Firstly, why don't you come clear and say which group you are associated with or part of? Let's have a focused discussion, shall we?
Does it matter? It seems to me that you have problem with every group, except Shia and Najdis. Although, I am not sure whether these two groups are also Biddati or they are the only Jamaat of Momeneen in Muslims.
Evidence that I used the above term? You keep inventing terms and attributing them to me. Good work!
Your whole argument revolves around allegations of Tafarkah Bazi against all groups of Muslim Ummah, from modern day Ulema to Ashab un Nabi. You are trying your best to prove everyone tafarkah baz for sometime now. What other term should I use to describe your fallacies?
Interesting that Sufis are not important all of a sudden - after I presented gustakhi of Prophets in kashful mahjoob! You asked for evidence and when presented you run back to Sahaba, Tabiyeen, and Taba Tabiyeen.
Sufis are not relevant to our current discussion which revolves around the supposed Tafarkah which was created by Sahaba and Aima e Arba in Ummah, according to you.
Secondly, I never asked for evidence against Kashful Mahjoob. Can you highlight that part?
Here's another one: It was because of all the nonsense written by these sufis and their followers that gave the encouragement for Dajjal Qadyani to declare himself a Nabi. It's in madrassah text books that these buzurgs/babays/sufis had either their mureeds recite kalima in their names or validated such acts. I can produce those evidences too but you will then bypass and run again.
And how will these evidences support your claim that Aima e Arba started Tafarkah in Islam? Your utterances are not making any sense.
By the way, what is your verdict against all Sufis? Were all of them Biddatis or they were Mushriks?
Yet you haven't bothered to explain once WHAT were those severe 'differences of opinion in matters of Deen' between 4 imams that lead to 4 musallahs. <-------- Answer this first and foremost! Then I will entertain your diversionary questions on the 4 imams.
I have answered this already, but you didnt bothered to read. Read again.
Those difference were not related to theological beliefs. Beliefs of Ahl us Sunnah remained almost same throughout the history. These four Imams were on the beliefs of Ahl us Sunnah and Ashb un Nabi. This is the reason why all these Aima are regarded highly in Ahl us Sunnah, irrespective of differences.
Just as Sahaba of the stature of Abdullah bin Masood, Ibn e Umr, Ibn e Abbas, Umr bin Khattab, Ali bin Abi Talib, Ibn e Zubair and Abur Rehman bin Auf cannot be blamed for their differences regarding some acts of Deen, Aima e Arba also cannot be blamed. Reason being the fact that these differences are entirely of the realm of Farow e Deen. On farow, differences existed between and within all groups of Muslim Ummah. If, on the basis of these differences, everyone would be declared Tafarkah Baz then no one could be spared from Muslim Ummah. Just because some ignorant are not aware of nature and severity of differences, whole of the Ummah can not be held accountable.
Moreover, differences between Aima were entirely related to "Masail e Farow". Such differences also existed between Sahaba, thats why we find so many opinions on single issue. In fact, differences between Ashab e Kofa and Basra were renowned. The differences between Aima were 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.
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.
Those men who establishede 4 Mussalahs in haram, did the wrong act. This act of few individuals can not be blamed on all schools. Therefore, your concoction that 4 Mussalahs were established due to differences between Aima e Arba is baseless.
You've been trained well I must say to dodge and manipulate. It was you yourself who admitted that 4 musallahs was a bidat and all those who prayed behind those 4 were bidati. I never said all of the people of these groups were bidati, only those who prayed behind individual musallah or wouldn't pray behind other groups musallah/imam.
Thank God, at least you accepted that all who belongs to four schools of thought are not biddati.
Why would these schools label each other bidati when they were all bidati in the act of placing and praying behind 4 masallahs! Silly questions I must say. This enforces what I said, they called it Ijema instead of Bidat!
These schools don’t label each other biddati. Instead, they consider each other on right path. That's why they all are part of Ahl us Sunnah. That’s why their textbooks of theology, Asool, Hadees and Ilm e Kalam are same. That’s why every one of them respect and regards Aima e Arba highly. Even a novice in Uloom e Denia knows these things, yet you are insisting that these groups are enemies of each other and consider each other biddati without providing any evidence.
