The quest of the ultra religious right and liberal left to destroy Pakistan

[Mutakalim]

Kindly read my posts again. I never said 'EVERYONE belonging or associating with a sec is/was a bidati' .. if I have, please quote.

I got this impression from your generalization of all school of thoughts. Thanks for the correction.

Bidat should be a lesser of a grave concern when it comes to followers of sects!

If by sects you mean Deobandi, Wahabi, Shia and Barelvi, then I agree with all of the points which you have made in following paragraphs.

What is YOUR own (without any sect bias) understanding of the Aya 6:109 I quoted in earlier post? Was it difficult to understand?

القرآن - سورۃ نمبر 54 القمر
آیت نمبر 17

أَعـوذُ بِاللهِ مِنَ الشَّيْـطانِ الرَّجيـم
بِسْمِ اللّٰهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْمِ

وَلَقَدۡ يَسَّرۡنَا الۡقُرۡاٰنَ لِلذِّكۡرِ فَهَلۡ مِنۡ مُّدَّكِرٍ ۞

ترجمہ:
{مولانا سید ابوالاعلی مودودی}
ہم نے اِس قرآن کو نصیحت کے لیے آسان ذریعہ بنا دیا ہے، پھر کیا ہے کوئی نصیحت قبول کرنے والا؟

Link that to the dream and dua of Prophet PBUH and related Hadith on 'monkeys on mimbur' and split/breakup of Ummah into sects respectively.

Don't go labelling me a wahabi or takfiri now for merely quoting these Ayat ... Quran is made easy for guidance (but ulema of sects tell you otherwise - 99.999% of hafiz in Pakistan don't know the meanings of Ayat they have memorised!). And Aya 6:109 alone is a clear guidance for me to reject all sects. I am of the view that those who do not reject sects, do so at their own grave peril - I will not be answerable for them so no need to make any declarations. Share the Ayat (with meaning, i.e. translation), and just ask to reflect - that's the guidance.

Are you talking about this Ayah?

And they swear by Allah their strongest oaths that if a sign came to them, they would surely believe in it. Say, "The signs are only with [i.e., from] Allah." And what will make you perceive that even if it [i.e., a sign] came, they would not believe. Quran 6:109

I suggest you revisit this thread from post 160 - from onset my stance was that as long as sects exist, there can be no unity of ummah. I also used the word 'broken' and you replaced it with 'dead'. How much more do you intent to twist or fail to understand?

I stand corrected.

 

[Verve]

Are you talking about this Ayah?

And they swear by Allah their strongest oaths that if a sign came to them, they would surely believe in it. Say, "The signs are only with [i.e., from] Allah." And what will make you perceive that even if it [i.e., a sign] came, they would not believe. Quran 6:109

Sorry, Aya 6:159

Chapter (6) sūrat l-anʿām (The Cattle)


Sahih International: Indeed, those who have divided their religion and become sects - you, [O Muhammad], are not [associated] with them in anything. Their affair is only
to Allah ; then He will inform them about what they used to do.

Word by word translation:

If by sects you mean Deobandi, Wahabi, Shia and Barelvi, then I agree with all of the points which you have made in following paragraphs.

No. All sects, including the early breakers of ummah -> Hanafi, Shafii, Maliki and Hanbali.

Also, please see Aya 22:78. We are named Muslim and Muslim only! Not Hanafi Muslim etc!

 

[Mutakalim]

Word by word translation:

Sectarianism of every form is condemned is Islam. Whether its religious, ethnic, linguistic or national. There is no second opinion about it. We have given up all our ethnic identities, biases and nationalities by coming into the fold of Islam. Our primary identity is Islam and only Islam.

No. All sects, including the early breakers of ummah -> Hanafi, Shafii, Maliki and Hanbali.

I dont consider formation of Sunni schools of law as sectarianism. They were formed as the logical and natural progression of Ilm e Deen, just like other branches of Knowledge. At the time of Sahaba, there wasn't any classification of Ilm e Deen as they were nearest to the source. However, after their era, Ilm e Deen was classified into different branches like Hadith, Tafsir and Fiqh.

