PDA

View Full Version : MAWDUDI: Facts and Controversies in his life and works



Abul Hasan
04-03-2005, 01:14 PM
:salam:

Here follows two articles on Abul A'la Mawdudi (d. 1979) - leader and inspirer of groups like: Jama'at al-Islami, Islamic Foundation (Leicester, UK), Islamic Forum Europe (East London masjid, London et al), "Young Muslim Organisation" (YMO) and Ikhwan al-Muslimin...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abu'l Ala Maududi (1903-1979) was probably the most well known leader of the various "Salafi" movements in his time. He founded the political party known as Jama'at al-Islami in 1941 with the aim to revive Islam in the Indian subcontinent as well as establish a true Islamic state. The aims seemed to be noble initially, but as he gained prominence through his writings and speeches (many of which have been translated into various languages), he lost the confidence of the majority of the Ulama in the Indian subcontinent; be they Deobandi/Tablighi or Barelvi.

A number of religious edicts were passed on him and his Jama'at due to some ideas championed by Maududi , and subsequently backed, funded and published by a section of the government appointed scholars of "Salafi-Saudi" Arabia. We will mention some of his famous declarations by the aid of Allah below.

Despite facing a number of setbacks, this political party is still active today in the subcontinent, as well as in the Western world; where it has managed to proselytize its activities and ideas by channeling it through a number of well funded Saudi-backed umbrella groups.

The names of these groups may be different but the aims and intentions are practically the same; and generally it is at core a wing of Salafiyyism in its many divisive and sub-divisive forms that exist in the Muslim lands today. To name but a few of these groups based in the occident may enlighten the reader to some extent.

Here in England the Jama'at al-Islami has been represented to the best of my knowledge in the shade of some of the following groups: UK Islamic Mission, Young Muslims (YM), Young Muslim Organization (YMO), and most notoriously the academic and cultural representative of the Jama'at has been expressed and promoted by the Islamic Foundation based in Leicester, UK.

Needless to say, the above groups are all in one form or another admirers of Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn al-Qayyim, Ibn Abdal Wahhab; as well as having some members who respect al-Albani to a certain degree.

Our aim is not to belittle or dishonor the members of the above named groups, but to warn and advise its unsuspecting members as well as the "Salafi" movements in the West who never condemn Maududi in general,[157] the true nature of Maududi and his party's beliefs to the best of our knowledge and sincerity.

We have derived most of the following quotes from a work compiled by Shaykh Muhammad Yusuf Ludhianvi,[158] entitled: Differences in the Ummah and the Straight Path.[159] To the introduction of another book written by Ludhianvi,[160] there is a brief review of Maududi's life and works, by the late Muhaddith of Pakistan: Shaykh Muhammad Yusuf Banuri,[161] in the following words[162] :

I admired many things about Maududi Saheb and detested many. For a long time I did not wish to degrade him. I felt that from his innovated style of presentation the modern generation could benefit. Although at times such compositions appeared from him that it was not possible to endure it, but taking into consideration the Deeni (religious) well being, I tolerated and kept silent. I did not foresee that this fitnah (mischief) would spread worldwide and have a detrimental effect on the Arab world; that every day from his master pen new buds would keep on blossoming, and indecent words would be used regarding the Sahabah kiraam Ridhwanullahi Alayhim and the Anbiyya (Prophets) Alayhimus Salaam. Later on, such things appeared daily in the Tafhimul Quraan. [163]

Now it has become known without doubt that his writings and publications are the greatest fitnah of the present time, notwithstanding a few beneficial treatises that have appeared. It is the case of, 'and the sin of them is greater than their usefulness.'[164] Now that stage has been reached where to keep silent seems to be a great crime. It is regretted that for forty years an offensive silence was kept. Now the time has dawned, where without fear of rebuttal and censure all his writings from A to Z should be thoroughly studied with a view to fulfill the demands for the preservation of the Deen with Haqq (truth) and justice.

Shaykh Ludhianwi said[165]:

You are aware that Prophethood is a very sensitive issue. Any expression which debases a Nabi is inappropriate. Examine the entire treasure of ahadith of Nabi (peace be upon him) and you will not find the minutest doubt regarding any Nabi (peace be upon them), but Maududi's pen, even after reaching the sanctuary of Prophethood, remains unacquainted with respect. Without compunction he mentions:

(a) The example of Musa (peace be upon him) is that of a hasty conqueror who continues marching without reinforcing his authority. Behind him in the captured land a revolt spreads like fire in a jungle.[166]

(b) Hadrat Dawud (peace be upon him) was influenced by the general custom of the Israeli society of his era and requested Urya to divorce his wife.[167]

(c) There was a carnal desire in the act of Hadrat Dawud (peace be upon him) and he misused his authority. It was an act which did not suit any acquiescent person in the government.[168]

(d) Hadrat Nuh (peace be upon him) was overcome by his human deficiency and he became prey to the emotions of ignorance.[169]

(e) The statement of Hadrat Yusuf (peace be upon him), 'Appoint me as a treasurer of the land' according to him was not merely a request for the post of treasury, as some people presume, but it was a demand for dictatorship. As a result of this, the position which Yusuf (peace be upon him) achieved was very much similar to the position Mussolini [170] held.[171] (f) Hadrat Yunus (peace be upon him) was negligent in the duty of Prophethood. Presumably he left his place before time after loosing his patience.[172]

After analyzing the severe consequences of the above statements made by Maududi , Shaykh Ludhianvi noted on the hundred and twenty first page of his above named work:

Whoever has read Maududi's book Khilafat wa Mulukiyat[173] will testify that the Sahaba (may Allah be pleased with them all) are openly degraded in it, and the author's animosity for the Sahaba (may Allah be pleased with them) is quite apparent.

Under the title "Termination of the superiority of the law", Maududi writes:

(a) "Another abominable innovation that originated in the rise of Mu'awiyah is that he and the governors under his command used to vilify and swear at Hadrat Ali (radiallahu anhu) from the pulpit, to such an extent that even in Masjidun Nabawi[174] on the minbar of Rasulullah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) right in front of the Rowdah-e-Nabawi, the beloved cousin of Nabi (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) used to be vilified. The descendants and relatives of Ali (radiallahu anhu) used to bear this abuse. To swear at any person after his death, besides the Islamic illegality is ethically despicable. To pollute the Jummah (Friday sermon) with this filth was an extremely repulsive act.[175]

(b) Hadrat Mu'awiyah (radiallahu anhu) openly violated the Qur'an and Sunnah in the matter of the distribution of the booty. According to the Qur'an and the hadith, one fifth of the total spoils of war were to be given to the public treasury and the remaining four portions were to be distributed amongst the army that participated in the battle. But Mu'awiyah gave the order that the gold and silver were to be first taken out for him and the remaining distributed according to the Shari rule." [176]

(c) The enrolling of Ziyad ibn Sumayah was also one of the acts of Mu'awiyah which he perpetrated for political aims and thereby contravened an accepted law of Shari'ah. This was a completely unlawful act.[177]

(d) Hadrat Mu'awiyah regarded his governors as above the law and openly rejected Shar'i proceedings against their violations."[178]

If one wishes to discover more vile slanders and attacks (which are diametrically opposed to the beliefs of the Ahl-us-Sunnah wa'l Jama'ah), made against great Companions like Aisha, Hafsah, Abu Bakr, Uthman, Amr ibn al-Aas (may Allah be pleased with them all), and not to mention the great Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all) of the past - then please refer to Shaykh Ludhianvi's works mentioned above for a detailed analysis.

So far, we have provided Maududi's attacks on the past generations, but to finish of this section we will quote what he says of the awaited Imam al-Mahdi; without any direct proof from the sources of the Shari'ah - but rather from his own arrogant imaginations!

He said in his book: A Short History of the Revivalist Movement in Islam[179]:

"In my opinion the coming one will be a most modern leader of his age possessing an unusually deep insight in all the current branches of knowledge, and all the major problems of life. As regards statesmanship, political sagacity and strategic skill in war he will take the whole world by surprise and prove himself to be the most modern of all the moderns. But I am afraid that the people who will be the first. So called to raise hue and cry against his "innovations" will be the Ulema and the Sufis.

I also do not expect that his bodily features will be any different from the common man so as to render him easily recognizable. Neither do I expect that he will proclaim himself to be the Mehdi. Most probably he will not be aware of his being the promised Mehdi. People, however, will recognize him after his death from his works to be the one who was to establish "Caliphate after the pattern of Prophethood", as mentioned in the prophecies.

As I have indicated above, none but a Prophet has any right to start his work with a claim, nor does anybody except a Prophet know with certainty the nature of his mission. 'Mehdi-ism' is not something to be claimed, it is rather something to be achieved. People who put forward such claims and those who readily accept them, in fact, betray a serious lack of knowledge and a degraded mentality.

Moreover, my view of the nature of the Mehdi's mission is also different from the views cherished by these people. I do not find any room in his work for supernatural acts, divine inspirations and ascetic and spiritual exercises. I believe that the Mehdi, like any other revolutionary leader, will have to struggle hard and encounter all the obstacles common in this way. He will create a new School of Thought on the basis of pure Islam, change mental attitudes of the people, and initiate a strong movement which will at once be cultural and political. 'Ignorance' will muster all its forces and strength and come out to crush him, but he will eventually put it to rout and establish a powerful Islamic state..."

Despite Maududi's protestations, many people in his time accused him of having aspirations for the title of Imam ul-Mahdi! We leave it to the reader, and most importantly to a section of "Salafi's" who regard him as their "leader-reviver of the Deen", to decide what they think of one who during his life time openly cast such nefarious aspersions on the great personalities of Islam.


