Objection of la-Madhabi & its Refutation


La-madhabi Objection and Lie:

 

Objection of La-Madhabi:

 

“Open the history books and read about the fights that took place between Ahl-as-Sunna and the Shi’a [Shi’ites] and Kharijis, and even among those who were in the Ahl-as-Sunna madhhabs! Enmity between the Shafi’is and the Hanafis caused the Mongols to assault the Muslims.”

 

Refutation:

 

The La-Madhhabi (Wahhabi-Salafi-AhliHadith-Dewbandi) and their trolls like Rashid Rida, in order to attack the four Madhhabs of Ahl-as-Sunna, choose a tricky way. For doing this, first they write about the assaults of the seventy-two groups [for whom the Hadith says will go to Hell] against the Ahl-as-Sunna, and about the bloody events which they caused, and then they basely lie by adding that the four madhhabs of Ahl-as-Sunna fought on another. The fact, however, is that not a single fight has ever taken place between the Shafi’es and the Hanafis at any place at any time. How could they ever fight despite the fact that both belong to the Ahl as Sunna! They hold the same belief. They have always loved one another and lived brotherly. Let us see the la-madhabi people, who say that those people fought, can give us an example after all! They cannot. They write, as examples, the jihads which the four madhhabs of Ahl-as-Sunna co-operatively made against la-madhhabi. They try to deceive Muslims with such lies. Because the name (Shafi’e) of the Ahl-as-Sunna and the word (Shia) sound alike, they narrate the combats between the Hanafis and the la-madhhabi as if they had taken place between the Hanafis and the Shafi’es. In order to blemish the Muslims who follow the madhhabs, those who reject the four madhhabs slander them by misinterpreting some special terms. For example, reffering to the dictionary Al-munjid written by Christian priests, they define the word ‘taasub’ as ‘holding a view under the influence of non-scientifc, non-religious and irrational reasons’, in order to give the impression that th teachings of madhhabs as taasub, and say that t’asub, has caused conflicts between madhhabs. However, according to the scholars of Islam, ‘ta’sub’ means enmity that cannot be justified.’ Then, attaching oneself to a madhhab or defending that this madhhab is based on the Sunna and ont he sunnas of al-Khulafa ar-Rashidin (radiAllahoanhum) is never ‘Tasub’. Speaking ill of another madhhab is ta’asub, and the followers of the four madhhabs have never done such taa’sub. There has been no taasub amongst the madhhabs throughout Islamic history.

 

The la-madhhabs, who are the followers of one of the seventy two heretical groups, endeavoured much to sidetrack the Ummayyad and Abbasid caliphs from the Ahl-as-Sunna. Those who achieved it caused bloody events. It is a base slander against the scholars of Islam to accuse them of Taa’sub because they, to prevent the harm of the la-madhhabi, counselled these caliphs and invited them to follow one of the four madhhabs of Ahl-as-Sunna. A newly developed method for attacking the four madhhabs is: first pick up a smattering of Arabic, then scan a few history books in a haphazard manner and with a narrow-minded personal sentiment, then evaluate the various past events fortuitously encountered, and finally piece them together as the evidences for the harms of ta’asub, which you somehow attribute to the Sunni Muslims. To find justification, some of those who are against the madhhabs say that they are against not the madhhabs but the ta’asub in madhhabs. However, by misinterpreting ‘ta’sub,’ they attack the fiqh scholars defending their madhhabs and claim that these scholars caused the bloody events in the Islamic history.

 

Thereby they try to alienate the younger generations from the madhhabs.

 

As it is written in Qamus-al-Aalam, Amid al-Mulk Muhammad al-Kunduri, the vizier of Seljuqi Sultan Tughrul Beg, issued a rescript stating that the la-madhhabi should be cursed at minbars, and therefore, most of the ‘ulema’ in Khurasan emigrated to other places during the time of Alb Arslan. La-madhhabi people like Ibn Taimmiya distorted this event as “The Hanafis, and the Shafi’is fought each other, and the Ash’aris were cursed at minbars.” They spread these lies and their own false trranslations from as-Suyuti’s books among young people to deceive them and to destroy the four Ahl-as-Sunna madhhabs and to replace it with la-madhhabism.

