mawlana usaid ul haq badayuni (rahmatullah alayh)

actually all these liars also claim to be connected to Ala Hazrat

notwithstanding dreamland nisbah's to Ghawth-e-A3zdham, and Imam-e-A3zdham and false dreams mentioning the Prophet 3alaihis salam, claims to being Sayyids, possessors of karamaat, etc. etc.

just as broadly speaking, Sunniyat itself, and madhabs have been fuzzied by the wahabis, so too will the maslak-e-Ala Hazrat (which is of course also Sunniyat) be fuzzied by the sulah kullis. i assure you in probably another 10 years times (latest), people like this will come up with fantastical lies and sophistry about Ala Hazrat having laid the foundations for their sulah kulli agendas

right now, these people are a greater evil and a greater threat to Sunniyat, than the wahabis or the shias

 

i request other brothers to not drag this thread any further, and pray for molana usaid al haq, he might have some minor issues which we should ignore like envy with ridawi ulama or try to promote his forefathers higher than ala hazrat raDi allahu anhu. May Allah forgive him and unite ahlussunah against the pretenders and our enemies.

 

may Allah ta'ala forgive usaid ul haq sahib - he was a talented person and given a few more years, and a little more maturity, he could have produced beneficial works.

but only that which Allah ta'ala Wills happens.

إنا لله وإنا إليه راجعون

---
i tried to look for his controversial works, but i couldn't find PDFs on the internet.

his critical analysis of qasidatan ra'yiyatan, and response to the iraqi professor's literary criticism of alahazrat's qasidah are commendable; he has defended alahazrat's position well.

----
i browsed through the interview of tahir padri (the periodical of khushtar noorani) and it is nothing new - mostly "me, me, me"; i wonder how the other me-me mawlwis like PAQS tolerate him.

tahir rants about 'maslak' and the late usaid ul haq - may Allah ta'ala forgive him - has also said a similar thing in a speech.

regardless of the fact that i am a nobody, i have been saying this too - but i am not against saying 'maslak e alahazrat' either. because when everybody claims to be ahl e sunnat - for example the zandaqah of tahir is also claimed to be 'ahl e sunnat' and the mellow tafdilism of pir abdul qadir/zahid shah (which is now hand-in-hand with tahir) is also claimed to be 'ahl e sunnat'.

that rapscallion menk who shamelessly claims that the immaculate heart of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam was "purified from hatred and jealousy" describing the event when his blessed heart was rinsed with zamzam. (astaghfirullahi'l azeem - wa la Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah) claims to be "ahlu's sunnah".

everybody who is not a shia (or doesn't want to be known as a shia outwardly) claims to be ahl e sunnat today - and in the subcontinent, the only way to tell a proper sunni, is by their association with alahazrat.

people like usaid ul haq and some others may feel that their own great-grandfathers were stalwarts like alahazrat, or even greater than alahazrat; therefore, why should they associate themselves with alahazrat and not with mawlana faDl al-rasul, who was not only among the first generation of scholars who refuted wahabism but also respected and praised by alahazrat himself. (the astute reader will notice this undertone in usaid's critical analysis of qasidataan).

---
كم ترك الأول للاخر

how much the elders have left, for their followers to complete.

---
yes, mawlana faDl al-Haq and imam faDl al-rasul were the foremost defenders of ahl al-sunnah, but they were also in a time when they were not besieged from every corner. we do not belittle their efforts - wAllah, they laid the foundation of the fort which alahazrat and others built, and it is right to say that alahazrat could see further beyond, because he was standing on the shoulders of giants.

ironically, where usaid ul haq mentions (in his preface of qasidataan, p16) that "later scholars wrote glosses on his (imam faDl al-rasul's) books..." he misses the point that if it was not for alahazrat, the book mutaqad al-muntaqad would be lost. besides, the (then) extant copies were already riddled with errors. i say it again and again, the faDl of imams of like sayfullah al-maslul is indisputable, but without alahazrat to remind us, we would most probably be translating abu'l hasan nadawi's lies. if it was not for alahazrat, i don't think any group in the subcontinent would have escaped the fitna of nadwa sulah-kulli agenda. (illa ma sha Allah; wAllahu `ala kulli shay'in qadeer).

in nuz'hati'l khawatir, vol.7/1065, in his notice on imam faDl al-rasul ali miyaN abu'l hasan nadawi makes snide remarks such as: 'spent such and such a time, earning livelihood' until he says:

"he was a jurist and a debater; extremely prejudiced in (his) madh'hab; always fighting ulama and he was the farthest from following the sunnah, he aided bid'ah and he refuted the "ahl al-Haqq" - the righteous folk, (and siding with) his innovations; and was one who loved this world (dunya).

he would make takfir of shaykh ismayil ibn abd al-ghani al-dihlawi and he accused shah waliyullah muhaddith dihlawi of being naSibi and khariji; and criticised shaykh ahmed ibn abd al-Ahad al-sirhindi, the imam of mujaddidi tariqah and said: "these people are went astray and made people to go astray".
​

---
this is the standard approach of abul hasan nadawi (or his father) in the book - they spare no opportunity to tell bald faced lies in the 'biographical notice' of any scholar who has opposed that filthy cobbler ismayil dihlawi or devbandi hypocrites or the nadwatu'l mayn.

