How Ahl al-Sunnah were infiltrated by rifd

Discussion in 'Refutation' started by Aqdas, Aug 17, 2022.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. FaqirHaider

    FaqirHaider اللَه المقدر والعالم شؤون لا تكثر لهمك ما قدر يكون

    Clarity : I don't agree with jumbling Hazrat Mu'awiya's intention with that of his followers or a group of rebels who sided with him, this is the narrative that is being pushed by this camp, is that Hazrat Mu'awiyya was of the same nefarious intention as the camp who killed Sayyiduna Uthman. They push a narrative that tries to include Hazrat Mu'awiya in the "group of rebels" in the Hadith of Ammar (radhiallahu anhu), also Mulla Ali Qari does point out that ta'weel done by Hazrat Mu'awiya as weak and infact a tahreef . His followers (or at least a group among them) were indeed rebels and Sayyiduna Ali was right in pointing this out (this is the truth), all Hazrat Mu'awiya had to say afterward was that (not "all" of us are rebels), and he is right in this regard, because his intention was different from his followers, even if it was only him , them he isn't wrong to say" not All", however far reaching it may sound to the contender. Despite Hazrat Mullah Ali Qari's strong objection It is my understanding that this action of Hazrat Mu'awiya vindicates him from being in line with his follower, since he tried to do taweel/tahreef however far fetched and enough for people to have reservation, since this point would have been made known to Sayyiduna Ali , but we know Sayyiduna Ali's ethical and moral demeanor being unmatched did not say anything out right (like how these camps end up doing.)

    We have been given a simple guideline, there isn't ever a need to discuss Sayyiduna Ali in comparison to Hazrat Mu'awiyya (ever), the difference is a thousand folds, those who persist in doing so "to sieve out" ridh or the like are opening a can of worms. Also for "laymen" or even elite who are born into Islam, and have been granted the favor and blessing of Islam without effort, it is a shallow and petty move to nit pick on the conflict found in these matters, only to fancy their own image of "taqwa," or "understanding," especially when the reality is they are are far form what they imagine themselves to be, and they seem to have a confirmation bias in the sense that they believe had they lived in the time they would see the truth as clear as day, and would have sided with Sayyiduna Ali with 100% certainty.

    Ill post the reference here :
    IMG_3810.jpg
    IMG_3808.jpg
    IMG_3809.jpg
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2020
  2. FaqirHaider

    FaqirHaider اللَه المقدر والعالم شؤون لا تكثر لهمك ما قدر يكون


    Yeah I become aware, he is of the camp that calls Hazrat Mu'awiya "AND" his camp baghi. Which I neither subscribe too, and Alhamdullilah Sayyid Irfan Shah Mashhadi lecture's and debates served valuable in this.

    But it is no "demeaning" matter when it is said Hazrat Mu'awwiya was mistaken (khata') in ijtihad , as for his camp then all the sahaba with him were on the same wrong ijtihad or that there is no comparison in the ranks of Hazrat Mu'awiyya and the Khulafa, or the Asha'ra Mubashara. As for be ghuna, I think its fair to say that not all Sahaba are mahfooz but as for us laymen and "more khatar kar and guna ghar," it should not bother us and we should rather focus on ourselves and leave that topic all together (ma la yani). It would indeed be a shia trait to go extensively into the history and biography of each sahabi (often the ones who had little to no sohbat with the prophet ) and start nit picking to prove a point.

    Sunnis should be aware of the contenders points, especially if they live near or around either Shias or Tafzilis, and understand its proper context and refute them, but to simply dismiss the notion that mistakes were made under the pretext mistakes that they are ijtihadi mistakes is not strong defense especially since not all Sahaba are Mujtahids.

    I've been seeing two camps arising one that in the name of sanctity of "ALL" sahaba end up shying from drawing the line, and then the other party who in the name of "honoring" the "AHL-e-Bayt/Ahle-kisa" (mihajis and co. ie wajahat) cross the line without hesitance.

    Dawat-e-Islami (may Allah preserve them in their good work) ended up in the fist camp as a counter measure to the second camp by their slogan (be ghuna be khata') but they made ruju when the point was brought out, and this is Hazrat Ghazi e Millat (hafizullah)'s video on this



    There are definitely double standards held by some people, for Instance Mufti Hanif, would comfortably say Hazrat Mu'awwiya was wrong (ijtihad/mistake) in the matter of Siffin, which is the proper and correct, both empirically and logically , but then there is "jijahk" or hesitance when it came to the recent issue of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and Sayyidatuna Fatimah"(radhiuallu Anhuma), and the answer isn't so clear cut anymore ? How come? (as in , Clearly the correct "Ijtihad" was with Sayyiduna Abu Bakr).

    I would like some clarity, is holding this position "alone" considered Tafzili? I thought tafzlili (as the name would suggest) was contingent on Holding Sayyiduna Ali (and or Ahle Bayt) afzal in rank over Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and Sayyiduna Umar (radhiallahu'anhum ajmaeen).

    I am familiar that holding Sayyiduna Ali over Sayyiduna Uthman is a sunni position although some people even feel sensitive over this issue.
     
  3. YaMustafa

    YaMustafa Well-Known Member

    Wajahat hussain is not sunni. He is tafzili at the least. He insults hazrat muawiya. Self-studied.
     
