exactly. utterly ridiculous. I am reminded of the supposedly magical snake stones - which only work so long as you don't need them.
This challenge is nonsense, mubahala on what? the creed which is established from the time of sahabah raDiyAllahu anhum. First they should prove that it is a gustakhi. why this tafzili minhaji jamati cannot do a munazarah? very sad state of affairs, jahil descendants of piraan e uzzam are destroying the deen of this ummah.
One thing that has been overlooked here is Syed Munawwar Jammati's Mubilah challenge to Dr Sahib. On their facebook page, a few scholars supported this. From a Shari point of view, is this even jaiz as I thought it could only be applied in situations of kufr and Islam. Could any brothers shed any light on this matter?
what sort of a statement - based on what logic - which principle? is this some novel with its own fictitious universe where any arbitrary rule is capable of producing any desired result?
this is not a property dispute. jalali sahib stood his ground for the principle. the same reason we are supporting him from the beginning and supporting him now. previously, i was not fond of him because of his political activities - though i respected him as a sunni aalim. but one should stand with haqq. irrespective of jalali sahib's motives (we have good faith unless proven otherwise) the demand of the 'opposition' was unfair in the first place. the woman who started it all by abusing/insulting sayyiduna abu bakr al-siddiq was not even on the radar of the 'opposition'. those who raised the ruckus ARE the maleficent ones. it is they who should have backed down and stepped out of the way. when robbers attack a house, and a man resists - you don't blame him for getting hurt. "he should have backed off and let them get away instead of resisting which resulted in the robbers burning down the house" is not a valid argument. but yes, he could have put out the fire without compromising on the principles - as i suggested. apologise for sayyids for their being hurt inadvertently, even though this is not an issue. --- you seem to have great faith in courts and judges of our time. i don't. besides, the court's order is not waHy that i should follow it willy-nilly. the hukm of shara'a al-sharif is obvious and we KNOW it. we don't want a court to tell us that - jalali sahib will be TEACHING it to the court and those sell-outs who filed the FIR and do not seem to have knowledge. besides, what is there to wait for? this is something which i have no interest in. scholars should stay away from politics. it is an entirely different discussion but whoever thinks they will restore islam to golden rule of umar ibn al-khattab (raDiyAllahu anhu) or a semblance of it, do not seem to have knowledge of hadith or they probably gloss over it. bukhari, #7068 it will happen only after the coming of imam mahdi. Allah ta'ala knows best.
Since when have secular courts become arbitrators of "intellectual" deeni discussions? Court, even without external pressures and prejudices, has no locus standi on this issue even if Dr Jalali is allowed to present his views. Either party will claim decisive victory, but will that be the denouement? You are naive to think that will be the finishing line.
If attributing "khata" was blasphemy, then Irfan Shah sahab too has attributed it to Umm al Momineen raDiyAllahu anha, why he is not being criticized for this blasphemy and being asked to do ruju'
That's fair enough @AbdalQadir. I think that the killing of the Qadiyani in Peshawar is linked to this agenda too. Keep an eye on how the government handle this
That could have meant accepting rafidi pressure and aqaid. I too said he could have quashed the issue with some hikmah but really it's 100% his right to stick to his stance. He didn't do anything violating Sunni aqaid or even sinful. The word khata has been used even for prophets by scholars. What the other side was demanding due to their sense of entitlement was simply unfair. That's it.
No. When this issue first came out, it could have been quashed by two things: Jalali sahib taking his words back The opposition accepting his clarification. All I am saying why didn't Jalali sahib just take his words back for the sake of quashing the issue. If it is as @sherkhan points out that it is to unmask all those with heterodox beliefs within our ranks, then that is great. He is going to destroy them (academically) in court. Let's see this happen first. I agree with all the points @abu Hasan raised about Shah Sahib's involvement. On the outside, it feels like Shah Sahib has a personal issue with Jalali sahib and the likes of Syed Munawwar Jammati used that to make him his spokesperson. I now believe that what i was told about Shah Sahib's influence might have been exaggerated. Is it going to play out as the brother @sherkhan concluded? Most likely. However, I don't see why you're not willing to wait for this issue to play out. Jalali sahib will get his time in court (something that he has repeatedly called for) and then after that, the matter will get decided. I think the agenda is like Pir Ghufran Syalwi pointed out is to divide Sunnis so that our main political parties can't capitalise on the power vacuum that exists.
related thread: http://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/justice-a-key-principle-in-islam.14557/#post-69336
unfortunately, this is the great balancing act of including the victim with the oppressor and blame both of them. israel is committing crimes because of the palestinians and their refusal to accept the routine oppression of a mighty and merciless military force. both are responsible. no?
