Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#21 |
|
![]() Perhaps, or perhaps the entire excursion could have failed and India altogether would have remained kaffir. We'll never know, and it's rather pointless to speculate, is it not? |
![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
|
![]() Well, we can see the example of the Arabian Peninsula under the sahaba ![]() It isn't really a speculation - speculating about the past is almost always pointless if there is nothing to be learned - but it should act as something to remind ourselves as we move onwards to the future. |
![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
|
Abdulwahab's comment was too general and broad. Emperor akbar was one of the earlier mughal ruler. ![]() Well, another example I can give is the use of music. Many mubtadi'oon justify music by saying how it allowed Hindus to become Muslims but in reality, what had happened was the Hindus had corrupted the Muslims into going against the shari'ah and utilizing the tools of Shaytan. The entire reason that the Tablighi Jama'at started, for example, was because Muslims were acting too much like Hindus. |
![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
|
![]() Africa is a bad example. Don't forget that Spain (which runs along the same current as the North African Ulema) not only had Islam ripped out of it, but it was full of corruption prior to the Crusaders taking it over. Not only that, but the further south you go, the more polytheists you find. And look at Indonesia, Malaysia, etc. These are Shafi`i countries, and yet they are full of kuffar, shirk, bid`a, etc. So the problem is you're only looking at examples that serve to further your argument. But I would say the more likely reason for the lack of polytheism in Arab Shafi`i lands is due to the fact that those are closer to the heartland of Islam, and not because they happened to be primarily Shafi`i. Don't forget that they were mainly ruled by Hanafis just like India. So the issue is most likely one of proximity to the centers of Islam, and not one of certain Madhabs being strict or lax with regards to their treatment of kuffar. |
![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
|
![]() Only northern Africa was conquered during the time of the sahabas ![]() ![]() And look at Indonesia, Malaysia, etc. These are Shafi`i countries, and yet they are full of kuffar, shirk, bid`a, etc. So the problem is you're only looking at examples that serve to further your argument. But I would say the more likely reason for the lack of polytheism in Arab Shafi`i lands is due to the fact that those are closer to the heartland of Islam, and not because they happened to be primarily Shafi`i. Don't forget that they were mainly ruled by Hanafis just like India. So the issue is most likely one of proximity to the centers of Islam, and not one of certain Madhabs being strict or lax with regards to their treatment of kuffar. Sorry brother, but I'm not saying it has anything to do with the madhahib but all to do with what the sahaba ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#28 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
|
I still adhere to the Hanafi madhhab but i am a bit confused at the moment. ![]() Don't be confused bro, continue being Hanafi. Since you must be knowing Salah and other Fiqh matters more from Hanafi Madhab. To change Madhab will be like beginning from zero again. Besides Hanafi Scholars are abundant, its easier for you to get information too. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
|
![]() First of all, a brief reminder, it's dangerous to speculate and start taking that speculation as "facts". Please don't make it a culture to speculate and make open blanket statements without studying the matter first. That's not what the Prophet ![]() Hindu and polytheists are many in Malaysia not because sahaba ![]() Indonesia was the major land for Hindus since eon agos. That's why the largest (or one of the top 5 largest) temple is in Java Island. And Hindu still is prevalent in especially Bali Island. But ![]() Regarrding Shafi'i in Malaysia, the lifestyle is "dilluted" through British based education system. However there are efforts to revive the madrasa school system again (quite a number of new madrasas are already in operation). Indeed, if you study the history of the area, during the 1800s till 1940s, there were a few ulama who were quite famous from the area, mostly from Pattani area (Southern Thailand where the Muslims are waging jihad there to liberate the land and to apply sharia law). |
![]() |
![]() |
#31 |
|
Yes, don't be confused.
