devbandis traducing alahazrat for ibriz quote

Sunnis don't care about any bakwaas from blathering hairbrained devbandas.

The answers below are sufficient for sunnis and the non-mut'assib (neither of which describes you).

That's right. These are matters for edification of Sunnis. So you need not sound your empty head about it.

a shamless impostor talking about haya - behayai herself would be embarrassed...

 

Actually the text makes no mention of “same room,” all of what is mentioned is “separate bedding,” and “same house.” Them being in the same room is an inference drawn by the reader/ (translator) not what’s mentioned in the text .


In any case, it makes little difference even if it were to be taken as the same room.
Please re-read my explanation. Pay close attention to the analogy of the Angles.

 

AH's explanation does not comprehensively address the issue. In order to do that AH must remove the possibility of Sunnis being taunted about this (which is what is happening)


There is no deobandi connection to my objection except as a comprehensive defence of sunnis and Alahazrat can not be held responsible at all for this objection because its in malfuzat, he could have said it whilst evaluating it. It doesn't actually concern him but it does concern what can be said about Sunnis "your Pir watches you... " (don't get hung up on this taunt, the answer has to be comprehensive regarding the situation, at least one which can be said to be a response in light of haya)

 

Interesting the incident is usually narrated with fourth bed as in the same roam, where have you got this fourth roam from? Its not something I've heard before

 

I don't know where people are finding issues, the shaykh was spiritually present in the 4th room, not in either of the two room's his discipline occupied, and if you can't wrap your head around this because of some perceived absence of modesty or lack thereof in this report

Then you may have forgotten about the two angles on your left and right shoulder, they too have shame ( and shyness), and according to the Ulama there are two positions with regards to them being with someone at all time : one is that they don't leave your side at any cost , while the others (with reliance of weak hadith) say that they do leave your presence except during [wazifa-zawjiiyya, ghusl, whilst one is releasing himself, and possibly while one is in a state of janaba].

Under position one resolves any issue with regards to "knowledge", presence, and modesty being asynchronous,

as for the second position, as in "not present" in the place of action , it only bolsters the case, since being away from the area whether they are standing outside the door or waiting above the house is of little to no relevance, given that they are still made aware and write down every action (good or bad ) one does without the need to see." If this is the case with Angles, then there is no need to bat an eye when when the shaykh was "aware" from "another room" what is occurring.

No breech of sharia was made. The shaykh is "aware" of certain actions, in somewhat similar fashion to that of the angles without sacrificing modesty and shame, and the shaykh did not enter nor go into private quarters of a person at all, let alone ask for permission or the like. He was spiritually in the 4th room the whole time.

 

how about shutting up for good? will bring a great a improvement for the ummah in terms of reduction in nonsense pollution.

the guy can't read two sentences without mixing all the words into one miserable khichdi and talks about 'benefiting ummah', "double checking scholars", "blind following", 'global stage" ... yada yada

a megalomaniac who's trying hard to appear diminutive but always ends up popping himself out, jack-in-the-box style - with his oh-so-sought-after phone chat offer plush on the nose. Anonymously if you wish.

The only person I'd like to see with him on the other end of the wire, is usman devabndi - two morons talking over each other - "trying to rid the ummah" of wrong beliefs

 

I'll try to do what I can for the benefit of this ummah, yes. It's not possible to rid all its problems, and I doubt I rid even one but there is some we can try to patch

Personally I'm open to correction, so if you see anything in my history that is even doubtful you are welcome to contact me by phone (anonymously if you wish).

 

Have you taken it upon yourself to rid ummah of all imaginary problems? Who is giving prominence? Let the misguided be more misguided. We don't give 2 hoots to what misguided think.

You can go ahead and resolve it to suit your whims. Your history on this forum says for itself.

 

You did say that but it doesn't end or resolve the issue.
al lamati being fine with it and narrating it without intention of showing his Shaykh in wrong light is not enough not to object. Secondly if he erred it would be a favour to him for ending his error

Today we have a situation where this issue has come to prominence and therefore we need to stem the flow of misguidance and accusations emanating from this. This means enjoining the good and forbidding the evil.

If you are under the impression that leaving the issue as unresolved is better than I do see your point but resolving it is what is required.

