Shah Sahib it would take 30 seconds to put a fatwa on but don't want to do that because it would cause more issues. However, trying your level best to prove something is a gustakhi (by muddying waters about sunni principles), and saying all sorts about the person in question is not calming the waters or preventing disunity from spreading. I am not going to speculate on Shah sahib's motives but it is clear that their response is not 'faisla kun' as it has been on previous issues. The likes of Sh Nabeel need to be more objective rather than blindly follow their pir in this matter
Brother I have re-listened to the speech of Muhadith e Kabeer. He clearly states that Sayida Fatima's request was not khata but Khata ijtihadi. Shah sahib has a problem with this, which is why he wanted Jalali sahib to prove it the first 3 generations (AbdulQadir mentioned the motive behind this) Secondly Sh Nabeel is mistaken but I can see why.Muhadith e Kabir mentions Jalali sahib doing ruju but what he meant was that when Jalali clarified it was khata e ijtihadi, the mutlaq meaning of Khata was dropped, because it was not intended. When he has clarified then there is no need to speak about it or leading a campaign against him that some are doing. It is clear Shah sahib thinks that Jalali Sahib has done a gustakhi and has negated that it was a khata e ijtihadi. Sh Nabeel and Shah Sahib need to state that is labelling Sayida Fatima's request khata e ijtihadi a gustakhi. If so then what do they have to say about Muhadith e Kabir. Sh Nabeel's clarification does not represent Muhadith e Kabeer's words.
Nabeel afzal Sahib's message regarding the statement of sayyidi muhaddith e kabir https://www.facebook.com/640053880/posts/10158917669343881/
which is said without qualification. however, these are complex matters which you and i won't understand. when necessary, the usage of the first three centuries is not applicable - and when it is convenient, one should not take except from the first three centuries. make your rules and keep them flexible, so you always win. === i just got to see a clip of irfan shah sahib with some minhaji supporters and saeed as'ad sahib who accused pir nasir sahib of being rafizi and then wahabi. strange. the only casualty is the ahl e sunnat awam.
Mufti Fazl Chishti is generally cryptic in naming his targets, although he spares none - from muqeem-e-London (probably PAQ or Zahid Hussain), muqeem-e-Canada (TuQ), shaykh-e-Gujarat, chaman-e-Sindh (Mawlana Saeed Asad?), Pindi Quraishi to Lahori doctor (Dr. Jalali). He reserves his utmost contempt for neem-rafizis and absolutely roasts TuQ. Although he generally supports Dr Jalali's viewpoint, he faults latter's defence. Given his straight-talking, abrasive approach, I can imagine Mufti Fazl Chishti to be a divisive figure even among the sunni ulemas, although his scholarship (in my limited comprehension) appears sound and comprehensive. His maqala on khata is worth listening for the references he provides. His 3 hour lecture on Tajdar-e-Golra's tasfia can be found here. He has another exclusive video refuting the statement by another aalim who stated it is not permissible for anyone to comment on matters related to ahl ul-bayt and none should dare tread beyond the blessed urine of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
Some questions for the followers of Sayyid Muhammad Irfan Shah sahib mashadi: If using the term khata ijtihadi bila qayd for Anbiya `alayhim us salam is kufr as Shah sahib has stated, what is your and shah sahib’s fatwa on `Allamah Parharwi who attributed this view to “aktharun” even though he said this view is not mukhtar? And what is your fatwa on the author of Fiqh al Akbar? Since you (including shah sahib) say that any type of nisbat of khata or khata ijtihadi is gustakhi to sayyida fatima radhiallahu anha, what is your hukm on Allamah Abdul Ali Bahr al ulum laknawi in Fawatih al Rahmut who used variants of the term "khata" for sayyida fatima radhiyallahu anha? Where in the books of fiqh does it state that insulting Sayyida Fatima radhiyallahu anhu is kufr luzumi or iltizami?
Just as a note going off of what brother abdalqadir has said about sayyidina amir mu`awiya radhiyallahu anhu, the term khata is not an insult otherwise A`lahazrat quddisa sirruhu would not describe the mutalaba of Sayyidina Amir Mu`awiya radhiallahu anhu as khata e ijtihadi in Fatawa Ridawiyya Sharif volume 29 : ہم اہلسنت ان میں حق،جانب جناب مولٰی علی(مانتے)اور ان سب کو مورد لغزش)بر غلط و خطا اور حضرت اسد اللہّی کو بدرجہا ان سے اکمل واعلٰی جانتے ہیں مگر بایں ہمہ بلحاظ احادیث مذکورہ(کہ ان حضرات کے مناقب و فضائل میں مروی ہیں)زبان طعن وشنیع ان دوسروں کے حق میں نہیں کھولتے اور انہیں ان کے مراتب پر جوان کے لیے شرع میں ثابت ہوئے رکھتے ہیں،کسی کو کسی پر اپنی ہوائے نفس سے فضیلت نہیں دیتے۔اور ان کے مشاجرات میں دخل اندازی کو حرام جانتے ہی
I tend to disagree with brother Abdalqadir on one thing - I don't believe these "ulama" including shah sahib who are openly making a spectacle of takfir and tabdi` are sincere. Yes some like Mufti Ashraf al Qadiri muhaddith naikabadi hafizahullah, Sayyid Najib Haider Barkati, Sayyid Amin Miyan, are genuine and mukhlis. If shah sahib is honest, he will follow the hukm of his ustadh in hadith, Huzur Muhaddith al Kabeer Allamah Ziya ul Mustafa damat barakatahum and retract from his comments lacking akhlaq like using the term "loose motion" and "kuttay ka puttar" and from his comments doing implicit takfir
There you go, that wannabe wali tasleem sabri made a 2 minute soundbite extracted from the long talk. Most awam will watch the shorter clip rather than the 2 hrs to spend watching the longer talk, see here Sayyid Mashhadi sahib says it is "sareehan beadabi" and "gustakhi" and says khata ijtihadi too can't be mentioned in the manner Jalali sahib mentions.
Mashhadi sahib said in his bayan with sabri about linguistic usage of ijtihad and istilahi usage. I acknowledge my ignorance of the masala mentioned in Bahare Shariat and by Ahmad Kazmi sahib, but still feel it's a lot simpler to say that Sayyidah wasn't aware of the Hadith at the time.
Forgot the 2 major ironies: 10. Irfan Shah sahib says these days people have forgotten the difference between friends and enemies (no kidding!) 11. Sabri asks him re Jalali's comments about (some of?) his detractors being rafidis/neem-rafidis. Irfan Shah sahib says it's an enormity to call a Sunni as such. (ermm, what about those who started it all by blasting Jalali off as khariji, nasibi, kâfir, insulting his parents, etc. without even asking him to clarify his stance?) and this point 12. Sabri says people have a rafidi-phobia these days, they hear the word Ahle Bayt and immediately start thinking all sorts of things. Mashhadi sahib says they need to relax as long as the ulamae Ahle Sunnat are present among them, or something like that. This entire issue should not have taken more than a grand total of 20 minutes of a publicly held ilmi discussion by the for and against sides, but here we are.
