Fadak and khatā

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

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. sherkhan

    sherkhan Veteran

    Mawlana Saeed Asad claimed in one of his videos that he will bring a proof that Sayyida Fatima (radiAllahu anha) never ever asked for Fadak. So if no request was made, then where was the question of ijtihad, and consequent khata (as deemed by other camp)? Of course, Mawlana Asad never brought forth that proof.

    Mufti Chishti pooh-poohed Mawlana Asad's claim of proof and contended that request for Fadak was indeed made, but not as shias describe with usual exaggerations.
     
  2. Waqar786

    Waqar786 Well-Known Member

    In that interview looking back on it, it seemed like Shah Sahib was playing what Allamah Saeed Asad calls 'Fouls'
    .

    There seems like some personal agendas are at play because it is claimed that Syed Naveed Hasan Shah, who I think is the Sajjada Nasheen at Bikkhi Sharif privately supports Jalali Sahib's position. However, for some personal reasons, he does not make this public.

    Just a sorry state of affairs that is weakening us and our usool.
    @sherkhan but my question is what has the nature of the request got to with the issue of ijtihad?
     
  3. Waqar786

    Waqar786 Well-Known Member

    In that interview looking back on it, it seemed like Shah Sahib was playing what Allamah Saeed Asad calls 'Fouls'
    .

    There seems like some personal agendas are at play because it is claimed that Syed Naveed Hasan Shah, who I think is the Sajjada Nasheen at Bikkhi Sharif privately supports Jalali Sahib's position. However, for some personal reasons, he does not make this public.

    Just a sorry state of affairs that is weakening us and our usool.
     
  4. sherkhan

    sherkhan Veteran

    Mufti Fazl Chishti's point was not that the meeting never took place, but it was an informal meeting/request; after all both Sayyidna Abu Bakr Siddiq (radiAllahu anhu) and Sayyida Fatima (radiAllahu anha) were related to each other.

    What he refuted was the shia lie that Sayyida gave a long speech in the court/presence of Sayyidna abu Bakr (as if there was a formal court in place in those days).


    In another video, Mufti Chishti made explicit refutation of those (taking a pot shot at Mawlana Saeed Asad) who claim that Sayyida Fatima (radiAllahu anha) never ever asked for Fadak (so where was the question of ijtihad, and consequent khata, as deemed by other camp).
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2020
  5. Waqar786

    Waqar786 Well-Known Member

    In that interview looking back on it, it seemed like Shah Sahib was playing what Allamah Saeed Asad calls 'Fouls'.
     
  6. Waqar786

    Waqar786 Well-Known Member

    Mufti Fazal Chisti analyses this and does concur that the stronger opinion is that Sayida Fatima did not go in person. However, @AbdalQadir what i don't understand what has this got to do with Ijtihad or non-ijtihad because Sayida going in person or sending a representative is a mute point in the issue of ijtihad

    What Allamah Saeed Asad claimed was that Sayida Fatima never made the request and Sayiduna Abu Bakr never declined it. Mufti Fazal Chisti refuted this by saying the evidence that he will bring will be outside the world of knowledge because he has not heard this before. What Shah Sahib os trying to say is not clear

    Even if this is a postion then it is certainly Mukhtar Mazhab that Shah Sahib deplored Jalali Sahib to put forward in public gatherings.
     
  7. AbdalQadir

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

    irfan shah's contention as i have understood it, is not that it wasn't requested, but rather that it wasn't requested in person, as in a personal meeting, and therefore a direct conversation never took place between Sayyidah radi Allahu 3anha and Siddiqe Akbar radi Allahu 3anhu. and if the conversation itself didn't take place, there's no question of khata occuring in it, regardless of ijtihadi or non-ijtihadi.

    this was also the contention of someone else (scholar), i don't remember who now and there's 400+ posts to comb through (aside- is it possible to list out all the attachments, and media in a thread? whatsapp style)
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2020
  8. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    Fatwa: was Fatimah رضي اللہ عنھا mistaken concerning Fadak?

    Mufti Qasim Zia, Birmingham.
     

    Attached Files:

  9. Waqar786

    Waqar786 Well-Known Member

    @abu Hasan have Allamah Saeed Asad and Syed Irfan Shah made up this position or have they misquoted Ibn al-Jawzi and al-Hakim? A case of teaching Jalali Sahib the dark arts or 'foul' that they accuse him of with regards to Khata e Ijtihadi? Their way of saying we can play that game too (Not saying that I think Jalali did play games but that's the view of the opposition). Just another example of a lack of sincerity in tackling the issue.
     
  10. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    ya Allah! do these people not know that the hadith of fadak being requested by sayyidah faTimah raDiyAllahu anha is found in sahih bukhari?

    did ibn al-jawzi not know that this hadith existed in bukhari?

    did imam abu abdallah al-Hakim not know that it was in bukhari?

    ====
    hadith #3092/3093

    bukhari, 3092-3.png
     
    AbdalQadir and Noori like this.
  11. AbdalQadir

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

    yes, that's what i gathered from the interview (see my post # 92). i saw the interview only once.

    if this is not what irfan shah said explicitly or implicitly in the interview, someone correct me please.

    great response by Jalali's student.

    irfan shah's hubris and takabbur on his supposedly high levels of knowledge and status is nauseating and disgusting. he thinks he's the Khaatam Al-Muhaqqiqeen Ibn Abidin of this age or what? i'm starting to get the feel that irfan shah considers himself as mahfooz from all sorts of khata's

    the Jalali student is right, irfan shah ki pol khul gayi, regarding his ilmi status and activities in the uk. and irfan shah has shown himself to be a thug by such bullying tactics and threats of cussing from morning to evening, with all those "Islamic" cheerleaders sitting around him.

    utterly disgusting.

    feel bad for muzaffar shah in a way. considering the abrasive desi culture of in laws, he will be/is forced to be embarrassed for irfan shah's idiotic gambits. (like how trump's cabinet find it so hard to defend his idiocies)

    these kind of mistakes can be let to slide from the likes of common people like us. but when shameless people say the exact same word "khata" for Ummahaatul Mumineen and senior Sahaba and then throw a hissy fit only because their shia buddies feel threatened (not in defense of Sayyidah, people loyal to Sayyidah can't stay away from humility), then yes, it is necessary to pick on 'nabras' (irfan) and 'musannif ibn abi shaybah' (hanif qureshi)... actually even balab and sapray. someone should call the home office before irfan shah heads to the uk, and ask them to seize his british passport and deport him if he can't pass a GCSE in english!
     
  12. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    I would guess so because Saeed Asad sahib also said something similar in Sayyid Mash'hadi's presence recently.
     
  13. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    so what does this mean?

    is irfan shah saying that sayyidah fatimah never asked for fadak, nor her request was declined?

    is this what the claim is?
     
    Aqdas likes this.
  14. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    while shah sahib is wrong, the other mawlana (jalali sahib's student) chiding him for silly reasons is a tit-for-tat; because shah sahib tried to belittle him even though jalali sahib himself and other punjabi ulama routinely mispronounce names. i take a lenient view of this. so nabras instead of nibras is a talking point because of shah sahib's bravado, which would be ignored otherwise.

    fair enough.

    ---------

    shah sahib's citation is terrible.

    kitab al-thiqat: there are more than one, but the most famous is that of ibn Hibban. and yes, ibn al-jawzi did not write kitab al-thiqat. [that i know of].

    the quote abu'l aynaa that he said: "i and jahiz used to forge hadith like that of fadak..." is attributed to abu abdullah hakim who mentioned in al-mad'khal. ibn al-jawzi cited it in his "mawDu'at".

    see vol.1/p.41

    mawduat ibn jawzi v1p41.png
    one can object how can we accept a liar's claim that he lied in that specific issue. apparently, abu'l aynaa acknowledged this after he repented from his previous ways of lying.
     
    Noori likes this.
  15. Brother Barry

    Brother Barry Well-Known Member

    Seems like shah saabs now standing in the very shoes of the matrook raawi he's mentioned.
     
  16. Waqar786

    Waqar786 Well-Known Member

    @abu Hasan does this mean they made up that narration or just got the author wrong?
     
  17. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    hazrat se meri mu'addabana darkhwast hai ke parachute le kar jaeN, ke kharash na aaye. kyun ke aap ke interview ka agar jaiza liya jaye ga to minar e pakistan khud bula raha hoga...
     
  18. Waqar786

    Waqar786 Well-Known Member

    Brothers could I draw your attention to this video. It seems to put different clips together but a couple of points are raised:
    1. Syed Irfan Shah seems to be boasting about his (or possibly the people of Punjab) dictionary of swears
    2. According to Jalali sahib's student, Shah Sahib has incorrectly attributed a text (Kitab ul Siqaat) to Imam Jawzi. After Shah sahib lays down the challenge about the veracity of his interview. He also mentioned the name of Abu'l Ayna as one of the narrators that supports the claim that Sayida Fatima did not request the garden of fadak. Does this narrator exist.
    @abu Hasan, could you verify the veracity of these claims

     
    AbdalQadir likes this.
  19. AbdalQadir

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

    It's those implications that people like Noori and I are concerned with.

    While yes, it can be said he has aberrations despite being Sunni, he has muddied the waters on a key aqidah for a bunch of people with his theory of 'istilahi masoom is lughwi mahfooz which is also istilahi mahfooz'. This will certainly open the doors for jahil awam to step into shiaism.

    And screaming Ala Hazrat's name or chanting slogans of 'maslake Ala Hazrat' or reciting Ala Hazrat's naats or salam won't be able to protect that awam that doesn't dive into Ala Hazrat's discourses. Ala Hazrat's name, naats and salam have already been hijacked by tafdilis and minhajis, much like claims to the title of 'Ahlus Sunnah' is generously made by wahabis or how devbandis claim to be the representatives of Desi Hanafis to nondesis.

    Wallahul musta3an.
     
  20. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    Mingling with ahl al-bidah, if that's what he's done, is forbidden; but doesn't take him out of ahl al-Sunnah.

    We've said this for others before too. They aren't to be followed if they hobnob with deviants but don't become deviants themselves just for hobnobbing.

    Which deviants has Sayyid Mash'hadi mingled with?
     

Share This Page