mess once and for all.

    Ustade Noorani Qaida - those you don't like

    and

    Ala Hazrat Humayune Aqdas Ghazie Millat Ghazalie Zaman Imame Aazam Daure Rawan Ghausul Waqt Peere Tareeqat Mujaddide Deeno Millat Allamae Arab o Ajam - for those who you do like, please forgive me if i missed something

    This is the only solution to get rid of our obsession with alqabat. I may be wrong but i feel Shahid got a big head due to the lofty praises and titles showered on him by Aslam Bandyalwi sahib)

    Didn't his teacher Aslam Bandyalwi saab also share stage or something with paqs of walthamstow?
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2022
    Khanah and abu Hasan like this.
  8. Ikhwaan

    Ikhwaan New Member

    This time the moment of madness truly is madness.
     
  9. Salaam_Peace

    Salaam_Peace New Member

    Shaykh Asrar 2 years ago:

    ‘whoever makes the challenge should be willing to drop everything and debate when the opponent sets time date etc’


    Shaykh Asrar 2 weeks ago:

    ‘come to SBC central mosque and we’ll debate, have a cuppa tea and a few biscuits’


    Both statements by Shaykh Asrar. Why does Imam Shahid feel he HAS to comply by Shaykh Asrar’s first statement?


    If Imam shahid is serious about resolving the issue, he’d come down to Birmingham and meet Shaykh Asrar at SBC Masjid or even shaykh’s home! Would probably take less time for him to travel to Bham, get clarification from Shaykh Asrar, have a cup of tea and return home rather then to sit there, shoot a video, spend day’s editing /adding snip-it’s to suit his agenda and then uploading it on social media!
     
  10. Hassan_0123

    Hassan_0123 HhhhhhhM_786

    There was also no need whatsoever to bring Mufti Qasim Zia Al-Qadiri (seekers path) into this. Firstly it was wrong by Imam Shahid Ali to call Mufti Qasim 'Qasim Zia'. Mufti Qasim Zia Al Qadri is a very competent scholar (you can see his fatawa on seekers path) and has an amazing understanding in fiqh. Mufti Qasim Zia is very well respected by the teachers of Dawat-e-Islami in the UK and even by the higher ups of Dawat-e-Islami in Pakistan. He has been teaching Darse-e-Nizami for time and has been issuing fatawa for time too and is respected by his peers for his knowledge الحمد لله.
    If Imam Shahid Ali has a problem with Mufti Qasim Zia, he should go meet him in person so he can get answered by this 'Molvi Saab' إن شاء الله. 'Qasim Zia has a number of issues'... Well instead of mentioning these issues on YouTube, give him a phone call and sort these issues out... what was the need to drag more sunni ulema into this? Insinuating that Mufti Qasim Zia is a Sulla Kulli? Ridiculous claim!

    May Allah guide us all.
     
  11. Khanah

    Khanah Well-Known Member



    Houston... we have a problem. Apparently Imam Shahid will be seeking a fatwa regarding Shaykh Asrar. This whole debacle is so elongated that it's unreal.

    No doubt the statements that will be presented will be rid of context and subsequent explanations to certain statements provided by Sh. Asrar will be ignored.
     
  12. 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?
     
  13. 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
    Abdullah Ahmed and AbdalQadir like this.
  14. Ikhwaan

    Ikhwaan New Member

    Nothing more than a moment of madness!
     
  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
     
  19. 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.
  20. Khanah

    Khanah Well-Known 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?
     

Share This Page