saeed foudeh on atheist influences

دعوى من آثار الإلحاد يُعاد نشرها مفادها أنه لا قيمة للأديان
جميع الأديان السماوية سواء
فلا يجوز أن نكفر اليهودي والنصراني

yesterday, a scholar told me about some “shaykh” who is advertised and (touted) as a scholar; and this “shaykh” in question (that is the one whom i was informed about) who said:

“it is not permissible for us to call jews and christians as kafirs. that is not permissible by shariah to call them kafirs, because they are ahl kitab (people of the book)”.

(shaykh sayid: ) there are many verses in the qur’an such as “verily they have committed kufr..” [mayidah, 5:17, 5:72, 5:73] where [jews and christians] are explicitly ruled kafir.

but the (heretic said): “no. they are ahl al-kitab”

when he was confronted with all these verses where (jews and christians) are ruled kafir explicitly, he said: “by Allah, it is as if this is the first time i am hearing these verses.”

(shaykh sayid: ) this is obduracy. certainly this is being obdurate. because it is impossible for someone to say that he has heard about the takfir of jews and christians for the first time in the qur’an. and he is a shaykh, and (is widely known as) a great scholar.

it is impossible; his claim is implausible.

dear brothers, know that in this age, there is a campaign to promote, propagate and spread the idea – not just among muslims but worldwide and all cultures – a campaign from heretical ideologies, atheist influences (aathar al-ilHad); and that idea is:

in reality, there is no value for religions. and thus it follows that you, as a muslim cannot claim superiority or priority or that you are better than jews, christians or followers of any other religions. and that all of you are equal. a jew is no different than a muslim and all are equal like the teeth of a comb.

and this ideology is being propagated widely. and therefore, if they want this idea to be spread among muslims, it is necessary for some of “muslims” to believe that it is not permissible to make takfir of jews and christians.

[and they say:] “they are our brothers in religion. and all these religions rise from the abrahamic faith. and all of these three religions: islam, jewry and christianty go back to the abrahamic faith. and all of us are children of one patriarch. then why should we call each other as disbelievers?”

these are ideas that are sought to be disseminated in the populace; and unfortunately, being circulated by many people. and many of them believe that it is not permissible to make takfir of jews and christians (J&C).

brother, if i say that a christian is a disbeliever (kafir), does it mean that i seek to plunder his property, or murder him, or capture his wife? this is impermissible by shariah anyway.

i call him a kafir because that is how it is ordained by my shariah and according to my religion. kufr is refusing this shariah – and he (the christian/jew) is a kafir because he refuses to acknowledge my shariah. and by necessity, he is a kafir.

jews and christians are necessarily kafir (or that it is a fundamental article of faith; it is daruri precept).

however, just because he is a kafir, that i should trouble him, or harm him or violate his rights. this is not permissible for us by our own shariah. and that it is necessary for us to be considerate and kind to them; necessary to respect them (respect as in mindful of their rights as humans) BUT it is also necessary for them to respect us and give us due consideration.

the issues of consideration, and kindness and cordiality are sharayi masayil (meaning fiqh) not an issue of creed and faith.

we are required to be polite to even those who do not believe in any religion; it is not permissible for us to swear at them or abuse them or attribute lies to them – these are not permissible at all.

and these people imagine, that by doing so (avoiding takfir of J&C) they are spreading good morals and encourage good behaviour and cooperation and harmony in the society. and good civilizations thrive and flourish on mutual cooperation. so it is necessary to eliminate these ideas; and erase these wrong beliefs that only islam is truth and christianity is false etc. no. all of these are right and be in harmony all of you etc.

[aH: obviously, this is not shaykh sayid’s own opinion; he cites this to refute it.]

this is the gist of the issue.

brothers, if i say i am on the truth – my own religion makes it impermissible to harm or oppress or misappropriate or violate the rights of others; and not just jews and christians, even people of other religions. it is impermissible to harm even animals and damage even plants.

Allahu Akbar.

these people befuddle these separate issues and many people accept this (befuddled, confused opinion). and this campaign is being spread in arab and non-arab lands.

our responsibility is to clarify these issues which are being planted in the populace in their confused form as one package.

it is necessary for us to address these issues separately: this is truth, this is falsehood. but that does not mean that i should violate the right of someone who professes a false belief.

[on a lighter note, he says: this has nothing to do with someone falling in love with a christian girl. as someone asked me in a seminar: is it permissible to love my christian wife? ya salam, why did you marry her in the first place? is loving a girl the same as faith? what has love got to do with creedal matters?]


[this was first posted on sunniport; reposted here without review. do notify of any errors]

list of books on logic (in english)

lewis carroll: the game of logic:

lewis carroll: symbolic logic:

atwater: manual of elementary logic, 1867.

sidgwick: elementary logic, 1914

bradley: principles of logic, 1883

kant’s introduction to logic, 1885

aritstotle’s organon etc:


isaghuji in arabic is porphyry’s isagoge; check the online edition here:

bartlett, exercises in logic, 1922


creighton: an introductory logic, 1909

dotterer: beginner’s logic, 1924

ballantine: inductive logic

fowler: elements of deductive logic, 1904

dinwiddie: essentials of logic, 1914

lafleur: illustrations of logic, 1899

charles true: elements of logic, 1861

aikins: principles of logic, 1902

jevons and hill: elements of logic, 1883


lotze: logic in three books, 1888 (two volumes)


westlund: outlines of logic, 1896

bosanquet: logic or the morphology of knowledge, 1888



mc-cosh: laws of discursive thought, 1870

hays: science of inductive logic, 1877

bosanquet: essentials of logic, 1897

jamieson: grammar of logic and intellectual philosophy, 1822


this is practical logic:

saeed foudah on a modern heresy

i had started this translation on 10th nov and then forgot mid-way. something jogged my memory and i finished it today – so i didn’t go back to listen to the earlier portion. i might have misheard something; let me know if there are any mistakes.


there are two examples here about those who claim ijtihad in fundamentals of religion [usul al-din]. and he says, “i oppose certain absolutely-proven precepts [qaTyi’yat] and known to be necessary precepts of religion [ma’alum mina’d din bi’d darurah]. [he claims:] i am a mujtahid and i have the right to hold a different opinion.

i have selected two examples here. one from usul al-fiqh and another from usul al-din.

first is the saying of adnan ibrahim. and hasan ibn farhan al-maliki as i have understood from his (statements). and abu yarub al-marzuqi according to my understanding as it is clear from many of his writings. and many others who speak on religion in our time that:

the jew and christian, remaining on his own tradition (or faith) will attain salvation by merely accepting that sayyiduna Muhammad sallAllahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam is a prophet – even if he (jew or christian) does not follow the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. even if he does not follow [the Prophet] or deem his [the Prophet’s] rulings to be binding upon himself [j or c].

in particular, in these exact words – is said by adnan ibrahim, and said so verbatim.

and others, their statements imply the above; to be fair (they don’t say so explicitly) but their statements mean approximately the same as above; but the person who said so explicitly and plainly is the first (i.e., adnan ibrahim).

