Sayyidah e Kayinat

Discussion in 'Aqidah/Kalam' started by Unbeknown, Sep 14, 2020.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Razvi92

    Razvi92 New Member

    Fatwa of Darul Ifta Bareilly Sharif by Mufti Asjad Raza Khan demanding Pakistan government to release Jalali sahib also refers to Hazrat Fatima as Sayyida e Kai’naat.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    As aH said days ago, we'll ban him but will first show how shallow he is. AH did that in his now renowned style and Hasanayn Shah brushed it off like a fly in the nose! How shameless.

    Anyway, that's why he got to stay so long. Otherwise, we knew he's a troll long ago.
     
  3. sherkhan

    sherkhan Veteran

    I recently heard Mufti Fazl Chishti say that shias are worse than qadianis and kafirs (hindus/sikhs, as he defined it) in blaspheming and uttering filth. Shias have said worse, disgusting things about Allah (azza wajal), prophets and sahabas than all other groups combined. Their propensity (given their size, history and methodology) for mischief is worse.

    For all their rant against ideologically opposite nasibi/khwariji salafis, shias fear the barelwis/sunnis the most (since they are only ones to take initiative to routinely expose the sick rafidi beliefs).

    ---

    AbuS was entertained here for too long. Come to think of it; he was accusing abu "Hasan" of being a hater of ahl ul-bayt!
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2020
  4. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i have kept my promise.
    the filthy rafidi is banned.
     
  5. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    your post reminded me of a joke - a kabardiya (bhangarwala or scrap dealer) finds a bicycle pedal lying in a dump of garbage. he picks it up and brings it home, and tells the wife, "yeh pedal rakh le. is mein cycle dalwaenge."

    that's the way these tafzilis and pseudo-shiites work - they're just intellectual kabardiya's - they see a shiite belief that looks relatively better than the other shiite beliefs around it, they pick it up, and hope they can recycle it or put it to some good use. likewise, they also pick up pieces of scrap that they think they can utilize from the "usul of fiqh" of the wahabis, the tafseers of devbandi akabireen, a line of poetry or a tasawwuf point from Sunnis that would look awesome in its proper setting, an unheard of mawdu3 narration from some obscure source, etc. etc. and try to connect it all together.

    in the end, you come up with the intellectual equivalent of a product that looks like this:

    s-l1600.jpg
     
    abu Usman and Unbeknown like this.
  6. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    mujhe achanak yaad aaya...

    gangohi gave a fatwa that raHmatu'l li'l `alamin can be said to others on the basis of ta'wil. that is using it as a metaphor.

    hence on the books of gangohi they used to write: "raHmatu'l li'l `alamin" with his name.

    i assume muzaffar shah sahib has no problem with this. chalo devbandion se nahin magar let him begin using this phrase for mawla ali or Hasanayn.

    possible?
     
    Noori, Unbeknown and Aqdas like this.
  7. Waqar786

    Waqar786 Veteran

    I remember studying History at A-Level, and the old Poor Law Inspectors used to write the conclusion first, and then find proofs to support it.
    @AbuSulayman has decided (in his mind) with a little nudge from the likes of Pir Abdul Qadir Shah that Ahl ul Bayt are essentially Masoom. After this he will find evidence to support this position. This is a revisionist approach to conveying Sunni Aqaid and at best it is a bida but more likely it is trying to peddle Shia beliefs under the guise of 'tahqeeq' and 'broad' nature of Sunni Islam.

    What the reader does needs to realise that his questions are loaded? He claims that he follows the Jumhur position that the Shaykhayn are afdhal then repeatedly insinuates that Syeduna Ali did not want to follow their way. He of course will argue that we are not aware of his heart and he is just asking a question. He is not, he wants us to accept there is divide and of course that the Ahl ul Bayt were correct in each and every incident, small or big. Peddling Rafzi thought. The way of the Sunnis is to present the love and connection between both.

    Unsurprisingly, Pir Abdul Qadir Shah is the master of this thought. The disclaimer comes first, I believe the afdhaliyat of the Shaykayn, so please don't forget that. Then the rest of the speech we will see that position getting deconstructed. This is why the brothers are mentioning Taqqiya.
    Another good example is how the Deobandis present their elders. Uthman Deobandi will proudly exclaim that anyone who believes another prophet can come is a kafir and then go on to extol the virtues of Qasim Nanotwi and Tahzir un Naas.

    Sunnis need to wake up to this revisionism and this deceit/theft of our principles by people who claim to be Sunnis.
     
    Unbeknown likes this.
  8. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    who said it is not about caliphate? this particular citation/translation and my objection it is about nepotism. hazrat umar feared that people would accumulate power and strengthen their bases by appointing their own kin. for he was at a different level altogether... and from a different age.

    by the time we come to the bay'ah of hazrat uthman, able people - the likes present in hazrat umar's time have gone. so hazrat ali refused the condition that he would not employ anyone in banu hashim, and historical facts support him. for example, he had hazrat hasan and husayn - who can doubt their abilities? agreeing to the condition of hazrat umar would mean these two REAL princes wouldn't be helping mawla ali, which no one in their right minds would think was a sensible thing to do.

    wAllahu a'alam.
     
    Umar99, shahnawazgm and Unbeknown like this.
  9. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    we are not done yet. we have 4 more references to check. actually they are all ONE reference, but let us not be lazy.

    ======================================

    “I said to Abdul- Rahman ibn Awf that: why did you swear allegiance to Uthman and forsook Ali? He answered that: “I went to Ali first and told him that: I swear allegiance to you based on Allah’s book, the tradition of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم.) and the way of life of Abu Bakr and Umar”. Ali said: “if I become your guardian, I will follow Allah’s book and the tradition of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم.)”.[1]

    [1] - Musnad ibn Hanbal, vol. 1, p. 162, tradition no. 557; Al- Muntazim, vol. 4, p. 337; Tarikh al- Islam lil- Zahabi, vol. 3, p. 304; Tarikh al- Khulafa’, p. 182.

    ======================================

    so here is from al-muntazam of ibn al-jawzi. 4/337. luckily i have access to the same version.

    muntazam, v4p337.png



    we check tarikh al-islam of al-dhahabi, 3/304. same edition, same volume, same page.

    tarikh,zahabi, v3p304.png

    then comes tarikh al-khulafa of suyuti, a different page as i have a different edition. p.124 "the pledge of allegiance to uthman"

    tarikhulafa, suyuti, p124.png

    ----
    as you can see all of these three point to the same source: musnad imam ahmad, reported by abi wayil.

    here is my attempt at translation:
    ===================================

    abu wayil says: i asked abdu'l Rahman ibn `awf: how did you pledge allegiance to uthman and left out ali?

    he replied: what could i do? [lit. what is my fault?]

    i started with ali and asked him: "i will pledge allegiance to you upon the Book of Allah, and the sunnah [tradition] and the example of abu bakr and umar. he replied: "as much as i can".

    then i presented this to uthman, who said: "yes".

    ===================================

    so where is this portion in the above three references?

    Ali said: “if I become your guardian, I will follow Allah’s book and the tradition of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم.)”.

    he [hazrat ali] only said: "to the best of my ability".


    when you string it in the sequence presented to us by our friend,

    1. you see the claim that three times it was presented to him and he refused.

    2. reference from 4 major sunni scholars given where hazrat ali is purported to have avoided the promise to be in accordance with the life/rule of abu bakr and umar.

    3. a reference where an express rejection is mentioned: "by Allah, i will never agree..."

    ---
    easy to hoodwink layman like abu sulayman.

    oh, btw, here is the main quote from musnad ahmad:

    msndahmd, v1p560.png


    in the footnote it is mentioned that this specific report by abi wayil is weak.

    however, in the footnote another narration is mentioned where hazrat abdul raHman is reported to have repeated the offer thrice to hazrat ali and which he replied CAUTIOUSLY. not a refusal to abide by the sunnah of khulafa before him.

    even in this narration, it is said: hazrat ali replied: "no. i will follow to the best of my ability".

