Protecting one's honour

London

27,466

Brother

9,578

#1 [Permalink] Posted on 3rd June 2014 16:53

Recently it was asked where is the Daleel for something being Wajib and the response given was that Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi wrote it in his book. The counter response was something along the lines of "Its not Hanafi Fiqh" Evidence was needed for it being wajib from the classical scholars of fiqh and not from Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi.

However Mufti AS Desai says:

Quote:

The age limit has been mentioned by Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh). We regard him as a Mujaddid and his word has the force of the Deen.

So why is defending ones honour not wajib based on the teachings of Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, but teaching girls over the age of 6 classified as Haram upon the words mentioned or written by Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi?

Apologies Maulana Yasin, but without this example from yesterday, I wouldn't be able to make sense of what I'm trying to say.

Either Mufti Desai has erred, which I am not claiming what so ever or brother Akaabir has erred.

If I have misunderstood something then I ask for forgiveness in advance.

report post quote code quick quote reply

+1 -0Informative x 1

Actions are judged by intentions, so each man will have what he intended.
ابو محمد

Unspecified

121

Brother

-24

#2 [Permalink] Posted on 4th June 2014 01:16

abu mohammed wrote:

View original post

Assalamualaikum

Jazakallah for your input and digging up old graves. I hope this thread doesnt get locked again when I try to bury the body in the same qabr it was exhumed from.

Mufti as desai and Akaabir are two seperate persons not one. If Akaabir requests a specific type of daleel from a specific person it doesnt become an engraved rule in the books of mufti as desai nor should should it be elasticated and put upon anyone else. Every situation calls for its own specific circumstantial responses. Stretching and holding on to it for a latter discussion hence presenting it in distorted fashion is not the wazifah of rijaal ul haq. It is a shaytani tactic of trying to win a debate by using 'ana khayrum minhu khalaqtani min naarin wa khalaqtahu min teen'.

You are betraying the trust laid upon you by displaying an unhealthy inclination to wrongly attribute usool to your muslim brother.

This should suffice to say that you have used your logic incorrectly. Let me expound the matter in a comprehensible way.

Muadh Khan made a claim that it is Waajib on him to protect his character.

I referred to it as his fatwa (incorrect reference? ) and asked for a daleel from the hanafi madhab like he had requested it before in this thread.

Muadh Khan responded by providing me daleel from Hazrat Hakeem ul ummat that it is preferable and desirable to defend ones honour. He stretched the view of desirable (mustahab) to his own claim on wujoob.

I demanded the daleel from hanafi madhab once again. Muadh Khan audibly categorically stated that this is his daleel and he amply proved it without doubt.

What does this substantiate? It is clear unambiguous statement that Muadh Khan accepts the views and opinions or fatwas of hazrat hakeem ul ummat ra to be an authentic view of the hanafi madhab without the need to further investigstions into the madhab.

It does not mean that I (as a seperate person) do not consider or accept hazrat hakeem ul ummat's view as a daleel. And I am not a party in this matter but as I stated before that it is incorrect according to our shariat to drag me into this discussion. 'And do not follow the footsteps of shaytaan'.

Regardless; I will still attempt to reply to your imagination that my demands of daleel of hanafi madhab from muadh khan makes it incumbent on mufti as desai to present the daleel of hanafi madhab to every tom dick and harry. This is what basically you are saying and in reply to this you will now jump to the eifel tower from taj mahal in aagra and come up with something new to divert the topic again.

Muadh Khan uses the fatwa/view/opinion of hazrat hakeem ul ummat when asked for daleel of hanafi madhab shows that he does accept it as a daleel. Now mufti as desai has presented the fatwa of hazrat hakeem ul ummat ra as the daleel of his fatwa/view/article. This should be sufficient for Muadh Khan in the least. Shariah demands him to be just in all his actions with uniformity. Any further questioning would defy his own usool and show his incapability as a muslim to honour his own character through his own words.

The above was an explanation to a vile comment made by your respected self as an attempt to drag me into this and clear up your conscience or maybe yours nafs or ego? (Notice the question mark please).

The clear reply to your comment should be what I stated above. My views and my actions are not incumbent on mufti sahib. By what stretch of your imagination have you concluded that mufti sahib should conform to my demands which I demanded from my respected brother muadh khan? Please reply to my question.

Addeenun naseehah. As a muslim brother, your junior and as a mere mamoor in your imarat I reserve the right to advise you. You as an admin of the forum should not be biased. It is against islamic morality and islamic system that you as admin create rifts between muslims by digging up bodies and swtiching them with fake parts to create doubts. This is not what islamic system of justice demands of you. You should try to disperse the hostile environment and demand justice from everyone. If you look into our beautiful sunnat you will find one particular incident that relates to our situation. The incident of hazrat zayd bin suna radhialllah anhu when he demanded his loan from Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wasallam in a harsh way. Hazrat umar radhiallah anhu got angry and asked permission to kill him with his sword. Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam said him no umar. Instead advise him to demand his loan back in a better way and advise me to return his loan.

