devbandi kazzab in Haram sharif lying, and slandering alahazrat

just to make sure we cover all bases, we start from the bottom of the pyramid and go all the way up, lingering at "contradiction" for a short while just to tease the opponent and give them a false sense of being in control (besides, you need to cross this for the next level).

then comes, slam, wham, bam.

 

the last two levels in-fact.

moreover, it appears that Graham did not anticipate the devbandits, for he does not include:

fabricating quotes and/or misattributing distorted quotes to one's opponents and then pretending to refute them - by bringing more fabrications and inexistent evidences from well-known authorities in the field - and, when opportune, even refuting their own claims, published elsewhere - all the while monkeying between the bottom two levels of the said pyramid​

that should make the nadir of the illustration, which is quite apt, given that the dayabina are the asfala-safileen anyways.

 

Deobandis usually tend to fall on the bottom-most level of this hierarchy:

 

ohk.

 

The deobandi looking guy who lied in the video is known as "shaikh Makki Sahab"

 

who?

 

our position is clear.

1. there are lines of poetry which are in accordance with shariah. no one argues about them.

2. there are lines of poetry which appear problematic, but a plausible ta'wil can be made.

2a) if those lines are by ordinary people or ordinary scholars, it is best to avoid them. no takfir will be made because of plausible ta'wil.

2b) if those lines are by senior ulama, known for their caution such as alahazrat, because of the plausible ta'wil, there is no harm in reciting it. whatever i have read from alahazrat's writings, his kalam is unimpeachable. wa lillahi'l hamd. jealous and wretched enemies try to fault him, but have always fallen flat on their faces. dhalika faDlullah. yes.
​

3. there are lines of poetry which are problematic, and only a far-fetched ta'wil can exonerate it.

3a) regardless of who the poet is, avoid such lines.

3b) takfir will not be made - obviously on the side of caution.
​

4. there are lines of poetry which are problematic and no ta'wil can justify it.

4a) if the lines are blasphemous or against tawhid, the poet will be asked to repent. (if he/she is alive)

4b) if the poet is dead, the lines will be deemed kufr; obviously, if we don't know whether the poet repented, or was called to repent, or was made aware of this kufriyat, or any such reason...we will not do takfir.

---​

Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

Most of the comments below the deogandi video note that this is not Alahazrat's poetry. I tried a quick search, and I was shocked to come across another deogandi blog https://barelwipress.wordpress.com/2014/01/05/a-sample-of-barelwi-kufr-takfeer-game/
links don't work though. The blog forges quotes to members from this site on the poetry. Deogandis will be always DeoGandis

Deogandi alim has twisted the story, I found it in Malfuzaat sharif ( pdf can be found on my archive page )
https://archive.org/details/alahazrat

Is.it permissible to eat food of Giydrwi Sharif 101 at the home ot a
launderer (^1) or one who washes clothes?

There is no harm to eat at a launderer' s home. It is a practice held
among the ignorant that his food is unclean. This is baseless and
incorrect. Surely, it is not correct to eat food at the home of a
prostitute and if she buys with her impure earnings, it is Ear am. It
one sells her anything and if she pays from her unlawful earnings,
this is Ear dm. But if she borrows the money and pays you, this is
permissible. Allah knows best.
https://archive.org/download/alahazrat/malfuz-al-sharif-vol-1-to-4-complet-english-.pdf

 

yeah .. against devbandits.. they see shirk/kufr everywhere except in the paeans to their own idols sung in their backyards - that's right. you got my vote.

 

Sometimes the issues raised have both a shayateen element (in this case false attribution) and a more admissible point (that sheyr being ruled anything but kufr)

The latter is open for discussion in my opinion and should be handled with clarity

There is similar sheyr and video [samne khuda baita hai ya aina khuda ka - looking at his peer 'lasani' sarkar] where the accusation of shirk is actually from someone who considers themselves Sunni and a defender of Alahazrat but barelvi scholars do not call it shirk and do seem to be following Alahazrat's usul just like in this instance.
I have also heard sheyr similar to that mentioned in the makki sahib clip in the hall of Eidgah sufis sung/recited in a naat.

In the end the shear number of these instances and how delicately they are balanced between shirk and not kufr, it does make the whole debate a permissible one against us in my opinion.

 

we would like to see the quote the kazzab cited.

 

Fatawa Ridawiyyah 23/750-751






Fatawa Ridawiyyah 24/367; the last relevant portion of a lengthy fatwa.

 

Fatawa Ridawiyyah 23/576





Fatawa Ridawiyyah 23/581-582






Fatawa Ridawiyyah 23/582-583

 

the time will come. in sha'Allah.

