Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Aqidah/Kalam' started by Nawazuddin, Feb 2, 2017.
And also when his dad said that kufr has come from within Sayyeduna Adam Alaihi Salaam (Nauzubillah) ? Not to mention the numerous other fallacies done by his dad...
May Allah protect us from these rafizis.
BTW, @Nawazuddin, did you get threads 'heating up' when Abdul qadir Shah attacked the one GREATER than Mawla Ali, namely, Siddiq e akbar?
رضي الله عنهما
Unless I'm much mistaken, there was a Maliki scholar present in Binoria with whom he studied Maliki Fiqh.
He won't call himself a Deobandi but I do for the mere fact that he is happy to associate himself with them, though he is willing to entertain anyone it seems, considering them Sunnis and secondly because he believes our admonition and refutation of the Deobandi elders to be a mistake on our part and instead the Deobandi elders are upright and steadfast individuals.
Shaykh Abul Hasan please can you provide a rebuttal to what dracula mufti said
A graduate of a devbandi darul uloom (I wonder where he studied Maliki fiqh) but even the UK devbandis hate him. He seems to be aligned with the Murabitun, but I'm not sure if he ever became a part of them officially. A modernist in maslak it seems and now a nasibi...
maybe nawazuddin sahib should do this; input until now in missing, in fact conspicuous by its absence. perhaps it is lack of time.
request: can someone please transcribe the rest of his talk. thanks in advance.
we need a quick history lesson for proper context. we also need to understand that all sources are not the same - a SaHiH narration in hadith books is not the same as many reports in history/maghazi works. an opinion attributed to an imam 100 years later, or even a mawquf narration is not the same as a marfu' report, much less a marfu' report which is also mutawatir.
even ibn taymiyyah, among others acknowledged that mawla ali raDiyAllahu anhu was 'closer to the truth than others'. ahl al-sunnah scholars unequivocally state that mawla ali was on Haqq.
razor-punk's ravings are not surprising from a self-styled 'mufti' who dresses up as vampire* on halloween and takes pride in play-acting devilry.
in sha'Allah wa bi tawfiqih.
*i don't know if it was something else, but he looks like dracula in that vid.
i listened to the first 18 minutes and it is transcribed below.
does this even need a refutation?
This pseudo mufti is clearly disrespecting Master Ali radiallahu anh...moreover he is a deobandi what can you expect from those sub-humans ?
what an idiot!
around 4.30 he says that if you would redact the names of the companions and present it to people who didn't know, they would choose mu'awiyah over many others.
while, i have no problem with his general defense of SaHabah and that hazrat mu'awiyah was an able ruler - a legitimate ruler, after the abdication of sayyiduna Hasan raDiyAllahu anhu and handing over the khilafah to him.
but trying to project hazrat ali negatively is something only a naSibi would do.
here is from his own mouth: [ellipsis indicates his pause/break]
because ali fought muawiyah. this is where the whole problem is coming from. but it is not fair - you know - seriously, it is not fair. because if you are to be just...if you are to be just, look at history. look at it.
sayyiduna ali raDiyAllahu anh is one of the greatest companions. we have no... but the truth is, that when you look at some of the choices that sayyiduna ali raDiyAllahu anh had... had kind of arrived at, in his time after the assassination of uthman...they weren't very...i mean, that even ibn abbas condemned him for them and said that...even his son Hasan said to him that 'what are you doing'...like...why are you doing this.
i mean, there were decisions which sayyiduna ali raDiyAllahu anhu arrived at, but the truth of the matter is that when he...for example...given by the rebels, the insurgents said that 'we want you to be the next khalif' he accepted their bay'ah.
firstly that was problematized [sic]. why did he accept the bay'ah from the insurgents who were involved in the assassination of the muslim head of state, the khalifah, the son-in-law of the Prophet- uthman.
the next thing was..ok..why did the removal of the governors throughout the muslim world without they even pledging allegiance to him. he...he instructed for them to be removed. now that...ibn abbas strongly disagreed with him. and said..you..this will only spread disunity and discord throughout the ummah and that is exactly what happened.
they then refused to accept him. they said, we haven't even pledged our allegiance and you are disposing of us.
now. if you are going to say mu'awiyah raDiyAllahu anhu, then the truth is before sayyiduna ali even got into a trouble...before he even got into a clash with muawiyah, before he even got into a clash with muawiyah...his first clash was with who? it was with the other companions.
with zubayr who is from the asharat al-mubash'sharah..zubayr ibn al-awwam. with talHah...and he fights them, they go to fight. i mean, he..abdullah ibn zubayr...right..these great companions...with ayesha, the wife of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.
