Some people are so rigid in taqleed of the Imaams that they openly reject Saheeh Hadiths because of their Imaam’s statement – please explain

Posted on by alfaida

Q. Hadhrat Thanvi said: “Some extreme people are so rigid in following their Imaams that they openly reject nonconflicted Saheeh Hadiths because of their Imaam’s statement. May Allaah protect us from such rigidness. It appears from the actions of such people that they regard Imaam Abu Haneefah as maqsood bidh-dhaat. Now, if someone declares this as Shirk in Nubuwwat, what is his mistake?”

A. We are in agreement with Hadhrat Thanvi’s comments. Ghulu’ is haraam. If , for example, Imaam Abu Hanifah’s view is in conflict with the Hadith, then it will be ghulu’ to doggedly adhere to it. But of absolute importance on this issue is that we are not in position to decide if Imaam Abu Hanifah’s view has to be set aside. This decision is made for us by the illustrious Fuqaha who were Mujtahids in their own right. Thus, we set aside Imaam Abu Hanifah’s view of the abrogation of Aqeeqah, not because we found it to be against the Hadith, but because all of the Hanafi Fuqaha have set his view aside.

We set aside Imaam Abu Hanifah’s view of the 6 Shawwaal fasts being bid’ah on the basis of what our own Fuqaha, the Students of Imaam Abu Hanifah, had ruled. We do not put ourselves against Imaam A’zam (Rahmatullah alayh) on the basis of our absolutely deficient and weak research. It would be shaitaaniyat if we have to adopt such a route of contumacy.

Another example, is Imaam Abu Hanifah’s view on alcohol which almost all of these modern day stupid muftis adopt despite the fact that for the past almost 14 centuries the Fatwa of the Jamhoor Fuqaha and of all the Fuqaha of the other Math-hab is on the view of Imaam Muhammad (Rahmatullah alayh), which is the view of the prohibition of all forms of alcohol. And this is based on the Hadith. Now these maajin muftis of our present era come within the scope of Hadhrat Thanvi’s criticism on this issue of ghulu’. Their nafs constrain them to accept the liberal view which is in conflict with the Fatwa of all Math-habs, not only the Hanafi Math-hab. They want to devour chocolates, sweets, processed junk food, harmful soft drinks, artificial juices, etc., hence they perpetrate ghulu’ by abandoning what the Shariah has propounded for almost 14 centuries. And, for this nafsaaniyat, they have no valid Shar’i daleel. There is no Dhuroorat for devouring poison, liquor and carrion.

Some people are so rigid in taqleed of the Imaams that they openly reject Saheeh Hadiths because of their Imaam’s statement – please explain

TAQLID IS NOT “BLIND FOLLOWING

Posted on by alfaida

By Abu Yusuf

In a recent discussion with a talib al ‘ilm (student of knowledge) he argued both the linguistic (lughawi) and istilahi (technical) meaning (ma’na) of taqleed is effectively “blind following”.

I was disappointed how he deliberately distorted the lughawi wordings (lafz) of taqleed in the classical books. It was his own interpretation in adding that word “blind”, which was not there! The literal (haqiqi) of qalada is “to bind”, “to tie”, “to hold tightly”, “leashed” etc

What the scholars do say when explaining (in meaning) those linguistic wordings of taqleed, it is taking something without thinking (tafkeer) or pondering (tadabbur). In the general Arab Bedouin usage was to trust, to respect, to rely upon etc. Some fuqaha used analogy that is of a blind-man is to imitate one in whose report he has confidence with respect to the Qibla (direction of prayer) because he is not able to do more than that. But some like to reinterpret these to mean “blind-following”, which has negative connotations.

They jump to this as that serves their interest to demean the position and to mock the person that does Taqleed.

As to the istalahi meaning this is derived by ijtihad since taqleed has a legal ruling (hukm) of mubah and fard. One cannot give rulings to it without defining it from the Islamic legal texts. It was clear he misunderstood why the fuqahah added “Laisa Hujjah” or “Bila Hujjah” (ie absence of evidence) in its istilahi (technical) meaning. They added that as the follower cannot understand the primary evidence (hujjah), if he did he would be a Mujtahid and no need to refer to another mujtahid (i.e do taqleed)

If he had studied how definition (tahrif) are derived he’d be aware of al jaami wa a maani. For example, Qur’an has an istalihi meaning (linguistically it’s “to recite”). The usuliyyun related everything (jaami) included in it and everything that must be excluded.

