Pir Abdul Qadir Jillani Attacks Imam Bukhari

sherkhan, if you have a car, and a few pounds for gas, please go and tell that 'pir' not to dare attack Sayyidina Imam Bukhari raDyAllahu again in the name of the ahle bayt and the ahle sunnah.

 

I understand that he is wrong. What do you want me to do? Should I join likes of you in calling him jahil, tafzili, shia, gustakh etc.? Will it make me a better person?

Apart from living within 10 miles of Shah Sahib's Darul-Uloom (Walthamstow, London), I can't claim any proximity to him in any way.

 

sherkhan why dont you question the pir instead of just constantly siding with him. may be then you will realise that he is wrong.

 

I'm not specifically picking on you. I'm simply disgreeing with your justification for everyone to let know his feelings. Enough of side-talk from me.

 

My only rant was in post number 4 in the beginning of the thread. In post number 44, it had nothing to do with the speaker himself, but rather it was a part of the thread discussion where I disagreed with your mentioning of him "questioning" Imam Bukhari's intention, which sounded a bit like apologia for him. Post 72 was aimed at a retard who was spewing his crackpot theories on this thread. Post 100 again had not much to do with the speaker per se and more with what you said in the bit I quoted, as a matter of principle; plus the bit about the other forum and shia-ism. I realize you disclaimed you're not from his mureeds or admirers.

And now this is post 102.

So I hope you can see I ranted about the speech just once, which is kinda what you should expect. The rest was just because this is a forum and people on forums agree or disagree about matters.

 

So what exactly do you achieve by ranting in a closed room? Who hears you apart from those in this forum (most of whom can see the obvious disrespect shown by Shah Sahib)? Does your show of indignation reform YN crowd or does it make Shah Sahib do ruju? Is Shah Sahib going to change his ways of disrespecting elders? Will you get additional thwab for your rant?

While your concern might be genuine, your actions don't serve any purpose. By all means mobilise/sign petitions to have Shah Sahib excommunicated, but mere rant is but an exercise in venting your own raging bile.

To my mind, it is more useful to have someone more knowledgable talk (or refute), than all and sundry rant, joust and get into slanging match. Let those who (including me) can't contribute meaningfully to scholarly refutation shut up and read/listen.

I wonder why senior brothers Aqdas, abu Nibras, Noori, azizq etc. haven't bothered to add their bile to the boiling cauldron of indignation. Either they're busy or they rightly believe that any rant is a mere waste of time, space and bandwidth.

Anyway, my opinion is merely an obiter dicta, it's not a binding resolution.

 

There is a difference between a scholarly dispute and blatant huckstering of nonsense. The former, yes, needs scholarly refutations and us commoners need to stand aside.

As for the latter, seriously, you can't expect common people to shut up in the face of such nonsense just because someone carries a title or has a dedicated fan club.

I am not educated like Abu Hasan or maybe even you, but I am still not dumb enough to accept an insult to muhadditheen or mujtahideen of the ummah.

Your comment above does not apply in this context because this wasn't a case of scholarly dispute. It was shear accusations and insults thrown the way of Imam Bukhari.

It begs the question, how is it that no one before this gentleman has picked up on Imam Bukhari's supposedly step motherly treatment of the Ahlul Bayt?

Will you present the same argument towards those of us who cringe at the wahabi juhalaa like othaimeen and munajjid speaking in similarly disrespectful tones towards Imams Bayhaqi and Nawawi and Suyuti and Abu Hanifa and others, rahimahumullah.

To put it simply, scholarly disputes are one thing and the sufi's new khirqa is something else! (btw, see the time stamp on that post, it was said before this thread even started)

Just because I am not aware of the differences between applications of Fast Fourier Transforms and Doubly Stochastic Time Series Analyses in econometric modelling, it doesn't mean I don't have the right to turn down some bogus home made toothpaste by a snake oil salesman.

