abu ja'afar hanbali (jurjis?)

i get immediately put off by those who blow their own trumpet, and by braggarts - particularly foolish people who think that they are smarter and more knowledgeable than all those great ulama who came before them. especially taymiyyites (those who fawn on ibn taymiyyah) in our time.

this man is so full of himself and appears to have all the arrogance of modern day hanbalites whose minds are so closed and inert, that they cannot think beyond the written word; and most of them are dry as moon-rocks. la Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah.

i have not listened to this newly linked talk fully, but i scrubbed here and there. the impression one gets from his overconfident interview is: 'there is no one who knows about tasawwuf and al-ghawth al-aazam better than me; most of those who call themselves qadiris in our time are liars.'

even though one may be compelled to say that only a prize idiot will make such a stupid claim, we have to wait until he produces his proof.

---
my question is: is this only talk or is there any book in which we can read more of this research on how shaykh abd al-razzaq was not a khalifah of sayyidi al-ghawth al-azam, and that all turuq that trace back to him are invalid, lies or deception?

for someone who tries to impress common non-arabs about his prowess in arabic (from his blog jurjis - or is it someone else?) and his mind-blowing ability to distinguish between four different ibn taymiyyahs, and his oh-so deep knowledge of al-ghawth al-a'azam, he claims that suhrawardy was from shaam. this, apart from many other mistakes in this short talk. ye munH aur masur ki daal. [not hiding behind urdu, but i couldn't immediately think of a better phrase].

of course, this is not a big deal. but i am just mentioning it... people think that recalling names and titles is a very big achievement.

-----
some of his rambling (like many others dissected on this forum before) that i intend to comment on:

@37.14

and this method of his, produced students and people of high calibre. because, this acted like... as a social network. he himself solved these things happening. that the khalifah was coming up short in his obligations and he was tyrannical anyway. shaykh abdul qadir jilani decided, that what i will do is i will take this on; i will take care of this myself; and he began to take these people on.​

@37:43

and this was the birth of what we know as the qadiriyyah. the qadiri tariqah. which is (some) a sort of a social group of people...bringing people together. to strengthen the people, part of society were either forgotten or neglected, and to bring them together; to nourish them, physically and spiritually. and cared for them.
​

@38.04

now, after his time you had other jama'aat that saw the utility in this. and in the same vein. such as moinuddin shishti* who comes from shaash in afghanistan, but he settled in ajmer india. he was another such one. you had umar suharwardy who was coming from shaam. and he taught people in the same way (vein?). then you had mohammed shah...shah mohammad...shah..baha'uddin shah naqshband who is coming from where today's turkey is and he did the same thing. so you had these jama'aat.

the naqshbandi jama'ah which became tariqah; suharwardy which became tariqah, the qadiris which were the very first, and then you had the shistis or the shashtis, who became one as well. and then you had shaykhs within these jama'aat which would help followers and would also do additional things besides that and the jama'ah came to be known as such and such and the shaykhs name would be added to that. so now there is like this double-barrel name.​

[* aH: no we are not blaming you for not pronouncing the farsi names properly; anyway, your arabic accent is not very spectacular either (at least in this talk - perhaps he talks fluently on other occasions, without the heavy american accent to his arabic heard in this talk. wAllahu a'alam)

===========

@39.12

right now, the issue...the issue that come with this. is that some of the slaves of Allah don't want to acknowledge that sometimes innovations creep into these things because as it got into later ages, people who were not scholars of revealed law entered into these tariqahs. and so now we had people saying well...this is my shaykh in fiqh but he is my shaykh in tasawwuf. he is a layman. or this is my shaykh in creed, and this is my shaykh...i am only going to study this...i am not going to study anything else.
​

@39:49

wait a minute..you are supposed to be...if you are a shaykh over these people, you need to be complete to a certain degree you can assess their needs. and address their needs. and that started to go away. part of the reason for that is
​

@40.03:

i give the cassette example.. but i think... that is more difficult for people who don't come up from cassettes. so i use this example might be easier.
​

@40.11:

if you are making a scanned copy of something on your computer and you use the original book. that will produce an exact replica. however, if you take a copy that you produced from the original and you give that to someone else to scan; and they scanned that. and then they take that copy.. there comes a time when the resolution starts to dim. the quality starts to get lost. and if you carry on enough generations, the original thing that was scanned or copied or put across is no longer legible or recognisable. to the first people or to those now. and this is what has happened to many of the tariqahs and which is unrecognisable whats happened to them. it's unrecognisable.​

----
the man says @ 41:07 about the khulafa of shaykh abdul qadir jilani:

"now, imam abdul qadir jilani raHimahullah for his khulafa, the people who taught his way, the tariqah, we know who they are, we know their names...muwaffaquddin ibn qudamah was one of them; abu umar al-maqdisi was one of them; abdu'l ghani ibn abd al-wahid al-maqdisi was another one; al-SarSari was another one; ibn idris (aydarus?) was another of them. so these were the people that were designated as khulafa, and anyone who does not follow on their (calibre?) is not teaching qadiriyyah...as we would say.​

@41.30:

now, this has then caused us today to see people claiming allegiance to the imam and we will ask them for where are they getting their practices or their ideas; how can we trace you back; and we trace them back - they don't reach those khulafa. in which case we have to dismiss them as liars. because we don't care if you trace his lineage back and say, well..we go back to abdul razzaq, his son. no; abdul razzaq al-jilani was the son of shaykh abdul qadir jilani, but he wasn't one of his khulafa; he wasn't his successor in knowledge. so that is what we want to know, we don't care about that. because..you can....there will be some people related to them. that is not the discussion. the discussion is the knowledge tree. not the nasab-tree in terms of blood. we want to know where did you get these practices from? how are you claiming these things? how did you come across this knowledge? if you cannot establish it, then you are dismissed.​

@42:35

well...most of the claimants today to the tariqah are liars. or if they are not liars, the commonality among them are deceived. as far as the qadiriyyah tariqah today, you will find most of the people today, that, will belong to a sub-jama'ah, which is known as the khalwati.

​

==========
in other words, except this fella and those whom he approves, all the qadiris of the subcontinent and haramayn for the past few centuries were all liars and had no link to the tariqah. not only is this man a disrespectful jahil, but it appears that even a whiff of the fayD of al-ghawth al-azam and the blessed aal al-bayt has not touched this gasconader. don't get upset, wait for some time until i shine light on his bluff.

for shame, all of this bluster is probably to sell his book, of which he speaks as it is the best thing in the english speaking world since sliced bread; an indian birdie told him. oh, wow! an INDIAN!

​

----
i found his idiotic analogy quite amusing, though not surprised as he speaks like a true literalist modern-day hanbali - so his petty mind cannot think of a better analogy than printed pages and photocopying (which he keeps calling 'scanning' and probably doesn't realise that we have 2400 dpi scanners and higher today).

---
if you thought that i would sit still after hearing his 'liar' accusation - just for perspective, this goat is calling alahazrat, shah aal-rasul marahrawi and his great forefathers up to sayyidi abdul waHid bilgrami and beyond as 'liars' and impostors. (the last one is implied, he didn't say it).

ik zara aur chiRakta rahe khaama tera...

[update: i had written most of above, but then got busy; today, i was stuck in a traffic jam, and found the opportunity to listen to this talk from the beginning, which i did for 20 minutes or so - apart from the bits and pieces that i have quoted above.

update 2: i have transcribed it honestly; if there is any mistake, it is because i might have misheard it due to the accent; please highlight and will be corrected promptly, in sha'Allah.]

 

He knows - see around 41:30 mark of the following:

 

takfir, apostasy and blasphemy are very important terms that can be potentially misunderstood; these terms should be understood well to understand the context of fiqh books and fatawa. many people in our time take advantage of the fact that these terms are not properly explained, and then throw about quotes sans context and strut with prime confidence about their own reading.

that some of the most prominent scholars of haramayn agreed with alahazrat's opinion about those statements, are conveniently glossed over.

keller's tract IKT is a prime example of such befuddling.

that is why i had to explain the terms first separately - and if you understand those two chapters well, the rest of the argument will make sense.

if not... wa billahi't tawfiq.

wa's salam.

 

that essay is a hollow and uninformed piece of braggadocio. to wit:

so divine immunity to scholars? are we not supposed to measure BOTH by established principles of fiqh and yardsticks like ijmaa?

one scholar states that blasphemy of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is kufr. NOW, if another scholar "disagrees" with this ruling, you simply keep quiet because of the conditions set in stone:

----
and of all the idiotic assertions, we are supposed to kowtow to scholars of our age! and what makes one a scholar? why should we even listen to a man like jurjis?

 

the bombastic bravado of jurjis fellow - i, me, mine (which is the prominent theme of his essay) - makes me think very low of his scholarly abilities. perhaps i am mistaken, but he seems to think that he is ibn taymiyyah of our time - and he thinks the best way to show it is to act with similar arrogance. look at how disdainfully and condescendingly he speaks of others. poor fellow, he thinks boasting about oneself in comparison to laymen makes him look bigger.

ibn taymiyyah was refuted in his own time and sent to prison for his heretical beliefs. just because ibn hajar al-haytami reported it after 200 years doesn't invalidate his opinion. (ironically, this jurjis fellow's opinion should be taken after 700 years, as if he is a primary source!)

dhahabi mentioned this in his zaghl al ilm (p42-43)



===
and not only deobandi elders whom we do takfir, even those who do not do takfir of those who uttered such statements will be ruled kafir by the opinion of the very ibn taymiyyah, jurjis miyan so adores. read his 'sarim al-maslul' if you wish.

mistaken and hasty takfir on people who commit bid'ah is not the same as takfir of insolent and blaspheming wretches.

