Maulana Ameen Okarvee and Taqleed

[Lahori12]

Ameen Okarvee said in his risalah " Tahqeeq Masalah Taqleed" that taqleed was only on ijtihadi matters, not in matters where there are daleel of Quran, Hadeeth, and Ijma' as said by shaykh Zubayr ALi Zay in his risalah " Deen mein taqleed ka Masalah"

Does anybody can give this definition from any Standard Hanafi book of Usul.

He also gave a definition of taqleed from Iqtisad of Thanvi, without giving definition from any famous Hanafi book of Usul Fiqh like Tahreer, Taqreer, Usul Bazdawi, Tawdeeh, Kashful Asrar, Muthalam Ath Thuboot, Nurul Anwar and others. as said by shaykh Zubayr.

Was there a problem with the definition of taqleed in these Books ?

See also Hadeeth N 10 of shaykh Zubayr Ali Zay where he found ten lies of Ameen Okarvee from his books.

http://www.quransunnah.com/modules.p...ownload&cid=74

Can anybody answer these accusations ?

[Al-Burhan]

Ameen Okarvee said in his risalah " Tahqeeq Masalah Taqleed" that taqleed was only on ijtihadi matters, not in matters where there are daleel of Quran, Hadeeth, and Ijma' as said by shaykh Zubayr ALi Zay in his risalah " Deen mein taqleed ka Masalah"

Does anybody can give this definition from any Standard Hanafi book of Usul.

He also gave a definition of taqleed from Iqtisad of Thanvi, without giving definition from any famous Hanafi book of Usul Fiqh like Tahreer, Taqreer, Usul Bazdawi, Tawdeeh, Kashful Asrar, Muthalam Ath Thuboot, Nurul Anwar and others. as said by shaykh Zubayr.

Was there a problem with the definition of taqleed in these Books ?

See also Hadeeth N 10 of shaykh Zubayr Ali Zay where he found ten lies of Ameen Okarvee from his books.

http://www.quransunnah.com/modules.p...ownload&cid=74

Can anybody answer these accusations ?

See page 10 of the same document u r referring i.e. of Hadith no. 10... Zubair Ali Zai has made similar mistake in his book and says it's a mistake not a lie. This mistake which is clarified on page 10, would have surely been regarded as another lie if Zubair Ali Zai had found it in Moulana OKarvi's work. He has mentioned such similar mistakes from Moulana Okarvi RA (I have not checked their authenticity though, this is only an ILZAMI JAWAB).

It is a habit of Zubair Ali Zai to call the same mistake from himself or his salafi scholars as MERE MISTAKE and if he finds it from others he says it is a LIE. If anyone is still in any doubt after seeing this strange behavior by Zubair Ali Zai in his own book where he has dual standards for himself and others, then listen to this munazira of Zubair Ali Zai with Qari Chann Muhammad DB from an ahle hadith site...

http://www.deenekhalis.com/component...,select/id,57/

listen to part 3 and 4...
Somewhere in part 3 or 4 Zubair Ali Zair accused Qari Chann Muhammad DB by saying "you are lying in front of all people present here" and further added "you have not read the complete statement and are trying to hide things from public here, don't lie in front of us". On this Qari Chann Muhammad DB said ," OK this Munazira is on record let us replay the cassettes right now, if I am found guilty of what u r accusing me of and if it is proved that I was lying then I will give up and u r the winner in this munazira". On this challenge Zubair Ali Zai and TAlibur Rehman realized the problem, but now that LIE by Zubair Ali Zai was termed as mere 'mistake'.

Even after this emberrasment Zubair Ali Zai said that I only committed a mistake it wasn't a lie while he was calling the similar, which he was claiming few minutes earlier, as a big lie in front of public by Qari Chann Muhammad DB. When similar mistakes of Ahle Hadith scholars (Sadiq Sialkoti and Sana Ullah Amratsari ) were caught in that munazira, Zubair Ali Zai said these are only mistakes, we admit BUT WE DON'T CALL THEM LIES AND SIMILAR ARE FOUND IN UR ULEMA'S BOOKS WHICH WE DON'T TERM AS LIES , but in the article u have mentioned here, he quite blatantly picked similar mistakes from moulana Okarvi RA and termed them as 'AKAZIB E SAFDAR'

So even if Moulana Okarvi RA had made some mistakes (and who doesn't), it doesn't change the facts. If one can pick few mistakes out of his voluminous work his position doesn't change at all, the dalael he has given are not confined only to these few mistakes.

[Al-Burhan]

He also gave a definition of taqleed from Iqtisad of Thanvi, without giving definition from any famous Hanafi book of Usul Fiqh like Tahreer, Taqreer, Usul Bazdawi, Tawdeeh, Kashful Asrar, Muthalam Ath Thuboot, Nurul Anwar and others. as said by shaykh Zubayr.

Was there a problem with the definition of taqleed in these Books ?

See also Hadeeth N 10 of shaykh Zubayr Ali Zay where he found ten lies of Ameen Okarvee from his books.

Brother, for ur information Moulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi's books are indeed famous Hanafi books for us, and his book on taqlid is a great work on the topic.

Anyway, if he had given this definition from other books, even then u would have argued that was there a problem with the definition of taqleed in Moulana Thanvi's book!!!

Here is another interesting incident from that munazira, exposing the hatred of Zubair Ali Zai and Talibur Rehman with Ulema e Deoband...

http://www.deenekhalis.com/componen...c,select/id,57/

In his starting khutbah Moulana Chann Muhammad DB said "wa qaalAllahu ta'ala fil quran el karim ...la'natUllahe alal kazibeen". Here he mistakenly recited "la'natAllahe". As every sensible person can realise this is a mistake of memorization or merely recitation which is very common in Huffaaz. Even if we say that he recited it deliberately it can not be called as a LIE ON ALLAH... why? see... If I say that Allah has said in Quran that don't commit adultery. The words in Quran say don't go near adultery. How many will say that I have told a LIE on Allah??? for another example if I say Allah has ordered us in Quran "Namaz parho" or "Offer prayers" is it a lie? But here even this is not the case, as the words "la'natAllahe" are also present in Quran though not with "Kazibeen" and form a complete sentence in Arabic without any change of meaning as was explained by Qari Chann Muhammad later in that munazira.

But when Zubair Ali Zai's mistake in the public was caught he and Talibur Rehman, an effort to 'return the favor' replied, "You have (also) told a LIE about Quran". And then they mentioned that these words which u have recited are not in the Quran. SubhanAllah!!! If this mistake of recitation was to be considered as speaking LIE on Allah then I wonder no HAFIZ E QURAN would be able to recite quran completely in Taraweeh prayers without speaking many such LIES ON ALLAH.

So this much should be enough to show that Zubair Ali Zai (and some other ahle hadith too, who often quote his objections with pride while doing his blind taqleed) has dual standards for himself and for others, and he doesn't miss any oppurtunity to make accasations, by hook or by crook, on Ulema e Deoband. As for those so called 'Akazib e Safdar', I will inshAllah show that some of them are rather 'Akazib e Zubair' in reality and reflect more of his hatred with us rather than any serious mistake on Moulana Okarvi's part. Wa ma toufiqee illa billah.

Since I have quoted these incidents from Munazira out of my memory, so it is possible to get some minor difference of words but inshAllah there is no alteration of meaning... Here the exact words are not meant rather the overall meaning of conversation is important. everyone is encouraged to listen to that munazira and verify these incidents.

[aaskir]

See also Hadeeth N 10 of shaykh Zubayr Ali Zay where he found ten lies of Ameen Okarvee from his books

Hafiz Zubair Ali Zai does the same thing himself. I have many evidences where he has done “alteration” to the original text or he has quoted a portion of original text to misinterpret the original interpretation and to mislead people.

Just as an example from page 20 of the same document you are referring i.e. of Hadith no. 10... Zubair Ali Zai writes against Taqleed:
“The reason for differences between Ulema (of different Madahib) is Taqleed. Example 1: Anwar Shah Kashmiri Deobandi accepted a hadees as saheeh but kept thinking for 14 years to find answer to it. (See Darse Tirmidi P-224, part 2, Wal Urf e Shuzee, Wal Maarfiul Sunan wa Faizul Bari p-375, part 2)” Attached below.

And he gives the same quotation for blaming deobandies doing Taqleed Jamid. I received same quotation from a ghair muqlid with topic taqleed jamid.

Now let see what the actual story is so that you can see how he has picked up one sentence from the original text and has presented it as proof of taqleed and taqleed jamid.

In fact Maulana Anwar Shah Sahib saw a hadees in Mustadrak Hakim which favored Shafai’s way of witr prayer. Allama sahib was of the opinion that this Hadees is saheeh and was wondering (was surprised) why the Shafai people have not taken it as daleel for their view point on witr in their books. Allama says that after 14 years the actual meaning of the hadees revealed on to me and then I understood why Shafai people have not presented it as daleel in their favor because it did not support them. It was not against Ahnaf’s point of view either.

See the original text below from Urfe Shuzee:

واعلم أن في مصنف ابن أبي شيبة أن أباه عمر كان يوتر على الأرض ، واعلم أن ما ذكرت من نبذة فن الكلام تفيد في جميع روايات الوتر إلا ما في النسائي ص ( 251 ) عن أبي موسى وما في المستدرك للحاكم أنه عليه الصلاة والسلام : كان يوتر بركعة وكان يتكلم بين الركعة والركعتين ولقد تفكرت فيه قريباً من أربعة عشر سنة ثم استخرجت جوابه شافياً وذلك الحديث قوي السند إلا أن الحاكم أخذ سنده عن هشام بن سوار ، وبين الحاكم وبين هشام ثلاثة وسائط ، وقد وجدت قطعة السند بين الحاكم وهشام فالحديث قوي ، ولم يتوجه إليه أحد من الشافعية احتجاجاً على التسليم على الركعتين من الوتر ، ولم يتوجه أحد من الأحناف إلى جوابه وجوابه عندي محفوظ بالتحقيق والتفصيل ولكني لا أذكره فأنه يقتضي تطريق كثير من الأحاديث وكذلك جواب رواية النسائي عن أبي موسى الدالة على ركعة واحدة للوتر موجود ولا أذكر مخافة التطويل ، فالحاصل أني لم أجد ما يدل بنصه على إثبات التسليم على الركعتين الأوليين من الوتر ولا ما ينص على وحدة ركعة الوتر ، وادعى الخصم أن أكثر عادته عليه الصلاة والسلام بل استمر أمره على الوتر بركعة واحدة كما نقل في آثار السنن ص ( 9 ) ج ( 2 ) عن الرافعي شرح الوجيز ، وفيه قال محمد بن نصر المروزي : لم نجد عن النبي - صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - خبراً ثابتاً صريحاً أنه أوتر بثلاث موصولة إلخ ، فالله أعلم كيف يصح قولهما هذا؟ والله أعلم وعلمه أتم .

Now you can see yourself that this has nothing to do with taqleed or taqleed e jamid but he has tried to mislead people and to creat hatred in hearts of people against deobandies.

[Aamir]

The ghair muqaald's couldnt stand up to him in maulana amin's lifetime and now they start making fitna when he has passed away....

[Al-Burhan]

See the original text below from Urfe Shuzee:

JazakAllah brother, here I am quoting the complete text of his discussion along with the english translation...

Anwar Shah Kashmiri RA was discussing a hadith...