----

I wasn't aware of the dispute between this forum and another forum, but after seeing some of the comments on the other forum, it indeed looks like some of them are shia under taqiyya with no aim other than corrupting people's beliefs and cooking up mischief. Especially after seeing some of their more supposedly knowledgeable and objective members' posts on this topic and also from previous years.

They howl "respect of Syeds" when this gentleman's bogus claims are confronted. I'd like to see them defend maudoodi the same way too. If not, they should stop with their claims of love for Syeds.

 

i suspected this to be under one of the two tafsirs: when sayyiduna ibrahim broke their idols and when asked told them 'ask the biggest one.' [surah al-anbiya] or when he said: 'he looked up at the stars and said: i shall be unwell' [surah saffat]

as expected, it is the latter verse: saffat, v.89, [vol.26*] but a look at the first verse gives some insight too.

---
one should understand the style of imam razi in his tafsir, he always cites things 'for the sake of argument'. and then goes on to demolish those arguments - scholars have said that his ability to craft objections (argument from the other side) is far superior to the answers he then writes to them.

---
this particular verse is discussed under 8 issues and the below cited paragraph is from the 7th issue. [al-waj'h as-sabi'y] we can see the context later, but the dishonesty in quoting is worth mentioning:

the last line in this issue is duly omitted as it gives away the real position of imam razi:

and then, we say: why should 'lie' [mentioned in the hadith] not be construed to mean: 'a saying that resembles a lie'?

ثم نقول لم لا يجوز أن يكون المراد بكونه كذباً خبراً شبيهاً بالكذب؟
​

---
this clearly indicates that imam razi was not rejecting the reports outright but was contesting those who insist that the lie mentioned in the hadith is literal. the argument is with someone** who insists that it is a lie.

the context of this comment is the infallibility of anbiya alayhimu's salam (ismatu'l anbiya - on which he has written a small tract separately). and is thus an accusatory argument with someone who claims that anbiya can also commit sins and cites the sahih hadith; so imam razi is contesting his argument by the person's own logic. not rejecting the sahiH hadith as is evident from the last line when he gives an explanation (ta'awil) of that hadith. [of course, all this is not mentioned in the text, but this is probably the context of his comments]

a similar one was presented here in the case of a misquote from al-ash'ari's maqalat. i cited a passage of yazid being considered a imam and if i say: 'in which case all these three opinions are by ahlu's sunnah?' that does not mean that i consider yazid anything short of fasiq-fajir and utterly invalid for imamah.

more later inshaAllah with inputs from the tafsir of the other verse.


Allah ta'ala knows best.
-----------------

* the original is in 32 volumes, but my copy is bound in 11 volumes.
**aH: not unlike the yn fools, in all probability.

 

I believe the position that the narrator of this hadith must have erred mentioned from Imam al-Razi above [if definitely his final position] would be pretty unique to him.

Other scholars who were actually experts in the field of hadith and hadith interpretation like Imam al-Nawawi and Imam Ibn Hajar have correctly interpreted the hadith and explained how thes 'lies' are, in fact, not lies at all. And, from what I understand, this was the position adopted by the majority of scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah.

By the way, if you google this quote from Imam al-Razi you can see how it is plastered over the shi'a forums all over the internet. It seems like a certain other forum has now joined their ranks in trying to attack Ahl al-Sunnah.

 

i have no faith in much of what is quoted unless i look it up myself. tafsir imam razi is in about 11 volumes and unless even a vague reference (under which surah, for example) is given, it would be difficult to find that quote.

not impossible to find though, if the quote is precise.

---
secondly, these imbeciles praise a scholar when it suits them and deride the same one when they find him against their fancy. similar to salafis. no wonder these idiots are rightly called salafidis.

 

Can't believe they refer to this site as nasbiport. That will make most of our scholars nasibi according to their warped mentality.

How they different to shi'a apart from paying lip service to the other khulafa. The shia traits amongst that crew are all too evident. sad times indeed.

 

Statement by a YN member (he certainly is a member): "If we find statements (even in classical sources) that do not befit the status of those that form the foundations of our deen, then we do not take it."