[continuing the mulHid’s claim] even if he (J or C) does not follow RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam in any commandment – notice his explanation of the issue – (adnan ibrahim) cites the verse for his proof:


that is, people of the book, the jews and christians – all are not the same; among them are good and bad (maleeH wa `aaTil) – and by that it follows, that among them are those who prostrate (sujud) and recite the book etc. and therefore, these jews, christians etc. along with their remaining upon whatever they profess, they will attain salvation.

this is how he (adnan) derives evidence from this ayah.

however this is not the meaning of the aayah. this aayah speaks about those who are sincere and those who are not; those who are truthful and those who are not. but that does not mean that truthful ones among them will attain salvation regardless.

rather, they are obliged to follow our Master Muhammad SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam as mentioned in other verses as you know very well.

he uses this verse for his proof:

[adnan says:] this ayah mentions belief in Allah, and Last Day (judgement day) and did good deeds; and this verse does not mention belief in the Prophet SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. the text of this qur’anic verse does not mention belief [iman] in the Prophet SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

therefore these people [adnan ibrahim and others] use this as evidence to prove that it is not obligatory for jews and christians to bear faith in the Prophet SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

it is sufficient for them, to remain on their christian and jewish religion and their sabian faith; but it is sufficient for them to say: “we will do good deeds and believe in Allah.”

and they say:”they believe in Allah. and many of them do good deeds. therefore they will attain salvation on judgement day.”

and what is more surprising [or shocking] than all this; i was flabbergasted at adnan ibrahim when he said concerning the council of christians, if i remember well in 1965, in vatican with the pope himself (present) or the council attested that: ‘we accept that salvation is possible for (christian) denominations other than catholicism or non-christians.”

[sh. foudah’s interspersed comment:] the resolution passed by the council did not specify that muslims per se will also gain salvation. they simply said, salvation is “possible” for those who are not catholics or even those who are not christians. based on the case, that they are sincere and they do good deeds and they do not seek mischief on earth etc. this is the gist of the resolution of the vatican council.
[aH: probably the second vatican council; see pope’s statement here.]

this brother [adnan ibrahim]; what does he say? he says something revolutionary. he says: “based on this giant step forward taken by christians, should inspire muslims to

[sh. foudah again interrupts with his own comments:] notice the vatican resolution does not specify muslims actually – it is a generic comment; and quite possible that they (the council) have a specific meaning in the context of their discussions, unlike that asserted by this man (adnan). that is, their intention/meaning might be entirely different but this man [akh=brother] is enthusiastic and in his eagerness says [adnan says]: “that we should also take steps to match them”

[sh. foudah:] what? is it some sort of political reciprocation? that they did thus, so we too should match them? and he [adnan ibrahim] says: “it is necessary for us as well to say that salvation is possible for non-muslims despite their remaining as non-muslims”.

[sh. foudah:] in my life, i have not seen this kind of ijtihad, this kind of methodology. if a president or a minister [of government] or a journalist says such things, it can be understood. but you [adnan] claim that you are a mujtahid in fundamentals of religion and that its necessary aspects [Daruriyat] and speak like this? this is weird, very very strange.

this discussion is not obscure for you [members of the audience] nor is it hidden from him [adnan ibrahim] because he has himself said: “i am certain that when i say such a thing, muslims will make takfir – rule me kafir.” which means, he is aware of the danger of such a statement, but he may have a particular agenda. probably, he has a set objective [sh. foudah changes his mind] i won’t say he has an agenda or not, but he is content with saying this over-simplified statement.

not to mention, his repeating this statement in conferences, talk-shows, debates, seminars etc. and those who heard this began clapping their hands. great. this is what he wants.

and we say what we are satisfied and convinced about. it is not necessary that his statements be applicable to us. and we cannot agree with him that his ijtihad [independent reasoning] led him to say these things. because ijtihad won’t lead him to say such things. because there are proofs which are explicit and in far more plain words than that which he [adnan] misinterprets with his ridiculous understanding [or his stupid ideas] and flawed mind. and this guy is always making claims: “i am the smartest person on the planet” or “i read such and such a book in two hours” etc.

all of this is empty boasting [kalam farigh] and appealing to emotion [`aTifi]; it is possible that young folk, ignorant people might be impressed and excited. but people with some seriousness and sense [razanah] will say, ‘come on. you are making bizzare claims. and nobody asked you for this.’ i don’t want to get into such [prob. personal criticism] things but i will present sharayi proofs [refuting his claims] from kitab and sunnah.

do you [adnan] say that you are muslim? and he [claims] he understand kitab and sunnah and read razi and zamakhshari and baydawi and quotes such-and-such linguists and derivation etc.. and he says such things which are inappropriate – and one of our brothers, shaykh bilal an-najjar refuted him on the aslein forums [see link here] and i refuted him on another issue.

i urge all of you to look at this once again, and do not be baffled by this kind of hogwash and flashy speeches. look Allah ta’ala has said:


notice what Allah ta’ala says next:

about whom is this being said? about Nabiy SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.
who are addressed in these verses? all of mankind. and what is the proof?

“and those who obey” is absolute and general, all-encompassing.

and it is not just those bear faith in Allah, rather those who obey Allah and His Messenger.

adnan ibrahim says: “it is sufficient to acknowledge that sayyiduna Muhammad sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is a prophet and remain on his religion (i.e., jew or christian). it is not necessary for him to obey any command or deem islamic law binding upon himself.”

this is nonsense. “and those who obey” in the verse mean, those who are bound by the command of the Messenger sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam and defer to his judgement [during his worldly life].


what does this ayat say? very famous and many scholars have explained it, imam taqiyuddin subki has written a dedicated monograph on this: [ta’azim wa’l minna] fi “la-tu’minunna bihi wa la tanSurunnah”. whom is Allah ta’ala telling this. Allah ta’ala is telling this to prophets.

and they are told: suppose you remain on earth; and suppose i send Muhammad sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam in your time, it is obligatory on you to believe in him and aid him, support him. not just followers of prophets (like jews or christians) but prophets themselves [are bound to follow him].

those prophets themselves who did not alter the original religion; and they did not sell the verses of Allah for a cheap price; nor did they alter anything in Divine Books, inserting things from their own selves. and such prophets themselves, Allah ta’ala takes an oath from them that they will believe in him and support him.

so how is it possible for a muslim to say: that belief in the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam or supporting him in following the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam [ittiba’] or promulgating his law (shariah). all of this is not necessary. just leave him (non-muslim) as he is, he will attain salvation.

