80 Lashes and Tafdili's

Discussion in 'Refutation' started by abu Hasan, Jun 2, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. kattarsunni

    kattarsunni Veteran

  2. kattarsunni

    kattarsunni Veteran

    It seems that we have rattled ObjectiveEnquirer's cage (once again).

    He has responded to Shadhili's comments.

    A message to Tahir and Hasnayn: re-activate my account on yanabi.com and i will come onto your site and debate the issue there. You moderators have banned my account (for the umteenthe time).
     
  3. That particular individual (from Facebook) was still peddling around the claim that the maqalaat is the earliest work listing the beliefs of the ahl as-sunnah. I guess he hasn't seen his pir's latest research.
     
  4. kattarsunni

    kattarsunni Veteran

    The truth is i did not want to furnish ANY references. Why? Because i will just make the Tafdili Sects job easier for them. If they do not read any fiqh works or any works at that that is their problem.

    By us referencing those works for them we make things easier for them.

    I think a full work needs to be written on the subject.
     
  5. shadilli

    shadilli New Member

    I believe the fact that this issue has not been resolved yet shows inadequcies in the resarch of the Mufadillah and to some extent our own Sunni scholars. The takhrij of this Narration was rigorously authenticated by 'Ottoman Warrior' on www.sunnitalk.net, therefore we shall suffice by refuting the Mufadillah's logical points in refutation of this narration.


    لا أجد أحدا فضلني على أبي بكر وعمر إلا جلدته حد المفتري


    "I shall not find anyone who gives me precedence over Abu Bakr and Umar except that I shall lash him the lashes of a falsifier."



    Objections:


    1. "How is it possible for anyone to innovate a new penal punishment [Hadd] even Mawla Ali (Alaihis Salaam)?"


    Answer: Nowhere in this narration is there the mentioning of a 'Hadd' punishment. Nowhere does Mawla Ali say 'Ahuddu' [I will apply the hadd] or 'Yuhaddu' [He will have the hadd applied on him]. The latter part of the sentence is merely the quantifier for the former, or the 'Kam' as expressed in the logician's 'Maqulat Ashr'. So from "... I shall lash him the lashes of a falsifier." Mawla Ali is stipulating the number of lashes the individual shall receive, i.e. 80, and the underlying reason as to why he is receiving the punishment. I.e. for slandering Mawla Ali.


    If this is not a penal punishment [Hadd] then what remains is the existence of the eighty lashes as 'Ta'zir' which Sayyid Sharif defines as:




    ھو التادیب دون الحد
    “Ta’zir is Mannering and is not hadd”[1]



    This would make it a legitimate punishment.




    2. "If this was a valid punishment why is it not mentioned in the works of Fiqh?"


    Answer: This shows lack of research. In reality reference to this is made in the works of Hanafi Fiqh. In the Hanafi Madhab there exists a narration of Abu Yusuf that Ta’zir can be given up to eighty lashes and the fuqaha comment that this has been reported from Mawla Ali (Peace be upon him) i.e. giving ta’zir of up to eighty lashes “Wa huwa ma’thurun en Ali” [2].



    3. "If this is a valid narration why did Mawla Ali not mention this to the Shia of his time?"


    Answer: In reality the narration is a specific dialogue to the Shia. If one checks the narration of Suayd ibn Ghaflah, he will find that the reason he informed Mawla Ali (Alaihis Salaam) that some people were saying the above was because he heard some Shia saying this as he past by a group of them.




    The above was just an insight into the Mufadillah's flawed argument. InshaAllah if Allah wills more shall come from me.



    [1] Al Ta’rifat; Sayyid Sharif al Jurjani; 1/28; Al Jamaliah; Cairo; Egypt
    [2] Al Ikhtiyar li Ta’lil al Mukhtar; Abdullah Al Muwsili ______ 599AH – 683AH; 2/311; Dar at Tib’a; Damascus, Syria
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2011
  6. chisti-raza

    chisti-raza Veteran

    was the hadd at that time not specific to Mawla Ali - radiAllahu anhu - declaring it to be slander to elevate him above the Shaykayn - radiAllahuma anhu? will slander not be classified as an 'action'? Ottomon Warrior's response was excellent. Can KS not paste it here?
     
  7. edhi92

    edhi92 New Member

    @KattarSunni:

    You mentioned a detailed response by OttomanWarrior and yourself on Sunnitalk.net but the website is currently down.

    I recently came across to an objection by a Tafdhili saying:

    I will be very grateful to you if you can mail or post that detailed response.
     
  8. edhi92

    edhi92 New Member

    References

    AsSalamu Alaikum

    I have collected few references to this Hadith i.e.

    Hadrat Ali Radi Allahu Ta'ala Anhu is reported to have stated:

    لا أجد أحدا فضلني على أبي بكر وعمر إلا جلدته حد المفتري
    Whosever says that I am more excellent than Abu Bakr and Umar, I shall punish him with the Hadd of a slanderer.

    1. Tafsir al-Qurtabi, Vol. 17, Page 205, Surah Hadeed, Verse 10
    2. As-Sawa'iq al-Muharriqah, Vol. 1, Page 177
    3. As-Sawa'iq al-Muharriqah, Vol. 1, Page 196
    4. Jami' al-Ahadith, Vol. 30, Page 425, Hadith 33479
    5. Kanz al-Ummal, Vol. 13, Page 9, Hadith 36102
    6. Kanz al-Ummal, Vol. 13, Page 27, Hadith 36157
    7. Sunnah Ibn Abi Aasim, Vol. 2, Page 575, Hadith 1219
    8. Sunnah Abdullah Bin Ahmad, Vol. 2, Page 562, Hadith 1312
    9. Tarikh-e-Damishq, Vol. 44, Page 365
    10. Tarikh-e-Damishq, Vol. 44, Page 368
    11. Tarikh al-Khulafa, Vol. 1, Page 17
    12. Tarikh al-Khulafa, Vol. 1, Page 44
     
  9. kattarsunni

    kattarsunni Veteran

    Mazhar Shah brought out another point recently to counter this athar also. He said why is this report limited to tafdil of Sayyiduna Ali radiyAllahu anhu and no one else? Why is it specifting Mawla Ali radiyAllahu anhu?

    The answer is very simple if Mazhar Shah checked the origins of the report. He will find that this saying regarding the lashes was said to people at a specific time and for a specific incident.

    He fails to mention that.
     
  10. kattarsunni

    kattarsunni Veteran

    Many months ago there was a debate beween the Ahl alSunna and Tafdili's of yanabi website on Zaid Shah Sahib's criticism of the eighty lashes report.

    There were two claims made principally:

    1 The athar of Sayyiduna Ali radiyAllah anhu is weak because of its chain (riwayatan)

    2 The athar is weak because its content does not make any sense.

    The first claim was amply tackled by myself and 'OttomanWarrior' on sunnitalk.com and that that thread is available for everyone to see once the sunnitalk site is back up. The sourcing of the report we cited leaves no doubt that the chain is authentic.

    The second aspect of the narration related to its conents. The Tafdili's claimed that the report cannot be authentic because no such hadd is mentioned by the fuqaha in any of their fiqh works. Therefore it were authentic the U'lama would have mentioned the narration in their works.
    They also said that if it were ta'zir (discretionary punishment) then it would have been in the fiqh books also, as the ahnaf only allow a maximum of ten lashes for ta'zir.

    This point is not exactly precise also. The report of Sayyiduna Ali radiyAllahu anhu is referenced by the fuqaha in their works and they did accept it. It was used by the fuqaha in istidlal. But i will not reference that at this precise time.

    Secondly the ta'zir is not only limited to in the fiqh works. In the Hanafi school the ta'zir has been mentioned as upto forty.
    But because Ahl alsunna do not limit themselves to one school as all four schools and their positions are valid, the Maliki school have mentioned the ta'zir punishment as a hundred lashes and even more.


    This is only one way in how the Tafdili's have played with terms. Another fine example is how they toy with the term qat'i, dhanni' and the various types of ijma'.
    This is why i think it is very important that a thread be started dealing with 'Zubdat alTahqiq' page page inshaAllah, wa billahi tawfiq.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page