Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Aqidah/Kalam' started by AbdalQadir, Jan 7, 2021.
besides, whereand who said that?
Spot the irony and the ridiculous line of reasoning!
The devbandis argue that we must affirm the power to "issue a statement contrary to reality" (aka lies) for Allah, otherwise we risk not acknowledging His Qudrah! (Ma3adh Allah)
They are totally blind to the fact that lying is a defect that does not have any intrinsic greatness in front of Allah, neither is it an expression of power.
I can only describe this donkey as a troll - like most other mad-mullahs from devband.
This foul-mouthed trashcan will claim next that since the Prophet (peace be upon him) described the entire earth as a "masjid" [salah is allowed most everywhere - except a few exceptions] - people will have a diminished desire to visit the places devoted exclusively to prayer - including the ka'aba and masjid al-nabawi shareef - and so we must never mention this hadith.
Us sunnis have a billion reasons to pine for a moment's worth of haziri at the blessed rawdah shareef - and it is the blasphemous devbandits who claim that visiting madina shareef can be skipped as it's not mandatory for hajj to be valid.
* Iyla of Hadrat Pir Sayyid Mehr Ali Shah Sahib رحمة الله تعلى عليه on p. 114 mentions the definition of ilm al-ghayb mutlaq haqiqi with reference to Hadrat Shah Abd al-Aziz Muhaddith Dehlwi رحمة الله تعلى عليه and mentions ahkam (rulings) related to this as opposed to ilm al-ghayb idhafi mentioned on p. 115
Note also - when Hadrat Pir sahib قدس الله سره negates ilm al-ghayb kulli dhati alal istimrar (Fatawa Mehriyya pp. 10) and "sab Ilm al-ghayb" (Fatawa Mehriyya pp.6-7) , he is referring to that kulli ilm which is la-mahdud and ghayr mutanahi. Hadrat pir sahib قدس الله سره accepts as I mentioned above, ilm al-ghayb atai min Allah including ma kana wa ma yakun. There is no contradiction between this view or the view of Hadrat Sadr al-Afazil رحمة الله تعلى عليه in al-Kalimatul Ulya and saying Sayyidina Mustafa ﷺ 's ilm is kulli mutanahi in terms of creation
'Allama Subki رحمة الله تعلى عليه in Shifa al-Siqām, p181 also does not negate hearing either- see here. Sh Abu Hasan can expound more
Similarly this quote they mention -
He says further in the same work (p45):
“When you realise that replying to the salām of the visitor to him ﷺ by his noble self is something that occurs without doubt, and there is only disagreement over his reply to someone who sends salām on him from those not visiting, then this is another massive virtue that visitors to his grave acquire. Allāh thus combines for them both that the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ hears their voices directly and him replying to their salāh himself. So how can someone who hears of these two virtues, in fact even one of them, lag behind from visiting him?!”
This has no mentioning of NOT hearing, wa iyadhubillah.
Now the qawl attributed to Allamah al-Sakhawi رحمة الله تعلى عليه in Ajwibat al-Mardiyya is something else....
As for the quote of 'Allamah Ibn Hajar رحمة الله تعلى عليه from Jawhar al-munazzam:
One issue with the first passage is that it is not absolute whereas the qawl of the Deobandiyya is absolute. it says ila bi wasita – except by a means. Allah’s Qudrah could a means. But this is a tawil for statements like this:
“From the greatest of benefits of Ziyārah is that his ﷺ visitor, when sending ṣalāt and salām on him near his grave, he hears it literally and replies to him without an intermediary. This is sufficient for you. This is different from someone that sends ṣalāt and salām on him from afar, because that does not reach him, nor does he hear it, except via an intermediary. The evidence for this is many ḥadīths that I cited in my aforementioned book.”
Another note is that Shaykh Ibn Hajar رحمة الله تعلى عليه states the amal of the ummah are presented to the Prophet ﷺ
The other is that Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami al-Makki رحمة الله تعلى عليه never says explicitly that, au'dhubillah the Prophet ﷺ does not hear.