---
here are a some fatawa of alahazrat related to income of prostitutes. if someone can convey it to the kazzab in Haram to please forward the reference from which he attributed to alahazrat, we will look into it. wa ila Allahi al-mushtaka.

====


Fatawa Ridawiyyah 19/498





====
Fatawa Ridawiyyah 23/571. the question is lengthy about how an imam went to pray at the funeral of the prostitute. the answer is sufficient.

 

I've said it so many times before. The age of being reactive is over.

If you let these shayatin sit in the driver seat, froth at the mouth with false accusations, and then work on rebuttals, they will take you on a mad roller coaster ride. Plus they're not the only fitnah attacking Islam or Ahlus Sunnah.

Let them say what they want. We do what we have to do aggressively and proactively. Expose the heresies and perversions of their akabireen, or just make the Sunni creed and methodology clear. We take the offense not the defense.

Expose every heresy and every dirty little secret buried in the hikayaat of the akabireen of devband.

Yes, please share.

I know I read that episode some years back but now forgot what it's all about.

 

personally, i do not like this sheyr. and as sadru'sh shariah raHimahullah hinted, if it was not said by a scholar (whom sadrush shariah apparently knew) he would have ruled it kufr.

the sheyr should be avoided. and may Allah ta'ala forgive the shaykh who said it. after all, devbandis try to rationalise so many things saying: "such things are said in poetry and are not to be taken literally" - what is the problem if we say the same thing only to avoid takfir?

the ta'wil made by sadru'sh shariah is only to avoid takfir. is it not surprising that the people who believe that their Lord "DESCENDS" to the heaven and refuse to accept ta'wil of "nuzul" being nuzul of raHmah, preach to us about tanzih?

do the wahabis not believe that "Nuzul of Allah" (al-iyadhu billah) is haqiqi? ta'ala Allahu uluwwan kabeera. then what is the depraved man whining about?

---
so here are objective answers about the couplet.

1. the couplet is prima facie incompatible with the aqidah of ahl al-sunnah.

2. however, with the ta'wil that the poet meant that it was the mercy of Allah that descended - irrespective of how far fetched the ta'wil is, and unconvincing, the person is not deemed kafir so long as he does not believe in the literal meaning of that couplet.

3. the couplet should be avoided and considered as an aberration.

4. for those who may think we are equivocating: we believe that Allah ta'ala is free from nuzul (literally) or many such words indicating anthropomorphism. we believe that Allah ta'ala made "istiwa" on the arsh and we do not say that it was physical. the ta'wil, that it COULD mean istiylaa is accepted, and the tafwiD: only Allah knows its true meaning is the best answer.

Allah ta'ala is the Creator and RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam is His creation. neither is RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam god/khuda (al-iyadhu billah) nor is Allah ta'ala anthropomorphic. ta'ala Allahu uluwwan kabeera.

===
Allah ta'ala knows best.


-----
falsely attributing alahazrat with such a couplet is dandy. do the devbandis do not want to hear what is found in THEIR books?

kah doon? kah doon?*



*those in the know will know what i am hinting at.

 

fatawa amjadiyyah 4/278-279

 

this man is sitting in haram sharif and lying. what can one do about it?


the lines:
wahi jo mustawi e arsh hai khuda ho kar
utar pada hai madinah mein mustafa ho kar

---
these are lines by someone else, AND certainly not by alahazrat. those who attribute this to alahazrat do iftira which can be expected from shameless and faithless oafs.

---
sadru'sh shariah was asked about this line and he replied that it should not be taken literally and a ta'wil can be made because the person who penned the lines was a cautious scholar. he also presented a ta'wil. in the footnotes, it is explained that the critics alter the line to: "mustawi e arsh THAA" instead of "mustawi e arsh HAI" and these line are by shaykh aasi. [see fatawa amjadiyyah, 4/278-279]

---

then comes the claim of alahazrat saying: "in my experience" about how prostitutes use their money. if he has fear of Allah, he must produce evidence. otherwise, he richly deserves:

 

He is not somebody new but an old veteran stationed in Masjid ul Haram Makkah by the wahabis targeting urdu speaking pilgrims. Those who have been there might have come across him as I believe he is the only one doing daily urdu discourses there.

He is a big dajjal and does his utmost best to deceive urdu speaking masses over there. A lot more dangerous than tariq zaleel. I had even had an argument with a person from my hajj group who used to attend his discourses several years ago!

 

i think we are reaching a stage where we will not be able to respond to the accursed lies of these shayateen.
how can one answer lies and false accusations of this sort?