    NOTICE - that he did not say: 'i will follow qur'an and sunnah; but abide by the lives of earlier khulafa according to the best of my ability'

    EVEN such a statement is fair - but here mawla ali is being circumspect and cautious. the path of the greatest men is in being circumspect and cautious. so mawla ali only said: "TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY". and this includes, following the book of Allah and the sunnah of RasulAllah!

    if anyone claims 'rejection' - this narration would imply hazrat ali rejected following the Book and Sunnah (ma'azAllah!).

    ====
    finally, why did hazrat uthman accept when hazrat ali was cautious? hazrat uthman was no less in ma'rifah than hazrat `ali; besides he had guarantees from the Prophet SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam: "after this day, anything uthman does, will not hurt him". [sahih hadith from jamiy tirmidhi]. so perhaps he had a different perspective. besides, we believe that Hazrat uthman is superior to mawla ali.

    Allah knows best.
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2020
    Umar99, Unbeknown and Aqdas like this.
  10. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    so why did abusulayman use this particular citation?

    because it is conducive for his magic trick. it has the 'rejection' of ali, though it is in a different context. you can use other hadith to build a context and use this 'narration' to cite the 'express words of rejection'.

    ---
    let us go a little up in this same narration. the line where i begin citing hazrat uthman, let us read a few lines above this:

    imamah, v1p44.png


    ====================

    miswar ibn makhramah [continuing his narration] says:

    he [abdul raHman ibn awf] came to me in the night and found me sleeping. i came out to meet him: 'do i not see you sleeping? by Allah, my eyes have not rested these past three days [or able to catch a wink in these three days]; go call so-and-so [among a group of muhajirun] - and i called them. and he parleyed with them in the masjid, where he had a lengthy meeting; and then they stood up and left that meeting.

    then he called ali and had a lengthy conference with him; and he [ali] then left him with hope. [the word used is Tama'a].

    then he said: 'call uthman for me'. i called him and he had a lengthy meeting with him until the time for dawn prayer, whence he [uthman] left.

    then everyone of them prayed the morning salat together.

    thereafter he [abdu'l Rahman] gathered them and took a covenant from each one of them [al-`ahd wa'l mithaq] that "if i pledge allegiance to you, you will uphold the Book of Allah, the sunnah or RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam and the sunnah of your two companions [i.e. abu bakr and umar] before you.


    EVERY ONE OF THEM AGREED TO THIS AND GAVE HIM THE PROMISE AND COVENANT.


    also, that "if i pledge my allegiance to anyone other than you, you will accept it and your sword will be on my side against whoever rejects"

    SO THEY GAVE HIM THAT PLEDGE AS WELL.

    ========================
    after this comes the part translated below.

    in this narration, it clearly says that hazrat ali agreed and pledged to the condition of being in accordance with the tradition of hazrat abu bakr and umar!

    where is the proposal 3 times and rejection 3 times?

    as for the condition that hazrat ali rejected, it is clear to you why.


    ---
    one itsy bitsy detail about this narration in kitab al-imamah; there is no isnad for this narration. none. nada. zilch.

    wAllahu a'alam wa ilmuhu atam
     
  11. AbuSulayman

    AbuSulayman Banned

    at least shaykh AH is not abusive and a gentleman. as he mentioned i don't have time to go through all the books to find all the references --which some on here like waqar786 were clamoring for -- so cut and paste is easier sometimes. besides it is a well known fact of history that hazrat umar ibn abdul aziz gave fadak back to imam baqir (a.s.) and the ahlul bayt of the time.

    so instead of calling me a rafidii so and so -- im a sunni alhamdulillah--, or assuming i am hasnain shah doing taqiyah-- i am not hasnain shah but he is a brother i love and share his husayni sunni aqidah --just answer those questions.

    ==

    during the time of karbala, kufa was a majority sunni city split between the shia of uthman and the shia of ali. the only shia were those who supported imam ali politically. imami shia (raifdis) didn't even exist then. they came later.

