Taqi Uthmani and writing Fatiha with urine

Discussion in 'Islamic Theology and Ideology' started by Abualqamah, Apr 28, 2007.

  1. Abualqamah

    Abualqamah New Member

  2. Expergefactionist

    Expergefactionist hmmm... Staff Member

    Sorry, bro.. but this is either a display of jahl or an evil intent.

    First and foremost, how could it ever be thought of a Muslim that he may espouse the idea of writing the Quran with one's urine for fun?! How could it then be thought of an Alim?! One should question this at first instance before believing in such horrendous accusation against anyone who believes in Allah and the last day, let alone an 'Alim!

    Secondly, please care to translate for us what you scanned, because if anyone reads what's written, he would clearly notice the difference between the title of this thread (your claim), and the context in which the Shaykh said what he said.

    Thirdly, the Shaykh is discussing a famous FIQHI difference of opinion with respect to using Haram as a medicine, and he is MERELY QUOTING scholars CENTURIES before him.

    Here you go, it says in al-Bahr al-Ra'iq:

    وكذا اختار صاحب الهداية في التجنيس فقال إذا سال الدم من أنف إنسان يكتب فاتحة الكتاب بالدم على جبهته وأنفه يجوز ذلك للاستشفاء والمعالجة ولو كتب بالبول إن علم أن فيه شفاء لا بأس بذلك لكن لم ينقل وهذا لأن الحرمة ساقطة عند الاستشفاء ألا ترى أن العطشان يجوز له شرب الخمر والجائع يحل له أكل الميتة ا ه

    Meaning, if one has a nosebleed and he writes al-Fatiha on his forehead and nose with his blood to get cured then it would be allowed as a treatment. Even if he were to write with urine knowing that it contains cure, there wouldn't be a problem with it, (because he is saving his life), however, such has NOT been narrated! Did you miss that out?! All of this is stated by Sh Taqi - Hafidhahullah - while these are not even his words, he is quoting someone else!

    You are the reason why some Salafis became Sufis in the West. Enough of extremism!

    [SIZE=-1]...and do not let the animosity of anyone lead you into the sin of deviating from justice. Be just: this is closest to piety...[/SIZE]
  3. Abualqamah. What kind of a sick individual are you? Stop trying to character assassinate one of the foremost scholars alive today.

    Fear Allah.
  4. Abualqamah

    Abualqamah New Member

    Salam aleykum

    People who are extremist are Taqi Uthmani and his Deobandi people.

    They call Ahlul hadith Ahlul Hadath (people of toilets), they call them Zindeeq, litlle brothers of Shi'a, misguided and many others...they kill mostikos in doing raful Yadayn...they are on Qadiani way...

    Secondly Taqi Uthmani is opproving all of that.

    Do you not see when Salih AL Munajjid is asked a question and he quotes from Ibn Taymiyah or ibn Uthyemeen or Ibn baz, and stop on their saying it means it is also his saying, as he does not disapprove of it.

    Anybody understands that it is his opinion as well, and he does not need to say : this is also my opinion.

    Thirldy, Taqi Uthmani quoted from bahr that if it is known there is Shifa in urine, there is no pbm for writing Fatihah with that.

    Taqi Uthmani remained silent after quoting this...it means for anybody he does not see pbm with that if there is shifa...

    As for matter it has been narrated from Hidayah or not, or it has not been narrated from anybody else, then it does not make a difference, AS IBN NUJAYM OR OTHER APPROVED THE FACT OF WRITING WITH URINE IF THERE IS SHIFA

    And what is the most ridiculous is that for these people, then urine of animals whose flesh is Halal is impure

    Either they will abrogate the hadith of 'akl and 'uraynah with no daleel or try to interprate that narrator of hadeeth mentionned it with ma'na and was mistaken or impute false idhtirab like Kashmiri, or will say like Kawthari that Anas the narrator was old and lost his memory

    Anyway, Taqi Uthmani quoted what he quoted, he did not say that writing Fatihah with urine should absoltuely not be done, it is Haram...and it is not shoking as a Muqalid is a Jahil...he is like a Sheep who follows what is elders do or say...