FOOTNOTES

[157] Simply because as one observer put it: "He shares a large proportion of their ideas on Salafiyyism as well as having the same Middle Eastern paymasters!"

[158] Presently a teacher of Hadith and other Islamic sciences at Madrasah Islamiyya Arabiyyah Binnoriah, New Town, Karachi, Pakistan. Besides writing a number of well known books in Urdu, he regularly answers questions via a prominent Pakistani newspaper.

[159] Published by Zam Zam Publishers, 2 Junaid Mansion, D'mello Rd, Off Burns Rd Karachi, Pakistan, 1995.

[160] The Maududi Calamity, Madrasah Arabia Islamia Azaadville 1750, South Africa. This book mentions a number of vile statements made by Maududi against the Prophet's (peace be upon them all) and Companions (may Allah be pleased with them all).

[161] He died in 1978. A district of Karachi (Allama Banuri Town) has been named in his honor. Rahimahullah.

[162] P.6

[163] This is a commentary by Maududi on the Holy Qur'an. It is also available now in English.

[164] Surah al-Baqara: 219

[165] See Differences in the Ummah and the Straight Path (p. 114).

[166] Maududi's Tarjumanul Qur'an, vol. 29, no. 4, p.5.

[167] Maududi's Tafheemat, vol. 2, p.42, 2nd edition.

[168] Maududi's Tafheemul Qur'an, vol. 4, ch. 38, p.27, 1st edition.

[169] Tafheemul Qur'an, vol. 2, p.344.

[170] The corrupt fascist Italian dictator who supported Adolf Hitler in the "Second World war."

[171] Tafheemat, part 2, p.122, 5th edition, 1970.

[172] Tafheemul Qur'an, Ch.11, footnote no. 312-13.

[173] The reader may note that this book has been praised by the Shi'ite regime in Iran, as well as being a book that is essential reading on certain college curriculums in Iran!

[174] The Holy Prophet's (peace be upon him) Mosque in Madinah.

[175] Khilafat wa Mulukiyat, p.124.

[176] Ibid, p.124.

[177] Khilafat wa Mulukiyat, p.175.

[178] Ibid.

[179] 1st edition, June 1973, Markaza Maktaba Islami, Delhi, India, pp.40-1, section "al-Imam ul-Mehdi."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A word about Mawdudi's ideas by Dr. G.F. Haddad

Adapted from al-Binnuri's Arabic introduction to Shaykh Zakariyya al-Kandihlavi on Mawdudi (Waqf Ihlas ed.)

1. Mawdudi says in the introduction to his book The Four Key Concepts of the Qur'an (p. 10-12) that those were the God, the Lord, worship, and Religion.:

Whoever knows them knows the Qur'an and whoever does not know them does not know the Qur'an, nor Tawhid, nor Shirk, nor does he know that worship is for Allah alone. Whoever is unclear about those concepts then understanding the Qur'an will remain unclear to him even if he is a believer. Despite his being a believer, his belief will be lacking as well as his deeds. Further, these concepts were changed from their original meanings in the time of the Revelation, and have become narrow and obscure due to two reasons:

(1) poor knowledge of Arabic [!] and

(2) because Muslims were born in Islam so they did not know those meanings as they were used concerning the unbelievers at the time the Qur'an was being revealed. As a result those concepts remained unclear and hidden from the Imams of the Arabic language [!!] and the Masters of Tafsir , who all understood them as the rest of the Muslims understood them.

I.e. Mawdudi knows what the Imams of Arabic and Tafsir have failed to know since the earliest times until his. Also, belief in Allah, the angels etc. and accomplishment of the Pillars is not enough to make one a true believer until he fully understands the four concepts of "the God, the Lord, worship, and Religion."

2. Same book (p. 14) :

Due to the unclarity of those meanings, three quarters of the Religion remained hidden from the people, indeed the true spirit of Islam remained hidden from them, hence you see deficiencies in their beliefs and works."

I.e. Mawdudi knows the true spirit of Islam and the fullness of Religion, contrary to everyone else among the Muslims.

3. He concludes (p. 156):

Allah Most High ordered the Prophet (saws) in Surat al-Nasr to seek forgiveness from his Lord for what he committed during the accomplishment of his duties [i.e. as a Prophet] such as shortcomings and defects.

I.e. the Prophet's (saws) conveyance of the Message contains defects.

4. In the periodical al-Minbar of 21 January 1958 and in the Rabi` al-Thani 1376 issue of Tarjuman al-Qur'an p. 13-14 Mawdudi said that

the foundational principles of Islam are of two kinds: the kind that never changes such as Tawhid and the Message; and the kind that changes according to needs.

Then he gives as an example of the latter the verse in which Allah said "We have made you peoples and tribes so that you may know each other, and the noblest among you are those who are most Godwary/righteous.".

And this is what the Prophet (saws) applied at first, but then he quickly had to abandon that principle and resorted to the principle of monarchy, saying: "The Imams are from Quraysh."

Al-Mawdudi calls the principle of change al-hikma al-`amaliyya, "practical wisdom" on the basis of which, he says, "it is halal for the amir to change the rulings of the Law for a certain wisdom and a religious gain."

Al-Binnuri said:

This belief is the apex of misguidance and heresy and its ugliness is manifest like the new dawn. ... It means that every aspect of worship and religion such as prayer, zakat, fasting, hajj and others are subject to change and replacement even if they are essential objectives of Islam. ... He used this principle to support Fatima Jinnah against Sayyid Ayyub the late chief of government in Pakistan.

5. In the third edition of his Tafhimat (2:57) he dismisses the `Isma of Prophets (saws) - immunity to sin - as not being an essential aspect of their persons and says that Allah protects them from error:

but sometimes lifts His protection so that they [Prophets] will commit some blunders, and Allah by this means to show people that they are human beings and not deities.

This means that at any given time, Divine protection might actually be lifted and the ruling that comes from a Prophet at that time might be spurious, or indeed his acts might be those of a lowly person.

6. In his Khutubat ("Discourses" p. 227) he states that:

all those types of obligatory worship such as Salat, Siyam, Zakat, and Hajj which Allah imposed and made the pillars of Islam, are not like the religious obligations of other religious denominations which, once accomplished, release one from one's responsibility. Rather, they have been imposed towards a huge objective and mighty end, .... [until he said] and in a nutshell, the reason for them is so as to bring out mankind from the human dominion and enter them into the dominion of Allah the One. Jihad is self-sacrifice and total striving towards that same goal, and Salat, Siyam, Hajj, and Zakat are preparations for this one unique objective.

In other words the Five Pillars are but a means towards a certain end - which was left unexplicited in the Qur'an and Sunna until Mawdudi came along to explicate it - and they are not needed in themselves.

7. He further clarifies that this "dominion of Allah the One" is "the State" - using that word in English - in the third volume (p. 93) of his book Siyasa Kashmakash:

The purpose of Religion is something near what is called today 'STATE'."

In other words, the hadith of Gibril in which the Prophet (saws) concludes that "He [the angel] came to teach you your Religion", left out the most important part - the goal - and only mentioned the means and accessory parts.

Note that al-Binnuri characterized Mawdudi as primarily interested in politics, striving after power and possessing little concern with actual Religious knowledge and its requirements, to the point that both he and his followers fell into various pitfalls of error and misguidance, until they reached actual atheism and freethinking. This is most commonly verifiable today in the wholesale dismissal of the Ulema of Islam East and West by Mawdudi admirers, which leaves little room to doubt their apostasy.

8. In his Rasa'il Masa'il (p. 55) he states:

Everything that was narrated in the [mutawatir] hadiths of the Prophet (saws) in connection with the Anti-Christ - all of it - was mere opinion and conjecture on his part (saws) and he was undecided concerning it. One time he thought he would come out from Khurasan, another time from Asbahan, another time from between Sham and Iraq, and yet another time he though that the Anti-Christ was Ibn al-Sayyad in Madina. And one time he said something which was narrated from him by that Palestinian Christian Monk, Tamim al-Dari [in Sahih Muslim].

9. In the same book (p. 57):

The Messenger of Allah (saws) thought that the Dajjal would come out in his time or very near it and yet 1350 long years have passed and the Dajjal did not come out. So it is established that what he (saws) believed was untrue.

It is a measure of the terminality of our state that such discourses not only spread but are defended and even praised when they are the mark of (asfala safilin).

As al-Binnuri said:

The Prophet (saws) sought refuge in Allah (swt) from the Dajjal all his life and taught his Companions to do so in every prayer, and he further told them that no Prophet was ever sent except he warned the people about him, and he gave his description and said that his coming out was one of the portents of the Last Hour so to belie it is to belie the fact that {the Hour has drawn near}. As for the outward discrepancy of the reports concerning his location it shows that they all agree on his coming out. And the apparent discrepancy is not a problem except to those who have no knowledge of hadith and its disciplines.

10. In Tarjuman al-Qur'an for the year 1965 p. 35-36 and 49 Mawdudi criticizes `Uthman (ra) for employing in key posts the Sahaba that entered Islam late - i.e. after the conquest of Makka such as Mu`awiya, al-Walid ibn `Uqba, Sa`id ibn al-`As, and `Abd Allah ibn `Amir - because, he claims, they may have possessed the political skills but not the moral requirements! He reiterates this claim in his book al-Khilafa wa al-Mulukiyya (see next paragraph) and his letters as well as his purported Tafsir titled Tafhim al-Qur'an. In other words, Mawdudi (1) differentiates like Christians and Jews between the political and the moral realm and (2) was better aware of their moral merit or demerit than `Uthman or rather than the Prophet (saws) himself, since they fought with him at Ta'if, Hunayn and elsewhere and it is the latter that first gave them positions of responsibility even before `Uthman.

