Warning: Lies, distortions, and slanders by Shaykh GF Haddad

[SeekerOfGuidance]

It is perfectly fine, apparently, for scholars and students to lie upon shuhadah like Shah Ismail and spread deviance, bid'ah, etc, while clothing it in the name of Sunnah, but if a person on a forum should call a spade a spade then he is liable and it will be termed 'backbiting!'

What madness!

Excellent point.

[Ibrahimhanifa]

The sample of deception and lies were gathered from posts by Muzammil Husayn, which were already on this forum such as those found in the following threads:


You don't need to be a scholar to be able to notice the clear deception perpetrated by this scholar.

If a scholar was produce multiple slanders against your father by making statements such as:

"..he was a rebel bāghī who opposed the jihād against the British declared by the last Mughāl Sultan of India."

and you know that your father did not even live during the Sultan's reign, would you really need much intellect to decipher that this is a clear slander, worthy of outrage, and that this sort of pseudo-scholar needs to be warned against?

Unfortunately, Shah Ismail Shaheed is not the only victim of such slanders.

Nevertheless, before creating a new thread, posting material already produced on this forum, I thought it prudent to check with some scholars and moderators first. I don't need to name who I consulted.

Our bias and unjustness becomes undeniably clear when we are willing to accept unhesistantly, without verification, lies that are conducive to our tastes, and when the the falsity of such lies are exposed, we overlook such deception frighteningly easily, hardly batting an eyelid. On the other hand, the slightest slip by a 'wahhabi' scholar is treated with outrage, and used to paint all such scholars with the same brush.

Salam!!
First thing, I without doubt condemn Shakyh Gibrill Haddad’s comments/slander/lies etc against certain/all Deobondi scholars back in 2000/ late nineties. If you have any recent comments from GF Haddad slandering, backbiting etc let me know, I will forward it to his website, inshallah hopefully we can get an apology from him and get him to remove the contents!!!!

End of discussion!

Little bit personal there about father? Hmmm…. No problem I can take a hit, inshallah! Let’s move on anyways…….

So, which scholars did you consult? Or are you beginning to go back in your own words? Moderators? Nobody?

If no scholars were consulted, maybe you need practise what you are preaching!

AND YES I CONDEM SHAKYH GIBRILL HADDAD FOR HIS SLANDERS ETC! If you don’t give me names of the beloved Deobandi scholars you consulted, I too condem you for same thing as I condemned GF Haddad for

I feel like I am debating with a wahabi ( Please don’t generate this has debate for your defence!)

[SeekerOfGuidance]

Salam!!
First thing, I without doubt condemn Shakyh Gibrill Haddad’s comments/slander/lies etc against certain/all Deobondi scholars back in 2000/ late nineties. If you have any recent comments from GF Haddad slandering, backbiting etc let me know, I will forward it to his website, inshallah hopefully we can get an apology from him and get him to remove the contents!!!!

End of discussion!

Little bit personal there about father? Hmmm…. No problem I can take a hit, inshallah! Let’s move on anyways…….

So, which scholars did you consult? Or are you beginning to go back in your own words? Moderators? Nobody?

If no scholars were consulted, maybe you need practise what you are preaching!

AND YES I CONDEM SHAKYH GIBRILL HADDAD FOR HIS SLANDERS ETC! If you don’t give me names of the beloved Deobandi scholars you consulted, I too condem you for same thing as I condemned GF Haddad for

I feel like I am debating with a wahabi ( Please don’t generate this has debate for your defence!)

I did not intend to insult you or for you 'take a hit'. I'm sorry if you took it that way. I used an example that makes it easy for you to understand that you do not need to be a scholar to realise when a scholar has perpetrated clear slanders, lies and distortions, to such an extent that he needs to be warned against.

I've noticed you have a lot to say against wahhabis. I assume that if I look through your previous posts you will have attacked the wahhabis and/or their scholars. May I ask, whose permission did you take? Or shall I count that as slanders according to how you appear to be defining it? You've just condemned Gibril Haddad for allegedly slandering the Deobandi Akabir. Which scholars permitted you to make such an allegation against Gibril Haddad on this forum? There are plenty of posts on this forum where brothers have warned against the likes of Tahir al-Qadri and Rabee al-Madhkalee. Do they also need permission?

In any case, before starting this thread, I did consult scholars/moderators to double-check I was doing the right thing.

[Ibrahimhanifa]

I did not intend to insult you or for you 'take a hit'. I'm sorry if you took it that way. I used an example that makes it easy for you to understand that you do not need to be a scholar to realise when a scholar has perpetrated clear slanders, lies and distortions, to such an extent that he needs to be warned against.