    For people who understand they understand, for people who want to defend the ghulat of Muqalideen...people of Bay'ah...what can we tell them...

    Now if I ask Abu Zubayr if a grave worshiper is asked about worshiping graves, and he answeres this scholar said it is ok if grave worship is effective, this scholar said there is no pbm to sacrifice at a grave and do nadhar if it is effective...and this man does not show any word of desaprobation...

    What would you say ?

    Would you say, he only quoted scholars century ago that you can do Nadhar and sacrifice for dead at graves...we cannot say he called to grave worship...it is sick mentality or hatred against him

    So people who understand understand...

    May Allah protect us from ghulat of Muqalideen
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2007
  5. Abu_Abdillah2000

    Abu_Abdillah2000 New Member

    I wonder, did you go to Taqi Uthmani himself to ask him that? I have seen him and heard some of his lectures when he came to Australia. I also saw that he had a very good relationship with the salafi talabat al-'ilm here, regardless of whatever differences there are between them. Even if some deobandis say the things you said, that doesn't mean that Taqi Uthmani also says that or approves of it!

    Abualqamah, it doesn't matter if you think you're not extremist, your attitude shows that you are an extremist. You are always taking things out of context and exaggerating things. The muta'assib Hanafis did it with you, so you are just doing the exact same thing back ot them. Your attitude is highly typical of the muta'assib "ahl-e-hadith" mentality of the subcontinent that Abuz-Zubayr has mentioned.

    And no matter how many shar'i terminologies you can use here and there to perhaps show how much knowledge you have, your attitude shows that if you really do have knowledge, you have not understood it nor are you acting on it properly.
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2007
  6. Intoodeep

    Intoodeep Banned


    Whos gonna take anything from you now. You are just full of lies and hatred.

    Go do some tazkiyyah on your nafs.
  7. Expergefactionist

    Expergefactionist hmmm... Staff Member

    Is is the author of Hidaya also guilty of Kufr and all the Hanafi scholars who approve of this statement? Do you still think you are balanced?!

    Secondly, didn't you read what I underlined above?

    I.e., such has NOT been narrated, and therefore, one may NOT write al-Fatiha with the urine, claiming that it has Shifa... This is what I, and I am sure others understand from this.

    You want to make out that the Shaykh is promoting writing al-fatiha with urine, without mentioning the whole truth, not to mention the context in which it is being said.

    As usually, due to your lack of appreciation of Fiqh, you've completely missed the point. They are discussing, only theoretically, the legality of treating oneself with Haram and Najis, such as blood and urine. Moreover, the Hanafis out of the four madhabs pay a lot of attention to hypothetical issues.
  8. Daniel

    Daniel TAFKA BM

    What is the sources of this vicious hatred of Shaykh Taqi Uthmani? I am reminded of the hatred that the cult-like followers of Rab'ee al-Madkhali display toward Sayyid Qutb and "Ahl al-Qutb": Dr. Muhammad Qutb, Shaykh Safar al-Hawali, Shaykh Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaaliq, and Shaykh Salman al-'Awdah. The hizbiyyah of some people is so extreme it leads them to commit dhulm against anyone who disagrees with their "manhaj".
  9. moubeen

    moubeen Active Member

    From what was translated:
    it says "Even if" and "however, ...not narrated" which means the situation mentioned is hypothetical. What is meant is EVEN IF there was a CURE in doing this thing with impure things there wouldn't be a problem. Like, If someone is in a desert starving to save himself if he found dead meat it would not be a problem eating it.

    Is writing the Quran with urine an act of kufr?
    Would it be allowed to do an act of kufr to cure yourself?

    One clear problem with hanafis in general, and deobandites in particular are their fanatacism in going into "what ifs"... someone can read pages after pages of this in a famous fiqh book, given to many brides in the indian sub-continent as dowry known as "beshti zewar" - Heveanly Ornaments

    The book is full of ridiculous hypothetical situations which make the reader wonder how the author came up with such scenarios....some of the rulings in the books are so strange, you can't help but laugh at the stupidity of the scenario... Do the Hanafites really need to ask about every possible IF?

    is this sort of Fiqh healthy learning or obsessiveness gone to the extreme?