These are the teachings of our shariat in contrast to what we see here on this forum and around us in all its impracticality.

If I have slandered or lied about respected brother muadh khan anywhere on the forum or on the blog comments you just need to show me where. I will ask independant brothers to show me if I am wrong. If I am guilty I will retract my statements and extend to brother muadh khan for unconditional unreserved apology. We feel no shame in clearing our matters in dunia.

As a side note I request you to advise brother muadh khan to respond to comment of brother deoband titled

LOVE AND RESPECT WHILST SLANDERING SOMEONE???�

It is waajib on him (according to himself) to respond on the blog to protect his character.

JazakAllah khair

I might have honestly missed or misunderstood the reference of your quote below

Quote

So why is defending ones honour not wajib based on the teachings of maulana ashraf ali thanvi..

End of quote

Can you please show me again where hazrat thanvi ra has written that it is waajib to defend ones honour. I might have not understood.

JazakAllah khair

report post quote code quick quote reply

+2 -3Dislike x 3Disagree x 2Informative x 1

YOUR SIGNATURE BREACHES SIGNATURE RULES - PLEASE UPDATE

Unspecified

121

Brother

-24

#3 [Permalink] Posted on 4th June 2014 02:08

So why is defending ones honour not wajib based on the teachings of Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, but teaching girls over the age of 6 classified as Haram upon the words mentioned or written by Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi?�
*******

AN alternative reply can be that its not wajib because hazrat thanvi ra didnt declare it to be wajib and the second matter is based on his teachings.

If this objection is on mufti sahib then it is futile because mufti sahib has not touched the ruling of defending ones honour.but let us consider he gives one fatwa based on the teachings of hazrat thanvi ra but in another fatwa on a seperate issue he differs with hazrat thanvi ra then too it would be perfectly valid for a mufti to do so. Objecting to this is objecting to the shariah which has given this right to a mufti.

if this objection is on me then I say that being a layman taqleed e shakhsi is wajib on me. I am not a mujtahid nor qualified to ask daleels from authentic muftis whom I trust. I accept the ruling of hurmat of 6 year old girls taught by men because it is mufti as desai's fatwa not because hazrat thanvi ra says so. It is perfectly valid for me to reject any fatwa of hazrat thanvi ra where mufti as desai differs with him (IF). This is what taqleed shakhsi entails. This is what we have been taught to stick to one mufti.

If I embark on the journey of seeking dalaail of each and every masala from mufti as desai tthn I too will be lost in the entangled web of shaytanic deception of the nafs and waste my time in futile debates and arguments all day. This attitude would lead to lack of amal to an extent where I would even forego my qadha namaz (for example) even though I consider it fardh. Every debate has a negative spiritual effect.

report post quote code quick quote reply

+2 -3Dislike x 3Optimistic x 1

YOUR SIGNATURE BREACHES SIGNATURE RULES - PLEASE UPDATE

Unspecified

620

Sister

202

#4 [Permalink] Posted on 4th June 2014 04:51

I don't want to disrespect Brother Muadh_Khan in any way but just want to ask a question.

Respected Brother Muadh_Khan: Brother Akaabir says that you said it's Wajib to protect one's honour.
If what he's saying is correct, then I want to ask you: Could any explanation be given as to why it's Wajib and which ulama say this. It'd be interesting to know.

Not acting upon a wajib act is sinful. Is protecting ones owner means removing any misunderstandings that others may have about one, so that no ill feelings remain there? As, If there's ill feelings it'd be sinful. So could it be the reason for its being wajib? When you get time kindly answer. Thank you.

Jazakallahu khairan.

report post quote code quick quote reply

+1 -0Like x 1

Maria al-Qibtiyya

Unspecified

1,241

Brother

1,935

#5 [Permalink] Posted on 4th June 2014 07:10

Here we go again....

I have a feeling that 'most' of the people arguing here are result from their egos.

Now don't accuse me of 'slander'. Thats the new trend around here now. Lol.

Pathetic.

report post quote code quick quote reply

+2 -0Winner x 2

umar123

London

27,466

Brother

9,578

#6 [Permalink] Posted on 4th June 2014 08:20

InshaAllah will read up on the posts later, however in the meantime please stick to the current topic, I'll start a fresh thread on protecting one's honour.

Brother Akaabir, I'm tied up at the moment, but inshaAllah reply in the other thread or by PM.

Jazakallah.

report post quote code quick quote reply

+2 -0Like x 2

Actions are judged by intentions, so each man will have what he intended.
ابو محمد

London

27,466

Brother

9,578

#7 [Permalink] Posted on 4th June 2014 08:24

Apologies for side tracking on other threads, please use this thread to discuss the topic in a decent manner.

report post quote code quick quote reply

+2 -0Like x 2

Actions are judged by intentions, so each man will have what he intended.
ابو محمد

Unspecified

620

Sister

202

#8 [Permalink] Posted on 4th June 2014 08:26

abu mohammed wrote:

View original post

Okay. should try to stick to the topic Insha Allah.

