L
Layman
That's all true as far as i know
So is there any danger/threat to Shariah from groups under the Ahlus Sunnah umbrella?
- Status
So is there any danger/threat to Shariah from groups under the Ahlus Sunnah umbrella?
abu Hasan
Administrator
izz al-Din
sunniport user
Salam e masnun
Perhaps, the brother is trying to point out the following nuances? :
Imam 'Imad alDin ibn Kathir alDhimisqhi, Rahmat Allahi Ta'ala 'alayh:
رَبَّنَا لَا تَجْعَلْنَا فِتْنَةً لِّلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا ...
Our Lord! Make us not a trial for the disbelievers,
Mujahid said,
"It means, `Do not punish us by their hands, nor with a punishment from You.' Or they will say, `Had these people been following the truth, the torment would not have struck them'.''
Ad-Dahhak said something similar.
Qatadah said,
"Do not give the disbelievers victory over us, thus subjecting us to trials by their hands. Surely, if You do so, they would then think that they were given victory over us because they are on the truth.''
This is the meaning that Ibn Jarir preferred.
Ali bin Abi Talhah reported from Ibn `Abbas:
"Do not give them dominance over us, lest we suffer trials by their hands.''
Allah's statement,
... وَاغْفِرْ لَنَا رَبَّنَا إِنَّكَ أَنتَ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ ﴿٥﴾
and forgive us, Our Lord! Verily, You, only You, are the Almighty, the All-Wise.
means, `cover our mistakes from being exposed to other than You, and forgive us for what (sin) is between us and You.'
أَنتَ الْعَزِيزُ (Verily, You, only You, are the Almighty), `and those who seek refuge in Your majesty are never dealt with unjustly,' الْحَكِيمُ (the All-Wise), `in Your statements, actions, legislation and decrees.'
[60:3, Tafsir alQur'an al'Adhim]
L
Layman
That is a part of my concerns, remarkably accurate, however the Ayat which often comes to the mind is verse 39 of Surah at-Tauba
L
Layman
Brother i was hoping you'd reply I do not see a sleight of hand...hence there is a slight accusation on you
Shaykh Asrar said aqeedah (not fiqh) and my language covered this ''I dont envisage changing sects. Shaykh Asrar says we need to go solo to an extent, not blindfollow. That is why i'm free thinking'' This was slightly an off topic reply to a curious question
I don't see the sleight of hand in the question.
The question is
la madhabiyyah vs Barelvis, Who forms the bigger threat to Shariah
So whilst you can cite having a superior fiqh (a madhab) and blindly taking in fiqh, it is just one factor in your possible reply. Even a ghair muqallid can cite being a 'real student of deen' who can show xx number of opinions on same issue and hence you both have a prospective.
So are you saying that because Hanafi Madhab is superior in wisdom (through cross checking of qualified Ulema) it means ghair muqallid are automatically a bigger threat to Shariah?
Some would ask how Hanafi is for a religious leader not knowing how to recite al Fatiha sharif, and for him to have followers. Shaykh Asrar blamed both the peers and their followers, Shaykh Asrar said our awaam have fallen pray to fake peers, heretical practices and he said scholars can't speak because their livelihood depends on the fake peers. So we have the awaam and scholarly classes are both implicated.
This situation might be not be ascribed to Hanafi Madhab but to be fair neither is the question.
Brother is wanton irreligiousness not in barelvis?
Please provide more details on Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan's call to Shariah, also is he a lone voice?
L
Layman
*copy paste error in previous post unintentional
L
Layman
Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan has an amazingly noorani face, and its pretty obvious that they have spent a lifetime studying and contemplating. I'm sure their pictures have been taken without permission.
Much of Alahazrats lineage uphold the prohibition of pictures. SubHaan Allaah
I must admit i highly respect those who hold this position in todays age
If they come to the Uk please notify the board as to where we can sit in their company
Much of Alahazrats lineage uphold the prohibition of pictures. SubHaan Allaah
I must admit i highly respect those who hold this position in todays age
If they come to the Uk please notify the board as to where we can sit in their company
CHISHTI
sunniport user
..i'm not one to use nuance based language so i'm at a loss as to why you're having difficulty understanding my post..it seems pretty blatant and self explanatory..
...the "sleight of hand" was in reference to you equating the "blind following" of fiqh and that of matters of belief. Shaykh Asrar has never taught that muslims should "go it alone" in either discipline..he simply teaches that in terms of belief you should study and know what you're believing in as opposed to just believing something because your parents did..and has even brought to our notice what great ulema of the past have said regarding the iman of people who can't explain exactly what they believe in. Shaykh Asrar, on many occasions, has promoted the sanusi creed as a guide for the laymen to understand the fundamentals of belief..which is a far cry from him promoting the go it alone method.
The salafis have taken an axe to the shariah..their whole manhaj is replete with lies, half truths and errors..having dismantled the traditional understanding of the ulema they have put in its place their own deviancy and forwarded them as correct positions to the masses. When Shaykh Asrar talks of pirs controlling imams..he talks of localised problems..not a problem with the way of Ahlus Sunnah (known in the indo/pak as berelvis)..basically they are the exception to the rule and can be be refuted by the very construct they claim to be members of (the Ahlus Sunnah)...but the salafis are rotten from top to bottom..their whole approach and way is invalid and far more dangerous than a controlling, local pir.
..."So are you saying that because Hanafi Madhab is superior in wisdom (through cross checking of qualified Ulema) it means ghair muqallid are automatically a bigger threat to Shariah?" ...yes..you seem to have answered your own question there..
As for me mentioning Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan..he is the most well known/knowledgeable representative of "berelvis" (although the noble Shaikh denies this title) from Bereli Shareef and is a staunch follower of shariah and even a cursory glance at his work shows the emphasis he places on learning and following it..he can't be held accountable for the wrong actions of others who claim to be sunni (berelvi) but can only teach us what is the correct position...but the salafi "shayookh" can be held responsible for the actions of their adherents because their manhaj is totally corrupt and they themselves are teaching this corruption.
..as for irreligiousness I meant specifically the salafi ulema..not the masses...irreligiousness meaning their stubborn refusal to look at the history of Islamic scholarship and see that their own approach is heterodox...the fact that they are incapable of making a speech without mentioning the positions/books of the great ulema, who all made taqleed of one of the four schools of fiqh and were in the schools of either Imam Maturidi or Imam Ashari, yet they go on to call taqleed as haram and even shirk and the schools of both Imams as being wrong and against the understanding of the salaf !!...it's this dilemma and their inability to deal with it that makes them irreligious..if they were true to their call they would have to discard most, if not all, of the books of ahadeeth as most of their compilers were followers of the shafi school!!
To even place "berelvis" and salafis together in the same sentence, when talking of a threat to shariah, is reprehensible and makes you look like a member of neither group but of a third party posting on here to create misunderstanding and division..i hope I'm wrong.
Read Shaykh Ramadhan Bootis' (rahmatullah Aley) work a few more times is my advice...
...the "sleight of hand" was in reference to you equating the "blind following" of fiqh and that of matters of belief. Shaykh Asrar has never taught that muslims should "go it alone" in either discipline..he simply teaches that in terms of belief you should study and know what you're believing in as opposed to just believing something because your parents did..and has even brought to our notice what great ulema of the past have said regarding the iman of people who can't explain exactly what they believe in. Shaykh Asrar, on many occasions, has promoted the sanusi creed as a guide for the laymen to understand the fundamentals of belief..which is a far cry from him promoting the go it alone method.
The salafis have taken an axe to the shariah..their whole manhaj is replete with lies, half truths and errors..having dismantled the traditional understanding of the ulema they have put in its place their own deviancy and forwarded them as correct positions to the masses. When Shaykh Asrar talks of pirs controlling imams..he talks of localised problems..not a problem with the way of Ahlus Sunnah (known in the indo/pak as berelvis)..basically they are the exception to the rule and can be be refuted by the very construct they claim to be members of (the Ahlus Sunnah)...but the salafis are rotten from top to bottom..their whole approach and way is invalid and far more dangerous than a controlling, local pir.
..."So are you saying that because Hanafi Madhab is superior in wisdom (through cross checking of qualified Ulema) it means ghair muqallid are automatically a bigger threat to Shariah?" ...yes..you seem to have answered your own question there..
As for me mentioning Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan..he is the most well known/knowledgeable representative of "berelvis" (although the noble Shaikh denies this title) from Bereli Shareef and is a staunch follower of shariah and even a cursory glance at his work shows the emphasis he places on learning and following it..he can't be held accountable for the wrong actions of others who claim to be sunni (berelvi) but can only teach us what is the correct position...but the salafi "shayookh" can be held responsible for the actions of their adherents because their manhaj is totally corrupt and they themselves are teaching this corruption.
..as for irreligiousness I meant specifically the salafi ulema..not the masses...irreligiousness meaning their stubborn refusal to look at the history of Islamic scholarship and see that their own approach is heterodox...the fact that they are incapable of making a speech without mentioning the positions/books of the great ulema, who all made taqleed of one of the four schools of fiqh and were in the schools of either Imam Maturidi or Imam Ashari, yet they go on to call taqleed as haram and even shirk and the schools of both Imams as being wrong and against the understanding of the salaf !!...it's this dilemma and their inability to deal with it that makes them irreligious..if they were true to their call they would have to discard most, if not all, of the books of ahadeeth as most of their compilers were followers of the shafi school!!
To even place "berelvis" and salafis together in the same sentence, when talking of a threat to shariah, is reprehensible and makes you look like a member of neither group but of a third party posting on here to create misunderstanding and division..i hope I'm wrong.
Read Shaykh Ramadhan Bootis' (rahmatullah Aley) work a few more times is my advice...
Last edited:
L
Layman
The reason for difficulty in understanding your post was because you were and are accusing me of sleight of hand and that is a lie upon me, hence the need to seek clarification
Here read my comment in context
noori: only your free thinking without basic/proper knowlege and adab, and that too only for your self.
noori: Let's say la madhabiyyah are not the biggest threat, tahir ul qadri is in our time; so, would you choose la madhabiyyah over ASWJ?
layman: Brother its not about choosing. Its just a discussion on the subject.
I dont envisage changing sects. Shaykh Asrar says we need to go solo to an extent, not blindfollow. That is why i'm free thinking
Do you have any honest reflections on topic?
[end quote]
Now can you show me where I equated the "blind following" of fiqh and that of matters of belief? I didn't
Secondly I didn't even define the term 'Shariah' for the same reason since it would infringe with those whose definitions of it are broader then what is regarded as just fiqh
hence your sleight of hand comment is wrong
Otherwise some of your points are appreciable inputs into the discussion. I will need time to reflect over those points
- Status