Blind Faith. Shaykh Saqib Shaami

R

Rizvi_Qadri

New Member
Blind Conformity in Aqeeda is valid

Extracted highlights from a 4 hour lecture clarifying that Blind Conformity in Aqeeda (Creed) is valid based on the consensus of Ahlus Sunnah.

Hitherto, only the deviant Mu’tazila held the belief that blind compliance in Aqeeda is invalid.
An academic rectification of those who have wrongly ascribed the Mu’tazila Creed to Imam al Sanusi (رحمه الله‎‎).

By Shaykh Saqib Shaami Hafidhahullah.

Full lecture coming soon inshaAllah..

On Youtube:
 
From Shaykh Asrar Facebook:

Question: Is blind conformity in faith permitted? Some people are saying you misquoted Imam Sanusi.

Answer: There is no consensus on the issue of blind conformity in faith. While the majority say the faith is valid they also say the blind follower is sinful for not learning according to his mental capacity. So people who are capable of learning and do not do so are sinful. We do not declare those who blind follow as disbelievers but as sinful. As for the view of Imam Sanusi it is found in 'Umdatu Ahli alTawfiq wal Tasdid', even though some of his students say he retracted. It remains however that whoever blind follows in faith is sinful. If blind faith were totally permitted then how would a person determine whether his shaykh has deviated or not? Some of them say if your pir deviates from Ahl alSunna then do not follow him. Then I would ask how would a person know he has deviated if he himself is blind following. As for the claim that the Mutazila alone held the view of the faith of the blind follower being invalid, then this is untrue. Even though we do not ascribe to this view it was held by a minority. The upshot is that Muslims who are able to learn and do not according to their capacity are sinful. If a person believes in the existence of Allah out of conformity he is sinful and is prone to doubts. His faith is always in danger. Allah Almighty states 'Do not follow that which you have no knowledge of as the hearing, sight and heart will be questioned regarding that.' (Quran)
 
Response from brother Habib Jaami on Shaykh Asrar's Facebook status:

Salam shaykh. kindly watch pir sahibs lecture yourself. Pir sahib has provided references from major sunni ulama proving that only abu hashim mutazili claimed invalidity of iman al muqallid and we must do taweel of what imam sanusi said. So its your fahm vs the likes of imam nawawi, imam suyuti , imam subki and Imam ramali mentioned in the 36 minutes highlights of the talk and many more. In the full 4 hour lecture, pir sahib has provided many more aqwal of ulama and how they did taweel of imam sanusis qawl which you have mentioned above. InshaAllah i will try to send you the complete 4 hour lecture tomorrow before its uploaded. I will show your response to pir sahib at ihya in a bit and will try to get a recorded response to what you have said above. Duas
 
haven't listened to the full lecture, and am not commenting on it now.

but just to clear any misconceptions - let's start from Bahaar e Shariat:

Taqleed in Aqeedah.JPG


TRANSLATION

LAW: "Taqleed" (conformity / following) is IMPERMISSIBLE in ‘Usool-e-Aqaa’id’ , i. e. ‘Principles of Faith’. Rather the matter (that is believed) must be believed with a firm unwavering conviction, whatever the source of this conviction may be. It's attainment is not restricted particularly to corroborative knowledge. But yes, Taqleed is permitted in some secondary matters of belief; due to this, even in the Ahle-Sunnah, there are 2 groups:

1. The ‘Maturidis’: those who follow the school of thought of Imam Ilm-al-Huda Hazrat Abu Mansur Maturidiؓ.

2. The ‘Asha’ira’: those who follow the school of thought of Hazrat Imam Shaykh Abu alHassan Ash’ariؓ.

Both these groups are part of the Ahle-Sunnah, and both are on the right path (Haqq). They differ only in secondary matters (of belief); their differences are similar to those between the Hanafis and Shafa’is, who are both on the right path - such that none can accuse the other of misguidance or transgression.
 
