Shaykh Asrar Rashid vs Abdul Rahman Hassan

well it can happen to any of us. so that is not a major problem. the issue is when someone so confident about a thing and based on this he bases his argument - that cannot be merely a slip of the tongue.

---
suyuti in his itqan, talking of preposition, category no.40: [i have many copies of itqan, so the copy i am pasting screenshot is p.1012-1014]

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=eXMQt-pedq0

Abdul Rahman misreads verse of the Quran

 

There was alot of jadl from the Salafī camp, they refused to acknowledge the points Shaykh Asrār made, who in contrast, was expecting ARH to behave in an academic manner. He refused to address the point about Tabaranī, Abū Shaykh & Ibn al-Muqrī going to the grave of Rasul'Allāh [صلى الله عليه و سلم] because of hunger, he did not refer to a single book, not ONE of asmā al-rijāl when doing taşhīh & tađýīf.

I do believe Shaykh Asrār is in a different league compared to ARH, thats evident in the debate, anybody with "aql" will agree.

ARH couldn't answer basic questions, made assumptions & accusations. There was no substance on his part & to top it off, he made the most appalling grammatical mistake which year 1 dars e nizami students learn within the first few weeks of study. I went into the debate acknowledging his command of the Arabic language [ after watching a few of his clips], I left absolutely mortified.

In hindsight, he wasn't worth debating, pseudo salafī's/wahabi's are deprived of sincerity, aql & shaql.

 

Please do

 

This debate has no result, almost no one watches 6 hours and so wont benefit as intended.

Debate was with a jahil, which is a waste of time. A fool doesn't understand when he is right or wrong. The result is exactly this, no Islah nor any progress.

Rather both camps screaming I won. Even their followers arenit interested in the Dalail but in the schaming of others. This is what happens when debating fools.

Asrar made a mistake to deem them even worthy, I mean ge actually took a challenge of joker imran seriously.

Intellectual will see as a degradation of Asrars intellect. But common people will boast about is as seen on Fb "executed" etcetc.

High profile Ulama with Hikmah ceased to exist in this time.

Dont get me wrong I like Asrar, and appreciate everything he does for Ahlus-Sunnah, but I saw in him the next shah Ahmad Noorani type of Alim. Guess I was wrong.

 

at this point on 1.06 abd al-raHman shows his haugtiness.

he pointedly asks, shaykh asrar a question (whether ata is in past)

shaykh asrar asks if he is permitted to answer.

the mubtadiy acknowledges that a contract is signed (that shaykh asrar cannot reply out of turn).

and still insists that shaykh asrar should reply. wisely, shaykh asrar does not take the bait and keeps silent. and it is exactly this silence, imam shafiyi said about:

فسكوتي عن اللئيم جواب. shaykh asrar simply kept quiet and it was a resounding answer to the mubtadiy.

the middle man - i assume he was the moderator explains that shaykh asrar will answer in his next 15 minutes.

but abd al-raHman the mubtadiy - [shame on you for such petty behaviour] - goes on with his royal swagger and says: 'this is running away, trying to escape' [hurub].

----
a short while ago (around 1.02 i guess) he was ranting about "whose aql?"
so one thing is certain - it is not meant for abd al-raHman the mubtadiy - because he doesn't seem to have any aql.

---
btw, this is from the only four or five minutes i have watched so far, in the unedited debate posted below. i randomly scrubbed to this point and this is what i saw. maybe i should sit through the whole debate...

wa billahi't tawfiq.

 

thereafter he insisted that idh is always a past, and it cannot be used even when a future is denoted.
for which he gave example of "أتى أمر الله" ataa is a past, but in context it means: 'the command of Allah shall come'

so the example of "yawma'yidhin" from the qur'an, then according to the mubtadiy abd al-raHman means, "it is always past tense".
according to this mubtadiy with a swagger, the great day of earthquake already happened - and the earth has already informed of all the good and evil committed upon it.

يوميئذ

----
let us go back to the example given by ibn hisham in mughni al-labib:




the example for idh used in future tense is the verse: "on that day, the [earth] will give its news" [zalzalah, 99:4]

surely, you will point out that jumhur - majority of grammarians did not accept this category - BUT WAIT!

those who did not accept this category also said that this is similar to other verses where past tense is used but contextually, it is in the future. the great mubtadiy, abd al-Rahman, who wants to lecture us on tawassul - emphatically rejected it. and he even tried to bully shaykh asrar into saying something - that i will mention in my next post, but the question is:

either idh is accepted as future tense (by some) and hence it is valid usage
OR idh is not accepted as future tense.

if it is the former, the mubtadiy loses his bet.
if it is the latter, he still loses his bet because he will then have to explain what 'yawmayidhin' means; because he rejected that usage as well.

----
so either judgement day already happened and we are in jannah, or abd al-raHman is a liar/ignoramus.

 

maybe i am plain unlucky that i get to see the rough parts first. the only snippet i have seen so far is a few minutes.

i scrubbed it at random to 1:04 and there the mubtadiy abd al-raHman was doing the most impossible stunt, which clearly shows that the man is unjust and is a shameless fraud. this particular abdar raHman - i henceforth refer to him as the mubtadiy - is audacious and has no fear of Allah. nas'alu Allah al-aafiyah.

that he is a jahil, and even looks and speaks like one is obvious. we just have to prove this by hard facts.

at 1.04.28, he brazenly 'challenges' that idh is used only for past tense. and he says: "zarfun lima maDaa". in what appears to be a challenge to bring an example from the qur'an, i was like wondering - what is he talking about. i am just a beginner-student and i felt that something might be wrong here.

so i consulted ibn hisham in his - mughni al-labib

---
إذ
idh is used in four situations:

1. idh for the time past [zaman al-maDi] - which has further four use-cases

2. idh for the future [though it is a rare usage as noted by ibn hisham;]

3. idh as a dependent clause [ta'alil]

4. idh as an interjection

----
now choose your pick: either abdur-raHman of our time, with his swagger, knows more about arabic grammar, or ibn hisham al-anSari.

 

The entire debate has been uploaded, and left unedited. Key points pertaining to the debate are listed below alongside several conditions that were broken by Abdul Rahman and his team:

1. A person from his crowd shouted first at Shaykh Asrar

2. The people with Abdul Rahman shouted takbir first which was against the conditions

3. Abdul Rahman was not reading from original sources but secondary sources. This was against the conditions.

4. The co debator Abu Taymiyah broke the agreement and released small clips before the entire video is out.

5. Abdul Rahman continuously interjected while Shaykh Asrar spoke. This was against the conditions.

6. Clause 7 and 8 didn't mention about whether istighatha was permitted during the worldly life of the Prophet alayhisalam. Abdul Rahman believes it is, so technicaly Shaykh Asrar won. This is mentioned in the debate.

7. Abdul Rahman did not even have the original Tabarani hadith work which he was criticising. Shaykh Asrar gave it to him. Abdul Rahman copying from non original sources.

8. Abdul Rahman kept misquoting Shaykh Asrar's stance. At one point he had to apologise for doing so.

9. Abdul Rahman was the main source of digression by continuously bringing up the Asharis.

10. Abdul Rahman was unable to show the statement of 'hayy, qadir and hadir' from an original work of the salaf but instead was using Ibn Taymiyya's work.

11. Abdul Rahman was unable to show the criticism of the narrators from the original works. He was reading from a booklet. Shaykh Asrar had all the jarh and tadil works even the ones Abdul Rahman hadn't heard of like Kashif of Imam Dhahabi.

12. Abdul Rahman attempted to correct Shaykh Asrar on pronunciation of Arabic words but Shaykh Asrar corrected him on Quran and at one point where he made a verb mudaf and the noun majrur!

13. Follow the debate and you will note that Abdul Rahman avoids many of Shaykh Asrar's but Shaykh Asrar counters all his points.

14. Abdul Rahman attempts to say the hadith presented by Shaykh Asrar are mawdu' when not even Salafi scholars say this.

15. This is an important point. They admit the Prophet alayhisalam is alive in the grave but yet they make it seem the debate is about the dead generally.

- shaykh asrar rashid

 

full unedited debate

 

a part i listened to was around 50 mins the wahabbi debater keeps asking Asrar about the verse

[and had they, when they were unjust to themselves, come to you and asked forgiveness of Allah and the Messenger had (also) asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah Oft-returning (to mercy), Merciful]

إِذ ظَّلَمُواْ أَنفُسَهُمْ جَآؤُوكَ فَاسْتَغْفَرُواْ اللّهَ وَاسْتَغْفَرَ لَهُمُ الرَّسُولُ لَوَجَدُواْ اللّهَ تَوَّابًا رَّحِيمًا

about 'idh':

read this:

http://marifah.net/fiqh-topmenu-51/216-the-objection-of-al-uthaymin-and-the-answer-to-it

 

i just looked over at Dawah mans FB page and found the link to part 1


(havent heard the debate yet myself apart from a few mins here and there)

 

JazakAllah al khayr brother for answering this. What I understood from it was-
/
Shirk al Asbab would take place when -
1] A person believes that so and so can help him intrinsically. He always had this ability in itself to help him. That would make him a disbeliever.
2] Allah has granted so and so the ability to help me. Now he/she helps me independently from Allah. This would make the person an innovator.
/
This is what I understood from the link and I agree with this. However, where did the old woman say that she believes that the person in grave helps her without the help from Allah.? Ultimately, everything happens due to the Divine Will of Allah. The old woman used the word- qudrah for the creation. Don't we all use the word power for the creation ? for example- "The governor has power to stop people from taking out processions in the city". We use such terms like power in a metaphorical sense meaning that the various creations are just the Asbab while Allah is the Doer of all things.
Brother, correct me if I am wrong.

 

Will the debate be uploaded by end of today?

 

I forgot to add, ARH broke all the conditions, he didn't quote from a single primary source, not one.

Shaykh quoted the hadīth from the Musnad of Ibn Abī Yá'lā about Sayyidunā Khālid Ibn Walīd [rađiy'Allāhu anh] recieving victory through the noble hair of the Messenger of Allāh [صلى الله عليه و سلم], ARH was baffled so he requested the chairman to allow Shaykh an extra two minutes so he can check it, Shaykh simply responded: "I don't agree to that", as a result, ARH came to the podium unprepared, recited random verses from al-Qur'ān & lectured the audience.

Another condition stipulated by camp Salafiyyah was: 'no chanting/slogans' but towards the very end, dawah man shouted "takbīr" so Sunnī's joined in with naare risālat - the look on a najdi's face when we say 'Ya Rasūl'Allāh' is priceless.

 

Ameen.

Jin ke dushman hamesha raheN ge na-kaam
Aise hr Sunni Alim pe LakhoN salam

 

Mashallah, may Allah Almighty reward Shaykh Asrar for his efforts and grant him more knowledge to defeat falsehood.

 

Shaykh Asrār annihilated the Salafiyyah last night, this will be evident when the video is released.

ARH ran out of things to say 2 hours into the debate, he wasn't able to refute any of the points mentioned by Shaykh Asrar, the hadīth regarding Sayyidunā Uthmān Ibn Hunayf [rađiy'Allāhu anh], the hadīth from the Musnad of Ibn Abī Yá'lā, Tirmidhi, Bazzār, Musnad of Imām Ahmad, Siyr Aálām al-Nubalā & many other points.

His objection to the verse about going to the Messenger of Allāh [صلى الله عليه و سلم] was absolutely ridiculous. He claimed: 'the word "when" [اذ] comes for past tense only therefore it is no longer applicable", when the Shaykh gave him evidence that it can be used for mustaqbil, there was no response.

ARH contradicted himself on numerous occasions, for that, wait for the video.

In the end, Shaykh Asrār gifted him with Ala'hazrat's 'al-amnu wa'l ula' [Arabic edition] & told him to ring him privately to discuss its content. Abu Taymiyyah also asked for a copy so Shaykh said he would give him one.

This was a total miss match, Shaykh Asrār went in as a munādhir, ARH resorted to preaching.

Allāh táā'lā reward Shaykh Asrār for his efforts.

Last night, the truth most definately prevailed.

Allāh táā'lā knows best.

 

How did the debate end? Anything agreed/concluded by either side?