I do not know why every new comer's opinion on alahazrat should matter. His works are proof in and of themselves. It does not take a genius to recognize his talents. For a person who can read his works, only bigotry, contumacy, conceit or some such nafsanic disease can prevent him from recognizing him as an Imam. Apart from his works which are living proofs, his contemporaries in arab and ajam acknowledged his greatness as did many late comers. These people were closer in time to him and both alahazrat and his contemporaries were farther from the fitnahs we live with today. Those who form opinions based on hearsay or insufficient research are at-least guilty of hasty judgments - something which is haram even for ordinary muslims let alone a scholar whom millions look up to. And Allah taála is the best of judges.
the answer of shaykh lu'ayy is valid concerning this question on classification of tawhid. ali al-qari is much later than al-ukbari or ibn taymiyyah. i have read a number of posts on aslein and after the thread was posted listened to portions of his dars on uqud rasm al-mufti (posted on archive). --- as for his comment on alahazrat - everyone is entitled for an opinion. as long as that particular shaykh is sunni, holds sunni beliefs, we must respect him - even if he criticises those whom we hold dear. ---- let us suppose shaykh lu'ayy does not consider alahazrat a muhaqqiq; so what? it is said (i have heard from more than one shaykh) that shaykh nuruddin itr criticises alahazrat or has a bad opinion of him. for me, it could be for a variety of reasons - from talbis, tadlis, and iftira of deobandis to misunderstanding or erroneous assumptions based on sub-standard translations of alahazrat's work, to fallacy of dissociation: that is, arab shuyukh develop a good opinion of deobandi-nadwi scholars and then assume that those who oppose them to be out of the way. as long as these ulama are consistent with the sunni positions - hanafi/maturidi and one of the four madh'habs AND anti-wahabi, we consider them sunnis even though it is unfortunate and lamentable that they have a bad/poor opinion of our imam alahazrat. ---- now, coming back to shaykh lu'ayy - (assuming he has certainly said and means that alahazrat is not a muhaqqiq in his opinion): it appears that he has edited a version of rasm al-mufti with annotations of alahazrat, and based on these annotations, he has formed an opinion. wAllahu a'alam. - is it just his opinion or is it based on observation from a scholarly perspective? - which other books of alahazrat he has read to arrive at this opinion? thereafter, - what is the criterion for being a 'muhaqqiq'? - are there glaring mistakes and errors in alahazrat's fatawa that are against the hanafi madh'hab? if so, where and how; it is also important to prove why alahazrat's reasoning is incorrect [if that is the case] even if we assume that these ta'liqat are ordinary and lu'ayy is unimpressed, it is not rigorous of a researcher to form an opinion based on a single work. and if lu'ayy has indeed seen many works of alahazrat and still dismisses him as a non-muhaqqiq, it is upon him to demonstrate why he thinks so - alahazrat's works and particularly, ajalla al-iylam in which he disagrees with ibn abidin. however, if he is saying this based on deobandi influence [if so] and going the keller way, we won't hesitate to doff any one regardless of their learning and list of achievements. ---- a lot of this is speculative and unless we see shaykh lu'ayy's own work (his doctorate on why imam azam's opinion should be the default ruling in the madh'hab; see here) and the new edition of sharh uqud al-durriyyah mentioned in this latest question on which lu'ayy answers that he doesn't consider alahazrat a muHaqqiq. Allah ta'ala knows best.