This is Dasuqi on Sanusi's Umm al-Barahin, p.82-3:
 

Attachments

  • IMG-20171014-WA0005.jpg
    IMG-20171014-WA0005.jpg
    146.7 KB · Views: 422
  • IMG-20171014-WA0006.jpg
    IMG-20171014-WA0006.jpg
    146.2 KB · Views: 333
This is definitely not your field brother

Brother Nawazuddin, you have come to the right court to present your case, however I am afraid by mistake you have brought the wrong case with you. Please watch Shaykh Saqib's talk and read Shaykh Asrar's response so you can understand they are not debating about the jawaz of taqlid in usul, rather the ikhtilaf is regarding the sihhah of Taqlid.

Both agree it is impermissible for one to do taqlid in usool. The itkhtilaf is regarding the validity of taqlid in aqeedah and even in that, both believe that blind conformity in aqeedah is valid

Shaykh Asrar however claims that this is the position of majority of ahlussunah; whilst Shaykh Saqib's claim on the other hand, is that this is based on Ijma of ahlussunnah. The references in your article are on a totally different subject.
 
Last edited:
Rizvi_Qadri said:
This is definitely not your field brother

Brother Nawazuddin, you have come to the right court to present your case, however I am afraid by mistake you have brought the wrong case with you. Please watch Shaykh Saqib's talk and read Shaykh Asrar's response so you can understand they are not debating about the jawaz of taqlid in usul, rather the ikhtilaf is regarding the sihhah of Taqlid.

Both agree it is impermissible for one to do taqlid in usool. The itkhtilaf is regarding the validity of taqlid in aqeedah and even in that, both believe that blind conformity in aqeedah is valid

Shaykh Asrar however claims that this is the position of majority of ahlussunah; whilst Shaykh Saqib's claim on the other hand, is that this is based on Ijma of ahlussunnah. The references in your article are on a totally different subject.
Click to expand...

the title of the video is "Blind conformity in Aqeeda is Valid", and I was merely responding to that.
 
Yes brother Nawazuddin. That is my point, if you do not understand the difference between validity (sihhah) and permissibility (mjawaz) then you should not attempt to step into this field. The discussion is regarding validity and your article is about permissibility.
 
I will listen to saqib shaami sahib and comment and see if he is saying what you are saying. the title gives an impression that taqlid in aqidah is allowed. whereas, all mutakallimun agree that there is no taqlid in aqidah. what you are saying like hashawiyah that taqlid in aqidah is fine. Validity is a logical concept but we'll leave that for later as it is definately beyond your field, dear brother. Can you kindly point out the minute in the video where shaami sb makes the distinction between validity and permissibility and that taqlid in aqidah is not allowed? is it your own valid interpretation:)
 
My observation is that HH Saqib has created a fuss out of nothing and for nothing about this topic.
In whole the 37 min he never quotes the passage of Imam Sanusi,
but instead quotes from other books to show that a muqallid is not a kafir.
 
Rizvi_Qadri said:
Extracted highlights from a 4 hour lecture clarifying that Blind Conformity in Aqeeda
Click to expand...
going by the excerpts, it appears to me that saqib is a rank newcomer to the science of kalam.
but unless one views the full clip, it would be unfair to accuse him of that.
so dear blind followers, please dispel this notion building inside me that saqib might be clueless about kalam science.

now, post the 4 hour clip please.
 
Haqbahu said:
My observation is that HH Saqib has created a fuss out of nothing and for nothing about this topic.
In whole the 37 min he never quotes the passage of Imam Sanusi,
but instead quotes from other books to show that a muqallid is not a kafir.
Click to expand...

the entire lesson could have been summarized with this:-

Imaan Mujmal.PNG




I believe in Allah just as He is with His names and His attributes; and I have accepted all His commands; I acknowledge it with the tongue, and sincerely affirm it with the heart.
 