Imam Abu Hanifa is called Imam Azam (the greatest imam). In Mufti Zar Wali's tafseer, he mentions a few things: 1) Imam Abu Hanifa did 55 Hajj and met 17 sahaba and most of them he observed while they were praying. So he was a Tab'ee 2) Imam Shafi was a student of Imam Muhammad's students (who was one of the most prominent students of Imam Abu Hanifa) 3) Imam Hanbal became interested in Fiqh after hearing about the fame of Imam Yusuf (who was also a student of Imam Abu Hanifa) 4) In the book "Ma Wafaqal asghar bil Akbar", are listed all the rulings where Imam Hanbal followed the same rulings as Imam Abu Hanifa. All 4 madhabs are acceptable in the court of Allah. They were the auliya of Allah without a doubt. So it is best to follow one of them in the matters of fiqh, because each one established their rulings based on proofs. Fiqh is based on usool (one of the highest sciences of deen). And Allah knows best. |
![]() |
![]() |
#32 |
|
Hanafi because:
- The virtue of Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahimahullah) being from among the Tabi'een. - The students that he had and how they benefitted the Ummah. - How the Scholars of India and the rest of Sub-continent protected and are still protecting the Science of Hadeeth and its asaneed. - Hanafi scholars are easily accessible in my locality And it is NOT because I was born into Hanafi family. I am familiar with a few Shafi'i and Hanbali Scholars, so it wasn't an issue that I can't access Scholars from a different School. I remember that I once nearly became 'Salafi', lol. |
![]() |
![]() |
#33 |
|
![]() There is nothing wrong with speculation if it doesn't lead to lamenting the past - as what has happened was what was meant to happen by the qadr of Allah ![]() ![]() It does require noting that there were no polytheists in the Arabian peninsula, as well as northern Africa. Even in Iran, Zoroastrianism became a tiny speck of its former glory, with many Zoroastrians actually fleeing to Hindu India when the Muslims arrived during the time of the sahaba ![]() So, we can easily take a lesson from this. |
![]() |
![]() |
#34 |
|
Yes, don't be confused. |
![]() |
![]() |
#35 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#36 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#37 |
|
![]() What's bad about speculation is; - It's not based on the truth. Therefore, what could be possibly gained from made up event or a speculation from a person who doesnt't have the knowledge about the real circumstances? And I mean this about any event at all, not just about what you wrote earlier. We've had many good beautiful stories about the Prophet ![]() ![]() ![]() - Speculations tend to overlook the hard facts available. It's not the characteristic of a good Muslim to speculate on stuffs we don't know. Otherwise it'll be open ended. Just imagine what if every one starts "speculating" without checking the hard facts? Would you do da'wa this way? - Regardless of what happened to sikh and some of the former Muslims who traded/blended their faith with other faiths in the sub-continent, that events can't be used as a yardstick to generalize as if the same thing happened to the Muslims from other far away places from the Arabian Peninsular. If that's the case, then would you speculate about "the blending" of the Islamic faiths with other faiths of our brothers in Chechen, Xinjiang, Gansu, and Ningxia in China, and other parts of the world? Or are you gonna use the same yardstick to judge our brothers who live in the West? Moreover, the West tend to have more colorful "cultural transitions/events" in the history compared to other places. - Have you contacted any local Muslims from the area you mentioned before to know what's exactly the status of the efforts to bring back sharia law and to move the majority Muslims towards the goal of united under one caliphate should the time come? And I mean this not just for Indonesia/Malaysia area, but any regions that we have no knowledge at all. That should be something that we must base our initial assesment on. We should stop giving excuses to the wrong things. Haqq is haqq, and there's no compromise in that. Otherwise haqq will be dilluted, and will not be pure anymore. Since we all strive to bring haqq to ourselves and the surrounding around us, therefore we should also not be "dilluted" with mere speculations in our thoughts. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#38 |
|
Shalom Aleikhom, |
![]() |
![]() |
#39 |
|
Assalamu alaykum
I still adhere to the Hanafi madhhab but i am a bit confused at the moment. How come you are confused. When great muhadditeen of the salaf were not, they followed hanafi madhab. 1. Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (392 – 463) narrates in Tarikh Baghdad: Al-Khallal informed me: ‘Ali ibn ‘Amr al-Hariri informed me that ‘Ali ibn Muhammad al-Nakha‘i narrated to them: Najih ibn Ibrahim narrated to us: Ibn Karamah narrated to us: We were with Waki‘ [ibn al-Jarrah] (126 – 196) one day and a man said: “Abu Hanifah erred!” Waki‘ said: “How can Abu Hanifah err when with him are the likes of Abu Yusuf (113 – 182) and Zufar (110 – 158) in their logic; and the likes of Yahya ibn Abi Za’idah (120 – 182), Hafs ibn Ghiyath (117 – 194), Hibban (111 – 171) and Mindal (103 – 169) in their memorisation of hadith; and the like of al-Qasim ibn Ma‘n (100 – 175) in his knowledge of language and Arabic; and Dawud al-Ta’i (105 – 162) and Fudayl ibn ‘Iyad (107 – 187) in their asceticism and their scrupulousness? The one whose sitting partners are such, he does not come close to erring, because if he erred they would correct him.” (Tarikh Baghdad 16:365) . With the same chain up to al-Nakha‘i, al-Khatib narrates: Al-Nakha‘i said: I heard Muhammad ibn Ishaq al-Bakka’i say: I heard Isma‘il ibn Hammad ibn Abi Hanifah say: “The [foremost] companions of Abu Hanifah were ten: Abu Yusuf, Zufar, Asad ibn ‘Amr al-Bajali (d. 190), ‘Afiyah al-Awdi (d. 160), Dawud al-Ta’i, al-Qasim ibn Ma‘n al-Mas‘udi, ‘Ali ibn Mushir (d. 189), Yahya ibn Zakariyya ibn Abi Za’idah, Hibban and Mindal the sons of ‘Ali al-‘Anbari, and there was not amongst them the like of Abu Yusuf and Zufar.” (Tarikh Baghdad 16:363) In al-Jawahir al-Mudiyyah (no. 307, biography of Asad ibn ‘Amr), al-Qarashi quotes from a book by Imam al-Tahawi the following: Ibn Abi Thawr wrote to me, narrating to me from Sulayman ibn ‘Imran: Asad ibn al-Furat narrated to me: “The companions of Abu Hanifah who would compile books were 40 men. From the ten foremost of them were: Abu Yusuf, Zufar, Dawud al-Ta’i, Asad ibn ‘Amr, Yusuf ibn Khalid al-Samti (122 – 189), Yahya ibn Zakariyya ibn Abi Za’idah, and he was the one who would write for them (i.e. the companions of Abu Hanifah) for thirty years.” |
![]() |
![]() |
#40 |
|
|
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|