Question

Salam just got this text Ahmad Raza Khan said,

“If someone is in the land of the disbelievers residing in a village, for example if there are only hindus there and this person is unable to leave the place for some reason. So then tell us if a situation arises then who will he immediately ask (ie ask for a fatwa)? Then it will be said to him, “Ask the Pandit (a Pandit is a hindu priest).” (Fataawa Rizwiyyah 3/253)

Similarly on one hand Ahmad Raza Khaan held the nikah (marriage) of a Wahhabee to be invalid yet on the other hand he says if a Brahaman (A high form of Hindu priest) performs the nikah, the nikah will be valid!!!!! His exacts words, “The nikah will be valid as a nikah is the accepting of the vows, even if a brahaman performs it.” (Ahkaam Sharee’at 2/225)

What is the Sunni response? Is this true?

Answer

Al-Ayaazu Bi-Allah, Al-Ayaazu Bi-Allah, Al-Ayaazu Bi-Allah!

The curse of Allah is upon those who lie and Allah hates the liars while the satan is pleased with them. Those who fabricate lies upon the great reviver of Islam and the leader of all scholars, the honorouble Imam Ahmad Rida Khan Al-Barelwi are conceding their failure to challenge the magnificent and incomparable work that he miraculously produced.

These deceitful tactics of the deviants are not new but actual traditions of theirs and it would not be wrong to say that it is their religious ritual as those who follow the satan must religiously commit evil which includes treachery, trickery, deceit, falsifying information, lying, fabricating, stealing, thieving, robbing etc. Those who are familiar with the deviant sects in Islam especially the Deobandi School and its unlawful descendant, the Tableeghi Jama’at will know that these attributes perfectly fit their leaders.

The above two objections are nothing but lousy deceitful attempts to misguide the innocent laymen by lying and stealing. It is lying because it is not what Imam Ahmad Rida has written in his Fatawa and it is stealing because they have stolen some words from the original text in order to completely distort the original meaning. It is also clear that this is not the work of a contemporary mischievous deviant (although somewhere along the line a contemporary has taken part by giving a new life to this matter) because the reference provided for both are from an old publication of the original texts, which are not published anymore.

The first is from Al-Fatawa Al-Ridawiyyah which in the new publication is on page five hundred and seventy four of the sixth volume. The final part of the question is that if a person is living in a place which he cannot leave but has no rightly guided scholars to seek guidance (answers for his religious queries) from then what must he do? And from the former parts of the question it is clear that this questioner is seeking permission to seek guidance from the Wahabi scholars that are the only scholars living in his town or city for his religious queries. The Chief of all Jurists Imam Ahmad Rida, after forbidding the people to perform Salah behind these Wahabi scholars, then comes to the final part of the question and writes,

“If a person lives in Dar Al-Harb (a land that is not governed by Muslims nor has it been in the past) specifically in a town of non Muslims, for example a place where there are only Hindus and he says that I cannot leave this place therefore please advise me, who should I ask my necessary and immediate Islamic queries? Will it be said to him that you may ask the Hindu pundit? - Allah forbid”

It is apparent that the great Imam is forbidding the questioner from seeking guidance from the Wahabi scholars and that the Wahabi scholars are far away from Islam like the Hindu Pundits are. In the original text of the Urdu Fatwa, the particle ‘Kyaa’ is written in the beginning, which is a particle used for questioning. This particle is stolen by these thieves which changes the sentence from interrogative to declarative. This is a text book example of distortion with the intention of deceit and falsifying texts. Furthermore, the great Imam has added the Tarjee’ at the end which is a partial verse of the Quran,

“We belong to Allah and we shall return to Him.”

This is used when a calamity or any other form of misfortune occurs. In this context it is used to mean, ‘May Allah forbid’. If we pushed our kindness to its limits and supposed that the person who raised this false objection missed the interrogative particle ‘kyaa’ due to some extremely rare form of temporary blindness which prevents him from seeing interrogative particles then the question arises that how in the world did he miss the whole sentence of Tarjee’ at the end which consists of six words in the original text? I am forced to say that this is nothing but a deceitful tactic to fool the innocent laymen – Allah forbid.

The second is from Ahkaam-e-Shariat and the translation of the actual text is as follows,

“Question: If a Wahabi leads the nikah, will it occur? Answer: Nikah will of course occur even if a Brahman (Hindu) leads it. This is because nikah is the name given to a mutual agreement through a proposal and acceptance. However, if a wahabi leads it, it expresses respect towards him which is haram therefore it is necessary to abstain.”

Again, the original text gives a completely different picture to the text provided in the objection. This is because the context is not provided in the objection. This again is an example of distorting texts and fabricating lies against the pious predecessors. If a piece of text is taken out of context and used as a pretext, it potentially distorts the whole aim of the original text.

The original text aims to inform us that nikah occurs and remains valid as long as its required elements and conditions are fulfilled and that if an impermissible and sinful act takes place in the procedure, it does not affect its validity.

It is unanimously agreed upon that if the required elements and conditions of a matter are fulfilled then the matter becomes existent and established even if an unlawful act takes place in its establishment like the unlawful child is born even though the act of adultery is forbidden. Islam acknowledges the child’s existence and rights. Only a fool would say that the child does not exist even though the child is physically in front of him.

