[VDAu5p33]

I was listening to Ml. Ilyas Ghuman DB on his lecture on the Mamatis (which includes Wahhabis). He said it is not permissible to pray behind them. How could we justify praying behind Wahhabi imams from Saudi? Many Wahhabi imams have visited Deobandi madaaris and led salah there. How do we justify this? Is it because we do not know the explicit beliefs of these Wahhabi imams?

EDIT:
As for his reasoning, it was follows:

The Qur'an says that the shuhada are alive - in both body and spirit. It then means that the Prophets and Rasoolullah are also alive - in both body and spirit. The Wahhabis ask how is this possible because Rasoolullah did not talk about the anbiya عليهم السلام nor does the Qur'an do so when it talks about being physically alive. The reasoning that Ml. Ilyas used was very complex (it was a 2 hour lecture). An example to make it easier to understand is that there is no mention of 27 times reward for the imam of a jamaat. Does that mean the imam does not get the reward? Also, when asked about Ihsan by Jibril , Rasoolullah mentioned that it is to worship Allah as if you see Him and if one is not at that level, then it is to worship Him as if He sees you. Does that mean that that those who are of a higher level are not conscious of the fact that Allah sees them? Of course not. So, the logic follows that the lower is included in the higher so the reward of the shuhada, which is actually earned by following the steps of the anbiya , is also included in the reward for the anbiya عليهم السلام.

He also talked about the difference between يشعرون and يعلمون, where one refers to physical evidence that can be sensed and the other refers to belief. So, if Mamatis say that even the shuhada are not alive in the physical sense (and Mamatis and Wahhabis do say this), they are lying or are ignorant because the Qur'an says that they are still alive but not to our senses. So, even if we cannot sense life in them, we still must believe.

And then he says to reject such a thing is rejecting the Qur'an. He made a point not to use the ahadeeth as reference, even responding to a Mamati question in the question/answer period when someone mentioned that a hadeeth used by Hayatis/Ahlus Sunnah is "ahad" and "ahad" narrations cannot be used as proof (it was really funny to see such a question when no hadeeth was provided as evidence and Ml. Ilyas responded that does the questioner believe the Qur'an to be "ahad" as well). So, essentially, Mamatis reject the Qur'an.

[ringtonesmannq]

good point bro.

[addisonnicogel]

The Imams of the Haramayn are not Mamatis.

[Anamehuskeene]

well the thing to do is to find out what exactly the imams stance on this issue is and then u can question ml.ghuman and find out. I think if you listen to some more of his bayaans things will start to become more clear.

[Blelidupgerie]

the mamati thing is a bit more wierd than the standard salafi issue. For one most salafi ulama believe in the punishment of the grave whereas the mamatis do not.

[Stoottnoiciek]

the mamati thing is a bit more wierd than the standard salafi issue. For one most salafi ulama believe in the punishment of the grave whereas the mamatis do not.

Are you sure the mamatis do not believe in the punishment of the grave? any source for this statement?

[NarhozNic]

Are you sure the mamatis do not believe in the punishment of the grave? any source for this statement?

I discovered this through direct contact, but if you watch some of the older debates you will discover this. If you want me to dig out sources for you then give me some time.

They hide their aqeedah by the concept of jisme misale and asli and what not but when you quiz them for a few hours then the true colours atart to show.

[Kokomoxddcvcv]

The Imams of the Haramayn are not Mamatis.

Are you sure about this? One of the Madinah University professors gives a bayaan in Urdu at Masjid an-Nabawi . He is a typical Ahle Hadees guy, without the accusations against Imam Abu Haneefa . He said that Rasoolullah is dead in his grave (نعوذ با الله), saying that he was in the life of barzakh, which is what I've also heard Mamatis believe. According to them, the life of the barzakh is the life of everyone after death, but that there are levels within barzakh. They even believe that the shuhada are in the barzakh but at a higher level. They are not literally alive, according to them. According to Ml. Ilyas Ghuman DB, this is in clear violation of clear indication from the Qur'an that they are alive, not dead - it's just that we cannot sense them. Otherwise, there wouldn't be anything special about them if they're in barzakh like everyone else but just at a higher level and there would be no need in the Qur'an to say that they're alive and to forbid us from saying that they're dead.

Furthermore, I've heard many Salafis praising Mamatis over Deobandis, saying that the Mamatis are closer to them.

the mamati thing is a bit more wierd than the standard salafi issue. For one most salafi ulama believe in the punishment of the grave whereas the mamatis do not.

I've never heard this. I do know that the Hizb-ut-Tahrir doesn't believe in punishment in the grave.