Hence the istilahi meaning of Qur’an was derived from the legal text which has a comprehensive definition.

SALAFIS SEEK AID FROM MUFTIS

Posted on by alfaida

COPROCREEP SALAFIS SEEK AID FROM MUQALLID MUFTIS

WOMEN LECTURING TO MEN?

Question

Is it permissible in our time for females to give lectures to men if the woman lecturer is screened from the males by a barrier?
In response to this question, Salafis in the U.K. have based their fatwa of permissibility on a fatwa of Mufti Kifaayatullah (Rahmatullah alayh). In his Fatwa, Mufti Kifaayatullah states:

“The holy Shariah of Islam does not prohibit women from any Islamic service of which they are capable. Along with guarding Purdah, a woman may give a lecture to a gathering of men.”
Please comment on this Fatwa which the Salafis are using to create confusion.
Answer

Salafis are COPROCREEPS. In addition they exhibit Shiah tendencies, especially taqiyah (holy hypocrisy). The juhala Salafis, while portraying themselves as ‘mujtahids’ higher in calibre than even the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen of the Salafus Saaliheen era, are academically bankrupt and spiritually barren.

They descend into the dregs of ludicrousness by vacillating between extremes. While they claim to deduct the ahkaam of the Shariah directly from the Qur’aan and Ahaadith since Taqleed of the Aimmah Mujtahideen is a capital sin according to these coprocreeps, their academic bankruptcy compels them to resort to Muqallid Muftis of this era which is far, very far from the age of even their Imaam Ibn Taimiyyaah, and even further from the noble era of the Salafus Saaliheen.

The attempt to seek daleel for their coprocreep view from the Muqallid Mufti Kifaayatullah (Rahmatullah alayh) for an issue which has no resemblance to the original mas’alah, is a vivid commentary of their jahaalat. It is indeed ludicrous and laughable when a Salafi seeks daleel from a Muqallid Mufti whose fatwa is out-dated by half a century, and which no longer holds Shar’i substance due to the satanism with which the issue under discussion is bedevilled today.

There is no contention regarding the validity of the Deeni service of a capable female. There is similarly no contention regarding the validity of the Deeni service of a male. Impermissibility has not been predicated to such services whether executed by males or females. However, only a moron Salafi coprocreep and the modernist zindeeqs will cling to the original unadulterated mas’alah even when satanism has become attached to the mubah (permissible) act.

Women performing Salaat in the Musjid was permitted by even Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). However, when satanasim became associated with this original permissible act, the Sahaabah unanimously banned women from the Musaajid. Similarly, on account of the accretion of satanism, all the Fuqaha of Islam of all Math-habs have declared that it is no longer permissible for women to attend even Walimahs or bayaans to listen to lectures delivered by Ulama. Attending any kind of function is no longer permissible for women.

Mufti Kifaayatullah’s view is not a Shar’i daleel. For daleel, we have to resort to the Fuqaha, especially the Fuqaha of the Salafus Saaliheen era. All of those illustrious Souls have issued the Fatwa of Prohibition. Thus, it is imperative to set aside Mufti Kifaayatullah’s view.

Furthermore, the situation during Mufti Kifaayatullah’s time was not as rotten and stinking as it is today. In our time, faasiqaat and faajiraat are generally the ones who deliver copro-lectures to males who attend to cast lustful stares at the faasiqaat/faajiraat, and to derive nafsaani gratification from their voices. There is an incremental preponderance of faasiqaat/faajiraat in the public domain. This vile and rotten phenomenon has also been given great impetus by the wayward Tabligh Jamaat with its women’s wing.

It is HARAAM in this age for women to give lectures in gatherings of males. The dalaa-il for this prohibition in a nutshell are:

The Ijmaa-ee ban on women attending the Musjid issued by the Sahaabah.
The Fatwa of the Fuqaha of Islam.
The evil shenanigans of women and men in our present era.
22 Zul Qa’dh 1440 – 25 July 2019