Pakistani Inqilaab

Abu_Bilal wrote:

View original post

Asslamo Allaikum Hazrat (Mufti) Saheb (HA),

Shaykh (Mufti) Abu Bilal (HA) wrote:

Your second lie is that the authentication of ahadeeth has been done by Al-Bani. Fear Allah! In a book of 850 pages, with thousands of references from Hadeeth and Fiqh books, the authentication of ahadeeth has been done by classical Ahl e Sunna Ulema.

[/quote]

Copious screenshots have been produced to show you Al-Albani (RA) or Albani (RA)’s referencing being used (not “Al-Bani” don’t know who that is actually) in response to your text above. If you want me to go through the entire book and screen shot after screen shot I am Sorry I can’t do that.

Shaykh (Mufti) Abu Bilal (HA) wrote:

Secondly, was Mufti Shafi (RA) a salafi or a saudi? Because he has written the EXACT SAME THING in Jawahir ul Fiqh (See footnotes on Pg 558). Did he write it to defend Al Saud Kingdom?

See screenshot below pertaining to your reference (title, date and year) now if you want to refer to another discussion in Jawahir ul Fiqh that’s a different matter.

[quote=Shaykh (Mufti) Abu Bilal (HA)]Secondly, was Mufti Shafi (RA) a salafi or a saudi? Because he has written the EXACT SAME THING in Jawahir ul Fiqh (See footnotes on Pg 558). Did he write it to defend Al Saud Kingdom?

I request that you actually read what is written as your points 2-5 are largely superfluous to the discussion.

Anonymous wrote:

View original post

There is every chance that I am wrong and need to be corrected. I am human and make mistakes and misunderstand but nobody can win against sheer hatred and bigotry. Feel free to get the screenshot translated from anyone you wish.

If Shaykh (Mufti) Saheb (HA) says that I actually meant another topic and reference then ofcourse the title (date and year) will be different.

A relevant post by Jinn in another thread. I request Maulana Abu Bilal to comment on this and clarify whether the ruler of Kashmir then was a valid Islamic government:

A scholar asks Hazrat thanvi about the Kashmir issue

An aalim asked Mawlana Thanvi(rahmatullahi Alayhi ) some questions on the issue of Kashmir.
These are penned below in a Q&A format.

Q:I wish to you some questions about a certain matter to remove my doubts , if Hazrat Wala permits me to do so.
A:I permit you with great pleasure. Many other ulema are also present in this gathering ,so please fire away.

Q: Huge numbers of muslims are travelling to Kashmir, not with the intention of fighting , but merely to put pressure on the Indian government . What is the Shari' ruling concerning this matter?
A: This is not considered to be a military struggle in shari' terms. There are only 2 viable circumstances. Either the power and force to launch Qital (Military struggle ) is present or not. I do not understand this "3rd option" This way "in-between " seems to have been borrowed from the other nations of the planet.

Q:Considering our time , it seems to us that this is a possible way of obtaining victory , in the struggle of the weak facing more powerful Forces. In other words the masses can only face the government through this strategy.
A: This ijtihad is contrary to the nusoos(The sacred texts), and we have no right to ijtihaad. The two circumstances I elucidated are transmitted in the texts. And the tactics and strategems that you are suggesting are contrary to these texts. The approach you suggest is not found in the way of the salaf.

Q: Hazrat Salman Farsi(RA) suggested the building of the trench to the Prophet(sallallaho alayhi wa sallam) . This was a strategy from the ways of the non arabs and foreign nations.
A: In this position there was no nass(Sacred text) , so the Prophet (saw)

acted in that manner. But we possess nusoos in our condition , so we cannot use that example.

Q: We have seen success result from such strategies , and the Sikhs have triumphed using this.
A: I am not talking of success and failure. I am talking about the shari' ruling behind these actions.

Q: If we can succeed without having to fight, what is the harm in this approach?
A: Is this not harm enough that we are violating the texts?

Q: So should we do nothing and allow them to slaughter us and be annihilated in silence?
A: Did i say this? This seems to be your ijtihaad on my words. ... I was merely saying that the strategy you have adopted is against the texts , and it is your responsibility to demonstrate it from those rulings . If you can do this then show me so that I can submit to it. God forbid that I say what I say because of some stubbornness. In opposition to clear texts there is no room for Ijtihad or Qiyas. We have no right to meddle in such a way. If you can convince me I will surely insha'allah accept.

