Differing opinions - how important are they when conveying a message?

[MidnightRose]

Post #13 (click on purple link to the left in order to access original post)

Salaam again,

I'm not offended brother. Being a PhD scholar in a secular science, I have devoted my life to research and teaching. That's why I have sought to understand what you have proposed. My experience with Islamic knowledge has been different. For reference, linked source material in this post is underlined and highlighted in green.

The amount of work on Islamic jurisprudence by the fairly recent fuqaha cited below, alone, go into over 30 volumes of scholarship. Your premise of it being easy for a non-faqih to make intricate judgements of discerning which ruling is closer to the Qur’an and Sunnah is not supported by the scholars of Islamic jurisprudence/fuqaha themselves.

For example:

Faqeeh al-Ummah Mufti Mahmood Al-Hasan Gangohi (1907 - 1996) – author of the multi-volume work on fiqh, Fataawa Mahmoodiyah states:

“It is very difficult to discuss masaa’il in a public gathering. The questioner has certain conditions and situations in his mind and he will understand a concise answer. Those other than the questioner whose minds are void of the situation will understand the mas’alah incorrectly.”

Furthermore, Hakim al-Ummah Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi (1863-1943) – author of the multi-volume work on fiqh, Imdad al-Fataawa, is quoted to have stated:

“The question used to always arise in my mind as to the reason for the ulama not discussing masaa’il in public gatherings. It took me some time to understand the secret behind this. Once, I had discussed a mas’alah in the course of a lecture. After the lecture, the audience began differing as to what was the exact mas’alah. When the news of this reached me, only then did I realize the reason for the ulama not discussing masaa’il in public gatherings.”

Both quotes taken from Malfoozat – Statements and Anecdotes of Faqeeh-ul-Ummat Mufti Mahmood Hasan Gangohi – Volume 1, page 360.

The above two fuqaha are associated with Darul Uloom Deoband – an Islamic university of the classical tradition. Please click on this sentence to become acquainted with this educational institution’s robust and comprehensive system of education.

Darul Uloom Deoband has been training individuals to become qualified Islamic scholars since 1866. According to statistics provided by an affiliated Islamic university – Darul Uloom Al-Arabiya Al-Islamiya, Bury in the UK, since 1866 there have been 106,000 graduates of Darul Uloom Deoband as of 2005.

This is not surprising, as an article published by the United States Military Academy at West Point mentions:

“By 1967, Darul Uloom (Deoband) had graduated 3,795 students from present-day India, 3,191 from Pakistan and present-day Bangladesh, and 431 from multiple other countries, such as Afghanistan, China and Malaysia. By 1967, there were 8,934 Deobandi schools worldwide.”

The article further acknowledges that:

The Darul Uloom Deoband, “…places particular emphasis on the importance of religious education. It is committed to a ‘correct’ interpretation of Shari`a (Islamic law). Deobandi students become alim (religious scholars) after an eight-year-long course in various aspects of Islamic learning such as logic, Islamic jurisprudence, the Qur’an, the history of literature and the hadiths.”

In sum, there are many qualified scholars in the world today, of the Deobandi tradition alone. As a PhD scholar of a secular science, I want to know the educational background/qualifications of the person I'm learning from. This is a tradition of scholarship that lends to credibility in the secular sciences as well.

In your post quoted above, you have made yourself the arbiter of a ruling's closeness to the Qur'an and Sunnah. The statistics quoted above makes it evident that there are many other qualified opinions out there. Additionally, the fuqaha themselves have advised us of the dangers of simplistic understandings. There are intricate matters and specialized understanding that a faqih must be privy to. Having the experience of academic scholarship, I defer my Islamic understanding to experts in this field.

With this observation, I am not discounting other non-Deobandi ulema. I'm just sticking to one school for illustrative purposes.

Out of the many contemporary Islamic scholars of the classical tradition that I have benefited from, I'd like to share one of them with you:

http://www.zamzamacademy.com/about-us/teachers/http://www.zamzamacademy.com/about-us/teachers/

In need of duas.

Post #15 (click on purple link to the left in order to access original post)

With all due respect Deoband is not the only school in Islam. We have three others including Maaliki, Shaafi, and Hanbali all of which provide evidences which at times are much more in accordance with the Qur'aan and Sunnah. Thus, I find the quote a little biased from these sources.