[sh. foudah implying:] following in the footsteps of the vatican council and reciprocating their move.

also Allah ta’ala has said refuting christians when they said: “we love Allah”:


notice: not just “believe in me” rather “follow me”. and there are many such verses of the Qur’an.


become jews or christians so that you are guided; tell them “rather we follow the religion of ibrahim, which is free from all corruption; and he [ibrahim] was not a polytheist”

notice this is followed by:


if you believe the same as you believe, then they are [rightly] guided. and if they turn away, they are being obstinate.

these are explicit verses, apart from many hadith that have been reported. among which, i will mention some and not read all of it:

look at this hadith about the message our Master sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam sent to heraclius (hiraql), the byzantine (roman) emperor. what did RasulAllah write? and this is a letter by RasulAllah and known to be authentic.

“peace on those who follow guidance. thereafter, i invite you to accept islam. accept it and you will be safe. [aslim, taslam] Allah ta’ala will give you a double reward. and if you turn away, then you will return with the sins of all arianist christians.

this is what the Prophet ﷺ himself said. unless you say [al-iyadhu billah] the Prophet did not know about his own message.

the Prophet ﷺ addresses heraclius and orders to believe in him; he tells him you must become muslim – he doesn’t tell him ‘just acknowledge that i am a Prophet’. and if you don’t accept islam, you will take the sins of arianists because you will be reason for their remaining misguided.

hadith of SaHiH muslim: “by He in whose Power the life of Muhammad rests, none from this nation [ummah] hears of me – whether a jew or a christian, and dies without bearing faith in that [message] which i was sent with, except that he will be in hellfire”.

[sh. saeed:] that is ummah “people” towards whom RasulAllah ﷺ was sent; ummatu’d da’awah not ummah al-istijabah (aH:the nation that accepted his message, which is us, muslims).

“that whihc i was sent with” meaning qur’an shariah,

and this brother [adnan ibrahim] said, including those in hell and they will be taken out of hell. because when they enter hellfire, they will be cleansed and come out pure; and eventually brother iblis and brother firawn all come out clean and will be with sayyiduna Muhammad ﷺ in paradise (al-iyadhu billah). [note: sh.saeed is attacking the implications of adnan ibrahim’s statement]

actually, he did not say they will enter jannah, but that is what is implied. of what he said: “when they are cleansed and purified from their sins, in one single day, he insists that 50,000 years is one single day, they will all come out of fire and Allah ta’ala will annihilate hellfire.”

[sh. saeed asks:] then where will they go? and there is no statement in shariah that anybody will die in the hereafter. so where will they go? will they keep standing at the door of paradise, for example?

this won’t go away. because the next stage will come when these concepts have [been introduced] and knowledge of muslims about their religion will have been all mixed up with misconceptions and will become commonly accepted and they will say: “yes they will enter paradise”.

sure, he did not say it thus explicitly, but whatever he has said leads to that [conclusion].

when you compare and correlate these issues, it becomes clear and apparent.


notice in this verse, Allah ta’ala says: “o mankind” not just “o muslims” but “tell them: o mankind, i am verily the Messenger of Allah [sent] to all of you.”

not just Prophet, but a Messenger – that is sent towards – not just that you acknowledge my prophethood, but you believe in my Message.

these are explicit qur’anic texts. it is not permissible for a muslim to say, “i repeated ijtihad, and it has now dawned upon me, that the belief of previous muslims that these are absolutes are not absolutes [qaTiy].

and this is deliberate attempt to distort the shariah [taHrif] and delirious rambling.


Don’t Worry Too Much

This Qasidah is by Sayyidi Imam Abdullah ibn Alawi al-Haddad (1044-1132 AH) raDiyallahu ta'ala anhu:


ilzam bāba rabbik * wa’truk kulla dūn
wa’s-al’hu’s salamah * min dāri’l futūn
lā yađīq şadruk * fa’l ĥādith yahūn
Allāhu’l muqaddir * wa’l áālam shu’uun
lā yakthur hammuk * mā quddir yakūn

hold fast, the doorstep of your Lord * and leave everyone else
ask the Lord, to vouchsafe * (you) from this world of trials
do not feel constricted * agony will eventually pass
Allah is the decreer * of all affairs in the creation
do not worry too much * that which is destined, will come to pass


fikrak wa’khtiyārak * dá-humā warāk
wa’t tadbīru ayđan * wa’sh-had man barāk
mawlāk al-muhaymin * innahū yarāk
fawwiđ luh umūrak * wa'ĥsin fi’z zunūn
lā yakthur hammuk * mā quddir yakūn

your thoughts and your choice * leave them behind you
and planning as well * and look at who brought you in this world
it is your Lord, the Protector * for verily He is Seeing you
leave your affairs in His care * and have a good opinion about your Lord
do not worry too much * that which is destined, will come to pass


law wa lim wa kayf * qawlu dhī ĥamaq
yátariđ ála’Allāh * alladhī khalaq
wa qađā wa qaddar * kulla shayy bi-ĥaqq
yā qalbī tanabbah * wa’truki’l mujūn
lā yakthur hammuk * mā quddir yakūn

‘if’ and ‘why’ and ‘how’ * are the questions, a fool asks
for he criticises Allah táālā * He, who has created (everything)
and has Judged, and Decreed * everything by His Infinite Justice
o my heart! take heed * and leave this madness
do not worry too much * that which is destined, will come to pass


qad đamin táālā * bi’r rizqi’l qawām
fi’l kitābi’l munzal * nūrun li’l anām
fa’r riđā farīđah * wa’s sakhaţ ĥarām
wa’l qunūú rāĥah * wa’t ţamaá junūn
lā yakthur hammuk * mā quddir yakūn

