Book: maslak e ikhtilal

[ridawi]

Just got my hands on pir saqib shami’s book: maslak e i’tidal. I was wondering if any other brothers have read the book yet and if they have comments regarding any of the points in the book.

For those that may not know, the book is regarding ikhtilaf in furu’. From what I’ve gathered so far, it aims to refute doing tafsiq in ikhtilafi masayil.

 

[Aqib alQadri]

Just got my hands on pir saqib shami’s book: maslak e i’tidal. I was wondering if any other brothers have read the book yet and if they have comments regarding any of the points in the book.

For those that may not know, the book is regarding ikhtilaf in furu’. From what I’ve gathered so far, it aims to refute doing tafsiq in ikhtilafi masayil.

we have ikhtilaf in his list of ikhtilafi masayil itself.

 

[abu Hasan]

Just got my hands on pir saqib shami’s book: maslak e i’tidal.

not so fortunate yet. have seen only blurbs and a few snippets.

 

[ridawi]

we have ikhtilaf in his list of ikhtilafi masayil itself.

Can you elaborate?

 

[Aqib alQadri]

Can you elaborate?

short beard, qawwali with music.

 

[ridawi]

short beard, qawwali with music.

He doesn’t touch upon the topic of beard for some reason.

 

[ridawi]

there is a summary at the end of the preliminary discussion, which sets out his key points:

 

[ridawi]

I don’t think in the book it is clear what he means by ikhtilaf and mukhtalaf feeh masayil.

For instance, there are various aqwal regarding the ruling of salah with jama’ah. Within the ahnaf, certain mashayikh state that it is sunnah mu’akkadah while most consider it wajib. Is, because of this difference, the ruling of jama’ah mukhtalaf feeh, because of which tafsiq of a person who misses jama’ah intentionally is not permissible?

If it is, then according to the principles explained in this book, it would not be permissible to do tafsiq of a hanfi who intentionally misses jama’ah without a valid excuse. Yet, there are various answers in fatawa ridawiyyah (vol 7), fatawa mufti e azam (vol 3) etc that state a person who intentionally misses jama’ah without a valid excuse is sinful and a fasiq.

 

[ridawi]

On page 71, he states:
Magar jis qawl ki tarjih mein ikhtilaf ho aur uss masle mein dono mukhtalif aqwal par fatwa diya gaya ho to dono mein se kisi bhi qawl ko apnana aur uss par amal karna jaiz hai.

If one reads ajalla al-i’lam (vol 1 fatawa ridawiyyah), he’ll come to realise that it’s not as simple as that (if the tarjih is mukhtalif, then the qawl of the imam is generally considered rajih because it is most deserving of tarjih) [see ajalla al-i’lam].

After stating the above (in italics), he provides the beggining time of 'asr salah as an example. He does correctly mention that there is a difference regarding which qawl is given preference. However, by providing the beggining time as an example of his statement about mukhtalif tarjih, he is saying that one can pray 'asr on the qawl of sahibayn for whatever reason and forsake the qawl of the imam just because there is a difference in tarjih.

Whereas specifically regarding 'asr, upon analyses of the books of fiqh, you’ll see that the qawl e imam is rajih and the mufta bihi qawl. Even though some books have given tarjih to the qawl of the sahibayn, such as al-durr al-mukhtar, general books of mutun as well as the sharihin and the scholars of tarjih have all authenticated the qawl of the imam as the preferred stance [see al-bahr al-rayiq; raf’ al-gisha of ibn nijaym; jadd al-mumtar vol 2; fatawa ridawiyyah vol 5].

Once it’s established that the qawl of imam a’zam is the mufta bihi, then it is wajib to act upon it unless there is a reason not to, because leaving the qawl of the imam is not permitted, especially when, in the particular case of 'asr, it is the rajih qawl [a known principle: see sharah 'uqud of ibn 'abidin and raf’ al-gisha of ibn nujaym]. In fact, 'asr will not count if prayed according to the qawl of the sahibayn without a valid reason [fatawa ridawiyyah 5/135; fatawa amjadiyyah 1/47].

So it doesn’t make sense to me why exactly he cited the beggining time of 'asr as an example of ‘act upon any qawl if there is an ikhtilaf in tarjih’.

Not only that, on the following page (72) he cites al-malfuz as a source for the 'asr issue. However, what’s interesting is that later on in the book, on page 108, he cites an extract from the fatawa of mufti sharif al-haq saheb as proof for the permissibility of chain watches and in that excerpt, mufti sharif al-haq says: ‘al-malfuz ka jo haal hai woh ahl e ilm se makhfi nahi uss mein sekro galtiyan ab tak mil chuki hai’. Yet, interestingly, for the 'asr example, he forgets the ‘haal’ of al-malfuz and cites it as proof anyway without bothering to cross-check it with the answer in fatawa ridawiyyah volume 5.