Again, you are resorting to broad categorization. You should be specific about your acquisitions. For example, who was responsible for this breakup, specifically? Are you saying that Aima e Arba and their disciples broke Ummah into sects?

 

[Verve]

I dont consider formation of Sunni schools of law as sectarianism.

So in your opinion, the 4 schools is not a division into groups and these groups do not fall under Aya 6:159? 'Tafarakah Dala' and 'Groh dar Groh' - these are all sects. To say that 4 groups who call themselves Sunni and differ greatly (to the extent of animosity and fatwas against each other) are not sects, whereas the rest are - wow!

I would encourage you to self study what the Aima e Arba said about each other. Old books are there and many translated in Urdu as well. 4 musallas existed due to severe and harsh differences and animosity! Nowadays the ulemas of these sects are running around claiming there were no differences, because they all know that their sects are in trouble and people are raising voices against them - a feeble attempt at 'unity'.

They were formed as the logical and natural progression of Ilm e Deen, just like other branches of Knowledge.

Ilm-e-Deen was defined by our Prophet PBUH: Quran and Sunnah.

Sufism (from Hanafism) is Ilm-e-Deen according to you?

Disagreements on Salah and even Zakat was a logical and natural progression? Holding hands at or below belly button is verified from which Hadith - you won't find a single Sahih Hadith on it but since a dead buzurg/baba/alim said it's ok to do so then it must be, right? Changing or doing a act/action in Deen not taught by Prophet (PBUH) is not a bidaat then?

Your defence of these groups is quite interesting to say the least, but quite typical as well.

At the time of Sahaba, there wasn't any classification of Ilm e Deen as they were nearest to the source.

Read above. The clear guidance was and is to follow Quran and Sunnah. Hadith was being written during Prophet's life and recording encouraged by him as well. Quran and Hadith are there for everyone to access now - why follow those who have broken themselves into groups and follow part Quran and part Hadith?!

However, after their era, Ilm e Deen was classified into different branches like Hadith, Tafsir and Fiqh.

None of these are classifications and/or branches. You've been trained to think that way, and don't say there is ijema on this (just like there was ijema on 4 musallas) - ijema is on the chanda book and power only! Try to undo all your biases and learn Deen as per the guidance in Quran and Hadith ONLY. What we should all seek is guidance and Allah says in Quran that Quran is made easy for guidance (for all, and ulema don't have any copyrights).

Which laws of Deen are difficult to understand from Quran and Hadith? If you or anyone claims that Quran is not easy for guidance, then are you or those claiming as such not going against Allah's Words?

Again, you are resorting to broad categorization. You should be specific about your acquisitions. For example, who was responsible for this breakup, specifically? Are you saying that Aima e Arba and their disciples broke Ummah into sects?

Hazrat Umar (RA) was the 'door' that was broken for fitnah to enter (search Hadith on this). It all started from his shahadat. Malukiat first (Banu Ummayad) and then further divisions under the malukiat where Aima e Arba have a huge part in the blame, especially those who sided with the so-called Khalifahs who were effectively kings. Why do you think Hazrat Hussain (AS) took the firm stance giving shahadat against malukiat by refusing bayt or even a hint of acceptance? Do you think any of the Aima e Arba or their ulemas had/have more knowledge of Deen than him despite their 'classification into different branches'?

There is no excuse left for any literate muslim to not read Quran and Sahih Hadith to gain Ilm-e-Deen. There is absolutely no need for any divided groups such as schools of law and sects.

You have your biases and that's your choice to deny the facts. I do not have biases, despite being born in a 'hanafi' family. In my quest for Ilm-e-Deen, I listened to a lot of ulema of these various groups/sects and they all hate and label each other. Logical conclusion was that I do not want to be associated with any of them and this was confirmed by Crystal Clear and Explicit Guidance in Quran and Hadith. Ilm-e-Deen Alhamdulillah becomes so much easier once one is out of all influences of these sects.

 

[Mutakalim]

So in your opinion, the 4 schools is not a division into groups and these groups do not fall under Aya 6:159? 'Tafarakah Dala' and 'Groh dar Groh' - these are all sects. To say that 4 groups who call themselves Sunni and differ greatly (to the extent of animosity and fatwas against each other) are not sects, whereas the rest are - wow!

