Book: maslak e ikhtilal

[Unbeknown]

Are you trying to insinuate that anyone who has read and understood the book is Shaykh Saqib Shaami?

no. for example, I am not saqib shami.

Alhamdulillah I have read the book in its entirety, and specifically spoke with Shaykh Saqib in the duroos he holds after the Ihya gatherings at his centre in Birmingham, and I discussed the book with him.

great. so we can trust that whatever you say represents what saqib shaami has taught in his duroos. thanks for the confirmation. please don't go back on this.

I'm surprised that not one of you has even attempted to meet with him to discuss the book or to even get hold of a copy?

Are you trying to insinuate that anyone who wants to read and understand the book needs to meet the author and discuss with him in person? then why did he write the book?

 

[abu Hasan]

then why did he write the book?

the book is for specialists and scholars. not for common folk. please don't complicate things.

 

[Nawazuddin]

someone handed me the booklet in Birmingham and when I had a look at the title, it prominently stated the fabricated hadith: ikhtilafo ummati rahmatun. I returned it to the chap and said that if the author makes the pitch of his booklet a fabricated hadith then I could only guess, whats inside it.

 

[Unbeknown]

though I would not encourage anyone to buy the book, I'd say that the section on shubhaat is worth a look - borrow it if you can and even if nothing else, do read that section.

It shows how a machiavellian mind works.

Misquoting and turning principles on their heads - that is the paradigm this book follows with a religious fervor.

 

[Unbeknown]

My question for brother Abu Hassan is, how would you respond to the following objection of the ahlulhadith against Alahazrat rahimahullah? Ahmad Riza says Sama bil mazameer is Fisq, nevertheless he respects those Ulama who permit Sama bil Mazamir and those who have written on its permissibility.


Ahmad Riza believes Ulama from Kichocha and some other sufis are Awliya even though being adherents of the permissibility of Qawali. Even whilst deeming Qawali to be haram in his writings, Ahmad Riza goes on to use honorific titles such as Arif Billah and Sayyidi in his fatawa ridawiya for a personality who is an advocate of Qawali, having even written specific treatise on this very subject’s permissibility, namely Abdul Ghani Nabulsi.


Considering the above and keeping in mind Ahmad Riza’s recognised stance that to respect a Fasiq is Fisq, what Hukm should then be extended to the one who respects a Fasiq? Moreover, what Hukm would you extend and apply to Ahmad Riza himself? Ahmad Riza is one who not only respects those who permit Sama bil Mazamir, but is one who goes further to explicitly assert personalities, such as Abdul Ghani Nabulsi as Arif Billah. On the basis of your understanding, does Ala Hazrat not become a Fasiq based on his own Fatwa? Waliyadhubillah. How do you respond to this Brother Abu Hassan?

just look at this nonsense.

which wahabi argues thus? give me his name I would like to congratulate him. He would have to be an unbelievably fair person or out of his mind.

No wahhabi in his proper mind would concede that alahazrat rules qawwali haram - it is much easier to pretend that all baraylwis are disco dancers, music maniacs. And they do.

And guess who helps them convince the neutrals that baraiylwis are baja-gaja-dhun-dhun bid'atis? Why, the likes of saqib shaami. surprise!

So by setting up a straw-man and proceeding to burn it with distorted "usul" - saqib shaami expects to earn credibility and sympathy despite his aberrations?

 

[Unbeknown]

Even if you find generalisations in the verdict of a Mufti, it will still be specific to those who are the followers of his particular opinion. Subsequently, when Alahazrat rahimahullah says the one who listens to Qawali is a Fasiq, this Fatwa must only be understood as an isolated particular for those individuals who follow Alaharat rahimahulla’s Fatwa. Whereas, those who follow the opinions of other Ulama, such as Shaykh Abdul Ghani Nabulsi rahimahullah, they cannot be termed be a Fasiq due to rulings as such being Mukhtalaf Feeh in nature. Hence, does Ala Hazrat remember esteemed Ulama with high honorifics.

This is another one of his concocted "usul". I like to compare it to the Schrödinger's cat paradox.

According to this usul the actual status of a person is indeterminate. He is both fasiq as well as not not-fasiq. Depending on the mufti you put the question to. All faatwa are general and free-floating candies - you can take your pick and no need to fear anything.

This is debunked by the fatwa in post#25. But understanding cannot be expected of humanoids bred in cult ovens.

As alahazrat says: "hawaa e nafs ka ilaaj kiske paas hai" - "who has the cure for desires of the nafs"?

 

[Unbeknown]

My question for brother Abu Hasan is again, is that if we do not accept the Usool mentioned by Shaykh Saqib in defence of AlaHazrat rahimahullah then how else would you defend Alahazrat rahimahullah when the deviants accuse Alahazrat rahimahullah of Fisq based on Alahazrat rahimahullas own fatwa? Eespecially recalling that Alahazrat rahimahullah himself says that one who listens to qawali is a fasiq whislt going on to remember those “Fussaq” as Awlia Allah.

next time you attend saqib's "iHya al hawaa wa mawt al qulub" gathering do tell him from me that he should fear lest the retribution comes sooner than it seems.

