pir nasiruddin and tafzil

i like your albani-like 'authentically'. why is it more authentic, is a moot point. not that you bother to explain because, you have been exposed thoroughly as a faux academic.* you just assume the mannerisms without substance. fine, it is my opinion but i think many will agree with you. [for someone who is supposed to be a phd candidate (feel free to refute) your referencing is ridiculous. please reference your quotes BUT with page number or hadith number; not a cut and paste from online source or an http link.]

anyway, i am still saying: these are not mutually exclusive. and please refer to the discussion before, hazrat ammar ibn yasir is not you or your father. he, as a SaHabi greater than hazrat mu'awiyah can say that - you should keep your mouth shut.

Allah Allah fee aS'Habi


---
*here, i don't mean academic as in a hadith scholar. i have heard that you are at oxford and it is that 'academia' that i mean. btw, i am neither an engineering graduate nor a phD candidate.

 

No! of course not. Here is what Hazrat Ammar ibn Yasir (ra) authentically said:

روى الحافظ البيهقي في سننه وابن أبي شيبة في مصنفه أن الصحابي الجليل عمّار بن ياسر رضي الله عنهما قال :"لا تقولوا كفر أهل الشام (أي الذين قاتلوا عليًا في صفّين) ولكن قولوا فسقوا أو ظلموا

al-Bayhaqi in his sunan and Ibn abi shayba in Musannaf report from Hazrat Ammar ibn Yasir (ra): do not declare the shaamis (siffinis) kafir but rather say they are faasiq or zaalim.

 

I agree.

 

It is pointless to call him tafzili. I suspect he enjoys being called tafzili. He is an outright shia. It's better to call him so.

His aberration is not just limited to afzaliyat issue; but he (and his family, pir etc.) have begun to tow every shia line. To call these people tafzili is to give them license to pretend to be sunni. The burden of proof (that they are not shia) is on them. Unless they repudiate every shia doctrine/belief, they are one of them.

 

whatever happened was on account of ijtihadi ghalati. it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive.
because even ammar ibn yasir raDiyallahu anhuma said that:

we fought with you for the tanzil; now we fight with you for the ta'wil. meaning, what you have understood is incorrect and our understanding [meaning those with hazrat ali raDiyallahu anhu] is correct. i can cite standard sunni sources,* but here is ibn abi'l hadid's commentary on nahj al-balaghah, vol.5/p.282:



unless of course, you know better than ammar ibn yasir raDiyallahu `anhuma.

how so?


*a discussion in fat'H al-bari explains it just as i have summed up. but i specifically fished it out from a shia'h source for your satisfaction.

 

قياس مع الفارق

 

the hadith: "i am the city of knowledge and ali is its door." is one such contested hadith. Hakim said it is SaHiH, but ibn al-jawzi (note that his opinion is highly valued in criticising hadith of abu sufyan below) said that it was mawDu'u and insisted upon it.

[for the record: ibn Hajar said that it was Hasan due to its being reported from many routes; and neither Hakim was right in his classing it SaHiH, nor ibn al-jawzi in classing it false/fabrication. i am just giving examples that some people do not hold the same strict standards when the hadith are not in favour of their idiosyncrasies].

 

i would mention examples from various books on mawDu'at like suyuti's la'ali, ajluni's kashf al-khafa, allama tahir's majma' al-biHar, ibn al-jawzi's mawDu'at and qari's mawDuat. but nawaz sahib can easily brush them off.

so i chose these from shawkani - you can dig previous posts - and nawaz has high regard for him. certainly you cannot accuse him of being a naSibi, though his shi'yi leanings are well-known.

these selections are from:

 

----
report:

"O ali, verily Allah ta'ala has given in marriage faTima to you; and has made this earth, her dowry. whoever walks on this and he hates you, his walking is Haram."

----
now, no one will deny that sayyidah faTimah raDiyAllahu anha was married to mawla ali raDiyallahu anhu. though the latter part is an obvious forgery. by nawazuddin standards, all of it is forgery - try to get it around your head.

