Brelvi and Deobandi fiqh (Do we need them?)

Society Religion & Philosophy
101

Re: Brelvi and Deobandi fiqh (Do we need them?)

nGenius, come to think of it, even some ignorant Barelvis have acccused Deoband to be agents of the "wahabis".. lol so ignorance goes both ways...!

Just stick to the pious ulema-e-haq and you will not fall in this trap of ignorance!

102

Peace cricketplaya

I think the way it should have been said is that 'ashari and maturidi scholars recognise athaari 'aqeedah as part of the ahl-us-Sunnah, whereas the athaari do not recognise any aqeedah other than their own to qualify.

It actually makes sense. Athaari is the most condensed version of aqeedah. All the elements in this are present in other two, however not all the elements in the other two are shared by Athaari. Consequently, Athaari is last aqeedah to be formulated and hence has the least following amongst the people in numbers. However, due to a number of reasons people are accepting athaari aqeedah more readily, however there are now waves of revitalised traditional movements that is counter-balancing the wahabi movement. Not to say any are wrong, but you can see where my preferences lie.

103

:biggthumb:

104

That makes sense now.

I guess it’s the same issue of ignorance that we have in subcontinent between the two hanafi groups. Where both don’t value the wisdom and opinion of their own scholars and continue on fighting for the sake of it. I guess same thing with the pseudo-salafis.

For example: Suhaib Webb says:
"…I consider myself aspiring to be an Athari,…Ahl-Sunna are three:

  1. Than Athari and their Imam is Imam Ahmed
  2. The Ashari’s and their Imam is Abu Hassan al-Ash’ari"
  3. The Maturidi’s and their Imam is Abu Masur al-Maturidi

http://www.suhaibwebb.com/blog/counseling/suhaib-where-do-you-stand-what-kind-of-muslim-are-you/

105

Million dollar question is .. how do you know who is a Pious Alim? In this age of self claimed Alims who are getting face time by using tv and youtube to increase their circle of inflence, it is getting harder and harder for general public to seprate an alim from a so-called-alim

I dont want to take names or disrepsect anyone but even in this forum, people often mention TV_Alims and quote them to back up their arguement. What gives man. Those people do not dress like Ulema (half of them are in suit and tie), they dont look like Ulema (hardly any beard), have no degrees from any Islamic institutions (a degree in Islamic history from Cambridge does not make you an alim people) but they confuse the heck out of people by claiming themselves to be Alim-e-deen.

106

You're right, a degree in Islamic History alone don't make you a scholar, you must study with the scholars in a traditional mannerand have ijaza from them.

107

Re: Brelvi and Deobandi fiqh (Do we need them?)

Ijaza is turning into a foreign concept in this day and age. All you need is permission from Google and you are all set to pass fatwaas :D

108

:D

109

isn’t it the way it should be?? :confused:

110

Bro, attend a few courses sponsored by salafi petro dollars and you'll receive your certification in fiqh of xyz.. Compile some more and you have your own madhab. Then you can indoctrinate more into the salafi line of thought and voila, soon enough we'll have billion madhabs. :D

"With every Muslim now a proud mujtahid, and with taqlid dismissed as a sin rather than a humble and necessary virtue, the divergent views which caused such pain in our early history will surely break surface again. Instead of four madhhabs in harmony, we will have a billion madhhabs in bitter and self-righteous conflict. No more brilliant scheme for the destruction of Islam could ever have been devised." - Abdal-Hakim Murad

111

as-salamu alaykum

Bismillah

[quote="“cricketplaya, post:3, topic:220514"”]

walaykum as-salam,

brother that is a pretty bold statement, you have to be kiddin’? Can you back that up?
[/quote]
brother, may Allah preserve you, how many salaf do you want me to quote you who rebuked the understanding of jahmiyyah, mu’tazilis, murjis, upon which the whole math-hab of ash’aris and maturidis is based!? this is going off-topic let’s discuss it in private, please pm me if you want to discuss it further, jazak Allah khayran

akh, how exactly? I don’t want to stir up this discussion because others, akh cricketplaya, maybe even yourself brother don’t know much about these sorts of topics. Therefore, I don’t want confuse anyone or corrupt their fitrah. However, what you’re saying is not correct. And we can take this in private insha’Allah if you wish to discuss this further.

that is not correct again: all of the salaf were atharis, almost all of the hanabilah & most of the shafis have been atharis throughout history. Hanafi math-hab were early on hijacked by mu’tazilis and then later on maturidis but still many of the early hanafis were atharis. I don’t know much about malikis. Still this day, almost all hanablis, many shafis, malikis and hanafis are atharis. Even if we agree that asha’ris etc have been more in numbers still it doesn’t prove what one may trying to prove.

and Allah knows best

112

walaykum as-salam

bro, is this infighting amongst the laymen based on the ignorance of the aqeeda of the other and sometimes ignorance of their own aqeeda as well? or is there really a big difference? please explain via PM if it’s really sensitive. I agree on aqeedah tahawiyya just so you know.

