The HH-AM-AJ lovefest

[Harris Hammam]

I hope this doesn't break any rules, Mr Convener:

HH:

No offense...just don't take us down some winding roads to prove something small.

Incidentally, it's good you showed up.

Just as Kohl has a relation to the issue of henna...I found some narrations that show a relationship between henna and the topic of nail-polish that you and artistic love so much.

Ya'lls form of debate really turned me off, so you'll excuse me for not reading the full thread(s) or knowing which side who is on...but if you go to the musannafayn and do a search on the word: "Khidhaab" and related words, you'll find some interesting narrations.

There is one from 'Aa'ishah (didn't check the authenticity) where she ordered the women to remove the henna before fajr and then put it on again and remove it before Thuhr. This will produce a good henna...

She also said that she would rather cut off her hands than make wudhu' with the henna on.

This obviously relates to having the actual crushed up henna on the skin, before it soaks in and becomes a mere coloring of the skin, and it does not mean removing the color to make wudhu'.

Therefore, this has to do with the impermissibility of making wudhu' while some substance that prevents water from reaching the skin is on the hands.

I thought it was at least related.

Anyway, please don't drag us into that debate here. It seems it has become a rupert murdoch octopus seeking to devour the entire board as it is.

I grant artistic the liberty of taking Ramadan off, because I am currently disengaging myself for Ramadan. Just tying up some loose ends. Hope you understand.

[artistic muslim]

I hope this doesn't break any rules, Mr Convener:

I grant artistic the liberty of taking Ramadan off, because I am currently disengaging myself for Ramadan. Just tying up some loose ends. Hope you understand.

Unbelievable!

1. Are you now making qiyas between henna and nail polish, my love? It's just that I distinctly remember someone laying down some rather stringent conditions for qiyas. But let me know, after we settle the issue of your procedural violations, if you wanna explore this further since there is a qiyas on henna and nail polish which allows wiping on both as well.

[Abu Jihad]

For issues of qiyaas and nusuus you guys should bring some examples from 'ilaam al-muwaqqi'iin.

Ibn al-Qayyim was the master of joining both of these in a manner that sounds convincing.

HH, when you say that a qiyaas in 'ibaadah can only be supportive...do you mean the following:

وَالصَّوَابُ وَرَاءَ مَا عَلَيْهِ الْفِرَقُ الثَّلَاثُ ، وَهُوَ أَنَّ النُّصُوصَ مُحِيطَةٌ بِأَحْكَامِ الْحَوَادِثِ ، وَلَمْ يُحِلْنَا اللَّهُ وَلَا رَسُولُهُ عَلَى رَأْيٍ وَلَا قِيَاسٍ ، بَلْ قَدْ بَيَّنَ الْأَحْكَامَ كُلَّهَا ، وَالنُّصُوصُ كَافِيَةٌ وَافِيَةٌ بِهَا ، وَالْقِيَاسُ الصَّحِيحُ حَقٌّ مُطَابِقٌ لِلنُّصُوصِ ، فَهُمَا دَلِيلَانِ : الْكِتَابُ وَالْمِيزَانُ ، وَقَدْ تَخْفَى دَلَالَةُ النَّصِّ أَوْ لَا تَبْلُغُ الْعَالِمَ فَيَعْدِلُ إلَى الْقِيَاسِ ، ثُمَّ قَدْ يَظْهَرُ مُوَافِقًا لِلنَّصِّ فَيَكُونُ قِيَاسًا صَحِيحًا ، وَقَدْ يَظْهَرُ مُخَالِفًا لَهُ فَيَكُونُ فَاسِدًا ، وَفِي نَفْسِ الْأَمْرِ لَا بُدَّ مِنْ مُوَافَقَتِهِ أَوْ مُخَالَفَتِهِ ، وَلَكِنَّ عِنْدَ الْمُجْتَهِدِ قَدْ تَخْفَى مُوَافَقَتُهُ أَوْ مُخَالَفَتُهُ .