"(Imam) Aḥmad Riḍā Khān held that the Prophet ﷺ only gained complete worldly knowledge gradually, over time, with the progressive revelation of Qur’ān. So early on in his prophethood, the Prophet ﷺ did not have complete worldly knowledge. Thus based on his view (that such knowledge confers virtue and honour), Satan, who had lived earlier, and had expansive knowledge of worldly things before the Prophet ﷺ gained this knowledge, at least for some time, held greater virtue (in some aspects of knowledge) than the Prophet ﷺ! Is this not blasphemy and belittlement of the Prophet ﷺ? What we – the Ahl al-Sunnah – say is: The Prophet ﷺ never had less knowledge – knowledge that counts – than Satan. In fact, Satan is a complete ignoramus – he knows nothing of Allāh or the afterlife, because if he did he would not be doing what he is doing. The Prophet ﷺ has the fullest abundance of beneficial knowledge – as he said: “I am the most learned of you about Allāh.” (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī)"
This is a total deflection from the ibarat of Barahin e Qati'a where Khalil Ahmad Ambethawi-Saharanpuri did actual tanqis and gustakhi of the Messenger ﷺ by an actual COMPARISON that was was made and a deflection from Hifz al-Iman where Ashraf 'Ali Thanawi did tanqis and gustakhi of the Messenger ﷺ through an actual COMPARISON that was made (and their fasid baatil ta'wil that the kufriya/gustakahana/tauheen amaiz statement in Hifz al-Iman was not about the Prophetic 'Ilm ﷺ is proven wrong through context - siyaq and sabaaq)
As for this:
"But another critical point is that when we, the Ummatīs of the Prophet ﷺ, realise that the Prophet ﷺ hears us directly specifically at his blessed grave, we are motivated to go and stand before him and express our salām. This is a point made by Taqī al-Dīn Subkī (Shifa al-Siqām, p181), Mullā ‘Alī Qārī and Ibn Ḥajar Haytamī. According to Barelwī prophetology, the Prophet ﷺ is watching and hearing everything directly as it is! So one can make salām to him wherever they may be and he will hear it directly just as he would when near the grave. The motivation and desire (as well as the virtue) to stand at the blessed grave is thus diminished."
Again, Zameel al-Rahman quotes Mulla Ali al-Qari from his Rasa'il on hearing, which I will will counter with a counter-claim. Zameel and friend often quote Sarfaraz Safdar to us and thus I have a right to quote to him Hadrat Pir Sayyid Mehr Ali Shah Sahib Golrawi Chisti رحمة الله تعلى عليه whom he also quotes and deem to be mu'tabar. Here is what his friends quote from Hadrat Pir sahib quddisa sirruhu on ilm al-ghayb and also on bashariyat. As a note, his comrades (Saad Khan Deobandi etc) say "may Allah have mercy on him" to Hadrat Pir sahib قدس الله سره in both these posts. - note I have the jawab to their misquotes from Shams al-Hidayah, I'yla Kalimatullah and Malfuzat e Mehriyya. Let me just give a khulasah here -in Iyla on p. 115 and Shams al-Hidayah p. 66, what is being negated is ilm al-ghayb dhati kulli ghayr mutanahi ala al-istimrar which is also negated in Fatawa Mehriyya Sharif with the words "sab ilm al-ghayb" (see Fatawa Mehriyya p. 10 - https://archive.org/stream/FatawaMa...haria by Pir Mahar Ali Shah#page/n35/mode/2up and see the same book p. 6-7 where he affirms ilm al-ghayb ata'i and hadhir wa nadhir with surat e mithali and jasad e unsuri - https://archive.org/stream/FatawaMa...haria by Pir Mahar Ali Shah#page/n31/mode/2up)
What is affirmed in Fatawa Mehriyya Sharif is Ilm al-ghayb ma kana wa ma yakun and hadhir wa nadhir (which Deobandis call shirk/kufr)
Now, note that centuries before these rasa`il of Hadrat Shaykh Mulla Ali al-Qari رحمة الله تعلى عليه came out, Hadrat Pir Sayyid Mehr Ali Shah Sahib Golrawi رحمة الله تعلى عليه wrote that the Messenger ﷺ has shuhud fi nafsihi quoting Mirqat Sharh Mishkat of the same Hadrat Mulla Ali al-Qari رحمة الله تعلى عليه (see https://www.nafseislam.com/en/Liter...PirMeherAli/IyaaKalimatullahByPirMeherAli.pdf on pdf pg 123).
