Need a good English speaking Mufti for my queries

[Salman_Hanafi]

Is this the only ruling on which the AH have a seemingly stricter stance than the hanafis (apart from leaving the beard all together)?

[al_Zayn]

Assalamulaikum,

The article I have is formated in word with colors and bullet points which will disturb the formatting if I post the article in here.
Can you email me at ------- or respond back with your email address.

I will share the article with you.

Im sorry brother i wouldn't want to take that. Nor do i have time. Just post it here one by one. Even Brother Ansari has an idea of what it maybe entailing, so let it be a collective effort rather than a one man.

[mohtashims]

Im sorry brother i wouldn't want to take that. Nor do i have time. Just post it here one by one. Even Brother Ansari has an idea of what it maybe entailing, so let it be a collective effort rather than a one man.

Ok. I will post it to a blog and share the blog link.

Can you please remove my email address from your post ?

[Jadeed]

The issue of touching the private parts and not breaking the wudu is very simple to defend. Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Uthaymin held the same opinion. Moreover, the hadith of Talq ("is it only a part of you?") is declared authentic by Albani but he interpreted it as touching with lust. There are other athar from Sahaba showing they held the same opinion as narrated in the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shayba.

Exactly. As per usual, people who refuse to allow ikhtilaaf in the furu' of the deen will end up insulting all the scholars they pretend to respect.

[mohtashims]

Im sorry brother i wouldn't want to take that. Nor do i have time. Just post it here one by one. Even Brother Ansari has an idea of what it maybe entailing, so let it be a collective effort rather than a one man.

I have uploaded the entire discussion that happened and Part 2 is the final reply we recieved from Ghair Mukallid regarding breaking of Wudu upon touching private part.

Right at the bottom of the link you can download Part 2 in word format file.

Find it here

[al_Zayn]

I cannot understand that, it's like you uploaded both refutation and answers from someone??

[al_Zayn]

(im going to use the rebuttal already used there with some additional stuff in my own words)

The author is Raza Hassan, this is person who tried to do the Tawtheeq of Mu'ammal Ibn Isma'eel.

The first issue:

The Aimmah and Muhadditheen have proposed two different tatbeeqs for this narration.

First: This hadeeth is regarding touching without desire. The saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him) that: “It is only a part of you” contains a good indication that the wudoo does not break if touched without desire. Because this is the condition which is compared with the remaining parts of the body.

There is no indication mentioned neither in words nor action. This is because Rasulullah clearly equated touching “the private parts” as being part of your body. Hence it is akin to indicate that just like you touch your feet your Wudhu would not be nullified, just like you touch your hands your Wudhu would not be nullified and just like you touch your face your Wudhu would not be nullified.

This is the real understanding, otherwise why would Rasulullah say “is it not a part of you".

Moreover this is their Analogy (Qiyas), without proof.

On the contrary, if it is touched with desire then it cannot be compared with the other parts of the body, because in the other parts of the body, sexual desire does not arise. This is such a clear fact that rejecting it is not possible. Therefore it is not at all the daleel of Hanafiyah, because according to them, the wudoo does not break in both the conditions (with desire or without desire).

What? has he done a survey with everyone to assume that it is only touching the private parts that can arise "Shahwah" (Desire)? Leave aside touching anything, simply "thinking" can arise sexual desire, which im sure no one would disagree.

To top it up he mentions two Tatbeeqs from the Muhadditheen, where im sure he knows very well there are more, it is clear Ta'ssaub from his side to say the least. Furthermore him placing "desire" as one of the Tabeeqs in that hadith is actually siding with Qiyas and not Nusoos, Otherwise the stronghold of his (supposed) 'Ulama (Saudi) are all in agreement even that touching the wife with or with desire DOES NOT break Wudhu, as is written on Islamqa:

وأرجح هذه الأقوال هو القول الثاني ، أن مس المرأة لا ينقض الوضوء مطلقاً سواء كان بشهوة أم بدون شهوة .

وهو اختيار شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية (12/222) واختاره من المعاصرين الشيخ ابن باز (10/134) والشيخ ابن عثيمين (1/286) وعلماء اللجنة الدائمة (5/266)

This view was of Ibn Taymiyyah, Bin Baaz, Ibn 'Uthaymeen and the 'Ulama of Lajnah.

The other condition of jama wa tatbeeq is also that, If the private part is touched and there is no barrior in between then it invalidates the wudoo and when there is a barrior or a cloth then the wudoo does not break. The following hadeeth supports this tatbeeq:

Sayyidunah Abu Hurayrah (radiallah anhu) said the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “When any of you reaches his hand to the private part, while there is nothing in between them (the hand and the private part), then you should do Wudoo’.”
[Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan: 1115, Bayhaqi : Vol 1 Pg 130, 131, Mustadrak Haakim: Vol 1 Pg 138, Daraqutni: Vol 1 Pg 147, Tabaraani Sagheer: H. 110, Tabaraani al-Awsat: H. 8829, 6664, 8904]

This Tatbeeq can be accepted if the hadith bought forward above was authentic, يَزِيدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْمَلِكِ (Yazid Bin 'Abd al-Malik) has been criticised by the Scholars.

Taken from Tahzeeb al-Kamaal by al-Mizzi:

علماء الجرح والتعديل

قال الزبير بْن بكار: أمه أم عَبْد اللَّهِ بنت سعيد بْن نوفل بْن الحارث بْن عَبْد المطلب .

وقال 1 أَبُو حاتم، عَن أحمد بْن حنبل 1: 2 ضعيف الحديث 2 .

وقال 1 البخاري 1: 2 لينه يحيى 2 . وقال 1 أحمد 1: 2 عنده مناكير 2 .

وقال 1 معاوية بْن صالح، عَن يحيى بْن معين 1: 2 ليس حديثه بذاك 2 .

وقال 1 عثمان بْن سعيد الدارمي، عَن يحيى بْن معين 1: 2 ما كَانَ بِهِ بأس 2 .

وقال 1 غيره، عَن يحيى 1: 2 ضعيف 2 .

وقال 1 أحمد بْن صالح المصري 1: 2 ليس حديثه بشيء 2 .

وقال 1 أَبُو زرعة 1: 2 ضعيف الحديث 2 .

وقال 1 فِي موضع آخر 1: 2 واهي الحديث، وغلظ فيه القول جدا 2 .

وقال 1 أَبُو حاتم 1: 2 ضعيف الحديث، منكر الحديث جدا 2 .

وقال 1 البخاري 1: 2 أحاديثه شبه لا شيء
وضعفه جدا 2

وقال 1 النسائي 1: 2 متروك الحديث 2 .

وقال 1 فِي موضع آخر 1: 2 ليس بثقة 2 .

وقال 1 أَبُو أحمد بْن عدي 1: 2 لَهُ غير ما ذكرت من الحديث، وليس بالكثير، وعامة ما يرويه غير محفوظ 2 .

روى له ابْن ماجه حديثا واحدا، عَن يزيد بْن رومان، عَن أَبِي هريرة: " لسقط أقدمه بين يدي أحب إلي من فارس أخلفه خلفي "

Furthermore we Ahnaf do not totally disregard it, we apply both narrations and say it is from the Istihbaab to renew Wudhu'.

Secondly: Even if this tatbeeq is not accepted, there still is not any Ikhtilaaf, because the narration of Talq bin Ali (radiallah anhu) has the probability of being Mansookh, because the narration of Talq bin Ali (radiallah anhu) is ancient and the narration of Abu Hurayrah (radiallah anhu) is the latest.

And according to the hanafiyah, if there are two contradictory ahadeeth, then the one which is ancient will be considered Mansookh. [Qawaaid fi Uloom ul-Hadeeth: Pg 47]

Wow, he is teaching us the Hanafi Usool; according to the Hanafi Usool Mansukh (Abrogation) is not established where there is Ta’leel (reasoning in the hadith by Rasulullah ). As clearly mentioned by Ibn Nujaym in Bahr al-Ra’iq Sharh Kanz al-Daqa’iq:

البحر الرائق شرح كنز الدقائق
http://www.islamweb.net/newlibrary/d...=29&startno=20

ولأن حديث طلق غير قابل للنسخ ; لأنه صدر على سبيل التعليل فإنه عليه الصلاة والسلام ذكر أن الذكر قطعة لحم فلا تأثير لمسه في الانتقاض ، وهذا المعنى لا يقبل النسخ كذا في معراج الدراية

Even If we accept that the narration of Talq Bin 'Ali is 'Ancient' (despite no clear concrete proof) it does not prove anything because Rasulullah 's reasoning whether it is 'Ancient' or not is acceptable to us and binding according to our Usool, this is because he speaks not from his Hawaa.

As for the next few paragraphs stating there is Idhtirab in the narration then this is repudiated, Imam al-Tahawi says in his Sharh al-Ma'ani al-Athar:

شرح معاني الآثار للطحاوي
http://www.islamweb.net/hadith/displ...379&startno=16

فَهَذَا حَدِيثُ مُلازِمٍ ، صَحِيحٌ مُسْتَقِيمُ الإِسْنَادِ ، غَيْرُ مُضْطَرِبٍ فِي إِسْنَادِهِ ، وَلا فِي مَتْنِهِ

and then goes on to say:

وَلَقَدْ حَدَّثَنِي ابْنُ أَبِي عِمْرَانَ ، قَالَ : سَمِعْتُ عَبَّاسَ بْنَ عَبْدِ الْعَظِيمِ الْعَنْبَرِيَّ ، يَقُولُ : سَمِعْتُ عَلِيَّ بْنَ الْمَدِينِيِّ ، يَقُولُ : حَدِيثُ مُلازِمٍ هَذَا ، أَحْسَنُ مِنْ حَدِيثِ بُسْرَةَ.

He says the hadith of Malazim is authentic and established and there is no Idhthirab in the Sanad or Matn, he then goes on to quote the Giant, al-Madini saying the hadith of Malazim is better than Busrah.

There is more that can be said, Nasb al-Rayah of al-Hafiz al-Zayla'i talks about the issue in detail. Ibn al-Humman the Mujthahid also talks about it extensively in his Fath al-Qadeer.

As for them trying to weaken Qays Bin Talq in the narration, then here is what al-Mizzi mentions in his Tahzeeb al-Kamaal:

تهذيب الكمال للمزي
http://www.islamweb.net/hadith/displ...857&pid=286555

روى عن أَبِيهِ طلق بْن علي 4 وله صحبة روى عنه أَيُّوب بْن عتبة وسراج بْن عقبة وعبد الله بْن بدر د ت س وعبد الله بْن النعمان السحيمي د ت وابْن ابْن أخيه عجيبة بْن عبد الحميد بْن عقبة بْن طلق بْن علي وعيسى بْن خثيم الحنفي ومُحَمَّد بْن جَابِر د ق اليماميون وموسى بْن عُمَيْر الثمالي وابنه هوذة بْن قَيْس بْن طلق الحنفي # قال عُثْمَان بْن سَعِيد الدارمي : سألت يَحْيَى بْن معين قلت : عَبْد اللَّهِ بْن النعمان عَن قَيْس بْن طلق : شيوخ يمامية ثقات # وقال أَحْمَد بْن عَبْد اللَّهِ العجلي ، قَيْس بْن طلق يمامي تابعي ثقة ، وأبوه طلق من أصحاب النَّبِيّ صلى الله عليه وسلم # وذكره ابْن حبان في كتاب الثقات.

Yahya Ibn Ma'een, al-'Ijli and Ibn Hibban considered him Thiqah.

Abu Hatim is alone in his saying as quoted by al-Hafiz Ibn Hajr, and others will take precedence of their Ta'deel and it is clear that al-Mizzi sided with his Tawtheeq.

Wallahu A'lam.

[mohtashims]

JazakAllah Brother Zayn,

Yes. Part 2 is what I need a rebuttal for. Some Brother X whom I dont know was having a discussion with this Ghair Mukallid named "Omair Hanifa" who happens to write x-Deobandi in his signature :P

Not sue where he gets his materials from but he keeps posting from a technical angle regarding issues pertaining to the Hanafi Mazhab.

We had a to look out for help when he started posting on IBM Muslim software engineers email group of which I am a part of.

May Allah accept all your help and efforts in this regards.

[al_Zayn]

JazakAllah Brother Zayn,

Yes. Part 2 is what I need a rebuttal for. Some Brother X whom I dont know was having a discussion with this Ghair Mukallid named "Omair Hanifa" who happens to write x-Deobandi in his signature :P

Not sue where he gets his materials from but he keeps posting from a technical angle regarding issues pertaining to the Hanafi Mazhab.

We had a to look out for help when he started posting on IBM Muslim software engineers email group of which I am a part of.

May Allah accept all your help and efforts in this regards.

Wa Iyyak,

Part 2, the download on the blog? Brother that is 96 pages LONG! It's multi-colored and some words are capitalised. I can barely understand it, and again it seems like a refutation / answer session.

Like i originally said, get the specific hadith, which the GM's have objections to and post it here.

[mohtashims]

Wa Iyyak,

Part 2, the download on the blog? Brother that is 96 pages LONG! It's multi-colored and some words are capitalised. I can barely understand it, and again it seems like a refutation / answer session.

Like i originally said, get the specific hadith, which the GM's have objections to and post it here.

To make things easy

You can download part 2 in good word format by clicking here

Part2 is a rebuttal by GM(Omair) to someone(Nu'man) who responded to his(Omair) original post.

I am not as an expert as yourself or other members may be, hence I can read and post specific hadees and explanation but I may get confused or fail to understand things at times.