In my opinion this is not the meaning of Tafarakah, which you are trying to present here. Having difference of opinion regarding interpretation of fundamental texts in not tafarakah. These difference of opinion existed between each and every generation of this Ummah, from Sahaba to this era.

Ashab un Nabi differed between themselves on interpretation of Quran and Sunnah, on hundred of matters. They used to offer Salah with slight differences, they issued opposite fatwas and they even criticised each other in harshest terms. Most striking expression of this are the comments of Abdullah bin Umar R.A regarding Haj e Tamatuh. How can Abdullah Bin Umar knew about Haj e Tamatuh and his father was not aware of the ruling? Should we declare Ummar bin Khattab R.A Biddati (Naoz o Billah)? Because, apparently, he didnt followed the ruling of Prophet (Alaih e Salat o Wasalam).

Moreover, Sahaba fought against each other and formed rival groups. Should we call that sectarianism and should we declare groups of Sahaba as sects? Your argument of division into groups can also be applied to Sahaba. Are you ready to apply Quranic term of Tafarkah on Ashab e Rasool? (نعوذ باللہ من ھفوات الجاحلین)

If dividing into groups based on difference of opinion is Tafarkah, then I am afraid, not a single group can be exempted from it, including Sahaba (Peace and blessings upon all of them).

Now, let me educate you about real meaning of Tafarkah. Actions of Khwarij were the practical example of Tafarkah. They stood against Ameer ul Momineen R.A, believing that only they were on the right path and everyone else was Biddati. Their argument was that Ali R.A had no right to appoint a mortal man (Buzurg/Baba/Alim) as Hakm and they chanted feverishly "the judgement is with Allah" and declared Ameer ul Momeneen as Kafir. They formed the first sectarian outfit in Ummah, revolted against the state, burned villages, killed Muslim women and children and pillaged cities and declared everyone apart from them as Biddati and Kafir. They were also making absolute statements, just like you, they also thought that Sahaba had formed rival groups, therefore, we can declare them kafir. A lot of parallels can be drawn between your ideology and philosophy of Khwarij.

Furthermore, the practical example of Tafarkah in modern era is bombing of Muslim Houthi women and children, by forces of Aal e Saud, just because houthis belongs to a rival sect. The real tafarkah is funding of Wahabi and Shia sectarian groups by Aal e Saud and Iranian regime, respectively. These groups sowed seeds of animosity and hatred among their followers based on self centered and egoistic conceptions.

Muslims are brothers of each other and whoever creates hatred and animosity between Muslims due to difference of opinion is spreading Tafarkah. Aima e Arba didnt declared each other kafir or Biddati, nor did their respective schools issued such declarations in a collective manner. They always considered each other as Ahl us Sunnah and have complete agreement on matters of theology, sources of Shariah and essence of Deen. In fact, their fundamental books of Hadith, Tafsir, Isma ur Rijjal, Ilm e Kalam and Asool e Tafsir are same.

Regarding your claim of animosity between these four schools, can you show me collective fatwa of Hanfis against remaining three schools that all of them are biddati or vice versa? Where is the proof of your ludicrous accusation that each of them issued fatwas against each other. Bring your evidence if you are truthful.

Sufism (from Hanafism) is Ilm-e-Deen according to you?

What? Sufism is from hanafism? Are you out of your mind. Bro, I am seriously worried about your state of mind. I dont know who indoctrinated you in this belief that only you are right and everyone else is wrong, from Suffis to Hanafis and from Malkis to shafis. First you accused ulema of current generation, then you accused all four sunni school of thoughts of sectarianism, then you showed your anger towards Aima e Arba and now its the turn of Suffis. If all of these groups are and were devoid of Ilm e Deen, then who the hell is real follwer of Ilm e Deen? What are you trying to prove here? Why so much hatred and animosity towards your fellow Muslims? I am literally shocked.

Disagreements on Salah and even Zakat was a logical and natural progression?

There was and is difference of opinion regarding methods of offering Salah. These differences also existed in the era of Sahaba and still they didnt declared each other biddati. Moreover, these differences are trivial and were result of differences in methods of interpretation. Aima e Arba differed in these methods of interpretation and devised different linguistic techniques to interpret fundamental texts. Students of Asool e Fiqh are aware of this fact and I can list various examples where Aima derived different laws from the same text due to different techniques of interpretation. Furthermore, there is an agreement on about ninety percent of deliverables of Salah. Yet, I dont know why your attention is only fixed towards disagreements and why you are not ready to consider similarities.

You also need to understand this fact that the differences between these schools are not on Asool e Deen but this differnece is essentially related to "farow". Their differences can be categorized in two broad groups. First, the disagreement between the methods to interpret Quranic text. For example, schools differed about the Hukm of Quranic "Khas, Aaam, Muqayyad, Aam, Mutlaq, Mushtariq and Muawwal". In essence, this difference was explicitly based on linguistic interpretation of Quranic text. They devised different principles of Quranic interpretation, that lead to the difference in laws that were derived through that linguistic instrument.

Secondly, the disagreement arises between these schools on Hukm of Khbr e Mashoor, Mutwatir and specially Khabr e Wahid. For example, whether Khabr e Wahid would be acceptable without any condition or not? What would be the status of hukm derived from Khabr e wahid in case it is related to Hudood? This in essence, was the natural and logical progression of Uloom e Deenia.

Holding hands at or below belly button is verified from which Hadith - you won't find a single Sahih Hadith on it but since a dead buzurg/baba/alim said it's ok to do so then it must be, right?

Are you saying that millions of Muslims from Abdullah Bin Masood to Abu Hanifah, from Abdullah Bin Mubarak to Imam Sarakhsi, from Muhammad bin Hassan shaibani to Mujadid Alif sani rejected Hadith of Prophet and invented Biddat of their own. I can present all the material which Hanfis have written about this issue and I am quite sure you will not be able to answer that. However, we are not discussing the method of Salah or which school has the strongest arguments regarding this issue.

Let me come to your point of Sahih Hadith. How you know that there is not a single hadith about holding hands at or below belly button? Who told you that? And by the way, what is Sahih Hadith? Can you verify this term of Sahih Hadith from sayings of Prophet and Quran? You are accusing majority of Ummat e Muslima of following dead Buzurg and ulema and yet you are doing the same.

Ilm e Hadith is totally and entirely dependent on sayings of dead buzurgs/babas/alims. Can you quote me a single Hadith of Prophet A.S without relying on Babas? Dead babas told us about the sayings of Prophet, they transmitted Hadiths to their next generation, they collected these hadith and they invented terms to ascertain veracity of Buzurg Babas who were transmitting those Ahadiths. The dead Babas of four Sunni school of thoughts were the major pillars of Ilm e Hadith. Without dead babas of four Sunni schools there would never had any Ilm e Hadith. Abdullah bin Mubarak a Hanfi Baba was termed as Ameer ul Momeneen fil Hadees by Muhadiseen. Imam Malik, Shafi and Ahmad bin Hambal are Shyuokh of Imam Bukhari, Muslim, Nisai and Ibn e Maja. Imam Shafi was student of dead Hanfi Baba named as Muhammad bin Hassan Shaibani and also student of a dead baba named as Imam Malik. Imam Ahmad bin Hambal was student of Imam Shafi another dead baba. You can never get rid of babas of four sunni school of thoughts, whichever way you try. Your entire ilm e Hadith is dependent on truthfulness of these babas. Now, please stop believing in Hadith as all of them were narrated through dead babas.

Your defence of these groups is quite interesting to say the least, but quite typical as well.

I will defend every group of Ummat e Muslimah from blanket generalizations and I am proud of this. I love and respect every follower of Prophet (Peace and blessings on Him and all of His followers), without any bias. I can disagree withthese groups about certain matters but I will never declare them biddati in a collective manner.

Read above. The clear guidance was and is to follow Quran and Sunnah. Hadith was being written during Prophet's life and recording encouraged by him as well. Quran and Hadith are there for everyone to access now - why follow those who have broken themselves into groups and follow part Quran and part Hadith?!

Yet, Sahaba disagreed among themselves in presence of Quran and Sunnah. Yet they split themselves apart in different groups and fought each other. Can we declare those groups as sects? (Naoz o Billah)

I can pose the same question to you based on your above mentioned logic. Why follow those who have broken themselves into groups like Sahaba? (Naoz o Billah)

None of these are classifications and/or branches. You've been trained to think that way, and don't say there is ijema on this (just like there was ijema on 4 musallas) - ijema is on the chanda book and power only!

So what is the meaning of classification then? If, Fiqh, Hadith and Tafsir are not branches of Ilm e Deen then what are these?

I never claimed any Ijma on any matter from the beginning of our discussion. You have mentioned ijma again and again without providing any evidence to support your claim. Who claimed ijma on 4 Mussalahs? Why dont you mention the name of that particular person? Why are you shying away from providing evidence of your extraordinary claims?

Try to undo all your biases and learn Deen as per the guidance in Quran and Hadith ONLY. What we should all seek is guidance and Allah says in Quran that Quran is made easy for guidance (for all, and ulema don't have any copyrights).

Only you are showing your biases and hatred towards your fellow Muslims. Accusing each and everyone of them of sectarianism. In your mind, only you are guided and everyone else has differed from straight path. I agree that Ulema dont have any copyrights and so does you.

Which laws of Deen are difficult to understand from Quran and Hadith?

So, you are claiming that you have the ability to extract all laws of Quran and Sunnah from original texts, without external help?

If you or anyone claims that Quran is not easy for guidance, then are you or those claiming as such not going against Allah's Words?

I agree, Quran is easy for guidance. Everyone can take guidance from it.

Hazrat Umar (RA) was the 'door' that was broken for fitnah to enter (search Hadith on this). It all started from his shahadat. Malukiat first (Banu Ummayad) and then further divisions under the malukiat where Aima e Arba have a huge part in the blame, especially those who sided with the so-called Khalifahs who were effectively kings. Why do you think Hazrat Hussain (AS) took the firm stance giving shahadat against malukiat by refusing bayt or even a hint of acceptance? Do you think any of the Aima e Arba or their ulemas had/have more knowledge of Deen than him despite their 'classification into different branches'?

I agree that after the Shahadat of Hazrat Umar R.A, the door of fitnah was opened. However, this does not means that majority of Ummat e Muslimah diverted from the right path and got involved in sectarianism. I am fully aware of the curses of Malukiat and the pains which were caused by Malukiat of Banu Ummayah. They were among the worst dictatorial regimes of Muslim Ummah.

Blaming Aima e Arba for malukiat of Bani Ummayah and Banu Abbas is ridiculous. Are you even aware of Aima e Arba? Please google their names and read about events of their life.

Aima e Arba suffered the cruelest forms of torture in the hands of Banu Ummayah and Banu Abbas. they were the biggest supporters of Ahlu ul Bait and done everything in their power to oppose those oppressors. imam Abu Hanifah was disciple of Imam Jaffar Saddiq, Imam Zaid bin Ali bin Al Hussain and Imam Abdullah bin Hassan bin al Hassan (Peace and Blessings on all of them and on their Jadd e Kareem). When Imam Zaid bin Ali bin Al Hussain launched jihad against Hisham bin Abdul Malak in 121H, Imam Abu Hanfia suported him and gave fatwa in his support. When Imam Abdullah bin Hassan Nafs e Zakia launched jihad against Abu Jaffar Mansoor Abbasi in 145H, Imam abu Hanifa again supported his cause. Due to his support of descendants of Imam Hassan and Hussain A.S, he was put in prison and subsequently killed through poisoning inside the prison.

Imam Malik's suffered persecution by Banu abbas due to his fatwa against Abbasi king and in support of Imam Nafs e Zakia A.S. Imam Shafi was the biggest supporter of Ahl ul Bait and his love for Prophet's family is renowned. He was accused of Rafz due to this support. Imam Ahmed bin Humble was the most ardent critic of Banu abbas and suffered torture throughout his life.

I agree that Aima e Arba's knowledge of Ilm e deen is not even worth mentioning in front of Imam Hussain (Peace and blessings upon Him and His Jadd e Kareem).