[Inettypofonee]

I was listening to Ml. Ilyas Ghuman DB on his lecture on the Mamatis (which includes Wahhabis). He said it is not permissible to pray behind them. How could we justify praying behind Wahhabi imams from Saudi? Many Wahhabi imams have visited Deobandi madaaris and led salah there. How do we justify this? Is it because we do not know the explicit beliefs of these Wahhabi imams?

So, it is not allowed to pray behind them in Hajj and Umrah also, I presume. Nor should it be allowed for expatriates to pray their 5 daily prayers behind Imams across Saudia?
He should have clarified. May Allah help the Ummah.

[Mearticbaibre]

So, it is not allowed to pray behind them in Hajj and Umrah also, I presume. Nor should it be allowed for expatriates to pray their 5 daily prayers behind Imams across Saudia?
He should have clarified. May Allah help the Ummah.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOgjIjvrUMM

[AndrewBoss]

Br.Abdulwahab can you post the link of the lecture you listened to please
jazakallah

[Emalodoulouts]

I've never heard this. I do know that the Hizb-ut-Tahrir doesn't believe in punishment in the grave.

Just a small correction regarding Hizb ut-Tahreer. Not all of them have this `aqeedah although it may be present in some of its followers, so just a caution against sweeping attributions.

[Bromikka]

I'm confused, why did Abu Bakr read this verse of the Quran when the Prophet died (but didn't?)

Muhammad is not but a messenger. [Other] messengers have passed on before him. So if he was to die or be killed, would you turn back on your heels [to unbelief]? And he who turns back on his heels will never harm Allah at all; but Allah will reward the grateful. What does this verse mean exactly?

Or what about this verse:

Indeed, you are to die, and indeed, they are to die. I can understand that they died a worldly life and now are alive in an next life way in the grave, but I can't understand they didn't die and are still alive in a worldly way and an next life way.


Please explain,

[sat23neus2]

Here is the lecture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F35GpS2hEw

@Brother Abu Zakariya Yahya:

Moulana Ilyas Ghuman proved from the Qur'an that it is against the Qur'an to say that Rasoolullah is dead. Why? Because the Qur'an says that the shuhada are alive but we do not sense them. If you say that they are alive in the sense that they are in the barzakh, then their "life" is the same as the death of every other person. Why were they specially mentioned as being alive and for us to not call them as being dead?

As for the ahadeeth and the Qur'anic verses, you have to reconcile them with the Qur'anic verses about the shuhada being alive. It is quite easy to do, as well. The action of "dying" does not necessitate that the person has to be considered "dead" afterwards. And if you say then what is the difference between the dead and the martyred or anbiya عليهم السلام, then I can point to the Qur'an and say that they are alive but we cannot sense it (so we know that they're alive because Allah says so in the Qur'an), whereas those who are not the shuhada or the anbiya عليهم السلام, are dead - both by senses and by our knowledge.

[Anneskobsen]

From what I understand, no one has said that the Shuhadaa and Anbiyaa didn't die, it's whether or not they are dead in their graves.

[joe-salton]

@Brother Abu Zakariya Yahya:

Moulana Ilyas Ghuman proved from the Qur'an that it is against the Qur'an to say that Rasoolullah is dead. Why? Because the Qur'an says that the shuhada are alive but we do not sense them. If you say that they are alive in the sense that they are in the barzakh, then their "life" is the same as the death of every other person. Why were they specially mentioned as being alive and for us to not call them as being dead?

I don't know who the Mawlana is and I don't speak Urdu so I can't listen to his videos. But I don't believe it's against the Qur'aan to say that anyone is dead, when Allah says everyone shall taste death.... I think there is a big difference between life as in this dunya, and the life that one is given as a shaheed. Even the ayah you posted does not indicate that the life they are given is one of this dunya, so can't we say that this is a belief based upon a mutaashabih ayah of the Quraan?

Al-Qurtubi says in his tafseer concerning this verse:

"They are alive in Jannah provided for by Allah, and it is not impossible that they are dead and that their bodies are in the ground, while their souls are alive similar to the souls of the rest of the believers, and the preference they are given is the Rizq that Allah supplies them with, from the time they are killed, until it is as if they were always living in this life" Ibn Katheer says:

"Allah informs us that the martyrs in this life were killed, and in the next life their souls are alive provided for by Allah" At-Tabari says:

"As for those that were killed at Uhud from among the companions of the Prophet , Allah said to him don't think they are dead, and that they don't feel, or taste or take pleasure from anything, because they are Alive with me (Allah) living pleasantly with his rizq, happy and content from that which Allah has given them" Ibn al-Jawzi says:
"Don't think they are dead, like the death of those who didn't die in the way of Allah (as Shuhada), and as I've said their life is that of the shapes of birds in paradise, eating from the fruits therein" As for the ahadeeth and the Qur'anic verses, you have to reconcile them with the Qur'anic verses about the shuhada being alive. It is quite easy to do, as well. I agree, but I still don't get what you're saying.