Allāh táālā has given assurance * for the sustenance (of creation)
as said in His revealed book * a light for the worlds
it is obligatory to be pleased with Him * and forbidden to be displeased with His Decree
contentment is comfort * and greed is madness
do not worry too much * that which is destined, will come to pass


anta wa’l khalāyiq * kulluhum ábīd
wa’l ilāhu fīnā * yaf-ál mā yurīd
hammuk wa’ghtimāmuk* wayĥak mā yufīd
al-qađā taqaddam * fa’ghnami’s sukūn
lā yakthur hammuk * mā quddir yakūn

you and the entire creation * are His slaves
and the Lord Almighty * does what, He pleases (concerning our fate)
your worry and trepidation * (woe unto you!) is of no use
destiny has been preordained * so, avail the blessing of calmness
do not worry too much * that which is destined, will come to pass


wa’ladhī qusim lak * ĥāşilun ladayk
al-ladhī li ghayrak * lā yaşil ilayk
fa’shtaghil bi rabbik * wa’l ladhī álayk
fī farđi’l ĥaqiqah * wa’sh sharáyi’l maşūn
lā yakthur hammuk * mā quddir yakūn

that which is in your destiny * will surely be yours
and that which is for others * will never be yours
busy yourself in serving your Lord * and in matters that you are responsible
in fulfilling the obligatory actions * and dutifully following the sacred law, shariah
do not worry too much * that which is destined, will come to pass


sharáyi’l muşţafā * al-hādī al-bashīr
khatam al-anbiyā’a * al-badr al-munīr
şallAllāhu álayhi * ar-rabb al-qadīr
mā rīĥ as-şabā * mālat bi’l ghuşūn
lā yakthur hammuk * mā quddir yakūn

the way of mustafa, the Chosen One * the guide and the giver of glad tidings
the seal of prophets * the dazzling shining full moon
blessings of Allāh táālā upon him * the Lord, the Sustainer, the All-Powerful
as long morning breeze blows * swaying the branches in the trees
do not worry too much * that which is destined, will come to pass

[this was originally translated on 12th Jan 2010]








Prayer for Sadness and Melancholy

This prayer is mentioned in Adhkār of Imam Nawawi [#369]

We narrate from Kitāb Ibn al-Sunnī  from Abū Mūsā al-Ashárīy rađiyAllāhu ánhū that he said:
RasūlAllāh  şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam said: “When one is stricken with melancholy or sadness, he should recite this duáā:

[O Allāh!] I am Your slave, the son of Your bondsman; the son of Your bondsmaid; [We are] in Your Power; my forelocks are in Your Power; Your command [concerning my fate] is done; Your decision [concerning me] is just. I ask You [for the sake of] Your [Exalted] Names, which You have mentioned Yourself; or revealed it in Your [Holy] Book; or taught anyone in Your creation; or preferred to keep it [undisclosed] in Your Knowledge [unknown to everyone else;] [I beseech Thee] to make the Qur’ān illuminate my bosom, [give] cheer and comfort to my heart, banish my sadness and ward off melancholy [that afflicts me].

Someone in the gathering said: “O Messenger of Allāh! Verily, deprived is he, who is bereft of these words”.

He şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam replied: “Certainly. Inform [others] and teach them [this prayer.] Because, whosoever beseeches in these words, Allāh táālā will make his sadness go away and increase his happiness”.

[Adhkār of Imām Nawawī; Kitāb Ámal al-Yawm wa’l Laylah by Ibn al-Sunnī, #339.]

Note:  This ĥadīth is narrated by Ábdullāh ibn Masúūd rađiyAllāhu ánhū in Musnad of Imām Aĥmed, Ad-Dáwāt al-Kabir of Bayhaqī, Mújam al-Kabīr of Ţabarānī, Şaĥīĥ Ibn Hibbān, Musnad Bazzār, Al-Faraj baád al-Shiddah of Ibn Abi’d Dunyā, Musnad Abi Yáalā, Mustadrak of Ĥākim,  another narration of Ibn al-Sunni, Ílal of Dār Quţnī, Musnad Ibn Abi’sh Shaybah. In this narration of Ibn Masúūd, the person asks: “Shall we not learn or teach others” and RasūlAllāh şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam replies: “Certainly, whosoever learns this should teach others.”


hamza yusuf hanson and his apology

hamza hanson, a.k.a. hamza yusuf in a speech said that he must 'defend' dante. he later said that by 'defend' he meant, 'explain'. dante is on his recommended reading list for years now. and dante is notorious for his insulting the Nabiy SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. muhammad danyal, a student of shaykh asrar, the young scholar from UK started the blog adoptingorthdoxy, where he analysed hamza's positions and his political manoeuvres until finally, hamza was forced to retract. instead of being humble, his retraction was more of a tip of the hat without getting off his high horse. hamza's apology can be found here. danyal responded to the insinuations in hamza's post: a just response to an unjust critic. shaykh asrar responded with a statement – bleak house [PDF link].


it was discussed on our forum here. below is my response to hamza's sticks and drones:


fitna is not when an apostate group is legitimised – whether deliberately or in error; fitna is when one points it out.

fitna is not when an obscure blasphemer (obscure in the islamic world at any rate) is raked up and mentioned and 'defended' (whatever meaning he intended; defence as in 'explain' or whatever.) fitna is when young men who care more for principles than sham adab and hypocrisy point out his error.

“To deem a thousand disbelievers Muslim is safer with God than to deem one Muslim a disbeliever.”

and to offend the whole world is safer than siding with a person offending the Habeeb sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

while hamza works hard on a pity-generator, he conveniently missed this neutraliser. in addition to other eloquent critical articles. the young scholar is indeed more wiser, upright and knowledgeable than many celebrities today.

instead of humbly saying: i was wrong, i should have done my research – he vents his spleen on 'young men' and lectures them on takfir. and brimming with chutzpah compares his situation with sayyiduna umar raDiyallahu anhu! which in an undertone translates to: 'hey, i am upright and righteous and immensely knowledgeable and all that. but still i have stumbled on a silly thing.' and great people are so humble, y'know. 'everybody is more afqah than me.' if not, what was the purpose of quoting the anecdote?

sayyiduna umar said it in all humility and he did not criticise the lady or lament that she didn't tell him in private or that she should have known that he was the amir who was one of the most knowledgeable companions or the like. he simply acknowledged the error and corrected himself.

if hamzah has retracted from his error, he did not do us any service or a favour. he has cleared his own self from blame (and saved his fanboys embarrasment). i am deeply annoyed by the insinuation that the young scholars from UK are doing this for fame by attacking hamza. abdalqadir (on our forum) pointed out that here husn-zann goes on a hike. hamza's error was unintentional but those who called him out are malcontents and have committed a grave sin deliberately.

there is a saying in an indian regional language that: 'even when the wrestler fell down, he stood up pointing that his moustache was not soiled'.

hamza so poignantly says that he is not a perennialist. but he is on the board of perennialist publishing house fons vitae and hobnobs with perennialists, praising them, writing forewords etc. if he had an ounce of gheerah (the same thing arabs stole it from our language) he would withdraw from it and announce his bara'ah from it. actually, if i remember well, that is where i think people began to dig more on hamzah and that is when i began considering him a pariah (and i assume others among our friends did).

fame is not difficult to achieve in our times. all you need is know how to talk – facts be damned. it is not knowledge that matters, just speech. just as the master SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam foretold about our times: 'many speechmakers and fewer scholars'. he sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam foretold about talking-heads: "people who will 'eat' with their tongues and cattle eat with their tongues" that is, they make their tongues – or speech – a source of their livelihood.

