Fadak and khatā

Discussion in 'Aqidah/Kalam' started by Aqdas, Jun 15, 2020.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    IMG-20200721-WA0005.jpg
    I didn't see in news when Aqdas posted but got this from elsewhere
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2020
  2. sherkhan

    sherkhan Veteran

    a peerzada, Jalil Ahmad Sharaqpuri, talking sense and telling other non-aalims how to react:
     
  3. Waqar786

    Waqar786 Veteran

    Furthermore, if I recall correctly a few years ago Shah Sahib were the leading proponents of desisting using Alayhis salaam for the Ahl ul Bayt because it could cause confusion even though there is no real issue in using it. That is how strict they were but today they are happy to give the impression it is okay to label Ahl ul Bayt Ma'sum. In reality it is the likes of Shah Sahib who should be questioned on their stance in this issue and their language. How is it okay to swear at someone's parents in public gathering, what impression does this give. Is this how you do Islah.
    I've just seen a post by one of their learned mureeds and it just highlights what Sh Asrar warns about 'Blind following of your pir'. How can we blame the deos if they do just the same for their elders? We need to be objective and it is the duty of our scholars to explain the masla correctly and not just let personal agendas get in the way
     
  4. Waqar786

    Waqar786 Veteran

    @Abul Hasnayn. We have listened to this speech but we are not gullible just to take things at face value.
    First Tasleem Sabri was not asking masumama (no pun intended) questions but was trying hard to get Shah Sahib to put a fatwa on Jalali sahib.
    Secondly, Shah Sahib's distinction (or in reality lack of) between ma'soom and mahfuz leads to more questions than it answers. According to shah sahib in reality those personalities that have been termed mahfuz are or can be deemed ma'sum.
    2. Shah labels it kufr to associate khata with the ambiya if it is not qualified. He uses a statement from a scholar for this. We will ask is mukhtar mazhab or an aqwal because when you are addressing the awaam according to Shah Sahib, you only put forward mukhtar mazhab.
    3. As the brothers requested, Shah sahib needs to prove evidences of what is the ruling of someone who associates 'khata' with Sayida Fatima. We need something direct in this regard. A further point to note is Shah Sahib needs to clarify what about using the word 'khata' for Sayida Ayesha as Mufti Hanif Qureshi and his way of bayan was a lot worse. I ask this because Mufti Hanif Qureshi was in the conference with Shah Sahib after this interview
    4.Shah sahib has a sanad of Hadith from Muhadith e Kabeer, who clarified that it was a khata e itjihadi (this is how I understood it from what he said but I might have misunderstood) What do you have to say about Muhadith e Kabeer?
    5. I would like a ruling on Jalali sahib bssed on mukhtar mazhab too so in which case there should be a plethora of evidences for Shah Sahib to present.
    6. Okay, I can't recall a issue here.
    7 and 8: is it just to demand Jalali sahib only present evidences from the khair ul Quroon? As Jalali sahib mentioned could Shah sahib do a better commentary on Pir Mehr Ali Shah's answer to the objections from the shias. After all that is the context in which Jalali sahib made those statements.
    9. How about those scholars who called Jalali sahib all sorts before they sought clarification from him, i.e. concluded he did gustakhi before asking him about it. An additional point here Shah sahib said that it is not appropriate to label sunnis neem-Rafzis (at the behest of Sabri sahib) but how is it then okay to label Jalali sahib a Nasabi and a Kharji.
    10: Shah Sahib's point that associating khata e ijtihadi with syeda Fatima in this issue benefits the rafzis. That makes no sense or at the very least not in relation with the context that Jalali sahib said it.
    11. I agree that in this video that Shah sahib was more measured. However, every other video it has been just swears (including at Jalali sahib's parents). I struggle see what islah Shah sahib are doing.

    All in all the 11 points that you have mentioned that shah sahib addressed, 10 of them are in reality insufficient in addressing the issue. We are not persisting in ignorance, we are trying to be objective. Don't mention hatred because we both know from the latest speeches who is spewing hate.

    @Aftab Malik: I really think you are the one that does not understand this issue. If we accept that Sayida Fatima did know the hadith, then it gives even more credence to Jalali Sahib's claim about Sayida Fatima doing itjihad. It actually weakens Sayyid Irfan Shah's claim that sayyida Fatima did not do ijtihad.

    I don't know how knowing a hadith or not is linked to sayida Fatima's knowledge of the unseen. It is certainly not repugnant.

    This is not a new issue and has been discussed at length by our pious predecessors. These sort of claims that you have just brought up are questionable at best.
     
  5. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    According to fuqahaa's opinion that makes her kafir and murtad, but why bother with her when you can spend months drawing circles around gullible awam.
     
  6. sherkhan

    sherkhan Veteran


    Is this true? I can't see this news anywhere else.

    ...and I presume nothing has yet happened to rafizi "kanjari" lawyer who first calumniated Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (RadiAllahu anhu)
     
  7. shahnawazgm

    shahnawazgm Well-Known Member

    I think Huzoor Muhaddith-e-Kabeer has summed this up correctly, even though many of these 'peers' disagree with him. Let us see what is wriiten in Sahih Bukhari first related to this subject (take note of the text in RED).

    Sahih al-Bukhari 4240, 4241 Narrated `Aisha:



    Some translations use the word "unpalatable" instead of angry, but nonetheless we can see that there is a disagreement with Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddique (ra) here.

    I have quoted the above as some of the 'ulema' and some people have been stating that Sayyida Fatima (ra) had accepted the decision when she heard about the hadith and since she was not aware of the hadith at the time therefore it cannot even be termed as khata-e-ijtihadi; however this is not what has been narrated by Sayyida Ayesha (ra) as documented in Bukhari Shareef.

    I have repeatedly seen open usage of the term "Khata-e-Ijtihadi" when it comes to Sayyida Ayesha (ra) and Hazrat Ameer Muawiya (ra) for example pertaining to Siffin and none of these 'peers' have any objections whatsoever. If we go by Irfan Shah sahibs logic then we can also see the hadith where the Messenger of Allah (Swallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) has mentioned that Sayyida Ayesha is the most beloved to him, so why isn't he so pumped up defending her against all those who have labelled khata-e-ijtihadi against her?

    As the brothers have pointed out before it neither takes one out of the folds of Islam nor is it a gustakhi if khata-e-ijtihadi is mentioned against a non-prophet. In fact the disagreements between Sahaba are best not to be mentioned and such topics rather only be brought up by ulema when addressing Rafdi's and their like.

    We ought to remember that extreme caution needs to be exercised when any Sahabi are mentioned. And these 'peers' need to be extremely cautious before labelling another Muslim as a kafir, a heretic, verbal abuse etc lest the kufr returns on them!

    And more importantly we are not going to be questioned on the day of Qiyamah on our belief regarding Fadak/Siffin etc, so its best for us to concentrate on protecting our own Imaan rather than blowing such incidents out of proportion.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2020
  8. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    https://www.change.org/p/prime-minister-pakistan-imran-khan-arrest-prosecute-ashraf-jalali

    That is EXACTLY what Munawwar shah and co allege.

    Notice how Irfan Shah and his associates are speaking the exact same language of Shias.

    These mean people have made accusations of gustakhi a light matter and a means to settle personal scores.

    They're all boys who cry wolf.

    I wonder if making light of gustakhi rulings itself counts as gustakhi!
     
  9. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    Jalali sahib has been arrested.

    I'm disgusted. That these people turned such a simple issue into this. It was badly worded at worst and was nowhere near fatwas of gustakhi and kufr.

    An innocent sunni scholar in police custody because "ulama" don't understand basics or let personal grudges get in the way of legal rulings.
     
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  10. Abul Hasnayn

    Abul Hasnayn musjidulhaq.com

    https://musjidulhaq.com/2020/07/20/sayyed-irfan-shah-mashhadi-audio-transcription-on-the-status-of-sayyidah-fatimah-pertaining-to-the-issue-of-fadak-13-july-2020/

    Downloadable PDF available at above link.




    "Hujjat ul Islam Pir Syed Irfan Shah Mash'hadi exclusive explanation on folllwing issues:-

    1- What is Mahfooz & Ma'soom and its difference

    2- Associating the word Khata with the Prophets of Allah علیھم اکسلام

    3- What is the Hukum on using the word khata for Sayyida Fatima رضی اللہ عنھا

    4- Did Sayyida Paak do Ijtihad on the Issue of Fadak

    5- Is a ruling given on Aqwaal or Mazhab e Mukhtar

    6- The reality of the hadith of Fadak

    7- How to answer the Rawafidh on the issue of Fadak

    8- How to defend the integrity of the companions without having to dishonour the Ahlul bayt

    9- How young people today are moving further away from knowledge & rushing to conclude issues

    10- Those fighting to prove Khata are in reality promoting the Rawafidh

    11- Islah to Dr Ashraf Asif Jalali Sahib

    I would request every person to take time and listen to the whole interview with an open heart. All questions & issues have been answered.

    Not listening and persisiting in ignorance is only hatred and not having the will to accept the truth."
     
  11. AR Ahmed

    AR Ahmed Well-Known Member

    Sayyid Muzaffar shah sahib's repugnant statement towards Huzoor Muhaddith e Kabeer `Allamah Ziya al Mustafa sahib damat barakatahum ul aliya shows he has little to no respect for elderly scholars and disregards his own elders as is the habit of the two Shah sahiban.
     
  12. AR Ahmed

    AR Ahmed Well-Known Member

    There are no points of contention from Shah sahib other than calling Mawlana jalali names and insults. All of your arguments are based on emotion. No dalil for it.
     
  13. AR Ahmed

    AR Ahmed Well-Known Member

    Note that Muzaffar shah sahib tried to compare the term baghi with khata. However Alahazrat رضى الله عنه used khata for sayyidina amir muawiya رضى الله عنه .

    (24:09)

    Baghi has come in arabic as a term to sometimes describe ijtihad and is now in urf referring to rebellion (a`udhubillah) whereas khata itself in urf refers to ijtihadi although khata has both meanings as well

    Muzaffar shah sahib quotes sadrus sharia رحمة الله تعلى عليه



    (‎عرفِ شرع میں بغاوت مطلقاً مقابلۂ امامِ برحق کو کہتے ہیں ، عناداً ہو، خواہ اجتہاداً ،

    ‎ان حضرات (حضرت امیر معاویہ، حضرت طلحہ و حضرت زبیر ) پر بوجہ رجوع اس کا اطلاق نہیں ہو سکتا،
    ‎گروہِ امیرِ معاویہ رضی ﷲ تعالیٰ عنہ پر حسبِ اصطلاحِ شرع اِطلاق فئہ باغیہ آیا ہے،
    ‎مگر اب کہ باغی بمعنی مُفسِد ومُعانِد وسرکش ہو گیا اور دُشنام سمجھا جاتا ہے،

    ‎اب کسی صحابی پر اس کا اِطلاق جائز نہیں

    ‎(بہار شریعت،حصہ 1، امامت کا بیان)

    Shah sahib states one cannot do nisbat of khata to even later sahaba رضى الله عنهم

    But alahazrat رضى الله عنه writes about sayyidina amir muawiya رضى الله عنه in Fatawa Ridawiyya Sharif volume 29 :

    ہم اہلسنت ان میں حق،جانب جناب مولٰی علی(مانتے)اور ان سب کو مورد لغزش)بر غلط و خطا اور حضرت اسد اللہّی کو بدرجہا ان سے اکمل واعلٰی جانتے ہیں مگر بایں ہمہ بلحاظ احادیث مذکورہ(کہ ان حضرات کے مناقب و فضائل میں مروی ہیں)زبان طعن وشنیع ان دوسروں کے حق میں نہیں کھولتے اور انہیں ان کے مراتب پر جوان کے لیے شرع میں ثابت ہوئے رکھتے ہیں،کسی کو کسی پر اپنی ہوائے نفس سے فضیلت نہیں دیتے۔اور ان کے مشاجرات میں دخل اندازی کو حرام جانتے ہی

    What then will Shah sahib's fatwa be on AlaHazrat quddisa sirruhu?!
     
  14. sherkhan

    sherkhan Veteran

    Not so quick. See this video:


    Qari Tayyib Sahib did get found out by Dr Jalali, after the former issued his 1st video saying that attributing khata ijtihadi is something that hasn't been done by anyone (when he himself had done so in his tafsir). After these charges and counter-charges, it was clear that he wouldn't take it lying down.

    Hanif Quraishi and PAQ have been commended in his latest video. He makes his own admission about attributing a very severe allegation against Sayyiduna Ali (karamAllahu wajhu).

    Yes, Qari Tayyib appears sincere, moderate and doesn't seem to be on witch-hunt (like others). But his own judgement and previous pronouncements have been lacking the high standards he is trying to hold Dr Jalali sahab to.
     
  15. Abul Hasnayn

    Abul Hasnayn musjidulhaq.com

  16. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    there was a big ruckus kicked up (our very own nawazuddin called them dawate nawasib), when Maulana Ilyas called "be gunah be kkhata Mu3awiyah" (lughwi sense, not istilahi, as he clarified later)

    so many "Sunnis" came out in defense of Sunni 3aqidah and that ghayr-nabi simply CAN NOT be called be gunah be khata

    now once again "Sunnis" are coming out, only in offense, and saying the word khata can't be used, even with the qualifier ijtihadi, and Ahlul Bayt HAVE TO be called be-khata-ijtihadi presenting this wonderful logic:

    - istilahi ma3soom means lughwi mahfooz
    - istilahi mahfooz obviously also means lughwi mahfooz
    - so, istilahi mahfooz means istilahi ma3soom

    hence proved! (miss my CBSE days)
     
  17. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    @Unbeknown & @ramiz.noorie

    this ain't a fatwa or a qa3eda fiqhiyya - just my take considering the real world (with all its fitnahs) that i've seen in my life- as far as i'm concerned, if Muzaffar Shah sahab really is sandhi of Irfan Shah sahab (boy's side), then Muzaffar Shah sahab's opinion/bayan in support of Irfan Shah sahab is kal-3adm for me. i would consider his opinion if he spoke against Irfan Shah sahib. (feel free to shoot me down. as i said, this is strictly my personal take)

    as i said before, this issue in our times has been engineered in such a way that the awam keeps going round and round in circles (aimmae mujtahideen said this, aimmae ghayr mujtahid said that, so whats the issue with our contemporary saying this or that, we should use istilahi language, we should use 3urfi language, adab in istilahi books of imams, beadabi in our times in 3urfi language bayans to awam, lughwi explanation of istilahi terms, istilahi explanation of lughwi terms etc. the list goes on) --- all so that they can scream at the top of their voices in the peeri-mureedi flea market. i too am guilty of this going in circles

    let's cut to the chase.

    in my limited knowledge, for the purpose of this thread:

    1. in the opinion of mutakallimeen, insulting non-prophets (lika sahaba) is not kufr, where nass of Quran is not denied, meaning

    1a. the person who denies the sahabi status of Abu Bakr radi Allahu 3anhu, he is a kafir for denying nass of Quran (that automatically means takfir of Abu Bakr also makes one a kafir, as being Muslim is condition to be sahabi)

    1b. qaadhif of Ummuna 3aishah radi Allahu 3anha is mutlaqan kafir and mustahiq-e-la3nat

    2. in the opinion of the fuqahaa, however, insulting Shaykhayn (Abu Bakr and Umar, radi Allahi 3anhumaa) makes one a kafir (note here that insulting also includes takfir, so someone doing takfir of Abu Bakr would be denying his sahabi status by default and he would be a kafir even according to the scrupulous opinion of mutakallimeen) in this opinion of fuqahaa, calling the Shaykhayn as zalim, ghaasib, or doing takfir of Hazrat Umar, and so on, all would render the person kafir

    other than this, in my limited knowledge, i don't know if gustakhi (on its own, sans other charges) of anyone else carries the hukm of kufr. if someone knows, please advise me, i will be obliged. only writing without consulting books

    to the best of my knowledge, those Sunni scholars who call yazeed paleed a kafir, call him kafir for
    -saying he avenged his ancestors for Badr
    -believing shedding Muslim blood as permissible (as opposed to believing it to be impermissible and then doing it, like sinful Muslims believing drinking to be impermissible but still doing it)

    so let's come to the worst case scenario (regardless if you accept it or not)

    Jalali saying khata is gustakhi
    Jalali later on qualifying that he implied khata ijtihadi does not absolve him of the gustakhi mentioned above, as mere change of words does not prove rujoo3

    so does that make a kafir?
    or does that make him a mubtadi3i? (please give reasons for this)
    or does that mean he committed a one-off sin (on this matter) and should repent for it?

    we need a hukm from a mufti on this.

    but don't hold your breath for a proper answer from a pakistani mufti!
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2020
  18. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    Masha-Allah listening to qari tayyib sahib was heart-warming - despite the fact that some of his arguments do not carry sufficient force to put jalali sahib in the dock, but some of the things that he called jalali sahib out on are noteworthy indeed.


    yes, this is the only sensible manner in which to deal with the issue - instead of andha-dhundh firing - try to make your opponent see reason and build pressure quietly and in less public ways.

    The humility and sobriety of mawlana sahib won my heart. As did his almost charming proclamations of "ye nahi hai, ye nahi ho sakta" - a very touching and sincere display of aqeedat and love.

    he is not from any group (as per him) watch the last five minutes.

    ---

    the only thing I did not like is his repeated attribution to jalali sahib of uttering the word khata - without mentioning the all important qualifier. that can further demonize jalali sahib in people's minds. And it also has the effect of making the word 'khata ijtihadi' sound like a cuss word.


    ----
    One thing I noted is that those who are claiming that khata-ijtihadi is a gustakhi or a very severe be-adabi, are not quoting any precedence to support their claims, just personal ta'weels of the incident, whereas jalali sahib is bringing references - right or wrong.

    All in all, this bayan further proves that the issue is an academic one and can be debated in maqalaat or in private fora - rather than making a spectacle of it.

    Allah knows best.


    P.S: Please note that if some of my comments appear naiive, that may be because I haven't been able to keep up with the controversy - so I may miss veiled attacks or some clever rephrasing of misquotations.
     
  19. Waqar786

    Waqar786 Veteran

    @Aftab Malik: I really think you are the one that does not understand this issue. If we accept that Sayida Fatima did know the hadith, then it gives even more credence to Jalali Sahib's claim about Sayida Fatima doing itjihad. It actually weakens Sayyid Irfan Shah's claim that sayyida Fatima did not do ijtihad.

    I don't know how knowing a hadith or not is linked to sayida Fatima's knowledge of the unseen. It is certainly not repugnant.

    This is not a new issue and has been discussed at length by our pious predecessors. These sort of claims that you have just brought up are questionable at best.
     
  20. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    why stop at Jalali? why not implicate great imams of the Ahlus Sunnah too?

    which aqidah text says this (that great grand children of Sayyidah had ilm al-ghaib). please advise.

    your argument implies that Sayyidah knows every saying of her blessed Father 3alaihis salam by way of ilm al-ghaib and it can't be any other way. that is, it's a wajib in the istilah of aqidah.

    specifically, you have to let us know the answers to the following:

    which aqidah text states that it is muhal for Ahlul Bayt to not have ilm al-ghaib and not be aware of a particular saying of the Prophet 3alaihis salam?

    does the same also extend to Ummahaatul Mumineen too - that it is muhal for them to not have ilm al-ghaib and be unaware of a saying of the Prophet?

    does the same argument also extend to the Khulafaa Ar-Raashideen - that it is muhal for them to not have ilm al-ghaib and to be unaware of a saying of the Prophet?

    does it also extend to the Badri Sahaba or the 3ashara Mubashshara?

    does it also extend to the rest of the sahaba? (ridwan Allahi 3alaihim ajma3een)

    you started this. now don't run and hide. you made a claim. you have to prove it.

    (incidentally, even Irfan Shah sab didn't say that saying Sayyidah wasn't aware of the Prophet's saying is gustakhi)
     

Share This Page