[artistic muslim]

A first version:

"On the 16th [of Jumada al-Ula, 822 AH] the Chief Judge Shams al-Din Muhammad al-Dayri al-Hanafi – the judge of Cairo – summoned Sadr al-Din Ahmad b. al-‘Ajami, in a worrisome (or disturbing) call, after it reached him that he disparaged ‘Abdallah b. ‘Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them. He put him under trial and the prosecutor claimed that he said: ‘Who is ‘Abdallah b. ‘Abbas compared to the Imam Abu Hanifah, may Allah have mercy on him?!’ So he ordered to imprison him in the Madrasa al-Salahiyyah, until proof was established against him.

The cause of all this was that on one occasion when the Sultan became very sick, some of the Fuqaha’ gave Fatwa that he (i.e. the Sultan) can join two Prayers so long he was ill. So when he put that in practice, Sadr al-Din rejected that on the basis of the followed (or appropriate) Madhhab of his’, which is: disallowing the combining of prayers in both sickness and in travel. He said to the Sultan: ‘Your Madhhab is Hanafi. You are not allowed to make Taqlid of other then the Madhhab of Abu Hanifa.’

As a result, some of the attendants debated him over the permission of combining [two Prayers] and that it has been affirmed in the Sahih of Muslim and elsewhere. Furthermore, ‘Abdallah b. ‘Abbas adopted the combining of two prayers in a residence without [formal] justification, and a group of scholars chose the combining [of prayers] in a situation of sickness.

He (i.e. Sadr al-Din) was not able to respond [academically] and said that in [the Sahih of] Muslim there are a number of traditions that are not authentic. He took up a detailed exposition of Abu Hanifa in what they ascribed to him, lowering Ibn ‘Abbas and favoring Abu Hanifa over him.

Consequently, they disparaged him. Some of them harbored hatred directed at his audacity and boldness, until the Sultan put down on paper to prosecute him. So what has been mentioned, happened.”

Another disgusting spectacle of factionalism, which leads people to raise their own imams over the family of the Prophet not to mention the sahaba and one of the greatest scholars of the ummah. Even more evidence of stinky madhabistic factionalism is this:

1. Bro at least you could remained silent if you could not say رحمه الله رحمة واسعة.

So the sort of mindset which favours Salafistic literalism needs huge exposes, but we should all be silent when it comes to madhabistic factionalism and a Hanafi imam who dares to say: "Who is ‘Abdallah b. ‘Abbas compared to the Imam Abu Hanifah, may Allah have mercy on him!" Not only that we should invoke Allah's vast mercy on a silly muta'assib. Amazing.

[justabro]

Another disgusting spectacle of factionalism, which leads people to raise their own imams over the family of the Prophet not to mention the sahaba and one of the greatest scholars of the ummah. Even more evidence of stinky madhabistic factionalism is this:



So the sort of mindset which favours Salafistic literalism needs huge exposes, but we should all be silent when it comes to madhabistic factionalism and a Hanafi imam who dares to say: "Who is ‘Abdallah b. ‘Abbas compared to the Imam Abu Hanifah, may Allah have mercy on him!" Not only that we should invoke Allah's vast mercy on a silly muta'assib. Amazing.

Wander on to the wrong thread?

[artistic muslim]

Wander on to the wrong thread?

Did I wander to the wrong thread?

ان أرض الله واسعة

Besides, after you wandered away from moderating duties what was I supposed to do to elicit a response from you?

This was the topic of my post:

A first version:

[B]"On the 16th [of Jumada al-Ula, 822 AH] the Chief Judge Shams al-Din Muhammad al-Dayri al-Hanafi – the judge of Cairo – summoned Sadr al-Din Ahmad b. al-‘Ajami, in a worrisome (or disturbing) call, after it reached him that he disparaged ‘Abdallah b. ‘Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them. He put him under trial and the prosecutor claimed that he said: ‘Who is ‘Abdallah b. ‘Abbas compared to the Imam Abu Hanifah, may Allah have mercy on him?!’

