The Collective Fatwa against Daish. 29th All India Ahle Hadees Conference. Refresher Course. 30th All India Ahle Hadees Conference. Markazi Jamiat Ahle Hadees Hind Ahlehadees Manzil 4116, Urdu bazar, Jama Masjid, Delhi 110006. Phone: +91-07.
. Pages.
Categories. Categories.
(13). (17). (15). (1).
(42). (55). (113). (49).
(9). (53). (34). (6).
(7). (114). (11).
(11). (85). (32). (73).
(2). (3). (3).
(15). (8). (45). (8).
(2). (12). (63). (81).
(2). (11). (4). (27). (28).
(2). (1). (4). (5). (14). (1). (16).
(25). (32). (27). (16). (4). (2).
(26). (77).
(17). (1). (17). (10).
(1). (46). (71). (3).
(33). (113). (46).
(14). (18). (39). (3). (5). (57).
(8). (5). (7).
(11). (24). (1).
(5). (19). (30).
(4). (16). (9). (112). (11). (11). (20).
(9). (12). (32). (59).
(3). (12). (4). (5). (3). Archives.
By Yoginder SikandThe recent meeting of the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) at Kanpur had raised considerable expectations that the ‘ulama associated with it, who exercise a powerful influence on Muslim opinion, would finally declare the obnoxious practice of triple talaq in one sitting to be null and void, and, therefore, illegal. That, however, was not to be. In fact, it so transpires that the question of banning the practice of triple talaq was not even on the agenda of the ‘ulama gathered at Kanpur.
Leading Deobandi and Barelvi scholars, whose schools represent the majority among the Indian ‘ulama, see the practice as Islamically valid, and as an integral part of the shari’ah. Hence, they insist, the practice cannot be scrapped, as that would allegedly be tantamount to interfering with divinely revealed laws. This opinion appears to be widely shared among the ‘ulama associated with the AIMPLB, which explains the refusal of the Board to ban the practice despite considerable public pressure to do so.The argument that the practice of triple talaq in one sitting is an integral part of the shari’ah is hotly contested by a minority among the ‘ulama, such as those belonging to the Ahl-i Hadith, among the Sunnis, as well as by the Shi’as.
This clearly points to the diversity of understandings of what precisely constitutes the shari’ah, and to element of human effort in the construction of notions of the shari’ah itself, a fact that the conservative ‘ulama themselves are reluctant to acknowledge. The refusal of the AIMPLB to ban the practice of triple talaq clearly suggests that one can hardly expect the ‘ulama associated with the Board to take any bold step in the future that might threaten to undermine the patriarchy that is sought to be provided with a suitable ‘Islamic’ gloss. The Deobandi ‘ulama who dominate the Board are carefully groomed in a tradition of extreme patriarchy, as is evident from even a cursory reading of the fatwas and writings of their leading scholars. Hope for reform, therefore, lies in the writings and arguments of Islamic scholars from other schools of Islamic thought and jurisprudence.One such school is the Ahl-i Hadith, representing a small minority among the Indian Muslims. In contrast to the Deobandis and the Barelvis, the Ahl-i Hadith insist that Muslims need not be bound by jurisprudential precedent of the early ‘ulama, but, instead, should rely solely on the Qur’an and the genuine (sahih) Prophetic traditions.
They are rigid scripturalists and extreme literalists, sharing much in common with the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia. Although their position on a range of issues is thoroughly reactionary and obscurantist (leading Ahl-i Hadith scholars are on record as hailing the Wahhabi rulers of Saudi Arabia as representing the only ‘true’ Islamic regime in the world), on the question of triple talaq they adopt a somewhat progressive stance, declaring the practice as unequivocally illegal.The Mumbai-based Maulana Mukhtar Ahmad Nadvi is a leading Indian Ahl-i Hadith scholar. In his recently published Urdu book titled ‘Talaq: Kitab-o Sunnat Ki Roshni Mai Tafsili Jai’za’ (‘ Divorce: A Detailed Study in the Light of the Qur’an and the Prophetic Practice’)1, he writes that the practice of triple talaq was sternly condemned by the Prophet himself. The Prophet, he says, declared divorce to be the ‘most hateful’ of things allowed by God. He argues that Islam pays great stress to harmonious conjugal relations, and quotes a hadith or saying of the Prophet in which Muhammad is said to have told his followers that the best among them was he who was best for, or towards, his wife. He then goes on to describe the method of divorce laid down in the Qur’an and enforced by the Prophet. In case a dispute arises between husband and wife, Nadvi writes, they should first try to solve it through dialogue.
