was mujaddid alfi thani not a mujaddid? he called those people jahil who deny the superiority of siddiq e akbar radiyAllahu ta'ala anhu. did he not know what some 'mufakkir' of the 21st century claims to? you people are making ta'wil of the alamgiri quote when it is clear. aF, you are wrong above because alamgiri clearly says even if they don't abuse shaykhayn, they are still bid'ati for giving sayyidina ali radiyAllahu ta'ala anhu superiority. gg, i am not going to discuss the difference between the fuqaha and mutakallimin, that is not the topic. i am just asking about the alamgiri quote and where does it specify khilafat? if it doesn't, then why are you twisting it when it is clear? --- i am going to leave it with the learned brothers now as i am not qualified to answer ALL your questions. i was only pointing out the alamgiri quote, which, if you are fair, calls tafzilis bid'atis.
Thank you for the translation NJ. Hazrat Shah Abdul Aziz Saheb was a mujaddid of his time. It may seem like an apparent contradiction but it can be can perfectly reconciled. I think you have misunderstood Aqdas and there is no contradiction in Shah Abdul Aziz or the fuqaha (and other groups for that matter). The tafzil that has been called bida refers to those that hold Hazrat Mola Ali as afzal but do not hold Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddique and Hazrat Umar Farooque in high regard. These people are bidatis. It's impossible that the salaf who held the superiority of Hazrat Mola Ali over other Sahaba would be called bidati by the mujaddid. It's confirmed in Shah Abdul Aziz when he makes the distinction of those holding Hazrat Mola Ali as afzal but also holding Shaikain in high regard are SUNNI (not bidati), and those that do not hold them in high regard are NOT SUNNI (but bidati). 2 types of tafzil, and once this is grasped perhaps the argument is settled, and over.
If there is ijma on afzaliat of Imam Ali amongst the Imams of Ahl al Bayt why does Mufakkir e Islam differ with them then by telling people he is against them?
I have said all I had to say and replied to all your questions from, both, counter argument and argument. you have not replied to many of my crucial questions; which i understand because there is no reply. the fatwa on loving the shaykhayn and considering Imam Ali afzal issued by hz shah abdul aziz dehlavi is that such a person is also sunni not RAFIZI. as for the red herring, well, it is about rafizis; the basis of whose aqida is the rejection of khilafat. it is their foundation to consider afzaliyyat as a condition for being a khalifah. so the only reason they consider afzaliyyat is to deny the khilafat claim. shah abdul aziz sahib's reading of it is clear from the immediate commnets prior to the quote. if i ask a question then you must answer too. but all that has happened is I have been answering and you have been evading. therefore, i think, it is pointless for me to continue. I respect you and hold no feelings of antagonism against you. I am not prepared to call our aslaaf as bidatis. I can sacrifice all of the latter day saints on just one Imam of ahl al-bayt. as for ijma this and ijma that I could actually show you from Imam mohammed ibn ismael al-san'ani that ahl al-bayt had ijma that imam ali is afzal! i know it is difficult to break the mind forged manacles.
gg keeps going on that alamgiri calls them bid'ati because they consider sayyidina ali to be more suitable for khilafah. i actually don't think the alamgiri quote is about khilafah at all. gg, please show me where the alamgiri quote is about khilafah specifically and i will not post anymore in this thread. just to save you scrolling up, the alamgiri quote: The Rafidi who speaks ill of Shaykhayn and sends damnation upon them, we seek Allah’s refuge from this, he is a Kafir; and if he doesn’t speak ill of them but believes that Hazrat Ali has superiority over Hazrat Abu Bakr, then he is not a Kafir but is an innovator [bid’ati] and if he accuses Hazrat Aisha radiyAllahu 'anha, then he is a Kafir --- btw gg, it seems earlier today, you also believed the fatwa of bid'ah was to do with tafzil proper and not to do with khilafat, you wrote:
rafidi and khariji situations are analogous. rafizis consider imam ali afzal and deny the khilafah of shaykhayn wheras khawarij are admant that shaykhayn are afzal but deny the khilafat and iman of imam ali. * khuda hafiz for now. kal milayn ge.
no brother, the question was why did alahazrat not follow alamgiri in the kufr of those who curse shaykhayn and deny their khilafat. you see there two elements to that fatwa. kufr and bidat. yet you accpet one but reject the other!
well, that is the reading of hazrat shah abdul aziz dehlavi because he separates those who hold Imam Ali afzal but love shaykhayn are sunnis and their diffrence is like that asharis and maturidis. and those who are 'rafidis' and hold him afdal. it is quite clear that rafidis unanimously consider that Imam Ali was more suitable for khilafat because he was afzal. this the conerstone of their belief tha an afzal must be khalifah. whereas ahlesunnat do not have afzaliyyat as a condition for khilafah. therefore, shah abdul aziz dehlavi says about rafidis that they cast doubt over khilafat also it is quite starnge that the very word Rafidi has its origins with Imam Zayd al-Shaheed(a). and he called them rafizi for disparaging shaykhayn but in the same instance he said that Ali is afzal but I love shaykhayn.
brother aqdas sb, that reference from hazrat alahazrat was just to demonstrate that he did not agree with its verdict of kufr for a person cursing shaykhayn and denying their khilafah whilst alamgiri clearly does takfir on those points. who is right alahazrat or fatwa alamgiri? secondly, the reading shah abdul aziz dehlavi is that alamgiri's statement is within afzaliyya in khilafat only. hence you yourself translate what he said preceding the quote from alamgiri: so here we have denial of khilafah of the two shaykhayn karimayn and as pointed out by NJ that it is for Rafidis. the premise on which it is based that rafidis. naturally, if the rafidi does not speak ill but consider Imam Ali more suitable and afdal for kihilafah. hence the hukm as hz shah abdul aziz made it clear in comments prior to the statement by alamgiri as follows: as for his clear cut two fatwas as translated by NJ, then it is clear that to consider Imam Ali afdal yet love the shaykhayn karimayn as done by hz salman al-farsi, for example, then such a person is sunni and their difference with others is like Ashaira & Matutridis. if you say it is bidat then it can't be bidat today only but those that held such an opinion amongst the sahaba, tabieen, etc would also be bidatis. do you think that Imam Zayd al-Shaheed was bidati? or seyyeda ayesha siddiqa (s)? you may continue this discussion because i think, it is going to turn into an something i wouldnt like to be part of.
btw I believe Hazrat Abu Bakr is afzal but it seems both from hazrat e dihlavi's fatwa and the numerous sunni references in hasnain raza shah sahib's videos that this point was at least disputed amongst scholars.
I think Aqdas that the first words of the p.411 fatwa explain the apparent contradiction.. "The Rafidi..." The question is also about someone who is already in "the Imamiya" (i.e. Shia sect). So, my understanding of these two fatwas combined is that the one on page 411 is about people who are definitely Shia whereas the one I translated is about Sunnis who do tafzil of Hazrat Ali. And the latter part of the page 412/3 fatwa also makes sense as there Shah Sahib writes that those who do not respect the Shaykhayn are the second type of tafzili .i.e. the innovator type.
i know that, dear tafzili gg [about the difference between fuqaha and mutakallimin]. my point was that on p.411, shah abdul aziz quotes alamgiri's fatwa of bid'ah for tafzilis [and note: has no problems with it] and then two pages later, we have the fatwa [as nj translated]. two different opinions in just three pages? just wondering if the fatwa translated by nj needs to be explained by someone as the one i've translated above is clear in calling tafzilis bid'ati and is of course in line with all the other fatawa of imams of ahlu's sunnah...