I wasn't really aware that expressing disgust at the belittling of the sahaba required an invitation. I guess I could start a separate thread on the strange rulings and ta'assub of the Hanafis which leads them to malign Ibn Abbas, and thus avoid treading on hallowed ground.

[Abu_Abdallah]

Did I wander to the wrong thread?

ان أرض الله واسعة

Besides, after you wandered away from moderating duties what was I supposed to do to elicit a response from you?

This was the topic of my post:



I wasn't really aware that expressing disgust at the belittling of the sahaba required an invitation. I guess I could start a separate thread on the strange rulings and ta'assub of the Hanafis which leads them to malign Ibn Abbas, and thus avoid treading on hallowed ground.

If you were fair, you could also have mentioned the zeal of the 'Hanafis' who stood up to defend Ibn Abbas and bring the accused to justice.

But where you see one Hanafi, and not 'Hanafis', act wrong you make as if they all were part of this act.

[justabro]

This was the topic of my post:

A first version:

[B]"On the 16th [of Jumada al-Ula, 822 AH] the Chief Judge Shams al-Din Muhammad al-Dayri al-Hanafi – the judge of Cairo – summoned Sadr al-Din Ahmad b. al-‘Ajami, in a worrisome (or disturbing) call, after it reached him that he disparaged ‘Abdallah b. ‘Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them. He put him under trial and the prosecutor claimed that he said: ‘Who is ‘Abdallah b. ‘Abbas compared to the Imam Abu Hanifah, may Allah have mercy on him?!’

I wasn't really aware that expressing disgust at the belittling of the sahaba required an invitation. I guess I could start a separate thread on the strange rulings and ta'assub of the Hanafis which leads them to malign Ibn Abbas, and thus avoid treading on hallowed ground.

Be my guest...

Anyhow, if you go back to your previous post, you quoted this:

1. Bro at least you could remained silent if you could not say رحمه الله رحمة واسعة.

And then commented:

So the sort of mindset which favours Salafistic literalism needs huge exposes,

And indeed it does. I have been wanting to do it myself for quite some time. I've dropped hints at it before, as have many others on this forum, even before HH showed up, but I just don't have time to deal with it:

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f...tml#post252196

but we should all be silent when it comes to madhabistic factionalism and a Hanafi imam who dares to say: "Who is ‘Abdallah b. ‘Abbas compared to the Imam Abu Hanifah, may Allah have mercy on him!" Not only that we should invoke Allah's vast mercy on a silly muta'assib. Amazing.

[/QUOTE]

But in the same post from which you quoted, HH also said this:

5. It was perhaps his misguided application of his religious policing duties that led him to tell the Ameer what he said. His disparaging of Ibn Abbas was unjustified.

6. He was not a Faqeeh it seems, as is the case with many of those who argue about Taqleed these days. He was most definitely not one of the 'main muftis' of Egypt who allowed Universal Taqleed were referred to by al-Sirami. Hence his authority is nothing and cannot be citedby the D-Madkhalis as a legal authority in the issue.

So I don't think anyone is condoning disparaging a Companion, nor suggesting that if Hanafi Imams do so, one must look the other way.

It's amazing that you choose this thread to make accusations of madhab fanaticism, when that is precisely what this thread is dealing with.

Are you sure that in your attempts to prove HH a stereotypical Hanafi, you are not making yourself look like the stereotypical "Hanafi-obsessed" Ahle Hadis?

In any case, I am not interested in any sort of fire-war, but perhaps you should do some reflection on what it is you're trying to achieve.

By all means, you are free to debate Hanafis on whatever you disagree on (I myself could find plenty I disagree on), but be careful not to make a caricature of yourself in the process.

