Laymen’s Attitude Towards Ulama-e-Soo’

CRITICISM IS FOR THE GUIDANCE OF LAYMEN
 .
A BROTHER ASKS: 
.
Q. In this day and age we read in The Majlis articles of the many errors, misdeeds and even transgressions of Ulama and even of ulama organisations and Darul Ulooms. What do we as laymen do or say?
Answer: Be wary of those persons and those institutions whom we criticize. The objective of our chiding and criticisizing is guidance for the laymen to save them from plunging headlong into baatil, fisq and fujoor. So take heed of our naseehat and do not touch these miscreant molvis and institutions with even a barge pole. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) expressing his profound fear for these vile specimens of humanity, said: “Verily, I fear for my Ummah the aimmah (molvis and sheikhs) who are mudhilleen (i.e. they mislead the Ummah taking them to the gates of Jahannam).”
 .
Q. Is it safest for us to not talk about it and hold over tongue? 
Answer: Talk about it with the sincere intention of passing naseehat to unsuspecting ones. Do not engage in idle gossip or merely to insult the miscreants. But remind those who will heed your advice to beware of the rogues and crooks who usurp and ruin their Akhlaaq and Imaan.
 .
Q. Every one claims to have proof for their actions and it is a “difference of opinion”. What is the best route to take to warn people?
Answer: The best route is to adopt the method of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). He said: “Proclaim the Haqq even though it is bitter.” Don’t expect to keep people smiling with you when you proclaim the truth. About losing friends in the effort to uphold and proclaim the Haqq, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said about Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu): “May Allah have mercy on Umar. The Haqq has not left for him any friend.” Don’t beat about the bush. State the truth of the Deen and be concerned with Allah’s pleasure, not the pleasure of the people.
 .
In this age, ‘difference of opinion’ has been made a smokescreen for halaalizing every haraam misdeed which shaitaan whispers into the vermiculated brains of the ulama-e-soo’. These agents of Iblees with their satanic tool of ‘difference of opinion’ undermine the Shariah and seek to abrogate the ahkaam which were handed to the Ummah by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). They will devour even faeces and drink urine on the basis of ‘difference of opinion’. Do not be fooled and diverted from the Haqq by this baseless justification.
 .
The Shariah is cast in rock and no ‘difference of opinion’ can uncast it. It is a satanic ploy which the ulama-e -soo’ are manipulating to hoodwink the unwary and ignorant masses. The deeds which the ulama-e-soo’ are halaalizing are unanimously haraam. There is no difference of opinion on such issues. The differences of moron molvis are not valid Shar’i differences.
 .
Q. I admit of warning people that some Ulama are “off track”. I do not mean that they are out of the fold of Islam but they have deviated from the way of our seniors. Perhaps I should have remained silent as I was reprimanded by an Alim for saying that as even differences were among our seniors. It was a private conversation.  
Answer: They are not only off the track, they are hovering on the brink of kufr, and some are actually committing kufr. Your appraisal is correct. They have drifted far, very far from the Shariah. The person whom you describe as am ‘Aalim’, is not an Aalim. He is a molvi. Every molvi is not an Aalim. If he was an Aalim, he would not have moronically reprimanded you for stating the Haqq.
 .
Q. The Alim says to me that although he did not agree with the views of others, they are very senior ulama and from august institutes who have proof for their view. I won’t understand as a layman. There are many instances of difference in opinion which I will not understand. He says this is his way. He explains his view and that is it but he won’t argue, criticise others and watches his tongue and I should do the same.
Answer: His view is not the Sunnah for adoption. The ‘seniors’ and the ‘august institutions’ he referred to are plodding the path of baatil. They have no Shar’i proof for their haraam convoluted views on issues for which the Shariah has clearcut rulings. But these deviates present obscurities and stupid arguments to hoodwink laymen. You have no obligation to follow his way.
 .
Q. To explain to me differences he cited numerous issues. I cannot recall all now but some are: 1. In Fataawa Mahmoodiya (I think that was the reference) short term insurance is permissible.
Answer: Even if Fataawa Mahmoodiyah says that ‘short term’ insurance is permissible, it remains haraam. The fatwa is erroneous. They should not just cite Fataawa Mahmoodiyyah. They should negate the Shar’i arguments on the basis of which insurance is haraam. They should present their Shar’i dalaa-il for claiming that any type of insurance is halaal. All forms of insurance are haraam. 
 .