    On a side note... Does anyone know a narration about talking about "ifs" with regret, and saying "if only..." open the doors for shaytaan.
  10. أبو نافع

    أبو نافع Formerly - Abu_Abdallah

    al-Salamu 'Alaikum,

    We should be less 'personal' in our dealings with one another. If there is some disagreement about certain issues, let us deal with it academically and politely.

    I don't think anyone here has the intention to speak ill of any of the Salaf al-Salih. Maybe some should be less outspoken about certain scholars of the past and today. And maybe some should be less sensitive in responding to others.

    Imam Abu Hanifah is an Imam from the Imams, and of course we should hold our tongues (in a sense) concerning him and his likes of predecessors even if we find things objectionable in him. There are many Imams from the Salaf about whom we might find objectionable things in them. I can mention a lot of such about Imam Malik, whom I have the utmost respect for. Certainly, every Imam has things which are objectionable. Even scholars less than these beacons of light, such as those of today have objectionable things. Indeed, they have probably more than those of the past.

    As for Shaykh Taqi al-Usmani, I've never read anything of him or a lot about him. I don't know him very well. If however he said certain things which I find objectionable, I would not ventilate them as some do here. Or at the least: I would not do my utmost to publicize them, unless there is an important objective behind such publication. If our dear brother finds himself fulfilling an important objective in this, let him explain himself better (if some feel he did not) or let him be; there is no need for some to declare others liars. Indeed, some who accuse others of lies are worse than those they accuse of lying as their traces bore out in their posts.

    I remember a brother (and you may guess who) asking me about Imam al-Darimi, author of the Radd 'ala al-Jahmiyyah and the Naqd Bishr al-Marisi. It was about the passage in one of these two books, I believe the latter, wherein the Imam of the Ahl al-Sunnah stated that,

    "..if Allah could, he would have made Istiwa' upon a fly.."

    And this brother had troubles concerning this. Now, I explained to him - before I read the Tarhib - that this passage of him does not denote Tashbih or a statement that is objectionable, inso far the author intended something that is not real and actual; it was just an example to demonstrate something. I added however: it was better if he gave another example (before I read the Tarhib - those who read this work know what I mean).

    I said: remember the statement of al-Qaradawi concerning the Jews and elections and about Allah, the Exalted? For this statement some accused the Azhari Shaykh of Kufr, and alluded even to apostacy! But it was just an example, even though not the best and most wise. But in comparison to al-Darimi's statement, is it much worse?

    Now: we all know the Hanafis reputation of the past - and according to the demonstration of some - and the present, wherein they speculate and make up hypotheses about all kind of things; just to make an example, how irrealistic it may like. The example of urine with "..if.." is one out of many.

    But let us not forget that there is much true in the camp of those who object in speaking in such way; some might say, lightly. Even if it is for examples and demonstrating something. Indeed, there is explicit testimony of some Salaf's - and If I remember well Imam Ahmad himself - who objected to what another Imam stated about knowledge of the Kaaba and Makkah,

    "..if a believer says I believe in this and that, but I do not know where this or that lies.."


    "..if a believer says I believe in the Messenger, but I do not know who or where.."

    this Imam, who is mentioned here, fell into harsh criticism frm none other than Ahmad (or another great one). And it was not just any criticism, but a strong one. And what was objected too is of less weight than Allah or His Speech!

    I do not say: it is justified to criticize any scholar for such statements, simply because al-Qaradawi has been criticized alike for it by some prominent Mufti's; nor do I say, leave him be for he may fall in the same category like al-Darimi. If the latters issue can be explained away, i.e. by what the author of the Tarhib mentioned, why not that of al-Qaradawi? Some might say: since there is no excuse at all to speak such lightly about Allah, the Exalted, even to draw examples; Allah is the One who makes examples of His creation and out of Himself, if He Wills so. And for this reason one scholar has been censured harshly [and al-Darimi not, save by Jahmites].

