Having listened to the question posed to the muftis again, I can see why they gave the answer they did about fictional Zayd. Had fictional Zayd stated 'the prayer behind the deviant is valid according to x school of thought', maybe they wouldn't have called him a sulh kulli. However, in the question posed by shahid, fictional Zayd claims that 'people are not obligated to know the differences between sunni's and non sunni's in any way' or something to that effect- which probably no school of thought says. If a shafi scholar (or otherwise) believes that a prayer behind the deviant is valid, I'm sure they would not claim that knowing the differences between sunni and non sunni is not important. As a result, I retract from parts of my earlier posts with respect to the answers given by the esteemed muftis. As for shahid, the way he poses his question is negligent/incompetent at the very least. Deceptive at worst. I'll try to hold husn al dhann towards incompetence. As for the question of how the jahil can find who is truthful and who is not- do the Ashari's not say that taqleed in aqeedah is impermissible? Therefore, to some level, the onus of investigating the truth is upon the individual and the individual must then arrive at the correct conclusion through rational evidences. Meaning that the jahil has the obligation of not being a jahil, to a certain degree. This is the first obligation and the other obligations follow from this. For example: A is a Sunni scholar. B is a deobandi. C is a wahabi. D is a shia. Zayd the layman has the obligation of coming to the conclusion that sunni Islam is the truth whether he starts his journey as a believer or disbeliever, through the rational evidences. Once he comes to this conclusion, he then uses this as a criterion to judge A, B, C and D. He then concludes A is on the correct manhaj, disregards B, C and D and holds firmly to A in order to learn the remaining obligations.
More clearly: A and B both claim to be Hanafi Maturidi Chisti Barelvi Aalims. One of the two is actually not an aalim but in fact a rafidi sajjada nasheen who is a jaahil. How does X who is a jahil layperson determine who is true to their claim and subsequently approach the *correct* person to escape jahalat by learning.
That is a perennial problem which also lay at the heart of the taqleed-shakhsi for aami discussions (see the fiqh section). To me it resembles the chicken and egg problem. In theory, everyone is obligated to know the daruriyaat-al-deen with a few exceptions (like new Muslims, remote settlements etc.) - but even they are obligated to not deny a daruri aspect when it reaches them (vide Imam Nawawi et al.). Further, if I remember correctly, Imam Ghazzali has ruled that people are also obligated to learn about the regional heresies of their respective localities - so that they can protect themselves when they come across them. So, in principle, a person will be at-least a sinner for not acquiring this knowledge. Now, if a layperson approaches a scholar to learn about this - isn't it the duty of the scholar to teach him? Rather than saying: you don't need to know. do what you like. It's not how that layman came to you, or whether he considers you a sunni or not, the very fact that you find him at your doorstep with such a clear question as this makes you culpable for not sharing your knowledge. You see, the answers do not revolve around the commoner but the scholar who, as per them, has no grounds for keeping him in the dark. Hence, the Muftiyan's umbrage at Mawlana Zayd for wishing to keep things in wraps, and telling people that they are not even mukallaf. Now this is all theory, and I concede that it's application is not so straightforward. For one, the world having become connected, heresies don't stay put within geographic limits... ofc, one must use hikmah and patience when dealing with people who are spoilt for choice and probably do not bring sufficient interest to the table to allow you to complete your da'wah. People don't become wahabis overnight, so why should we expect them to identify with the Sunni narrative in 2 minutes? But between hikmah and kitmaan-al-Ilm is a fine line, which sh. Asrar tried to navigate and drew the ire of his colleagues. Allah knows best.
Imam Shahid is aware of Shaykh Asrar's clarification but he is not interested in that. He thinks the only thing available to Shaykh Asrar is retraction and mufti Sahib pretty much indicated the same. it was Mufti Aslam who requested the stream to be closed and it was Imam Shahid who apologised. If there was an unsatisfactory conclusion, then it should have been mentioned then. Yes of course it's not worth their while to discuss in private because Sunnis are really 'confused' and are in danger of being 'misled' by brother Asrar Rashid. There is no other recourse but a public retraction. I said it the start, this is just a waste of time and energy, and it only benefits the deviants.
Be that as it may, what do we say about the internal issue of the fatwas that do not address how an ignorant layperson would differentiate between a true sunni scholar and a deceitful claimant? It is as if there is an unstated assumption that said layperson can do so.
This reply suggests a few things: 1. Sh. asrar's clarification has not reached him 2. the topic was not settled to the satisfaction of all parties during the meeting 3. even if not, they do not see it worth their while to pursue it privately either there is a terrible communication gap or some deep politics going on. May Allah ta'ala keep the Sunnis steadfast upon haqq irrespective of these fiascos.
also consider that the saa'il is not a layperson - he is a sunni grad of a well known madrasah, has been "in the news" during the irfan shah dispute etc. and has probably the benefit of prior acquaintance and as such hia question will be seen in the light of a "mujahid sunni" fighting a clever incognito "sulh kull" opportunist. This is a very common pattern in most places (think padri, azmi, hanif qureishi etc.) and the muftis themselves might have been through similar experiences - so it must have been almost instinctive for them to extend their support and sympathy to a "comrade-in-arms" against the champions of sulh-kulliyat (which, as everyone knows, is a raging fire in itself), thinking, "been there, seen that". If on the other hand, they had known that the person being asked about is a bonafide sunni with a very public anti-devbandi, anti-najdi record, they would certainly have exercised more discretion than giving a summary "daal mudill" fatwa. Allah knows best.