113

Re: Brelvi and Deobandi fiqh (Do we need them?)

wa 'alaikumusalam

This statement of "all of the salaf were atharis" is false. Athari is not an established school of aqeedah.

Imam Maturidi and Imam Ash'ari are the names of Imams who pioneered their respective schools of 'aqeedah. On the other hand there is no pioneer of the Athari aqeedah, because it was not needed. Both Maturidi and Ash'ari are "speculative" schools however Athari is "non-speculative" which means all of the elements of "athari" are contained inside the other two, but extra "speculative" or "deductive" or "derived" elements are added on to the others.

Imam At-Tahawi was the first person to try to reconcile differences between the aqeedahs and create a common ground. This worked for a while but then later in the years the amount of common ground reduced causing the "non-seculative" elements to become condensed.

The people from which most references are taken in the formulation of the Athari aqeedah are from Imam Ibn-e-Taymiyyah, and a line of scholars in that persuasion.

Each generation brings more and more refinements to the Athari aqeedah based on who are "unlike" the salaf.

The commonality between the salaf and the athari is that both did not have an established school of theology. The salaf did not need it, because either they were the authority or they could ask their specific questions to RasoolAllah (SAW) directly. They never called themselves Athari, because that would be nonesensical, Athari comes from the meaning "to leave it alone", so this title comes as a reaction to those people who were criticised for introducing "deductive" mechanisms found in philosophy - i.e. Kalam. As a result those people who were anti-Kalam (anti-deductive) called themselves Athari - i.e. those who leave it alone.

The formulation of Athari as a named aqeedah came after this phenomenon. Although the Athari believe that they have the same aqeedah as the Salaf there is no way to prove or disprove this.

Also, Atharis have popularised themselves as the main combatants to the Muta'zilis, but that is not true - the Ash'aris were. The Ash'aris felt they had to use the tools of Kalam to defeat the Muta'zilis in their own game. They used the methods of "philosophy" to support traditions. Atharis could not have been in this position because they refrained from such discussions (calling them wrong) and resorted to b*****ng instead. Maturidis were like cautious forms Ash'aris and eventually followed in the Kalam sciences. The main difference between the Maturidis and the Ash'aris is that the former believes that humans have no excuse not to follow 'good', but the Ash'aris say that guidance can only come through exposure and hence are more lenient on the 'non-Muslims'.

The first aqeedah that I was exposed to was the Athari one documented by Al-Uthaymein.

I have studied At-Tahawiya and now want to study the two traditional ones in more depth. After having sat with the people and studied with them I know exactly who are of what aqeedah so it is insulting my experience to say that most of the 4 madhabs are Athari. Please provide names of scholars from each if you are so certain.

114

Re: Brelvi and Deobandi fiqh (Do we need them?)

^no offence brother pysch, but you haven't even touched the tip of this issue. Due to this reason, your response is full of grave mistakes. Like I said, if you want to continue, we can do so in private but if you really want then I may be able to do in public but start another topic. barakAlahu feeka

115

Re: Brelvi and Deobandi fiqh (Do we need them?)

This thread was about Brelwis and Deobandis, Taliban and aga Khanis both are political and need to be discussed in Politics forum.

Thanks

116

:sleep2:

117

Re: Brelvi and Deobandi fiqh (Do we need them?)

[QUOTE]

"With every Muslim now a proud mujtahid, and with taqlid dismissed as a sin rather than a humble and necessary virtue, the divergent views which caused such pain in our early history will surely break surface again. Instead of four madhhabs in harmony, we will have a billion madhhabs in bitter and self-righteous conflict. No more brilliant scheme for the destruction of Islam could ever have been devised." - Abdal-Hakim Murad

[/QUOTE]

why do we need only 4 madhabs only ? who gave this rule ? the Prophet ?

118

It just turned out this way.

119

Yep!

It did. So it should be accepted as such?

Allah the merciful wanted this way right?

120

Alhamdulillah, difference of opinion is a mercy. The 4 madhabs are sound. So yes we should accept them and follow. Not splitting up into billion madhabs like we see today. That is jahalat.