يجوز الوتر على الراحلة عند الجمهور لا عند أبي حنيفة ، والسلف أيضاً مختلفون وجماعة قليلة قائلة بالوجوب منهم الحسن البصري ، والجواب من جانب أبي حنيفة أن ابن عمر من الذين يطلقون لفظ الوتر على تمام صلاة الليل فلعل ابن عمر مراده أن صلاة الليل كانت على الراحلة ، وأما الوتر بخصوصه فعلى الأرض ففي الطحاوى ص ( 249 ) صححه العيني في العمدة بسند صحيح عن ابن عمر أن النبي - صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - كان يصلي على الراحلة ويوتر على الأرض ، وكذلك أخرجه أحمد في مسنده ومر عليه الحافظ ولم يتكلم بشيء ثم قال الطحاوي : لعل الوتر على الراحلة كان حين عدم تأكّد ولا يصح هذا الجواب على مشربي ولم أجد ما يدل على سنية الوتر في وقت ما والجواب عندي أن الوتر كان على الأرض لما روينا ، وأما حديث الباب فعلى ما هو صنيع ابن عمر من إطلاق لفظ الوتر على جميع صلاة الليل ، وإني وجدت في جميع الروايات عن ابن عمر إطلاق لفظ الوتر على جميع صلاة الليل إلا ما في معاني الآثار ص ( 265 ) عن أبي داود عن ابن مريم عن ابن عمرو ابن عباس ، وفي قيام الليل لمحمد بن نصر قال ابن عمر : لو اتبعني الناس لصلَّوا الوتر بسلامين

TRANSLATION: (done by an arab Imam in one of the mosques in Sydney, Austrailia)

It is permitted to offer the witr salaah on a conveyance according to the majority of Ulamaa and not according to Imam Abu Hanifa, and the previous Ulamaa are also divided on this issue. A small number of Ulamaa say that witr is wajib from amongst them Hassan al-Basari.

Imam Abu Hnifa answers thus: that Ibn Umar is from amongst those who use the word witr for the completion of the night prayer, so perhaps Ibn Umar meant by using the word witr as the night prayer took place on conveyance. As with regards to witr, specifically, it will be prayed on the ground. As is comes in ‘Tahawwi’ (pg# 249) through an authentic chain from Ibn Umar that the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to pray on a conveyance an make witr on the ground, Imam Ayni has declared this Hadith authentic in the book ‘Al-Umdah’. Imam Ahmad has also narrated this Hadith in his musnad and hafith Ibn Hajar has not commented on it.

Imam Tahawwi thereafter says perhaps witr on the conveyance happened at a time when witr had not yet been emphasized, but this answer does not agree to my way of thinking, and I have not found anything to prove that witr is sunnah and my answer is that witr took place on the ground as we have narrated earlier. With regards to the Hadith which we are dealing with, then we will take it as Ibn Umars way of using the word witr for the whole night prayer, and I have found in all the narrations of Ibn Umar that he uses the word witr for all the night prayers except what has been reported in ‘Ma’ani Al-Aathaar’ (pg. 265) from Abu Dawood who reports from Ibn Mariam who reports from Ibn Umar and Ibn Abbas. Also it is found in the book ‘Qiyaamul Layl’ by Muhammad Ibn Nasar, Ibn Umar said ‘ If only the people followed me they would pray witr with two salams.


After this Moulana has discussed in the HASHIA of the same page...

واعلم أن في مصنف ابن أبي شيبة أن أباه عمر كان يوتر على الأرض ، واعلم أن ما ذكرت من نبذة فن الكلام تفيد في جميع روايات الوتر إلا ما في النسائي ص ( 251 ) عن أبي موسى وما في المستدرك للحاكم أنه عليه الصلاة والسلام : كان يوتر بركعة وكان يتكلم بين الركعة والركعتين ، ولقد تفكرت فيه قريباً من أربعة عشر سنة ثم استخرجت جوابه شافياً وذلك الحديث قوي السند إلا أن الحاكم أخذ سنده عن هشام بن سوار ، وبين الحاكم وبين هشام ثلاثة وسائط ، وقد وجدت قطعة السند بين الحاكم وهشام فالحديث قوي ، ولم يتوجه إليه أحد من الشافعية احتجاجاً على التسليم على الركعتين من الوتر ، ولم يتوجه أحد من الأحناف إلى جوابه وجوابه عندي محفوظ بالتحقيق والتفصيل ولكني لا أذكره فأنه يقتضي تطريق كثير من الأحاديث وكذلك جواب رواية النسائي عن أبي موسى الدالة على ركعة واحدة للوتر موجود ولا أذكر مخافة التطويل ، فالحاصل أني لم أجد ما يدل بنصه على إثبات التسليم على الركعتين الأوليين من الوتر ولا ما ينص على وحدة ركعة الوتر ، وادعى الخصم أن أكثر عادته عليه الصلاة والسلام بل استمر أمره على الوتر بركعة واحدة كما نقل في آثار السنن ص ( 9 ) ج ( 2 ) عن الرافعي شرح الوجيز ، وفيه قال محمد بن نصر المروزي : لم نجد عن النبي - صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - خبراً ثابتاً صريحاً أنه أوتر بثلاث موصولة إلخ ، فالله أعلم كيف يصح قولهما هذا؟ والله أعلم وعلمه أتم .

TRANSLATION:

Know that it has come in ‘The Musannaf’ of Ibn Abi Shaybah that his father Umar used to pray witr on the ground., and know that that which I have mentioned supports the above view in all the narrations of witr EXCEPT THAT which has come in the book ‘Al-Nasa’i’ (pg.251) from Abu Moussa , and that which has come in the ‘Mustadrak, of Hakim that the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to pray witr one rakaat and he used to talk between the two rakaat. I have thought about for approximately fourteen years then I came up with a proper answer, and that Hadith has a strong chain except that Hakim has taken his chain chain from Hisham Ibn Souwar and between Hakim and Hisham there are three people and I have found that missing people between the two so the Hadith is strong and none of the Shafii scholars has used this Hadith as proof for witr being two and one rakaat and none of the Hanafi scholars has answered it and I have the answer with me with detail but I am not going to mention it because it will involve going through many Hadith and also I have the answer for the narration of ‘Nasa’I’ from Bu Moussa which prove witr is one rakaat but I am not going to mention it either for fear of prolongation.

and see how he concluded the discussion...

The conclusion is that I have not found anything that proves making salams after first two rakaats of witr and neither that witr is one rakaat, and the opponent claims that the habit of the Prophet (peace be upon him) was to make witr with one rakaat as is reported in the book ‘Aatharul Sunan’ (pg.2-9) from Al-Rafii and in it Muhammad Ibn Nasar Al-Marwazi says’I have not found from the Prophet (peace be upon him) any authentic narration that he prayed three rakaat together’. I don’t know how this can be correct but Allah knows best.

Is it not clear alteration of meaning by Zubair Ali Zai? see how he picked one sentence from the discussion and out of context (marked bold, compare it with Zubair Ali Zai's statement on page 20 and u'll realize his level of honesty) and then builds his accusations.

Here I have attached the relevant portion of page 20 for ease of reference... More important points regarding the question which he is replying on this page will be posted in next post... inshAllah.

[Al-Burhan]

Now lets analyze the 10th accusation by Zubair Ali Zai on Moulana Okarvi RA on page 37.

http://www.quransunnah.com/modules.p...=getit&lid=131

In reply to the question at page 20 he has mentioned on page 21 that Moulana Okarvi RA has given two different views about the same Ravi of Hadith... This could easily be considered a result of consulting two different narrations from the books of Ilmur Rijaal but Zubair Ali Zai gave it two different meanings at page 21 and page 37. But when he was caught with the same mistake of giving two different views about the same hadith by calling it Zaeef at one place and Hassan at one place his friend gives the same explanation which I mentioned above for Moulana Okarvi RA's mistake . See page 10 attached below.

The question is why Zubair Ali Zai and his friends have dual standards for such mistakes. If Zubair Ali Zai commits the same mistake, it is a only because he later found the correct status of that hadith. But if the same happens with Moulana Okarvi RA, at page 21 it has been given a different meaning and at page 37 it is called a lie!!! Is it not just out of hatred???

If the explanation given at page 10 applies to Zubair Ali Zai's mistake then why not apply it on Moulana OKarvi RA's mistake? Why apply a different rule for him?

[Al-Burhan]

continued discussion of the 10th accusation by Zubair Ali Zair...
A more careful look at the accusation further reveals the dishonesty of Zubair Ali Zai in this accusation. See the attached file for the statement by Moulana Okarvi RA. He was actually answering a ghair muqallid moulvi who presented this narration as a PROOF that Hazrat Ata' RA had heared 200 sahabah saying Amin aloud. I am not sure about the authenticity of this narration but this is a general accepted fact that weak narrations can not be presented as a PROOF by themselves. So here Moulana Okarvi RA said that this is not proven. Zubair Ali Zai probably skipped that small underlined portion of the actual text to make sure that no one could judge the actual situation from this statement.

Now in the second place Moulana Okavi RA mentioned Hazrat Ata' meeting 200 sahabah to show his FADEELAT, he has not mentioned this as a proof here rather the point which he mentioned as a proof was that Hazrat Ata' RA was not aware of anyone reciting Fatiha in Janaza prayer. Weak narrations can be mentioned in matters of FADAIL, this is another generally accepted fact.

Had Zubair Ali Zai mentioned the complete texts of these two incidents, it would have been quite clear that they were said in two entirely different contexts. But I am afraid this wouldn't have served Zubair Ali Zai's purpose so he had to do what he did.

More to follow inshAllah, WAMAA TOUFIQEE ELLAA BILLAH

[Al-Burhan]

On page 34 of the same document Zubair Ali Zai discusses Taqlid in these words... see the attachment. SubhanAllah. How blatantly he is saying that taqlid means to accept those things which are not proved!!! This is how he deceptively defines Taqlid to mislead the common people against taqleed and muqallideen.

It means if we are following a particular Fiqh, we are doing it because it is not proved through evidence!!!

[Abul Hasan]

Indeed, this is a useful thread that this individual calling himself "Lahori12" has initiated - for it will lead to showing who his authority (Zubair Ali Za'i) is on certain issues. This indivdual posting as "Lahori12" is most likely the anti-Hanafi Muta'assib pseudo-Salafi distorter of the narration of Malik al-Dar - known as Abu Alqama Hassan Ali Khan who posts slurs and slanders against me and the Ahnaf on his forum of fitna and fasad known to us ahwa.org.

Note well, this Abu Alqama belittled this forum by saying it is one of Quburiyya (grave-worshippers) and he has the audacity to post here further slanders and falsities hoping that no one would catch him out.

As the brother - Hafiz Zeeshan - has mentioned, one of the most well known reference points for this distorter - Abu Alqama is the Pakistani based - Zubair Ali Za'i.

Since this man is a Hujja for the likes of Abu Alqama and his UK based associates from Alum Rock, Birmingham, UK - It is worth mentioning the "reality" of who and what Zubair Ali Za'i is and what his manners and methodology are ACCORDING to his own ex-associates from "Salafiyya".


See here for the distortions of this Abu Alqama on the narration of Malik al-Dar:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...14&postcount=1

This individual has to date produced no sound and convincing arguments to establish a counter reply to why the Malik al-Dar narration is not Sahih in at least its sanad. As per usual, he has gone onto other digressions and non-issues not linked specifically to the Malik al-Dar narration. This is his usual unscholarly tactic - when he can't reply he moves onto other side issues unrelated to the topic at hand.

Stay tuned ya Ikhwan for a pdf file that i have had in my possession for more than 18 months now but held back from posting since i did not see the need to bring this man's name into this forums midst, until the likes of Abu Alqama fronted him as one of his authorities to demonise the Ahnaf of the Indian subcontinent right here.


Wassalam

Abul Hasan