If this does not work, the Qur’an instructs them to appoint one arbiter each from the family of the husband and the wife, who can try and resolve their differences. Only when this fails should they take the drastic measure of divorce.In the Prophet’s time, Nadvi explains, divorce took the form of the husband uttering the word talaq three times, spaced over three consecutive menstrual cycles of the wife.
In this period, the husband was to abstain from sexual intercourse with his wife, but was to keep her in the house and provide for her. In this way, the husband was given adequate time to seriously reconsider his decision to divorce. The first two talaqs could be revoked by the husband, but if the third talaq was pronounced during or at the end of the third menstrual cycle the divorce was considered final and irrevocable. If the husband had sexual intercourse with his wife before uttering the third talaq in the third menstrual cycle, the previous talaqs were nullified. Likewise, if he uttered the talaq at a time when his wife was menstruating it would not be considered as valid. In this regard, Nadvi relates that once a companion of the Prophet gave talaq to his wife at a time when she was in menstruation.
On learning this, the Prophet ordered that he take back his wife, and did not recognise the talaq. Nadvi also writes that at the time of the Prophet if a man uttered the word talaq more than once in one sitting, it was considered as just a single talaq.This being the method of divorce at the time Prophet, it is considered to be in accordance with his sunnat or practice, and hence is called talaq-i sunnat. Since Muslims consider the Prophetic practice as a normative model for them to follow, Nadvi says, this is the method of divorce that they should adopt. No other method of divorce, he writes, can be considered binding as that would be a violation of the sunnat. Nadvi devotes considerable attention to the practice of triple talaq in one sitting, arguing that it has no sanction in the Qur’an and in the traditions of the Prophet. Being, in Islamic legal parlance, a bida’at or wrongful innovation, it is not part of the Prophet’s sunnat, and hence, cannot be considered as sanctioned as being in accordance with the shari’ah.
In this regard, Nadvi refers to a saying of the Prophet in which he strongly condemned all forms of bida’at, suggesting that those who created innovations in the faith were accursed by God. Since the practice of triple talaq in one sitting is a bida’at, he argues that those who practise or sanction it actually do so in violation of God’s will, and, hence, are condemnable in God’s eyes. In fact, he stresses, the Prophet explicitly condemned the practice of triple talaq. He writes that once, when the Prophet heard that one of his companions or sahaba had sought to divorce his wife in this way, he was enraged, and sternly admonished him, saying, ‘What, shall God’s book be played around with and I am present among you?’. Nadvi refers to another hadith, according to which once Rukana, a companion of the Prophet, pronounced three talaqs in one sitting but later repented. He approached the Prophet for help, and the Prophet told him that the three talaqs that he had given amounted only to a single talaq, and that, therefore, he could go back to his wife if he wanted to.
To bolster his argument about the illegality of three talaqs in one sitting Nadvi further adds that not a single instance is reported of such a form of talaq being accepted by the Prophet as constituting a final, irrevocable divorce.The talaq-i sunnat method, Nadwi writes, was followed in the Prophet’s time, and this was continued under his successor and the first caliph of the Sunnis, Abu Bakr. The second Sunni caliph, ‘Umar, too, followed this rule, but in the third year of his reign he is said to have modified it and to have made three talaqs in one sitting as legally binding and as constituting an irrevocable divorce.