 

[Juwayni]

On page 71, he states:
Yet, interestingly, for the 'asr example, he forgets the ‘haal’ of al-malfuz and cites it as proof anyway without bothering to cross-check it with the answer in fatawa ridawiyyah volume 5.

In matters pertaining to Fiqh is it reliable to quote positions from Malfūz sharif or is Fatwaa Riḍawiyyah more reliable in terms of attribution?

 

[Noori]

Not only that, on the following page (72) he cites al-malfuz as a source for the 'asr issue. However, what’s interesting is that later on in the book, on page 108, he cites an extract from the fatawa of mufti sharif al-haq saheb as proof for the permissibility of chain watches and in that excerpt, mufti sharif al-haq says: ‘al-malfuz ka jo haal hai woh ahl e ilm se makhfi nahi uss mein sekro galtiyan ab tak mil chuki hai’.

are those mistakes listed in some paper, and what are the reasons, how those errors crept into Malfuz. I remember Hazrat Shah Turab ul Haq Qadri rahmiahullah once mentioned this commenting on this very reference of asr prayer start time; and he said that he made corrections and gave his original edited copy to a publisher but they didn't publish and after sometime they had lost it.

I'm interested to know what's the correction version of Malfuz, specifically for this asr prayer start time issue. If fataawa radawiyyah explains it differently (contrary to the Malfuz) then definitely fataawa will take the precedence.

Is it possible that Malfuz version is also correct, and Sayyid Ala Hazrat rahimahullah later changed his position?

 

[Ibn Hadi]

Just got my hands on pir saqib shami’s book: maslak e i’tidal. I was wondering if any other brothers have read the book yet and if they have comments regarding any of the points in the book.

For those that may not know, the book is regarding ikhtilaf in furu’. From what I’ve gathered so far, it aims to refute doing tafsiq in ikhtilafi masayil.

I met Pir Sahib last week and spent a few hours with him and his students discussing this book. It has been very well received by scholars back home. The only ones who criticize it are the ones who did not read the whole thing.

Yes the aim of the book is to prove that as Ahlus Sunnah, we do not label people as deviants or sinners if they simply follow a different opinion on a furu' issue. Also, in order to fully understand this book, one must be a scholar.

Our main problem these days is tafsiq of each other.This has damaged Ahlus Sunnah a lot and we must repair this problem.
Pir Saqib Shaami is far more intelligent than people give him credit for. I had my doubts about him as well before meeting him. He is very humble and kind.

And he knows the books of Alahazrat better than most "Barelvis" these days.

 

[ridawi]

Also, in order to fully understand this book, one must be a scholar.

I don’t think it’s that advanced that it can only be fully understood by scholars. I think students of knowledge can easily understand the book. The book is 100 or so pages and there aren’t exactly any intricate and complex points of usul that a student of knowledge won’t have come across before.

 

[abu Hasan]

Yes the aim of the book is to prove that as Ahlus Sunnah, we do not label people as deviants or sinners if they simply follow a different opinion on a furu' issue.

so is this something new? maybe i don't get it, but isn't this something basic?

the problem is not in the concept per se - but the pick-and-choose method. for example, witr is wajib in our (hanafi) madh'hab; sunnah in shafiyi madh'hab. one who habitually omits witr is a fasiq in our madh'hab; but one who omits witr is exercising a choice and is not frowned upon in the shafiyi madh'hab. in principle, we acknowledge the difference in furu'u. we do not do tafsiq of shafiyi omitting witr.

but what do books of hanafi fiqh say concerning such a person who omits witr? do they call him a fasiq or not?

similarly, if a shafiyi does not wash his nose in ghusl; or does not do wuDu after bleeding from a cut, his wuDu and salat is valid according to shafiyi furu'u. but is a hanafi permitted to pray behind him? i would ask saqib sahib to tell us whether hanafis are permitted to pray behind a shafiyi who does not do wuDu after bleeding from a cut.

or take the case of zakat - is zakat due on gold ornaments or not? if a person does not give zakat on gold ornaments, what should a hanafi mufti or a self-respecting hanafi scholar say? should he say: "oh don't worry. it is not permissible to do tafsiq if you don't give zakat on ornaments. there is ikhtilaf in furu'u"

consider a beginner's shafiyi fiqh book such as kifayatu'l akhyar, which recommends against praying behind a hanafi because he doesn't consider certain things (such as basmala or fatiHah) to be wajib in salah.

why is such tarjih mentioned and recommendations that one should rather go to a farther mosque of one's own madh'hab than pray behind a hanafi? why this obsession on following one's madh'hab when acknowledging the right of the other madh'hab to exist?