Brother we are talking about a Sunni here who publicly refutes heretic deviants and even the likes of modern Azharis who are known as Awliya by many Sunnis but permit free mixing and promote Khurooj from Madahib Arba’ah. Shaykh Saqib believes they are deviants because they have deviated from Madahib Arba’ah.

what right does he have to call them deviants?

ask saqib which year did the ijma' on madhaahib al arba' take place? Imam Ahmed bin hanbal passed away in 240 AH. And per claim ijma' ummat ended with 200 A.H.

Surely this ijma' does not qualify as ijma' e ummat.

 

[Unbeknown]

My question for brother Aqib al Qadri is that do you seriously believe that anyone who listens to Qawali is a Fasiq even if he follows Sunni Ulama, who hold the position of its permissibility? Thus, I gather you understand Maslak e Alahazrat better than Huzur Mufti e Azam Hind rahimahullah who in Fatawa Mustafaviya says that since some Sunni Ulama believe in its permissibility, we cannot declare these people Fasiq. Do you have the courage to do Tafseeq of Ibn e Abideen, Muhadis e Azam Hind Kichochavi, Ata Muhammad Bandiyalvi , Ahmad Saeed Kazmi, Abdul Ghani Nablusi and many more (rahimahumullahi ajmaeen).

I cannot accept that any self-respecting muslim will attend such concerts let alone ibn aabideen and Imam nablusi. This iftira will cost saqib dearly.

This is what alahazrat writes - and quotes from authorities:

This is the real usul. The citadel of our deen - against those who wish to render it a toothless and a mere whimsical philosophy.

This is the Islam I signed up for. If I wanted to believe in fairy tales I would have been spoilt for choice.

If you cannot appreciate the depth and strength of this argument - then shed a few tears of grief over your misfortune.

 

[Unbeknown]

I am not replying to @Rizvi_Qadri anymore. I have come to believe that he is saqib's PR agent.

Even if not, I cannot beat sense into indoctrinated humanoids.

Alahazrat ('alayhirraHmah) gave up, who am I?

 

[Aqib alQadri]

The rules of the game are carefully crafted - you have no earthly way of proving that person x is a fasiq.

anything you have an issue with will have to be proven haram by ijma' qatyi - which will have to be ijma' -e- ummat - which will have to have taken place before 200 AH.

ijma' of the four madhabs? inconsequential.
ijma' of ahlussunnah? inconsequential.
ijma' of ummat but zanni? inconsequential.
hadith mutawatir and explicit verses from the qur'an? all subject to ta'weel, besides you can always find some shaadh opinion in some book or another which will prove that they mean exactly the opposite of what they read.
Alahazrat said it? oh, he is not ma'sum!

geddit?

So what problems do you have?

musician? - not fasiq.
clean-shaven? - not fasiq.
dyes hair black? not fasiq.
wears metal bracelets, 10 rings, and chains? some scholar in some book will have differed about it's ruling or others will have misattributed it to him - which is good enough.
hairs extend below shoulders? - prove it's haram by ijma'-e-ummat.
reads kufri verses? prove they are kufr iltezami by ijma'-e-ummat.
attends events with rawafid and other deviants? not our concern
sits with be-purdah women? - not his fault
offers salah? who knows? and seriously, who cares?
omits witr? allowed in shafi'i madhhab
goes around in just undergarments - allowed in maliki madhhab.
drinks nabeedh? well, the real hanafis have ruled it halal

feel free to add to the list but you will always find HH saqib shami one step ahead of you.

sorry sidi you are out-witted...

add the following:-

men wearing gaudy embroidered clothes, looking like women: everyone does it - they still look like men!
men wearing dupattas: so what, he still looks like a man!
photography (youtube, TV et al) even when not forced by law: hey, there is ikhtilaaf on this - that digital is NOT considered a photo!!!
banners and posters with photographs - not digital: this is the need of the times; let's forget the hukm of the hadeeth for the noble cause!
spending 2 hours doing make-up to appear before TV; aw - come-on! this is part of the job!.

 

[Aqib alQadri]

No brother I am not his close confidante, however I try to attend his gatherings whenever I am in Birmingham and I am in contact with some of his mureeds. Are you trying to insinuate that anyone who has read and understood the book is Shaykh Saqib Shaami?

well it turned out that you are a regular.

Alhamdulillah I have read the book in its entirety, and specifically spoke with Shaykh Saqib in the duroos he holds after the Ihya gatherings at his centre in Birmingham, and I discussed the book with him. I'm surprised that not one of you has even attempted to meet with him to discuss the book or to even get hold of a copy?

so why don't you just scan the book (if you can), and send it by PM to us. I have just sent you a PM that will appear on your inbox on the forum; you can reply to that.