Furthermore, why should we believe Sarfaraz's tahrif-ridden "tahqiqat" which have been refuted?- See here: https://archive.org/details/MullaAliQariAurIlmeGhaibOHazirONazirRaddESarfrazGhakarvi
Note that Hadrat Pir sahib رحمة الله تعلى عليه whom they also quote as mentioned above - quotes the ibarat "li ana Ruhahu ﷺ hadirun fi buyut Ahl al-islam" without any addition of a "la". See Iyla Kalimatullah which Deobandis themselves quote when it suits them:
Furthermore, neither Mulla Ali Qari رحمة الله تعلى عليه nor Hadrat Pir Sayyid Mehr Ali Shah Sahib quddisa sirruh made ta'wil of ruh as being hidayah - this is beyond the bounds of pure stupidity.
May I point out how unbelievably ignorant it is that Zameel is quoting Radd 'ala al-Qa'ilin bi Wahdat al-Wujud when his own elders like Ashraf Ali Thanawi and the murshid of Thanawi, i.e. Hadrat Haji Imdadullah Muhajir Makki رحمة الله تعلى عليه were qa'ilin of Wahdat al-Wujud? (see Ziya al-Qulub, p. 35 - https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.438722/page/n137/mode/2up)
As for the quotes from Shifa Sharif, I will allow Shaykh Abu Hasan to expound on their actual meaning (he quotes al-Shifa, p. 631-32, 723,724)
Note - I have dealt with his misusage of Hadrat Mulla Ali al-Qari رحمة الله تعلى عليه and Shaykh Ibn Hajar al-Haytami رحمة الله تعلى عليه elsewhere. Zameel is a shameless muftari deserving the 80-lash tajlid al-muftari punishment for his attacks on A'lahazrat رضى الله عنه and lies on many Imams such as Hadrat Mulla Ali Qari رحمة الله تعلى عليه and Imam ibn Hajar al-Haytami رحمة الله تعلى عليه
So according to zaleel, the ability to publish lies, as created sound-bites or text, is a merit or perfection for the divine!
this is a different level of shamelessness. worse than modi and his minions.
the main reason zaleel is still peddling his filth, is because we cannot resort to lies and distortions like he does. zaleel has no compunctions and i believe he does not even believe in judgement day.
take for example this:
so manzur nu'mani is a sahabi? khalid mahmud is a tabiyi? and thanawi is a nabiy?
la Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah.
apparently if we use ibn Hajar al-haytami or qari or suyuti etc, to explain a verse or a hadith, it is inadmissible evidence. however, we are supposed to blindly accept the 'correct' interpretation as explained by a manzur nu'mani or some other saHabi from the devbandi school.
sub'HanAllah! kya logic hai!
my apologies for 'appeal to intelligence'.
this guy has been playing russian roulette with his "ilmi zauq" for a long time, but this time, it's game over.
he has accidentally used all the right words:
- inadmissible evidence
- factual evidence
- distorted evidence
- appeal to emotion
his entire argument is built on the premise that Barelwis use inadmissible and distorted evidence and appeal to emotions like shias or catholics, whereas the devs use actual and factual evidence
once this premise is destroyed, zaleel should do what ashraf ali's mamu told him to do in order to achieve tazkiyatun nafs!