There is no evidence of Pir Sahib being shown the statements and him commenting. The deos try to twist this to suit their own narrative.
Will the same be said about pīr mehr Ali shah or did he have a valid excuse to not explicitly takfeer the 4 tawāghīt
sh. abdul hayy lucknawi was mostly a compiler - but a faithful compiler. also, he was a staunch hanafi. he is famous because of his compilations, which are beneficial and popularised by abu ghuddah, whose annotations are also beneficial. lucknawi's fatawa are not rigorous - and you can compare alahazrat's fatawa on the same issues. as for his initial support of nanotvi - it was because lucknawi was young at that time, and as he was primarily a hadith scholar, his obsession with the sanad, led him to overlook the maqaSid of shariah. regardless, in his fatawa he clearly refutes that there can be a similitude of khatamu'n nabiyyin and afDalu'l khalq (because those are unique attributes of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam). i don't remember if he ruled that as kufr or bid'ah, but definitely he repudiated that. i had discussed this with a friend in pm - let me check if i have that. --- 'seek' as in seek his books maybe. because sh. lucknawi passed away in 1304 AH - al-kawthari was himself a boy of 8 at that time. [1296-1371 AH]. two prominent contemporaries with that name are: abdu'l Hayy ibn abdu'l Halim al-lucknawi [1264-1304 AH] passed away relatively young, he was barely 40. author of works on hadith and hanafi fiqh, many of which are annotated by abu ghuddah. he is famous among arabs because most of his books are in arabic. sayyid abdu'l Hayy ibn fakhru'ddin al-hasani [d. 1341 AH] he is the father of abul hasan ali miyan nadwi and author of nuz'hatu'l khawatir, a biographical compendium of scholars in the indian subcontinent. he was also from lucknow, and hence the confusion. he is a sunni, but comes across like "sunni" scholar nowadays, who seem to be afraid of taking a bold stance for fear of being rejected by the public or contrary to popular opinion. Allah ta'ala knows best.
Shaykh Abdal Hayy Lachnawi from the little I know was a Sunni scholar. Your reference to Sh Abu Ghuddah is in relation to a different Abdal Hayy. Finally, Sh Abdal Hayy refuted Qasim Nanotwi's belief despite initially supporting it because of his position on the Athar of Syeduna Abdullah ibn Abbas.
I have some reservations about abdal hayy lackhnawi He was made famous because of the syrian deobandi sympathizer abdal fattah Abu ghuddah who according to deobandis went to India because Zahid Al kawthari advised him to go and seek abdul hayy lacknawi.. If you look at the blog of zameel he quotes right and left abdul hayy lacknawi https://barelwism.wordpress.com/?s=And+al-hayy&submit=Search Including the authentication of Hadith which supposedly supports nanotvi's creed I mean how this scholar stood at odds against other scholars of his time when it comes to Istighatha Qiyam Istawa ala Arsh And other issues... I think best to avoid him, he does seem to influenced by salafi/wahhabi beliefs... Wallahi alam
both ulama have answered quite a number of similar questions - shaykh abdul hayy predictably stays within what he can cite. whereas alahazrat has written extensively on the same questions. - kissing thumbs after hearing the Prophet's SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam's name in azaan - shay'an lillah - hearing of awliya (strangely, sh.abdul hayy contradicts himself in tasarruf) - the issue of seven "copies" where he stumbled badly - iman of Prophet's parents SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam - shaking hands or embrace after eid and jumu'ah the aforementioned issues are debated upon, and one can refuse to accepts alahazrat's istidlal. but the superiority of alahazrat's erudition and insight is irrefutable when it comes to hanafi fiqh issues and if you compare just the matter of taharah, you will see the difference in the tafaqquh of both scholars. it is like day and night. those who wish to know who is superior should read fatawa of both ulama.
another example. while the mas'alah is correct, scholars have said that it is against adab to say: "He does not have power.." instead one should say that these things: muHalat and wajibat are precluded from Divine Power. --- take the question: original in persian (vol.1 p.4) translation (p.44) by a deobandi:
sadru'sh shariah has an explanatory note about this and the fatawa of shaykh abdul hayy are cited in full.
a few years ago in a private chat with aqdas, i had mentioned a specific fatwa to illustrate the astuteness of alahazrat. hindus tried to extract a fatawa favourable for them, so they could stop common muslims from sacrificing cows. shaykh abdul hayy gave a straightforward answer. the same question was sent to alahazrat (and probably other muftis) as well. this was in 1298 AH and alahazrat was only 26 at that time. instead of taking the question at face value, alahazrat wrote a lengthy fatwa that covers various side issues related to this main issue, which people not from this land (i.e. india) will not fully appreciate. that fatwa resonates to this day - and if all other muftis had stood firm behind alahazrat's fatwa, we would not suffer the myriad problems we face today - especially in this issue of cow slaughter. look at the difference in the quality of alahazrat's answer. thereafter, answering a follow up questions for his first fatwa, shaykh abdul hayy revised his answer - because the muslim perspective was now presented to frame the context in which the first question was asked. the shaykh's opinion is similar to alahazrat's opinion in his revised answer, but alahazrat understood the circumstances and context of the question even when it was not stated in the original question; shaykh abdul hayy replied only when it was further probed and clarification sought. regardless, the fatwa of shaykh abdul hayy is nowhere near the comprehensiveness of alahazrat's fatwa. the first QA is in fatawa abdul hayy vol.1 - p.45. (a newer edition with a deobandi translation has it on p.71) the followup Q and its answer in vol.2 - p.283 [sadru'sh shariah notes that in the first edition of the second volume, it is from p.148-155]. same fatwa in the newer ed. p.71 ==== followup q/a:
could be - Allah knows best. but his area of expertise was compilation of books; simplification and reworking, annotation and explanation of text books. i find his works on hadith and other works very beneficial for cross referencing and also in clarification of other books. especially the commentary on sharif al-jurjani's risalah on usul hadith; while i used other references in this subject, i kept reading shaykh lucknawi's work throughout the translation to ensure that nuances are not missed. he is a good source for citations in his works. without being disrespectful or belittling his work - we can say: allamah abdu'l hayy lucknawi was a great scholar and a good author. he has compiled works which are beneficial for students and are rich in citations. however, when it comes to tafaqquh - a deep understanding of masayil, the bases/usul of those masayil, historical and cultural contexts, sharpness in reading the subtext (ghayr al-mantuq); the ability to derive from sources [istinbat], especially on issues without precedents, and insights into matters as a cross-disciplinary approach - none of Alahazrat's contemporaries come close to him, and he even surpasses many masters of previous centuries. as i often say: this is not mere claim but can be proven with evidence - bring your fatawa and we will bring our fatawa (i.e. alahazrat's) on the same or similar issues and we will in sha'Allah demonstrate why alahazrat's fatwa is superior. wa billahi't tawfiq. ==== another post on alahazrat's proficiency in hadith: https://sunniport.com/index.php?thr...o-anwar-shah-kashmiri.15953/page-2#post-83944
Just out of curiosity, what about ‘Allamah ‘Abd al-Hayy Lucknowi? I know Alahazrat refuted him beautifully on the matter of names such as ‘Abd al-Nabi etc., but many people say that had he lived longer, he would be deemed a Mujaddid. Your thoughts?
