the “mufti” and his approver are both idiots. and his words reek of the stench of wahabism they drown in when nobody is looking.
I’m sure these cheap insults are consoling for him and his crew but for those who are after truth, his insults mean nothing. And the truth is there is no “wahhabism” in this fatwa, as it carefully describes where and how it is following principles of Hanafi fiqh. And it is Abu Hasan that is the idiot which has again and again been proved on this very site, and a few of his idiocies are described below.
In answer to the comment in the fatwa by the Deobandi scholar: “It is amazing to see that inspite of this hadith being quoted in five of the six authentic books, the Barelwis still opt to give a reference of a hadith from a Fiqh book,” Abu Hasan says:
so deobandi fatawa are only hadith citations? or do they doff the ‘hanafiyat’ when it is not conducive?
Which as usual is a complete distortion of what was being said. The Mufti in the fatwa merely explained that it is strange that in the Barelwi fatwa quoted in the question, the so-called (Barelwi) mufti giving the fatwa quotes a famous hadith (on not folding one’s garments) from a fiqh book. Of course you would quote fatwas and fiqh from fatwa and fiqh books, but the norm and convention is to quote hadith from reliable hadith-books, as fiqh/fatwa books are not reliable sources of hadith. This is the simple and straightforward point that was being made which Abu Hasan not only overlooked but twisted and distorted.
He then quotes some commentators of hadith to “prove” that having the garments below the ankles without pride is only makruh tanzihi, and not makruh tahrimi as stated by the Deobandi Mufti. From amongst these commentators, he quotes Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani; whereas the truth is that Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani in his lengthy explanation inclines to the view that it is makruh tahrimi (i.e. haram) when garments are deliberately below the ankles even without pride! Abu Hasan in fact does not give the full quotes of Ibn Hajar. For example in the explanation of a Bab title, Abu Hasan quotes Ibn Hajar as follows:
“on he who drags his garment but not out of pride. that is such a person is exempt from the dire warnings mentioned [for those who let flow their garments dragging behind them]”
However, Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani goes on to discuss that there is another condition: if it is done for an excuse (‘udhr), then there is no blame on the person. But if (without pride) one does it without an excuse, Ibn Hajar says there is detail to this issue, which he discusses later. And in his discussion, he explains that some are of the view that it is makruh tanzihi and others that it is makruh tahrimi; and he brings a number of proofs for the latter view. For example he shows that the prohibition was not restricted to the state of pride by the fact that Umm Salamah asked about the ruling for women after the Prophet (peace be upon him) mentioned this. If it was restricted to the condition of pride, Umm Salamah would not have asked this, as the lowering of the garments was only a manifestation of pride for men. Similarly, he quotes the hadiths which say that lowering the garments itself is “from pride” (من المخيلة) to show that this condition of pride is not to exclude those who do it without pride but to clarify that this act itself is a prideful act. For a long quote from Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani where he gives other reasons from hadiths why the prohibition is not restricted to the condition of pride, see here: http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?57315-Mufti-Taqi-Usmani-on-Isbal&p=470268&viewfull=1#post470268
This view was not only elaborated by Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, but the Maliki imam, Ibn al-‘Arabi.
Abu Hasan paraphrases a recent Salafi commentator:
however safiyu’r RaHman mubarakpuri in his commentary of muslim says that there are three types who drag their clothes:
1. out of pride
2. unwittingly or unknowinglyor for a necessity 3. not out of pride, and not of necessity, but deliberately.according to the mubarakpuri mazkur, 1 and 3 are haram and 2 has no sin.
He does not realise however that these distinctions are found also in Ibn Hajar’s Fath al-Bari.
He then says:
i don’t know which hadith these three categories are mentioned; if it is istinbat or derivation from hadith, or ‘understood’ from the hadith, why should you be forgiven for ‘interpretation’ and ulama are accused of rejecting hadith if they do the same?
Again Abu Hasan puts things in the mouth of the scholar . Which ‘ulama’ were accused of rejecting hadith if they do this istinbat based on the hadiths? In the entire fatwa no such accusation was made. In fact it was conceded in the fatwa that major ‘ulama of hadith and of fiqh held this view, that to let the garments go below the ankles is haram with pride and makruh tanzihi without. But all it argued was that based on a number of hadiths condemning the practice, the harshness and severity of the warning, the favoured interpretation of the Deobandi scholars that the prohibition is with and without pride, and the aspect of caution, it has been decided to give fatwa on the view of prohibition (makruh tahrimi) with or without pride; and there is no authoratative ruling in the madhhab contradicting this.
He then says:
regardless, qaDi iyaD, nawawi, ibn Hajar, sanusi, qastallani on one side – pretenders of the 15th century on other side. choose your pick.
Which as has been explained above is inaccurate. Ibn Hajar and Ibn al-‘Arabi held the view supported by the Deobandi mufti, and the Deobandi scholars take this opinion on the strength of its evidence and in accordance with the principles of Hanafi fiqh.
Finally, another of Abu Hasan’s idiocies:
He says:“in ikmal [of ubayy d.828AH]” whereas the name of this author is “Ubbi” not “Ubayy”