Yes I and you have to double check some teachings of great scholars because the downfall of this ummah is with mistakes of the scholars. In a way we do have to question Shaykh Dabbagh and Ibriz. No blind following

 

As I said, if al-Lamati had no issue about narrating the incident, then why are you feeling uncomfortable? It was certainly not the author's intention to show his esteemed Shaykh in wrong light. By all means, try to impute your own reasonings and conjectures; but what are you trying to gain by applying (our) naqis intellect? As aH said, it's difficult for anyone to surmise in the absence of details.

Is Shaykh Dabbagh under cloud of your reasoning (and in need of clean chit)? Does Ibriz (or sections of it) appear fabricated to you?

 

I hope you didn't mind my objection. I felt uneasy with it myself after posting if truth be told. There is so many variables in this it's difficult.

There is a lot of lines and possible explanations. Which line are you referring to?

1) Present spiritually - "I was on the fourth bed"?

2) Shaykh just became aware through admission of the mureed and merely said I was there but he wasn't there in any capacity?

3) Some other explanation

 

it seems that you decided to forget the explanation as soon as you read it - or you wouldn't have come up with such an idiotic line. Read again - and try not to forget this time.

 

It's a confusing incident with lots of different possibilities. Open to misunderstanding and manipulation by friends and foe. Even if not controversial initially we seem to have come to time when it's harm outweighs its possible good.

I thought there is a guidance not to visit peoples homes at night which suggests the incident is probably at least partly forged to the detriment of Shaykh Dabbagh.

Whatever the situation as to its inclusion in a well respected book the matter has to be weighed in light of Islamic principles of hayya but also guidance such as not to visit peoples homes at night, also not to sleep with wife in presence of the other wife, and then therefore especially not in the presence of the Shaykh

 

Jazak Allah khair shaykh. That makes a lot of sense.

As a layman, things like this put me at unease but your clarification was superb.

Jazak Allah khair

 

---

surah aal imran, v49.

---
externally, yes. this looks like intrusion of privacy, if we base this on our understanding of this incident as direct observation by the shaykh or presence in that chamber.

the narrator however does not say that the shaykh was physically present - by mentioning the fourth bed, he only indicated that he was informed of things.

now for example, you and i have gained this knowledge of what the narrator did. we gained this knowledge without the details by reading from a book. and the shaykh was probably informed in some other mode which we do not know. wAllahu a'alam.

as long as a statement or action of mashayikh, sufiyah do not contradict the aqidah of ahl al-sunnah or explicit injunction of the shariah, we do not pursue these issues. wahabis mainly try to hunt such statements only to malign sufis. in this case devbandis who CLAIM to be sufis tried to use this issue to slander alahazrat.

these are matters that are said in passing. one should not dwell on them as if these were points of aqidah. alahazrat mentioned this in the context of a shaykh monitoring his murid and training him. but look at khalid mahmud's extrapolations - all of those are products of his filthy mind and figment of his lascivious imagination. alahazrat never said such things.

Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

Which is a stronger deterrence against repeated falling in error? Shaykh's demonstrated ability to witness/know about the act (if it were to recur) or shaykh's general sermon against impermissibility of the act?

In any case, al-Lamati (the narrator and the admonished) didn't feel embarrassed about mentioning this incident in Ibriz. He could well have excluded the mention of it; what was the hikmah behind his inclusion?

In the original text, the incident is mentioned rather matter-of-factly by the narrator, but orientalist translators Radtke and O'Kane, however, picked on this 'innocuous' incident to give a 'salacious' twist and spice in their preface to translation. What appreciation do these orientalists have of a Shaykh's role in disciple's life?

 

Assalaamu alaykum brother,

I understand the moral of the anecdote in that the mureed was corrected. But it's the manner in which the shaykh had been informed of the sin that is what I'm trying to wrap my head around i.e perhaps the shaykh could have known through a kashf without seeming to indicate he was there to witness? Considering the importance of modesty in our religion, I don't understand how the shaykh could have been present spiritually when these acts are taking place. Again, I'm probably just misunderstanding the story and the shaykh wasn't 'watching' etc but the clarification would help

Jazak Allah khair