'fitna is sleeping..' indeed, it was sleeping until dante was invoked. typical american amnesia. they howl that the world is against them – but don't want to address american meddling in other people's businesses. why would the young man criticise him if hamza hadn't bothered about dante or qadianis in the first place?

if qaDi iyaD (remember that he was a maliki) was among us today, the fanboys would probably howl at him as a fitna-monger and hamza would probably pen a fallacy-laced post sneering at the provincial qaDi and teach him the basics of takfir.

the sixth possibility: when someone recounts [the blasphemy] narrating from someone and repeats it as another person's speech. in this case, we shall examine the manner in which it was repeated [Hikayah] and context of his recounting. accordingly the ruling differs and is in four categories: obligatory, preferred, disliked and prohibited [wajib, nadb, karahah and taHrim]

if he narates this as testimony [shahadah] and to identify the utterer so as to refute him and to make it known that such a person has blasphemed and to make people abhor [hence keep away] from such a saying [or the person who utters] and to criticise it, then it is necessary to do so and a person doing so is commendable. regardless of where the person mentions it: in a book [or writing] or in a gathering in the course of refuting and repudiating such an utterer and informing about the ruling [futya] that entails such blasphemy. this is obligatory.

what shaykh asrar and shaykh danyal were doing is the above. they were warning muslims against dante, and hamza was collateral damage. it was his choice. he chose to stand in the firing line. "i am sorry, i was only trying to explain you that this guy who is firing at you has only rubber bullets, i think he does not want to kill you; i think he has a quarrel with his wife and that is why he is shooting at you." it is nonsense man. mind your business, and if you stand in the middle you get shot – your admiration of the guy's ornate holster won't help you. "you know i didn't like his bullets. only his holster.."

i am a nobody, and my opinion does not amount to anything; but still, i commend both shaykh asrar and shaykh danyal for their actions and may Allah ta'ala reward them for their zeal; may He increase them in knowledge and steadfastness.

as for what hamza did, qaDi iyaD explains other reasons where it is permissible to narrate blasphemies; thereafter he says:

except these two objectives, i do not see any other reason for narrating such things. it is not permissible to rake things concerning the honour of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam and to rinse one's mouth with obscene mentions of RasulAllah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam – neither for the person who mentions, nor who repeats it – it is not permissible for either of them to utter it except for a valid sharayi reason.

i ask, what valid sharayi reason did hanson have to mention dante except to hint at his own knowledge of teh 'ahhrts'? a million la'anat on such filthy arts and fie on the wretch who mentions dante with any consideration.

qaDi iyaD continues about the impermissibility of mentioning such words and in the course of refutation and says:

even though imam ahmed repudiated approach of mentioning such things, he himself did it when he refuted the jahamis and those who claimed that Qur'an was created. these are examples where such narration is permissible. other than these reasons, the mention or narration of such things which are blasphemies, insults and derogatory to his exalted station by way of stories and casual chatting [asmar] or just to be novel or eccentric or for gossip, between useless and useful [ghath wa'l samin] and jokes and mirth and tasteless and bizzare blathering and pointless arguments or idle talk – then in all such cases, it is prohibited to mention such blasphemies. and some cases are severe and worse than others.

a man came to imam malik and said: 'what do you say about a person who says qur'an is created [makhluq]. malik replied: 'this person is a kafir, execute him' the person [panicked and] said: i am quoting someone. imam malik said: 'but we have heard it from you.'

qaDi iyaD, may Allah ta'ala shower him with abundant blessings, was prescient when he said this, raHimahullah:

malik said so only to reproach the person and to harshly reprimand him, because that person was not executed.

if such a narrator [of blasphemies] is accused of fabricating such quotes and attributing it to others; or such is his habit or it is demonstrable that he says it in an approving tone, or is enthusiastic about it or trivialises it or [is eager] to memorise such things or seek out such things and recite poems which mock or insult the master SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam – in all such cases, this person takes the ruling of the blasphemer himself and his excuse that he is narrating from others will not benefit him. this person shall be put to the sword immediately and hastily dispatched to the pits of fire [ummuhu hawiyah].

abu ubayd ibn sallaam said about memorising a part of the verse which mocked the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam and he said: 'it is kufr'.

those who wrote about ijma'a [unanimously agreed things among muslims] said that there is an ijmaa'a among muslims that it is Haram to narrate/quote things that mock the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam or to write it or to READ IT or to leave it without erasing it* when chanced upon such writings.

may Allah ta'ala have mercy upon our elders, the pious righteous folk who were guarded and extremely careful about their religion that they dropped such things from annals and records of battles and biographies and abstained from narrating such things except very meagre and that too which is not abominable or disgusting.


i hope hamza can sleep soundly with the knowledge that thousands of people have now heard of dante because of him.

if i had more time, i would have attempted to satiate the thirst of one of his admirers who lamented that the hadith/quotes were not contexualised and demonstrated the rakakat of hamza's post. i still may…

wa billahi't tawfiq.
Allah ta'ala knows best.

the sama’a and music thing

a person in the UK known as a scholar recently attended a gathering where he permitted music and claimed that it is proven from hadith and that he can himself prove it from fatawa ridawiyyah. my nerve snapped and i went for the jugular.


tell pir saqib sahib to write a word by word refutation of the issue* alahazrat's masayil e samaa. if he cannot do it, his challenge is an empty boast and can impress only the jahil awaam. read it here. download it here. in addition to a number of fatawa of alahazrat; see vol.24, pages 125-144.** if he does not have time to write, let him pick it up and refute the arguments therein and counter alahazrat's proofs in a speech/talk whatever.

if saqib shami was leading prayer, i won't pray behind him for two reasons: unsatisfactory tajwid and less than a fistful beard. now there is a third reason: sitting in the company of fussaq and demeaning tasawwuf and shariah and considering music as halal. and if it was a juma, i would pray, but i would repeat zuhr afterward. [assuming that poetry was unsullied, if not there would be more reasons…]

Allah ta'ala knows best.

