Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#21 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
|
![]() Sure, there are no sahih ahadith proving that it even took place on the night of the 27th, but great 'ulama have favoured that view - it could be wrong, it could be right, just like most matters. From these scholars were Imam an-Nawawi ash-Shafi'i and one of the greatest Huffadh of Hadith, the great Hanbali author of 'Umdat al-Ahkam, al-Imam 'Abd al-Ghani al-Maqdisi, radhiy Allahu 'anhuma. Other scholars, differed, no doubt, but it need not be an issue of contention, and certainly not an oppurtunity to target scholars and their understanding of ahadith.was-salam It is well known Ihya book does not contain 100% sahih narrations, as acknowledged by Mufti Desai here : http://www28.brinkster.com/mushrf/03...icate_some.htm |
![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
|
Even if there were no sahih ahadith in that regard, brother, 'celebration' (ihtifaal) would be fine, since -- at least linguistically -- ihtifaal simply means to give extra regard and concern oneself with an issue. We are merely using this as an oppurtunity to draw lessons from the night of isra' wa 'l-mi'raj, consider the ahadith narrated regarding it and increase our love of the beloved, sallaLlahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam.
I hope you understand where I'm coming from, was-salam Edit: Of course the ihya' does not contain 100% sahih narrations! No one denies that; that it indicates Imam al-Ghazali's weakness in hadith ... ? that is where we beg to differ. Imam al-Ghazali included weak ahadith for purposes of targhib and tarhib, and in teaching us the fadhilah of various a'maal saalihah. At times the ahadith are extremely weak and/or forged, and this is where we leave them; nevertheless, the instances of this are not very high in the Ihya'. |
![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#28 |
|
Reading all your posts, I am more confused now.
I am not feeling good about this because last night, I was about to start the extra worship, recite and do dhikr but I read the article and I gave up on doing it. The article is written in a way that makes you think its better not to do ibadat. I feel like, I had the oppurtunity and it got snatched away.. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
|
Bismillah ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#31 |
|
as long as one does not see it to be must or somehting special. Khayr in the end you do what you do there is no khalifa and no 'Umar ( ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#32 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#33 |
|
JazakAllah khair Then what explains what Imam Ghazzali RA wrote? I agree to what brother Nomadic said, its not about being lazy all year round and sprinting on one night. |
![]() |
![]() |
#34 |
|
jazakAllah suleman.
For fadhail even weak hadith can be used, there are many in fadhail amaal. So even if the hadith mentioned in the quote by ghazalli is weak, so what? it is for fadhail. People who barely come to pray salaah, finally come to the masjid, then so what if the hadith used was weak? Or is there one rule for fadhail amaal, which i consider to be one of the best books of the last 100 years for tabligh, and another rule for wea hadith used for fadhail by others, even if it is someone almost unanimously considered the mujadid of his century, al ghazali. although i consider mufti taqi to be a gret alim, his article is not the end of the matter. I would prefer to take from al ghazzali than mufti taqi for things like this (not strictly hanafi fiqh) |
![]() |
![]() |
#35 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#36 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#37 |
|
Well, bugmenot, fair-minded scholars like Sh. Taha Karaan who graduated from Deoband acknowledge the mawlid's permissibility according to the shafi'i school at least. The reason being that there were *many* great scholars who argued for it. But why bring that up? |
![]() |
![]() |
#38 |
|
Well, bugmenot, fair-minded scholars like Sh. Taha Karaan who graduated from Deoband acknowledge the mawlid's permissibility according to the shafi'i school at least. The reason being that there were *many* great scholars who argued for it. But why bring that up? If you can please outline the last time a mawlid gathering was essentially a Sirah gathering out of the large mawlids held across the Arab world and Indo-Pak and Africa, then I'd like to see it. |
![]() |
![]() |
#39 |
|
This is all off topic; I hope you're not bringing this all up to expose me as a deviant. . . You can always open up a new thread on the topic of the mawlid. Anyway, since you asked. . .
Do you hold it permissible to recite qasa'id? followed by speeches and dua. If so, last Thursday's weekly mawlid at Dar al-Mustafa would fit the bill. Mufti Kawthari wrote about it. Arguing for the mawlid does not make you fair-minded - acknowledging the existance of major scholars who accepted it, is. was-salam |
![]() |
![]() |
#40 |
|
Just for argument's sake. He said he's more at ease following Sh Ghazali then Sh Taqi on this issue, but I say why not do it for mawlid also ? 1. Mawlid of rabi-ul awaal started approx 600 ah. I don't think al ghazzli even has a view on the mawlid as it started after his time. 2. Even if Ghazzali had a pro-view on it, the issue of mawlid and laylatul Isra are worlds apart, becasue the mawlid of rabi-ul-awaal has no refererence from the ahadith, whereas layatul miraj does, as already shown. And how do you know what my view on mawlid is anyway, when I am not even sure about it myself? ![]() |
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|