khayru'l quruni qarni

Discussion in 'Hadith' started by sunnistudent, Nov 19, 2011.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    In this work Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddith al dehlavi (rh) holds the same opinion which the Awliya, Imam and the scholars of the ahlus sunnah wal jamah held, viz, you can love any companion, there is no tarteeb in loving, but when it comes to over all superiority, then sayeedina abu bakr siddiq rd is afzal to all other sahaba
     
  2. AbdalQadir

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

    Sunnistudent, akhi, can you just provide here an abstract or synopsis of the book, or perhaps provide the link for it if it is available online? Jazak Allah khayr
     
  3. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    The original content is in Persian, but it has been translated into Urdu as well.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2011
  4. sunnistudent

    sunnistudent Veteran

    Brother Abu Fadal, Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddith al dehlavi al Naqshbandi [rh] wrote a book on this topic. Here is the cover page. I hope you will find some time to read this book of the mujaddid
     

    Attached Files:

    • rt.jpg
      rt.jpg
      File size:
      103.4 KB
      Views:
      127

  5. dear brother, it is possible that x was relating the ijma of his region only. if it is the case with one sunni imam, surely it is the case with others.or now are we going to change the goal post? what happened was that one says it and then whoever comes after just blindly relates the same without adequate tehqiq.
     
  6. It is very possible that he was simply relaying the Zaydi position, without adequate Tahqiq. When the Zaydis talk about 'Ahl al-Bayt', and Ijma' -- despite their ostentuous prohibition of taqlid -- almost always tend to mean the muta'khirin descendants of Imam al-Qasim ar-Rassi, who inhabitted Yemen. Thus, they are termed haadawis.

    was-salam
     
  7. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    as i have already said, i can understand your frustration.

    wa billahi't tawfiq.
     
  8. brother abu hasan,

    that was also very much predictably expected. there is nothing of substance stated. all the questions asked have been, as usual, left to the 'future'. there are assertions and assumptions and evasions. sorry! but i would like to deal with evidence and proof rather than vague rhetorical labels.

    I do not mean any disrespect.

    the two questions which you may reply to if we wait long enough are:

    1.
    and what you asked again in this thread and i provided about following alahazrat's fatwa:

    and since you have heard it and think there are mistakes in it and whats more it addresses directly and explicitly alahazrat's justifcation of ijma' in his celeberated work matla al-qamrayn and you say:

    all other discussion will be pointless. if the questions are asked of imam e ahlesunnat then those questions should take priority! please respond in chronological order. point one then point two then point three. i think, only the first three points would be sufficient to end this whole issue, once and for all.
    ----
    on a lighternote,

    a guy becomes a muslim in Ramadan, not used to taravih prayers. however, he goes with other muslims to pray. on the first night imam saab recites surah baqara ( the cow). it took sooo long that then this new muslim missed a few taravihs on subsequent days. eventually, he goes back again. this time hears that imam saab is going to recite surah feel (the elephant)...he goes 'agar baqara itni lambi thi to feel kitna lamba hoga! andgoes home from the wuzu khana!
     
  9. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    most responses were expected and some are still not there. khayr.

    the problem is that many luminaries have an aberrant position or the other. one cannot follow only the aberrant positions citing 'difference' of opinion. i will post an illustration, inShaAllah.

    but ponder about this methodology:

    a) pir abdu'l qadir and his students dismiss saHiH hadith that does not suit their framework or understanding. even when there is a risk of (al-iyadhu billah) dismissing the Prophet's own words (sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam). "this is my framework, and i will reject even a saHiH hadith".

    b) on the other hand, they take an aberrant position from some scholar and will stick adamantly to that as if the sanad for that position is more impeccable than imam bukhari's sanad!

    this clearly indicates following one's own whims and not the truth.

    not really. the threats of banning were for a different reason. and as soon as i find time, inShaAllah, i will comment on it.
    yes, i agree. i would be frustrated if someone asks me for proof and then disappear without commenting or acknowledging it.

    the reason i have not commented on your previously given quotations is because, i need to first investigate:

    a) whether such a quote really exists?
    b) whether the scholar held this as his final position or did he change it afterward?
    c) has any other scholar commented on this topic and this scholar?
    d) is the quote in context?
    e) are there other quotes that contradict this one, etc.

    and so forth. for example, i can rush to comment on your quotes from mustasfa - but one has to cross-check in other sources. this takes time.

    i have seen only the third part and i sense mistakes. i have browsed through his citations, but need time to analyse them and i am busy at the moment; therefore, i have not made a commitment. you are free to assume whatever you want.
    it is not easy to refute the doubts people cast on ijma'a without discussing the ijma'a itself. otherwise, some people who are impressed by cockiness will think that the flamboyant speaker is right and the hesitant responder is wrong. as any student of usul knows, ijma'a is a big part of the subject. unless, i find a way to explain the issue convincingly to the uninitiated, i prefer to remain silent.

    i don't think the discussion is only about this. pir abdu'l qadir sahib has started a trend of picking aberrations and inciting the awaam. moreover, he publicly disparages prominent ulama.

    that which has been said by alahazrat and other imams. that the shaykhayn are afzal to mawla ali raDiyallahu `anhum ajma'in. that there is an ijma'a on the afzaliyat and that one who does the reverse is a tafzili. obviously, those who disparage the shaykhayn are the tabarrayi. imam taftazani - an undisputed master of the usulayn, whose talwiH is a formidable work - has said that there is an ijma'a on this issue. did he not understand the ijma'a when he quoted from the salaf? he says (paraphrased): 'we ought to have husn zann of our salaf and that they would not have said so, if they didn't have strong reasons'.

    i proposed an exercise to gg and i am willing to set aside time for it, if necessary.

    there are extreme reactions on either side, and i believe that the middle path is the safest. alahazrat has mentioned that it is khafif bida'ah (mild bid'ah) and i have also said this earlier.

    qaTi'y has two meanings according to alahazrat and it is pointless hairsplitting in this age to rake up this issue.

    there is no need to apologize. what is good for should be good for me - otherwise, we are hypocrites. but, you misunderstood the 'docking' demand. "if you rake up an issue, you should state your stand".

    wa billahi't tawfiq.
     
  10. Abu Fadl

    Abu Fadl Banned

    Dear brother Abu Hasan, considering I was placed in the dock and asked a straight forward direct question and also considering that I obliged, can I actually ask what your belief is on afzaliat?

    Is the afzaliat of Hazrat Abu Bakr qati only, or is the afzaliat of the shaikhain qati, or is it of the first 3 khalifas, or is it of the first 4?

    Of course the option of the 5 khalifas (including Imam Hasan) afzaliat being qati in that order might be a view too, or an entirely different order for that matter.

    Apologies if I sound rude but that's not the intention and I don't mean to put you on the spot either (in the way that I was), it's just for clarification.
     
  11. lets say, for the sake of the argument that it is the case as you say. still, dear brother, ijma' of ahl al-bayt does not mean, none at all. the least it can mean a large majority of ahl al-bayt considered Imam Ali(a) afzal. or does imam san'ani's use of ijma perhaps mean the opposite that there were none amongst ahl al-bayt who considered Imam Ali(a) afzal. would that be correct?
     
  12. Abu Fadl

    Abu Fadl Banned

    With all due respect Abu Hasan, is that a submission that you will not be responding to the three videos? That's what I was anticipating - a point by point rebuttal.

    I'm a little unclear about your claim because surely the onus on you is to establish that the afzaliat of shaikain is qati (or first khalifas afzaliat is qati depending on your position - or that it's just Hazrat Abu Bakr) and that there is no difference of opinion on it.

    This has yet to be done by anyone (from qati/ijma side) and this is what the whole discussion is about! No offence brother (the last sentence is a general statement).
     
  13. sidi abu hasan,

    you have already admitted that there is a majority and a minority in this matter so what is the point for the discussion to continue?

    secondly, I have, previously, provided you with what you asked, for example, remember this claim by you:

    I gave you what you asked yet it has been weeks but no reply. it seems that you always demand, my dear brother, but nothing happens! apart from threats of banning.

    OK, let me give you alahazrat first. then i will like your response. if you respond then i will give you the second because i am tired you asking and i'm giving and then nothing happens.

    below, from fatawa ridawiyya, volume 22, page 237:
    it says: "on the condition that a man is not alone and that it is not mahall e fitna then a man can have a non-mahrum woman massage his hands, his back and his lower leg (pindli)"

    i think, shaking of hands with women can be arrived at from this!

    http://www.alahazratnetwork.org/modules/booksofalahazrat/item.php?page=237&itemid=38
     

  14. sidi abu hasan,

    exactly. that is the point. there is sufficient difference of opinion. not just from hz shah abdul aziz sb but many other sunnis. the problem is that you do not acknowledge that there is and was a difference of opinion.

    i am sure you will also disagree with alahzarat when he says that you can have 'dabwana, massaging your hands, your back, your lower legs from na-mehrum women as long as you are not alone with them or do not fear fitna from it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2011
  15. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    poor hasanayn shah lamented this in his video.

    ---
    just pick and choose (but ONLY according to pir abdu'l qadir's sahib's choice. otherwise you are a hypocrite.)
     
  16. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    according to your methodology, why should we take shah abdu'l aziz sahib's opinion?
     

  17. the mujaddid also said that shaytan can come in our dreams pretedning to be the Huzur Paak(s). is the mujaddid correct here?
     
  18. Hazrat Shah abdul aziz dehlavi explicitly says:

     
  19. chisti-raza

    chisti-raza Veteran

    What is Shah Abdul Aziz's - radiAllahu anhu - view on the 80 lashes narration btw?
     
  20. al-Amir as-San'ani was obviously influenced by the Zaydis of Yemen, and there idea of 'Ijma' of Ahl al-Bayt'. In fact, the Zaydis claim ijma' of Ahl al-Bayt in some instances when it is narrated in their own books that Imam al-Baqir or Imam as-Sadiq contradicted it.
     

Share This Page