Another example is that it is unanimously agreed upon by all Muslim Scholars that it is obligatory for women to cover the head in the presence of ghayr mahaarim (those of the opposite gender who they can potentially marry). If a woman comes to her nikah ceremony without covering the head in the presence of ghayr mahaarim and then the nikah takes place, it will be established and valid. Now if someone asked the question, is the nikah valid if a woman comes to her nikah ceremony without covering her head? And someone replies, of course it will occur even if she attended without any clothes as nikah is the name of a mutual agreement through a proposal and acceptance. However, it is obviously Haram to do so. Then what wrong has he said? The same can be said about the man who does nikah with a clean shave – Allah forbid.

Another example is that it is forbidden to recite the Quran from back to front. If a person performs his Salah and recites a Surah from the latter part of the Quran in the first unit and a Surah from the former part of the Quran in the second unit, his Salah is valid and established but it is haram to recite the Quran in that manner. This is an established rule in the Hanafi Fiqh that can be found in nearly all the books that hold the chapter of Salah.

Another example is that it is Haram to give Talaq to one’s wife when she is in her menstrual cycle. However, if a man gives Talaq to his wife while she is in her menstrual cycle, it will still occur and remain valid. This is also an established and agreed upon rule in the Hanafi School. What one must understand is that the establishment and validity of a thing and its permissibility or impermissibility are separate matters.

If one has still not understood, then imagine a person working at the Home Office. He is forbidden to deal with an application of his family, friends and relatives due to confidentiality and a possible conflict of interest. However, if he receives an application from a friend or a family member and he processes the application and sends the passport out without disclosing the fact that the applicant is a family member or friend, the passport is valid however the process was illegal.

After understanding the above, it is clear that Imam Ahmed Rida is saying that it is Haram to let a Wahabi or a Brahman lead the Nikah however it will occur and remain valid.

The objector gives the picture that Imam Ahmed Rida has regarded the nikah valid if a Brahman leads it but not if a Wahabi leads it. This is also a deceit and distortion. The original text clearly implies that the nikah will be valid regardless if a Wahabi, Brahman, Christian, Sikh, Jew or Athiest leads it. It doesn’t matter who leads the nikah as long as the Ijaab (proposal) and Qubool (acceptance) of two Muslims takes place in the presence of Muslim witnesses.

It is common in our custom that the person who leads the nikah is a wakeel (official representative) of the bride. It is not permissible to make a deviant an official representative because it expresses respect towards him although the nikah will occur and remain valid.

This is not a rule fabricated by the great Imam Ahmed Rida but is an established rule of the great Hanafi Jurists. Bearing in mind that validity and permissibility are two different matters and that the word ‘ijaazah’ in this context means ‘valid’ rather than ‘permissible’, In Al-Fatawa Al-Hindiyyah it says,

“The wikaalah of an apostate is valid. If a Muslim made an apostate his representative it will be valid and it is the same if the representative was a Muslim at the time of wikaalah and then became an apostate (it is still valid).”

In Al-Bahr Al-Raa’iq and Radd Al-Muhtaar it says,

“It is not a condition for wikaalah that he must not be an apostate therefore if an apostate is made a wakeel then it is valid.”

These texts simply mean that if a person sends an apostate or a deviant to the shop with some money to buy a beverage and he returns with a beverage then the transaction is regarded as valid and you have become the owner of the beverage. In the same way if the bride sent an apostate to the nikah ceremony to represent her and he went and took part in the proposal and acceptance before the witnesses, the nikah is valid and the woman has become married.

That proves the validity of the matter and as for the impermissibility that Imam Ahmed Rida has issued in his Fatwa, it is established in the Hanafi School that never mind an apostate or deviant, it is not even permissible to express respect towards a faasiq (open sinner). In Tabyeen Al-Haqaa’iq, Radd Al-Muhtaar, Tahtaawi’s Haashiyah on Al-Durr Al-Mukhtaar and Fath Al-Mu’een it says,

“To disrespect a faasiq is waajib according to the Shariah.”

And Imam Taftazaani has written in Maqaasid and Sharh Maqaasid,

“The rule towards a deviant is that one must dislike him and regard him as an enemy, turn away from him, express disrespect towards him and slander and curse him.”

It is recorded in Tabraani Kabeer that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ peace and blessings be upon him said,

“He who expresses respect towards a deviant has helped to destroy Islam.”

This is because these deviants are treacherous traitors of Islam and any government of today would expect the same treatment towards a treacherous person, traitor or terrorist. A traitor or a person who commits treachery would be locked and jailed behind bars in any country whether governed by Muslims or non Muslims. In today’s day and age one can understand this by looking at the deviant Wahabi and Salafi sect. ISIS and those that follow a similar ideology are an off shoot of the Wahabi and Salafi sect which is supported by the Deobandis and Tableeghis. Do these people deserve respect from us? Are they capable of being our official representatives in any matter? It is clear that their cause is to deform and destroy Islam. If we believe they deserve respect or if we sympathise for them, are we not supporting them in their cause? The Wahabis, Shias, Deobandis, Qaadiyaanis and Tableeghis etc have deformed and attempted to destroy Islam throughout their history and as Muslims it is our duty to stay away from them and condemn them in order to safeguard our faith and Allah knows best.

Zahid Hussain Al-Qadiri
(Beggar at the doorstep of Scholars)
17th Thu Al-Hijjah 1436 AH