*related to music because the risalah has other issues not related to music.
** particularly on page 140 which quotes a hadith of bukhari that "people in final times will make fornication, music and silk as halal".



alahazrat's fatwa; fatawa riDawiyyah 24/138


[please] elucidate on the permissibility of listening to music [sama'a e mazameer] that is, 'qawwali' which is prevalent in our times [murawwaja qawwali]. also, describe whether it is proven from the actions of the lawgiver [sahib e shariat] sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam and thereafter how much was this compounded by people in later centuries; and which path should be adopted by a person wishing to listen to 'melody' [sama'a] and singing [qawali] in our times.


music [mazameer] is Haram.

in saHiH bukhari, RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam foretold about a group of people [in his ummah] who shall "make fornication, silk and [wine and] music as Halal" and said: 'they will be transformed into monkeys and pigs'. in hidayah and other books, it is clearly mentioned that music is Haram. sultan al-awliya nizamuddin raDiyallahu anhu has said in his fawayidu'l fu'aad: "mazameer or music is haraam". shaykh sharafuddin yaHya maneri quddisa sirruh, in his maktubat enumerated [the enormity of] music alongside fornication. concerning the Lawgiver sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam: it is only narrated that the sound of tambourine [duff] fell upon his blessed ears; and he did not intentionally listen to it, nor did he pay attention to it.during times of happiness and feast, it is permissible to beat plain drums or tambourines without jingles [jalajil] such that it is not beaten in the fashion of musicians. it is necessary for those who wish to listen to 'qawwali' to shun music and listen to chaste and virtuous poems sung by old or young men.



btw, here is a clipping from the farsi saba'a sanabil sharif on sama'a. 

saba sanabil on sama [PDF]



i just heard saqib shami's rambling on sunnaforum: here.

not only ignorant, the fellow doesn't even have basic skills of istidlal. i was under the impression that he was some sort of a scholar but this fellow has nothing to do with knowledge. just a smattering of terms and dropping of names which is, unfortunately, identified as scholarship nowadays. i was appalled by the audacity of this man who does iftara on the shariah so brazenly. this man is an outright jahil. la Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah.

he says: 'i have been to saudi jails for the sake of sunniyat'
actually, anybody foolhardy can go to saudi jails, ostensibly for the sake of sunniyat – all you have to do is argue with a mutawwa. and even if it was for 'sunniyat' does this give you carte blanche to do anything and rave about anything or make permissible anything your hawa covets?

which brings us to the straw man. i haven't heard any learned person say (or read anywhere) that a person listening to music is out of ahlu's sunnah. in fact, a person will not go out of sunniyat even after committing (al-iyadhu billah) other kabayir like: fornication and drinking wine. i challenge saqib shami to disprove this point of mine. probably saqib needs to read a basic aqidah text that explains the difference between us and khawarij on kufr of sinners.

apparently, saqib knows better than alahazrat about which passages in fawayidu'l fu'ad (FF) to discard. and this is the fallacy of generalisation which runs rife in his talk. his reasoning is:

1. ghunya has anti-sunni passages

2. ghunya is considered as work of ghaws e a'azam

3. therefore sunni scholars said that there are additions in ghunya.

4. shaykh abdu'l haq said [according to saqib-shamee] fawayidu'l fua'd has 'additions'

5. therefore, the oft-quoted part of FF should be an addition.

saqib does not spell it out, but that is the insinuation. leaving common people to derive their own conclusions. let us assume that he is saying: 'i won't accept that proof because it could be a tampering.' a number of questions arise:

1. if FF is tampered, to what degree?

2. if FF is tampered, how do we know that this particular passage is tampered?

3. what if this is not tampered? should we give precedence to permissibility over prohibition? what is the rule of uSul?

4. do we discard it completely or is there any guideline to accept/reject passages?

anyway, let us not argue about FF. what about the akhbaru'l akhyar [AA] that set you on this path? surely, AA is dependable? i assume saqib considers it dependable because he is using it as a premise to discard FF? now let us see what akhbaru'l akhyar says. in the entry of maHbub sub'hani sayyidi shaykh nizamuddin awliya raHimahullah, shaykh abdu'l haq narrates:

it is said that a man told shaykh nizamuddin in a gathering:"your friends have gathered in such and such a place and they are playing various musical instruments. shaykh nizamuddin said:"i had ordered them to stay away from such things and that musical instruments and Haram things as these things should not be [in the gathering.] they have not done the right thing and they have committed an excess [ghuluww].

i am including the farsi clipping lest i be accused of tampering with the translation. go ahead saqib and discard akhbaru'l akhyar. secondly, assuming that saba'a sanabil certainly has that quote he mentions. what is the proof that THIS book is not tampered? and what guarantee is there for SS for not to be tampered? sure you told us that alahazrat praised it. but are you saying alahazrat did not read it?

saqib asks a stupid question: 'why is mr.duff halal and mr.harmonium impermissible?'

this is like asking: 'why is mr.goat halal and mr.pig haram?' something to be established as halal because of taqrir is ONLY for sahib e shariat sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam, not for the fantasies of some ignoramus qalqalatu'l lisan who praises fussaq in their faces who does not have a basic understanding of ibaHah and its conditions. how can one argue with an ignoramus who is oblivious of the very definition of taqrir and the rules that govern it? the arsh of Rahman shivers when a fasiq is praised. and the Lord Sustainer is angered because of it.'

also included is the book alahazrat quotes kashfu'l qina'a of shaykh fakhruddin zarradi, a disciple and khalifah of sayyidi nizamuddin awliya and he categorically [see pg.22] states that:

as for the sama'a of our mashayikh – may Allah ta'ala be pleased with them – it was far removed from this [false] accusation [that they listened to musical instruments] because [their sama'a] was only voice of the reciter…

apparently saqib shami knows the practise of chishti mashayikh better than him. go ahead and slam this book as tampered as well.

let saqib shami present credible evidence and statements from masters which clearly says: "mazameer is permitted and halal" like he so pompously and proclaims.
Allah ta'ala knows best.

akhbaru'l akhyar on sama'a [PDF]



z-m-r : zamar, yazmur

is to sing. zamar or zammar.

and one who sings is zaamir or zammaar.

and the instrument accompanying singing is mizmaar (the pl.of which is mazameer).