Q. 2. In Bukhari Shareef it appears that Imaam Saheb says that if the male satr is covered it is sufficient. So technically wearing a jockey will suffice. But not all agree with this view.
Answer: This is the type of haraam view which deviate molvis dig out and publicize. With such obscure narrations they seek to cancel the fourteen century Fatwa of the Math-hab. The million of Hanafi Fuqaha were all aware of the existence of this narration, but they maintained that the Satr is from the navels to the knees. Now, were all the great Fuqaha morons whilst the jaahil molvi of today who dug up this narration is a great Mujtahid? 
 .
The molvi is not a mujtahid. He has no right to unearth an obscure narrations and submit it to his baatil opinion to fabricate a rule which militates against the fourteen century Fatwa of the Deen. The job of the muqallid is to follow the rulings of the Math-hab. Thus, if any moron so-called Hanafi molvi today seeks to justify wearing a ‘jockey’ which exposes the Satr, then there will be ample justification for branding him an agent of Iblees and a mudhil. 
 .
Q. 3. In the Shafi kitaabs the beard can be shortened less than 1 fist length but cannot be shaved.
Answer: This is baseless. The claim is false. The Shaafi’ Math-hab is the strictest regarding the beard. According to the Shaafi Math-hab, even if the beards grows down to the waist, it may not be cut. The claim that it can be shortened less than a fist length is a satanic falsehood. We have written two books on this issue in refutation of the morons who make this haraam claim. 
 .
Q. 4. In some view (cannot remember the reference) masah of foot can be done and also something of wetting the ears.
Answer: This is the type of view which expels a man from the fold of Islam. Allaamah Abdul Wahhaab Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh) of the 9th century, as well as other Ulama say: “Whoever takes (as daleel) from the rarities (obscure, isolated views) of the Ulama, verily, he has made his exit from Islam.”
 .
There is even a view that Fir’oun died with Imaan. Shall we now say that Fir’oun was not a kaafir? And a view that Nabi Isaa (Alayhis salaam) had died. Only deviates who are the victims of shaitaani influence unearth such obscurities to undermine Islam. The jaahil agents of Iblees, shamelessly cite such mardood views despite being aware of the 14 century view of the Math-hab.
 .
Q. 5. Numerous other instances of our Senior ulama and Sheikh of Hadith of India, etc who give permissibility of photography and other issues.
Answer: There is not a single one among our Seniors who had ever stated that photography of animate objects is permissible. Those who make this dastardly claim are confounded liars. It is only in the present time that molvis such as Mufti Taqi, who has deviated from the Ijmaa’i ruling of our Akaabireen and of the Fuqaha of the entire Ummah of all Math-habs, who claim that picture-making is permissible. Such molvis have lost their credibility. Their dalliance with the riba banks and their association with fussaaq, fujjaar politicians have vermiculated their brains. Therefore, they disgorge stupidities in order to legalize and halaalize what is unanimously haraam. They have rendered themselves person’a grata. They are among the mudhilleen about whom Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had expressed so much fear for his Ummah.
 .
Q. (6) There were other issues such as viewing the full female form when going to see a woman for marriage. I cannot recall who he said the reference was.
Answer: Yes, there is a view somewhere on Mars or Pluto that with the intention of marriage a man may view the woman stark naked without even a bikini. The molvi who mentions this view should be crucified, and when he perishes, his grave should be filled with rocks and thorns, not sand. He is a confirmed and a confounded agent of Iblees, hence he has the audacity citing this stupid view as a valid difference of opinion. 
 .
Q. In a nutshell he says he does not agree with people’s views but they have their proof. He does not say anything as he does not want to think bad or ill off others and I should also be cautious. I am a layman. What on earth do I know how to understand or to interpret a Hadith so I cannot make sense of these references.
Answer: The molvi is a blatant liar. Those whom we have branded as agents of Iblees do not have a single valid Shar’i proof for their haraam views and halaalization of haraam. For example, the local maajin (moron) mercenary muftis, present as their ‘proof’ Mufti Taqi for permissibility of television and pictures. They are too stupid to present even stupid arguments as Mufti Taqi presents for halaalizing pictures. They make blind and stupid taqleed of Mufti Taqi in any view which appeals to their nafs. They have absolutely no Shar’i proof. Therefore do not become befuddled by the molvi who proffered the advice to you. While you as a layman may not present your personal opinion. You may cite the fatwa/ opinion of the Aalim of Haqq whom you follow. 
 .
[Answered by Hazrat Maulana Ahmad Sadeq Desai]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *