True re not calling him imam. However, in these times, he did work which most peers carrying lofty titles don't do, plus it might sound basic and elementary, but he stuck to core Sunni aqaid, something most high and mighty ulama and peers have a tough time doing in present day pakistan. So I don't think he deserves to be called "just an ordinary maulvi/khateeb" either.
Imam?? Sarf n Nawh n Iqbal's poetry doesn't make you Imam. He was just an ordinary Maulvi/Khateeb. Don't exaggerate.
I think Mushahid Shah saab's second video (Mufti Akmal saab ko jawab) was better than the first. I agree with his sentiment on accountability wholeheartedly. Please show us the "upper level" work you/he have done. I think peers, muftis and khateebs should have year end appraisals just like the rest of us working class guys, and they should be judged on some well defined Sunni KPI's. Back in 2020 or something I lashed out rather crudely abt Muneebur Rehman saab on a WhatsApp group, when instead of giving the Shar3i ruling on Hassan Haseebur Rehman he was busy kissing up to him and his aastana, and just says aap aise aqaid se door rahein jo rifd ki taraf jaate hain, or something of that sort - at the last 15 or 20 seconds of a 15 min video of reading qasaid in his honor - all this when the moron Hassan Haseebur peddled a aqida against afzaliyat of Siddiqe Akbar radi Allahu 3anhu and also alleged something against the people who dont hold abu talib to be Muslim (belief of jumhur of Ahlus Sunnah) and people were pestering Muneeb saab to issue a ruling/statement refuting him and demanding ruju3. Another respectable mufti saab from the same whatsapp group chastised me and said one slip doesn't mean we discount all the good stuff he did the rest of the time. I shut up not to cause fitnah, but wanted to ask then too - please show me the good stuff he's done.
Apparently imam Khadim Hussain didn't believe muneeb saab to even be Muslim, according to this video. If such is the case, then akmal saab and the rest of those objecting should do more than just pay attention to these 'young muftis' on YouTube and address the points raised one by one instead and say which are justified and which are not
Watch at 30 min. Muneeb ur Rehman's whole family (father and all) are deobandi and also he has contributed in establishing a deobandi "masjid" in his village area. So basically the guy is a deobandi disguised in Sunni attire that explains everything. It's about time Sunnis boycott his likes as well as the likes of mufti Akmal who also seems to be donning Sunni attire (his past on validity of praying in deobandi mosques as well as defense of the deobandi Muneeb)!
He's made some good points again: What's the necessity? False equivalence Whataboutery Evil precedent He said what has been said on the forum for many years that if leaders do sulh, awaam will see that as green light.
what will that change? who's going to decide something is or isn't comprehensive? as long as there is no authority to enforce laws, no over-arching body whose consensus will be adhered to by all sunnis atleast, what difference can it make. You will still have your mufti muneeburs and your mushahid alis and all the rest disagreeing on whether it is or is not sulh. We have ijma', we have mu'tamad aqwaal, we have mutawatir ahadith. That hasn't kept people from claiming all sorts of things. Meanwhile, we need to atleast call out what's blatantly wrong today - save those you can - don't wait for the day that an agreed upon definition of sulh is announced.
actually, i did listen to both those things, but only half heartedly and in parts, while working, driving, kids yammering at my head etc. and honestly i don't enjoy these mawlana soap operas to watch again, where every episode from every side is a cliffhanger for the common man. don't get me wrong bro, i'm not refuting you or defending Muneeb saab. i dislike him enough tbh and still haven't recovered from that Hassan Haseebur episode. my point really is at a generic level - i fail to see why on either side, no one can come up with actual working definitions and guidelines for sulh kulliyat once and for all. like it or not, we (desis and desi Sunnis) at our current state, are not capable to build a body of case law where we can correlate and refer to past precedents. even if we were, we still need some well defined statutes too. if we don't do this, even when someone (on any side) is right, it won't take much for the other side to convince the awam. although Mufti Akmal's talk is generic, if implied in this context, can sway a neutral Sunni to be pro-Muneebur just as easily as Mufti Mushahid's video will sway another Sunni to be anti-Muneebur. extend this further - will every mawlana get it right every time - those making allegations of sulh kulliyat and those defending it as diplomacy by Sunnis for the sake of Sunniyat? my interest in all this is that somehow someone adds crisp fiqh rulings and objective guidelines to the topic overall (lobbying, activism, PR, Sunni/Muslim political interests, sulh kulliyat etc.) maybe that's wishful thinking and too much to expect from our leaders.
