Re: Blood of scholars has no value in karachi
Junaid001: First of all, it is nice that you want to discuss, as we learn from discussion, obviously discussion with open mind is best way of knowing and learning. Now coming to your post:
I wish you read my post carefully as than you would have got answer to many things you wrote.
Anyhow coming to your post, I think you are confusing fiqh with sect. Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki, Shafi and Jafri are not sect. They are all fiqhs.
Fiqh is to do with laws.
Sect is related to Aqeedah (beliefs), though sometime Aqeedah could affect fiqah.
Shariah are the laws coming from Quran and Sunnah. They are mostly broad based and there is little difference about Shariah laws amongst all fiqhs.
All differences in laws between different Fiqhs (or Mazhab) are in Fiqh laws. Fiqh laws are driven from Shariah laws (coming from Quran and Sunnah), and laws that came due to Ijtihad and Ijmah.
Example: It is Shariah law that a husband can give talaq to his wife. It is also Shariah law that 3 talaq makes divorce final, and after divorce there is period of iddat (3 months)
Now fiqhs make things different. For instance:
Hanafi fiqh: 3 talaq can be given by husband at one sitting and without any witness, followed by iddat. Though, preferred method is to give talaq at different occasions with time period in between.
Jafira Fiqh: 3 Talaq has to be given on three different occasions and in front of at least two witnesses. Iddat follows. In Fiqh Jafria, if one gives as many talaq on one sitting, it would be considered as one talaq (in Hanfi fiqh, Talaq would become final once number reaches 3).
Similar differences are there with other fiqhs. For instance:
Hanafi fiqh: There is Zakat on gold regardless of the purpose it is possessed.
Maliki fiqh: There is no Zakat on gold or gold jewellery that is kept for personal use, and not for business (this is different than Hanafi fiqah)
As for Aqeedah … I am leaving Deobandis, Wahabis, etc out for a moment, as then we will find many differences … on the other hand, I have already mentioned their aqeedah (what I know) in my previous post:
Most Aqeedah of Shia and Sunni are same. Though there are some differences, for instance:
Sunni Aqeedah is that, Imams Shia talk about were guided but not Masoom and that only Prophets are Masoom (one who could not do sin or wrong)
Shia Aqeedah is that, Imams Shia talk about were/are Masoom (could not do sin or wrong).
Sunni Aqeedah is that, Imam Mehdi would appear during end time and would lead Muslims.
Shia Aqeedah: Imam Mehdi is already born, is present and guide selected people, and would come during end time to lead Muslims.
Political differences (though it is nothing to do with Aqeedah, but it is major difference):
Sunni believe is that, first 4 Khalifs were correctly there and that they were there as will of Allah (and that is obvious, as without will of Allah, nothing happens).
Shia believe is that Hz Ali (RA) should have been Khalifa, and that others deprived his right, and thus were usurpers.
Spurious differences: Most Sunni believe that anything that is done by first 4 Khalifs is part of Islam, thus Muta that (according to some hadith) was abolished by Umar (RA) or Tarawiah that got started by Umar (RA) is part of Islam. Shia reject this modification claiming that Umar (RA) had no right to modify Islam, and thus consider Muta as part of Islam whereas Tarawiah as not part of Islam.
Even though Sunni believe that Ali (RA) was wali-Allah, they do not make this believe a necessary part of faith, whereas Shia does.
As for Deobandis, even though they claim to follow Hanafi fiqah just like Sunnis, they have entirely different aqeedahs (as what I mentioned in my earlier posts).
Now few questions that you asked:
[quote]
before if one student wanted to switch from one madhab to other he wasnt allowed to do so and asked to do his best where he is because all belived all are right.
[/quote]
That was never true. People should follow what they believe, not what is imposed on them (and they are personally responsible of their beliefs on judgment day).
Anyhow, for most Muslims who have no knowledge or time to search and do not have enough knowledge or intelligence to do ijtihad, they should follow accepted ways that they inherited, and that is to stick with fiqah they were born with. This is not because they have to, but because it is safe way for them (to get guided by laws formulated by past scholars). On the other hand, if one is convinced (not being opportunist, but feel convinced about a law to be truer), then they can pick and choose fiqah laws from different schools.