    ==
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2020
  12. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    now that we have seen that the book imamah is utterly unreliable. but anyway, why did abuS quote this here.
    it is a technique of leading an unsuspecting reader towards an agenda, and quickly doing a sleight of hand by distraction.

    allow me to demonstrate:

    ----
    here is the claim:
    the full quote is as below:
    =============================

    CLAIM:

    can i answer your question with another question? after the death of hazrat umar, when hazrat abdur rahman ibn awf asked hazrat ali 3 times if , if he was made caliph, he would rule according to qur'an and sunnah and the sunnah of the previous 2 caliphs, three times mawla ali said yes to the qur'an and sunnah but no to the bit about following the previous 2 caliphs. why?
    =============================
    emphasis mine.
    and as anyone should ask, he was asked about the proof and he provided two citations. the first one followed by the second. now an uninitiated observer would think that the claim was made good by the two citations because they are strung together to appear so. this is the magician's trick.

    ----
    we need to separate the two quotes and should not be read like our friend has quoted [clicking the small down-arrow in the quote will lead you to the post] :
    so we begin with the second reference, which is quoted thus:

    It has been stated in the book of Al- Imamah wa al- Siyasah that Abdul- Rahman ibn Awf took Uthman’s hand and told him that: “be morally responsible for Allah’s word if I swear allegiance to you, you should follow Allah’s book, the tradition of His Prophet and the lifeway of the two former caliphs, and you should also accept Umar’s condition, that is, you should make none of Umayyads caliph”. Uthman said: “I accept”. Then Abdul- Rahman took Ali’s (a.s.) hand and told him that: “I swear allegiance to you based on Umar’s condition; that is you should make none of Hashimites caliph”. At this moment, Ali (a.s.) said: “you cannot force me to accept this condition. I am just responsible for trying to improve the nation of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم.), if I find ability and trusteeship [in some one] anywhere; I will ask him for help, whether be from Hashimites or not”. Abdul- Rahman said: “I swear to Allah, no [I do not swear allegiance to you], unless you promise to do this condition”. Ali (a.s.) said: “I swear to Allah that I never promise you to do this”.[2]
    --------------
    [2] - Al- Imamah wa al- Siyasah, vol. 1, p. 45.


    ===
    let us ignore for the moment that the book is chock full of mistakes and is a spurious attribution to ibn qutaybah, YET, inasmuch as this quote is concerned, which is provided by the aggrieved party, it does not mention:

    - hazrat abdu'l raHman asking hazrat ali three times to the bit about following previous 2 caliphs.

    - hazrat ali rejecting the same three times.​

    what was said however is that hazrat abdu'r raHman asked hazrat uthman to accept hazrat umar's condition that he will not make his kin [i.e. banu umayyah] authorities ruling over people - which he accepted. he posed the SAME condition to hazrat ali about HIS KIN [i.e. banu hashim] authority upon the people, which hazrat ali did not accept.

    WHY?

    it is mentioned in the passage itself: 'i will employ whoever i deem fit who is strong and trustworthy for the benefit of people, whether among banu hashim or others'. this is clear to all of us because none of disagrees that hazrat ali was a better judge. sub'HanALlah! when RasulALlah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam HIMSELF said: "aqDakum ali" - ali is the best in judgement. and when abu bakr and umar sought his opinion in spite of his being younger than them. how can one forget the memorable saying of hazrat umar who said: "we would perish if it were not for abu'l Hasan [meaning hazrat ali]".

    so it is natural that hazrat ali would not accept this condition. BUT this is not about following the sunnah of the first two khulafa'a.

    NOTICE, the translation talks about making khalifah (or handing over khilafah after him) as the translation incorrectly portrays and it is clear from the passage itself (in the translation above):

    "if I find ability and trusteeship [in some one] anywhere; I will ask him for help, whether be from Hashimites or not."

    obviously, this is not about handing over the khilafah or making someone else a khalifah.