 
The following story is one of those related to ta’sub as it is unjustly attributed to the madhhabs and is claimed to have caused fights between brothers in Muslim history: Yaqut al- Hamawi visited Rayy in 617 A.H. and, seeing that the city was in ruines, asked the people whom he met how it happened; he was told that there had arisen ta’asub between the Hanafis and the Shafi’is, that they had fought, and the Shafi’is had won and the city had been ruined. This story is referred to in Yaqut’s book Mu’jam al-Buldan. However, Yaqut was not a historian. As he was a Byzantine boy, he was captured and sold to a merchant in Baghdad. He travelled through many cities to do the business of his boss, after whose death he began selling books, Mu’jam al-Buldan is his geographical dictionary in which he wrote what he had seen and heard wherever he had been. He profited much from this book. Rayy is 5 km south of Tehran and is in ruines now. This city was conquered by Urwat Ibn Ziad at-Tai with the command of Hadrat Umar (razi Allaho anho) in 20 A.H. It was improved during the time of Abu Ja’far Mansur, and it became the home of great scholars and a center of civilization. In 616 A.H., the non-Muslim Mongol ruler Jenghiz, too, destroyed this Muslim city and martyred its male inhabitants and captured the women and children. The ruins seen by Yaqut had been caused by the Mongol army a year before. The la-madhhabi asked by Yaqut imputed this destruction to the Sunnis, and Yaqut believed them.

 

This shows that he was not a historian but an ignorant tourist. The la-madhhabi, when they cannot find a rational or historical support to blemish the followers of madhhabs and the honourable fiqh scholars, make their attacks with the writings and words based on Persian tales. Such tales do not harm the superiority and excellence of the scholars of Ahl-as-Sunna; on the contrary, they display the la-madhhabi men of religious post are not authorities of Islam but ignorant heretics who are enemies of Islam. It is understood that they have been endeavouring to deceive Muslims and thus to demolish the four madhhabs fromt he inside by pretending to be men of religious post. To demoslish the four madhhabs means to demolish Ahl-as-Sunna, for Ahl-as Sunnah is composed of the four madhhabs with regard to practices (a’mal, fiqh). There is no Ahl-as-Sunna outside these four madhhabs. And to demolish Ahl-as-Sunna means to demolish the right religion, Islam, which Hazrat Muhammad (peace be upon him) brought from Allah Tabarak’wataala, for, the Ahl-as-Sunna are those Muslims who walk on the path of as-Sahabat al-Kiram (radi Allahu anhum). The path of as-Sahabat al-Kiram is the path of Prophet (alehi salato wasalam), who, in the hadith, “My Companions are like the stars in the sky. If you follow any one of them you will find the right way,” orders us to follow Sahaba-i-Kiram.

 

Hanafi – Maliki – Shafie- and Hanbalis all are ONE AND SAME in beliefs, and the difference in fiqh is not a difference in Belief. These all four madhhabs of Sunni Orthodox Islam is the vast majority of Muslims, and Prophet alehisalam ordered us to follow the Majority Group. Many among them are Sufis too, that does not makes them out from madhhabs. They could be Hanafi, Shafie, Maliki, Hanbali. Not at all any matter because our belief is same. But {Wahhabism, Salafism, Ahlu Hadithism, Deobandism} does not belong to any of the Fiqhhi madhab, that’s why they are not from Ahl-as-Sunna. Deoband claims to be from Ahnaf i.e., Hanafi’s but, despite of ‘Taqlid’ each and every belief of Deobandism is in similarity with Wahhabism, who are la-madhhabi, that’s reason that, they are been considered la-madhhab too.

 

May Allah keep us save from all 72 deviant sects. Ameen.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Objection of la-Madhabi & its Refutation”

  1. Dear, Admin
    Well It is thoroughly explained, but at some point I hv a doubt, unclear etc. Who is deobandis, do you meant Darul uloom deoband and its alumnus. Plz explained it

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s