my feedback on all of this: firstly, the million dollar question / request / iltija to Shah sahib: can Irfan Shah sahib please also issue such 2 hr rebuttals against hanif qureshi and riyaz shah and many others on matters pertaining to Ummahaatul Mumineen and Ameer Mu3awiyah radi Allahu 3anhum ajma3een? please do it in public interest as you have mentioned. ============== secondly, my closing comment: i personally feel this is a clash of ego from both sides. it's a shameful and pathetic episode that shows that khanqahs and religious groups of scholars are run as an industry/mafia and deen is taken to be "ghar ki kheti" by most (not all) celebrity scholars who need to feed their egos more than anything; and hurts the 3aqidah of the awam, doesn't matter which side they fall on. who can now blame the awam when they say "chorho yar in maulanaon ko. yeh to khud ek doosre ke galey pe charhe rehte hain"? who is responsible if the awam doesn't trust them on fiqh rulings relating to zakat, bribery, interest, marriages, people's divorces, inheritences, wills etc. when they know full well that our khanqah elders and scholars even treat iman and kufr and gustakhi (or lack thereof) all as issues of personal one-upmanship and nothing more and being scholars, will gladly present any any evidence to suit themselves? Jalali, if he wanted to maintain his stance, should have mentioned in just a very brief 3 or 4 minute video - "if my usage of the word khata upset the Sayyids*, i retract from this word despite explaining my stance that i was refering to the reward-worthy ijtihadi khata, plus i acknowledge there was no ijtihad on this matter in the first place to call it right or wrong. however, i stick to the 3aqidah of Ahlus Sunnah that non-prophets aren't ma3soom and Siddiqe Akbar is 3adil Ameerul Mumineen. i will list other rebuttals against the shias" those opposing him could have done the same, issue a brief challenge - "prove that ijtihad was done in the first place, then talk about it being right or wrong. was it ijtihad for the Sayyidah to ask for something belonging to her beloved Father 3alaihis salam while she wasn't aware of his command? you were wrong to use this kind of language for Sayyidah Nisaa Al-3aalameen. yes we Ahlus Sunnah acknowledge that non-ambiyaa aren't ma3soom but mentioning a specific great person of the ummah by name and saying they were wrong, moreso when there is no room to say right or wrong, is bad adab. would you point out to your father and say "abba, you made a mistake on this matter" or would you use a more mellow tone like "abba, this matter is like this"?" making a case for gustakhi (of the blasphemous kind) is very far fetched. both sides are engaged in one-upping against the other at the expense of the awam's creed and time! * see this short video by Sayyid Amin Miyan for example. he has made it clear that such language hurt his sentiments. we are servants of Sahihul Aqidah Ahle Bayt and need to respect their sentiments:
i finally saw the 1 hr 50 min video and here's my main recap and thoughts: 1. it is clear and is stated expressly that Irfan Shah sahib is speaking under the 'sadarat' of munawwar jamati sahib this much is even mentioned by sabri himself on facebook 2. i feel Irfan Shah sahib is sincere and wishes to safeguard the faiths of common awam but is being coached (or 'supervised') and being thoroughly used (ie, abused) and taken advantage of (due to his age perhaps) by the rafidis and pro-rafidi bunch like minhajis (minhajis on their own may be pro or anti anything, but their ameer tahir is only pro-tahir and nothing else) 3. he repeats the same things with the same reasoning and logic that he mentions in the other videos linked on this thread 4. he says (and i agree 100%, i was saying this to my friends right from the start) it would have been a question of khata ijtihadi if any ijtihad was actually done. Sayyidah went to ask for something that belonged to her beloved Father 3alaihis salam. she was not aware of Prophet's 3alaihis salam command that Siddiqe Akbar narrated to her. when he mentioned the prophetic command, she accepted it. where is the ijtihad (right or wrong) in all of this? 5. as Waqar786 pointed out, he says cleverly, do not bring us the sayings of scholars. bring us the sayings of Sahaba and other Ahlul Bayt who called this khata ijtihadi. personally i feel this is a salafist kind of argument. the same can be said for a whole host of matters 6. he says again that "ma3soom" by itself means "mahfouz" and gives examples of dictionary meanings, fiqh meanings etc. that a Muslim's and even dhimmi's life and property are "ma3soom" (protected) in the Muslim saltanat as per fiqh. sorry but i can't say he's confused here because in the same talk he amply mentions linguisitic meanings of terms as well as specific istilahi meanings in specific sciences. he repeats his citation and his claim that "ma3soom" and "mahfooz" are very very close for most intents and purposes. (someone please correct me, but i feel here he muddied the waters either deliberately so, or under 'supervision') 7. in addition, he mentions a few more points (stated below in normal black color are summarized rephrasings in my own words in english, of Irfan Shah sahib. please correct me if i'm wrong, i obviously don't remember everything word for word. red color comments are my thoughts, AQ) 7.1. if you take to social media and/or grab the microphone, convey the mukhtar mazhab of the jumhur and the zaahirur riwayah to the awam, not solitary aqwal. solitary aqwal are meant for academic and scholarly analyses in madaris (he says this regarding Jalali attributing khata ijtihadi to anbiyaa either himself or citing others, as well as in a general sense as if all Jalali is bringing forward is solitary aqwal) 7.2. you should have come to us senior scholars if you wanted to outdo the rawafid 7.3. by attributing khata ijtihadi to Sayyida Nisaa Al-3aalameen radi Allahu 3anha, you're actually unwittingly doing the bidding for shias, now they will say 'great, we follow the ijtihad of Sayyidah' and you'll have nothing to respond 7.4. i would have replied aptly to the objection of the rawafid. the narration talked about (regarding Sayyidah asking Siddiqe Akbar for Fadak, radi Allahu 3anhum ajma3een) comes through just one solitary tariqa (sanad) and the other three turuq are not like this. the route that this specific narration comes from, the two main raawi's are matrook according to major scholars of rijaal and they have admitted to concocting this narration. as far as i'm concerned, this narration and consequently the event itself, both don't exist. hows that for shutting up the shias?! (i personally liked this angle. haven't read up regarding the isnad and the rijaal of the riwayat/riwayaat yet). 7.5. i can shut the rafidis/shias up on any issue from 10 different angles, and dont have to resort to such language and mannerisms. (agreed, specially in light of point 4 above) 7.7. it will not take us half a minute ('aadha minute nahin lagega') to issue the hukm of the Shari3ah, we're just not doing it in interests of public safety (the implication is that we can easily issue a fatwa and declare him gustakh and/or kafir in writing, and this will just cause the pro and anti sides to dwell further on this matter and hurt their iman and adab, plus they may take to the streets and even resort to violence or vigilantism) 8. he does mention that he resorts to such rebuttals only when things get out of hand and people cross the line. he says explicitly that Jalali crossed that line (hadd paar kar di). if i remember correctly, in the beginning of the video he either calls Jalali a gustakh or says gustakhi ki hai. likewise he says he once debated some rafidi who even did not acknowledge Ameer Mu3awiyah radi Allahui 3anhu as Muslim, jab pani sar se upar guzar gaya 9. in the beginning of the video when he was establishing the muqaddamah for his talk, he mentions in passing that the sahaba are not same in status. those before Fath and those after Fath are not the same. this was just mentioned in passing, but it stuck with me. i feel it was a result of the 'supervision' (sorry, but some of you can understand my cynicism). that said, in the same talk, he did say he defended Sayyidina Ameer Mu3awiyah radi Allahu 3anhu, as mentioned above. so don't let your imaginations run wild. that was my recap and some very basic thoughts. the above is not mentioned in this sequential order in the video. this order is just my recap.
I don't think Shah Sahib is denying the possibility of Khata e Ijtihadi for ahl ul bayt. What he said was that in regards to the fadak issue, sayida fatima's request was not khata e ijtihadi. Shah Sahib then cleverly demands that Jalali Sahib needs to prove that it was a khata e ijtihadi from the sahaba or the two subsequent generations not the qoal of later scholars. The premise is if it was not khata e ijtihadi then Jalali Sahib using the word 'khata' is disrespect and his claim about khata e ijtihadi is just a subterfuge.
this is mu'taqad, p110: the claim of ismat for non-prophets should not be considered a light thing; this leads to the heresy of batinis. ---
