Powered by UITechs
Get password? Username Password
 
 
Page 1 of 1

  Reply to Topic    Printer Friendly 

AuthorTopic
Junaidj

CANADA
Topic initiated on Friday, November 12, 2004  -  1:41 AM Reply with quote
Hanafis - The Great Paradox


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/islam-hanafi.htm

Abu Hanifa's interpretation of Muslim law was extremely tolerant of differences within Muslim communities. He also separated belief from practice, elevating belief over practice.

Broad-minded without being lax, this school appeals to reason (personal judgment) and a quest for the better. It is generally tolerant and the largest movement within Islam. The Hanafi school is known for its liberal religious orientation that elevates belief over practice and is tolerant of differences within Muslim communities.

Hanafi scholars refuse to control a human religious or spiritual destiny, and refuse to give that right to any human institution. Among the Hudud crimes, those crimes against God, blasphemy is not listed by the Hanafis. Hanafis concluded that blasphemy could not be punished by the state. The state should not be involved in deciding God-human relationships. Rather, the state should be concerned only with the violation of human rights within the jurisdiction of the human affairs and human relationships.

Comment: Then why are the Mullahs so damn uptight and unreasonable over every issue?
aslam

PAKISTAN
Posted - Saturday, November 13, 2004  -  8:56 AM Reply with quote
Salams,
Indeed Abu Hanifa was a great jurist and his school has been very tolerant but of late the hanafis have been very intolerant and rigid????
saadiamalik

PAKISTAN
Posted - Saturday, November 13, 2004  -  1:11 PM Reply with quote
quote:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/islam-hanafi.htm

Abu Hanifa's interpretation of Muslim law was extremely tolerant of differences within Muslim communities. He also separated belief from practice, elevating belief over practice.
...
Comment: Then why are the Mullahs so damn uptight and unreasonable over every issue?


Assalaamu Alaikum.

The connection you seem to be drawing between the Hanafi school and 'mullah-ism'/'maulvi-ism' seems incorrect. Almost all Pakistani Muslims call themselves Hanafis. I urge you to try and quench your thirst for learning about the Hanafi school from any of them. You'll mostly find yourself disappointed. I think almost no one would know what Imam Hanifa said, what jurisprudence comes from his pen....

In Pakistani, the Barelvis, the Deobandis and the Ahle Hadith, all call themselves Hanafis. So, if Imam Hanifa placed belief above practice, how can the three "sects" ever be reconciled. The very thing that differentiates them all is 'belief'. [Sssh, why can't we just be 'Muslims', above everything else!] Is my analysis faulty? I'm slightly unsure. Comments are welcome.

Wasalaam.

Saadia


Edited by: saadiamalik on Saturday, November 13, 2004 1:14 PM
Junaidj

CANADA
Posted - Sunday, November 14, 2004  -  5:53 AM Reply with quote
>>The connection you seem to be drawing between the Hanafi school and 'mullah-ism'/'maulvi-ism' seems incorrect.

My point was to show the inherent contradiction between people who call themselves Hanafis and the approach of their grand master :)

>>Almost all Pakistani Muslims call themselves Hanafis. I urge you to try and quench your thirst for learning about the Hanafi school from any of them.

That is what I have been trying to do for the past decade or so :)

Only today a Deobandi glorified murder through three Hadith on 'Tawheen e Risalat'. I was shocked at the self righteousness he felt in talking about it.

Edited by: junaidj on Sunday, November 14, 2004 6:27 AM
saadiamalik

PAKISTAN
Posted - Monday, November 15, 2004  -  7:27 AM Reply with quote
quote:

Only today a Deobandi glorified murder through three Hadith on 'Tawheen e Risalat'. I was shocked at the self righteousness he felt in talking about it.



I think, every now and then, we are all capable of taking things for granted, and seeing no other way. I've found myself amazed at my ignorance many times. Till a couple of years back, I never questioned the practice of "offering Fateha" at graves. When I realised how baseless that was - I mean, Fateha is a prayer to the God; what's the purpose of reciting it at a grave; if anything, it could stand on the borders of shirk - I was appalled at my own silent acceptance of the practice for so long.

This mode of unquestioning acceptance can get very dangerous in the case of some people. Probably, the Socratic method could be adopted with them, for mutual benefits. Keep questioning, keep the conversation going, and see if you reach a valid conclusion i.e. based on the Qur'an and/or Sunnah.

Wasalaam.