Q: This is not contained in the texts. But we can make Qiyas
A: You are free to do so if you wish. But in the presence of established texts, Alhamdulillah I can clearly see Haq from Baatil

Q: Thats why we are asking you..
A: If you have complete conviction from the heart then you're free to act in that way. I do not. Don't bring me into your Fatwa. Neither expect from me that I should behave contrary to established texts. I am an absolute muqallid. Sometimes I am forced to take the Qawl of the saahibayn(Abu Yusuf And imam Muhammad(rahmatullahi Alayhim), otherwise I am a follower of Imam Abu Haneefa(alayhi Rahmah) . How then do you expect me to make taqleed of you? You're just children, and I make taqleed of "veterans". Then jokingly he said, "Nay not of veterans....of "A veteran"

Q: Well, we can't fight. So then what do we do?
A: What I am saying is prescribed, so follow that. Look at your prowess. If you have the power , then instead of just sending multitudes to settle there, then Fight. Wage jihad. Take the sword in your hands.
But if you do not have this power, and it is evident that you do not, then have Sabr. In the position of weakness ,if you do what you are doing, and undergo harm , you won't be able to withstand it. And one should not launch oneself into harm that you are unable to withstand , or that causes you great affliction,.

Q:In the ayah of Jihad it says "Min Quwwatin" , and it is nakirah(indefinite). And we do have the power to goto jail etc.
A:This is not the intended meaning of power. What is meant is that where there is harm to your enemy and no *certain* harm to yourself

Q: There is no harm in going to jail. And it causes agitation to the enemy, so what's the harm?
A: If Qudrah was this then we have the power today to spit upon the enemy, and this causes them discomfort , but because we understand that in fact this causes us harm, we do not do so. .... What is meant by Qudrah is causing the enemy certain harm and not causing oneself certain harm , and it is obvious that going to jail is a harm to yourself and of no real harm to the enemy.
Listen well. There are two types of Qudrah.

1) We have the power to do a certain task but after doing it we do not have the power to withstand the negative consequences that result.
2) We have the power to do the task and we have the power to successfully ward off the harms that will result when we undertake it.

The first condition is called ISti'taat Laghwiya and the second is isti'taat Sharriya'. And for self defence to be waajib the first type of isti'aah is not enough, the second type of isti'taah is the condition. The following hadeeth clarifies

Man ra'a mikum munkaran fal yu ghayyirhu be yaddi' f aillam yasta'ti fa bi lisaani fa illam yastati fa bi qalbi

Well, it is evident that everybody has the power to address munkar with the tongue at all times. So when will the situation come when we are unable to do so?
If it was enough to have the physical ability to do it for it to be fardh , and being able to defend oneself from the negative consequences that would result is not a condition, Then to address munkar with the tongue would be Fardh in all times and places. (because we all have the physical power to waggle our tongues)Then what would it mean for the Prophet (saw)

to say that if you don't have the power to change it with your tongue, then hate it with your heart? This proves isti'taah means that as well as having the physical power to do it, there is no danger that one faces harms that one would be unable to repel (As far as normal cause and effect expectation and prediction goes)
Another condition is that after this defence a greater evil does not result .

Q Then what options remain to help the muslims of Kashmir
A: Go there. Make tableegh, and call them to unite amongst themselves. And when you have the power(as detailed above) then QItal is permissible

Q But they stop us at the gates, and arrest us. They don't even let us in
A: So you tell me if this is the condition then how do you expect to help them? You don't even have the Qudrah to reach there. The multitudes end up being caned, end up in jails and on hunger strikes. Hunger strikes are akin to suicide. Even if a benefit results from suicide it's still not a permissible course of action. What then of suicide where there benefit for anyone? If it becomes known that committing suicide will affect and harm the kuffar , will suicide become permissible? IS going to jail and having hungerstrikes not on a par with suicide? If a benefit becomes apparent from suicide , the act of suicide in itself is such a tremendous harm that has no recompense. Not every supposed benefit is to be relied upon. Its like someone saying , so-and-so's life will be spared if you jump into a well and drown. So is it permissible for me to jump into the well(NO)

Q: So should we fight?
A By all means. But the codition for this is that you have sufficient power and resources that would be expected to conventionally overcome their forces. Mere wishfully thinking that we will win ,so let's fight- This is not enough.

Q: But fighting entails harm. Is it not greater harm that lives are lost?
A: But fighting is an objective and is in our texts so this is not considered a "harm" , but these methods and strategems that you have invented are not from the texts , so they will be closely inspected. The reason for the difference is that the ultimate objective is the removal of fitna. Qital is not a fitna, because the heart is not perturbed in war, and there is an inner tranquillity. But these matters involve tumult and the wastage of great time. When formulating their schemes, people rarely consult Fiqh. Its not enough to just look at fiqh with your own opinions. But you have to look at it with the true taste of a seasoned faqeeh, and in doing this everything becomes crystal clear. The art of Fiqh is very very subtle, which is why I always emphasise erring on the side of caution.