    But I neither say: it is justified to exonerate an eminent scholar for such statements, simply because an Imam from the Salaf stated something alike. If there exists clear evidence that some - who are greater than him - and who mentioned that, and never hide it, it may be made public. Indeed, it is an obligation to refute idle talk (especially about Allah, the Last Day, the Qur'an etc.) or talk that may lead to unbelief. And in my opinion, such speech by al-Qaradawi, Taqi al-Usmani and many other people is bad and not ok. I say: even some speech of Imam Abu Hanifah, who is far better than all of us here, such as alluded above is bad. And for this reason people spoke against him and related this untill such narrations reached us. They did not surpress such narrations, as they surpressed what befell the Sahaba in the Fitan and other things.

    I'm not saying: go ahead about speaking against scholars - great ones like Imam Abu Hanifah, or ones I dont know like Taqi al-Usmani - nor do I say keep silent. If there is a good, very good, justification to mention the faults and slips of people, and it is explained, it is something that should not be censured. Let alone by false accusations! This is a tradition, well-known.

    Neither am I saying: be silent about such, for there is no good in it at all or there is nothing wrong in it since it is a habitual tradition of some people. Rather, if one has good reasons to speak against it he should do. And every knowledgeable person here - and I dont mean those who accuse others without knowing them - knows what I mean. There are good reasons, contrary to some views of others.

    My advice to some brothers here: do not concentrate to much on one person of the past or public, neither point out to eachothers as persons. Let us who are present be moderate in our dealings, and let some here be moderate with those who are not present among us (dead or absent).

    May Allah forgive our faults and those Muslims who preceded us.
  11. y-mughal

    y-mughal Muslim

    Ibn Uthaymeen.
  12. Expergefactionist

    Expergefactionist hmmm... Staff Member

    JK brother Shareef for your excellent post!
  13. habdullaah

    habdullaah Member


    JazakAllaah khair for your post.

    (Before I write any further, I wish to say my english is not so good.)

    It is not hard for me to believe this. I have also read in a book about jamat tableegh, that Zakariyyah Saheb has given some similar answer to a questioner. That book was in Urdu, published by a scholar from Madinah University.

    I am not so comfortable with Deobandis.

    My teacher who taught me Quran, may Allaah protect him, is a deobandi scholar. I have great respect for him, he is mashAllah pro-taliban, and his sons are in the path of Allah.

    I remember him once giving a dars to students in the madrasah, in which he very severely criticised the 'ghair muqallids', and he quoted the Quran Surah Nisaa , ayah 115, and said, the Ummah and specially the momineen have decided that taqleed is an obligation , and so whoever goes against this , his destination is hell!

    After the dars I went to him and said: I like the people of hadeeth. I thought he would explode at me. Instead he said that his niece is also from ahle Hadeeth and that some of these people are good! He never showed me any disrespect.

    And my brother. He was previously a salafi. Later he became a tableeghi, and finally a staunch supporter of deobandi scholars. He reads books of Taqi Usmaani, and gave me a few books to help me understand his choice.he has spent much time with a well known deobandi scholar. He now believes that doing Sajdah to someone other than Allaah is not kufr that throws a person out of the fold of islaam, but just something haraam. he also states that mansoor hallaj, the dog, may Allaah curse him, was an outstanding momin, and that he was not really wrong when he said : innee anal haqq (or something similar) because of something to do with kashf , which my brother himself does not seem to understand and warns others not to dwell into these matters (as they are understood only by the very big scholars). And he hates salafis! he also thinks that the good scholars of Saudi, like the imaam of haram who once came to a mosque where he prays, is not from ahle hadeeth, but from hanbalee madh-hab.

    I thank Allah that He has shown me the path of salaf-as-saliheen, even a slight deviation seems to bring a dented belief in people.

    I respect deobandi scholars and I believe they are excellent Muslims but perhaps not the best. But I do hate those that clearly write such nonsense. Their nice akhlaaq do not make them immune from errors in their aqeedah.