If the couple divorced in this fashion wanted to reunite they could only do so through by resorting to what is called halala: the woman would have to marry another man, this marriage would have to be consummated, the woman would have to take a divorce from her second husband and only then could she remarry her first husband. The ‘ulama who continue to insist on the legality of this method of talaq, and who also sanction the practice of halala, rely essentially on this decision of ‘Umar.As a Sunni, Nadvi does not challenge ‘Umar’s decision directly, but in order to argue that this method of divorce has no sanction in Islam he insists that this innovation was simply ‘Umar’s own personal opinion or ijtihad, which cannot be held to supersede or overrule the explicit commandments of the Qur’an and the Prophet on divorce. He argues that ‘Umar intended this modification to be only a temporary measure, and simply as a means to address a novel situation that had arisen in his time when men were misusing their prerogative to divorce their wives.
It was, he writes, in order to stop men from abusing their right to talaq that ‘Umar decided to make three talaqs in one sitting as a final, irrevocable divorce. By doing so, he intended to warn men of the grave consequence of the break-up of their families if they misused their right to divorce. ‘Umar’s ruling was thus intended to protect women, rather than harass them, although this ruling is today being used precisely to serve the latter purpose. Nadvi insists that this constitutes a flagrant violation of Islam, and here quotes the Prophet as imploring for God’s wrath on those men who misuse their right to divorce.Nadvi opposes the view of many traditionalist scholars who claim that ‘Umar’s decision was unanimously agreed upon by all the sahaba or companions of the Prophet present.
He insists that ‘Umar’s decision does not constitute an ‘ijma or collective consensus of the sahaba, which is evoked as a principal source of law by the ‘ulama. He cites the instances of several leading sahaba who dissented from ‘Umar’s decision in this regard, including, and most importantly, ‘Ali, the fourth Caliph of the Sunnis and the first Shi’a Imam, ‘Abdullah ibn Abbas, Zubair ibn Awam and ‘Abd ur-Rahman ibn Awf.
Following them, several of their followers, too, differed with ‘Umar on this issue. In fact, Nadwi writes, there has never been any ‘ijma on three talaqs in one sitting as constituting a final, irrevocable divorce. Numerous ‘ulama down the ages to the present-day have opposed this position, strongly criticising those ‘ulama who hold the contrary opinion for upholding what they consider as a bida’at.
Ahle HadeesThe Ahle Hadees emerged as a distinctive orientation among Indian ulema in the late-nineteenth-century milieu of reformist thought, publication, debate, and internal proselytizing. Like other reformers, they fostered devotion to the prophet Muhammad and fidelity to sharia. Unlike them, they opposed jurisprudential taqlid (imitation) of the classic law schools in favor of direct use of hadith. They also opposed the entire institution of Sufism, a stance that further marginalized them. Like the Deobandis, they claimed to be heirs of Shah Wali Allah (d.
1763), and they encouraged simplification of ceremony and the practice of widow remarriage. Their practices in the canonical prayer (including uttering “amen” aloud and lifting their hands at the time of bowing) led to conflicts ultimately settled in British courts.Core supporters of the Ahl-e Hadis came from educated and often well-born backgrounds. Cosmopolitan in orientation, they identified themselves with similar groupsin Afghanistan and Arabia. Within India, they turned to princes for Support, most famously with the marriage of Maulana Siddiq Hasan Khan (1832–1890) to the ruling Begum of Bhopal.
Siddiq Hasan supported the classic interpretations of jihad,without the apologetic glosses of the day. Despite his writing to the contrary, he was suspected of disloyalty, as was another major figure in the movement, Sayyid Nazir Husain (d. 1902), who was briefly arrested as a “Wahhabi,” as supporters of the Arab Muhammad Abd al Wahhab (1703–1792) were called. Suspicion of the Ahl-e Hadis abated by 1889, marked by the success of a campaign to drop the word “Wahhabi” in official British colonial correspondence.The armed Lashkar-e Tayyiba, affiliated with the Ahl-e Hadis in Pakistan, is alleged to have been active both within Pakistan and Kashmir since the 1990s.The Ahl al-Hadith (people of the traditions) appear to have developed out of a pious reaction to the assassination of Caliph Yazid b.