Did I wander to the wrong thread?

ان أرض الله واسعة

Besides, after you wandered away from moderating duties what was I supposed to do to elicit a response from you?

Well, perhaps you two could cut down on the name-calling and drama. Every time I come back to find you two have posted, I have to sift through layers of verbal abuse to get to the actual points, in spite of having requested both of you repeatedly to discuss in a civil fashion. I actually cringe every time I open the thread in dread at what I will find.

You two are obviously well-read, educated Muslims. Why you are hell-bent on hurling abuse and hatred at each other is beyond me.

[Harris Hammam]

Another disgusting spectacle of factionalism, which leads people to raise their own imams over the family of the Prophet not to mention the sahaba and one of the greatest scholars of the ummah.

Thanks pal. I was the one who pointed that out to you. I also pointed out what al-Maqrizi said when he died:
ومات صدر الدين أحمد بن جمال الدين محمود بن محمد بن عبد الله القيصري - المعروف بابن العجمي - في يوم السبت رابع عشر رجب. وقد ولي الحسبة بالقاهرة مراراً، وولي نظر الجيش بدمشق، وكان من فضلاء الحنفية، وله معرفة جيدة بالنحو

He dedicated his life to Deen, though he was not a seasoned Faqeeh who was able to engage in difference of opinion; hence he doesn't feature on the list of scholars I've compiled.

If you carefully read al-Maqrizi's book, he has a go at all those people (including judges, jurists, leaders, ministers) who were bad and evil when mentioning their date of death. However, he did not do so for this Sadr 'l-Deen al-Qaysari. Rather he simply says وكان من فضلاء الحنفية.

Now we come to the issue that he disparaged Ibn `Abbas in favour of Abu Hanifah. Well of course that was wrong, nobody is disputing that. We don't need a Salafi like you to repeat this to us. But neither I nor you know what his mindset was at the time:

- Perhaps it was a blip and his anger overtook him for that moment (incapacitating anger nullifies even divorce according to some jurists)

- Perhaps he had some political/personal vendetta with the way he was treated by the Abbasids and Abbasid Mamluks during his time of long-term employment with them, which led him to say what he said against Ibn Abbas

- Perhaps he was just another religious policeman overstepping his jurisdiction and taking matters into his own hands.

- Perhaps he abused his authority, since he was a son of a Hanafi chief justice.

It could be anything, so for you to single this out as pure Fiqhi fanaticism and hatred for Ibn Abbas is questionable, and is symptomatic of the Zahiri Salafi Fiqh mindset who cannot think outside the box.

I wasn't really aware that expressing disgust at the belittling of the sahaba required an invitation.

No invitation needed. Just don't pop up to promote your own agenda pal

Even more evidence of stinky madhabistic factionalism is this:

Originally Posted by Harris Hammam
1. Bro at least you could remained silent if you could not say رحمه الله رحمة واسعة.

So the sort of mindset which favours Salafistic literalism needs huge exposes, but we should all be silent when it comes to madhabistic factionalism and a Hanafi imam who dares to say: "Who is ‘Abdallah b. ‘Abbas compared to the Imam Abu Hanifah, may Allah have mercy on him!" Not only that we should invoke Allah's vast mercy on a silly muta'assib. Amazing.

While you're at your rant, why not send a couple of curses on him too, just to make sure you too are not guilty of Madhhabi fanaticism he was guilty of? Amazing.

Tell us how is asking others to remain silent over his affair "Madhhabi fanaticism"???

And how is it that asking for Rahmah for him in some way offensive to you, or even a sin? Who are you anyway to judge? If you think you are some authority over this, please provide us the criterion of who deserves supplications of Rahmah and who doesn't.

There are so many colours, shapes and tastes of fanaticism in the Ta`assub spectrum - is everyone to be excluded from being worthy of supplications for Rahmah?

