DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Book - How I became a Hanafi? by Shaykh Ameen Safdar Okarvi (Main Hanafi Kaisay Bana)

**Caunnysup** · 12-31-2011, 02:02 AM

aoa,

this book is written incorrectly. for ahle hadith bashing it is good (but ahle hadith bashing isnt good), while if you really wish to make ghair muqallids see sense then it is not a good choice.
why?
because not all ahle hadith share the same beliefs as the writer's teacher.not all of them are takfiris. some genuinely feel they are misled by muqallid scholars and fear for their emaan, some confuse aqeedah with fiqh and dislike ghair muqallids for their responsibility in the bidats prevalent in society.

they are not all the same.i shd know. i was salafi inclined once.

however, some amazing points have been raised which should have been highlighted more rather than the dialogues between the writer and his teacher:

- why was fiqh collected before hadith was collected?
- if hadith was collected after fiqh and all the compilers of sahih sitta were muqallids why did they not include a part in their book dedicated to denouncement of their school of thought?
- one must not be arrogant in trusting their own intellect and strive to learn from scholars so that out understanding matches that of the salf-saliheen. this is unlike what qadiani did.
simply outstanding points.

however, the hanafi sheikh asks the author why no ahle hadith literature was published before 'angrez' came. this is a repetition of the age old theory of our enemies are agents of british.
ironically deoband also came into being after the british not before. no 'deoband' affiliated literature was published before british times.you point a finger at someone, three of your fingers point at you as well.

barelvis, deobandis, ahle hadith all came into being during british rule. i dont believe any of them to be agents of british. if anyone has verifiable proof please share it

The reason that the question is raised about the lack of scholarship from the Ahle Hadees before the British came is because even though Darululoom Deoband or the Barelvi maslak were not formally in existence, views similar to them were being espoused by the Hanafi ulama before the British came. On the other hand, you don't find any sort of literature that promotes the qualities that separates the Ahle Hadees of India/Pakistan from the rest of the Muslims of that region. That is to say, you'll find a lot of literature from the Hanafi and Shafi'i ulama within the Indian subcontinent before the British came, but you won't find any Ahle Hadees literature.

And you're completely correct that this isn't really applicable to all ghair muqallideen, especially those that do not come from India/Pakistan, but it is applicable to the ghair muqallideen who share abhorrent views such as Hanafis are mushrikeen or they attack Imam Abu Hanifa

.

12-31-2011, 02:02 AM	#12
Caunnysup Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 470 Senior Member	aoa, this book is written incorrectly. for ahle hadith bashing it is good (but ahle hadith bashing isnt good), while if you really wish to make ghair muqallids see sense then it is not a good choice. why? because not all ahle hadith share the same beliefs as the writer's teacher.not all of them are takfiris. some genuinely feel they are misled by muqallid scholars and fear for their emaan, some confuse aqeedah with fiqh and dislike ghair muqallids for their responsibility in the bidats prevalent in society. they are not all the same.i shd know. i was salafi inclined once. however, some amazing points have been raised which should have been highlighted more rather than the dialogues between the writer and his teacher: - why was fiqh collected before hadith was collected? - if hadith was collected after fiqh and all the compilers of sahih sitta were muqallids why did they not include a part in their book dedicated to denouncement of their school of thought? - one must not be arrogant in trusting their own intellect and strive to learn from scholars so that out understanding matches that of the salf-saliheen. this is unlike what qadiani did. simply outstanding points. however, the hanafi sheikh asks the author why no ahle hadith literature was published before 'angrez' came. this is a repetition of the age old theory of our enemies are agents of british. ironically deoband also came into being after the british not before. no 'deoband' affiliated literature was published before british times.you point a finger at someone, three of your fingers point at you as well. barelvis, deobandis, ahle hadith all came into being during british rule. i dont believe any of them to be agents of british. if anyone has verifiable proof please share it The reason that the question is raised about the lack of scholarship from the Ahle Hadees before the British came is because even though Darululoom Deoband or the Barelvi maslak were not formally in existence, views similar to them were being espoused by the Hanafi ulama before the British came. On the other hand, you don't find any sort of literature that promotes the qualities that separates the Ahle Hadees of India/Pakistan from the rest of the Muslims of that region. That is to say, you'll find a lot of literature from the Hanafi and Shafi'i ulama within the Indian subcontinent before the British came, but you won't find any Ahle Hadees literature. And you're completely correct that this isn't really applicable to all ghair muqallideen, especially those that do not come from India/Pakistan, but it is applicable to the ghair muqallideen who share abhorrent views such as Hanafis are mushrikeen or they attack Imam Abu Hanifa .
	Quote