Shaykh Asrar Rashid vs Abdul Rahman Hassan

once again, i think this verbal debates should be chucked forever. there is no point in verbal debates in our time. simply because the "medium" of mass-communication in the past was a live gathering. however, that objective of reaching a wide audience in real-time is possible even today. also, the level of speech - understanding the nuance and the point - was far more acute in the past; nowadays, people do not rise above bland speech. a clever repartee is misconstrued to be a statement of fact and thus loaded against people who are good speakers.

whatever objections they may have - let them write it; the other party should be able to answer them, again written. the strength of argument will be plainly visible - one can easily see who is bluffing and who makes a stronger argument.

verbal debates on the other hand are fraught with issues and scope for false excuses. a genuine slip of the tongue on our side could be paraded as a mistake by the other side - and conversely, a deliberate mistake by our enemies can be pushed under the carpet as a slip of the tongue.

secondly, some people can be animated - like the dawah-man who prances like a monkey and makes the most awful faces and shouts, expecting that this performance will convince people that he is right. frankly, i cannot match his decibel levels let alone do a mime-show with accompanying cacophony.

---
the definition of bid'ah as explained by imams is resounding slap in the faces of these heretics, but they will happily ignore it and act as if they are more knowledgeable in hadith and arabic than ibn al-athir, ibn rajab and imam nawawi.

sub'HanAllah.

 

strange. we say bukhari, qushayri, nasafi, barelwi or even the heretics albani, jazayiri, etc... there is nothing wrong with this.

actually, i wrote his name but i didn't feel like saying 'heretic' with the words "abd al-RaHman" or "Hasan" so i replaced it with 'somali'; this has nothing to do with his ethnicity - you are being hyper-reactive. get over your affected politeness and treat an enemy as an enemy. that guy did not bother to address asrar sahib with any honorifics. why should you defer to these ignorant mubtadiy and uncouth adab-less claimants to scholarship? they are muntaHilin bi'l `ilm, and even if they scholars, they are ulama al-suu'

have the courage to call a spade a spade - this particular heretic is arrogant and not long ago, a sikh-mushrik wiped the floor with the dawah-man's face, does he think he can face us ahl al-tawHid? i don't have the time to give undue respect to those who don't deserve it.

it is wajib to denigrate heretics so that people do not respect them - otherwise, they may fall into their heresies.

----
on this blessed day of jumu'ah we pray to Allah ta'ala with the tawassul of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam to humiliate the heretic and his monkey-like-prancing student. bi jaahi'n Nabiy al-amin alayhi wa ala aalihi afDalu's Salatu wa't taslim.

 

Ch Saab the Imam Sahiban are currently in Africa but their Du'a are with you

 

My point was mainly about the ulema, who should be offering more support to the Shaykh. The awaam can help with their duas and not use social media to trash talk the Najdis and create unnecessary hype. This distracts from the debate and creates ill feeling. In sha Allah, the debate will take place in a constructive manner and Shaykh will not lower himself to some of the dirty tactics that the opposition are currently employing on social media, like claiming that the Shaykh has degraded Imam Ahmad Raza by calling the Imam a 'Muqallid' of Imam Abu Hanifa. Sunnis must stand together and not let these 'troublemakers' come between us.

 

How are the Ulemah and Awaam supposed to support Shaykh Asraar? It is a very valid point. One has to admire Shaykh Asraars humour.

 

@abu Hasan 'mubtadiy somali.' is there any need to reference his 'ethnicity.' It is completely irrelevant and distracts from a pertinent point that you made.

In sha Allah, the position of Ahl al-sunnah will be proven correct in the debate. That is the purpose of the debate, to defend your creed and make clear your standpoint on an issue. I again commend Shaykh Asrar for accepting the challenge and those who the Shaykh supported initially, should now lend their support to the debate. In these issues, the unity of Sunni scholars is paramount because the Shaykh is defending the creed of the Ahl al-sunnah. Even, if you have issues with the Shaykh, by supporting him in the debate, you are not backing him but you are backing the creed of the Ahl al-sunnah. By supporting him in the debate, it does not mean you are associating yourself with Shaykh Asrar but you are associating yourself with the creed of the Ahl-al-sunnah. It has been the way of the Salaf to uphold and defend the correct creed, whether that be in a form of a speech, literature or a debate (written or oral) and In sha Allah, the same approach to the debate is taken by the Shaykh-

In sha Allah, Haq will prevail and Sunnis will unite to defend the correct creed and work together to bring greater success for Ahl al-suunah in particular and Muslims in general. Amin.

 

also, the mubtadiy somali and his heretic followers call the ahl al-sunnah as "blind followers" whereas it is they who are blind followers of ibn taymiyyah, ibn qayyim and their small set of the mubtadiys among Hanabilah; apart from modern heretics such as albani who was a blind follower of his own nafs; in addition to following men with blind hearts such as bin baz et al.