Without any disrespect, bro, you need to learn a bit more about basics of Islamic history and contributions of Aima e Arba against Malukiat. I am fully aware that your intentions are not bad, you are ardent supporter of Deen and respect that. My disagreements are regarding your approach of generalization, which stems from inadequate knowledge of history and Ilm e Deen. My apologies if I used harsh language. May Allah guide us to the right path.

 

[Mutakalim]

I would encourage you to self study what the Aima e Arba said about each other. Old books are there and many translated in Urdu as well. 4 musallas existed due to severe and harsh differences and animosity! Nowadays the ulemas of these sects are running around claiming there were no differences, because they all know that their sects are in trouble and people are raising voices against them - a feeble attempt at 'unity'.

Bro, you are claiming something that I am not accepting. So the logical thing is to present your evidence. Please enlighten me what Aima e Arba said about each other? Did they declare each other biddati? Did their respective schools issued collective fatwas of Biddat against each other? Where is your evidence?

You are repeating a same event again and again. That event happened at a particular place and that action took place for a particular amount of time. How can each and every follower of four schools can be held responsible? You have claimed again and again that Ijma was established at that time on Musallahs. I have demanded evidence of your claim and you are saying that I should self study. I have repeatedly denied that allegation of Ijma. Why dont you just present your evidence before making any further claims.

I have said many time that act of establishing 4 Mussalahs was wrong. Those that committed it were wrong, their supporters were wrong. However, they were representing a small segment of of Ahl e Sunnah. in 1400 years of Islamic history no Ijma was ever established regarding 4 Mussalahs. How can Ahl us Sunnah be collectively held responsible for acts of some individuals?

 

[Verve]

I have said many time that act of establishing 4 Mussalahs was wrong.

I don't have time but I will come back to your posts later on when I do.

In the meantime, please explain all the differences that lead to establishment of 4 mussalahs! Are you going to deny now that establishing these was فَرَّقُوۡا!?

فَرَّقُوۡا in arabic means 'divide' or 'break up' and شِيَـعًا means 'sects' or 'groups' You are pulling different meanings and context altogether equating this to Khawarij - this idea must have been presented by those very people whose ancestors divided Deen into multiple groups - hence 4 mussalahs ....

My main point is to reject all groups who identify themselves as anything in addition of being muslim. I believe they are all muslim but they need to reflect and reject their associations and loyalties to their respective groups - do tubah never to associate themselves with any group and follow Quran and Sunnah only. Ummah will remain broken until these groups exist.

 

[Verve]

Without any disrespect, bro, you need to learn a bit more about basics of Islamic history and contributions of Aima e Arba against Malukiat.

Perhaps you need to read carefully instead of being a hot head. Read my comments CAREFULLY and SLOWLY. Just as before, do I need to highlight the operative words for you to comprehend?

As I said, Banu Ummayad were the starters and we know all too well which sects ulemas were the darbaris issuing fatwas for the kings!

 

[Verve]

Moreover, Sahaba fought against each other and formed rival groups. Should we call that sectarianism and should we declare groups of Sahaba as sects?

I am not going to say anything against Sahaba by naming.

As for the rebellious group (bagi jamaat), please read the Hadith on this 'bagi jammat calling him to jahanam' yourself. You know exactly which group the Hadith refers to and it was not Khwarij. Its the same group and leader who used to say horrible things about Hazrat Ali (AS) - many Sahih Hadith on that too. Same group who introduced Malukiat and ulema of a big sect alongside! Do you want me to start quoting Hadith then?

Let's leave it here ok!?. You are getting wound up and making unwarranted accusations of me being a hater, talking like Khawarij, not knowing history blah blah typical nonsensical arguments that sectarians use. You are on a different page and you will continue failing to understand where I am coming from.

 

[Mutakalim]

Perhaps you need to read carefully instead of being a hot head. Read my comments CAREFULLY and SLOWLY. Just as before, do I need to highlight the operative words for you to comprehend?

Well, your acquisitions and gross generalizations are quite clear to comprehend. Why dont you try to answer my arguments instead of hurling personal attacks.

As I said, Banu Ummayad were the starters and we know all too well which sects ulemas were the darbaris issuing fatwas for the kings!

