Pir Abdul Qadir Jillani Attacks Imam Bukhari

The link just makes a claim without any actual reference, can you pinpoint the exact narrations?

Marwan the known fitnah maker and the hater of Aale Muhammad is worthy of being mentioned in Bukhari yet the Pure Imams from the household of purity are ignored and we find no mention...........

to assume that Bukhari did not find a reliable chain of narration to Imam Ja'far does not make sense for he narrates from his students. Even if it is the case then why did he not narrate from the Imams who lived during his time, yes all four of them..........................It seems, and I stress the word seems, as if he purposefuly ignored the imams of ahl ul bait.

The point is that it is understandable why such treatment is construed as Step-motherly...............

This not a shia thing for our Prophet has ordered tamassuk to his noble household!! Come on my sunni brothers have you forgotten the tamassuk of our Imam Al Azam? I can not comprehend how despite the hadith of the Prophet a sunni will not go out and search for guidance from the household of the Prophet.................As I cannot believe that it seems that to seek out their teachings is a shia thing.............la hawla wa al quwwata illa billah.

 

I suggest you read the link I provided.

Anyway the point is he has narrated from the ahlul bayt, so this is a useless argument and a shia one too.

 

I am actually refering to Al Jami' (better known as Sahih Bukhari) where he (rahmatullahi alaihi) does not narrate from any one of the non sahabi Imams of ahl ul bait at all. He takes a mere 34 or so narrations from Hazrat Ali, one from Hazrat Fatimah and 2 from Imam Hussain.............but not one narration from the great Imams such as Baqir ul uloom Imam Muhammad Bin Ali Bin Hussain and Imam Al Sadiq (as) who without a doubt were the greatest scholars of their time, no scholar could even compare to them. Furthermore he does not take even a single narration from the four Imams who lived at his time. It seems (and I stress the word seems) as if a man who travelled the world searching for hadith chose to ignore the Imams from the household of Rasoolullah (صلى الله عليه وسلم)........................

 

AH what can i say. May Allah reward you for your efforts. The problem here is the lay just go along with what they hear and coming from someone who is the teacher of many Sunni 'ulama this is something need to clarify once and for all as I know the likes of Syed 'Irfan Shah and Syed Hashmi Mian are very clear on this issue.

The enemies will be laughing their socks off at us. I mean shah sahib is given many grand titles by Sunnis yet just this episode has exposed some of his 'ilmi short comings. I also find many of the 'ulama associated with him of being tafdhili types such as Syed Muzzamil Shah, Syed Munawar bukhari and the like who regularly appear on DM TV. Shah sahib is also in the process of launching "Sunni TV". They currently have a 3 hour slot on DM but apparently in the long run they are in the process of having their own platform. I feel sorry for the common sunnis amongst all this.

NJ have you heard some of Mufti Ansar ul Qadri's speeches. Now this guy is an absolute gem of a scholar. Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y92fppQ__s8

 

brothers, after i read all your posts i felt that this is another proof of the coming of qiyamah, for the prophet said true islamic knowledge will be lost and surely if our so called scholars make such big mistakes on issues of aqeedah then soon we will have no scholars. just some people who can talk big but have no knowledge as in the video you found many people saying subhanallah to what was utter rubbish.

 

Brother Abu al-Nasr al-Baraylwi

I need you to email me please to privately give some feedback on a few minor points relating to your doc.

my e-mail is a_faqir999@yahoo.co.uk

If anyone here has his email please let me know it.

Is the author of this piece the same Abu al-Nasr from this forum?

was-salam

 

I was initially delighted at the reconciliation --see my earlier posts. now i cannot see why: according to pir siddiqi shah sahib was a ' tafzili shia whose bayat was haram'. according to shah sahib's supporters including allama zahid hussain shah pir siddiqi was 'imam al khwaarij' and a 'nasibi' and just jealous. A bit later we suddenly learnt that they were going to be reconciliated with great fanfare live on satellite TV! cue, loads of sychophantic praise of each other in front of the cameras.

yet the original issue which caused this rift seems to have remained as these videos demonstrate. so was it just a stunt?

i think both pirs come out of it looking bad but, it has to be said, shah sahib has still kept to his original (controversial and idiosyncratic) position and not changed it and yet suddenly pir siddiqi has no problem with it anymore. pir siddiqi sahib comes out looking foolish...

and worst of all common sunnis watching on Tv and online will now think that since pir siddiqi saihb and shah sahib have made up both of their (contradictory) positions are acceptable and valid sunni positions on the ijma of the afzaliyyat of hazrat abu bakr and thus become more confused.

in time, the truth will out.