[it should be noted that it doesn't mean any specific musical instrument. even a duff can be a mizmaar.]

figuratively, a beautiful voice is also termed mizmaar as it is mentioned in the hadith of abu musa al-ash'ari: "that he hear the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam heard him recite the qur'an and he said: "you have been given a beautiful voice [mizmaar] akin to the voices of dawud's followers" [aal daawud alayhi's salam].

here he [sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam] used 'mizmar' as a metaphor for a beautiful voice and the sweet melody.

mazameer daawud – the instruments of daawud alayhi's salam: that is by which the psalms were sung and this was the apex of melodious voices.

aal dawud here, it is said that it was a person. it is also said that 'mazameer dawud' [instruments of dawud] are a kind of du'a; the plural of mizmar is mazmuur. as it is said in the hadith of abu bakr raDiyallahu anhu: "the instruments [mazmuur] of the devil in the house of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam?"

ibn al-athir said that mazmuur and mizmaar are both the same.



the hadith: "the instruments of the devil in the house of RasulAllah?" is in muslim and bukhari:

sahih bukhari, 949 and 952.

in fat'h al bari:

mizmaratu'sh shaytan: means singing or duff [arabian tambourine] because mizmarah or mizmar is derived from zameer, which means a whistling sound and it is also used to describe beautiful voice or singing; and therefore instruments accompanying it is are termed thus. the attribution to the devil is because it is vanity and this engages the heart and distracts from dhikr.

in umdatu'l qari:

in a narration of muslim: 'singing with the duff'

imam ayni notes:

it is that without jingles [jalajil] and if it has jingles, it is miz'har

mizmaratu'sh shaytan: singing or duff

in nawawi's sharh of muslim 892,

mizmar is a whistling noise but also applicable for beautiful voice and therefore it is used to mean singing.

these are a few shuruh and if you want i can give you at least two dozen opinions of hadith masters NONE of them allowed musical instruments except duff. [by the way daff and duff are both right, only the latter is considered more eloquent/afSaH]

saqib has grossly misrepresented this hadith and it is not an ordinary crime. he is thoroughly unqualified to talk about hadith after this unless he repents and recants his egregious blunder and proves that he has acquired some education. until then muslims are warned to keep away from this orange jahil.

so know mr.saqib, that mr.duff is allowed because it is mentioned in hadith and mr.harmonium is disallowed because it is not mentioned in hadith. d-uh? if you want to do qiyas, you will have to learn usul first and i think saqib should start with basic fiqh in bahar e shariat first.



one small connector.

in previous usage mizmar referred to duff or singing as in hadith. later on it came to be used in a generic meaning of 'musical instruments' or 'music'. just as nabidh meant something in early times and it came to mean something else later – and thus corresponding fatawa. therefore, in fiqh and fatawa when the say mizmar is haram, it means musical instruments and not duff.

Allah ta'ala knows best.



At this point, someone else joined in trying to put in a word for saqib. And I replied.

There have been and continue to be many scholars/walis who permit qawwali.

none of the ancient masters permitted it.

He named a whole list of prominent ulema and mashaikh of the Chishti order who disagreed with you.

i cannot say about post 14th century mashayikh, but none of the elder* mashayikh allowed it. as for the elder mashayikh, saqib is slandering them and hence my ire.

People like Hazrat Bandyalwi, Allama Saeed Kazmi ('Ghazali e Zaman') and, most prominent of all, all the buzurgs of Astana Aalia Golra Sharif –above all Pir Sayyid Mihr Ali Shah sahib & the late Pir Naseeruddin.

i will talk about sayyidi mihr ali later but the rest of them – none of them is hujjah over alahazrat and if i did not respect these ulama i would have critically analysed their position. as for pir sayyid mihr ali raDiyallahu anhu, his practise is NOT hujjah and he is free from blame. it is allowed for him but not for anyone else. take the quote from sab'a sanabil sharif, saqib presented for his proof which he mutilated for his own convenience. i can't say if he has seen it in SS but i can assure you that it is far from how he presents it. here is the gist:

qazi hamiduddin of baghdad used to listen to sama'a and the fuqaha criticised him. he told them: imam a'zam has said that it is Haram to drink wine, but for a person who is in dire thirst (with nothing else) it is permissible for him to drink that wine. and based on this he would listen to sama'a as he was in the state of ecstasy and could not control himself. he invited the jurists of baghdad and asked the 'mizmar' to be brought out and sound began to issue from itself. and the jurists began to waltz (raqS). the jurists then wrote down: "it is permissible for those who are qualified to listen".

this event is placed in the early times, when mizmar was only a duff. will he permit drinking wine for everyone based on this argument? it is permissible for the qualified. we have no doubt that pir sayyid mihr ali shah sahib is among the qualified – but is pir nasiruddin qualified? i doubt it. and Allah ta'ala knows best. in fact, in the very SS [saba'a sanabil] it has been mentioned many times: "khwaja junayd baghdadi has made tawbah from sama'a" [to which qazi hamiduddin replied: when people qualified to listen sama'a died leaving junayd alone without company, he made tawbah.] only an ignoramus will issue absolute permissibility based on a story opposed to SaHiH hadith. the only thing remains is a book by sayyidi abdu'l ghani nablusi. i will wait for the permitters of music to cite it.

perhaps abu hasan knows the practise of chishti mashayikh better than pir sayyid mihr ali shah (etc.)

most likely not. but i believe that alahazrat was more afqah and his position is more sound; without meaning any disrespect to the noble sayyid raDiyallahu anhu. [you will still have to prove that pir mihr ali shah sahib said: 'our elder mashayikh listened to music'. his practise is not proof that elders did it too. Allah ta'ala knows best.] and even if you say that pir mihr ali shah sahib was higher than alahazrat, [and i won't contest it as both are shining stars] nobody will accept that shaykh abdu'l Haq muHaddith dihlawi or shaykh fakhruddin zarradi (who is the student/disciple and khalifah of shaykh nizamuddin awliya) knew lesser than later mashayikh.  shaykh zarradi categorically says that: it is a slander of our chishti mashayikh that they listened to musical instruments. i can cite dozens of ulama of tasawwuf who categorically and unequivocally rejected use of instruments and the 'permissibility' is only in later times.

but your tone in your response to him is very haughty and disrespectful.

sub'HanAllah. whatever happened to your ghayrat? here is a man slandering the shariah based on his abject ignorance and i am only giving him the facts – in the hope that he comes out of his delusion. i would not have taken that tone if he had left SaHiH hadith out of his raving or the unclean insinuation that RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam beheld it. sub'HanAllah, will we sit quiet when all these fake pirs and fasiq maulvis attack the shariah? the least we can do is shout. wa billahi't tawfiq. he rejects FF based on AA and in AA itself shaykh abdu'l Haq mentions that shaykh nizamuddin considered it Haram. i cannot understand how you can swallow such patent contradictions. the only explanation is: "love of a thing makes one dumb and blind".

