Pir Abdul Qadir Jillani Attacks Imam Bukhari

also, if people have noticed, the under taqiyya albalagh, who was just kicked out of here, is the 'fazination' over there at YN doing his work, and he is having a great time

 

..and Shaykh GF Haddad gave this advice to the shiites 9 years ago!!!!!

All we know about Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq is from the 'secondary scholars' themselves! Or should we consult al-Coughee, mun la yadhribul faqih etc? Is everybody seeing this? The Imams are mazloom. What else? There is a war between Imam Ja'far and Imam Bukhari! I just cannot believe it, I cannot believe it. Sunnis attacking Imam Bukhari?

NO WAY. These are not Sunnis. These are Shiites, 100%

 

check out the latest attack on shaykh GFH -- may Allah protect him and may he continue to serve the Ahlus Sunnah -- by those cryptoshia on YN. His 'crime' was to write the following article: (i have put in bold the bits which have got the YN howler monkeys howling 'Nasibi!' and 'enemy of the Ahlul Bayt!')

Here is what one of them wroteI have again highlighted in bold those bits i found particularly offensive or stupid.)
(OE )

clearly he has SERIOUS comprehension problems with simple English. Doesn't understand it was 'NOT al-Bukhari' but REPORTEDLY 'Yahya ibn Said al Qattan..'

but then again why let FACTS get in the way of your delusions?

then the whole saga. BTW since when have Sunnis referred to the Imams of the Ahle Bayt as 'mazloom'?

This idiocy is bettered though by the following follow-up comment:

ROTFL LMAO!!! (if it wasn't so sad.)

So we don't need to rely on classical scholars anymore?! Someone should ask them that how do we know the 'teachings and lessons of Husayn and his family' (whom we love) if not via the painstaking work of the classical scholars?! The whole edifice of Sunni Islam will come tumbling down if we were to do that. And how is that different from the Wahabis? They at least pretend to only follow Quran and Hadith. Here, their own nafses are the judge based on this meme of 'respect for Ahle Bayt'.

And all this is just a smokescreen to disguise the fact that no refutation has been forthcoming to the criticisms made by shaykh GFH, aH and abu nasr on that lecture...

the url for this thread is http://www.yanabi.com/forum/Topic335044-4-2.aspx#bm335234 so that ppl dont think i am making this up!

 

I now seriously believe there are urdu/punjabi speaking twelver shia rafiDis infiltrating YN. They are acting under taqiyya and confusing those minors over there. Its an old tactic. Slowly, they try to confuse and move those emotional/ignorant people step by step over the bridge, and once they are beyond the bridge, they plant a bomb and blow up the bridge so that those emotional fools cannot go back to the side of the ahl al-sunnah. This is how these rafiDis take over Sunni neighbourhoods and religious sites as well. Remember what the Turkish ulama said of them during the late Ottoman era?

These rafiDis have direct orders from somewhere over the internet to infiltrate YN. They come in here as well once in a while as kunh al-naqiba, and then miss hidaya, and then askari, and then albalagh.

 

whats the difference? (other than lip-service to imam ahmad raza khan barelvi on the latter forum)?

one of the top dogs on yanaafi called zarb e haidari, allegedly a sayyid in real life, has written the foulest abuse to hazrat sayyidina amir muawiya and gotten away with it.
and the bughz against both hazrat amir muawiyah and hazrat abu sufyan
also is evident in many of them. just search for either of these names.

 

please recognize albalagh is a rafiDi and he is definitely from shiachat, not from yanaabi.com

 

no, not really. i have read it once and once is more than enough. i used the word shriek and something clicked in and i stretched it a bit.

--
concerning the guy i banned and edited the post: i regret it now that deleted it; i shouldn't have. however here is a recap:

1. he congratulates me for conceding that imam bukhari can also make errors and wonders at/slams people who think imam bukhari is some demigod (ma'adhAllah). he used THAT word.

2. he proffers his excuse for the 'mistake' he made when he questioned why imam baqir's report was not found in bukhari; 'humans are full of error and forgetfulness..', he says.

3. he insists imam bukhari's animosity towards imam ja'afar as-sadiq and talks about sunni authorities saying this too.

​

----
a red herring is a fallacy where, a totally unrelated topic is raised to derail the argument. the charge was imam bukhari had animosity with ahl al-bayt, so he did not include any reports coming from them. this is absurd and false like almost all their other arguments.

IMPORTANT: i have absolutely no faith in anything they quote - some might be unreliable because of their incompetence but many are outright liars and frauds. this has been proved earlier too in the imam ghazzali slanders.

----
notice that the word 'demigod' was used in the imam ghazali thread. first, they slander imams and when we refute on their behalf, the preach to us that they [imams] were not 'demigods' and they too can make mistakes and we ought not to revere them like so.

this is slander upon slander. we respect our ulama and acknowledge that they are susceptible to errors and mistakes. however, we do not attribute their errors to malcontent or deliberate crimes. we should have a good opinion about them and consider that their mistake/error was due to human fallibility. may Allah ta'ala forgive us and them.

the slips of great men are far greater than our good deeds.
​

shame on the albalagh poster who has an ostentatious excuse for himself when he said imam baqir's riwayah is not found in bukhari, but still without any proof - except their own feverish imagination - libel imam bukhari that he hated ahl al-bayt.

---
another issue is that of context. imam bukhari did not set out to compile a collection/book that would be considered the most important after the qur'an. it just became so, due to the immense barakah and its acceptance near Allah ta'ala.

14 centuries later, if we look at it retrospectively and ask, how could he miss certain narrators in his most important book, it might sound a valid question but is still silly because of the age-context.

---
we ought to respect our elders and if we don't, Allah ta'ala will make those younger to us to humiliate us. kama tadinu tudaan. as you sow, so you reap.

---
indeed, muhaddithin have noted that imam bukhari did not take imam ja'afar as an authority [vide al-dhahabi's tazkiratu'l huffaz, entry on imam ja'afar; 162: "bukhari did not take him as an authority though the whole world reveres the imam as a leader and hujjah"]

that should be attributed to his erring on the side of caution rather than hate. because imam bukhari has indeed narrated with imam ja'afar in the chain in his other celebrated book: adab al-mufrad (already noted below by a brother; i will look up his other books, inshaAllah).

---
the problem with these incompetent dunces is that they have begun to talk even before learning to read. like a high school student struggling with basic trigonometry attempting to comment on the limitation of riemann integration in fourier analysis or the merit of lebesgue integration.

what else explains such ignorance?

---
i do not wish to waste time flogging the dead horse any more. and i wish brothers would not respond to provocations here. let us learn about these few hadith [of umm Haram] and read their explanation, inshaAllah. let us not read them to refute the objections of morons on yn-forum; rather, we must read to enrich our own knowledge.

wa billahi't tawfiq.

 

been reading HP again have we? ;-)
on a more serious note i swear the yanaafi crew have got a FETISH for Yazid. They are obsessed with him! after the laughable attempt to justify the comments about imam bukhari by pir sahib by some buffoon called fazination -- which was basically the same trash as posted on this thread about imam bukhari not relating from the imams of the ahlul bayt thereby proving his 'bughz' -- he got oodles of praise on his 'great post'. yet this response by one 'objective enquirer' had me in fits of laughter:

For someone whom they consider a 'big-shot' --they have his lectures on their site--
his English is appalling (let alone his logic). Vide: why did not....never... (didn't anyone teach him never to use double-negatives in a sentence?); he was a much later...

and then the BIG punch: send their daddy to jannat!

notice the complete obsession with Yazid these people have. We did not even mention Yazid and again they've brought him up quickly followed by Marwan!

Befuddlement or what if I ever saw it! The original refutations they're hoping will be forgotten about if we spew enough nonsense. I almost wish I could wave my wand and make them all disappear like the boggarts they are: Riddikulus!!

 

this is not a shrieking shack for ignoramuses and werewolves. open for discussion does not mean that we have time to bandy words with crooks.

if i sense the jahalah of the yanafi crew and the stink from their forums brought up here, i will have no regrets kicking them out and their fitna. even if they attempt to speak sweetly here.

---
laa Hawla wa laa quwwata illa billah.

 

---------------------
edited: i am glad to inform that this jahil has made his last post on the forum.

 

This is just false as per what sidi abu Hasan has written.

 

so imam bukhari was a nasibi now according to your warped mind? you should go back to Qom where you came from! (I'm being sarcastic!)

 

I suggest you try to understand hadith Inni Tarikun feekum ul thaqalain..........then you may realise how it is not a shia argument!

As for the latter point maybe you should read what hanafi muhaditheen have written about Imam Bukhari not taking hadith from Imam Abu Hanifah............How they lament at the fact that he took riwayah from his student Ibn Mubarak but the Imam himself.............Not Taking from the Imams Abu Haneefah and Shafiee is not the same as "ignoring" the Imams of Ahlul bait.........tafakkaraa wa tadabbaraa in kuntuma minal mutafaqiheen...................then you wonder why people refer to you as nasibis..............

 

masha Allah abu Hasan! Wallahi my brother I love you! That was, in cricketing terms, clean bowled.

The man says Imam Bukhari ra: has no narrations from Imam Baqir :as: and you produce not one but two!!

 

laa hawla walaa quwwata illaa billaahil 'aliyyil 'azdheem!!!

Just where did all these new age muhadditheen and closet shias crop up from?

Seriously- have our people become THIS dead ignorant and stooped to such disgustingly withering low levels of alertlessness that they'll gleefully accept with zero scrutiny just any crumbs of gossip draped as half-baked pseudo-knowledge thrown their way, all with a masha Allah group hug?

Has our 1400+ years of history, scholarship and heritage really become THIS cheap that just about any half-witted buffoon will offer just any nafsanic critique of celebrated classical scholars and interpretation of ahadith that comes to his mouth?

I can't believe this is even an issue of contention. People like Imam Bukhari rahimahullah are the pride of the ummah. We owe our knowledge of the deen to them.

Trashing him with such impeccable "adab" and pretentiously adding "rehmatullahi alaihi" after his name does not hide the nafsanic ignorance of such people! It is no different than the wahabis saying pretentious nonsense along the lines of "brother may Allah beautify your face but [Sunni act] is bid'ah/shirk and Imam Nawawi/Suyuti/Bayhaqi, may Allah cover his soul with mercy, was seriously mistaken"

What's next? We're going to lash out at the 4 imams of fiqh too- adding a salutation of "Imam" and a rahmatullahi alaihi after their names of course? Why stop there? Let's go the whole 9 yards and trash a few of the sahaba too while we're at it? We'll just make sure we veil our insults by adding a radi Allahu 'anhu/'anha somewhere in between and all will be dandy.

All based on what... nafsanic whims and loyalty to some new age wah-wah subhan'Allah fan club!

I hate to use coarse language, but seriously... this is nothing but a prime case of shi'ite happening!

Allah yahdeena!

 

as i said earlier,

wa da'a al-jahli laysa lahu tabibu
the disease of ignorance hath not a doctor.

this is a fine example of the fallacy 'petitio principii' or 'begging the question'.

there was a time when people hesitated to speak in spite of knowledge; and in today's world anybody with a tongue or a keyboard will talk without even looking back faulting the great shining stars of this ummah.

a short detour: imam bukhari radiyallahu anhu was indeed a great scholar of hadith, but he was also human. indeed, there might have been slips in his comments or collections or his bias against our school (the hanafi school) and some errors in his book as highlighted by muhaddithin. but that is no reason to discredit or insult the imam or find excuses to calumnize him.

as if people who cannot even pronounce names of ruwwat are qualified to 'examine' the likes of bukhari and muslim.

---
actually you can stretch this kind of nonsense by claiming that because imam bukhari was inimical to abu hanifah, and abu hanifah revered ja'afar as-sadiq, he did not use any hadith with him in the chain (idiot alert: i am being sarcastic).

---
going by your logic, shaykh abd ar-razzaq ibn abd al-qadir al-jilani raDiyallahu anhuma (the son of ghawth al-a'azam) also had step-motherly treatment vis-a-vis ahl al-bayt?

shaykh abd ar-razzaq al-jilani is counted among the ranks of muhaddithin - al-suyuti in his tabaqat al-Huffaz grades him in the 17th generation of muhaddithin; see entry 1081.

there is a collection of his arbayin titled 'arbayin al-kilaniyyah' and he has many narrations from sufyan ibn `uyaynah but none with ja'afar as-sadiq in the chain.

is he too biased against ahl al-bayt?

---
in fact, shah sahib himself is anti- ahl al-bayt because he did not mention ja'afar al-sadiq in that lecture. if he really loved ahl al-bayt he should mention all of them in all his lectures.

and you yourself are a nasibi and hate ahl al-bayt because in the post below you did not mention imam Hasan or musa kazim.

---
but the clincher is:

shikwa bejaa bhi karey koyi to laazim hai sha'uur!

at least, the bukhari i read has narrations from imam baqir. i cannot understand how woefully ignorant people act knowledgeable. check out the narrations 255 and 256 in bab al-ghusl, in al-jamiy al-sahih (of imam bukhari):

both narrations are through imam abu ja'afar muhammad al-baqir.


Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

why have previous sunni scholars--ala hazrat for one example -- not noticed this supposed 'bughz' in imam bukhari? was he less of a lover of ahle bayt than these people?! paranoia: imagining things that aren't there! AND i think this is another red-herring to detract from the actual refutations written by brothers AH and Abu Nasr and Shaykh GF Haddad.

 

the underlying driving force at YN and their like on here seems to be 'our pir is right' and they are finding all sorts of bizarre reasons to justify it. dissing imam bukhari is nothing in their eyes it seems. (then again they got themselves into a twist when imam ghazali was similarly attacked as 'a bookish scholar who wrote a book on sufism to hide his enmity of the ahle bayt!').

isn't it easier to shout 'nasibiport' and 'shitetalk' rather than admit that a person can be sincere but still mistaken. after all, it is human to err.

 

brother this proves the contrary to your arguemnt as imam bukhari has narrated from the many of the ahlul bayt like you have just said, do you expect him to have every hadith narrated by the ahlul bayt and to show that you love the ahlul bayt it is not necessary that you have hadiths narrated by each of the imams.

 

what a stupid shia argument.
because imam bukhari did not narrate from imam ja'far in his sahih he hates ahlul bayt?
i never hear hanafis or shafi'is moan because he did not narrate from imam shafi'i and imam abu Hanifah - only shias are moaning about imam ja'far!