 

let us try again:




there is another fabricated report:

who is like abu bakr?
people belied me and he attested to my truth. (1)
he bore faith in me (2)
and he gave in marriage to me his daughter (3)
he spent his wealth [for the religion] (4)
and he fought with me in the impoverished army [jaysh al-usrah] (5)
he will come on the day of judgement on a she-camel from the she-camels of jannah (6)
the legs of which are musk and ambergris (7)
the feet of which are green emeralds (8)
its bridle is made of pearls (9)
and upon him will be two green garments of silk and brocade [sundus-istabraq] (10)​

this has about 10 pieces of information. it is a fabricated report, but obviously 5 parts of this are true information corroborated by other hadith. according to nawaz's logic and hadith principles all of this is to be rejected. because

 

that only shows how poor your reasoning skills are. there is no way you can deduce it, and you cannot generalise it either.

concerning mawDu'u reports, your 'rule' of all-or-none is absurd.
for example, take the following hadith:

report: that RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam said to [hazrat] Ali: "you and your group are in jannah".​

now, there are two pieces of information in this hadith. YOU and your group will be in jannah. everyone knows that mawla ali raDiyallahu anhu is among the first four in the asharah e mubash'sharah - no one can deny that. but the second part of the information "your group / your shi'ah" is in jannah is an obvious fabrication.

now if we go by nawaz sahib's hadith principles, all of it is fabricated. according to him it is a simple deduction.

 

Look once you open the gate to doubt that he authenticity of The Shahihain ; by that we mean to believe they include fabrications, you open the gate for others to doubt other hadith as well. In fact by the logic provided (one hadith contradicting other) there are many more than just these hadith (mentioned here) that are deemed as "apparent" contradictions.

These are the same steps taken by the rawafid to undermine the legitimacy of sunni scholarship.

 

Shaykh Abu Hasan: When a single report consists of erroneous statements contradicting established facts then it stands to reason to reject all of it. when two are a fabrication then third one must also be fabrication. it is simple deduction.

chalo hazrat...ijtihadi ghalti ko to kam az kam aapne good bye kar diya.

 

Look here, It was said by Imam Ali (as) out of humility. He said I am just an ordinary man among Muslims. Was he?

Hazrat Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (ra) in his first khutba as a caliph said the following:
أيها الناس، إني قد وُلِّيت عليكم ولست بخيركم
O People I have been made a ruler over you but I am not superior to you.

was he not?

 

Why don't you take heed of your own advise?

 

nawaz! do you really have a speck of shame in your heart? as sidi abu Hasan explained all of your citations are for valid reasons, those imams did not slander sayyiduna Amir Mua'wiyah raDi Allahu 'anh; while your heart is bleeding, mouth is frothing, and pen is trembling to insult him and to reject any faDhail of him raDi Allahu 'anh.

هَا أَنتُمْ أُولَاءِ تُحِبُّونَهُمْ وَلَا يُحِبُّونَكُمْ وَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْكِتَابِ كُلِّهِ وَإِذَا لَقُوكُمْ قَالُوا آمَنَّا وَإِذَا خَلَوْا عَضُّوا عَلَيْكُمُ الْأَنَامِلَ مِنَ الْغَيْظِ ۚ قُلْ مُوتُوا بِغَيْظِكُمْ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ بِذَاتِ الصُّدُورِ

do tawbah, or be ready to receive Allah's Subh'anu wa Ta'ala wrath.

 

these people don't listen to Rasoolu-Allah's commands. why would they listen to anyone else??

 

Hasnain Shah Tafzili (Nawazuddin) I saw your video

To justify your belittling of Sahaba like Muawiya (R) and his father Abu Sufyan (R)
you claimed that Sahih Muslim has errors or in other words fabrications in it. If Imam Muslim whose criteria for accepting hadith is so stringent and if he can make mistakes according to you, then why can't anyone argue the same for the scholars you bring their half quotes to support your deviant views, why can't they have made the mistakes ?!!!!!

then you evaded the ijma of scholars from all times about the afzaliyat of Abu Bakr (R) and Omar (R) over other sahaba, in short you are not any different than those deobandits and khawarij. pick and choose


علي رضي الله عنه:

عن محمد ابن الحنفية قال: قلت لأبي رضي الله عنه: أي الناس خير بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم؟ قال: أبو بكر رضي الله عنه. قلت: ثم من؟ قال: ثم عمر رضي الله عنه. - وخشيت أن يقول: عثمان رضي الله عنه. قلت: ثم أنت؟ قال رضي الله عنه: ما أنا إلا رجل من المسلمين"
أخرجه البخاري