You may split the post about protecting ones honour?

Jazakallahu khairan.

report post quote code quick quote reply

No post ratings

Maria al-Qibtiyya

London

27,466

Brother

9,578

#9 [Permalink] Posted on 4th June 2014 08:26

Can one of the authorizers split the posts from the other thread and move them to here please.

Jzk

report post quote code quick quote reply

+2 -0Like x 2

Actions are judged by intentions, so each man will have what he intended.
ابو محمد

London

27,466

Brother

9,578

#10 [Permalink] Posted on 4th June 2014 09:39

Topic split and merged.

Please continue in a nice decent manner as inshaAllah, the thread will prove very beneficial.

May I request we don't be abusive to one another and deal with it with good Akhlaaq.

جزاك الله خيرا

report post quote code quick quote reply

+3 -0Like x 2Winner x 1

Actions are judged by intentions, so each man will have what he intended.
ابو محمد

11,704

Brother

289

#11 [Permalink] Posted on 4th June 2014 09:41

Akaabir wrote:

View original post

Dear Respected and beloved Hazrat Akaabir Saheb (Damat Barakatuhum Mudda Fuyuzuhum),

I understand that you disagree with me and that's your right but I don't think that you have the right to misquote me. You asked me for daleel for "Waajib" and I gave you two references clearly outlined:

Bayanul-Qur'aan where in it is clearly written to be "necessary"
Then I told you to look up at the commentary of Imam Sha'rani (RA)'s book where "Waajib" is mentioned specifically as that word

I didn't stretch anything.

Secondly, I answered you (satisfactorily) and you even asked for the thread to be cloed but the rest of your conjecture is your own imagination

Thirdly, the issue (if there is even an issue) is between me and Shaykh (Mufti) A. S. Desai (HA) and both of us are satisfied with the matter as expressed and agreed in clear, unabmigous writing so the attempts to slander, frame, catch (in the act), defame on part of you and others is a one-sided affair neither sanctioned by Shaykh (Mufti) A. S. Desai (HA) nor authorised nor he has any knowledge in the matter.

So again, disagree but don't misquote.

Jazakallahu Khayran

report post quote code quick quote reply

+1 -0Agree x 1Informative x 1

There is no Plan B!

http://www.central-mosque.com/

Unspecified

1,241

Brother

1,935

#12 [Permalink] Posted on 4th June 2014 09:51

السلام عليكم

From the little knowledge I have, What I understand is, if someone falsely accuse of robbery or zina etc, one should Protect ones own honour.

But if I m not wrong, it is okay to be silent when someone pointlessly insults. There are many instances where the Ulema maintain silence during such insults. I believe I have read somewhere in sf, that one the Deobandi Akabir were send insulting letters from the Barelvi Imam and He did NOT stoop to the other persons level.

This is my understanding, I haven't read much into this topic. Kindly contribute more to this thread, so all of us can understand when it is ok.
P.s. Please don't be biased and post only opinions backing one own side only.

report post quote code quick quote reply

+3 -0Like x 3Agree x 1

umar123

London

27,466

Brother

9,578

#13 [Permalink] Posted on 4th June 2014 09:52

Please lets stick to the topic (I know it is, but) without mentioning specific Ulama. InshaAllah, that way, we can gain more from it without derailing.

report post quote code quick quote reply

+2 -0Like x 2

Actions are judged by intentions, so each man will have what he intended.
ابو محمد

Unspecified

121

Brother

-24

#14 [Permalink] Posted on 4th June 2014 09:55

Muadh_Khan wrote:

View original post

Assalamualaikum

Respected brother muadh khan,

I will ignore your ignorance of my repeated requests of not putting titles with my name.

I request you not to drag mufti desai in this thread.

As for waajib ruling regarding the topic at hand, I request your respected self to clear two matters for me as clearly I seem to be misundertanding the issue.

1) Can you post the relevant section of bayaan quran where it is clearly written that defending ones honour is wajib.

2) Was Imam Sha'rani RA a hanafi alim? Or is his ruling that you quoted a hanafi daleel? I might be mixing imam sha'rani you quoted with the famous Shaikh Abdul Wahhab Sha'rani RA who was a shafi.

My post which you have quoted was not addressed to you.

JazakAllah khair

report post quote code quick quote reply

+1 -0Like x 1

YOUR SIGNATURE BREACHES SIGNATURE RULES - PLEASE UPDATE

London

27,466

Brother

9,578

#15 [Permalink] Posted on 4th June 2014 09:55

Brother Akaabir, Sincerely apologies for not yet reading up or replying yet. Will do shortly, inshaAllah. I'll probably do half by PM and the other half by post.

report post quote code quick quote reply

+1 -0Like x 1

Actions are judged by intentions, so each man will have what he intended.
ابو محمد

Protecting one's honour

Font Size

Font Weight