Shaikh Hammaad al-Ansaaree's encounter with Maududi

Shaikh Hammaad al-Ansaaree's 

encounter with Maududi

I visited Maududi (Abul-A’laa Al-Maududi) along with some brothers during the course of his stay in Riyadh and he was in the hotel ‘bat-haa’ so we entered upon him and he was praying the ‘Asr prayer, so I began observing his prayer. So when he finished I said to him:
‘This prayer of yours needs reviewing, for you do not raise your hands, nor do you relax (be at ease) and other than that’

So he said: ‘I am Hanafee in Madhhab’.

So I said to him: ‘this is more overwhelming than the first; since it is impermissible for you to say that, and you are above such a statement. We had come to think from your writings that you are a free-thinker[1], but it has become apparent to us that you are a constricted thinker.’ Then I said to him: ‘indeed Imaam Aboo Haneefah is the one that you blindly follow; yet who are the ones that Imaam Aboo Haneefah blindly followed?’

He remained silent, and Allaah's Aid is sought.

__________________________

[1] See the book; The Methodology of the Prophets in calling to Allaah by Shaikh Rabee’ bin Haadee page: 157 onwards for detail of this. [Translators note]

Shaykh Hammaad al-Ansaaree
Majmoo' fee tarjumah Hamaad Al-Ansaaree volume 2 page 604
Translated by Aboo Haatim Muhammad Farooq

Source: http://www.fatwaislam.com/fis/index.cfm?scn=fd&ID=408

Ayat Al-Shaytan Khomeini: Seeking Aid From the Dead (And Stones and Mud) Is Not Shirk

Ayat Al-Shaytan Khomeini: Seeking Aid From

the Dead (And Stones and Mud) Is Not Shirk

Seeking aid from the living or the dead in that in which they have no power or capability is a clear instance of shirk (polytheism, assocation of partners with Allaah in worship), the greatest of all sins. The books of the Shia are full of this and it resembles the way of the extreme Sufis. The Shia and Sufis have a historical connection with each other and grave worship entered the Sufis through the Shia.


Seeking Aid From the Dead and From Stones and Mud is Not Shirk

Al-Khomeini writes in Kashf al-Asrar, in response to the objection, "It can be said that Shirk is to request a need from the dead because there is not benefit or harm (that can arise) from a dead prophet or imaam, because they are but like inanimate (lifeless) things" the following:


"And the answer to this presumption: First: You did not explain to us the meaning of shirk and kufr such that we can consider everything we desire to be shirk according to your opinion. And after it has become clear that shirk is to seek something from someone besides Allaah upon the consideration that that (other person or thing) is a Lord (rabb). But whatever is besides that is not shirk. There is no difference in that between the living and the dead, until even if you seek need from a stone or mud (in the ground), it is not shirk, even though it is a vain and false action."


...........................................................................................................................................
This justification here is the very same as the one used by Sufis who claim that directing worship to others besides Allaah, from the loftiest and greatest of them, supplication (du'a) and seeking rescue (istighaathah) and the likes, is not shirk, until and unless the person believes in Ruboobiyyah for the one that he is invoking. And this is opposed to the understanding of Shirk one gains from the Qur'an at even just a cursory glance.


Scan of the Quote

http://www.shia.bs/articles/jmfhm-ayat-al-shaytan-khomeini-seeking-aid-from-the-dead-is-not-shirk.cfm

The Mufti of Saudi Arabia about al-’Arifi’s view of the injustice of the leader

The Mufti of Saudi Arabia

about al-’Arifi’s view of the

injustice of the leader

Scholar: ´Allâmah ´Abdul-´Azîz bin ´Abdillâh Âl ash-Shaykh
Source: http://www.sahab.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=129141
Reference: Darulhadith.com
http://aFatwa.com

What was said by al-’Arifi:

Host: How do we combine between the command of the prophet (sallâ Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) to hear and obey the leader even if he flogs your back and takes your property1 and what the people are doing today? al-’Arifi: “There is of course a difference if the ruler attacks one individual. Muslim reports that the prophet (sallâ Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: “Hear and obey even if he flogs your back and takes your property.” This is regarding if the ruler attacks one individual that he has a problem with. Otherwise the ruler is good. But in this case he comes to one person and flogs his back and takes his property. It should be said to this person not to rise up and incite towards rebellion or rebel with armor against him. For the disadvantage of this deed is greater than him having flogged you. Look whether you can take your money from him in a different way. What we are speaking of is if the ruler takes money from the entire population. 1: “…You should hear and obey the ruler, even if he flogs your back and takes your wealth, then still hear and obey.”” [Reported by Muslim (Eng. trans. 3/1029/no.4554).]