By the way, for how many years did they placed 4 Mussalahs in Masjid e Haram? And where is the evidence of that so called claim of Ijma?
Man, you are contradicting your own statements. Please have a look.
"I never said
all of the people of these groups were bidati,
only those who prayed behind individual musallah or wouldn't pray behind other groups musallah/imam"
"Why would these schools label each other bidati when
they were all bidati in the act of placing and praying behind 4 masallahs!"
These were for you to reflect on, in answer to your questions. Read Surah Bakarah translation as well please - it is clear that our ulema are on the same footsteps as ulema of christians and jews. Hadith is a further confirmation.
Well you are trying very hard to distract. Why dont we start reflecting on other issues after dealing with the first one.
Secondly, where is it mentioned in Quran that our ulema are on the same footsteps as Ulema of christian and jews?
Thirdly, you cant prove anything from Hadith because all Ahadith were transmitted by dead babas, who were spreading Tafarkah in their days, according to you.
I have quoted from Quran and Hadith so far, and given evidence of gustakhis in sufi books (there are many more I can quote). What evidence have you presented so far? I don't see any references anywhere.
Do Quran and Hadith support your claim that Aima Arba started Tafarkah in Ummah? Or do they support your claim that everyone associated with Ahl us sunnah is Biddati? And regarding evidence from sufi books, we are not discussing Sufis. I dont know why you bring them again and again?
I do not need to present evidence when I didnt make any claim. Did I claimed anything? Did I accused anyone of spreading Tafarkah? Moreover, you could deny the facts which I have quoted, but you didn't denied anything. I have demanded evidence from you because I am denying your arguments on factual grounds.
Were those not Sahaba once who became khwarij?
What? Khwarij who emerged during Khilafat of Ameer ul Momeneen A. S were Ashab un Nabi? That is a revelation to me, I must say. Again, a wild claim without any evidence.
Were those not Sahaba once who became the 'bagi jammat calling him to jahanam' - there's Hadith that Hazrat Ali (AS) called them 'bagi jammat' as well? Were those not Sahaba once who followed fake prophets during Hazrat Abu Bakar (RA) time? You want names now, is that it?
Again, refer to the earlier Hadith I quoted. I shouldn't need to spell things out for you - you are not 10yrs old who needs word by word name by name year by year history class!
One more. Sahih Muslim, 4776. Read.
Still, you haven't answered my question? Why dont you answer the question directly? Come out straight man, state your beliefs clearly. Do you think that every Sahabi who was involved in fighting was spreading Tafarkah? (Naoz o Billah)
Secondly, those who followed fake Prophet were Mutadeen and they were dealt with accordingly. No one in Muslim Ummah consider them Sahaba and still you got the courage to equate Ashab e Rasool to Murtadeen.
Thirdly, why are you quoting narrations of dead babas? The same dead babas who were disciples of Aima e Arba. First you declare them Tafarkah baz and then you start following their narrations. Strange! I must say.
I am being selective in answering your questions as you are randomly jumping all over. In answer to this one, just go read one Hadith: Sahih Muslim, 861.
You are selective because you are dodging and sidetracking the discussion. First you accuse someone, when I demand evidence, you start accusing another person.
How can you trust Hadith which was transmitted by a disciple of Aima e Arba? Why are you trusting narrations of Dead babas? (who you hate so much). How can we trust narrations of sectarian babas?
Deoband group is a sub-sect of Hanafi sect - yes? Read all of above .. you wanted evidence, is this not enough or more is required?
I'll get you the evidence of forced divorce (under life threatening situation) - even now Hanafi ulema consider it to be a valid divorce. Ironically majority of the Hanafi followers don't know this when questioned!
What deoband and for that matter Masail of Talak have anything to do with your claim? I dont need evidence of forced divorce, you just need to prove your above mentioned claims.
Now lets come to the thing which you have copy pasted from the internet.