    And it is worth noting that baraelwi scholars sometimes clearly state that deobandi scholars believe in the same things they themselves believe in, except that the deobandi scholars hide such 'facts'. I know one thing for sure, the deobandi do believe in 'hidden meanings'. They have lot of strange stories of awliyaa. I have heard this in one of the lectures of Miraaj Rabbaani, may Allaah guide me and him.

    Anyway , there are outstanding scholars on the path of salah as saliheen , why do we need to learn from others?

    And to brother AbuzZubair , ahabbakAllaah, may I know what would you advice with regards to a scholar from whom such things are proven beyond doubt?
  14. Expergefactionist

    Expergefactionist hmmm... Staff Member

    Well, this is the problem. I once bumped into some hardcore Hanafis who asked me if I know of Sh Zaino. When I said yes, the guy just hanged his head down and said, he's gone... He used to be a Hanafi and now he is ghayr muqallid. Whoever becomes ghayr muqallid he's gone... he has no hope. I then started arguing with him about the need of being balanced, etc... He was accusing Sh Zaino of the same sort of blasphemes that Ahl-e-hadis accuse the Hanafis of. But people driven by hate cannot be reasoned with.

    This is why, I would go and learn from the hanafi and ahl-e-hadis scholars whatever they have to offer. But as soon as they start having a dig at each other, I would switch off. Take the good and keep out of their mess. And as I have said many times before, it is more to do with Paki mentality than anything else. For Paki students of knowledge, I would strongly advise that they travel to learn from scholars of different countries. This will broaden their horizon and they'll realise that scholars from all different regions have their own deficiencies that we should avoid and take the good they all have to offer.

    I must admit, contrary to the picture that many have drawn of the najdis, they are the most objective and balanced people I have found. They also suffer from certain type of mentality due to the region they come from, as do we since we come from the UK.

    This is what the fiqh books also state. Sajda to other than Allah becomes Kufr if one dos it out of ta'dheem. But doing it for tahiyya, just salutations, as the Japanese people may do is not Kufr but Haram. Remember, Sajda as a salutation was legislated in Sharias previous to Islam.

    I have a book on my shelf by Deobandis against the Ahl-e-Hadis accusing them of exactly the same. They even quote from their works verbatim, with even scans.

    That;s the mentality he follows, he doesn't have much choice in that respect. And this is what I am speaking against. Just because someone hates you, you do not have to hate him.

    Because these others have contributed to the various aspects of Islamic law which the Ahl-eHadis scholars have not.

    Mufti Taqi Uthmani has been a leading figure with respect to Islamic financing/banking, application of Sharia in the modern world, minority issues and many other nawazil. He is, I believe, the chairman of Jeddah Fiqh council. Ahl-e-Hadis contribution has been restricted to Hadith sciences, or at least, this is all I have been exposed to.

    Mufti Taqi Uthmani recently came to England to deliver a course on the principles of Islamic finance. Only if a scholar from Ahl-e-Hadis contributed in such fields.
    Al-Majhool likes this.
  15. habdullaah

    habdullaah Member

    JazakAllaah khair ya akh Abuz Zubayr for your reply.

    May Allaah bless you further in your knowledge and understanding.

  16. AbuZakariyya

    AbuZakariyya New Member

  17. Um Abdullah M.

    Um Abdullah M. Nothing

    many Deobandis of today (don't know about the past ones) do not hate Salafis, maybe ahl al Hadith of Pakistan, but I noticed on teh internet many of them calling us Salafis and not Wahhabis like other sufi groups do, and they have respect for shaikh al Islam Ibn Taimiyyah and Ibn al Qayyim rahimahum Allah, even if they disagree with them on some beliefs.
    and they even use some materials written by Salafi shaikhs in some of their sites, things not related to aqeedah issues that we have differences in.

    also, they are not sooooooo extreme as other sufi groups, especially Brelwis, and they fight them.
    (I have heard that their older ones had some similar beliefs to Brelwis, but it seems the teacehrs of today are not exactly like their past ones?)

    actually not all Deobandis are exactly the same, I met one who studied under deobandi teachers, ang said that him and his teachers believe that Salafis are from ahl assunnah.

    and some Deobandis are against mawlid, and some other issues that other sufi groups argue for.

    why make an enemy out of everyone even less extreme ones?
    I don't mean that we don't refute their beliefs that are wrong, but I mean that we should not be hating them and fighting them like we do with extreme ones.