Not sure if the ummah channel clip was discusssd in the meeting but Mufti Sahib knows what has gone on. As a senior they should have contacted Shaykh Asrar before releasing this video. Now it is just going to give the impression that they are in cahoots with Imam Shahid and their credibility will be seen in the same light.
And the mighty Imam Ghazali (ra) only managed to be conferred a single title of Hujjatul Islam! SubhanAllah, the times we live in today.
I agree that is appears as such even though no names were mentioned. But if mufti aslam thinks the fatwa of being sulh kulli etc is correct- then what was he doing during the meeting he had with shaykh asrar where shaykh explained his position and everyone seemed to accept it? Then his student makes a public apology and then a public retraction and makes a mockery of the whole situation- and now this? If so, he's as contradictory on this issue as his student
Fazile Jaleel Aalime Nabeel Allamah Mufti to be precise. 6 titles preceding a name ma sha Allah. I thought all those CEng, MBA, CMgr guys on my LinkedIn contacts were showoffs!
At the very least, we can safely assume Mufti Sahib supports his student. They have behaved irresponsibly in this instance and should have discussed with Shaykh Asrar first.
No. The end of the video makes it clear because he says people should refer Imam Shahid's more detailed analysis. What is that analysis? Imam Shahid's latest video against shaykh asrar. To remove any doubt, he also points out the reference to other muftis and their fatwas
Mufti aslam did not name shaykh asrar by name in this video. However, due to the context, can we believe that he is not speaking about shaykh asrar and only in general terms? I think not. If mufti aslam disagreed with shaykh asrar with respect to the praying behind deviants issue, why didn't he sort this out at the meeting that was held a few weeks ago? Why get his student to give a public apology with respect to those same issues? And then now come out with a video supporting his student when he could have handled this in the behind closed doors meeting?
This just gets worse to be honest. Side note- is shahid Ali a mufti now? And an allamah? These lofty titles being given to fresh graduates puts my nose out of joint tbh. If everyone is an allamah, then no one is an allamah.
@Unbeknown @AR Ahmed @Khanah wrt my post # 78 (we're strictly seeing the question given to the muftis, about some mawlana in the uk, and the answer they returned. not concerned with the spat between Shahid Ali and Asrar Rashid) this is my naaqis analysis. feel free to shoot me down. this saail ne kaha (the questioner asked) is followed by the mention of the 3 masjids which includes ek Sunni ek deobandi. this implies that the person who questioned this uk mawlana is aware of Sunni deobandi disputes at least at a cursory level. maybe not at the REAL level of differences that Ala Hazrat himself points out (aqaid and basic iman) but rather that outward levels (Fatiha, niaz, urs etc; Ala Hazrat himself says our opposition to the deobandis is not for these things per se despite their being wrong in their daleels) or the saail to the unknown uk mawlana could be also well versed in the entire issue at a somewhat higher level Shahid then cites the discussion provided by the unknown uk mawlana and says as a conclusion: this seems to imply to the muftis that this unknown uk mawlana is implicitly encouraging the common folk not to investigate further into the Sunni deobandi issues despite having some cursory (or higher level) knowledge on it here we have 2 separate issues: 1. knowing the masail of ikhtilaf (the first 2 points mentioned are related to this - that awam is not mukallaf to know the details of imkane kadhib ka masala, nor are they mukallaf to know the gustakhana ibarats of the deobandi elders) 2. knowing the beliefs of the imam who is leading the namaz (the third point is related to this - that not all deobandi imams of the uk are aware of the kufriyat of the deobandi elders, effectively saying that the person leading the prayers might not himself be aware of the kufriyat of the 4 tawaghit) then Shahid closes off the question: based on this, in my "aapko ulama pe tanqid karne ka haq nahin hai" opinion, Mufti Aslam Raza's answer seems the most apt of the three muftis shown in that video. he (Aslam Raza saab) says it is based on gumrahi and the awam is mukallaf to ask the scholars. this is obvious. if a guy who has at least a basic idea of Sunni deobandi ikhtilafat and is even concerned about who he prays behind (as shown in the question) and he is asking this unknown uk mawlana, he ought to have given a better answer than the one presented in the istifta. however, in my opinion (now, sitting calmly as an armchair critic) maybe he (as well as the other muftis) could have asked the mustafti if this excuse presented that not all deobandi imams in uk are aware of the kufriyat of the 4 top dogs... is this the dominant majority among the uk devbandis or a minority? he says that "lagta hai" ("lagta hai" is not a fatwa wording, it's only a hunch) that this unknown uk mawlana too holds such views that all these differences are meaningless squabbles. there is no Shar3i hukm that entertains a "lagta hai" on a person being a mubtadi3 or kafir one of the other muftis accused him of tahreef upon the meanings of the Quran. that was strong language but it eventually says the same thing every Sunni says for wahabis - that they present verses out of place and out of context. deobandism with the actual kufriya ibarat of their elders is kufr, not just misguidance but still within the bounds of Islam - in that regard since the word deobandi was mentioned in the istifta along with imkane kadhib and gustakhana ibaraat, it's really only a bit off and uncalled for but still within tolerances for the esteemed muftis to call this unknown uk mawlana as dall mudill and sulah kulli without investigating a bit more about him from the mustafti. my 2p as a common person, as i see it now as a stand alone question and stand alone answer to it (regardless of Shahid Ali and Asrar Rashid). Allah knows best.
i take it you don't have very many desi Sunni friends the points you raised require a full fledged treatise on who or what a Sunni is in our times and what exactly is Maslake Imam Ahmad Raza. good luck getting it out of the current crop of scholars and peers.