Also if you take this hadith you will see the meaning reconciled with the verses,

On the authority of Abu Huraira who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say:... "By the Being in Whose Hand is my life, I love that I should be killed in the way of Allah; then I should be brought back to life and be killed again in His way." So, it's clear that the worldly death occurs, and they would wish to be brought back to a worldly life in order to receive a worldly death, right?

The tafaseer I have seen show that they believed that in this life they have indeed died, and their life and this verse is speaking about a hereafter life, it doesn't mean that they died in this life... but didn't actually die in this life....

Are you saying that they are alive in hayatu dunya?

[kenowinnumberss]

From what I understand, no one has said that the Shuhadaa and Anbiyaa didn't die, it's whether or not they are dead in their graves.

Dead in this Dunya or what? What are they saying Sheikh Mel? Do they believe they died, but didn't die and continue to live a dunya life and a barzakh life? Or are they saying they died, but now they live a aakhirah life? If it's that they died in dunya but are alive in ways we can't fathom in the next life, this is exactly what the Salafi believes, so is this a hayati or mamati?

[Faumpiggueria]

Are you sure about this? One of the Madinah University professors gives a bayaan in Urdu at Masjid an-Nabawi . He is a typical Ahle Hadees guy, without the accusations against Imam Abu Haneefa . He said that Rasoolullah is dead in his grave (نعوذ با الله), saying that he was in the life of barzakh, which is what I've also heard Mamatis believe. According to them, the life of the barzakh is the life of everyone after death, but that there are levels within barzakh. They even believe that the shuhada are in the barzakh but at a higher level. They are not literally alive, according to them. According to Ml. Ilyas Ghuman DB, this is in clear violation of clear indication from the Qur'an that they are alive, not dead - it's just that we cannot sense them. Otherwise, there wouldn't be anything special about them if they're in barzakh like everyone else but just at a higher level and there would be no need in the Qur'an to say that they're alive and to forbid us from saying that they're dead.

Furthermore, I've heard many Salafis praising Mamatis over Deobandis, saying that the Mamatis are closer to them.



I've never heard this. I do know that the Hizb-ut-Tahrir doesn't believe in punishment in the grave.

BTW, this is not correct regarding HT. HT adopted that Aqidah does not include Punishment in the Grave, rather relegating it to a concept of Islam. This means they do NOT render kufr on the one who does not accept punishment of the grave. They say this because they claim there is no Definitive (yaqeen) proof of the Punishment of the Grave in the Ghaib. The difference is between Yaqeen and Dhanny.

[TepSteade]

brother this viewpoint of HT is complete batil. HT are a joke. Always downplaying the sunnah. Talk about khilafat day and night whilst you can barely see a sign of any sunnah in their life.

[leahjhburton]

snip

Ml. Ilyas said that their souls are in jannah, yes, but their bodies cannot be considered dead, either. Otherwise, what is the difference between any regular person who dies and a shaheed? A regular person that dies, regardless of whether he is a shaheed or not has the windows of jannah or jahannam open into his grave. In order to feel such things, the soul has to be alive - this is the life of barzakh.

And the ayah I posed does indicate that it is not the same as the life of the hereafter since everyone of us, when we die, are alive in barzakh but we have broken our bond with this world completely. When a shaheed or a nabi dies, they are still considered alive but we cannot tell or say that they are dead. What I've heard from many Ahle Hadees is that the shuhada are dead and the anbiya عليهم السلام are dead - نعوذ با الله من ذلك. We cannot make such statements as it is against the Qur'an's commandment. No one denies that the shuhada or the anbiya عليهم السلام can die or can be killed. But their dying or being killed does not lead to death. Their bodies are not dead, but we cannot perceive this - as the Qur'an states ولكن لا تشعرون.

Another point was brought up that our souls cannot engage in prayer (this was in a different video). Rasoolullah saw Musa praying in his grave, providing more proof that he was alive in his grave.

BTW, this is not correct regarding HT. HT adopted that Aqidah does not include Punishment in the Grave, rather relegating it to a concept of Islam. This means they do NOT render kufr on the one who does not accept punishment of the grave. They say this because they claim there is no Definitive (yaqeen) proof of the Punishment of the Grave in the Ghaib. The difference is between Yaqeen and Dhanny. I only know of HT holding such an opinion. According to the rest of us, punishment in the grave is part of our belief and to disbelieve it is to be upon baatil.