Prior to Yazid’s assassination, scholars who emphasized hadith (traditions of the prophet Muhammad) as the primary source for interpreting the Will of God were disorganized and fairly removed from the widespread emphasis on applying varying levels of reason to the Quran. Yazid’s assassination was interpreted by more conservative groups as a revolution against the predestined plan of God. Whether or not the early Ahl al-Hadith were aligned with the Umayyad caliphate, as were many of the Jabriyya (advocates of predestination), it is clear that many understood Yazid’s assassination as a sign of the general decay of the Muslim community, the blame for which they assigned to the uncontrolled use of personal opinion by the Ahl al-Ray (people of considered opinion).
After the Abbasid revolution (c. 720–750), the Ahl al-Hadith developed into the main group opposed to the dominance of the rationalist theology of the Mutazilites. During the religious inquisition or Mihna (833–850) many of the Ahl al-Hadith were imprisoned for refusing to agree to the doctrine of the Created Quran. Members of the Ahl al-Hadith, such as Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (d. 855), became important religious and social leaders due to their refusal to recant their beliefs in the eternal nature of the Quran.
After the Mihna, the Ahl al-Hadith led an anti rationalist movement that forced advocates of rationalist thought underground. In the centuries following the initial triumph of the Ahl al-Hadith, a middle ground emerged that placed greater emphasis on a combination of reason and tradition. The Ahl al-Hadith formed a school of legal thought named after Ahmad Ibn Hanbal that continued to pursue legal methods that focused less on uses of reason and more on tradition.
The Hanbali fixation on tradition led to a series ofreform movements that have sought to “revive” the moral and ethical standards of the first generations of Muslims. The contemporary influence of Ahl al-Hadith ideology continues to be important for a number of diverse groups. Organizations such as the Indonesian Muhammadiyah and the Islamic Society of North America, as well as the violent al-Qaida and Islamic Jihad, each bases its ideologies on ideas that emerged out of the Ahl al-Hadith and Hanbali movement over the last eight centuries. TODAY WE SEE NAJADI KINGS AND PRINCES DOING TABZEER AND ISRAF.THEY LIVE IN PALACES OWNS HUNDREDS OF CAR FLEET.AND EAT AND BATH IN GOLD VESSELS. MAKING HAJJ MORE AND MORE DIFFICULT FOR A COMMOMN MUSLIM AND MOST PROFITABLE FOR THEM.AND SHAMELESSLY AND STUBBORNLY CLAIM THEMSELVES HEIRS OF RASOOL (SAW),KHULAFA (RA) AND SAHABAH (RA). AS THEY HAVE PATENTS AND COPY RIGHTS OF ISLAM.
THEIR ACTS ARE CLEARLY AGAINST THE LIFE TEACHINGS OF NABI (SAW )M AND SAHABA (RA). THEY AREENEMIES OF NABI (SAW) AND SAHABA (RA)THESE AHLAE KHABEES NAJADI DOGS, KHWARIJ,SAUDI PIGS.THEY FOLLOW INSANE Shaytan WHO came in the form of the Najdi Shaykh. IT WAS THAT BASTARD WHO ARRANGED BLOODSHED IN KABAH THIRD TIME AFTERARRIVAL OF ISLAM (FIRST WAS BY HAJJAJ BIN YOUSUF.AND SECOND TIME BY TAHIR QARAMATI WHO TOOK HIJRA E ASWAD WITH HIM AND HAJJ WAS DISCONTINUED FOR 23 YEARS IN A ROW)THESE NAJADI BASTARDS ONLY KILL SALAH MUSLIMS. LIFTING SWORD IS A BIG THING NO MOTHER FUCKER NAJAHI DEVIL LIFTED PEN OR SAID EVEN A WORD FOR THOSE QARAMATI PIGS.SAME NAJADI DOGS MAKE FUN OF SAHABAH AND SAY DIRTY WORDS FOR NABI (SAW).THATS WHY THEY INSIST THAT PROPHET (SAW) HAD NO KNOWLWEDGE OF GHAIB OR FUTURE BECAUSE ALL THE HADITHS WHICH ALERT ABOUT YOU AHL E KHABEES THE UN LAW FUL BREEDD OF NAJADI DOGS ARE IN THE FORM OF PROPHECIES.(that the Holy Prophet (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam), after being informed by Allah Ta’ala, is aware of everything that happened and will happen.Allah Ta’ala says: “Allah Alone is the Knower of the Unseen. He never grants the Knowledge of his Ghayb to anyone but to His chosen Messengers and appoints guard before them and behind them.” (Surah Jinn, 72:26-27).
)Allah TA’ALA has told the Prophet (May Allah bless him and grant him peace), you must thank Allah TA’ALA Who has informed you of what has already happened and what will happen in the future and this is a great grace of Allah upon you.(Tafsir Tabari under verse 113 of Surah Al-Nisa).THE THINGS WHICH WE NOW SEE WERE IN SOIL OF NAJAD SINCE BEGINING.Hafidhh Ibn Kathir writes: when the Kuffar of Makkah had a meeting concerning the Prophet Sallal laho alihi wasalam, an old man came claiming“I am a Najdi, what ever you want to know, I will be helpful”. This Najdi Shaykh then gave his view against the Prophet (Sallallahu’ aliahi wa sallam), through out the meeting.Tareekh Ibn Kathir. Volume 4The Prophet May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace stated: I fear from the Najdi’s.Bukhari Chapter on JihadThe Prophet May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace stated: That the Fitnah will emerge from the east. Bukhari, Kitab-ul-FitnahAbdullah Ibn Umar narrates:The Prophet May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace made Du’a for Syria and Yemen, some people asked him: “Ya Rasoolallah (Sallallahu’ aliahi wa sallam) pray for Najd.” The Prophet May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace again repeated Dua for Syria and Yemen. They again requested for Najd. Upon the third time the Prophet May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace said: “There will be earthquakes there, tribulations will emerge there and a horn of Shaytan will emerge from there”. Bukhari, Kitabul FitanThe brother of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab al Najdi, Shaykh Sulaiman bin Abdul Wahab, said about his brother, “The horn of Shaytan which the Prophet (Sallallahu’ aliahi wa sallam) referred to is you.”Sawaa’iqul IlahiyaThe false Prophet, Musailima Kadhab was also born in Najd AND THE DECENDENTS OF ENEMY OF ISLAM NOW RESURFACED AS NAJADI KHAIN AND THIEVES.
After reading the history of Najd, you will see that this is a place of Sh’yateen. Secondly the Prophet May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace predicted earthquakes and tribulations for this place indeed there occurred such an earthquake that we can still hear its bang over 2 centuries later.Many people say that Najd is high land and that the Dua was not made regarding the high land. However in this Hadith the Prophet May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace mentioned the places Syria, Yemen and not the type of land, therefore the word Najd in this Hadith refers to the place Najd itself which is in Saudi Arabia not in Iraq.Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab Najdi’s Jihad was not against kafirs but against those Muslims who held the Aq’aid of Ahl-e-Sunnah, like the Khawarij, he considered all other Muslims to be kafirs.Khawarji’s are those people who consider all other Muslims to be non-believers apart from themselves.
They are supposed to kill people who have trust in pious people, as they did with Khabab for saying that he loved Ali radi-allah-ho-unho. Also they would call any person who has committed a major sin a non-believer. Even for anything small they would call the Sahabas non-believer’s as they did with Uthman, Talha, and Zubair Radi allahu taala unhu ajmaeen.The Khawrij’s would only take the literal meaning of the Holy Qur’an and that would be it they would take it no further. They would call the Sahee (true) Hadith fabricated, such as Hadith-e-Rajm, (stoning the Adulator to death), they would label their opponents non-believers and consider it right to take their belongings and their wives as slave girls. When the Khawarij spoke they would try to refer to the Qur’an or the Hadith as much as possible.It has been said by Abdullah bin Umar radi-allah-hounho that Khawarij’s are so mischievous that they fit those Qur’anic verses that were revealed about the non-believers.“Bukhari chap, Al-murtadeen”For further details please consult books by Ibn Hazam Sharastani, Abu-Mansoor Ma’tirdi, Abu-Zahra Misrei and Mazhabe Islamiyah This was a strange thing as even Abdul Wahab’s blind followers could not digest it. Shaykh Juhri wrote: ‘I think that Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahab Najdi apart from himself and his followers has labelled all other Muslims as kafir; while not all Muslims have worshipped graves and especially the Ulama. At the time no Muslim’s worshiped grave’s but that was an excuse by Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahab Najdi so that he could kill the Muslims.“Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab page 36”Shaykh Juhri says: “I cannot find any reason why they should all have been labelled Kafirs”.
Juhri was a strong follower of Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahab but even he was surprised at this action by Muhammad Bin Abdal Wahab Now returning to the movement of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab Najdi, with the help of Amir-e-Duriya He destroyed the shrines. (Graves of Companions) Companions who were in the Najd.He killed those people who were leaders of the Ahl-e-Sunnah and took their properties and possessions. With the support of those Arabs that were nationalist.
They continued increasing their reign, coming out of Najd until Hijaz was taken by them and they managed to win control over the whole of Jazeerat-ul-Arab.During this time the Ottoman Khilafah was busy engaged in international battles and was therefore unable to respond in a swift manner. In 22 June 1792, Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab Najdi died upon which Qadhi Shawkaani wrote a poem with regard to this incident; one sentence was: “Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab was that son, with whose Noor the Hijaz and its surrounding places became enlightened”. See how the person who sought help from the Kafirs is being praised!!!For some time after, the rule was in the hands of Ahle-Saud. It was during this time, during the reign of the son of Muhammad ibn Saud, that the Ottomans sent Muhammad Ali Pasha against him, who defeated him, finished their influence in the reign.
Again’ Jazeeratul Arab became part of the Islamic Caliphate, the royal family fled to Kuwait. Some time later, the Ahl-e-Saood managed to re-gain control over Jazeeratul Arab and changed its name to Saudi Arabia. Grants were given from abroad to spread Wahabi’ism. Initially it was spread by the sword but now it is through money.
The Saudis came to Europe and spent the wealth from the Bait-ul-Maal as though it were their Father’s wealth. In front of the guilty Saudi Ulamas all this Haram and Bid’ah goes on but they say nothing, but will still give Fatwa’s against Milad-un-Nabi.An interesting story: When Shaykh Faisal was deputy prime minister of Saudi Arabia, he toured India, and put flowers upon Mahatma Ghandi’s grave:“News, 11th May 1955”In 1957 Shah Sa’ud went on a tour to America, with him was the defence minister Fahad bin Sa’ud, who put flowers on the grave of George Washington. “Kohstaan 2nd February 1957”When Saudi Shaykhs go to Muslim countries they do not place flowers on any of the graves of the Awliya because it may dent their Aqeedah, but by placing flowers upon the graves of Mahatma Ghandi & George Washington maybe this strengthens their Aqeedah.Shah Sa’ud whilst on tour in India said, “I am satisfied with Indian government that they are treating the Muslims with justice”. The Ahle Hadith referred to before the time of Hazrat Imam Hanbal (RA) are not the same as the the group Ahle Hadith that were formed in 1930’s and who are today funded by the corrupt Saudis. To all Ahle Hadith, you are not knowledgeable enough to compare yourselves with the glorious Sahaba (RA) nor are you knowledgeable enough to compare yourselves to the Tabieen (RA) or the tabat Tabieen (RA). You are only good at looking at the Islamic religion superficially and using your very limited knowledge to confuse and capture innocent Muslims and then try to make them like you. Face it, you are puppets for the corrupt najdi Saudi Arabia.