---
isn't it ironical that usaid ul haq wanted us to be soft and friendly with people who vilified his great-grandfather, but still kept a cold distance and maintained an air of superiority over those who defend/ed him?

it is unfortunate that usaid ul haq is not with us, and i am not one to speak ill of the dead unless (what i deem) is good for the ahl al-sunnah (wAllahu a'alam - wa billahi't tawfiq) but i hadn't heard much of what he had said until recently, after his martyrdom. [in spite of all this, in my opinion, he was talented, erudite and charsimatic; and since he was a sunni, he should be considered a martyr. may Allah ta'ala forgive him and have mercy on him. Allah ta'ala knows best.]

if he were alive today (or if i had seen these clips earlier) i would tell him: maslak e alahazrat is the same which teaches us that mawlana faDl al-rasul is an imam and a defender of faith; opposed to those who claim that he was a lover of dunya and farthest from sunnah.

-----
alahazrat had immense respect for mawlana taj al-fuHul - and when abdul haq khayrabadi mentioned him in unflattering words, alahazrat retorted sharply - and said: "it was your own father who first refuted wahabis in india".

no one among alahazrat's contemporaries tackled heresies and wrote with such authority and such depth or comprehensiveness as alahazrat. this is a fact regardless of the whining of chronic whiners - and the proof is in his books.

---
this is the age of media and show; and performers like tahir will be celebrated! sub'HanAllah, i have (regrettably) heard muslims quote film actors on some islamic topic; comparatively, pretenders like tahir have more respectability and authority for the mindless masses and they are overawed by the crowds and organisation of minhaji gatherings.

idiots who defend tahir should read the biographies of elders and compare tahir's antics: which upright scholar has ever behaved like a puppy in front of a corrupt rafidi politician (like benazir bhutto?) look at tahir meow as a kitten in the presence of "bibi sahiba".

which upright scholar has invited people from other faiths to proclaim their own religion? the emperor has no clothes and only juhala keep deluding themselves that he is wearing a fine garment.

tahir's example is like that of thamsanqa jantjie, the sign-language interpreter at mandela's funeral. anybody who didn't know sign-language did not know that he was a fake. and anybody who has not set themselves down to read qur'an or hadith will not be able to tell that tahir is a fake.

----
sidenote:
nawazuddin may not care about the adab, but his abbreviation looks as if- al-iyadhu billah - he is suggesting a plural for Allah sub'Hanahu wa ta'ala. if he is that lazy, why not just leave it unwritten?

wAllahu a'alam.

 

Can you please provide proof for this...

 

Inna Lillahi wa inna ilaihi raji'un

May Allah(s) Bless the shaheed Allama Usayd al-Haq and May Allah(s) bless him with the company of syed al-shuhada(a). Ameen! His great work will be remembered and cherished by posterity. He is a great loss to Muslims.

 

Karbala, Najaf are in the Shiite south, very safe for the Indian shiites to travel to, and Kazmein too these days. But Shaykh Usaid was travelling to a totally different part of Iraq, and a very dangerous part in the North [Diyala/Kirkuk]

Sulaymaniya is a a Kurdish Sunni city of 1.5 million in the North. Since Shaykh Usaid was travelling to it from Baghdad Shareef, he must be using one of two highways. One through Tuz Khurmatu, the other through Muqdadiya.

Since, he was half way through, that means he could have been martyred near Jalula (Arab Sunni)/ Khanaqin (twelver Faili Kurd). Or in Tuz Khurmatu [ Turkoman Twelver] That is a centre of Sunni / shiite militancy. Most attacks take place on pilgrims on the Muqdadiya highway these months, and near Tuz Khurmatu.

It could be local Sunni gangs who martyred him thinking of him as a Shiite pilgrim, or most likely qutbi wahabis who done it near Jalula. But it could be shiite murderers from Khanaqin or tuz, thinking of Shaykh Usaid and his family as wahabis due to the size of their beards.

 

inna lillahi wa inna iliahi rajiu'n, really a sad news.

 

may Allah accept him into Al-Firdaws.

 

has been martyred earlier today

Inna Lillahi wa inna ilaihi raji'un