It was just matter of few hours and Allah exposed this [EDIT] person Loay Abdul Rauf al-Khalili pretending as Hanafi and Maturidi. Remember how he attacked Alahazrat Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Barelwi (R) when he said he doesn't view him as Muhaqiq (a verifying scholar or researcher ) but is Loay Luay Khalili himsef a muhaqiq or some jahil person ? After his post on Alahazrat, some one asked him about categorization of Tawhid into Rububiyah and Ulohiyah http://ask.fm/loay3121972/answer/13...utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=answer_own#_=_ . 81Likes 56Answers لؤي عبد الرؤوف الخليلي @loay3121972 https://www.facebook.com/loay.alkhalili هل التوحيد عندكم ينقسم لألوهية و ربوبية ؟ هذا تقسيم مبتدع، أول من قال به ابن بطة العكبري، وتبعه ابن تيمية والوهابية. about 20 hours ago Translation: This categorization (into Rububiyah and Ulohiyah) is innovated, first one who said is ibn battah al-ukbari, followed by ibn taymiyyah and wahabis. and Luay claims he is maturidi أي مذهب العقيدة تتبع؟ ماتريدي If this Luay was really Maturidi and Hanafi then he would have known this: Classification of Tawhid Mullā Álī al-Qārī mentions this classification of tawĥīd, both in his explanation of Badyi’l Amālī and Fiqh al-Akbar. So I was intrigued by this until I found another copy of Đaw al-Máālī recently, annotated by Shaykh Ábdu’s Salām Shannār . He writes a very insightful commentary on this classification, a complete translation of which follows. [link to excerpt from ali-qari's daw al-ma'ali:]
that is their bread and butter - they'd die of starvation otherwise. Natural selection ensures that the biggest of the liars and the most shameless of the wretches survive. In technical parlance this is known as 'survival of the meanest'. Those who are not mean enough simply end up dead or worse become sunnis.
I don't remember reading anywhere Alahazrat said anything about - knows the final hour, - has detailed knowledge of all things till qiyamah, - has detailed knowledge of the Five things, - could read and write, (disputed amongst scholars) - can hear from near and far (why not ? could see front and back) - has complete authority to do as he pleases, (not true, cite reference please) - knows our innermost feelings and thoughts, ( yes possible, people tested by asking their father's name..) - is not really a human being but a creation made of light that came in the form of a human being etc. (reference please and read Sh. Nuh Keller's article on this) why so much spinning ?
Some chap called ' Mufti Zameelur Rahman ' wrote: Question: Are the Barelwis from Ahlus Sunna? Answered by Mufti Zameelur Rahman: Whether we regard Barelwis as Ahlus Sunnah or not depends on how we define Ahlus Sunnah. If we go by the standard definition of Ash'ari/Maturidi creed and Hanafi/Maliki/Shafi'i/Hanbali fiqh, by definition they are Ahlus Sunnah. But according to the more principled approach of defining Ahlus Sunnah as only those who do not hold heavily problematic beliefs, I don't believe Barelwis as a group can be classified as part of Ahlus Sunnah, but rather as Ahlul Bid'ah. The belief that the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) - knows the final hour, - has detailed knowledge of all things till qiyamah, - has detailed knowledge of the Five things, - could read and write, can hear from near and far, - has complete authority to do as he pleases, - knows our innermost feelings and thoughts, - is not really a human being but a creation made of light that came in the form of a human being etc. are extremely problematic beliefs and are mainstream Barelwi views. If individual Barelwis don't adhere to these beliefs, and there are some who don't, they will be considered Ahlus Sunnah. If they hold these beliefs then they are not Ahlus Sunnah but rather Ahlul Bid'ah. Read more: http://ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/166/misguidance-barelw And these people are spreading lies all over the arabic world http://ask.fm/loay3121972/answer/13...utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=answer_own#_=_ Shaykh Lu’ay: “Some of them may get angry if I said: I don’t view Ahmad Rida Khan in what he writes a muhaqqiq”. Question: نشرت جزاك الله خيرا كتاب شرح عقود رسم المفتي بتعليقات الشيخ أحمد رضا خان، هل هو أفضل من تعليقات أبي لبابة؟ Answer لا أعتقد حقيقة أنه أفضل من تعليقات أبي لبابة، وربما يغضب بعضهم لو قلت: لا أرى احمد رضا خان فيما يكتب محققا لؤي عبد الرؤوف الخليلي @loay3121972
