I read your post after writing my last post.
Good point. If this is truly your stance (And Allah knows the intentions) then I fully and completely endorse it.
You have contributed 19.6% of this topic
Been saying the samre thing it in this thread since 2015 but anyways...
My second point is this (DO NOT READ BELOW IF YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN PART 1, ABOVE).
Second Reminder: I am NOT asking anyone to Join Jamaat-e-Islami as I have already said. I am saying that the Hukum of Maulana Maududi (RA) does not apply to Jamaat-e-Islami
Now which bit do you disagree withand on what Shariah grounds?
No need for an apology Insha'Allah.
Maulana Maududi (RA) and Jamaat-e-Islami inspired ISNA (America) and UKIM (Britain) and I have lots of experience with both organisations and these organisations have a very relaxed view of Sunnah, free mixing is rampant so I would NOT advise anyone to join them.
MSA (USA) and FOSIS (UK) are student bodies again loosely modelled originally after Jamiat Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba Pakistan and their practise of Sunnah differs from university to university.
Today (in 2018) none of these organisations have anything to do with Maulana Maududi (RA) or Jamaat-e-Islami…his name comes up from time to time but that is about it
Thus the Hukum of Maulana Maududi (RA) cannot apply to them. Bundling them with Maulana Maududi (RA) (as Deobandees do) will confuse people…These organisations should be called out for their indifference towards Sunnah and their lax attitude towards free mixing etc.
Maulana Maududi (RA) was a man and he has DIED. Jamaat-e-Islami (Pakistan, India and Afghanistan) are different BUT still they have some encouragement of Sunnah and generally have an unfavourable view of Secularism.
These organisations are not suitable (in my opinion), today because they are based on Secularism and Modernism.Discussing Maulana Maududi (RA) DOES NOT help addressing the main disease of secularism and Modernism in these organisations
To me the biggest DISEASE today is MODERNISM!
No need to seek forgiveness or apologise. I am human and make mistakes and many of them and I will be happy to be corrected.
I need to look into what I said, where, how and when, until I do that; I want you to grasp something and this probably the 3rd time I am repeating this.
1. I am NOT asking anyone to have Husnud-Dhun towards Maulana Maududi (RA)
2. I am NOT defending Maulana Maududi (RA)
3. I am NOT asking anyone to read his books or listen to his talks etc, in fact I am telling people to stick to other authentic Ulama
Do you grasp these 3 points? Please do NOT move below the line until you have read and understood these 3 points, ask me if something is not clear.
Give me time to look into what I wrote and what I said in 2014 when Shaykh Akram Awan (RA) was alive.
Here is the thread:
Here is the matter of your concern:
15: Refutation of Shaykh Akram Awan and Naqshbandi Owaisi Silsila
The chain of transmission of this cult like Silsila has been exposed here.
The specific refutation of Shaykh Akram Awan by Darul-Iftaa, Jamiatur-Rasheed (Karachi) has been produced here.
[QUOTE=Jamiatur-Rasheed (Karachi)]Fatwa from Hazrat Shaykhul Islam Allamah Taqi Usmani Saheb (Damat Barakatuhum) on the Tareeqa and Akram Awan's Shaykh can be read here
After the fact that the Tareeqa and the Shaykh is discarded, below is the Fatwa specifically on Shaykh Akram Awan himself:
Question: What is the opinion of Ulama-e-Kiraam regarding Maulana Akram Awan? What is their opinion regarding keeping Islahi connection or even reverence or respect for him?
Answer: After investigation we discovered the following regarding Akram Awan:
This person does Bay’t in Naqshbandi-Owaisi Silsila but there are many absurdities in this person’s Tareeqa e.g
- Guaranteed claims to ensure that Mureeds will be introduced to Sayyidina Nabi .
- Guaranteed claims that guidance and benefit will be received from the person (inside) the grave
- Many other (similar) despicable innovations (Bid’aat)
Thus no Islah (Tassawuff) contact should be maintained with this person at all. Instead connection to Ahlulllah who have the confirmation of Ulamah with them should be sought. If such Mashaykh are not (readily) available then the works and compilations of our Mashykh (e.g. Hazrat Thanwi (RA) and his Khulafah) should be benefitted from.
We are performing further investigations into the ideologies and methods of this man (Akram Awan) and our findings will be published once complete.
The answer is correct!
(Mufti) Abu Muhammad Habibullah
(Mufti) Ahmed Afnaan
14th of Safar 1432
Darul-Iftaa, Jamiatur-Rasheed (Karachi) [/QUOTE]
The condemnation of the entire Silsila by Hazrat Shaykhul Islam Allamah Taqi Usmani Saheb (Damat Barakatuhum) has also been produced.
[QUOTE=Shaykh Mufti Taqi Usmani (HA)]We now produce first Fatwa against this Tareeqa and the Shaykh of Shaykh Akram Awan by Hazrat Shaykhul Islam Allamah Taqi Usmani Saheb (Damat Barakatuhum).
The legal status of Kashf of the graves and witnessing of the Anwaar and Tajalliyat
Question: Maulana Allah yar Khan Saheb has sent his Khalifa Abdur-Razaq Saheb to Naushki (District Shaagi). He is an old Mureed and the Maslak of Maulana Allah yar Khan Saheb is as follows:
What is the status of joining this Tareeqa? Is spiritual training from Hazrat Owais Qarni (RA) permissible in Shariah or not.
- Naqshbandi-Owaisi Sailsila in Tassawuff
- They categorically guarantee that Kashf of graves will be granted and everything inside the graves will be revealed. Direct contact with Nabi will be established. All within 6 months of becoming Mureed
- Kashf of graves is declared a dead Sunnah so whosoever revives it will be rewarded equivalent to one hundred Martyrs
Answer: If Allah (SWT) permits Kashf of the grave and witnessing of the Anwaar and Tajalliyat on a Servant of his then this is not against Shariah but these are neither are requirements nor requisites of Shariat or Tareeqat. The requisites are following of Sunnat and Shariat and reformation of one’s actions and morals. To regard Kashf (and such) as the requisites is Bid’at. Those who claim these requisites should be avoided and instead a Shaykh should be searched who is follower of the Sunnah and the one who concerns himself with the reformation of actions and morals.
(Servant) Muhammad Taqi Usmani
Fatwa number 1211, Volume 32, Fatawa-e-Usmani
The objection to this was how do we know that this refutation is specific to this Silsila and Maulana Allahyaar Khan, here is the response.
[QUOTE= Summary Shaykh (Mufti) Yusuf Ludhyanwi Shaheed (RA) as he]Mufti Yusuf Ludhyanwi Shaheed is considered amongst the Akabir of Deobandi Ulamah of last century, His stature, rank, knowledge in both Fiqh and Tassawuff is undisputed. Hazrat (RA) wrote a book entitled “The ideologies of the Modernists of our time” and in it none other than Maulana Allahyar Khan Chakralwi and his book Dalailus-Sulook Is mentioned by a chapter dedicated to their exposure and refutation.
Maulana Allahyar Khan Chakralwi and his Dalailus-Sulook
Before reading further it must be noted that Hazrat Mufti Saheb Shaheed entitles them as “new discoveries” and this implies that these were not previously known to the earlier Deobandi Ulamah. This automatically answers the queries of praise by earlier Deobandi Ulamah as Maulana Ahmed Ali Lahori (RA) because Hazrat couldn’t have known about the views of Maulana Allahyar Khan Chakralwi.
Mufti Yusuf Ludhyanwi Shaheed (RA) writes that Maulana Allahyar Khan Chakralwi cut his teeth on refutation of deviant groups and cults and then turned his attention to Tassawuff and authored Dalailus-Sulook but did he answer objections to Tassawuff or plant doubts in the minds of the people about Ulamah and Mashaykh. Mufti Yusuf Ludhyanwi Shaheed praises the effort of the writer but deduces that this compilation isn’t strictly on Tassawuff by more on Ilumul-Kalam. Some of the excerpts of this book blatantly put down Ulamah and Mashaykh based on their own yardstick of the superiority of Tassawuff as Kashf of graves are as follows:
...This discussion has become lengthy. The reality is that when some of our new associates speak about Kashf of the graves the discussion proceeds but those devoid of the illumination of the Baatin become upset. Khaleefas, claimants of Waliyat, Majaz, Peer-e-Tareeqat and who knows what sort of title holders when hear claims of this nature (from beginners of our Tareeqa) then they (internally) become embarrassed as they are unable to achieve them but outwardly to hide their lack of ability and to keep their respectability and credibility make up all sorts of things... (Page 123)
Mufti Yusuf Ludhyanwi Shaheed (RA) comments that the tone, language and mannerism not only doesn’t suit the topic of Tassawuff but also degrades the writer. This passage provides credibility for the new adherents of the this Tareeqa and prepares them for debates with the “opposition”
Tassawuff is part of Religion and rejection of a part is rejection of the whole. Thus rejection of Tassawuff is (certainly) equivalent to rejection of Religion (Page 13)
Mufti Yusuf Ludhyanwi Shaheed (RA) comments that no doubt Tassawuff (as in reformation) is an important and integral part of building an Islamic personality but to give a Fatwa that rejection of Tassawuff is rejection of Islam is a major leap particularly coming from someone whose includes Khashf of graves etc as his definition of Tassawuff and considers it a yardstick. This places the belief (Eemaan) of thousands of not only laymen but Scholars in serious jeopardy who are devoid of this “blessing” according to the author
Sufiya have an additional capability as compared to Fuqaha (Islamic Scholars) and it is that they are people of Kashf and Ilhaam (intuition). Fuqaha (Islamic Scholars) deduce Islamic rules and regulations based on personal opinions while Sufiya deduce them in the divine light of Kashf and Ilhaam (intuition) and it is obvious that divine light is better than personal opinions (Page 33)
Mufti Yusuf Ludhyanwi Shaheed (RA) merely laments and states, “Deduction of Fuqaha (Islamic Scholars) is personal opinion and devoid of divine light???”
Mufti Yusuf Ludhyanwi Shaheed (RA) further quotes from the same page:
I personally consider the Ijtehaad and opinion Fuqaha (Islamic Scholars) as superior since all the Sufiya were Muqallids of Imams (of Fiqh) (Page 33)
Mufti Yusuf Ludhyanwi Shaheed (RA) further laments, “I can only wish that Maulana Allahyaar Khan was blessed with Kashf with regards to Fuqaha (Islamic Scholars), their rank and stature so he would have been prevented from making such ambiguous ,conflicting and controversial statements!”
Mufti Yusuf Ludhyanwi Shaheed (RA) further produces to quote the definition of “Shaykh-e-Kamil” and quotes:
Mufti Yusuf Ludhyanwi Shaheed (RA) states that if the writer is indeed able to take a Mureed from the beginning and place him in the court of Nabi it is a blessing but our Ulamah and Mashaykh don’t make these claims while in the state of sleep or while awake and not only don’t make this claim out of respect, reverence and humility they don’t even talk about it! But we must make exception to this new yardstick of being a “Kamil Shaykh” because over the centuries we are certain that not many Mashaykh would have reached these “dizzying heights” as the author further writes:
The one who spiritually connects a person with Nabi who is the only Waasta between the servant and His Lord . This humble servant doesn’t take Bay’ah on my own hands but simply prescribes and then after the initials lessons places the beginner in the court of Nabi who is the Peer (of Tassawwuff) of the whole world. There are no hollow claims that the Peer merely talks about placing the Mureed in the court of Nabi but the Mureed must witness and know that he is in the court of Nabi and taking Bay’t at his hands. Anyone who has no reach to the court of Nabu is a fake and conman and most importantly understand this difference between Kamil (and incomplete) Shaykh of Tassawuff and know it very well. (Page 38)
No comment is necessary!
I have previously stated that when a person with sincerity and for seeking the truth comes to us then within 6 months he will only see the spirit of Nab i but will also converse with it
In some passages the author suddenly flares up in anger and tries to destroy the foundations of classical Islamic Academia and writes:
Some try to envelope their jealousy in the guise of Academic discussions! They say that Kashf is a subjective matter and has no important, it may be true but tell us are the Mas’ail described in Islamic Fiqh definite? Are the declaration and distinguishing of authentic narrations from weak definite? Are the Fiqh definitions of Fardh, Sunnah, Nafil definite? If you want to undermine the importance of Kashf of the grounds of being subjective then what would you do with Islamic Fiqh? (Page 123)
Mufti Yusuf Ludhyanwi Shaheed (RA) writes that I have never met the Maulana nor did I have any knowledge of him prior to reading this book so it’s impossible to be jealous! It is unjust (and absurd) to compare and equate classic Islamic knowledge and tradition to Kashf and then force people to believe in both of them equally and consider them both equally valid.
Mufti Yusuf Ludhyanwi Shaheed (RA) writes that Maulana Allahyaar Khan Saheb’s emotional and extremist reliance on the status of Kashf places the entire religion of Islam and its legacy (of knowledge) in danger as he writes: Who says that there is a chance (of being mistaken) in Kashf? We have responded that the entire religion is transmission and transmission has inherent dangers of being correct (or being false) so on account of the “possibility” of an error should we leave the whole religion?(Pages 123/124)[/QUOTE]
Q & A on the topic:
Abdur Rahman ibn Awf wrote:
I think it would have been better and probably more productive to stick, to writing a refutal of Akram Awan, rather then extending it to the entire Silsilah, and Hazarat Maulana Allah Yaar Khan (RA)
Response by Abdullah bin Mubarak:
As per other ulema mufti Yusuf ludhviani Shaheed ra etc, the ulema of Deoband the mainstream ones disagreed with him on his definitions of what actually constitutes a shaykh etc and on many other things, some even say he was not a deobandi. A refutation was done on Sf as well buy not one follower chose to answer, their only reply was come join our zikr, there was a brother from this forum who was also a ex mureed I believe.
InshAla one of the others should know better, read it on one of the old Sf threads.
Response by me (2014):
I didn't write it, Mufti Yusuf Ludhyanwi (RA) and Mufti Taqi Usmani (HA) did.
Let’s suppose that I am inconsistent and biased and taking sides. The point which I am trying to make is that it is Sunnah to not speak ill about the dead.
Let’s suppose that I did speak ill of the dead (on the forum or in real life) and I committed this error. Is your role model me OR Nabi (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam)? If I commit a wrong does it justify you also committing the wrong? When we were kids and our elders used to punish us they used to say, “If he jumps into the well, will you also jump into the well?”
I still do NOT know what I said, how, where and when BUT your job is to point out that I made a mistake and I should not have done so which would be good of you, NOT to justify that its ok for you to speak ill about the dead just because I “supposedly” did.
My error does not give you or anyone else the right to make the same error. You will not be able to present my behaviour as evidence of deviating from the Sunnah on the day of judgement.
I have thousands of posts and you can probably point out thousands of errors in them. Point out my errors by all means in the hundreds and I will NOT back down from correcting and apologising when my errors is clear, I make loads of mistakes.
P.S: I end by saying, I really need to look into what I said, how and when I said it etc.
Have you understood this? I did NOT call him deviant, I said his Tareeqa (or views) has deviancy...
His deviancy stems from his claims which have no basis and substance. If he was an excellent writer or refuter (not much evidence to suggest that he was) we are back to a Maududi type scenario.
So if Deobandees are willing to ignore Maulana Allah Yaar Khan Saheb (RA)'s primary deviancy in favour of his writing/refutation skills than lets give the same credit to Maulana Maududi (RA).
I did not call Maulana Allah Yaar Khan Saheb (RA) a deviant in the thread but I called this Tareeqa and his views “deviancy” and from my perspective it was crystal clear in my head and my views as elaborated many times in the thread were based on the analysis of Mufti Yusuf Ludhyanwi (RA) and others.
In fact, I have said repeatedly that I am not an expert on Tassawuff and quoting the experts of Tasawuff on the topic.
If the words were not clear years ago, let me make it abundantly clear TODAY.
Turn to the Ulama whom you trust and take their guidance on whom you should be listening to or reading the works of.
Let those who have passed away be judged by Allah Ta’ala.
I still maintain the Fatwaas regarding individuals cannot be applied to Jamaats which follow them in most cases e.g. Fatwaas regarding Maulana Maududi (RA) cannot be applied to Jamaat-e-Islami because it is a group which is a diverse group of individuals with differing beliefs and practises.
Let me end AGAIN by saying for the umpteenth time that I am not telling anyone to listen to or read Maulana Maududi (RA) or join Jamaat-e-Islami but somehow I am not sure if this will be the end of the discussion.
This cannot be undone and I am sure it will be greatly appreciated.