    I discuss with Deobandis but do not make them an enemy.

    I don't know if you get what I am saying.

    I have met very nice Deobandi bros and sisters, I see many similarities between us, and I think that is good.

    I have seen very big difference between them and extreme sufis ... I don't want to mention any names, I am sure you know the famous sufis on the internet who are always attacking Salafis and spread their false beliefs.

    May Allah protect the Muslims from their deviancies.
  18. student001

    student001 New Member

    From the horse's mouth?

    Assalamu Alaikum,

    Firstly, I would like to thank brother Abuz Zubair and all the other brothers involved in dawah on this site for the great job they have been doing and the immense benefit I have gotten from it (esp, with respect to Tawheed Asmaa wa Saifaat).

    I thought the following article, "Yasir Qadhi & The Deobandis: Unite With “Moderate” Sufis?" (one of the many of its kind floating around on the deobandi blogs on the net) might shed some perspective on this discussion from the 'other side' of the fence...

    However, before you get to the article, a brief intro to the little that I have understood about this controversy.

    Please note that all the beliefs held by the deobandis mentioned by the (deobandi) author of the article himself can be confirmed in the expose written about them by brother sajid at the ahya website:

    (See 2nd attachment below: TJ_03.pdf)

    In the write up by brother sajid mentioned above, for the most part, simply quotes extensively from deobandi sources, from their major scholars and a'imah. Scholars like the three main imams of this school and originators of the the madrassah at deoband (Rashid Ahmed Gangohi, Qassim Nanotwi and Ashraf ali thanvi, may Allah have mercy on them all and forgive their and all our mistakes), scholars like their shaikh-ul-kul, their top imam (whom the three mentioned previously gave the sufi bayah to), Haji Imdadullah Muhaajir Makki and finally scholars like Maulana Idrees kandhalwi who started of the the tableeghi jamaat (He also gave the sufi bayah to one of the three mentioned above).

    The point I guess I'm trying to make is that their seems to be too much evidence from their own sources, scholars and books, heaps of it, in the form of quotes, paragraphs, fatawa, poetry as well as whole books that cannot just be over-looked and ignored for the sake of convenience, benefit of doubt or a desire for unity. Too much evidence indicatiing entrenchement of beliefs like wahdatul wujood, istighasa bil amwaat wal quboor, belief in the 'tassarruf fil kawn' of the ghawth, aqtaab and awtaad and a lot more...

    Either that or I've just been missing something very big, in which case if anyone could explain to me how to reconcile it all, I would indeed be very obliged and sincerely thankful, for I have great respect for the good that has come out of the likes of sh. Taqi Usmani however if that isn't possible, then should not the purity of this deen be more important then personalities, no matter who they might be?

    And before the thought comes to your mind, no, all of it has not been just misquoted out of context in some bizarre conspiracy to malign the deobandies out of a personal agenda. please do take the trouble to check the sources and articles mentioned above for yourself and for more confirmation, read on...

    Jazakallah for all your patience...


    Yasir Qadhi & The Deobandis: Unite With “Moderate” Sufis?

    Salamu `Alaykum

    Most are already aware of Shaykh Yasir Qadhi due to his contentious rant against Shaykh Sayyid Muhammad ibn `Alawi, which provoked strong outcry from many (see: Jinnzaman). It was indeed outrageous to see such character assassination taking place in the name of tawhid against one whose scholarship was acknowledged from east to west and whose ijaza’s came from some of the greatest `ulema the 20th century had ever seen. Even though Shaykh Yasir Qadhi refused to offer any sort of apology, rather reiterating at a conference to one of my close friends that he stands by what he says and would have allowed his post on the Al Maghrib forum to remain if he had his way, this is not the time or place to discuss his slander and attack on the awliya. It would not be worth my time to defend the Sayyid against such people. When they reach his level we will listen to what they have to say.