 

:s1:

Bravo, Sidi Abu Hasan. That is brilliant. What is really amazing is that it seems like virtually every other statement made by shah sahib was wrong or distorted or inaccurate.

May Allah bless you and give you a long life. On the Day of Judgement when Allah asks me about my deeds I can say, 'Abu Hasan was my friend!'

 

Shah Sahib’s speech is in red. My comments are as usual.

1. step-motherly treatment of bukhari with ahl al-bayt
Unproven. There is not a hadith in Bukhari that praises Yazid; and the below hadith does not prove that it is in the praise of Yazid either – just some people try to stretch this hadith which has been refuted by muhaddithin.

However, in Bukhari itself there are many hadith in the manaqib of ahl al-bayt:

3701 – 3716 are manaqib of Ali, Ja’afar, Abbas and in general the ahl al-bayt.

3746 – 3753 are manaqib of Imams Hasan and Husayn.
​

And when he mentions şahābah Imam Bukhari writes radiyallahu ta’ala anhu/anha with the names of all except with the mention of sayyidah fatimah radiyallahu anha and he writes ‘alayhā as-salām’

Is this step-motherly treatment with ahl al-bayt?

2. who is the rawi/rawiyah? Umm Ĥarām.
See here for a brief biography.

3. Umm Ĥarām does not have any rank in the grades of Muhaddithin; She is a very weak narrator.
She is a sahabiyah, a female companion of the Messenger şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam. Claiming that she was a weak narrator demonstrates an ignorance of hadith principles. Moreover, one of the most important narrators of hadith Anas ibn Malik also narrates from her. In one fell swoop, shah sahib is weakening the structure of hadith scholarship starting from Imam Bukhari to Bukhari’s narrators to Anas to his aunt.

And what about the hundreds, nay thousands of Muhaddithin who have been narrating this hadith without demur?

4. Concerning this subject, there is only one narration about this in entire Bukhari
No. there are at least 7 narrations which are quite related:

See:

2924 (hadith cited); and then
2789,
2800,
2878,
2895,
6283,
7002.

​

5. And she narrates this hadith in Damascus
In this very hadith, the narrator clearly says that he heard the hadith on the shores of Ĥimş. See the translation here.

6. She traveled for only one Hadith and this she traveled for the sake of Yazid.
Yazid was probably a one-year old when she undertook the journey and this Hadith was narrated (as Muhaddithin put the journey around 27/28 AH and Yazid was born in 25/26 AH according to sources) in Ĥimş as testimony to the truthfulness of the Messenger şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam.

7. The hadith is: ‘awwalu jayshin yaghzu madinata qaysara maghfurun lahum’
The hadith is incorrectly cited: this is a part of a longer hadith. See here. The correct wording is:

awwalu jayshin min ummati yaghzuuna madinata qaysara maghfurun lahum

​

8. She did this to prove that Yazid was Jannati
A slander.

Yazid was a one-year old child and why would she worry about him? It is quite probable that she might not even have known that Yazid existed. She traveled because RasūlAllāh şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam gave glad tidings to those who cross the seas for jihad and she did that in her eagerness to be a martyr.

Muhaddithin have refuted the idea that this hadith proves an exoneration of Yazid. See the sharh of hadith later.

9. Did anyone take this hadith in Madinah or she traveled to Damascus to narrate this Hadith? She traveled to Damascus rather.
Anas ibn Malik narrates from her in Madinah and anyway she did not travel to Damascus as mentioned above. She went to either Ĥimş or Cyprus.

10. Is it proper evidence near muhaddithin when a narrator is damascene and the virtues extolled in it are that of Yazid? Then how can you say that Bukhari has done a great favor.. (sarcastic). But he has done things with the progeny of the Messenger which he should not have done.
Another slander. Where does the hadith ‘extol’ the virtues of Yazid? And where did Imam Bukhari betray the progeny of the Messenger? ŞallAllāhu álayhi wa álā ālihi wa sallam

One muhaddith [al-Muhallab] wrote that this hadith ‘extols’ the virtues of yazid; and Al-Ayni quips: ‘And what ‘virtues’ of yazid are praiseworthy after his state is well-known?