"A Certain Sufi group by the name of Deoband has been using the name of imam abu hanifa to a great extent in order to hide their innovations, kufr and shirk."
You and the people who you follow are doing the same Tafarkah Bazi which you accuse to others like Sahaba, Aima e Arba and Ahl us Sunnah. Why dont you apply Quranic injunction of tafarkah on these people? Or its only reserved for Sahaba and Aima e Arba (Naoz o Billah)
Re forced divorce in Hanafism .. These lot equated divorce in jest (joke) with divorce by force and gave fatwas! Idiot at the end went as far as saying that forced divorce is the same as giving it with free will!
Digest this now .. you asked for it.
No bro, I didnt asked for evidence on issue of force divorce and what hanfis have written about it. You are again sidetracking by copy pasting unrelated material.
Quoted:
Imam al-Mawsili (Allah have mercy on him) states:
“The divorce issued by a person who is forced (mukrah) is effective….because he intended the divorce but did not want it to occur, thus he is similar to the one who pronounced the divorce in jest.” (al-Ikhtiyar li ta’lil al-Mukhtar, 2/154)
The great Hanafi jurist, Imam al-Haskafi (Allah have mercy on him) states:
“Divorce will occur when it is pronounced by a husband who has reached puberty (baligh) and is sane (aqil)…even if he is a slave or is forced, for divorce pronounced by a forced person is valid, but not his admittance to issuing a divorce (m: meaning, if one was forced to admit that he had divorced, then that will not be a valid admittance).” (See: Radd al-Muhtar, 3/235)
This ruling is based on the famous Hadith narrated by Sayyiduna Abu Hurayra (Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “There are three things which, whether taken seriously or in jest, are treated as serious (and the effect of them occur in all circumstances): Marriage, divorce and taking one’s wife back (raj’a).” (Sunan Abu Dawud, no. 2188, Sunan Tirmidhi, no. 1184 & Sunan Ibn Majah, no. 2039)
Shaykh Zafar Ahmad al-Usmani (Allah have mercy on him) states in his exceptional work, I’la al-Sunan:
“In this (the above) Hadith, there is signification that the divorced pronounced by an individual in jest is valid, thus it implies that divorce will occur in every situation where the one pronouncing the divorce has a free will in speech (m: as opposed to someone who was overcome by sleep, insanity, etc where he has no will and no choice in his action), even though if he does not intend the outcome. Hence, an individual forced to pronounce a divorce is like the above, in that he utters the divorce with his free will but does not intend the outcome, as the one divorcing in jest does the same.” (I’la al-Sunan, 11/176-177)
Thus, a divorce pronounced by the husband when he is forced and compelled by his parents, friends or any other person will stand, regardless of the nature of force used. According to the other major schools of Islamic law, however, a divorce out of force is not considered to be valid.
End Quote!
Why you are quoting irrelevant material? Are we discussing forced divorce? Ya Allah!
So sly these lot are. 'free will in speech' to validate a divorce ... a man with a sword over his neck does have free will to speak (as long as he is not gagged) but that's extreme duress. Once one figures out how these lot twists things using language, it's easy to figure them out. Jews are masters of this type of manipulation.
By this lot you mean Mawsli, Haskafi and Zafar ahmed Usmani? Or by this lot you mean everyone who follows Fiqh e Hanfi?
Also to add, what was the need of Al-Maswili to issue this fatwa so early in Islamic history - for that, one needs to study history and determine what was going on (with powerful/kings etc forcing men of good looking women to divorce them) and Mr Al-Maswili was obliging. Or maybe he was under duress ... is fatwa under duress valid?
Ohh man, why you are focusing on Al-Mawsli? Why dont you focus your attention on Aima e Arba, as according to you they were responsible for starting Tafarkah. You have big fish to catch here.
I am encouraging you to study history for quite some time now. But I dont know why you are not paying attention. Let’s study history and exclude Aima e Arba and their disciples from Asma ur Rijjal. Thats the only way to purify Deen. نعوذ باللہ من ھفوات الجاحلین