  4. FaqirHaider

    FaqirHaider اللَه المقدر والعالم شؤون لا تكثر لهمك ما قدر يكون

    I can definitely see the same approach (after listening to more videos It becomes apparent :

    In response to what Dawate Islami did regarding on the Manaqib around Hz Mu'awiya) and would presume it is the same individual, that is why I listened with a critical approach, but It did not propel me to change my stance on any position that already I was ware of regarding Hazrat Mu'awwiyah and Sayyiduna Ali (raziallahu anhum), but I think anyone who does go into such matters with full dept, granted guidance of Allah be with him, will acknowledge the validity of the point brought about in the discussion from each party , but no conclusion would end in justifying recreational criticism of the Sahaba.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2020
  5. Truth Seeker.

    Truth Seeker. New Member

    As Salam o Alaikum Brother.

    There was a person named Wajahat Hussain Hanafi who used to be a great admirer of Tahir Ul Qadri (since 2/3 years ago). I think he is the one.
    It will be better if anyone could confirm?
    I don't recognise him by face.

    And there are a few videos in the last regarding Hazrat Muawiya Radhi Allaho Anho. I haven't seen the videos but I fear they might be sharing the same approach and inadequate way of addressing Hazrat Ameer Muawiya Radhi Allaho Anho like Tahir Ul Qadri.

    I haven't seen his fb posts for a long time. He is also one of the few firsts who started following Atabek (Al Hanafi -Al Nasafi). And many of the Indian and Pakistani people started following him. From there many of the laymen like me and others got confused. Their party used to consider India Subcontinent's Hanafi Scholarship just the blind followers who don't know anything about Hanafi principles. Atabek brought the issue of denying of the Black Magic (perhaps he stated it's the only true position), making all the great scholars of Hadees seem to be just the ordinary men who know nothing great about Islam (Theology), they are highly critical of Hadees books and perhaps they consider book Hanfi Principles of Testing/Anaysing the Hadees (I don't remember exact name of the book) by Atabek to be the only great source on analysis of Hadees e Pak. Atabek was the one who falsely claimed that Shifa Shareef contains inappropriate language (Perhaps, Hazrat Abu Hasan refuted that false claim as well), criticised almost all the Barelwi Sunni people. I have seen people like them critising (just like one who criticises Bareilwi work) works like Ja'al Haq (they seem to have thought about it in terms of being za'eef hadees in it). I fear they might not be agreeing with Ala Hazrat's Hussal ul Harmain.
    Ironically that Wajahat Hussian Al Hanfi seem to be apparently a great lover of Ala Hazrat. I remember one of the comments from the posts of their like minded people saying that Ala Hazrat's people/progeny might have hidden the books of Ala Hazrat (perhaps they expect that Ala Hazrat might have written some thing which they may like, like their self claimed rational approach of being Hanafi/Maturidi etc).

    They along with Atabek seem to the only true Maturidi (along with being the only Hanafi) as per their posts.

    Perhaps they believe that even Asharis are not upon the truth. They (followers of Atabek) often say that Asharis took the Mutazili position. That too is refuted by Hazrat Abu Hasan.
    Though I am just a layman and I have just read/learnt a few things through Hazrat Abu Hasan and other lovers of Ala Hazrat through this forum.


    It was Hazrat Abu Hasan (May Allah bless him more and more) who dealt with Atabek in his great knowledgeable and in his irrefutable way. It was he who refuted Atabek and Tahir-ul-Qadri.
     
  6. FaqirHaider

    FaqirHaider اللَه المقدر والعالم شؤون لا تكثر لهمك ما قدر يكون

    I came across this page by a brother named Wahjat Hussain al Hanafi , who seems to be tackling the Nasibi tendencies and the like in hadith and their Rawees, but it maybe misconstrued to be seen as Tafzili. I personally didn't come across any issues in the videos I have seen so far (3-4 videos) but I can see how Tafzli'is and others can take these contentions and present their opinions with more credibility. But I would like to ask if any learned brother's here know more about the person in question.

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3Fgk21fAAETiTHlkUSpM7w/videos
     
  7. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    Yes. Don't know if someone has said it but I will: Sayyid Muzaffar Shah Sahib and Sayyid Noorani Miyan son of Sayyid Hashmi Miyan shouldn't appear with Tasleem Sabri or Shabaz Qamar Fareedi.

    If they need to make a public point, do it on another platform. We don't need to appear with sulh kullis and rafidi types.
     
  8. Yaseen

    Yaseen Active Member

    I've never really watched any of dr jalalis speeches. However following the recent controversy I've watched all his responses and to me he comes across as someone loyal to the principles of ahle sunnat. What's really disappointed is people accommodating the tafzilis/minhajis in refuting dr jalali. People like tasleem sabri who's a big admirer of dr tuq..
     
  9. YaMustafa

    YaMustafa Well-Known Member

    Wasn't the tafzili belief being preached since the very early 2000s by pir abdul qadir? I know he has always believed in afzaliyyat of Siddiq e Akbar but the tafzili belief has always been a valid sunni position according to him. This you can even find in their fatwa book by their senior mufti who has now passed away. At one point pir abdul qadir was considered the most learned and biggest pir in the UK. Alhamdulillah for figures like Pir Irfan Shah who refuted his misguided positions.

    This belief gained popularity after mamduh's book release and was translated in pakistan. In recent years the belief is now prevalent in jahil 'khanqahs' in india.
     
  10. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    This is important right now because we see rifd being spread on Sunni stages without anyone battling an eyelid. Pirs, molwis, naat khwans and Facebookers - all pushing rifd under the Sunni banner.

    Awaken, Sunni.
     
  11. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

Share This Page