11. This is a matter of aqidah and this is an event occurred in Madinah and there is no other narrator except her; [implying, how is acceptable]
The hadith is about Jihad and nothing to do with Aqidah. If you read the hadith in full, you will notice that it has nothing to do with aqidah. And the reason why there is no narrator except her is because of the situation, that RasulAllah şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam visited her in her own home.

12. How does she narrate this hadith?

a. RasulAllah şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam used to come to our home and I used to look for lice (in his blessed head).
This hadith does not have this word at all. There is another hadith, no.2788/2789 which mentions the words: ‘taflī ra’asah’. In Arabic idiom, it means to look for lice, a common activity in olden times.

b. When the Master şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam did not have lice at all, why did you (Umm Haram) look for it?
The word ‘lice’ itself does not figure in the hadith. Ulama say that it is not necessary for one to have lice so that someone doing an activity is only for that purpose. There are more explanations but we will see them in hadith explanations later, inshaAllah.

But the point is, Umm Ĥarām did NOT say that SHE looked for lice. It is in Anas’ narration that she did an activity which is commonly described as ‘looking for lice etc’.

c. ‘He used to come to our house’: Oh, sir! RasūlAllāh şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam would not go without invitation.
This is ridiculous. A condition whipped up on the fly. Where is it said that he visited only on invitation? If this be the case, then it is against their sunnah to visit friends without their inviting us.

Nowhere is such a stipulation found in our deen. On the contrary, there are hadith found in collections on the merits of visiting friends. Notice that visiting is different from invitation [ziyarat and da'awat]

Indeed, there are narrations that say RasūlAllāh şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam visited them and do not mention that he was invited in the first place. In fact, there are narrations where RasūlAllāh şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam visited his companions and the context of the hadith clearly indicates that it was not on invitation. For example when he visited Jabir (Bukhari, hadith 194) and Sa’ad in Makkah (hadith zzz)

For the sake of argument, let us assume that RasūlAllāh şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam did not go without invitation; only an explicit negative can prove that he did not. There is no harm in assuming that he was invited beforehand even if it is not mentioned in the hadith. If it is not mentioned, it does not mean it does not exist.

Whereas, there are other traditions that clearly say why RasūlAllāh şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam used to visit them (Umm Ĥarām and Umm Sulaym). Because their brother Ĥarām had been martyred and he visited the sisters to console them.

One cannot create rules just to prove a point.


d. Moreover these were women.
Ayni has written in detail why he could visit and one of the possibilities is that, these visits were PRIOR to the rulings of veil/ĥijāb. Other possibilities are that there was a foster-relation.

The point is, one cannot measure RasūlAllāh şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam according to rules. Rules are established on his account. If he did it and it is proven that he did it, criticising it or denying is not the act of a muslim. The only route left for us is to find a reconciliation.

I had spoken of adab of hadith earlier – that is, one should not reject a suspect hadith unless they are fully sure that it is rejectable. Because, if RasūlAllāh şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam has really said it, we risk rejecting the saying of the master şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam. However, when we have a hadith narrated by Anas and reported by Bukhari – the ruling above is much more serious.

But people think it is light to accept or reject hadith on their whims and fancies.


e. The verse of ‘ummuhat al-muminin’, the blessed wives of RasulAllah şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam are mothers of all muslims but still, it is obligatory for them to be veiled. No person is permitted to meet the blessed wives without veil, in spite of the fact that they are his mothers. So, the inclination of RasūlAllāh şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam is not that he would go to a woman while she were alone.
I don’t know how are these two related. RasūlAllāh şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam, whatever he does is guided by waĥy. A muslim does not impose restrictions on RasūlAllāh şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam. Rather if it is proven that he did something we need to realign our understanding.

Strange logic this. We were taught that if RasūlAllāh şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam did something, that itself is proof for the action; instead of asking whether he was doing it right, we ought to see what rulings are derived from his actions.

Inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji’un.

f. She was a foster-sister of RasūlAllāh; the narration of her being a foster-sister is not rigorously authenticated (sahih).
Actually, muhaddithin talk about her being a foster-aunt, not sister. Secondly, these are possibilities put forward to reconcile superficial problems in sahih hadith instead of rejecting sahih hadith like some people do, when it does not fit in their framework.

g. And it is weak possibility that he went without invitation.
See above. Nobody dictates what RasūlAllāh şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam does. And this statement is blatant iftara on RasūlAllāh şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam that he did not visit anyone without invitation. Al-iyadhu billah.

​

13. All the narrators (in this hadith) are all Damascenes.
Incorrect. Some of them are from Ĥimş [see Tahdhib al-Kamal of Al-Mizzi and Tadh’hib of Al-Dhahabi]. Actually, this hadith is special in it that all the narrators are levantine (shamiyyun). Let us investigate the five ruwwat in the hadith:

a) Is’ĥāq ibn Yazīd al-Dimashqī: Damascus; [he is actually Is’ĥāq ibn Ibrahim ibn Yazīd, if you look for him in rijal.]

b) Yaĥyā ibn Ĥamzah: Hadrami, but was the Judge in Damascus until he died in 183AH

c) Thawr ibn Yazīd is from Ĥimş.

d) Khalid ibn Mádān is also from Ĥimş.

e) Úmayr ibn al-Aswad al-Ánsīy himself says that he heard it in Ĥimş.

​

in'yitaf: about Khalid ibn Mádān, it is said that he said 40,000 tasbīĥ everyday. Dhahabi adds (in taz’hib) that when Khalid sat down none had the courage to mention worldly affairs out of his awe. His daughter (ábdah) says that when he lied down to sleep, he would remember and mention RasūlAllāh şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam and his companions immensely and with utmost yearning. He would say: ‘They are my first and my last; my heart pines for them, my longing for their meeting is immense. O Allāh, hasten me and take me towards them. He would say this until he would fall asleep saying this.

second in'yitaf: Though this point is not said in this clip, it is pertinent to comment about the narrator Úmayr ibn al-Aswad al-Ánsīy and shah sahib’s slander of the great muhaddith in another video (provided here) and an extremely pious man whom muhaddithin refer in deference as mina’z zuhhād al-kibār. [one of the greatest pious ascetics]

Úmayr’s name is originally Ámr and he is one of the most famous pious men of Syria; one of the oldest muslims in Syria and a Tabiyi. Damrah ibn Habib says that Úmayr passed by Sayyiduna Úmar and he said: ‘If it pleases anyone to look at the manner of RasūlAllāh şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam, then let them look at the manner of Ámr ibn al-Aswad.’ This is narrated by Imam Ahmed in his Musnad. [Shah Sahib extols Imam Ahmed and his Musnad in the same lecture].

Umar ibn al-Khattab is praising the man whom shah sahib rubbishes as a forger?

In another narration, Ámr ibn al-Aswad went to Hajj and then visited Madinah. Ábdullāh ibn Úmar saw him as he was praying and asked who he was; he was informed that he was a man from Syria (levant/shām). And he said: ‘I have not see a person who resembles RasūlAllāh şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam in his prayer, his manner, utter sincerety and humility [khushuú] and way of dressing more than this man.’

Khalid ibn Mádān reports that when Ámr ibn al-Aswad went out towards the masjid, he clasped his right hand with his left. When asked, he replied: ‘I am afraid that my hands will become hypocrites’.

14. But they say that she went with Sayyiduna Sáad.
As said, Sáad is not in the picture. She went with Úbādah ibn as-Şāmit, her husband.

15. But Sáad had already divorced her prior to the attack on Constantinople.
There is no question that Umm Ĥarām went with her husband Úbādah ibn as-Şāmit. If Úbādah ibn as-Şāmit had divorced her earlier, then surely she must have married another person before remarrying him again. If it is not recorded in a Sahih that is no reason to deny it. One ought to have Husn Dhann about our elders.

16. When it is not proven that Umm Haram had married another (halalah) such that she could remarry Sáad, then how did she travel with him?
So is a sahabi woman is suspected of wrongdoing just because some person 14 centuries later cannot find proof for it in his 'research'? I have said already that she was first married to Úbādah and he had divorced her; she married Ámr ibn Qays and he was martyred; and then she remarried Úbādah. raDiyallahu 'anhum ajma'yin.

at least, one should get their facts right before trashing them.