Saadia
Junaidj

CANADA
Posted - Monday, November 15, 2004  -  10:47 AM Reply with quote
>>I was appalled at my own silent acceptance of the practice for so long.

Same goes for me.

But I suppose there is a difference between following a wrong ritual and justifying killing someone in cold murder.

Question: How did Elizabeth I manage to get rid of Catholic bigotry when she took over from her sister Mary? How did she manage to unify the Church?

So far as I know, very slyly she took care of the clerics, and then imposed a strong law outlawing persecution of faith.

If Zia could bring in draconian laws, we can through the law, reverse them. Institute new laws against bigoted speeches and clerics.

Edited by: junaidj on Monday, November 15, 2004 10:53 AM
haqqani

PAKISTAN
Posted - Tuesday, November 16, 2004  -  1:03 AM Reply with quote
How can we be sure that what is nowadays called Hanafi Madhab is really the madhab of Imam Abu Hanifa. Because I know not even one book from the Imam. The fatawa books which the hanafi scholars refers to are fatawa Shami or Alamgiri which were I think written atleast 1000 years after Imam Abu Hanifa. Today we see a lot of unauthentic ahadith from Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) how could the madhab of Abu Hanifa survived wothout corruption ?
Malix

UNITED KINGDOM
Posted - Tuesday, November 16, 2004  -  7:03 PM Reply with quote
" Almost all Pakistani Muslims call themselves Hanafis."
SALAM
i didnt get a chnce 2 read all of it
but can any1 plz tll me
CAN 1 SAY DAT DA R SUNI, WAHABI etc.

is it rite or rong 2 do dat

JAZAKALLAH if any1 of u can clr dis mattr
SALAM
saadiamalik

PAKISTAN
Posted - Tuesday, November 16, 2004  -  7:38 PM Reply with quote
quote:

" Almost all Pakistani Muslims call themselves Hanafis."
SALAM
i didnt get a chnce 2 read all of it
but can any1 plz tll me
CAN 1 SAY DAT DA R SUNI, WAHABI etc.

is it rite or rong 2 do dat

JAZAKALLAH if any1 of u can clr dis mattr
SALAM


Assalaamu Alaikum.

I think if someone willfully calls himself/herself a 'Sunni','Wahhabi' etc., then its a different matter; else, it would be ideal if we could all just take pride in calling ourselves "Muslims" because that's what Allah requires of us. Categorising ourselves into distinct religious doctrines only gives rise to hatred and sectarianism. I know I would be offended if anyone were to call me a "Sunni" or a "Wahhabi", simply because I identify with myself as Muslim, and Muslim alone.

Allah Hafiz.

Saadia
aslam

PAKISTAN
Posted - Sunday, November 21, 2004  -  9:39 AM Reply with quote
quote:

How can we be sure that what is nowadays called Hanafi Madhab is really the madhab of Imam Abu Hanifa. Because I know not even one book from the Imam. The fatawa books which the hanafi scholars refers to are fatawa Shami or Alamgiri which were I think written atleast 1000 years after Imam Abu Hanifa. Today we see a lot of unauthentic ahadith from Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) how could the madhab of Abu Hanifa survived wothout corruption ?

Haqqani has raised a very pertinent question!!!!!!!!!!!
spagyrist

USA
Posted - Monday, November 22, 2004  -  7:35 PM Reply with quote
So do we say belief is fard and deeds are wajib (Hanifa making a distinction between fard and wajib)?
spagyrist

USA
Posted - Wednesday, November 24, 2004  -  2:29 PM Reply with quote
Here in an interesting article on Hanafi fiqh and discusses why he the imam did not write a book of fiqh:

Click Here
saadiamalik

PAKISTAN
Posted - Wednesday, November 24, 2004  -  6:10 PM Reply with quote
quote:

So do we say belief is fard and deeds are wajib (Hanifa making a distinction between fard and wajib)?


I think - not sure - this differentiation that Imam Abu Hanifa made between beliefs and actions was due to the over-shadowing debates between who constitutes a Muslim etc., following the initial sorry incident of Kharijies, against Hazrat Ali(r).

Anyone well-versed in Islamic history here?

Wasalaam

Reply to Topic    Printer Friendly
Jump To:

Page 1 of 1


Share |


Copyright Studying-Islam © 2003-7  | Privacy Policy  | Code of Conduct  | An Affiliate of Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic Sciences ®
Top    





eXTReMe Tracker