    =====================================================
    let us try our hand at the translation


    ...he took the hand of uthman and told him: "[make] a solemn promise and a covenant by Allah if i swear allegiance to you, you will rule over us by the book of Allah, the sunnah of His Messenger and the sunnah [tradition] of your two companions and THE CONDITION OF UMAR [sharT] that you will not appoint anyone among banu umayyah to lord over people [ala riqabi'n naas / have position of authority].

    uthman said: yes.

    then he took the hand of ali and said: "i will pledge allegiance upon the condition of umar that you will not appoint anyone among banu hashim to positions of power [give them authority over people].

    ali said at this: i won't accept this even if you smite my neck. because i will strive to work for the ummah of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam, and whoever i see strong and trustworthy, i will take their help - whether from banu hashim or others.

    abdu'l raHman said: by Allah, until you accept this condition [i won't do ba'y-ah/pledge allegiance]

    ali said: by Allah, i will never accept this condition.

    so abdu'l Rahman left.

    =====================================================

    it is clear that hazrat ali did not accept THAT CONDITION.

    so the claim of rejecting the sunnah of first two khulafa is wahm - mere fantasy.

    imamah, v1p45.png
     
  13. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

  14. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    kufi la yufi
     
  15. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    you just wait. the sleight of hand has the fingerprints of hasnain imprinted upon it.

    he throws a quote, mentions reliable sources [which are pending examination] and throws the 'imamah siyasah' book attributed to al-dinawari. i don't think he has the ability [or the patience] to examine sources - he routinely picks up lies from the shiah [easy to cut-paste] and gets swatted for it here and he disappears.

    the good thing, is he gives us an opportunity to do research and debunk his lies - borrowed or own.

    let us first check out ibn qutaybah and the book attributed to him. in-sha'Allah wa bi tawfiqih.
     
    Umar99, Unbeknown and abu Usman like this.
  16. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    @Waqar786

    be-aware that you are dealing with a kufi here - the same bunch that invited Imam-e-Aali Maqam (raDyiAllahu 'anhu wa arDa anna bihi) and then deserted him.

    This utterly devastated group counts taqiyyah as a fundamental belief!

    If you notice the categorization - taqiyyah is listed under "Islamic Beliefs" - rather than jurisprudence or any other category.

    is it surprising then that DabbuJi is playing mean tricks simply to sully our forums with rafidi propaganda?

    It would be surprising if the guy didn't do it - a BIG departure from kufi tradition ...
     
  17. Waqar786

    Waqar786 Veteran

    it does not matter who he is. He has put forward a claim that is 100% not a Sunni position, where he has tried to play clever with the ijtihadi angle to differentiate his position from the Rafzi position. Now why would one do put a claim that Sunnis don't put forward. In the same way he indicted Abu Hasan, we must conclude it can only be hidden hatred for the Shaykhayn. This is made clear when he poses his first question that why did not Sayiduna Ali not agree to the third condition, even though with a check online, favourable interpretations can be found. He poses it as a question so this inner hatred does not come apparent or maybe like the Rafzis, he wanted to hear a negative comment either about the Shaykhayn (to prove his point) or about Sayiduna Ali to give further propf of our 'Nasb'.
    Do yourself a favour either study with Sunni schlars or just say it straight that you hold Rafzi beliefs.
     
    Unbeknown likes this.
  18. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    Those words are very reminiscent of hasnain shah, plus they don't look nice coming from someone claiming to be an honest person and an admirer of Ahlul Bayt, yet sneakily copy-pastes shia "research" as his own
     
  19. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    your taqiyya is wearing off,

    regardless if you're hasanayn himself or if he's sitting next to you telling you what keys to press, Mr. 'I don't have time to list all my sources and i am just a layman'
     
    Unbeknown likes this.
  20. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    the stench of rifD cannot be concealed by swallowing or pouring litres of perfume on oneself. hasnain has an itch and we need to help him.

    ----
    this book al-imamah wa'l siyasah is spuriously attributed to imam ibn quTaybah al-dinawari (d.276 AH), which was most likely written by a rafiDi and attributed to him; or if it is indeed his book, there are generous insertions by a rafiDi.

    ----
    see a separate thread on ibn quTaybah and the spurious attribution of 'al-imamah' to him.


    [update: link here: http://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/ibn-qutaybah-al-dinawari.14599/]
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2020
    Umar99 and Unbeknown like this.

Share This Page