    Now, Shaykh Yasir Qadhi is upto something different and it has to do directly with some of the Deobandis and the “moderate” sufis. Thus, as a Deobandi, I feel that people should be aware of these tactful ploys on the part of the Salafi’s which serve merely to further their own goals and purposes by sugar-coating their approach with an intellectual and accepting attitude which some see through and others, unfortunately, do not. I had been hearing for quiet some time that Shaykh Yasir Qadhi was speaking to some Deobandis regarding specific issues. I also was aware that many of the Deobandi `ulema were researching up on Shaykh Yasir Qadhi to evaluate his stances and to see whether he generally fell into what we categorise as Traditional Sunnism. It is important to note here that Shaykh Yasir Qadhi did not consider Shaykh Nuh and his murids to be “moderate” sufis, thus, effectively throwing them out of his “unity” advocacy. I think Shaykh Qadhi may have forgotten (or most probably was simply ignorant of) the fact that Shaykh Nuh has good relations with a few of the most senior and representative individuals of the Deobandi manhaj: Mufti Rafi` `Uthmani and Mufti Taqi `Uthmani, not to mention many of the Deobandi `ulema who have read his works consider him to be nothing other than a traditional, high ranking Sunni scholar. This is an addition to the fact that many of the concepts Shaykh Nuh propogates as a part of tasawwuf are also propogated by the Deobandi Akabir. khayr…

    The simple thing i would like to convey at this point, without getting into too many details of the “actual” talks, is that the Deobandis simply cannot and will not accept Shaykh Yasir Qadhi’s proposal, nor his stances, nor his methodology, or beliefs. Rather, the Deobandis should be considered as engrossed in shirkiyyah and deviant beliefs as Sayyid Muhammad ibn `Alawi supposedly was according to Shaykh Qadhi for a number of reasons:

    [1] We are proponents of the soundness of the Ash`ari and Maturidi schools of belief and define Ahly Sunnah as one who follows either. Contrast this to Yasir Qadhi’s “refutation” of Ash`ari’s here.

    [2] We are proponents of taqlid of the four schools of fiqh. Taqlid is to follow someone without knowledge of the proofs. Yasir Qadhi rejects this in numerous places with the typical rhetoric of following the “Qur’an and sunna“.

    [3] We promote following a spiritual path by giving bayah to a spiritual guide. Contrast to this Yasir Qadhi’s statement:


    [4] Within the spiritual path we believe in concepts such as wahdat al wujud, karama (miracles), kashf (unveiling), ilham, sama’ (poetic recital) with ecstacy and other overwhelming experiences of the soul.

    [5] We believe the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was the first creation, and a light (nur) before a body, and that if it were not for him Allah would not have created anything. We agree with Imam Busayri’s statement, ” “And of your generosity is the creation of the Wolrd and its co-wife (i.e. the Hereafter)…” which Shaykh Yasir considers as a statement of shirk.

    [6] We believe in his viewing of the deeds of his ummah, praying for them, and witnessing.

    [7] We believe in his authority to act as our intermediary in this life and the next. This intermediation can be done through imploring Allah through his status, honor, and right, calling out to him infront of his grave, seeking his aid, and so forth. We attest to the statement of Imam Busayri, “And who else there, besides you, who I can call out, at times of distress and problems?” Contrast this to Shaykh Yasir’s statement:

    And his statement regarding the Burda:

    [8] We believe he (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is alive in his grave and his life in his grave is stronger than what we conceive as life on earth.

    [9] We believe that the area he (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is buried in is the most holiest and noble of all lands and creation, ever moreso than the `arsh and the ka`aba. (see: imadad al fatawa)

    [10] We believe that visiting the grave of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), the awliya, and the `ulema is a prasieworthy religious practice. Shaykh Yasir states that making it a primary intention to visit such sites is a bida`.