[quote]
now barelvis and deobandis and subsect/school of thought from branch of Hanafi madhab are creation of subcontinent i wont call them right but there is rivalry and hate for each other in their beliefs and in that sometimes both went too far.
so as for aqeedah both have sae foundation but stuck in Noor and Bashar rest you can judge.
as for wahabis they came out of hanbali school of thought and you cant say they are wrong or deviant unless you are blind barelvi because it challenges it to the core.
[/quote]
Deobandi is created in subcontinent, but Barelvis are not. Barelvis is just a name given to Sunnis in subcontinent just to differentiate them from Deobandis who also claim themselves Sunnis.
As for Wahabis and Deobandis, they claim they are following fiqah of Imam Hambal and Imam Abu Hanifa, but that is nothing to do with Aqeedah, as fiqh is not Aqeedah.
[quote]
frankly speaking i am not deobandi nor barelvi but i find some explanations shirk, fasad, and errors probably before becoming practising i was stuck in same arguments.
i also hate the way you are projecting one as truth and other as lie.
whereas i find many errors in barelvi ageedah as you had mentioned.
starting with what i know and i think is right based on my understanding.
[/quote]
I am not projecting one as truth and other as lie. I only put down differences in Aqeedah of Sunni with Aqeedah of Deobandis, and later justified Aqeedah that is mine (something I have to as my right ... and I would appreciate if others would justify theirs so that I can also see their argument and learn).
Coming to 3 points you mentioned:
[quote]
1) firstly if you say deobandis belive Allah is sitting on chair is wrong and abhorrant, no ulema can claim that may be you heard somewhere or read where it was meant just to describe.
[/quote]
It may be shocking to you, but that is fact (as far as I know), that is, Wahabis as well as Deobandis believe that Allah is sitting on his chair somewhere in heaven.
Actually, even though both claim that Allah is above sky sitting on chair, Wahabi are antrhopomorphists (Mujasamiah ... that is, one who believes Allah is like human and has body parts like 2 hands, 2 feet, fingers, face, thighs, eyes, etc ... or in other words, have made Allah an idol having human shape) but deobandis avoid that.
Sunni (and Shia too) believe that all such body parts mentioned in Quran are metaphorical, and that Allah has no form as form needs space to determine perimeter of body, and Allah is beyond space. In same way, to sit on chair an entity needs body and perimeter of that body, that needs space, and Allah is beyond space as space itself is creation of Allah.
You can ask Deobandi Ulemas, but if you want to see yourself (as I am putting down an example here), just pick up Urdu translation of Quran by Ashraf Ali Thanvi or translation by any Deobandi Scholars (or Wahabi scholars), and check translation of ayah:
Quran 50:16 (Yusuf Ali) It was We Who created man, and We know what dark suggestions his soul makes to him: for We are nearer to him than (his) jugular vein.
You will see how they would add in front of 'Jugular vein' or in front of 'nearer to him' … (by our knowledge), (through angel), etc … as if Allah lacks ability to say clearly and needed their input to clear things.
Reality is that, Allah says that he is closer than Jugular vein and that contradicts their beliefs (as to them, Allah is far above in sky sitting on chair), so just to justify their belief that if Allah is saying he is closer to a person’s jugular vein, they add (put their words in between sayings of Allah), through Angel or knowledge that Allah gets through angel, so to change the meaning in accordance to their beliefs.
[quote]
2) as for their belief on prophet i find them perfectly logically and correct he was a human and himself said, and he passed away and his grave is in mediana but he was special Human being whom Allah loved, we love we love him and respect him more than we do for our parents.
does it matter whether he was basher or noor what matters is his message.
[/quote]
Prophet (SAW) was human, no doubt. But what is human?
Human is actually a body made of clay, that is immaterial. Anyhow, in this respect, Prophet (SAW) was Bashar, but what about his Ruh?