did you listen to his ta'ziyat of the rafidi? do let me know your thoughts. also, the doctor/mufti, listen to his 20 minutes of unbearable drivel an let us know how much you agree with. --- I think there are red lines to every diplomacy and muneeb sb left it far behind. The only justification I can think of is threat to life or property or some form of significant harm. If it's none of these then it's sulh kulliyat by every definition you can come up with. wa Allahu a'alam
it's not about a sophisticated, Sunni psyop that will help us win back Quds and restore Sher Shah Suri's saltanat, or about duress from tyrants. in fact, both these scenarios have very well defined rulings in fiqh. we need guidelines and rules and regulations for operating openly in dealings with other peoples - for both - promoting and lobbying for our specific interests, as well as general public benefit across sects and religions (safety of Pakistan, national issues etc.) no brother, we need a course on Muslim and Sunni Muslim diplomacy too. we need to dig out the ahkam based on Seerah of the Prophet 3laihis salam & sahaba, anecdotes from former Muslim sultans, awliyaa etc. - how they dealt with christians, jews, mubradi3is etc. we are not living in the age of Khilafatur Rashidah or Muslim Sultanates, so we need to apply the rules of "diplomacy" (a term in our times, but the function itself is age old) on present day public figures lobbying for Muslim/Sunni interests (as sad as it is, these public figures the substitutes for sultans, in our times) - how to ensure our interests when interacting with other peoples. this is why we need a detailed set of rules and regulations for such interactions. so that we compare apples to apples. and catch people on the right charges, not the wrong ones. there's no use being penny wise and pound foolish. i'm no defender of Muneebur Rehman. quite the opposite. see my post # 4 here - https://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/recklessness-and-ignorance-jahalat-of-a-mutasawwif.14445/ post # 17 here - https://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/hamza-and-bin-bayyah-with-qadiyanis.13623/ (i didn't rant so long on his wishing merry xmas fatwa as we all had our fill on the other threads on the issue, but his fatwa looked like it was copy pasted from bin bayya's, and i oppose it strongly) i think there's a difference between "diplomatic" behavior/statement with kafirs/deviants versus active or actual endorsement and promotion of heresies; and we need to catch people out on the latter, not the former. we should know where that line is. see, all the comparisons you've drawn, they're all actual promotions of a position/s rather than just casual behavior like sharing a stage or something- obaidullah - called rama as imam of hind (a ghazal by "Allamah" Iqbal carries the same title and deals with the same thing) yaqoubi & ghazi bin Talal - actually distorting ahadith and twisting the Islamic narrative amman message - i don't remember too well now, but that can actually be a passible exercise in diplomacy, the main thing there was let's all not do blanket takfeers of these major sects Sunni (sufis, Asharis, wahabis, all counted as Sunnis for political identification purposes), shia, ibadi as none of the scholars of the past have done such blanket takfeers (i may be wrong, there might be some devil hidden in some details). the actual filth was in the "A Common Word" and the open letter preceding it. tahirul - made incredibly heretical and blasphemous claims - which were responded to by Abu Hasan in Minhaji Fata Morgana (later on, i discovered, tahir was not original in his heresies either, he only improvised a bit. the same ugly claim re the Najran delegation was made by elements of the jifry and keller team of the 'A Common Word' significantly before tahir!) again, my whole rant here is that we need a working definition and guidelines re what is sulh kulliyat and what is not; or where is that line between "diplomacy" shown by not just seerah's of elders, but also actual fiqh rulings; and active and actual endorsement/promotion of heresies. if ulama don't undertake this academic project necessary for our times, then we will harm ourselves more than anyone else - as theoretically speaking, every Sunni will be the boy who cried sulh kulli for some other Sunni, as no one in our times is pure of intermingling with all sorts of people. absolutely no one. i'm not even talking about duress (some bjp goons cornered you in the market) or helpless situations (some qadiani ends up being your line manager). i'm talking about everyday voluntary relations that are NEEDED to maintain our interests as well as present ourselves favorably. this is an ongoing exercise, where the result is greater than the sum of all the parts.