Rizvi_Qadri said:
Yes brother Nawazuddin. That is my point, if you do not understand the difference between validity (sihhah) and permissibility (mjawaz) then you should not attempt to step into this field. The discussion is regarding validity and your article is about permissibility.
Click to expand...
I will listen to saqib shaami sahib and comment and see if he is saying what you are saying. the title gives an impression that taqlid in aqidah is allowed. whereas, all mutakallimun agree that there is no taqlid in aqidah. what you are saying like hashawiyah that taqlid in aqidah is fine. Validity is a logical concept but we'll leave that for later as it is definately beyond your field, dear brother. Can you kindly point out the minute in the video where shaami sb makes the distinction between validity and permissibility and that taqlid in aqidah is not allowed? is it your own valid interpretation:)
 
Is this the Maturidi position on taqlid in aqida
Posted on this forum by faqir vide abu hasan

From the book: Nažmu’l Farāyid wa Jamú’l Fawāyid by Imām Ábdu’r Raĥīm ibn Álī also known as Shaykh Zādah (d. 944AH / 1537AD).

The 26th article: Īmān of a Muqallid - is it valid or not?

The majority of Ĥanafi scholars are of the opinion that the faith of the person who believes in the necessities of the religion by just following [taqlīd] others, like the oneness of Allāh [tawĥīd] and matters of prophethood [nubuwwah] etc., is valid and correct. It has been reported from Imām al-Aážam Abū Ĥanifah an-Númān and also well-known among his companions; this is also the opinon of Mālik, Ash-Shāfiýī and Aĥmed. This has been mentioned in Sharĥ Áqīdah at-Ţaĥāwiy by Shaykh Abū’l Maĥāsin Áli ibn Ismāýīl al-Qawnawi and the Úmdah of Imām Hāfižuddīn Ábdullāh ibn Ahmed an-Nasafi and its exegesis Al-Iýtimād. It is also mentioned in the explanation of Bad’a al-Amālī by Shaykh Áli al-Qārī named ‘Daw al-Máālī’.

The majority of Ashári scholars including Shaykh al-Ashári himself, and Qāđī Abū Bakr al-Baqillānī, Ustaž Abū Is’ĥāq al-Isfarāyni, Imām al-Ĥaramayn Ábd al-Malik al-Juwayni are of the opinion that it is not sufficient to just be a follower in the matters of belief. This has been mentioned in Sharĥ al-Jawharah of Imām Burhānuddin Ibrāhīm al-Laqānī, Sharĥ Umm al-Barāhīn of Imām Muĥammad ibn Yūsuf as-Sanūsi and the explanation of Bad’a al-Amāli by Shaykh Álī al-Qāri.

In the explanation of ‘al-Úmdah’ of Imām Nasafi, it is reported that Imām al-Ashári said: ‘The condition for the belief and faith of a person to be considered valid is that he should know every article of faith by its documentary proof’

In the explanation of ‘Umm al-Barāhīn’, Imām Sanūsi reports from ‘Al-Shāmil’ of Imām al-Ĥaramayn that ‘There is a difference of opinion in the validity of the faith of those who spent a long time [as muslims] and could examine the proofs and they did not do so’.

In ‘Al-Musāyarah’ of Ibn al-Humām: ‘The obvious meaning of Shaykh Abū’l Hasan al-Ashári’s passage is that ‘uttering’ a word makes sense only if the utterer knows its meaning; and if he doesn’t [know its meaning] necessitates that his words do not mean anything. It is quite possible that he means

And the Hanafi evidence is that the Prophet álayhis šalātu wa’s salām and his companions and their followers accepted the faith [īmān] of the bedouins [aárāb] who did not reflect nor ask for proofs; neither did they spend time comprehending the evidences. If it was a condition for faith to be correct, they would not have been spared this exercise.

After all, it has been attested from the ĥadīth - and the majority of ummah has agreed upon this unanimously - that the common folk of this nation [ummah] are the filling of paradise [that is paradise is filled with them]; and there is no doubt that for many of them the opinion of Al-Ashári suffices; if their faith would not be correct, then why would they be termed as the ‘filling of paradise’?
 
Ashari Shafi Sufi said:
From the book: Nažmu’l Farāyid wa Jamú’l Fawāyid by Imām Ábdu’r Raĥīm ibn Álī also known as Shaykh Zādah (d. 944AH / 1537AD).
Click to expand...



Also the article says that taqlid in aqida is ok according to early imams but according to asharis, the article says it is not ok.

is this also point of contention and difference between asharis?
 
Back
Top