11. On page 23 of Mawdudi's "The revivalist movement in Islam" he writes,

One of the two reasons why the institution of caliphate weakened was because Hadrat Uthman did not have as much quality of a leader as his predecessors had had.

Sayyid Qutb says as much in his book al-`Adala al-Ijtima`iyya fi al-Islam but it is a Sunni tenet that no-one after Prophets compares to Abu Bakr and `Umar, so any comparison of inferiority to them is spurious. As for the conclusion that the institution of caliphate weakened because of `Uthman, it is not only presumptuous but actually a contradiction of the Prophet's (saws) explicit recommendation of the caliphate of the three according to the following hadith:

The Prophet (saws) asked: “Did any of you see anything in his dream?” A man said to the Prophet (saws): “O Messenger of Allah, I saw in my dream as if a balance came down from heaven in which you were weighed against Abu Bakr and outweighed him, then Abu Bakr was weighed against `Umar and outweighed him, then `Umar was weighed against `Uthman and outweighed him, then the balance was taken up.” This displeased the Prophet (saws) who said: “Successorship of prophethood (khilafa nubuwwa)! Then Allah shall give kingship to whomever He will.”1

This illustrates that one reason for Mawdudi's disrespect of the Companions was his lack of knowledge of the Sunnah, although he was fond of attributing such lack to the Ulema such as of Imam al-Ghazzali.

One wonders also if al-Mawdudi and Qutb considered that they arrived at such a level as to be called Hujjat al-Islam or, say, Mujaddid al-Alf al-Thani; or the level of Shah Waliyyullah; or Muhaddith `Abd al-Haqq Dihlawi; or any of the Ulema who are considered Mujaddids in India. If not, then we should equally say that one of the reasons why Islam weakened in India was because Mawdudi did not have as much moral mettle as a Muslim as they did.

However, there is a huge difference: `Uthman is among the {First and Foremost} mentioned by Allah in His Book, and He said {Allah is pleased with them and they with Him} and he was praised to the skies by the Prophet (saws). None of this is true of Mawdudi and Qutb.

Another difference is that there is no precedent in scholarly discourse in Sunni Islam for Mawdudi's and Qutb's disparagement of the leadership qualities of `Uthman except, perhaps, in the books of Ibn Taymiyya. In this respect it appears that those two authors merely took their clues from Wahhabism, which consists in exhuming and reanimating the ideas of Ibn Taymiyya as stated by Imam Abu Zahra in his Tarikh al-Madhahib al-Islamiyya.

There are other differences also, such as the facts (1) that we know that `Uthman is in Paradise whereas we do not know the same of Mawdudi and Qutb, (2) that `Uthman - Allah be well-pleased with him - probably conquered more lands for Islam than Mawdudi and Qutb knew, and (3) that no Muslim opens the Mushaf or learns a single verse of the Qur'an without `Uthman receiving a share of his reward!

12. The constitution of Mawdudi's Jama`a Islamiyya states black on white that:

No man other than the Messenger of Allah (saws) provides any yardstick for the truth nor is above criticism. And no one can take anyone else as an object of worship in terms of reason and thought because men are all alike in one same rank and they are all created by Allah. Therefore, each is subject to criticism and investigation according to that same criterion and placed at his level and rank according to his caliber.

Al-Binnuri:

One might say that this rule is quite acceptable, but a second look and an analysis of it reveals otherwise.... for such a rule can easily be used as an avenue for every atheist proposition against the Religion and every possible innovation in the Law, and the Umma of Islam knows since its earliest days that the Prophet (saws) directed us to cling to Abu Bakr and `Umar as our leaders, and commanded us to follow his Sunnah and the Sunnah of his rightly-guided Caliphs after him, more than that, to 'bite upon it with your very teeth'.... In fact he targets even the Prophets themselves with his words although we are ordered to believe in them and in their being immune to sin. But we have seen Ustaz Mawdudi in action against them and he has not left Dawud, nor Sulayman, nor Musa, nor Yunus, nor even our Master the Prophet (saws) except he said they all made errors and missed the mark and were belied by history and that each Prophet not only necessarily errs but also disobeys and sins, and he said other such enormities....

Further, Allah Most High has praised other Companions highly in His Book and so has the Prophet (saws), naming so many of them and praising their accuracy and acumen without the "criticism and investigation" nor their being "worshipped" as claimed.

This constitution coupled with his so-called Four Key Concepts of the Qur'an is in fact a program for the dismantlement of the methodologies and disciplines of the Law that are regrouped under the Four Schools and the works of the Ulema. For in the sight of that man, all those works of Tafsir and Fiqh missed the mark because of deficiency in the Arabic language [!] and ignorance of his four principles.

Thus he claims that Sahih al-Bukhari contains falsehoods although the Umma is in agreement that it is the soundest book after the Qur'an. For example, that there is no such thing as the seven heavens in reality, nor that al-Tur mountain was raised over the heads of Bani Isra'il, nor that the wide-eyed maidens of Paradise exist, and he claims that those maidens are in fact the daughters of the unbelievers and the daughters of the Muslims that are undeserving of Paradise, nor that the Prophet (saws) was given the strength of so many men as related from Anas, etc.

Consequently, Jam`iyyat al-`Ulema' in Delhi on 27 Shawwal 1370 issued the following verdict concerning Mawdudi:

The works of al-Mawdudi and his party, al-Jama`a al-Islamiyya, give people licenses to cease following the Imams of the Religion and divorce all ties with them, something which is the path to destruction of the Ummah and their misguidance one and all, and the path of severing their ties with the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (saws) and the righteous Predecessors. In addition, much of his research and false ideas are an invitation to a new Fiqh and innovation in the Religion... and we announce our complete innocence and dissociation from that Jama`ah and from such a movement.

Was-Salamu `ala man Ittaba`a al-Huda

FOOTNOTES

1 Narrated from Abu Bakrah by Ahmad with three chains, Abu Dawud, and al-Tirmidhi (without the last statement of the Prophet (saws)) who said: hasan sahih, and from Safina by Abu Dawud with a fair chain and al-Bazzar with a fair chain as indicated by al-Haythami. Al-Hakim narrated it with a chain similar to al-Tirmidhi’s and graded it sahih and al-Dhahabi concurred.




----------------------------

NB - Shaykh Muhammad Yusuf al-Ludhianwi quoted above was assasinated around the year 2000 in Karachi. Rahimahullah


Wassalam

Abul Hasan

alibaba
07-03-2005, 02:30 AM
" beliefs to the best of our knowledge and sincerity"

is it really to the best of sincerity....this is the problem nowadays we have scholars that continue to criticize and demean each other and say the other is wrong and he is sinning...e.t.c....that is why I am sick of these scholars who are so narrowminded, and refuse to listen to an alternative opinion....

whoever composed this article ...is sincerly trying to expose the world that YM (young muslim) organization is Salafi!!...God forbid ...does that mean we are going to hell???

YM is doing a lot of work.......my personal involvement in this organization saw that this organization is really bringing the youth from the bars to the masjid....does this give them (self proclaimed scholars) the right to ridicule and right of this organization???
e.g.
p.s. I never knew what a salafi was and neither did I care...then you can basically forget about me knowing that YM was a salafi org...

So i see this bro in a basketball tournament and well...me and a coupla other ym guys are there to.....and somehow the topic came around and we told him that YM meets every Fri......and you should come to...its a way to keep the brothers and sisters from the bars and clubs...(friday..bars make the connection?) and well we read a couple of hadiths discuss them and see how it can applied to our lives and then we go play or eat somewhere....but this bro...responded that his mother told him not to get involved w/ these people because they are salfi!!!...you can imagine how ticked of i was ... but i dint say nything cuz i dint know what a salafi was!!!

You see .... this brother may** have ended up in a bar or club.....just because he had clearly written of this organization as useless because ...his mommy said so..

so to say that this article was written w/ "sincerity" is a complte fabrication of truth............... you see because of these silly articles ...muslims turn off diff beneficial organizations that are there to help the muslims...but these narrowminded ppl would rather have their kid in a bar getting drunk ....than listening and contemplating on hadith and then hanging out w/ good muslim brothers because the organization is salafi?????

How low can we go??

muslim786
07-03-2005, 03:33 AM
" beliefs to the best of our knowledge and sincerity"

is it really to the best of sincerity....this is the problem nowadays we have scholars that continue to criticize and demean each other and say the other is wrong and he is sinning...e.t.c....that is why I am sick of these scholars who are so narrowminded, and refuse to listen to an alternative opinion....

whoever composed this article ...is sincerly trying to expose the world that YM (young muslim) organization is Salafi!!...God forbid ...does that mean we are going to hell???

YM is doing a lot of work.......my personal involvement in this organization saw that this organization is really bringing the youth from the bars to the masjid....does this give them (self proclaimed scholars) the right to ridicule and right of this organization???
e.g.
p.s. I never knew what a salafi was and neither did I care...then you can basically forget about me knowing that YM was a salafi org...

So i see this bro in a basketball tournament and well...me and a coupla other ym guys are there to.....and somehow the topic came around and we told him that YM meets every Fri......and you should come to...its a way to keep the brothers and sisters from the bars and clubs...(friday..bars make the connection?) and well we read a couple of hadiths discuss them and see how it can applied to our lives and then we go play or eat somewhere....but this bro...responded that his mother told him not to get involved w/ these people because they are salfi!!!...you can imagine how ticked of i was ... but i dint say nything cuz i dint know what a salafi was!!!