Surely, all the scholars he listed were aware of the hadith you mention and of the meanings of the Arabic words?

i don't know. but what i know is that saqib doesn't know anything about it.



another thing i would like to clarify is that my outburst against saqib shami was not merely on his mistake about the ruling of music. it was the whole context where he was praising encouraging fussaq who sing immoral songs· and incredible arguments presented as knowledge. he was terming the dancing of young men as tawajud and wajd. this is legitimising sin and false/fractured quotes and hadith stripped of context are presented.

i don't think even those ulama who are claimed to have listened to music encouraged fussaq or praised them. for example, it does not make sense to believe that pir mihr ali shah sahib raHimahullah was sitting in front of fasiqs and praising them. because that would be a far worse allegation because it is wajib for a scholar to do amr bi'l ma'aruf and nahy an'il munkar and we have seen the hadith that it causes the Anger of the Almighty when a faasiq is praised. would you accuse pir mihr ali shah to see a munkar and keep quiet? it is safe to assume that the qawwal pir shah sahib would listen was a sharayi muslim.

the advocates of sama'a [in our time] are usually dishonest. they use names and cite books but only selectively. only that part that says mizmaar and discard everything else. whereas, eligibility is the prime condition and it is for both the singer/reciter and the listener. the content should also be free from all kinds of man'hiyyat e sharyiyyah and only the poems of pious scholars should be recited. many so-called 'eulogies' sung in qawwalis have kufriyyat in them and are disrespectful too. professional qawwals are in it for the money and get paid to perform. they go and sing bawdy songs when not singing so-called religious poetry. if you consider qawwali to be 'worship' then asking money for it is doubly haram.

books like saba'a sanabil and other taSawwuf books have 98% on akhlaq, riyazat, withdrawing from dunya, forsaking pleasures, holding fast to sunnah and so forth and only 1 or 2% on sama'a. [with the disclaimer that anyone attributing permissibility of music to sayyidi abdu'l waHid bilgrami is making a false accusation on the shaykh and it is the responsibility of such a person to prove his claim. wAllahu'l musta'an.] ask yourself how much are you interested in the 98% and if you have truly fulfilled the 98%, then perhaps, the 1-2% can be forgiven. in a plate of tasty biryani with finely cooked meat, there will be some spices and you may come across a clove or a whole chilli. only a moron will throw away the whole plate and retain one fried chilli.

wa billahi't tawfiq.



kashfu'l qinaa is a book by shaykh fakhruddin zarradi, a disciple and khalifah of shaykh nizamuddin awliya.

see pg.22 of the book.

i do not know much about the translator, but he has a useful note on p.22. we [following alahazrat] agree with most of it. that is the early mashayikh prohibited it and later mashayikh* permitted it. note that he emphasises that the permission is only for those eligible and when it is not for mere entertainment.

Allah ta'ala knows best.

*i fear that the permitters of sama'a will now have more names to quote for their argument: shaykh sanaullah panipati and shaykh abdu'l Quddus gangohi.



The person replied; and I replied to his post again.

surely if pir mihr ali shah did not approve of it he would have instructed his sons etc. also not to listen!

sub'HanAllah, they don't heed the hadith, would they heed qawl-e-mihr?

how can you make such a moral judgement?

i said that i doubt it. my yardstick for anyone is their adherence to shariah and the principles of ahlu's sunnah.

that many ancient masters did listen to musical instruments?

in fantasies and slanders and speeches of ignorant maulvis. prove it otherwise.

hazrat amir khusraw is known to have invented the sitar and qawwali music as we know it today by combining elements of persian and hindustani classical music and he was a famed musician (read his biography by anyone you choose); all the qawwal gharanas link themselves to him one way or another and he was the favourite mureed of hazrat nizamuddin awliya besides whom he is buried too!

sub'HanAllah! do you have any dependable source or is it enough that you or some xyz maulvi said it?

what of people like hazrat bakhtiyaar kaki who died during the performance of a qawwali or mawlana rumi who even left instructions for his janazah to be accompanied with singing and drums and musical instruments and whose order the Mevlevis to this day use the ney (reed flute) in their zikr?

i cannot argue with fantasies. i am sorry. if you have any proof present it.

as shaami sahib said it is not a matter of aqidah. otherwise we would have to conclude that all those saints like pir mihr ali and rumi etc. were engaged in sin (nauzubillah.)

i am sorry NJ. i am forced to agree with AQ: you cannot read and you have no comprehension.
we can still remain friends.

wa billahi't tawfiq.

imam shafiyi said: 'whenever i have debated an ignoramus, he silenced me; and whenever i debated a knowledgeable person, i silenced him.'



A couple of posts are skipped as they were side talk.

pir mihr ali shah sahib was asked whether sama and dancing were permissible. he dismissed it in one line:the judgement of shaykh sa'di as said in these two verses is sufficient.

na guyem sama'a ay biradar keh cheest
magar mustami'y raa badanam keh keest

brother, i cannot tell you what sama'a is [the ruling]
until i know who the listener is.




someone asked alahazrat about the verse and he answered it in his inimitable style, which is so full of knowledge and foresight that a fraction of that could not be extracted if you put the entire gathering of saqib and singers and shook them for an year, and spun them in a hadron collider. marvel at his insight that the fatwa is so fresh, that it appears as if it was written for our times.

urdu is here, english is coming in sha Allah. [fatawa ridawiyyah 24/ 127-133]


...and to differentiate between qualified and unqualified among those who are sane, is to embolden anybody and everybody to commit sin and to open the door of the accursed devil's subterfuge. every fasiq will then claim that he is 'qualified' and therefore it is Halal for him. he will commit sin openly and permit that which has been prohibited by Allah ta'ala and will mislead commonfolk, ignorant like himself. does the shariah of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam permit such things? may Allah ta'ala keep such things away.

the pristine shariah closes the door to evil [fitna] and this thing [music] opens a huge doorway to sin and therefore how far removed from the noble shariah!

you can see today, how many ornery, mannerless chumps, rough and boorish who do not even know the basics of ablution and toilet manners; such people who don't know what is farz, wajib, sunnat, makruh and Haram in an ablution. yet they wear ochre robes and grown lengthy hair like women and are engrossed in these satanic sounds day and night…


A brother asked

What about that book by Shaykh abd al-Ghani Nablusi? did alaHazrat say anything regarding it?

i am not saying anything about that book until we see it used by the permitters of sama'a.

Bootnote: We will in sha Allah analyse the book by Sayyidi Abdu'l Ghani later, when we find time. wa billahi't tawfiq.

wa kam lillāhi min sirrin khafiyyin
yadiqqu khafāhu án fahmi’dh dhakiyyu

وكم لله من سر خفي

يدق خفاه عن فهم الذكي


shakawtu ilā wakīyin sū-a hifžī
fa arshadanī ila tarki’l máāşī
wa akhbaranī bi anna’l ílma nūrun
wa nūrullāhi lā yuhdā li áāşī

i complained to wakiy of a failing memory
he advised me to stay away from sins
and told me that knowledge is a light
and a sinner is not guided to this light

These lines are attributed to Imām Shāfiýī, in his Diwan.