I will try to arrange for the book, I have copies that I can post out, if you were to kindly PM your address - if you don't want to reveal your true identity, I can attempt to send the book to your local Masjid, where you can then read it.

My REAL name is Aqib Farid alQadri. I am not in the UK.

 

[Unbeknown]

From the book:

 

[Unbeknown]

The reason for the Shiddah and high emphasis placed on the prohibition of Qawali in Alahazrat rahimahullas Fatawa is due to him being placed ranks higher than a common Mufti, onto the authoritative station of a Mujaddid. Only from this station of authority does Alahazrat rahimahullah tackle the possible dangers of Kufriyat and Fisq in Qawalli and for sad ad zarai did shiddah whilst retaining esteem for and honouring the personalities who prove the permissibility of Qawali with Daleel as Awliya Allah.

speaking of sad al zarai after neutralizing it's effect by making a general allowance to disagree with the verdict is exactly like putting a formidable lock on a door and leaving the key inside it and then boasting about the strength of the lock!!

to quote a bromide, "it would be laughable if it were not so tragic".

 

[abu Hasan]

From the book:

is that saqib shami's STATEMENT/CONCLUSION or is he just quoting someone else?

 

[Unbeknown]

that is from the PDF posted here: http://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/pictures-in-islam-pir-saqib-shaami.13905/

 

[Unbeknown]

From my knowledge, Maslak e itidal was sent to senior sunni Muftiyan e kiram in India and Pakistan, 6 months before publishing and after many debates and discussions with ulama, only then was the book published.

which would imply that this is a team-work rather than saqib's personal"research".

Even dunyawi researchers have the decency to acknowledge people who help them in their efforts - to the extent that even librarians get mentioned for helping them find a book. But in the obsession to amass facebook-likes this "aarif" cleanly forgot to acknowledge a single person.

And if this were true - I would lose all faith in these "senior sunni Muftiyan e kiram in India and Pakistan".

 

[abu Hasan]

on p86 (as shown in the excerpt) is the full quote:

===
so according to shami, it is impossible to know sharayi ijma'a after the 2nd century; and therefore one cannot claim ijmaa' on any mas'ala/issue that has arisen after the second century hijri.

i haven't seen the book, but does this mean he does not accept ijma'a as a valid proof for legislation?

 

[Unbeknown]

both Imams of Aqeedah, Imam Ash'ari and Imam Maturidi were born post 200 AH.

so according to saqib, those who adhere to neither of their creeds cannot be called deviants - as deviance is worse than fisq (refer bahar-e-shari'at), and if ijma' is needed for tafseeq, surely it is all the more necessary for dadhleel?

a lot of mu'tazili ideas too developed after that fateful year whence all ijma' came to an abrupt and dreadful stop.

well done saqib sahib, with this book you have promoted scores of deviants to sunnis.

what honor shall I bestow upon you? an ignoble prize seems too small in the face of this stellar achievement.

 

[Rizvi_Qadri]

Brother 'unbeknown' I am dumbfounded by your response. Raza Academy, Mumbai, published 1000 copies of this book. Before publishing, the book was presented to Hazrat Taj ush Sharia - Perhaps you know better than the specialists, that belong to this field?


Also brother, some advice, the passage you have highlighted regarding 200 years ijma, is taken from Fatawa Rizawiya and the reference, given in Shaykh Saqib's book. Therefore, it would be best if you did not speak out against it.


I learnt from Kanz ul Huda brothers that the Mufti's who were presented with the book, before publishing, some were initially against certain aspects in the book. Shaykh Saqib discussed and debated with them – resulting in the Mufti's accepting that this book does not go against Ahlus Sunnah frameworks.


Brother Unbeknown, I would request you to read the book again, and for those who have not read it but are passing judgements already (perhaps propelled by their personal vendetta against Shaykh Saqib), please read the book in its entirety.


If you do not understand certain aspects, or feel that certain rulings are against the frame works of Ahlus Sunnah, go and meet with Shaykh Saqib, the way I did – I had no problem in meeting with him on several occasions to discuss the book, seek clarification from the author, after all it is a specialist subject. Failing that, you can seek a fatwa from a Mufti against him?


I do not see the benefit of commenting further on this subject when people who have not read the book are criticising Shaykh Saqib and not realising that in reality, they are criticising the passages from Fatawa Rizawiya of Ala Hazrat ra.

 

[abu Hasan]

the passage you have highlighted regarding 200 years ijma, is taken from Fatawa Rizawiya

yes, i know that. it is also present in the excerpt.
my question is whether saqib rejects ijmaa post-2nd century?

in other words, is ijmaa a source of legislation post-2nd century?
---
has the author clarified the maratib al-ijmaa' in the book and explained the terms?