I don't know what are you on about. For long, you seem to be suggesting cryptically as if you are privy to intention of either/one party. Based on what, private conversation with Mawlana Nabeel? That's incorrect. Anti-Jalali camp has been in bed with shias. When have they agreed that "the beneficiaries of this have been Rafzis"? Even if you had said that anti-camp thinks beneficiaries are kharijis and pro- camp thinks beneficiaries are rafizis, you are wrong to say that both camps "agree". Pray, tell us about it. Suspense waiting for the "finish line" is killing us! Only near-term beneficiaries are shias and establishment/military puppet-master. Shias have managed to bring masoomiyat discourse and tafdhilism into sunni sphere. Establishment has managed to clip Dr Jalali's wings (as he was proving thorn in the flesh lately with his fire-brand stance and ability to galvanise sunni awaam). Liberals can now chuckle as anti-blasphemy law is turned on its head. But ultimate beneficiaries will be awaam of ahl us-Sunnah. Jahils/munafiqs/pirs/tafdhilis/neem-rafizis have been found out. Bayts has been/will be broken. Illusion of scholarship has been shattered for good. Whether Dr Jalali survives this ordeal or not, he has well and truly exposed the undercurrent of baatil aqaid. That augurs well for future.
I 100% agree with @abu Hasan with the points he raised above. In sha Allah, sense and dard for the maslak and Haq will prevail.
The finish line is when we find out why Shah sahib has taken the approach he has (the evidence is pretty damming in this regard) and why Jalali sahib thought it best not to take back his words and quash the issue (what does he know want to achieve?) Neither stances as it stands have benefited Sunnis in terms of unity. Both sides agree that the beneficiaries of this have been Rafzis and Kharjis. It is clear there is an underlying agenda.
irfan shah will apologise for abusing someone's mother. that is not only a religious duty but also an akhlaqi farz - morally right thing to do. irfan shah will state that ma'Sum when spoken in aqidah matters IS istilahi, meaning 'divinely protected' or 'immune from sin' applies only to prophets and angels. all others, including kibar among SaHabah and the ahl al-bayt are not immune from sin. khata is a term that is practically harmless and has been used for prophets. in comparison, using this term for ahl al-bayt should not be a catastrophe. so if khata is used, it is neither insulting nor invites takfir nor melodrama. that he expresses his remorse for jalali sahib's arrest; and that a bunch of neem-rafizis and full-rafizis ganged up on a sunni scholar which should not have happened. i pray he does this. and if he does not, there will be a day when no one can escape - no one can join in support of unfair demands. and on that day justice will be done. that is the meaning of 'yawm al-faSl'. ---- of course, he can be obstinate - and he knows better than us what has happened to obstinate people in the past. ---- speeches will be forgotten. speech makers will also be forgotten. especially those who step out of sunni manhaj. nas'alu Allaha al-aafiyah. dil sulagta hi bhalaa hai ay zabt bujh bhi jaate hain dahakne waale
coming from someone who has been following the discussion since the start - that's an interesting insinuation whose "motive" I am left pondering about. silence is the only way to remain objective ... hmm ...
as if core Islamic usul and aqaid are subject to motives - this reeks of hansonism and kellerism. as for individual personalities - a formal "judgement" is the forte of the Mufti or the Qadhi. But of-course I will have my personal judgement (call it an opinion or belief if you will) about what and who is right or wrong - I can't suspend judgement on such basic AND crystal clear issues - especially after tons of senior ulama have spoken out and clarified it, even for lay people such as myself.
it’s not about pro or anti anyone. This is about aqida e ahlesunnat, there is no blind following in aqida. this is what the conclusion must be based on, I don’t understand what eventuality you are waiting for and how you will determine motives of said individuals