    [11] We believe that within their relics lie baraka and shifa’.

    [12] We believe in his knowledge of the unseen (`ilm al ghayb) and we believe that his knowledge encompasses “the knowlege of the Tablet and the Pen.”

    [13] We believe in the possibility of the visitation of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and the awliya to righteous, living Muslims in a wakeful state i.e. a return of their souls to the world or gazing upon the Prophet’s barzakhi body, or his light and so forth.

    [14] We believe in the countless miracles of the awliya such as their walking on water, disappearing from sight, the worlds folding up for them, their peering into hearts, and so forth.

    [15] We believe in the hierarchy of their ranks such as the ghawth, qutb, abdaal and so forth.

    [16] We attest to the righteousness of the likes of shaykh al akbar Ibn `Arabi, Mansur al Hallaj, Imam Shadhili, Moinuddin Chishti, Imam Suhrawardi, Imam Rifa`i, Imam Busayri, Imam Jazuli, our master al hajj Imdadullah Muhajir Makki, and others from the great saints of Islam whom people consider as deviated (we seek refuge!). Contrast this to Shaykh Yasir’s statement:

    [17] We believe in the practices prescribed by the spiritual masters such as doing specific amounts of dhikr - loud or silent -. We permit movment with this dhikr and do not condemn any modality of such remembrance. Contrast this to Shaykh Yasir proving the unsufiness of Ibn Taymiyya by stating he was against:

    Yasir Qadhi while mentioning some of the “mistakes” of the sufis, quoting Ibn Taymiyya, states:

    And as can be seen there are quite a few aspects above which we Deobandis staunchly believe in. As such, what exactly does Shaykh Yasir mean by “moderate” sufi? What he proposes as a moderate sufi is in reality the same person who propogates “blatant shirk” and innovation according to him.
    This should be a warning and a sign to all Deobandis. We will not compromise the beliefs of our akabir, or their practices, for such people in whose eyes the akabir were guilty of bida` and shirk. It is a warning of the dangers of the Salafis and their inherent opposition to the true manhaj of Ahly Sunnah. Such people are guilty of promoting animosity towards the awliya through their methodologically challenged outlook.

    We pray that Allah protects His friends, and guides those who have enmity towards them lest He declare war on them. We pray that Allah does not divert our attention from the “Real” and the true goal of the path.

    wa anta haqqan ghiyathu al-khalqi ajma`ihim
    wa anta hadi al-wara lillahi dhi al-madadi

    And you (the Prophet) are in truth the helper of all creation,
    and you are the guide of mortals to Allah, Owner of help.

    Attached Files:

  19. student001

    student001 New Member

    From another blog...

    Original article written by "shaikh" Faraz Rabbani of Sunnipath on his blog was titled:

    "When Mountains meet."


    Sayyidi wa Sanadi Mufti Taqi Usmani db visits Sheikh Nuh db

    From our most dear & respected Shaykh Faraz Rabbani sahib db's site:

    Today, I had the honor of a lifetime: I picked up Mufti Taqi Usmani from his hotel (he’s here for the Islamic Fiqh Academy sessions this week in Amman) and took him to visit Shaykh Nuh Keller at the latter’s house in Kharabsheh.

    It was a beautiful meeting of two great luminaries of our times. An important issue raised and agreed upon by both scholars was the importance of considerations of tazkiya (spiritual benefit) when one answers religious questions. The point of religion is to promote deen in the lives of people, which is why the fuqaha deemed systematically seeking out dispensations to be impermissible, and why they encouraged people to follow one school of law.

    (As an aside, please make dua for Mufti Taqi: he got a bit sick in the afternoon, and we’re now cooking Pakistani food for him over the upcoming days, instead of the hotel stuff he preferred to avoid.)

    Allah SWT give Hazrat db complete, quick and pur-afiyat recovery. Ameen.
  20. abu hafs

    abu hafs Anti-Shirk

    Your post is kind of messed up...bro , Its not easy to figure out what u are quoting or what u are saying urself ....

Share This Page