======
following saqib shami's revolutionary appeal, are we going to purge all the books of madh'habs that call something illegal, or invalid or disliked or sinful in their own madh'hab, even though some scholar in any of the four madh'hab might have permitted it? because according to this new breed of madh'habi-liberals, the only criterion for 'acting upon madh'hab' is any opinion in any of the 4 madh'habs.

----
according to the enlightened ones among us, it is even more liberal. a common man can choose any opinion he likes after consulting the books of fiqh (or any scholar). and then he can switch back and forth among four madh'hab as much as he likes without any censure. you can pray like a shafiyi in the morning, hanafi in the noon, hanbali in the late-afternoon/asr, maliki in the maghrib prayer and back to shafiyi in isha. BUT you have to follow that madh'hab fully for that one action or set of related actions. (why? which naSS prevents you from talfiq? isn't 'following scholars' absolute?)

because, it is not wajib to stick to only one of madh'habs - how can you make something wajib which Allah didn't? however, it is wajib to restrict oneself in only the four schools. but does any explicit naSS enjoins you to restrict oneself to the four schools?

====

Also, in order to fully understand this book, one must be a scholar.

so a book written for the common people about ikhtilaf can be fully understood only by scholars.

why release it to the common public then? why was it not circulated internally among scholars for review and comments?

Our main problem these days is tafsiq of each other.This has damaged Ahlus Sunnah a lot and we must repair this problem.

yes, you are right. 'scholars' and 'peers' can do whatever they like, but we should not do tafsiq for things written down as fisq in fiqh books.

 

[ridawi]

What I gather from reading the book, which is also evident from the summary section on page 62 is:

- If a there is an act whose hurmat is differed upon by the scholars of the ahl al-sunnah and a person does this act considering it to be haram, he is sinful and a fasiq [point three, pg 62]. While on the other hand if a person does a mukhtalaf feeh act considering it to be halal, he is neither a kafir nor a fasiq [point four, pg 62] The examples given are: qawwali with musical instruments, using black dye, videography, using loudspeaker in salah etc.

So the only cases when tafsiq will be done, according to what I gather from the book, are:
- the first point above (doing a mukhtalaf feeh haram act while considering it to be haram);
- and when a person does an ijma’i haram act considering it to be haram - this leads to fisq [point two, pg 62].

That basically sums up the entire book.

Also, in order to fully understand this book, one must be a scholar.

Even though you spent hours discussing the book, maybe you never read the sabab e taleef (purpose of compiling the book) that’s at the very beggining of the book. After reading it, it’s clear that his audience isn’t just the ulema. In his own words, it’s for: 'har insaaf pasand sunni musalman’ [page 11].

I met Pir Sahib last week and spent a few hours with him and his students discussing this book.

 

[abu Hasan]

That basically sums up the entire book.

in other words, just excuse saqib shami's short beard and listening to qawwali sung by fussaq with an orchestra.

hence the book. got it.

 

[Aqib alQadri]

short beard, qawwali with music.

the entire exercise was for this.

in other words, just excuse saqib shami's short beard and listening to qawwali sung by fussaq with an orchestra.

hence the book. got it.

spot on.

Even though you spent hours discussing the book, maybe you never read the sabab e taleef (purpose of compiling the book) that’s at the very beggining of the book. After reading it, it’s clear that his audience isn’t just the ulema. In his own words, it’s for: 'har insaaf pasand sunni musalman’ [page 11].

so now - as per Pir Sahab - "har insaaf pasand sunni musalman" (every just sunni muslim) - even if totally ignorant, is a QADI who can decide between tafseeq or not.

 

[Unbeknown]

And he knows the books of Alahazrat better than most "Barelvis" these days.

snort.

I dare say he hadn't even heard of ajla al 'ilaam before excerpts from it were posted by sidi abu Hasan.

And I suggest you drop those condescending quotes. too rich coming from a His Highness Prince..erm.. I mean pir saqib shami admirer.