As far as ‘Ruh’ inside a human is concerned, that is real person. These Ruhs are of different types and have different status. For instance, you yourself have a Ruh in human body, but if Allah put your Ruh in camel than you would become camel, still your Ruh would be same.
Similarly, as far as body is concerned, Prophet (SAW) was human while in this world, but his Ruh, that is real him, was something no human can equal, neither any angles could come close. It is this Ruh of Prophet (SAW) that we talk about, that is Ruh full of Noor, Ruh that was created by Allah much before Allah created anything.
[quote]
3) as for ayats for muslims and non muslims is again wrong please go through islam and history again.
ayats came to prophet sometimes in general and sometimes for particular event, there is nothing like some one referring one ayat for x and one for Y may be you heard a half argument or case whose backgroung you dont know.
[/quote]
I think you need to read Quran carefully. Anyhow, let me give you an example.
Allah talks about Kuffar who use to worship idols. They use to ask idols considering them as God or entity who had authority and power of their own and act independent of Allah. So, Allah tells kuffars that not to ask these idols as they have no power and could give them nothing. Such Ayahs cannot apply to Muslims, because Muslims never ask any idol considering them as God (with their own power and authority). When Muslims go to pious people, be they dead or alive, to ask, these Kharjees accuse them of idolatry using such ayahs that came for Kuffars.
You would say that why such ayahs cannot apply on Muslims?
Simple reason is that, Muslims continuously confesses that they do not believe on anything as God except Allah, so that means, whoever they ask, they ask as entity Allah may have given power to fulfil their needs, but not God with power of their own. It is different than Kuffar, who use to ask idols believing that their idols have power of their own.
[quote]
how anyone knows whether it was part of islam at time or prophet or not but just to increase your knowledge Kufar at the time of jahiliya used to do tawaf so now what would you say about tawaf now.
Does it matter whether it was religion or not at that time, simply consider it a though a principle.
[/quote]
I wish you should have read my post carefully. What I wrote is that, all what Muslims practice as anniversary events during ‘Hajj’ was not made obligatory on prophets (or person) who initially done those act. As for kuffars of Arabia practicing same acts before Islam, then it is fine, as they were themselves not originator of those acts [it was Ibrahim (AS) and Bibi Hajra (AS) those acts got originated]. Later, children of Ismael (AS) started performing these act on anniversary is understandable.
[quote]
we people simply go out of limit and do shirk get errand in love of religion, prophet or a person that is what had happened.
[/quote]
A Muslim cannot do Shirk. Apart of hadith where Prophet (SAW) said that he is not worried that Muslims would do shirk, there is another reason for that too, that is, Kalma-e-Shahadah every Muslim reads in daily prayers, and believes on Kalma-e-Shahadah too.
Believing that there is ‘no god but Allah’ means, whatever a person does, that person cannot do Shirk (it is impossible thing to do with such belief). So, whatever any person from outside perceives, if a Muslims ask some entity for anything, he would only ask that entity not as God but as creation of Allah (as, with believe that ‘there is no god but Allah’, that entity could not be Allah for that person).
[quote]
mostly barelvis have one problem with wahabis and deobandis, that is they dont permit asking from graves i personally used to pray at mazars but alhmdullilah not now i do offer fatiha.
[/quote]
Barelvis have no problem with Wahabis or Deobandis. It is Wahabis and Deobandis who have problems with Islam, Prophet (SAW), Muslims of past and present, practices of Muslims, and their resting places (Mazars).
What right Deobandis and Wahabis have to permit or not permit Barelvis or anyone regarding anything they would like to do?Is it, just because these Wahabis and Deobandis do not agree with Barelvies due to their own (deviant) understanding and beliefs of Islam, they consider they have right to stop other Muslims practicing what other Muslims believe? What do they think of themselves, are they Allah or Prophet of Allah to judge Muslims and their beliefs?
It is theirs' these attitudes of ignorance (trying to become Thekadar of Islam and trying to impose their version of Islam over others using force) that is creating all fitna and fisad in Muslim world. I fear the day Muslims would start retaliating aggressively against them.