I totally disagree with this speaker. People need to watch this and understand the implications before rushing to exonerate muneeb sab as some highly practical sunni warrior operating clandestinely in enemy territory for the benefit of Sunnis. I can understand that people have to say some things under duress, sometimes they are caught off guard and make slips that could have been avoided had they known before hand. But this is beyond all belief. Diplomacy? don't tell me. And this person is not even saying he said it under duress - he is just saying everything is fine and dandy. I don't know what all is going on with mufti muneeb and Pakistani politics - he may have an excuse of compulsion but what about all those defending him? is every single Pakistani speaker/podcaster/mufti under the same compulsion? This is same as obaidullah khan Azmi. One man is excused in the name of compulsion, then he is painted a hero, then a swarm comes along claiming there was nothing wrong in the first places. Then they will quote incidents from the Seerah mutahharah out of context. If all this is fine please stop finding faults with Sh. Yaqubi and Amman Message people or Jordan Prince.
596-Mufti Muneeb ur Rehman par Kufr ka Fatwa ! reply to Mufti Mushahid kazmi by Dr Mufti Ali Nawaz I think this is a good reply to this whole issue.
Another point of @AbdalQadir, which is salient is about being a 'problem announcer'. Are Sunnis more aware of 'issues' after it was amplified by the likes of Mufti Mushahid. Has wisdom been applied here? Sunni resources and time have been drained in these Intra-Sunni issues, and on every level we've been left behind. This issue of Mufti Muneeb ur Rehman, reminds me a lot of the criticism faced by the likes of Shah Ahmad Noorani, who we are still yet to replace. It comes down to a lack of wisdom being deployed. Too many make excuses for themselves that they won't permit for others
Another point of @AbdalQadir, which is salient is about being a 'problem announcer'. Are Sunnis more aware of 'issues' after it was amplified by the likes of Mufti Mushahid. Has wisdom been applied here? Sunni resources and time have been drained in these Intra-Sunni issues, and on every level we've been left behind. This issue of Mufti Muneeb ur Rehman, reminds me a lot of the criticism faced by the likes of Shah Ahmad Noorani, who we are still yet to replace. It comes down to a lack of wisdom being deployed.
At 5:30, when Mufti Akmal said is he subtly pointing towards the sukuut of many scholars during the Salman Miyan incident?
Ulama like Mufti Muneeb have to find a middle ground. Unlike in the past, everything is photographed and recorded these days so one has to watch one's every move. It is inevitable that some time or another, ulama will end up having to associate with heretics, especially those like Mufti Muneeb. I think the operative word is necessity. Do it when necessary. Keep the interaction formal. Make your rules clear such as you're all allowed to pray behind me, I'm not allowed to pray behind you. Did Mufti Muneeb have to attend the devbandi "mosque" inauguration? Did he have to make taziyat for the dead rafidi or devbandi? Like AQ said, let's set the ground rules. Interaction will happen. But it can't be carte blanche. It ain't no free for all and deviants can't be treated like Sunnis. We won't allow it and we will always call it out and the concerned parties can then explain themselves. We can't stay silent because then the disease spreads. Mufti e Azam has an excellent fatwa on issues of common concern that Shaykh aH should translate and explain.