 

[Ibn Hadi]

so is this something new? maybe i don't get it, but isn't this something basic?

the problem is not in the concept per se - but the pick-and-choose method. for example, witr is wajib in our (hanafi) madh'hab; sunnah in shafiyi madh'hab. one who habitually omits witr is a fasiq in our madh'hab; but one who omits witr is exercising a choice and is not frowned upon in the shafiyi madh'hab. in principle, we acknowledge the difference in furu'u. we do not do tafsiq of shafiyi omitting witr.

but what do books of hanafi fiqh say concerning such a person who omits witr? do they call him a fasiq or not?

similarly, if a shafiyi does not wash his nose in ghusl; or does not do wuDu after bleeding from a cut, his wuDu and salat is valid according to shafiyi furu'u. but is a hanafi permitted to pray behind him? i would ask saqib sahib to tell us whether hanafis are permitted to pray behind a shafiyi who does not do wuDu after bleeding from a cut.

or take the case of zakat - is zakat due on gold ornaments or not? if a person does not give zakat on gold ornaments, what should a hanafi mufti or a self-respecting hanafi scholar say? should he say: "oh don't worry. it is not permissible to do tafsiq if you don't give zakat on ornaments. there is ikhtilaf in furu'u"

consider a beginner's shafiyi fiqh book such as kifayatu'l akhyar, which recommends against praying behind a hanafi because he doesn't consider certain things (such as basmala or fatiHah) to be wajib in salah.

View attachment 4095

why is such tarjih mentioned and recommendations that one should rather go to a farther mosque of one's own madh'hab than pray behind a hanafi? why this obsession on following one's madh'hab when acknowledging the right of the other madh'hab to exist?


======
following saqib shami's revolutionary appeal, are we going to purge all the books of madh'habs that call something illegal, or invalid or disliked or sinful in their own madh'hab, even though some scholar in any of the four madh'hab might have permitted it? because according to this new breed of madh'habi-liberals, the only criterion for 'acting upon madh'hab' is any opinion in any of the 4 madh'habs.

----
according to the enlightened ones among us, it is even more liberal. a common man can choose any opinion he likes after consulting the books of fiqh (or any scholar). and then he can switch back and forth among four madh'hab as much as he likes without any censure. you can pray like a shafiyi in the morning, hanafi in the noon, hanbali in the late-afternoon/asr, maliki in the maghrib prayer and back to shafiyi in isha. BUT you have to follow that madh'hab fully for that one action or set of related actions. (why? which naSS prevents you from talfiq? isn't 'following scholars' absolute?)

because, it is not wajib to stick to only one of madh'habs - how can you make something wajib which Allah didn't? however, it is wajib to restrict oneself in only the four schools. but does any explicit naSS enjoins you to restrict oneself to the four schools?

====

so a book written for the common people about ikhtilaf can be fully understood only by scholars.

why release it to the common public then? why was it not circulated internally among scholars for review and comments?

yes, you are right. 'scholars' and 'peers' can do whatever they like, but we should not do tafsiq for things written down as fisq in fiqh books.

You miss the point entirely. Nowhere is he saying we should abandon the madhabs.
A Hanafi who omits Witr IS deemed as sinful.

Pir Saqib’s point (for example) is that A Hanafi can’t call a Shafi’i a fasiq if thé Shafi’i person is clean shaven.

Or another example. If a person follows the Maliki madhab and eats snails, a Hanafi CAN’T call that person a faasiq.

Regarding picking and choosing between diffeeent madhabs, all the Ulama I’ve asked say this

“It is permissible as long as there is no Talfiq”

I’ve heard this same statement when I met Shaykh Asrar Rashid, Shaykh Saqib Shaami, and others.
They all stated that the only reason Subcontinent Ulama are extremely strict on this issue is because there is no other madhab available there.

It is a condition before switching madhabs that the person has the knowledge of the other madhab.

Shaykh Sai’d Ramadan Al Bouti has a very good lecture on this.

Imam Abdul Ghani Nabulsi also wrote a very good book on this issue.

Please watch this short lecture of Al Bouti, towards the end he adresses the issue of Talfeeq clearly.

 

[Unbeknown]

You miss the point entirely. Nowhere is he saying we should abandon the madhabs.
A Hanafi who omits Witr IS deemed as sinful. Pir Saqib’s point (for example) is that A Hanafi can’t call a Shafi’i a fasiq if thé Shafi’i person is clean shaven.

Or another example. If a person follows the Maliki madhab and eats snails, a Hanafi CAN’T call that person a faasiq.

you have missed his point entirely - that is not his point. perhaps you haven't read the book properly.

a brotherly suggestion: keep away from him - he is not a scholar by any stretch.

They all stated that the only reason Subcontinent Ulama are extremely strict on this issue is because there is no other madhab available there.

pure conjecture. and easily disproven.

Shafi'i madhhab has been prevalent in south India since ages.

who all stated this and what evidence do they have to prove this?

alahazrat's fatwa in ajla al 'ilaam is clear and unambiguous as is his fatwa in fazl-ul-mawhabi. And he emphatically states that tons of books have been written refuting this concept of free-floating and unbounded pick and choose.

Do you think that all these tons of books have been written by subcontinental scholars only?

Perhaps His Highness Prince Saqib Shaami (and whoever all these are) know better than alahazrat.