I've noticed you have a lot to say against wahhabis. I assume that if I look through your previous posts you will have attacked the wahhabis and/or their scholars. May I ask, whose permission did you take? Or shall I count that as slanders according to how you appear to be defining it? You've just condemned Gibril Haddad for allegedly slandering the Deobandi Akabir. Which scholars permitted you to make such an allegation against Gibril Haddad on this forum? There are plenty of posts on this forum where brothers have warned against the likes of Tahir al-Qadri and Rabee al-Madhkalee. Do they also need permission?

In any case, before starting this thread, I did consult scholars/moderators to double-check I was doing the right thing.

WS

I am amazed you apologised, you acting contray to wahabis. Then again that's a typical deobandi they do have the best adab!
if you look at my posts, they are very simple! I only ask for proofs, many don't provide this. Abur Raheem Limda too talks against the wahabist. go to his website he refutes utaymeen's (Latter day salafi) laws of fasting (recent article)

as for the parents issue I remeber Riyadhal Haq (purchased audio?) saying, to avoid insulting your parents you should avoid insulting other peoples parents. Although, what you said wasn't direct insult put can be misinterpted to be. Some people don't have parents, imagine the exchange of insults?

Moving forward....I am not convinced you consulted other ullemas, hence you should either remove that statement or your whole post

you can post after Ramadan if you want .....Ramadan Mubarak!

[SeekerOfGuidance]

WS

I am amazed you apologised, you acting contray to wahabis. Then again that's a typical deobandi they do have the best adab!
if you look at my posts, they are very simple! I only ask for proofs, many don't provide this. Abur Raheem Limda too talks against the wahabist. go to his website he refutes utaymeen's (Latter day salafi) laws of fasting (recent article)

as for the parents issue I remeber Riyadhal Haq (purchased audio?) saying, to avoid insulting your parents you should avoid insulting other peoples parents. Although, what you said wasn't direct insult put can be misinterpted to be. Some people don't have parents, imagine the exchange of insults?

Moving forward....I am not convinced you consulted other ullemas, hence you should either remove that statement or your whole post

you can post after Ramadan if you want .....Ramadan Mubarak!

for correcting me regarding the parents issue. You've explained my mistake clearly, and I sincerely ask your forgiveness and du'as.

And I don't see any benefit in continuing this discussion after Ramadhan. If you don't believe me about consulting scholars, then I can't do much about it

And may Allah grant you a Mubarak Ramadhan as well.

[Ibrahimhanifa]

for correcting me regarding the parents issue. You've explained my mistake clearly, and I sincerely ask your forgiveness and du'as.

And I don't see any benefit in continuing this discussion after Ramadhan. If you don't believe me about consulting scholars, then I can't do much about it

And may Allah grant you a Mubarak Ramadhan as well.

You havent mentioned one scholars name yet. So this topic's lables apply to u too

[Muzzammil Husayn]

Another example of GF Haddad's deception:

http://eshaykh.com/halal_haram/imam-...es-over-tombs/

Question:

It is said in a paper:

” Abu Hanifa is reported to have regarded building over tombs (al-bina ala l-qubur) as legal and not objectionable.57 Unfortunately, neither the Musnad of Abu Hanifa nor the Kitab al-Asl of Muhammed Hasan al-Shaibani have chapters on janaiz, from which one could draw actual statements by the early Hanafiyya on that complex of questions.

[57 Nawawi majmu 5:298; Abu Abd'allah Muhammed Qadhi Safad al-Dimaqshi, Rahmat al Umma fi Kthilaf al Aimma( Cairo,1386/1987), 73; Abd al Wahab al-Sharani, Kitab al Mizan, 2 vol.(Cairo, 1291/1874), vol 1, p.271. Reports that Abu Hanifa approved of tombs without any restriction may have been negative propoganda by other religious schools against the Hanafiyya, but they did circulate widely.]“”

http://archnet.org/library/documents...cument_id=4216

Is this attribution to Imam Abu Hanifa accurate and correctly referenced ?

Answer:

If Imam al-Nawawi mentions it in al-Majmu` then it is certainly reliable.
See also here.

Hajj Gibril Haddad

He claims the attribution of the opinion that there is nothing objectionable to building over graves to Abu Hanifah is "certainly reliable" based on it being said by Imam al-Nawawi.

Al-Nawawi's exact statement is:

قال الشافعي والأصحاب : يكره أن يجصص القبر ، وأن يكتب عليه اسم صاحبه أو غير ذلك ، وأن يبنى عليه ، وهذا لا خلاف فيه عندنا ، وبه قال مالك وأحمد وداود وجماهير العلماء ، وقال أبو حنيفة : لا يكره

“Al-Shafi‘i and the Ashab said: It is makruh to plaster the grave, and to write on it the name of its occupant or anything else and to build over it. There is no disagreement about this for us [i.e. in the Shafi'i madhhab] and this was the position of Malik, Ahmad, Dawud and the vast majority of the scholars. Abu Hanifah said: It is not makruh.” (Sharh al-Muhadhdhab, 5:266)

This apparently suggests Abu Hanifah saw nothing wrong with writing on, plastering and building over graves. But this is a misattribution, as the clear, documented view of the Imam is that it is makruh tahrimi (i.e. close to haram).

Imam Muhammad says in Kitab al-Athar:

أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو حَنِيفَةَ ، عَنْ حَمَّادٍ ، عَنْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ ، قَالَ : كَانَ يُقَالُ : " ارْفَعُوا الْقَبْرَ حَتَّى يُعْرَفَ أَنَّهُ قَبْرٌ فَلا يُوطَأَ " . قَالَ مُحَمَّدٌ : وَبِهِ نَأْخُذُ ، وَلا نَرَى أَنْ يُزَادَ عَلَى مَا خَرَجَ مِنْهُ ، وَنَكْرَهُ أَنْ يُجَصَّصَ أَوْ يُطَيَّنَ ، أَوْ يُجْعَلَ عِنْدَهُ مَسْجِدٌ ، أَوْ عَلَمٌ ، أَوْ يُكْتَبُ عَلَيْهِ ، وَنَكْرَهُ الآجُرَ أَنْ يُبْنَى بِهِ أَوْ يَدْخُلَ الْقَبْرَ ، وَلا نَرَى بِرَشِّ الْمَاءِ عَلَيْهِ بَأْسًا ، وَهُوَ قَوْلُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ

Abu Hanifah reported to us from Hammad from Ibrahim, he said: It used to be said: “Raise the grave in order that it is known that it is a grave so is not trampled over.” Muhammad said: We adopt this [position], and we do not approve of adding [extra soil] to what comes out of it [i.e. the grave], and we deem plastering it with gypsum or clay, or constructing a mosque near it, or a signpost, or writing on it, makruh [tahrimi]...And this is the opinion of Abu Hanifah. (Kitab al-Athar 2:190-191)

The Hanafis approve of tasnim which is to raise the grave a little above ground in the shape of a hump, rather than make it completely flat (tarbi'/tastih).

The prohibition of plastering the graves is also mentioned in Kitab al-Asl of Imam Muhammad from Abu Hanifah (1:378).

It says in Sharh Mukhtasar al-Karkhi by al-Quduri:

وكره أبو حنيفة البناء على القبر وأن يعلم بعلامة

“Abu Hanifah deemed building over graves and marking it with a sign makruh [tahrimi].” (Quoted in the footnote to Kitab al-Athar, 2:191)

Abu Hanifah’s view on the matter is therefore clear and explicit, that building over graves is makruh tahrimi. To not put down al-Nawawi’s misattribution to an error is another example of Haddad’s deception, as there is little doubt that he has access to the above-referenced works.

[AYK1399]

Another example of GF Haddad's deception:

http://eshaykh.com/halal_haram/imam-...es-over-tombs/... To not put down al-Nawawi’s misattribution to an error is another example of Haddad’s deception, as there is little doubt that he has access to the above-referenced works.

With due respect, to call this specifically an "act of deception" is jumping the gun. Given the high standing of al-Nawawi and the fact that the shaykh himself is a shafi`i, one could easily understand his reliance on this point without feeling the need to research further despite having access to the works you referenced. Surely you must across the many slips of prominent scholars whenever they have referenced a Hukm of another madhhab by stating its ruling based upon the words of a scholar from their own school. Would you call every instance of this "deception" too? Have a little Husn al-Zann, it won't hurt you.

[Ibrahimhanifa]

Another example of GF Haddad's deception:

http://eshaykh.com/halal_haram/imam-...es-over-tombs/



He claims the attribution of the opinion that there is nothing objectionable to building over graves to Abu Hanifah is "certainly reliable" based on it being said by Imam al-Nawawi.