his fight was with them, in that battle, the battle of jamal...which occurs in 36 hijri. it happens a year before he even fights muawiyah.
if muawiyah was to be the sly individual that they say...they say muawiyah was this really you know people say...oh he's...he was a very... i would say he was a very politi...i don't know if politic is the right word..but he was a very astute individual. there is no denying that.
but that is to his critic, he was very kind of like on the ball. but..and yes, like many people, you know...i am sure he wouldn't have rejected opportunity and...its like many people...he was obviously, always, you know...he, he...he also admired opportunity. but the truth is, if he was to be as malicious as they say...
right, then let us go to 36 hijri. when sayyiduna ali raDiyAllahu anhu...zubayr and talHah and ayesha were going to baSrah, they were coming to madinah to attack ali. they head to baSrah, after the murderers of uthman, they had sought refuge in baSrah. because many of them had come from baSrah.
now, when they arrive there, what does sayyiduna ali do? he assembles an army and goes to baSrah to fight them. now they did not come to you...to madinah to attack sayyiduna ali...they'd gone to baSrah.
when he go..when sayyiduna ali goes to iraq...to kufa...to gather more of an army, with his army, what does his own representative...his own representative in kufa, abu musa al-ash'ariy...what does he say to him? he says to him, that sayyiduna ali, do not do this...he actually...[in] his khutbah...he says that...and this is in the history books...he calls the people in the masjid and he says that...you know...here is amir al mu'minin ali raDiyAllahu anh...he has come and he's rallied for war...and he says "wa inni" i have heard the Messenger of Allah say that there will come a time when there is so much fitna and he says "inni"...and the prophet said, if fitna reaches you "faq'udu"...stay...sit away from it.
he said: "inni qa'yidun faq'udu". i am sitting. i advise you all to sit...sit it out, do not join his army. they refused to join sayyiduna ali's army...and then he comes again...and he makes several pleas with them...he sends abdullah ibn abbas to argue...to kind of discuss.
they said look...abu musa al-ash'ariy says to him, look, why are you going to fight them? like...they got not business with you...like they, zubayr is going to fight those people who killed uthman...like why...why are you going to fight?
and ali says, they refuse to give me bay'ah. like they've given me bay'ah, this war to go through me. it shouldn't go through them. and he says, yeah but...okay...
but..if you go to fight them, who does it look like you are defending. it looks like you are defending those who murdered uthman. so does it not look like that? it does. and sayyiduna ali said 'yes. but i am not defending them'. and he says its true, you are not defending them, but does it not look like that?
so why would i want to be in a position like that? and then eventually sayyiduna ali does...he negotiates...and a certain amount of the army do come and join him. but the interesting thing is look, one of his second in command...one of the highest people...who he actually...not only puts as part of his own army, but gives him a high rank was malik al ashtar.
malik was one of the people who was involved in the assassination of uthman. i mean..how..what is going on.
and people, and tell me...was muawiyah not stable? he was the most stable state. during this time when sayyiduna ali takes his army to baSrah...right? and they set up...they setup camps in front of zubayr and ayesha's army. during this time, if muawiyah wanted, he could have brought armies...and they could have crushed...they would have...like they could have...kind of...cornered sayyiduna ali's army. but does he get in? muawiyah does not even get involved. that would have been the key time to get involved.
we will do some fact-checking shortly. in sha'Allah.
this razor punk is an ignoramus, self-contradicting imbecile. first let him wash his hair, get a decent pair of clothes, get rid of his bling and look like a decent muslim. a donkey that sits in front of a bookshelf is still a donkey.
a man who dresses like a punk and laughs like a maniac without adab talking about hadith of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam, and claims to be a mufti? and that too attributes himself to imam malik! the irony. imam malik would have lashed him and have him thrown in a jail to protect commonfolk from such a corrupting influence.
he doesn't know history, period. besides, his arrogance and passing judgement on the companions is against his own principle, which he states in the beginning. abu razor's logic is backwards. he says, 'it is haram to attack companions...' but blissfully goes about casting aspersions on the judgement of sayyiduna ali raDiyallahu anhu.
this is what is known as jahl murakkab. an ignoramus who doesn't know that he is ignorant.
one of the major problems of our time is that people don't think or validate facts. anyone with a smartphone is a potential celebrity. they can post their opinions - invalid or valid, idiotic or sensible, illogical or reasonable - and people swallow it without thinking. not very long ago, there was an idiom: 'slave of the printed word' which can be adjusted to 'slave of the social-media clip'.
there is a hadith we often quote: aqDakum `ali. raDiyAllahu `anhu. "the best amongst you in judgement is `ali."