Who's next? Abu Yusuf, because he didn't employ any non-Hanafis? Let's us now never say رحمه الله for him now, shall we?


Just a few more points:

- He wasn't a "Hanafi Imam" unlike the way you portray him. Perhaps this is part of your ploy, to falsely add importance and credibility to someone you are wishing to eventually refute.

- Realise that to make to accuse us of 'stinky madhabistic factionalism' on this thread (out of all the treads in the world) is the biggest stupidity one could ever perpetrate on any forum. I'm sure you've realise that too by now.

- You are right that the Salafi Fiqh mindset needs a good expose. Thanks for dropping in the link too. Whereas I have focussed on Salafi Fiqh layman, we shall soon embark on exposing Salafi Fiqh students and the fundamental flaw in their understanding of Fiqh, especially when they wish to force everyone to their understanding of issues yet themselves allow people from Rupnagar to legislate in the Deen of Allah.

And note the difference between:
- Salafi Fiqh, which is a systematic problem facing us (which require a good refutation),
- as opposed to isolated cases of Madhhabi fanaticism (which only deserve a mention in passing, and which Deobandis themselves oppose, but you've blown it out of proportion for your personal agenda),
- as opposed to the systematic evil Taqleed Shakhsi fanaticism (which we are dealing with right here, right now)

None of this (except for the last point) is for relevant or related this thread, though what I hope from this exchange is that the Deobandis reading this realise we are not advocating what you stand for, which is a good result I would think.

But hey if you want Deobandis to switch to your way of thinking in Ijtihad and Taqleed, be my guest, open a new thread and I'll try to make it a sticky for you like this one is. To this end, I welcome the following proposal of yours too:

I guess I could start a separate thread on the strange rulings and ta'assub of the Hanafis which leads them to malign Ibn Abbas, and thus avoid treading on hallowed ground.

As for your other rants:

Did I wander to the wrong thread?

Here is your reminder pal:
Wiping over nail varnish in wudhu

ان أرض الله واسعة

From nail polish, where did you make Hijrah to? Fake nails?

Besides, after you wandered away from moderating duties what was I supposed to do to elicit a response from you?

I'm saying this again and again: He was the moderator OF YOUR CHOICE. Stop bickering as if he has done some injustice to you. He has given you plenty of time to think about how you propose a woman covers her whole foot - toe to ankle - with nail polish as per Qiyas on wiping socks.

Ma` Salaamah

[artistic muslim]

If you were fair, you could also have mentioned the zeal of the 'Hanafis' who stood up to defend Ibn Abbas and bring the accused to justice.

But where you see one Hanafi, and not 'Hanafis', act wrong you make as if they all were part of this act.

That's a fair point and of course anyone, Hanafi or not, who defends the sahaba is to be praised. That is not even a point of contention.

What is unjust is the way people here are putting all the blame for the belittling of the sahaba on "ONE Hanafi", as if he alone is responsible for this line of thought, when in fact the culture of belittling sahaba has been present in the Hanafi school for a long time and it is something which is found way up the Hanafi food chain. It is not my job to go in to that here and any serious student of knowledge would know these things anyway, but amongst the sahaba who have been belittled by the Hanafis, some in ways worse than Ibn Abbas was here, are Ibn Umar, Abu Hurayrah and the list goes on.

The reason you will not find fair minded scholars condemning other schools such as the Hanbalis on this point is simple: they do not have such a history of insulting the sahaba in the way the Hanafis do. So what are we supposed to do, accuse others of making mistakes which they never made just so the Hanafis don't feel attacked?

It's amazing that you choose this thread to make accusations of madhab fanaticism, when that is precisely what this thread is dealing with.

Yes, I used a thread on madhab fanaticism to show madhab fanaticism at work on that thread [by those who think we should be silent about Hanafi imams who insulted the sahaba out of ta'assub]. Therefore, this would have been the most appropriate place for this discussion if people were interested in being fair. Sad that some are not.