The Mufti of Saudi Arabia:

Question: Does the Hadîth of the prophet (sallâ Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam):

“Hear and obey even if he flogs your back and takes your property.”

only apply to individual cases and that it does not apply to the general injustice or does it cover all injustice?

‘Abdul-’Azîz Âl ash-Shaykh: It is general. It is obligatory to obey the ruler even if he is sinful. It is obligatory to obey. Through the obedience, the matters and conditions are managed correctly, even if there were to exist errors. However, this error should be looked at in proportion to the all-encompassing prosperity.

As for rebellion and disobedience against the rulers, then only Allâh knows what tribulation and mess it all leads to. Draw lessons from some Islâmic countries that suffer from revolts and which they call as “The Arab spring”. Just look at the tribulations that have resulted from them!

O brothers! To hear and obey the ruler is a way to reach a stable, secure, safe and good life. Disobedience and discord for the best of the individuals is extremely harmful. We have to hear and obey and believe that we are obliged to hear and obey, strengthen, stand by their side and defend the rulers we have pledged allegiance to in accordance with the Qur’ân and Sunnah and not wish them and our country evil.

Fanaticism to Individuals in Spite of Error

 Fanaticism to Individuals in Spite of Error

54] Question: Some people, may Allaah guide them, sanctify certain

individuals and fanatically cling to their views. What is your advice

to them?

Answer: It is obligatory to follow the truth whoever it is with, and

not to follow individuals that oppose the truth.

Imaam Ahmad, may Allaah have mercy on him, said: I am amazed by a

people who know the chain of narration (of a hadeeth) and its

authenticity, yet they go by the opinion of Sufyaan.

And Allaah, the Most high, says: So let those who oppose his Command

(i.e. Sunnah) be warned, lest some fitnah (trial) should befall them

or a painful punishment be inflicted on them. [Surah An-Noor: 63]

Ibn Abbaas (radyAllaahu anhu) said: It is imminent that rocks will

descend upon you from the heavens I say Allah said and you say Abu

Bakr and Umar said.

So if this warning and threat is with regard to following the most

virtuous of people after the prophets without proof, then how much

more so for following one who is neither here nor there (i.e. a

nobody), such as those who are not known to have knowledge or virtue

but yet are proficient in rambling speech?

Shaikh Saalih bin Fawzaan Al-Fawzaan

[Al-Ajwibah Al-Mufeedah: pg. 108

(60) Question: What is the ruling on someone who loves a scholar or a

caller and says: I love him very much, I don’t want to hear about

anyone refuting him and I will take his words even if they are in

opposition to the proof because this Shaikh is more aware of the proof

than we are.

Answer: This is ta’asub (fanaticism), which is detested and condemned,

and it is not permissible.

We love the scholars, all praise be to Allaah, and we love the callers

to the way of Allaah. However, if one of them errs in an issue, then

we clarify the truth with regard to this issue, with the evidence. And

this does not detract from the love or status held for the one being

refuted.

Imaam Maalik, may Allaah have mercy on him, said: There is none of us,

except that he can refute or be refuted, except for the one buried in

this gravemeaning Allaah’s Messenger.

So when we refute one of the scholars or one of the noble

personalities, this does not mean that we have a hatred for him or

that we are belittling him. Rather, we are clarifying what is correct.

This is why when one of the scholars saw that one of his colleagues

erred, he said: So and so is our beloved friend, however the truth is

more beloved to us than him. This is the correct way.

And do not understand from the refutation of a scholar in an issue he

erred in to mean that it is a belittling of him or hatred for him. On

the contrary, the scholars have not ceased to refute one other

(throughout history), but in spite of that, they are brothers holding

love for one another.

It is not permissible for us to accept entirely everything an

individual says whether he is correct or wrong because this is

ta’assub (blind fanaticism).

The (only) one whom we can take all of his sayings and not leave off

any of them is Allaah’s Messenger, because he is the conveyer from his

Lord and he does not speak from his own desire. As for those other

than him, then they can err at times and be correct at times. Even if

they are from the most virtuous of people and they are Mujtahids (i.e.

scholars), they can err at times and be correct at times.

There is no one that is protected from error except Allaah’s Messenger.

We must know this. Furthermore, we do not conceal the error out of our

love for such and such individual. Rather it is upon us to expose and

clarify the error. The Prophet (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said:

The Religion is Sincerity. We said: To who? He (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa

sallam) said: To Allaah, to His Book, to His Messenger, the Muslim

leaders and their common folk.

Clarifying the error falls under Sincerity to everyone. But as for

concealing the error, then this is in opposition to the Sincerity.

Shaikh Saalih bin Fawzaan Al-Fawzaan

[Al-Ajwibah Al-Mufeedah: pg. 120-122]

[To read this text in Spanish language, click here]