--------------------------------------------------------------
Laa hawla wa laa quwwata illa billah. wa billahi't tawfiq.
Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

I want to make 2 thing clear that I have been very clear from day one, that Pir Sahib often Insult Awliya and Mashaikh from Ahlus Sunnah, such as Imam Ghazali and Imam Bukhari and this cannot be allowed. There is no other objective at all ! As regarding the clip well it was thought that only the first 2 mins were questionable but our brother Abu Hasan dug alot out of the video. Keep this in mind I have gave the direct link of the video that 8 or 9min which is uploaded by Yanabi Team (Tahir Riaz). Why don't everyone compare the 2 videos and see if anything is added. Also now we will add the whole 8 min video rather than 2 min because the whole thing is wrong.

 

This is why i thought the whole reconciliation between shah sahib and Pir Sidiqqi was just a publicity stunt. Had shah sahib changed his beliefs which were previously classed tafzeeli. I'm accused of being negative but unfortunately i just thought the whole fanfare surrounding this was somewhat exagerrated as the whole tafzeeli issue wasn't even properly clarified.

 

Not necessarily.

 

does this mean that shah sahib ia a tafzeeli?

 

Allamah Abu Nasr has provided a devastating point by point refutation of Shah Sahib's talk on the issue of (so-called) difference of opinion amongst Sunnis on the tafdeel issue here:

http://209.85.122.83/2505/29/0/p1006798/Tashreeh.pdf

Now it is up to the other side --as muhammadi promised -- to respond.

 

re: Sidi Abu Hasan's last post: this begs the question why is shah sahib so famous then for his ilm? is it that our standard has sunk so low that we cannot differentiate the wheat from the chaff?

the common followers are blameless: most of them -- us included--are ignorant of the islamic sciences and if someone can speak eloquently they immediately go 'wah wah'. as sayyid irfan shah says it takes an aalim to recognise another aalim and only a wali can truly recognise another wali. perhaps people are confusing book learning with real learning? for example, i am a mathematician --now if i was to go into a mosque and lecture on quadratic equations, for example, i could talk complete tosh for an hour and elicit wah wahs UNLESS there was someone in the audience who knew maths too and recognised i was talking crap!

what puzzles me is how come other ulema don't see the mistakes that GFH has seen or others have seen? is it fear? Allah knows. All I can say is my own trust in speakers has been shattered!

 

ghayrat: in urdu means honour, dignity, self-respect.

 

whatever some admirers say, it is our responsibility - or what they used to call in olden days amanat al-ilm to state right or wrong.

i have listened to a few speeches of shah sahib and almost all of those are similar to this one - riddled with inaccuracies and mistakes. such kind of flourish might impress clueless admirers, but anyone with a basic education in islamic sciences will squirm at such floundering scholarship.

everybody makes mistakes, but it takes extraordinary learning to make a mistake in every sentence. people get worked up about shah sahib but have no feelings whatsoever towards the ilm of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam? the excuses that he has been rigorous somewhere else does not wash away the quackery in this clip.

shah sahib - who cannot even quote a hadith from bukhari properly - comments on the hadith scholarship of bukhari and his narrators! what is more, all based on false premises.

sub'HanAllah.

---
muhammadi below has requested an itemized list and here i will provide it, inshaAllah.

 

Yes, accusations are clear and obvious. Did I say he didn't? I only pointed out that it was inconsistent with what Shah Sahib himself elaborated in the longer lecture.

At one point in his lecture (see clip around 1:08:20), he mentions that this [hadith] is Imam Bukhari's fabrication (mangadhat) and then immediately correct himself that it would be difficult (mushkil) to call it Imam Bukhari's fabrication, rather it was Umair bin 'Aswad's fabrication.

It would have been less surprising (and more consistent) if Shah Sahib also launched attack (in his longer lecture) on Imam Bukhari to discredit the hadith. So what prompted him to do so in the shorter clip is something that only he can answer.

---

"mazaa aa jayega" is not in reference to Shah Sahib trying to set up an ad hominem attack on Imam Bukhari. If any, I interpret it as simple reference to those who call Yazeed radiyallahu anhu and use this particular hadith for proof (given the context of lecture). In all probability, it was meant for his audience who would 'enjoy' his exposition on the weakness of the hadith (and in the argument of defenders of yazeed) Those who have listened to Shah Sahib a number of times will tell you that Shah Sahib frequently uses mazaa aa jayega and exclamations like ahahaha in his speeches. Was this the only sore point in his lecture?

---

I'm not qualified to comment on the merit of Shah Sahib's daleel in the longer lecture. In all sincerity, none but brother abu Hasan is qualified to do so on this forum.