Which sects ulemas were darbaris? Perhaps, whole Ummah was involved in this act, as per your understanding. As, every group has some form of representation in state apparatus. Besides highlighting wrongdoings of few individuals, it prove nothing. Actions of individuals can not be attributed to whole groups.

You have special grudge for Ahl us Sunnah, that is quite evident from your acquisitions. You are not the first one and you will not be the last. It started from Khwarij then to rawafiz and at last mantle shifted to Aal e Saud and Khomeni regime.

 

[Mutakalim]

I don't have time but I will come back to your posts later on when I do.

Please take your time, we are in no hurry.

In the meantime, please explain all the differences that lead to establishment of 4 mussalahs! Are you going to deny now that establishing these was فَرَّقُوۡا!?

فَرَّقُوۡا in arabic means 'divide' or 'break up' and شِيَـعًا means 'sects' or 'groups'

It was indeed an act of Tafarkah. However, it can not be attributed to whole Ahl us Sunnah.

You are pulling different meanings and context altogether equating this to Khawarij - this idea must have been presented by those very people whose ancestors divided Deen into multiple groups - hence 4 mussalahs ....

Well, my ancestors were the biggest victim of state persecution by Banu Ummayad and Banu Abbas. Still, I dont consider Ahl us Sunnah responsible for those crimes.

 

[Verve]

Please take your time, we are in no hurry.



It was indeed an act of Tafarkah. However, it can not be attributed to whole Ahl us Sunnah.



Well, my ancestors were the biggest victim of state persecution by Banu Ummayad and Banu Abbas. Still, I dont consider Ahl us Sunnah responsible for those crimes.

Why keep shifting goal post? Stick to one line instead of going completely off.

What you are failing to understand is that the fissures created back then have grown into monsters! With each passing generation of ulemas of all these sects/groups to keep their chanda coming in, it's only getting worse.

The only solution is to reject all these groups, in every shape or form! Again, the original topic is unity of ummah.

Which sects ulemas were darbaris?

Which sects ulema issued fatwa validating a divorce when it is pronounced with a sword over the man's neck? You were telling me to read history, do you not know?

 

[Mutakalim]

I am not going to say anything against Sahaba by naming.

As for the rebellious group (bagi jamaat), please read the Hadith on this 'bagi jammat calling him to jahanam' yourself. You know exactly which group the Hadith refers to and it was not Khwarij. Its the same group and leader who used to say horrible things about Hazrat Ali (AS) - many Sahih Hadith on that too. Same group who introduced Malukiat and ulema of a big sect alongside! Do you want me to start quoting Hadith then?

I agree that the group was rebellious as Allah's Prophet had issued verdict about them. I dont know how this argument is supporting your claim? Are you trying to claim that Sahaba were also involved in Tafarkah Bazi? This example only supports my argument that actions of individuals can not be attributed to whole group.

By the way, which big sect are you talking about? And who were those ulemas? Why dont you come openly and clearly state names of those ulemas?

 

[Verve]

actions of individuals can not be attributed to whole group

False argument. If the group follows in the path of the individual, they are part of the wrongdoings. We've already covered that before.

 

[Mutakalim]

What you are failing to understand is that the fissures created back then have grown into monsters! With each passing generation of ulemas of all these sects/groups to keep their chanda coming in, it's only getting worse.

Again, everyone was wrong and I am right. Please bro, come up with something different. Fissures were created that turned into monsters, but the majority was not responsible. Dont hold grudge against every other person for wrongdoings of few individuals. Dont treat Muslims as Kufaars.

The only solution is to reject all these groups, in every shape or form! Again, the original topic is unity of ummah.

Why dont we start with abolishing political party system in Pakistan? Ban every type of association with any group whether be religious, political or ethnic. That could serve as a starting point.

Which sects ulema issued fatwa validating a divorce when it is pronounced with a sword over the man's neck? You were telling me to read history, do you not know?

No, I dont know about any such fatwa. That's why I am demanding evidence of your claims for quite some time. And you have come up with nothing, except more acquisitions.

If the group follows in the path of the individual, they are part of the wrongdoings. We've already covered that before.

And who was that individual? Be specific. Secondly, which group is the follower of certain individuals, who all acted wrongly. That's why, all of them should be held accountable.