Al-Nawawi's exact statement is:

قال الشافعي والأصحاب : يكره أن يجصص القبر ، وأن يكتب عليه اسم صاحبه أو غير ذلك ، وأن يبنى عليه ، وهذا لا خلاف فيه عندنا ، وبه قال مالك وأحمد وداود وجماهير العلماء ، وقال أبو حنيفة : لا يكره

“Al-Shafi‘i and the Ashab said: It is makruh to plaster the grave, and to write on it the name of its occupant or anything else and to build over it. There is no disagreement about this for us [i.e. in the Shafi'i madhhab] and this was the position of Malik, Ahmad, Dawud and the vast majority of the scholars. Abu Hanifah said: It is not makruh.” (Sharh al-Muhadhdhab, 5:266)

This apparently suggests Abu Hanifah saw nothing wrong with writing on, plastering and building over graves. But this is a misattribution, as the clear, documented view of the Imam is that it is makruh tahrimi (i.e. close to haram).

Imam Muhammad says in Kitab al-Athar:

أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو حَنِيفَةَ ، عَنْ حَمَّادٍ ، عَنْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ ، قَالَ : كَانَ يُقَالُ : " ارْفَعُوا الْقَبْرَ حَتَّى يُعْرَفَ أَنَّهُ قَبْرٌ فَلا يُوطَأَ " . قَالَ مُحَمَّدٌ : وَبِهِ نَأْخُذُ ، وَلا نَرَى أَنْ يُزَادَ عَلَى مَا خَرَجَ مِنْهُ ، وَنَكْرَهُ أَنْ يُجَصَّصَ أَوْ يُطَيَّنَ ، أَوْ يُجْعَلَ عِنْدَهُ مَسْجِدٌ ، أَوْ عَلَمٌ ، أَوْ يُكْتَبُ عَلَيْهِ ، وَنَكْرَهُ الآجُرَ أَنْ يُبْنَى بِهِ أَوْ يَدْخُلَ الْقَبْرَ ، وَلا نَرَى بِرَشِّ الْمَاءِ عَلَيْهِ بَأْسًا ، وَهُوَ قَوْلُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ

Abu Hanifah reported to us from Hammad from Ibrahim, he said: It used to be said: “Raise the grave in order that it is known that it is a grave so is not trampled over.” Muhammad said: We adopt this [position], and we do not approve of adding [extra soil] to what comes out of it [i.e. the grave], and we deem plastering it with gypsum or clay, or constructing a mosque near it, or a signpost, or writing on it, makruh [tahrimi]...And this is the opinion of Abu Hanifah. (Kitab al-Athar 2:190-191)

The Hanafis approve of tasnim which is to raise the grave a little above ground in the shape of a hump, rather than make it completely flat (tarbi'/tastih).

The prohibition of plastering the graves is also mentioned in Kitab al-Asl of Imam Muhammad from Abu Hanifah (1:378).

It says in Sharh Mukhtasar al-Karkhi by al-Quduri:

وكره أبو حنيفة البناء على القبر وأن يعلم بعلامة

“Abu Hanifah deemed building over graves and marking it with a sign makruh [tahrimi].” (Quoted in the footnote to Kitab al-Athar, 2:191)

Abu Hanifah’s view on the matter is therefore clear and explicit, that building over graves is makruh tahrimi. To not put down al-Nawawi’s misattribution to an error is another example of Haddad’s deception, as there is little doubt that he has access to the above-referenced works.

Salam

I recall your swift answer to a question i posted in this forum but not addressed to you. Anyways, How do you know Shakyh Gibrill Hadddad didn't make a mistake? And how do you know it's deception?

look forward to your swift answer!

[Ibrahimhanifa]

With due respect, to call this specifically an "act of deception" is jumping the gun. Given the high standing of al-Nawawi and the fact that the shaykh himself is a shafi`i, one could easily understand his reliance on this point without feeling the need to research further despite having access to the works you referenced. Surely you must across the many slips of prominent scholars whenever they have referenced a Hukm of another madhhab by stating its ruling based upon the words of a scholar from their own school. Would you call every instance of this "deception" too? Have a little Husn al-Zann, it won't hurt you.

Salam

Well said, i ve asked him how does he know its deception and not a mistake?

Also, what i can recall Shakyh GF Haddad is Hanafi. he was a shafi according to this interview he had. I think his changed now.

Also, apologise if you know but If you don't know the SF user called seekersguidance first comment is deception etc. He claims he got permission from Ulemas before posting the comments about Shakyh GF Haddad. As of yet not one scholars name, not even a SF moderator been provided to back up his claim.