Q : Man Qatala doona Idhahu ma maalahu Fa huwa Shaheed. This establishes the permissibility of forgoing one's life . Strikes and such like seem to be plausible within in this rubric.
A: Qatl does not mean suicide. But it means fighting. In other words Fight. Wage war,. The intention is that you save your possessions and your life. Then if by chance you happen to die, then it is shahadat. Qatl Itself is not maqsood(the end in itself). But if it happens in the course of qitaal, then it is permissible. SO Qitaal not Qatl is permitted and then only if all the conditions for it being allowed are found and none of conditions to make it impermissible are present(and these are delineated in great depth in the works of Fiqh). And Qatl not being maqsood is established in the Quran because everywhere we see Yaqtuluna (with seegha majhool) , after this we see Yuqtaloona (be seegha maroof). So we see yuqtaloona is not maqsood but sometimes results as a side effect of yaqtuluna.

Q: We don't have the full power(qudrah) . But the little that we do possess, how should we utlise it. After all we ought to do something?
A: You can tell me what should be done. I don't know any better than saying that you should do tableegh and teach them the deen and after that fight. I ask you, after the Hijrah , there was great peril for the lives of some of the muslims who were left in Makkah. The people of madina didn't send any delegations there. Until the ayahs of qital were not revealed, there was no course of action adopted other than Sabr. This is the only form of Islamic struggle we know, all these other innovations are rejected.

Q: Perhaps these matters were not known then . Had it been so wars would have been like this
A It becomes evident these are intellectual constructions rather than revealed things. The sahaba too were men of intelligence. Great matters entered their minds, so why did these things not? Did not one of these strategems occur to them? The only thing that did was Qital and that too only when the verses of Qital came. The questions come that in the course of Islamic history why did no-one come up with these ideas. In 1300 years did not such conditions of oppression manifest, then why did no one suggest these things?
The other thing I would mention is that was there not power in the muslims who were left in Makkah post-hijrah. If you say they didn't have the power to mount an offensive I say you are absolutely mistaken . They had such power that before it the power of the entire Indian Government is completely overshadowed.

Q: But the opposing kuffar too were of similar prowess.
A If we accept this then there is still no ikhtilaf. It comes back to what I was saying that Sabr will have to be adopted. If there is no power then Like in Makkah we have to have sabr.
And when like in Madina power was firmly established , they took swords in their hands and faced Makkah.

Q: Before though wars were not like they are now
A.......I am asking you to present texts and you are not.....I will never submit until you present Manqoolaat, in the manner that our elders established to guard the entire system of our deen. In other words we cannot leave taqleed with such facility. The real problem today is that everyone considers himself to be a mujtahid. Truly the salaf , those who preceded us were very sagacious. They understood the deen more than us, thats why they they closed the gates of ijtihad.
On a light hearted note he said Actually us folks(referring to himself) are blameless in the sight of Allahسبحانه وتعالى . If we are asked we'll say Oh Allahسبحانه وتعالى we couldn't fathom any of the dalils. But you will be asked that whilst understanding all the dalail why didn't you go to help the muslims of Kashmir-we are let off the hook, and you present your arguments.
I'll tell you something of great importance. |In these issues, it's not just about daleels, you have to have juristic experience and taste. In these new techniques not only is not ghary-mansoos but it's also against my taste.

Q: We are weak on all fronts and unable to do anything then?
A: Before you had such vigour that you considered yourself capable of implementing the ghary mansoos over the mansoos, and now you have convinced yourself that you are completely incapable? I say work, but stay within the hudood of the Shariah. How amazing that people think the ways of the Prophets will be devoid of effect and the constructions of their minds will be the cause of salvation. I ask you will success come from pleasing God or displeasing him? So there is only one path- following the mansoos Methods..
.....................
......
Aside from all these matters there is another issue. Every field of action needs limits. These modern movements are in need of this, so who is going to enforce this? In the time of Khilafah, one young man made hijrah and his mother was besides herself in tears and lost her sight. So now who is going to decide who should have gone and who should have remained? Even if for the sake of argument we accept that these modern techniques might be allowed, who is going to be the ameer to guard those limits both for himself and make sure others do too. Without an ameer nothing can be accomplished.

Al Ifaadat Al Yawmiyyah
Volume 1 Page 96

[Taken from the AkabirofDeoband blog]

Pakistani Inqilaab

Font Size

Font Weight