Assalamu alaikum brother Zeeshan,

You appear to be a sincere individual who has also memorized the Qur’an. Becoming a Hafidh al-Qur’an isn’t easy. May Allah protect you and make your path to Jannah easy. Ameen.

Brother, there are some things that I’d like to address in relation to your response to my post.

For brevity and clarity, I have quoted my entire post - above this response - and highlighted in red what you took and commented on. If necessary, reference can be made to the original posts in this thread. Additionally, linked source and reference material in this post are underlined, highlighted in purple, and may be italicized.

1. You allude to multiple sources (i.e. these sources) related to the quote. First, the quote is limited to the first paragraph in red and is clearly distinguished by quotation marks – which I have highlighted in blue. Second, this quote has only one source – the United States Military Academy at West Point. The USMA is a governmental institute of higher education that specifically trains people to become commissioned officers in the US Army. I can confidently state that they aren’t in the business of promoting Deoband (i.e. the Hanafi school of thought) over the other madhaa’ib.

A reading of the source article, written by a non-Muslim author and published by the US Army, clearly reveals its descriptive nature. The US Army is utilizing this article as intelligence on aspects related to the dynamics of Islam in South Asia. It has nothing to do with the promotion of any Islamic school of thought.

You omitted the wider context of my post, including the source reference/link.

Furthermore, I specifically stated the following in the first paragraph of my original post – also highlighted in blue above:

For reference, linked source material in this post is underlined and highlighted in green.

Your observation of source bias is incorrect.

2. Since I utilized and contextualized the quote, this observation indirectly implicates me as being a little biased as well.
In anticipation of this type of comprehension issue, I specifically included the following statements that are also highlighted in blue above:

With this observation, I am not discounting other non-Deobandi ulema. I'm just sticking to one school for illustrative purposes.

You omitted these statements in your partial quote of my post.

Your unintended implication of bias on my part is also incorrect.

In need of duas.

 

[ZeeshanParvez]

Post #13 (click on purple link to the left in order to access original post)



Post #15 (click on purple link to the left in order to access original post)



Assalamu alaikum brother Zeeshan,

You appear to be a sincere individual who has also memorized the Qur’an. Becoming a Hafidh al-Qur’an isn’t easy. May Allah protect you and make your path to Jannah easy. Ameen.

Brother, there are some things that I’d like to address in relation to your response to my post.

For brevity and clarity, I have quoted my entire post - above this response - and highlighted in red what you took and commented on. If necessary, reference can be made to the original posts in this thread. Additionally, linked source and reference material in this post are underlined, highlighted in purple, and may be italicized.

1. You allude to multiple sources (i.e. these sources) related to the quote. First, the quote is limited to the first paragraph in red and is clearly distinguished by quotation marks – which I have highlighted in blue. Second, this quote has only one source – the United States Military Academy at West Point. The USMA is a governmental institute of higher education that specifically trains people to become commissioned officers in the US Army. I can confidently state that they aren’t in the business of promoting Deoband (i.e. the Hanafi school of thought) over the other madhaa’ib.

A reading of the source article, written by a non-Muslim author and published by the US Army, clearly reveals its descriptive nature. The US Army is utilizing this article as intelligence on aspects related to the dynamics of Islam in South Asia. It has nothing to do with the promotion of any Islamic school of thought.

You omitted the wider context of my post, including the source reference/link.

Furthermore, I specifically stated the following in the first paragraph of my original post – also highlighted in blue above:

For reference, linked source material in this post is underlined and highlighted in green.

Your observation of source bias is incorrect.

2. Since I utilized and contextualized the quote, this observation indirectly implicates me as being a little biased as well.
In anticipation of this type of comprehension issue, I specifically included the following statements that are also highlighted in blue above:

With this observation, I am not discounting other non-Deobandi ulema. I'm just sticking to one school for illustrative purposes.

You omitted these statements in your partial quote of my post.

Your unintended implication of bias on my part is also incorrect.

In need of duas.

Must have misunderstood your purpose. My apologies! Unfortunately, after reading up on the Madhabi fanaticism of the past one at time reads with preconceived notions which I seem to have been subject to on this occasion.