You see .... this brother may** have ended up in a bar or club.....just because he had clearly written of this organization as useless because ...his mommy said so..

so to say that this article was written w/ "sincerity" is a complte fabrication of truth............... you see because of these silly articles ...muslims turn off diff beneficial organizations that are there to help the muslims...but these narrowminded ppl would rather have their kid in a bar getting drunk ....than listening and contemplating on hadith and then hanging out w/ good muslim brothers because the organization is salafi?????

How low can we go??

I would like to say that maududi was no alim, he has no ijaza and is NO authority in Islam. Allthough he may have written some books, which may contain some good, this by no means qualifies him as a Islamic Scholar.

Also these groups although may have brought muslims out of the bars, islamically speaking they have done a lot more damage than good, and you are a testiment to thisl, as your hatred of madhabs shows. The societies have create a bunch of self styled scholars who have no IJAZAs going back to their houses condeming their household for following madhabs, praying for the deacesed etc.

Also I would like to add brother Abul Hasan IS a scholar, he has ijazas, as does Dr Haddad whereas mr madudi does not. In my opinion organisations like ELM are doing more damage to Islam than the Yahudi organisations, as at least the Yahudi organisations are not styling themselves as legitimate islamic organisations.
The above articles sums it up nicely. Also about these organisations, I know about them all too well, and seen plenty of the damage they have caused first hand.

muslim786
07-03-2005, 03:51 AM
Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad clearly summarises some of the key damages these types of organisations have done and promote here:

I used to know, quite well, a leader of the radical 'Islamic' group, the Jama'at Islamiya, at the Egyptian university of Assiut. His name was Hamdi. He grew a luxuriant beard, was constantly scrubbing his teeth with his miswak, and spent his time preaching hatred of the Coptic Christians, a number of whom were actually attacked and beaten up as a result of his khutbas. He had hundreds of followers; in fact, Assiut today remains a citadel of hardline, Wahhabi-style activism.

The moral of the story is that some five years after this acquaintance, providence again brought me face to face with Shaikh Hamdi. This time, chancing to see him on a Cairo street, I almost failed to recognise him. The beard was gone. He was in trousers and a sweater. More astonishing still was that he was walking with a young Western girl who turned out to be an Australian, whom, as he sheepishly explained to me, he was intending to marry. I talked to him, and it became clear that he was no longer even a minimally observant Muslim, no longer prayed, and that his ambition in life was to leave Egypt, live in Australia, and make money. What was extraordinary was that his experiences in Islamic activism had made no impression on him - he was once again the same distracted, ordinary Egyptian youth he had been before his conversion to 'radical Islam'.

This phenomenon, which we might label 'salafi burnout', is a recognised feature of many modern Muslim cultures. An initial enthusiasm, gained usually in one's early twenties, loses steam some seven to ten years later. Prison and torture - the frequent lot of the Islamic radical - may serve to prolong commitment, but ultimately, a majority of these neo-Muslims relapse, seemingly no better or worse for their experience in the cult-like universe of the salafi mindset.

This ephemerality of extremist activism should be as suspicious as its content. Authentic Muslim faith is simply not supposed to be this fragile; as the Qur'an says, its root is meant to be 'set firm'. One has to conclude that of the two trees depicted in the Quranic image, salafi extremism resembles the second rather than the first. After all, the Sahaba were not known for a transient commitment: their devotion and piety remained incomparably pure until they died.

What attracts young Muslims to this type of ephemeral but ferocious activism? One does not have to subscribe to determinist social theories to realise the importance of the almost universal condition of insecurity which Muslim societies are now experiencing. The Islamic world is passing through a most devastating period of transition. A history of economic and scientific change which in Europe took five hundred years, is, in the Muslim world, being squeezed into a couple of generations. For instance, only thirty-five years ago the capital of Saudi Arabia was a cluster of mud huts, as it had been for thousands of years. Today's Riyadh is a hi-tech megacity of glass towers, Coke machines, and gliding Cadillacs. This is an extreme case, but to some extent the dislocations of modernity are common to every Muslim society, excepting, perhaps, a handful of the most remote tribal peoples.

Such a transition period, with its centrifugal forces which allow nothing to remain constant, makes human beings very insecure. They look around for something to hold onto, that will give them an identity. In our case, that something is usually Islam. And because they are being propelled into it by this psychic sense of insecurity, rather than by the more normal processes of conversion and faith, they lack some of the natural religious virtues, which are acquired by contact with a continuous tradition, and can never be learnt from a book.

One easily visualises how this works. A young Arab, part of an oversized family, competing for scarce jobs, unable to marry because he is poor, perhaps a migrant to a rapidly expanding city, feels like a man lost in a desert without signposts. One morning he picks up a copy of Sayyid Qutb from a newsstand, and is 'born-again' on the spot. This is what he needed: instant certainty, a framework in which to interpret the landscape before him, to resolve the problems and tensions of his life, and, even more deliciously, a way of feeling superior and in control. He joins a group, and, anxious to retain his newfound certainty, accepts the usual proposition that all the other groups are mistaken.

This, of course, is not how Muslim religious conversion is supposed to work. It is meant to be a process of intellectual maturation, triggered by the presence of a very holy person or place. Tawba, in its traditional form, yields an outlook of joy, contentment, and a deep affection for others. The modern type of tawba, however, born of insecurity, often makes Muslims narrow, intolerant, and exclusivist. Even more noticeably, it produces people whose faith is, despite its apparent intensity, liable to vanish as suddenly as it came. Deprived of real nourishment, the activist's soul can only grow hungry and emaciated, until at last it dies.

Taken from the article Islamic Spirituality: the forgotten revolution which can be found at the excellent site www.masud.co.uk

ahsanirfan
07-03-2005, 11:06 AM
Salam alaikum


is it really to the best of sincerity....

With regards to Maulana Maududi, it definitely sure is. I have read some of his works myself. While his Tafsir is seemingly harmless, his articles and his other book about the four oft-used terms are utter ****. Makes you think that not only the Sahaba, even the earlier Anbiya were no good, nauzubillah! I could refer you to some his articles if you want. I used to be an admirer of Maududi. When I read articles written by him "demeaning" not just the Sahaba but also the Anbiya, I switched around completely.


this is the problem nowadays we have scholars that continue to criticize and demean each other and say the other is wrong and he is sinning...e.t.c....

Read the above articles. Do you find even one word of rudeness? Akhi, debates and munazras have always been part of our rich intellectual heritage. No biggie there. And the above article represents the better side of that heritage. It's when some people come up with the harshest of language and the rudest of words that the problem starts. We must be ready to face healthy criticism. It's just the way academia works.


that is why I am sick of these scholars who are so narrowminded, and refuse to listen to an alternative opinion....

Did you bother to ask "Why?"


whoever composed this article ...is sincerly trying to expose the world that YM (young muslim) organization is Salafi!!...God forbid ...does that mean we are going to hell???

Umm well because it is, maybe? What you have said here is a little bit of an exaggeration. You just read the first couple of paras (probably) and decided that this article was against the YM. The article focuses on Maududi's works, a man who definitely needs to be exposed because o

f his corruptness. His attacks in the Anbiya are just a little too much for anyone to bear. The connection to YM was drawn only in the beginning of the article. And does not go beyond just implying that connection. You words "sincerely trying to expose" don't make sense against the backdrop of the whole article.


YM is doing a lot of work.......my personal involvement in this organization saw that this organization is really bringing the youth from the bars to the masjid....does this give them (self proclaimed scholars) the right to ridicule and right of this organization???

First of all, the scholars speaking out against something which may be unIslamic are not self-proclaimed. They have Ijazahs running back to the Rasul Allah :saw:. So in essence they do have a right to criticize what they may feel is wrong. Their feelings are deeply intermingled with the Quran and the Sunnah. As far as the YM is concerned, I would have to agree with you that they have brought out certain young people from their dark holes. Since I have no further info. I will not comment.


e.g.
p.s. I never knew what a salafi was and neither did I care...then you can basically forget about me knowing that YM was a salafi org...

Why do you think that everything is sort of "against" you? You reference you yourself in this sentence certainly implies that. Forgive me if your intention was different.

As far as you not knowing whether they were Salafi or not is concerned, ignorance of something is most often not taken as an excuse. You should be researching out on your own, who is credible and who is not.


So i see this bro in a basketball tournament and well...me and a coupla other ym guys are there to.....and somehow the topic came around and we told him that YM meets every Fri......and you should come to...its a way to keep the brothers and sisters from the bars and clubs...(friday..bars make the connection?) and well we read a couple of hadiths discuss them and see how it can applied to our lives and then we go play or eat somewhere....but this bro...responded that his mother told him not to get involved w/ these people because they are salfi!!!...you can imagine how ticked of i was ... but i dint say nything cuz i dint know what a salafi was!!!You see .... this brother may** have ended up in a bar or club.....just because he had clearly written of this organization as useless because ...his mommy said so..

While I am going to say that this brother's behaviour was a little bit unprovoked, you should have not let yourself ticked. See, because of your stance against the scholars and madhhabs, you are going to have to face a LOT of things that are not going to be in alignment with your perceptions. So learn to appreciate difference of opinion, and (possible) "attacks".

Second thing you pointed out in that para was about reading ahadith. Now this is one of our main concerns. I must also highlight that there is somewhere down the line the fault of our scholars too (it does sound like a possibility) Reading ahadith on your own is NOT a way to learn Islam. Islam is always learnt by being in the presence of those who know them and know how to apply them. Simply picking up a Bukhari and going through it sounds like utter nonsense to me. We spent years upon years in university, Bachelor's, Masters, Ph.D. And yet when it comes to the Deen, we want to learn it on our own? Try learning physics from a physics book alone. You will see what I mean.


so to say that this article was written w/ "sincerity" is a complte fabrication of truth...............

Akhi, the brother merely made a connection. He didn't go all the way and "attack" it. Most certainly you have "attacked" him. Akhi, that person is a scholar. Which necessitates that fact that he just might be elder to you. Secondly he certainly knows more than you or would ever hope to know without the blessings of the 'ulama themselves. So he just might be aware of what YM does and the flaws in their methodology, and possibly that's why he made the comment/connection.


you see because of these silly articles ...muslims turn off diff beneficial organizations that are there to help the muslims...

Probably "beneficial" according to your definition of the word. Some might consider their approach "harmful"


but these narrowminded ppl would rather have their kid in a bar getting drunk ....

Nope. You're drawing a wrong inference. His plane of argument has different premises in mind. You are arguing on an entirely different plane. Before criticising, never forget to ask the question "Why?" It makes things a lot better.


than listening and contemplating on hadith and then hanging out w/ good muslim brothers because the organization is salafi?????

Yes listen to ahadith. And "hang out" with pious Muslim brothers. But you must know what is right and what is wrong before that. So that you may not let yourself be influenced by the wrong methodology you may have. And also listen to ahadith with someone qualified to teach them. He may be better able to help you apply it to your lives than some bearded brother who may not know the lexical imports and the high level of meaning behind the ahadith of the Rasul Allah :saw:


How low can we go??

You're the one who has gone low. Coming and attacking a scholar is one of the lowest things that could happen. Disrespect of the people of knowledge is unwarranted for. Remember, they are the heirs of Rasul Allah :saw:. We have a right to criticize them only when we know what they know. (Tanqeed aur Haqq e Tanqeed, pehle Haqq per auo, phir tanqeed karo).

Wassalam

abeer_xyz
07-03-2005, 05:18 PM
Maududi criticized Hadrat Uthman with "some" respect in his mind. But he has criticized Muawiyya too far. He criticized Yazid with no respect at all. To my knowledge, the Salafis are sympathetic even to Yazid. How can then Maududi be labeled as a Salafi? It is better for you to call him an agent of Shias.

Abdur_Rahman
07-03-2005, 05:34 PM
:salam:
Abu'l Ala Maududi (1903-1979) was probably the most well known leader of the various "Salafi" movements in his time.
:salam:

akhi, I've read excerpt of his and other who give a "so-called" history lesson of him however, you're claiming that this person was a salafi during his era is probably very false indeed. I understand his political movements but basing upon that title as "Salafi" is rather far-fetched.

akhi, you've stated that you're a scholar. Why waste your time on a talk forum with the abdullah laymen about on-going controversies I'm sure (allahu alim) a scholar would waste his time posting a mere thread for which has inaccuaracies. A possible 'scholarly' reply will be coming soon to a theater near you, however akhi, we as a ummah should be just. Also I'm sure if you've presented this to other individuals (those other salaf-guys/gals from troid/spubs/bakkah, etc) they would either laugh or just really ignore you

Maududi criticized Hadrat Uthman with "some" respect in his mind. But he has criticized Muabiyya too far. He criticized Yazid with no respect at all. To my knowledge, the Salafis are sympathetic even to Yazid. How can then Maududi be labeled as a Salafi? It is better for you to call him an agent of Shias. Also Maududi has been documented of stating about disbelief in the ad-dajjal as well, and then tryin' to say this person is a "Salafi" :subh:

faqir
07-03-2005, 05:39 PM
:salam:

It all depends on how you define "salafi". From what I gather, Maulana Mawdudi did not adhere to a school of thought in fiqh - it may be in this sense that he is being referred to as "salafi". In the same sense that Muhammad Abduh or Rashid Rida are referred to as salafi. see: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/salafi.htm

and Allah knows best.

btw Abdurrahman I don't recall anyone claiming to be a scholar on this forum and regarding Salafis having a laugh, they ought to be laughing at themselves.

JazakAllah khair Akhi Abul Hasan for sharing these informative articles.

.

Abdur_Rahman
07-03-2005, 05:44 PM
:salam:

It all depends on how you define "salafi". From what I gather, Maulana Mawdudi did not adhere to a school of thought in fiqh - it may be in this sense that he is being referred to as "salafi"?? In the same sense that Muhammad Abduh or Rashid Rida are referred to as salafi. Allah knows best.

JazakAllah khair Akhi Abul Hasan for sharing these informative articles.

.
walaikim asalam "It may be" ? (I'm sure the brother can speak for himself bro. faqir)

So this is the general ruling then for a person i take eh? :subh: what an unfair analysis on the ummah, the sad thing is that we're not guranteed the garden on yamul qiyamah, what a person follows today may not be the same as tomorrow
;)

faysal
07-03-2005, 05:56 PM
Assalam

This person was not a salafee, Shaykh Saleh Fawzaan refuted him, the article on him is available at www.al-ibaanah.com

wassalam

Abdur_Rahman
07-03-2005, 06:00 PM
Assalam

This person was not a salafee, Shaykh Saleh Fawzaan refuted him, the article on him is available at www.al-ibaanah.com

wassalam
Denial of Ad-Dajjal of Mawdudi Link (http://www.al-ibaanah.com/articles.php?ArtID=83) :mash: I was doing research on this particular article :jazak:

muslim786
07-03-2005, 06:04 PM
Denial of Ad-Dajjal of Mawdudi Link (http://www.al-ibaanah.com/articles.php?ArtID=83) :mash: I was doing research on this particular article :jazak:
In the general sense of the word maududi WAS a salafi/wahabi, and his ofshoot organisations are also.

Abdur_Rahman
07-03-2005, 06:10 PM
In the general sense of the word maududi WAS a salafi, and his ofshoot organisations are also.
:salam:

akhi, I don't understand what you mean in a "general sense" HOWEVER, the ones that I've came across DO NOT reject the coming of the ad-dajjal, akhi once again this is an unfair ruling from people on this forum. I know that we as a ummah tend to disagree but can we come to terms on disagree and not just being biased because so and so is guilty of association?

as I've seen different forum no one is free from the guilt of association, I guess they bogus accusations can get started about sufi's commit shirk and Hamza Yusuf is a spy for the bush administration so on and so forth, you knows those type of inaccauracies :D
:subh: people were is the justice?

abuhidaya
07-03-2005, 06:37 PM
I think subhanallah, we have to be careful , because if we utter things based upon hear say, we may be doing grave injustices, and may earn the displeasure of the most high.

Ofcourse Mawdudi ra was not perfect and had mistakes, but the good he did far outweighed the bad, his revolutionary thinking was a source of much inspiration to the ummah, in a time where state scholars were trying to mold islam into socialist regimes, such as those of Gamal Abdel Naser, The Baath parties in Syria and Iraq. Instead of completely dismissing him and other thinkers like Syed Qutb, we should avoid their mistakes, and build upon the good they preached, such as the importance of the islamic system of life. The thought patterns of Mawdudi pierced the intellectual stagnation of scholars who did not want to challenge the status quo, just like mujadideen of the past did. With the risk of being socially stigmatized by the society he lived in, he continued to preach his message, and eventually was sentenced to death by the Pakistani government, later it was revoked, he also preached against the bid'ah and shirk of the qadiyanis.

He critisized the unislamic systems of governance, and stated that shariah was the only way to proceed. In this respect he was a revivor of the concept of tawhid al hakamiyah. He also successfully penetrated the upper class Pakistani and Indian societies with his prolific writings.


A lot of these quotes people bring of him saying this and that, need to be understood in their context, I was once talking to some jamat islami members and they really dispelled a lot of these accusations, which is not to say he is free of mistakes, but not the type of mistakes people generally accuse him of.

Abdur_Rahman
07-03-2005, 06:59 PM
:salam:

allahu alim

I agree and I disagree on the premise that this person has made some off the wall remarks in regards to aqeedah and this right Here (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=38898#post38898) will tend to have individuals very weary of what his true agenda is or was.

salman
07-03-2005, 07:22 PM
Salamu Alaikum

The issue here is not about Maududi Sahib being "Salafi" or not. As a person whose grandfather was the head of Jamaate Islami in Faisalabad (Pakistan) and who had very close relations to Maududi Sahib I can tell you.

Regardless of whether Maududi Sahib is a "Salafi" is irrelevant to the fact that he has no formal teaching in Religion, nor does he have an ijazas. It is like applying to teach at a University as a professor without a PHd.

If a person were to claim to be a Sufi shaikh without having Ijaza these people who criticise Maududi would without a doubt also crticise him.

As for the Salafi/Wahabi aspect then Br. Faqir is correct. The application of the word has become disperses widely. Recall when the Deobandi Ulema, who are Sufis and Hanafis and Maturidis!!!, were labelled by some as "wahabis" (namely the Brelwis).

Wasalam

Abdur_Rahman
07-03-2005, 07:37 PM
Salamu Alaikum

The issue here is not about Maududi Sahib being "Salafi" or not. As a person whose grandfather was the head of Jamaate Islami in Faisalabad (Pakistan) and who had very close relations to Maududi Sahib I can tell you.

Regardless of whether Maududi Sahib is a "Salafi" is irrelevant to the fact that he has no formal teaching in Religion, nor does he have an ijazas. It is like applying to teach at a University as a professor without a PHd.

If a person were to claim to be a Sufi shaikh without having Ijaza these people who criticise Maududi would without a doubt also crticise him.

As for the Salafi/Wahabi aspect then Br. Faqir is correct. The application of the word has become disperses widely. Recall when the Deobandi Ulema, who are Sufis and Hanafis and Maturidis!!!, were labelled by some as "wahabis" (namely the Brelwis).

Wasalam
walaikum asalam

Oh so I see that the salafi/wahahi syndrom is used as a "interchangeable part" then, so what I understand the word is used to slander any person who doesn't agree with someone else then eh?

Now since you're stating that it's irrelevant then the brother should edit his work then correct?

akhi, since you're from NY you should run for a political office then bro :D (you can take over Sen. Rodham-Clinton )
:subh:

Allahu alim

salman
07-03-2005, 07:43 PM
walaikum asalam

Oh so I see that the salafi/wahahi syndrom is used as a "interchangeable part" then, so what I understand the word is used to slander any person who doesn't agree with someone else then eh?

Now since you're stating that it's irrelevant then the brother should edit his work then correct?

akhi, since you're from NY you should run for a political office then bro :D (you can take over Sen. Rodham-Clinton )
:subh:

Allahu alim

Salamu alaikum

Eh...Im a Political Science Major also :cheesygri

If he was a Salafi i.e. those who did not adhere to a Madhab or had a corrupt Aqida or both, then i see no reason for editing cause for me this is what a "Salafi" is.

The reason why a Deobandis were called "Wahabi" is because they stopped people from kissing graves and doing all these Batil false Sufi actions. That is why the "Brelwis (and them alone) called Deobandis "Wahabis" (namely meaning extremists).

The Rawafid also call Deobandis Wahabis.

It is only in the subcontinent that you have such a wide variety of applications for the word Wahabi!

Abdur_Rahman
07-03-2005, 07:47 PM
Salamu alaikum

Eh...Im a Political Science Major also :cheesygri
walaikum asalam

You have a bright future :D (inshallah)



If he was a Salafi i.e. those who did not adhere to a Madhab or had a corrupt Aqida or both, then i see no reason for editing cause for me this is what a "Salafi" is.
Like I said you should run for

The reason why a Deobandis were called "Wahabi" is because they stopped people from kissing graves and doing all these Batil false Sufi actions. That is why the "Brelwis (and them alone) called Deobandis "Wahabis" (namely meaning extremists).

The Rawafid also call Deobandis Wahabis.

It is only in the subcontinent that you have such a wide variety of applications for the word Wahabi! [/QUOTE]
Hmm like I stated it's an interchangeable part to deem something derogatory
;) , politics has too much word play in it :D

salman
07-03-2005, 07:53 PM
Salamu Alaikum

If you are from Indo Pak without much connection to the outside world, then yes it is degrading and most particualarly used for "thise who are la Madhabi" atleast now among the students.

Whereas if you step out where we are, the Salafis are clear as light from their Aqida.

Wasalam

muslim786
07-03-2005, 07:56 PM
Salamu alaikum

Eh...Im a Political Science Major also :cheesygri

If he was a Salafi i.e. those who did not adhere to a Madhab or had a corrupt Aqida or both, then i see no reason for editing cause for me this is what a "Salafi" is.

The reason why a Deobandis were called "Wahabi" is because they stopped people from kissing graves and doing all these Batil false Sufi actions. That is why the "Brelwis (and them alone) called Deobandis "Wahabis" (namely meaning extremists).

The Rawafid also call Deobandis Wahabis.

It is only in the subcontinent that you have such a wide variety of applications for the word Wahabi!

The reason why the bs call the ds wahabis is nothing to do with kissing graves its to do with things like the book Taqiwatul Imaan.
A wahabi in the general sense is a person who admires and follows the works of Abdul Wahab Najdi.

Abdur_Rahman
07-03-2005, 08:07 PM
A wahabi in the general sense is a person who admires and follows the works of Abdul Wahab Najdi.
:salam: 786, so now therefore we're back to square one then of labelling individuals and being guilty of association

:subh: when will we ever learn :rolleyes: some of you guys on this forum are no different from those takfeeri muslims who just place the majority of the ummah out of islam (everyone is brandishing everyone)

you do have muslims here who quote from various individuals (imam ahmed, ibn taymiyah, ibn qayim, etc) yet I'm sure you have a label from everyone :thumbsup: :mash: I'm convinced!

muslim786
07-03-2005, 08:16 PM
:salam: 786, so now therefore we're back to square one then of labelling individuals and being guilty of association

:subh: when will we ever learn :rolleyes: some of you guys on this forum are no different from those takfeeri muslims who just place the majority of the ummah out of islam (everyone is brandishing everyone)

you do have muslims here who quote from various individuals (imam ahmed, ibn taymiyah, ibn qayim, etc) yet I'm sure you have a label from everyone :thumbsup: :mash: I'm convinced!
do u even know what drivel you are saying. if someone who admires and follows abdul wahab najdi cannt be called a wahabi who can? from what you wrote i dont think you understand what I meant. also i dont do takfir on wahabis. and just by quoting him doesnt make u an admirer or folllower.

Abdur_Rahman
07-03-2005, 08:28 PM
do u even know what drivel you are saying. if someone who admires and follows abdul wahab najdi cannt be called a wahabi who can?
:salam: A person who admire abdul wahabi cannot be called a wahabi? :confused: possibly you need to re-read your own reply
v
v
v
Yeah what you just said (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=38929&postcount=21)

A wahabi in the general sense is a person who admires and follows the works of Abdul Wahab Najdi.




from what you wrote i dont think you understand what I meant. also i dont do takfir on wahabis. and just by quoting him doesnt make u an admirer or folllower. who stated that :confused: from what I've seen is that some of the forum members have been given the title to call people pathless (if I'm lying do you own research, and don't be biased to the fact). As I stated before you don't know what the person maybe upon tomorrow

Yaseen
07-03-2005, 10:01 PM
Asalamu'alykum

The barelvis labelled the deobandis wahabi due to some comments made from the akabir of the Deoband school of thought. An example is Rashid Gangohi who is ranked very highly by the deobandi as a faqeeh of the highest order. Yet somehow, despite being a Hanafi and the position of the authentic sources in the Hanafi madhab being quite clear in refuting the Wahabiya, it is recorded in his fataawa-e- Rasheediya that he was an admirer of Ibn Abdal Wahab. Mufti Al-Kawthari has attempted to shed some light on the reasons behind why the statements were made.

This is just one example. I am sure there are other examples as well. However, it is good to see the likes Mufti Ibrahim Desai finally coming out and and also refuting the Wahabiya.

Wasalaam

muslim786
07-03-2005, 10:31 PM
:salam: A person who admire abdul wahabi cannot be called a wahabi? :confused: possibly you need to re-read your own reply
Look carefully at what I wrote brother with a calm mind it makes perfect sense, i said "if someone who admires and follows abdul wahab najdi cannt be called a wahabi who can?" This is a rhetorical question, and it in no ways contradicts what I said before about an admirer and follower of abdul wahab being called wahabi.

Omar HH
07-03-2005, 11:24 PM
"Do not argue even when your right" - Shaykh Zulfiqar Ahmad (paraphrased)

Jazakallahu Khayrun

alibaba
08-03-2005, 01:58 AM
GOOD NEWS FOR ALL OF YOU...THIS IS OFFICIALLY GONNA BE MY LAST POST!!

The day brother ahsanirfan said that the quran and the ahadith are off limits to 1.5 billion people of the world is the day i call it quits from this forum.............according to him the quran and the ahadith is meant for a select few chosen** ones who will take us w/ them to heaven!!
as per quote

Second thing you pointed out in that para was about reading ahadith. Now this is one of our main concerns. I must also highlight that there is somewhere down the line the fault of our scholars too (it does sound like a possibility) Reading ahadith on your own is NOT a way to learn Islam. Islam is always learnt by being in the presence of those who know them and know how to apply them. Simply picking up a Bukhari and going through it sounds like utter nonsense to me. We spent years upon years in university, Bachelor's, Masters, Ph.D. And yet when it comes to the Deen, we want to learn it on our own? Try learning physics from a physics book alone. You will see what I mean.

believe me i have learnt 2 years of physics w/o a teacher....the one of them had a HUGE indian accent and the other a chinese one!!

nyways.....do you think God made the Quran so hard to understand? and do you think the Prophet spoke in such complicated parables that no one could understand??? Listen Islam is not like medicine....its not like engineering ....it is a simple way of life......*** the ahadith are meant to be read by laymen...the Quran is meant to be read by laymen**
No author of a medical book will state that medicine is meant for everyone and it is easy to understand and remember...*****

however God does say this about the Quran

And We have indeed made the Quran easy to understand and remember, then is there any that will remember (or receive admonition)?
(Chapter #54, Verse #17)

then the claim that the ahadith and the quran are meant for scholars only is a complete fabrication of the truth....because if this was the case....then God would never have sent down the Quran.....to a person who could not read or write.......

Say (O Muhammad SAW): "O mankind! Verily, I am sent to you all as the Messenger of Allah - to Whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He); It is He Who gives life and causes death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad SAW), the Prophet who can neither read nor write (i.e. Muhammad SAW) who believes in Allah and His Words ((this Quran), the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and also Allahs Word: "Be!" - and he was, i.e. Iesa (Jesus) son of Maryam (Mary), and follow him so that you may be guided."
(Chapter #7, Verse #158)

this itself signifies that one does not need to be a scholar to understand God's message to mankind***
"O mankind! Verily, I am sent to you all as the Messenger of Allah"

you see he is sent to us all not to a select few....
its impossible** for 1.5 billion people in this world to become scholars so are you suggesting they should never receive guidance??

ahsanirfan wrote:
Probably "beneficial" according to your definition of the word. Some might consider their approach "harmful"

How is YM harmful.....if it is your belief that reading the Sunnah of the prophet Muhammad and trying at best to apply it in your life is harmful....then broda...not much can be said there

ahsanirfan wrote:
"know the lexical imports and the high level of meaning behind the ahadith of the Rasul Allah "

Excuse me???..........The prophet came in the time of people who were ignorant....who could neither read or write** (majority of them ...not talking about the poets) then to say that his statements are engulfed w/ deep philosophy that only a scholar can understand is just plain wrong...how could those people then understand....when the prophet was not w/ them?

