[Fsfkkkjz]

Jazakullahukhairan Akhi,

Let us not impede our dialogue ya akhi, This is obviously about a certain masala based on conditions an obvios example is 1 may not eat swine but on a certain condition(this is very clear) But on the masala on touching the opposite sex their is a difference of opinion on how 1 may go about if "NEEDED" on a certain occasion. Allah has not burdened us to become mutashadid on issues where we need to act with caution and a lenient action based WITHIN the confines of the Divine sharia. Like I said before dear brother, This is a masala issue, the basic principle is that it is HARAM to touch the opposite sex but with each ruling has its ways of being acted upon within the different opinions held my many different shaykhs within the 4 different madhabs, thus Explaining the differents between the shafi'i route of touching the opposite sex breaking wudu and the hanbali route where (NIYA) is required in order to break it as in, If one accidentally touches a kind sister the blessed wudu is not lost but if IT IS INTENDED WITH LUST..... we obviously know the outcome
So in short.....This is a masala, and As I have said there Is a fatwa by
Shaykh Abdullah bin bayya(may allah bless him) regarding this ruling.

Its not an excuse that they make, Its a Masala , Its an approach to a masala just like any masala FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE, they have not "ENCOURAGED" this act but they reserve the right to provide proof based on our deen.
If the Muhadith Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi views light music that contains no haram based on those conditions does that mean the laymen will all follow him? NO, There are many Ulema and laymen that follow besides him but have different opinions against it.

If I remember quite realistically, this issue of name calling goes on both ends of the spectrum. Are you giving Mashaykh of Tassawuf infallibility within lower actions within this dunya?? Do you not understand opposition?
Given that Mashaykh of tassawuf might be extremely humble and hold secrets bestowed upon them by allah through their journey for Ilm....yet they are still human and they are able to defend,retaliate,oppose certain things in any fashion that every other human can do....... I personally seen people calling the nashqbandi's extremists.....evil and what not.

But I really dont see why we should have an arguement on this akhi. I'v received my answer about if Haqqani nashqbandi's having deobandi mureeds.

A true shaykh of tasawwuf would not indulge in questionable actions. A true shaykh of tasawwuf would get angry at even the slightest of makrooh actions being committed in front of him. But what we have seen from Nazim Haqqani is not just being complicit in perpetrating the evil action, but then defending it with an insane and irrelevant point (i.e. touching a woman doesn't break wudhu so there was nothing wrong with him doing so!).

As for touching women, there is no necessity in touching a woman who is bay'ah to the shaykh. We know how Rasoolullah took bay'ah and he did so without touching women. So, we know that touching women is haraam and we have the example of Rasoolullah in front of us on how to take bay'ah from women. So, Nazim Haqqani touching a ghayr mahram woman not only violates the sunnah method of dealing with women, but had women touch him, which is haraam.

It is also not a matter of encouraging, especially if an action would make life easier. If there is no restriction on touching women, life would most definitely be easier but it would not be in accordance to the shari'ah, just how if there was no restriction on clothing.

And you seem to not understand the actual mas'ala itself (just like Nazim Haqqani). It is not a part of our Hanafi madhhab that touching a woman breaks wudhu. We all know that. But we also know that touching a woman intentionally - even without the intention of lust - is outright haraam. The only exceptions that we can even see would be in times of extreme necessity, such as when we are falling or she is falling so that we grab hold of them to prevent them or ourselves from danger. That is the extent. But under such extreme circumstances, a lot of haraam becomes halaal; if there is no food besides pork available, for example, then even pork becomes permissible though the position of taqwa is to refrain from it. Even a statement of kufr becomes permissible if one's life is in danger if he or she refuses to utter it - but the position of taqwa, once again, is to refuse to say these statements and give one's life for the sake of Allah . When these extreme circumstances do not exist (which they didn't when women touch Nazim's hands without coercion being applied on either party), then the action is de facto haraam.

But this was obviously not the case with Nazim Haqqani and his mureedah.

What you seem to be implying is that if something doesn't break your wudhu, it is halaal. Dealing with riba doesn't break your wudhu so does that make it permissible? Also, defecation and urination do break our wudhu so are these actions now haraam? Of course not! Touching a ghayr mahram woman doesn't break your wudhu, but it is haraam without doubt.