 

is this the only narration in the entire compendium that is problematic? why is it that such exacting standards applied to this hadith - and not for the manaqib of ahl al-bayt? it is only to reject that hazrat mu'awiyah was katib e waHy [scribe of the Revelation] and thus attempt to refute anything good said about him. people may maintain a facade of 'objective analysis' or 'just mentioning historical facts' but the underlying hatred shows though. this is why ulama wrote that we should not mention the Companions except in a good and favourable manner.

there is a difference. all of these citations are for a valid sharayi reason of explaining a fiqhi ruling. such as Hukm of rebels and such. none of those imams used this historical fact to vilify hazrat mu'awiyah raDiyallahu anhu. you have been cherry picking these statements [and dirayah? why dirayah can fall in deep coma here] only because they are good enough for vilifying hazrat mu'awiyah. i can explain a lot, alHamdulillah, but i will stop with one example. take the hidayah that you cite:

ayni and others have explained what this means, but it is like pouring water on a dead stump, hoping for it to sprout green leaves. anyway, here it is mentioned as an example of judges being appointed by unjust rulers. surely this much we both agree. the citation is also yours.

unless you feign ignorance of the tense you cannot deny that he restricts is to the period in hazrat ali's [raDiyallahu anhu] time. thankfully, you have even supplied a translation [emphasis mine]

and historically - i am sure you won't deny it - after hazrat ali, and then followed by imam Hasan [raDiyallahu anhuma], mu'awiyah became the ruler [call him khalifah, sultan, ameer, king - let us not digress over that one here]. why did the author of hidayah not simply leave it open-ended [i.e., appointing of judges] without mentioning this taqyid?

that is because, this is not a gratuitous mention of the mistakes of SaHabah just to revile them - it is to derive an important fiqhi ruling. unlike people like you who dig out all such narrations only to speak ill of the SaHabi in the guise of 'love of ali' [raDiyAllahu anhu].

nas'aluAllaha al-aafiyah.

same thing. ibn Hazm is the major source. regardless, this hadith is neither used for any core belief or action - and mentioned just in praise of someone. when even weak hadith are acceptable in faDayil, there is no point in elaborate refutations of this hadith - everyone agrees that two parts of information in this hadith are questionable as they contradict historical facts. but it is not necessary that the third one is also incorrect - but before we continue, one word from the sponsor:

see? all the hadith masters agree, insist and emphasise that two parts of information in this hadith are contrary to historical facts. that is: marriage of sayyidah umm Habibah was before fat'H and abu sufyan was never being made a leader. BUT. but did anybody mention that neither was hazrat mu'awiyah a katib e waHy? because, if that were the case - all the hadith scholars you cite for your proof would have also mentioned it - because that would only strengthen their position.

end result: regardless of whether you accept the authenticity of this hadith or not, you cannot reject that hazrat mu'awiyah was a katib-waHy based on only this hadith. because as you can see, even those who classed it fabrications, did not dispute THIS particular portion.

any student of hadith knows that there are many fabricated narrations which are totally invalid. but there are also fabricated narrations that have partial truths in them; meaning some portion of that hadith which is classed as fabricated, could be valid and is commonly observed truth - some portions even have shawahid* in other SaHiH accepted narrations. BUT, they are classed fabrications due to inconsistency.

wondering aloud: will you follow the same zeal of 'authenticity' and reject everything if some portion of a hadith is not validated in an all-or-none approach?

your main objective of repudiating this hadith is neither the chronology of marriage of sayyidah umm Habibah raDiyallahu `anha, nor the leadership of abu sufyan - because there is no dispute on either of these two points; rather, you criticise this hadith just to reject that hazrat mu'awiyah was a katib waHy, thereby attempting to undermine his importance - which will help you find justification and earn sympathy for those who vilify him. i strongly suspect that you fished out this hadith and posted in the ameer mu'awiyah thread for this very purpose.

wAllahu a'lam wa ilmuhu atam.

 

So what is haq Nawazuddin according to you.... are the shia of today correct and the sunnis of today wrong in regards Amir Mu'awiyah radiyAllahu anhu?