You have made Islam into an extremly difficult math problem....one of those millenia math problems that you get tons of money for solving.....

NO...Islam is the religion of a laymen...not of a scholar......are you implying that God didnot know that non-scholars ...are also muslims.....??? then why would he send down something that no one can interpret or understand??? Do you think the Prophet Muhammad deliberately said things which were so complicated that only a scholar could understand??? OF COURSE Not....Islam is a path of guidance for anyone*** who wants to be guided.......regardless of if a scholar is there or not

Certainly, We have brought to them a Book (the quran) which We have explained in detail with knowledge, - a guidance and a mercy to a people who believe.
Chapter #7, Verse #52

It is the Quran that is giving the humans the knowledge so that they may understand..........and it is meant to be a guidance and mercy to a people who believe....u c......the Quran is the guidance....not the scholars!!....It is the word of God that gives you knowledge.....and understanding..

ahsanirfan wrote:

Simply picking up a Bukhari and going through it sounds like utter nonsense to me. We spent years upon years in university, Bachelor's, Masters, Ph.D. And yet when it comes to the Deen, we want to learn it on our own

I assure you that God was very well aware that not only PHD's and Masters in Islam would want to be guided and thus he has made the quran easy to read and understand....
I must emphasize this verse again...

And We have indeed made the Quran easy to understand and remember, then is there any that will remember (or receive admonition)?
(Chapter #54, Verse #17)

and finally I fail to understand........how people would sit at home and watch TV full of filth and vice then hang out w/ good muslim brothers who never mention the word salafi/deobandi/hanafi/shafii/shia/sunni....or anyother useless jargon......how people would rather not go to an organization because it is deemed salafi.........remembering that this YM organization does more work for the muslim youth in N.America then any other scholar does and to make the claim that it is the youth's responsibility to come to the scholars is wrong......they must go to the youth...as did the prophet Muhammad when he even immigrated** from his own home.....in order to spread the faith........and today we have scholars...who want people to come to them rather than go and spread the faith.....themselves....and thus becasue of this these organizations come to being...to fill the whole and gaps that these scholars leave behind...these scholars who believe** that the youth will come to them...and it is not their duty to drag these muslim youth (foundation of Islam...those who will carry on the faith) from the bars and clubs....and all other vice...and conveniantly enough criticize organizations and brothers commited to doing this virtuous act.....(ie...not literally dragging)
and finally....

They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah (by obeying them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desires without being ordered by Allah), and (they also took as their Lord) Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary), while they (Jews and Christians) were commanded (in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)) to worship none but One Ilah (God - Allah) La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He). Praise and glory be to Him, (far above is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)."
(Chapter #9, Verse #31)


salaams to all

ahsanirfan
08-03-2005, 10:57 AM
GOOD NEWS FOR ALL OF YOU...THIS IS OFFICIALLY GONNA BE MY LAST POST!!

Sad indeed :(

Abba
08-03-2005, 11:32 AM
I agree with alibaba

This is the most sickening and disgusting phenomenon in Muslims.

This is "Mullaism" and then they ask why are the Mullas disliked.

I ask my brothers why was Maulana Nooraani sitting with Qazi Wahabi of Jamaat Islaami?despite being a Brailvi?if these jamaatis are Wahabiyya?

I sometimes wonder if its better not to listen to any Mulla,to be a better Muslim.Atleast u'll not learn to hate fellow muslims

ahsanirfan
08-03-2005, 12:04 PM
Salam alaikum

In the hope that he shall return.


The day brother ahsanirfan said that the quran and the ahadith are off limits to 1.5 billion people of the world is the day i call it quits from this forum.............according to him the quran and the ahadith is meant for a select few chosen** ones who will take us w/ them to heaven!!
as per quote

I never even implied that. Prove it.


believe me i have learnt 2 years of physics w/o a teacher....the one of them had a HUGE indian accent and the other a chinese one!!

You're not the only one. ;). Exceptions always prove the rule.


nyways.....do you think God made the Quran so hard to understand? and do you think the Prophet spoke in such complicated parables that no one could understand???

No to both. But you are not understanding the issue here. I guess we're arguing on two different planes.


Listen Islam is not like medicine....its not like engineering ....it is a simple way of life......

The understanding of Islam is like Medicine or Engineering. While following it is easy for laymen. And by understanding I don't mean the broader message brought by Islam, I mean the finer subtler details that could be missed by laymen.


*** the ahadith are meant to be read by laymen...the Quran is meant to be read by laymen**

And yet the Quran says, "And follow the Ahlul Dhikri when ye know not."


No author of a medical book will state that medicine is meant for everyone and it is easy to understand and remember...*****

They don't state the opposite either.


however God does say this about the Quran

And We have indeed made the Quran easy to understand and remember, then is there any that will remember (or receive admonition)?
(Chapter #54, Verse #17)

Sure go ahead and read the Quran and Ahadith with translations. No one is arguing about that. But when you do find a hadith or a Quranic ayah that contrdicts a madhhab ruling, do not forget to ask the respective madhhab scholar why it exists, because the madhhab rulings rely on much more than just a single hadith.


then the claim that the ahadith and the quran are meant for scholars only is a complete fabrication of the truth....

A fabrication that exists only in your mind. No one ever said that, nor did they imply it.


because if this was the case....then God would never have sent down the Quran.....to a person who could not read or write.......

But who did have immense knowledge of Arabic, far surpassed than any of us here, and because of which he was the First Teacher.


Say (O Muhammad SAW): "O mankind! Verily, I am sent to you all as the Messenger of Allah - to Whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He); It is He Who gives life and causes death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad SAW), the Prophet who can neither read nor write (i.e. Muhammad SAW) who believes in Allah and His Words ((this Quran), the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and also Allahs Word: "Be!" - and he was, i.e. Iesa (Jesus) son of Maryam (Mary), and follow him so that you may be guided."
(Chapter #7, Verse #158)

this itself signifies that one does not need to be a scholar to understand God's message to mankind***
"O mankind! Verily, I am sent to you all as the Messenger of Allah"

Nobody said that you need to be a scholar to "understand God's message to mankind." God's message is one thing. Fiqh is quite another.


you see he is sent to us all not to a select few....
its impossible** for 1.5 billion people in this world to become scholars so are you suggesting they should never receive guidance??

1.5 billion cannot be expected to be scholars. Which is why the Quran says "And follow the Ahlul Dhikri when ye know not."


How is YM harmful.....if it is your belief that reading the Sunnah of the prophet Muhammad and trying at best to apply it in your life is harmful....then broda...not much can be said there

Reading the Sunnah is not harmful. Taking the wrong message from the Sunnah is harmful. You're working on your own here when you "study the Sunnah" on your own. I could construct an argument here. Bother me later for it.


Excuse me???..........The prophet came in the time of people who were ignorant....who could neither read or write** (majority of them ...not talking about the poets) then to say that his statements are engulfed w/ deep philosophy that only a scholar can understand is just plain wrong...how could those people then understand....when the prophet was not w/ them?

And yet we have the hadith of Abu Hurayrah where he says that two vessels of knowledge were literally poured into him. One he publicised and one he refrained from doing so, in fear that his throat ma be slit because of it.


You have made Islam into an extremly difficult math problem....one of those millenia math problems that you get tons of money for solving.....

Nice analogy. But it doesn't work here. Nobody follows math in their daily lives. Yet Islam is supposed to followed by people in their daily lives. All the more need to have specialists who can understand the finer and subtler points.


NO...Islam is the religion of a laymen...not of a scholar......

But people follow scholars, and consequently the Quran and the Sunnah. So Islam is religion of the scholar and layman both. Both have to follow it. You must realize the place Islam has given to men of knowledge. You dismiss them as they were ants under your feet. "Are the men who know not better than those who know?"


are you implying that God didnot know that non-scholars ...are also muslims.....???then why would he send down something that no one can interpret or understand??? Do you think the Prophet Muhammad deliberately said things which were so complicated that only a scholar could understand???

Off course He knew. Why would he then say "And follow the Ahlul Dhikri when you know not" ? He knew in all His Knowledge that there will be laymen who will not have the capacity to understand it. That is why He revealed that ayah. So that the lay can find an avenue to understand the Quran.


OF COURSE Not....Islam is a path of guidance for anyone*** who wants to be guided.......regardless of if a scholar is there or not

Certainly, We have brought to them a Book (the quran) which We have explained in detail with knowledge, - a guidance and a mercy to a people who believe.
Chapter #7, Verse #52

Then why would he say "And follow the Ahlul Dhikri when you know not." ?


It is the Quran that is giving the humans the knowledge so that they may understand..........and it is meant to be a guidance and mercy to a people who believe....u c......the Quran is the guidance....not the scholars!!....It is the word of God that gives you knowledge.....and understanding..

So if you want to understand the Quran than badly (so do I) then go learn Arabic before shouting and ranting here.


I assure you that God was very well aware that not only PHD's and Masters in Islam would want to be guided and thus he has made the quran easy to read and understand....
I must emphasize this verse again...

Oh Lord! All over again.


And We have indeed made the Quran easy to understand and remember, then is there any that will remember (or receive admonition)?
(Chapter #54, Verse #17)

What about those who cannot understand? Would God leave them alone?


and finally I fail to understand........how people would sit at home and watch TV full of filth and vice then hang out w/ good muslim brothers who never mention the word salafi/deobandi/hanafi/shafii/shia/sunni....or anyother useless jargon......

Can't understand a word you just said here.


how people would rather not go to an organization because it is deemed salafi.........remembering that this YM organization does more work for the muslim youth in N.America then any other scholar does

This is the beauty of the 'ulama. Doing what they can without making themselves known. If you haven't seen a scholar do his work then how can you claim such a thing? I assure you, there are a LOT more young people around righteous 'ulama than there are at these YMs.


and to make the claim that it is the youth's responsibility to come to the scholars is wrong......they must go to the youth...as did the prophet Muhammad when he even immigrated** from his own home.....in order to spread the faith........and today we have scholars...who want people to come to them rather than go and spread the faith.....themselves....

If only you knew.


and thus becasue of this these organizations come to being...to fill the whole and gaps that these scholars leave behind...

Possibly because of heavy publicity? Advertisement? How do you know that there were gaps in the first place?


these scholars who believe** that the youth will come to them...and it is not their duty to drag these muslim youth (foundation of Islam...those who will carry on the faith) from the bars and clubs....and all other vice...and conveniantly enough criticize organizations and brothers commited to doing this virtuous act.....(ie...not literally dragging)

I must say that you have not been well-informed of what the 'ulama do, or what their functions are. And no scholar believe that youth "should" come to them. You only need to look to be able to find.


and finally....

They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah (by obeying them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desires without being ordered by Allah), and (they also took as their Lord) Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary), while they (Jews and Christians) were commanded (in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)) to worship none but One Ilah (God - Allah) La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He). Praise and glory be to Him, (far above is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)."
(Chapter #9, Verse #31)

Again you are applying an ayah that does not refer to us. These refer to those Christains and Jews who actually took their rabbis and monks for their Lords. Our Lord is only Allah. And we feel content in obeying Him and His command. We don't have intricate theologies and philosophies that these people did. Please bring something that is relevant to us.

Wassalam

Noor ul Islam
08-03-2005, 04:55 PM
Brother
If even sincere advice should lead to further indulgence it shouldnot be delivered to ignorant people.Wassalam

ahsanirfan
08-03-2005, 05:01 PM
Brother
If even sincere advice should lead to further indulgence it shouldnot be delivered to ignorant people.Wassalam

:jazak: for the advice sister. I was simply hoping that he would understand. May Allah guide us all. Ameen.

Wassalam

Omar HH
08-03-2005, 08:23 PM
All I have to say is this:

I'd rather follow the same Islam that the great scholars in our traditions have followed in the past 1400+ years such as Imam Nawawi (RA), Imam Suyuti (RA), Imam al-Ghazali (RA), Imam Malik (RA), Imam Abu Hanifa (RA), Imam at-Tahawi (RA), Imam Ibn 'Ata'ullah (RA), Qadi Iyad (RA), Imam Junayd (RA), etc. than to follow what my own brain can come up with after reading a few English translations. Only like 1% of Islamic texts have been translated into English anyways!

Remember what Imam Shafii (RA) said:
"You [the scholars of h.adīth] are the pharmacists but we [the jurists] are the physicians." Mullā `Alī al-Qārī commented: "The early scholars said: The h.adīth scholar without knowledge of fiqh is like a seller of drugs who is no physician: he has them but he does not know what to do with them; and the fiqh scholar without knowledge of h.adīth is like a physician without drugs: he knows what constitutes a remedy, but does not have it available."

Al-Qārī, Mu`taqad Abī H.anīfata al-Imām fī Abaway al-Rasūl `Alayhi al-S.alāt wa al-Salām (p. 42).

Jazakallahu Khayrun

http://www.livingislam.org/n/sfh_e.html#2

Harris Ibn Qureshi
08-03-2005, 10:29 PM
What are the traditional scholars opinion of Syed Qutb,Hassan al-Banna and the Muslim Brotherhood??? Had they fallen to the same mistakes of moudoudi? Cuz as far as i know they have revived islam...

BTW-Syed Qutb in his book milestones has explained his position on the sahabas, stating that none of their caliber will ever rise again in our day and age. He holds them and the ambiya with special status...

Omar HH
08-03-2005, 11:05 PM
What are the traditional scholars opinion of Syed Qutb,Hassan al-Banna and the Muslim Brotherhood??? Had they fallen to the same mistakes of moudoudi? Cuz as far as i know they have revived islam...

BTW-Syed Qutb in his book milestones has explained his position on the sahabas, stating that none of their caliber will ever rise again in our day and age. He holds them and the ambiya with special status...

They Ikhwan have not, to my knowledge, made the same mistakes regarding the Sahaba that Mawdudi has made. Sayyed Qutb WAS influenced by Mawdudi though.

Hassan al-Banna and many of the Muslim Brothers did alot of good things for Islam. But there is also alot of things one needs to be warned about. Sayyed Qutb especially.

Shaykh Abdul Hakim Murad said "Sayyed Qutb went so far to the West that he fell off" or something simmilar in his Contentions series.

Sayyed Qutb has been acknowledged to be one of the main pillars in the neo-Salafi movement today. His ideology has inspired the main terrorist movements today such as Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda movement.

Jazakallahu Khayrun

muslim786
08-03-2005, 11:06 PM
What are the traditional scholars opinion of Syed Qutb,Hassan al-Banna and the Muslim Brotherhood??? Had they fallen to the same mistakes of moudoudi? Cuz as far as i know they have revived islam...

BTW-Syed Qutb in his book milestones has explained his position on the sahabas, stating that none of their caliber will ever rise again in our day and age. He holds them and the ambiya with special status...
The opinion of the traditional scholars on syed qutb is that he was as bad as if not a lot worse than maududi. He has made many errors and the ulama have exposed this.

As for the shahid Hasan Al Banna he should not be linked to the muslim brotherhood today who have deviated from many of his core teachings, the shahid Hasan Al Banna was a follower of the hanafi madhab and he was of orthodox aqedah, however the group known as the muslim brotherhood aka Ikwan have deviated greatly from his core belief sets, eg not following the madhabs, mixing the madhabs, the evil notions of minority fiqh etc.

ahsanirfan
08-03-2005, 11:09 PM
What are the traditional scholars opinion of Syed Qutb,Hassan al-Banna and the Muslim Brotherhood??? Had they fallen to the same mistakes of moudoudi? Cuz as far as i know they have revived islam...

BTW-Syed Qutb in his book milestones has explained his position on the sahabas, stating that none of their caliber will ever rise again in our day and age. He holds them and the ambiya with special status...

they differ... listen to this lecture by Sh Murad.. very interesting and throws some light on Qutb...

http://www.ouisoc.com/web/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=40&func=fileinfo&parent=folder&filecatid=119

ahsanirfan
08-03-2005, 11:12 PM
... the evil notions of minority fiqh etc.

akhi dont say "minority Fiqh".. say their evil "perceptions" on minority Fiqh.. as far as i am aware.. minority fiqh is a valid area.. and i have heard this from reliable sources.. not from the ikhwaan or the HT.. i think there is an article on it by Sh Nuh.. check masud.co.. might find it there...

Mossy
08-03-2005, 11:13 PM
It is, just look at the works of Sh Bin Bayyah amongst others. Of course, depends what you mean by it :D

muslim786
08-03-2005, 11:18 PM
It is, just look at the works of Sh Bin Bayyah amongst others. Of course, depends what you mean by it :D
I agree. I was refering to the notion that Shaykh Ramdhan Al Bouti has discussed and the problem of seeking easy means at all stages. I should have made myself clear.

ahsanirfan
08-03-2005, 11:39 PM
I agree. I was refering to the notion that Shaykh Ramdhan Al Bouti has discussed and the problem of seeking easy means at all stages. I should have made myself clear.

cool ;)

Omar HH
08-03-2005, 11:43 PM
Yeah Shaykh Nuh has a nice article about minority fiqh and the Maliki madhab at Sidi Masud Ahmad Khan's website.

Jazakallahu Khayrun

Muawiyah
26-12-2005, 11:01 PM
"الأستاذ المودودي" - السيد محمد يوسف البنوري رحمه الله (http://www.hakikatkitabevi.com/display.asp?DID=1&KID=15)

AngelFuzion
05-04-2007, 12:55 PM
ok first of all books have been written in reply to these [clip] articles and i want to clear some things over here first of all u ppl saying that he insulted sahaba he didnt write those things from him self he quoted them from imam suyuti books and henever rejected the comming of dajjal refer to rasal masail vol1 questions on dajjal

if0rg0t
05-04-2007, 05:20 PM
Has anyone actually read Maududi's (or his supporters) point of view? Some things which are said about him are false ... such as that he rejects the Dajjal, etc. Even Ahmedi's quote from books of the Sunni ulema how there could be another Prophet after Muhammad (saw) ... misquotations without the correct interpretation.

Here are some books which were written in this regard. Has anyone read them?

‘Ali, Ahmad, Haqq parast ‘ulama’ ki Maudidiyat se narazgi ke asbab (The Reasons behind the anger of the Truth-seeking ‘ulama’ against Maududi’s Thought), Lahore, [n.d.].

Yusuf, Mahammad, Maulana Maududi par I’tiradat ka ‘Ilmi Ja’izah (An Objective Analysis of the Objections against Maulana Maududi), 2 vols. Lahore, 1967-1968.