لا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله

----

 

but what is the topic of the debate? they say tawassul, istighatha - but what exactly are the questions and objections?

ideally, the conditions of the debate should come only after one agrees to a debate - and if someone challenges me to a debate on false premises, based on their own mistaken notions and stupid interpretations, i will not agree to a debate.

our stand is clear - the tawassul and istighatha that we consider permissible is the one permissible

-----
to the dawahman and his master: is this contract proven from the sunnah or a bid'ah? if so, which aayat or hadith (only SaHiH and Hasan please) describes the terms likewise? did any of the SaHabah, tabiyin or salaf of the first three centuries execute such a contract - and if so, please forward us sanad muttaSil of such a contract. don't be hypocrites - nor swagger in your overconfidence; you are nowhere near the imams of hadith and aqidah such as ibn daqiq al-yid, nawawi, ibn Hajar, ayni, suyuti, ali al-qari and the later muHaddithin like muhammad ibn ja'afar kattani, badruddin Hasani, abdullah sirajuddin (i deliberately omit ulama from the sub-con) and others. our aqidah is the same as theirs.

wa billahi't tawfiq.

i mean if you consider this debate as a non-religious matter, then it might be okay with you - but if you consider this to be a religious duty, didn't you jump around like monkeys, contorting your faces hideously and shout:

كل بدعة ضلالة

 

which ulema in which books?

 

not ajeeb at all, the úlema mention this in their books.

I mentioned this in another thread on taqlīd.

Allāh táā'lā knows best.

 

At around 1:44:34, shaykh asrar remarks:
"you can be a shafi'i when it comes to kitab al-hajj, you can be a hanafi when it comes to kitab al-sawm."

Ajeeb to say the least.

 

Abdur Rahman Hassan with his definitions of tawassul and isthigaasa etc.

<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/vi...ideos/1087564434642876/&show_text=0&width=560" width="560" height="315" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true" allowFullScreen="true"></iframe>

 

the first thing that should be knocked out from the "parties" is: "berelwis" and "ahlul hadith"

---
WE are the true ahl al-hadith, we are the ahl al-qur'an, we are the ahl al-Haqq, WE are the ahl al-sunnah; all others are only claimants to some of these titles.

the contract should first say: "la-madh'habi/wahabi-groups debate ahl al-sunnah, who are the ahl al-Haqq (AKA barelwis in the subcontinent or sufis in the arab world)." they are rightfully the wahabi/ismayili heretics who call themselves as "ahl al-Hadith"

just as the mutazilah called themselves "ahl al-adl wa al-tawHid" - there was neither adl in them nor tawHid.

simply because - these claimants to being ahl al-hadith are a novel bidati/heretic faction which has sprouted in the past 150-200 years in an environment of general ignorance. the hallmark of these heretics is that they do not follow any of the four major schools of fiqh embraced by imams and scholars from the past 1000 years at the least.

----
let us go back to a thousand years ago, starting around imam bayhaqi's time and list every hadith imam, every imam of tafsir and major scholar in any of the major sciences and mark against their name, whether they rejected taqlid of ayimmah al-arba'ah or whether they considered themselves as hanafis, shafiyis, malikis, hanbalis. even ibn taymiyyah's books explicitly mention the four madh'habs; he and his students repeatedly cite imam ahmad as their imam - and claim to be hanbalis.

from qaDi iyaD to ibn asakir to ibn al-jawzi to ibn SalaH and abu shamah to nawawi to izzuddin ibn abd al-salam to ibn daqiq al-yid to ibn jama'h to taqiyuddin subki to ibn rajab to ibn kathir to zarkashi to ayni to ibn Hajar to suyuti to zakariyyah al-anSari to haytami to ali al-qari to abd al-Haq dihlawi to shah waliyullah to shah abd al-aziz dihlawi, everyone was an adherent to a madh'hab.

ismayil paleed dihlawi - mayyit that came out from Hayy - was the first major heretic in indian subcontinent and who spoiled stupid people by asking them to 'interpret' hadith on their own. look at the product: we have a monkey-man on the internet jumping up and down like a chimpanzee acting as if he knows better than ibn Hajar and ibn al-athir. apparently, you are expected to throw away books of imam ibn Hajar, imam al-ayni, or shah abd al-Haqq or a zabidi and blindly follow a prancing monkey.

hello! we are not devbandis who cannot refute/reject ismayil dihlawi as a wretched heretic as he is their top-dog, promoted by their gurus.

----
when i listed a number of hadith commentaries, someone mentioned that the heretical wahabi/ismayili "shkollars" also have written commentaries; as if their commentaries are something new. i would estimate that 90% of the material in those commentaries is gleaned from classical commentaries - written by muqallids of the four madh'habs. the 10% (am being too generous with percentages) is the deviation of these heretic mubarakpuris etc. in which they try to force their filthy and putrid aqayid without rhyme or reason and attributing it to their tawaghit, whether shaykh najdi of diryiyyah or the shaykh najdi of dihli.

nas'alu Allaha al-afiyah.

 

https://www.facebook.com/dawahman/posts/1087046284694691