My response:
i'd like to ask this supposedly learned brother : which scholar gave you that hukm? My suspicion is that this is another one of their own rules!

The reply on YN.com

Since I don't trust a single word these people say or quote anymore due to their past record could a learned brother --aH for example--translate that and give the context. of course, a question i can ask myself is that were scholars like ala hazrat unaware of this reported quote from Imam Razi and yet they didnt use it to trash Bukhari or other 'classical sources' which they deemed unfitting to the dignity of the Ahle Bayt or are your scholars of today bigger than all the ones who came before?! I'd expect that if some hadiths in , e.g., Bukhari appear on the surface to be disrespectful or problematic and are yet classified Sahih by the great muhaddith our scholars would have found a means to understand it in a way which removed the problem as well as accepting the hadith itself.



addendum:

i cut and pasted the arabic text into google and this is the website i was linked to:

http://www.yasoob.com/books/htm1/m013/12/no1291.html

I know enough to be able to read that this is from بحار الأنوار

العلامة المجلسي ج 12

Bihar al Anwar, Allamah al-Majlisi volume 12

Now wasn't that Allamah Baqir Majlisi, one of the mujtahids of the Rafidis?! And the google link to yasoob.com has the following descriptor, "Islamic Shiite Digital Library". So that is where the brothers are getting their info from!!!
Quad Est Demonstrandum.

 

Nope. Its because, honestly, in ALL my life, I have never ever seen Sunnis and their scholars *attack* Imam Bukhari raDyAllahu 'anhu.

who? who are those ulama, please tell me. Because, I have never seen ANY *Sunni* aalim attack, in such a disgusting way, Imam Bukhari raDyAllahu anhu.

The brothers and sisters, in this thread, all have good intentions, including you, but except that shia called albalagh.

Yes! I have been asking for that from the YN Crew, for the past 5 years.

alHamduLilAllah, he is correct.

 

Brother sherkhan
you make some valid points but the reason I have gone from gaga to booboo as you so eloquently put it is simply that initially I was a big fan of his and trusted everything he said blindly and ignored the rumour mongers. My position only changed when it became clear to me that I was wrong. Though I am no scholar I am able to cross check references and when these didn't match up and when similar criticisms are made by people like gfh and abu hasan etc I realised there must be something wrong. After all I am able to put two and two together when the works of ala hazrat or other Sunni scholars say X and someone else repeatedly tells me no it is Y.
You are right that the issue of the doctorate is not important per se
it fits into a pattern of claims.
Tbh if the yn crew were not so juvenile and didn't indulge in ad hominem atta ks on the greats of our faith others wouldn't respond in kind.
I am a nobody and don't need to say anything as the points have been made far better than I ever could. I only aim to defend the able sunnat.

 

Get a life. Is this a serious query? How is his doctorate* 'an issue'? Are you insinuating that his making 'gross' mistakes means that his doctorate is fake?

BTW, I'm not fighting in Shah Sahib's corner. I'm disgusted with juvenile behaviour on either side of the debate. By all means, point mistakes, dissect things thread-bare, even make cheap/trivial points etc., but ask yourself what you stand to gain? What do others stand to gain?

Some time back, brother aH made few valid points on futility of our trivial pursuits in response to your post on 'Islamic Films' (I don't know why aH then chose to delete his nasiha). Whether or not it made an impression on you, I certainly realized that some of the things that we so passionately (and delusionally) pursue, will not be the things that we will be questioned about in the Hour.


---

nJ went from ga-ga to boo-boo. nJ made a point in his post that how ignorant masses go wah-wah without knowing the facts. Then he went exclaiming 'bravo', being amazed etc. here and believing that abu Nasr had provided a devastating refutation here.

Did you check the facts? It may/most likely/must be that aH and abu Nasr are indeed correct**, that how can you deliver wah-wah without doing any fact checking yourself? How educated are you (even with your material science PhD) when you can't show a better approach than the rabble surrounding Shah Sahib? Isn't this hypocrisy?

----

I have already made points about ST/faqir and what I think of them and their motivations. I'm disgusted when some people continue to act with indignity, while showing such indignation as if somebody violated their dignity.

----

To be fair, Shah Sahib evokes strong reaction primarily because of the YN crowd and some of his misguided murids. Any other ulema would have faced lot less scrutiny. Since YN mods/users have long enjoyed throwing showels of muck at other ulemas, time has come that others buried them in more muck.

----

I don't dispute aH's assertion:

But does this give license to all and sundry? Shouldn't this responsibility be limited to those who are capable and responsible enough? Weren't 'scholarly' disputes (I don't mean to say that Shah Sahib's points are scholarly) in good old days handled more responsibly? When one scholar wrote a tardeed and tore into the other, at least that tardeed didn't fall in the hands of ignorant people. In the online, inter-connected world, where calling names is easy (when people conveniently hide behind their assumed names), shouldn't mistakes be pointed out in a responsible manner? Did our elders also deliver refutations in full public glare?

May I suggest that such threads in future be very tightly moderated so that only people with knowledge and those with genuine intentions participate.

----

For the umpteenth time, I will disclaim that I'm not a mureed or an admirer of Shah Sahib. I realise that my posts of late are becoming tiresome and moralistic. Before you get inflamed, ask yourself what is being gained, who's gaining etc.

______________________________

* Shah Sahib's murids will probably tell you that he graduated from Madina University. What next? Ask for a copy of his doctorate certificate!

** I'm not disputing the validity/accuracy of the points that aH and abu Nasr made. I have no way of knowing the facts myself. I only know that brother aH has always made valid points in past and brings lot of diligence to his research. (Apart from the fact that I can usually grasp/understand what aH has to say) I will be a hypocrite if I say that aH is always correct. Simple fact is that I don't know if he is correct; I only believe that he is correct.

 

another cult member writes,

i'd like to ask this supposedly learned brother whose identity i wont reveal though i know it well --is which scholar gave you that hukm? who are you to decide what 'befits the status'? do u know that better than the great imams of the religion?

this is also the same tactic that shias use: they reject every hadith in bukhari which doesnt support their own beliefs rather than basing their beliefs on the hadiths. the great son of mary :as: is reported to have said, 'by their fruits ye shall know them'. any teacher can be known through the students he produces and any pir recognised by his followers or acolytes.

as to my own ignorance, i admit it, but surely shaykh GFH and all the others opposed to this cult are not retards? (that's rich coming from you brother QJ considering the institution from which you graduated but i wont hold that against you.)

btw, can brother muhammadi or anyone else tell me from which university shah sahib got his doctorate from since i've noticed you write 'dr.' before his name now?

 

i agree with you!
all the sunni scholars the rafidis don't like seem to be the same one's these guys don't like. plus QJ's response about not relying on scholars too much in but rather on the aal e rasool صلى الله عليه وسلم was a giveaway!!!

ever heard a sunni say that?
the evidence? a poem from khwaja gharib nawaz :ra: about karbala in which the great wali praises the great imam --and rightly so. to go from there to saying don't rely on classical scholars too much is a conceit too far! when poetry becomes your evidence you know you're on thin ice. (i love that poem myself but it would be interesting to see evidence from muslim scholars in the field of sufi poetry to see if these verses are actually his; a lot of the time one finds that poems poipularly attributed to certain saints are not their own work. Rumi is a big example of this.)

 

1. cos i am banned
2. his reading of shaykh haddad is still incorrect whichever part of shaykh gfh's response we look at. he cannot accept what shaykh gfh wrote about imam muhammad ibn ja'far. the rest of his post is just rambling nonsense and an attempt at emotional blackmail by quoting the name of the great pir sayyid jamaat ali shah. i am sure that great wali :ra: did not have shi'ite beliefs like these people do. i should know i have been formally asked to translate his biography!

 

i get the feeling that most people on the YN site are tafzeelis, thats why they totally disrespect our scholars such as imam bukahri and imam ghazali.

 

brother NJ, some obective enquirer guy has replied to your post on the YN site why dont you reply to him?