and then there is the acknowledgement of sayyiduna umar raDiyAllahu `anhu [mentioned in bukhari]: aqDaana `ali. "amongst us, ali has the best judgement".
sahih bukhari #4481
in another narration reported by bazzar and narrated by abdullah ibn mas'ud raDiyAllahu anhu: "we would discuss among ourselves that the person with the best judgement in madinah is `ali ibn abi talib" [Cf. fath' al bari, 9/647 sharh of above hadith; maqasid hasanah #142, kashf al-khafa ajluni, #489, 1/162.]
in another narration extracted by baghawi, narrated from anas ibn malik: "among my followers [ummah] `ali has the best judgement".
sakhawi mentions another SaHiH hadith - reported by abu dawud, Hakim, ibn majah, bazzar and tirmidhi, narrated by mawla ali himself:
RasulAllah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam sent him [`ali] as a judge [qaDi] to yemen. [mawla `ali] said: "O Messenger of Allah, are you sending me as a judge among them, and i am only a young man and i do not know how to judge." RasulAllah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam [gently] hit on his chest [of `ali] and said: "O Allah, guide him and make his tongue steadfast, unfaltering". He [`ali] says: "by Him who cleaves a seed [and makes a plant grow from it], i have never ever had any doubt in judging two things [or between two folk] ever since."
this is a very important point, to understand the various decisions mawla `ali had to take in his time as a khalifah.
remember that hazrat abu bakr and hazrat `umar would seek the opinion of mawla `ali and follow his advice/suggestions.
moreover, this is only amongs the many superiorities of mawla `ali karramAllahu wajhah.
in summary, judging the intentions, actions, motivations of the SaHabah is not possible, and it is a grievous fault to portray them according to our understanding of the situation, which we have gained by reports - even though, we are 1400 years away from that time. all that has reached us, are a few reports - not even a full blow-by-blow account of one whole day of proceedings.
before we examine the razor-punk's ramblings, there is a clip sent to me by harris from his facebook page:
in that list, the razor-punk says:
because, interest is a theological issue. only a muslim theologian will tell you that it is Haram. if you ask an economist, he may give you theories of how it may or may not help modern economies and whether it is detrimental to populations. but if you want to ask a question related to status of interest in religion, you SHOULD ask a theologian, not a banker.
but his statement fits him perfectly with proper alterations:
you would never ask an illiterate janitor regarding governance, why would you ask a punk with no experience of either military affairs for his opinion on a celebrated and a decorated general's choices in wars?
what are the qualifications of this punk (who calls himself mufti) to have an 'expert opinion' on governance, military affairs, strategy, policies, etc.? and that too of battles and politics of 1400 years ago?
This is his talk:
this is the problem with you guys, always look at one side of the picture, that too with one eye closed and the other half open, therefore your vision is always blurred. Had you the courage then you would have shown with references where sunni scholars, and sunnies on sunniport have ever disresspected Sayyiduna Mawla Ali karramAllahu Ta'ala wajhahu'l karim wa raDiAllahu anh, or they do not accept his fadhail, or they support his disparagers.
So, once again, it is your erk on the defence of Sayyiduna Amir Mu'awiyyah. Do you still like saba' sanabil?
btw, I did not watch abu layth's video, I would like to spit on their (the disparagers) face rather than listening to their nonsense. We are qadries and we say
Sher ko khatray main laata nahi kutta tera
and layth is just a name.
it is a foregone conclusion that anyone who 'criticises' mawla ali is a naSibi, an ignoramus or both.
even in the threads where we had to defend hazrat muawiyah, we have mentioned the faDayil of mawla ali, and reiterated unequivocally that he was the rightful khalifah, and his judgement was right - aqDakum `ali. in all the battles that mawla `ali had to face with other SaHabah, Haqq was with `ali.
i clicked on the link below and went to that page - i didn't find any video. do post the link if you have any.
don't have such a suu-zann nawaz sahib. have you ever heard a sunni circulating 'naad e muawiyah'?
?? They have issued a fatwa claiming that alcohol is halal.
maula Ali (karrama-Allaho ta'ala wajhehi alKareem) is indeed very close to the hearts of all Sunnis; and he is also the grand-master of our silsila e qadriyyah. the position of ahleSunnah vis-a-vis him and Hazrat Ameer Muawiyah (radi-Allaho anhu), is already well known.
but refuting abu Layth is a waste of time; as I said in my previous post, he should not be taken seriously.
Why do these juhala think the sahabah were like THEM?
that's because despite scraping their heads and making huge black marks on their foreheads, they never ascend even one step of the spiritual ladder.
Not because of what you say but because the video is not up and we do not know what has been said.
It is credulous to think anyone today would criticise Imam Ali alayhisalam.