 

@sunni_porter

 

sayyid sab, rest assured. nobody is gonna shut you down, least of all me. you are free to write or criticise within the bounds of shariah.

 

I said my part, now: Who's gonna have a go at shutting me down first?

 

Everyone should know that Jurjis, a.k.a. Abu Jafar 'aL hANBALI', is extremely muta'assib and he does not consider anyone to legitimately possess Qadiri lineage and spirituality unless he is Hanbali in fiqh. i THINK there is something along that line mentioned in the article on his blog.

"If the conclusion is retarded, the evidence is inconsequential"

 

yes, if you go by the qaTyi-confidence of jurjis miyaN, shaykh abdu'l qadir jilani did not give ijazah to his own son imam `abd al-Razzaq.

imam dhahabi says about him, "the son of shaykh al-islam abd al-Qadir ibn abi SaliH; the shaykh, the muHaddith, abu bakr (`abd al-Razzaq) al-Jili, al-baghdadi, al-Hanbali, the pious ascetic (zahid)." (siyar a'alam, dhahabi #5539).

jalaluddin suyuti in his Tabaqat al-Huffaz, lists him in the 17th rank of muHaddithin, with well-known hadith imams such as ibn al-jawzi, ibn bashkuwal, suhayli, Hazimi and others. (entry #1081). sayyidi `abd al-Razzaq passed away in 603 AH.

----
so according to the profound research and the single-handed vanquisher of a few dozen, who didn't dare to take a book from his hand, this valiant, erudite scholar, the research imam: most Tariqahs are invalid as they don't reach sayyiduna ghawth al-a'aZam via the three he mentioned; one more he doesn't know or doesn't merit mention.

now, let us go back to dhahabi again in his siyar, writing about ghaws al-a'zam (#5227), he cites ibn qudamah that he said: "...we met with the shaykh in the final years of his life."

so according to the jurjisi research, huzur ghawth al-a'azam would give ijazah to a scholar who met him in his later years but NOT to his own son sayyidi `abd al-Razzaq who was born in 528 and was forty-one when sayyidi ghawth al-a'azam passed away.

oh, btw, dhahabi mentions a number of names who narrate from the ghawth, INCLUDING his both sons sayyidi `abd al-Razzaq and sayyidi musa.

looks like the jurjisi researcher didn't bother to peruse the ijazat of the qadiri mashayikh of india, and most go via sayyidi `abd al-Razzaq al-Jilani or he doesn't know who sayyidi `abd al-Razzaq is.

wa billahi't tawfiq.

Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

i was like a lion in front of around 25 devbandis/sulh kullis. and i was reading the "mutaqad al-muntaqad", and they were all silent, perhaps their legs were quivering; i looked up and none would meet my eye. all of these ignorant people were sitting with their heads bowed - there was utter silence.

and i continued to silently read "mu'taqad" in the masjid where a bunch of tablighis happened to be during prayer time.

 

a condescending article written in a form similar to Rashid Rida's Muhawarat:

http://jurjis.wordpress.com/2011/01/26/the-trial-of-takfir-a-problem-for-some-sunnis-too/

Strawmen and unfounded accusations I can see but some technical terms are thrown in, most probably, to obfuscate.

 

in the video below, why are people calling in advertise their worship? isn't riya/show-off supposed to be haraam? isn't it against islamic iHsan to tell the whole world what how many raka'ah you prayed or how many dollars you gave in charity? saying it in front of five people is offensive enough, let alone on TV and youtube for posterity...

strange practices you have in UK...

 

but probably he is pro napak padri, his book on jihad gives you a hunch that he is pro padri and to some extent a sullah kulli, i remember he called in that book the revolution of iran an islami inqilab.

 

The programme can be seen here:



At around 30.00 another of his works is mentionned Madarij al Irfan fi Manahij Kanz ul Imam, is this available online?

 

Some people are hasty in doing takfir (declarimg Muslims kafir), while others refuse to state kufr is kufr, and also refuse to declare a clear cut kafir a kafir.

A'llamah Muhammad Chishti (student of Bandyalwi Sahib) has a written a masterful book on the subject called 'Usul alTakfir':

http://marfat.com/DownloadBooks/Asool-e-Takfeer/wqb.pdf

Here is the Shaykh doing a dars from Bukhari Sharif: