Asif Jalali retracts on Abu Juhayfah رضي الله عنه

this tawbah proves one thing to be honest.

Jalali wasn't doing "rujoo3" on the khata issue not just for kicks

rather, from his perspective, he was taking a principled stance (in response to all those commercial Sunni peers who directly or indirectly advised him to just retract and give in to the iran shah tafzili bunch and not cause the Ahlus Sunnah any fitnah and headaches for the sake of his ego!)

 

exactly

do all these buffoons not know the translation of:

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا رسول الله

or do they use

الصلاة والسلام عليكم يا رسول الله

if yes, what are their charges on those who use the former?

every language has its nuances of respect and disrespect.

 

this is similar to asif jalali sahib's error about imam ibn furak. but it was an error made because he was unaware. he did not seem to know about ibn furak and hence made that error.

---
as for abu juHayfah, he was an infant or a small child when the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam left this world.

every sahabi is "jalil al-qadr" [= occupies a high rank], no doubt. but the term is often used to identify prominent and well-known sahabah and is misused here only to make jalali sahib's inadvertent error to appear as a big blunder.

we ask Allah ta'ala to protect us from hatred.

 

4. sahabi ki tauheen par mabni tarjama kiya "tu tabah ho jaye"

this is also a lie.

it is a lie to accuse that jalali sahib translated "wayHak" deliberately to insult a sahabi.

while it is true, that jalali sahib got carried away and unknowingly made the error in translating 'wayHak' the charge that he did so to insult a sahabi is baseless.

====
language notes:
wayHak is an expression used either as a prayer and as a curse. if used in an affectionate tone, it means: "may there be mercy upon you" and when used to chide another, it is : "woe unto you" or waylak.

it is also said that wayH is used for mercy and compassion; and wayl is used as a rebuke: "woe upon..." "may he be deprived..."

[see taj al-arus, mukhtar al-sihah]

-------
5. ta'assur diya ke hazrat abu juHayfayh hubb e ali ke jhoote da'wedaar the

this is also a misleading claim, though not an outright lie.

jalali sahib said: "woh bhi dawe daar tha mureed hone ka" and then said that: "he had bughz in his heart even though he didn't utter insulting words against abu bakr and umar" but mawla ali said: "my love and bughz/hatred of abu bakr and umar will not be together in the same heart".

thus he was implying that one who claims to love mawla ali will ALSO love abu bakr and umar. and if one has bughz of the two, will also not have true love of mawla ali. (raDiyAllahu anhum ajma'yin).

one can piece these things but that would be true only if jalali knew that abu juHayfah was a sahabi and then said all that. and since this was said and he was unaware, there is no blame on him.

---
6. "apne alfaaz mein ek jalil al-qadr sahabi ko rafizi tak kah daala"

this is another lie.

jalali sahib didn't call abu juhayfah a rafizi. this is the implication drawn out by the jahil clip-maker as he tries to substantiate that by adding:

"ke abu juHayfah ke seene ke andar hazrat abu bakr aur umar ka bughz tha"

it was a genuine mistake. jalali mistook the statement to be that of someone who might harbour hatred and thus addressed ali. he took poetic license and added some explanation from his own side - but the fact remains that it was because he did not know that abu juHayfah was a sahabi.

end of story.

an error or a mistake when done unknowingly is not a sin. it is a sin only when one does it deliberately.

this is a dangerous precedent - and an ugly bid'ah. if we accept the above charges as valid, it would mean that it is a necessary component of religion to know the names of every sahabi - even though we are not burdened by such a thing.


=====
the clip-maker continues with his false accusations:



where did jalali sahib say that it was a part of the hadith? have you ever come across a concept called "mudraj"? if jalali sahib said that it was hadith, only then would this charge be valid.

since he did not, this is a lie.

he further says:

"jalilu'l qadr sahabi e rasul ko bughzi aur rafizi (kafir) kah daala"

tower of lies. place a lie as a foundation and build the ground floor on another lie and keep making floors upon floors of lies until there is an imposing tower of lies.

1. jalali said that abu juHayfah had bughz in his heart (based on his addressing mawla ali as 'khayr al-nasi ba'ad al-rasul"

2. but he said that without knowing that abu juHayfah was a sahabi.

3. while jalali sahib said that he had bughz, he did not accuse abu juHayfah of being a 'rafizi'. this is the ta'wil made by the jahil clip-maker.

4. which he further takes on to rafizi=kafir.

---
if the person who made the clip has any fear of Allah, he must refrain and apologise from making such accusation. or if hatred of jalali is a necessary component of his faith, he can continue to peddle lies like devbandis.










​

 

while it is true that asif jalali sahib did not address hazrat abu juHayfah with respect, it was certainly not deliberate.
he acknowledges that he wasn't aware that abu juHayfah was a sahabi.

now. the video you have uploaded that criticises jalali sahib and makes charges is grossly unfair. those people who made that video are juhala and slandering jalali sahib by twisting his words and lying through their teeth. i had to watch the video only once to catch the distortions as explained below:

sub'HanAllah - the slander clip below is reminiscent of devbandi fabrications.

-----
first let us go through the false charges the clip makes:



1. "sahabi ka record kharab thaa"

this is a lie. this very clip says that jalali sahib said: "record kharab ho raha hai". what he wanted to say was that mawla ali did not want to let a casual statement to be cited as proof in the future and hence refuted it then and there.




----
2. "sahabi ke seene mein bughz tha"

this is also a shameless lie. jalali sahib did not say "sahabi had hatred in his heart".

jalali sahib has now clarified that he did not know that abu juHayfah was a sahabi. he assumed that he was a companion of hazrat ali raDiyAllahu anhu and hence jumped to conclusion that he might be one of those who claimed love

whichever shameless jahil made that clip has probably never had the good fortune to study hadith sciences. those who are blessed with some portion of this luminous science know that we routinely encounter names that are confusing and we have to look up books of rijal to ascertain whether someone is a sahabi. even then there are discrepancies in various works.

even masters of hadith have made errors and sometimes not considered an individual as a sahabi while he/she was one and vice versa.

it would be a sin if jalali sahib KNEW that abu juhayfah was a sahabi and then deliberately said what he said.

if not, i ask these sufaha to please show me whether it is a part of daruriyat - necessary knowledge of religion - to know the name of every sahabi? ask yourself: do you know the name of every sahabi when mentioned? and you can recite usd al-ghabah or isabah from memory?

la Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah.

the jahl of those claiming to be scholars is mind boggling these days.


----
3. "sahabi ke liye "tuu" tak ka lafz bola."

what a lame charge! if you translate arabic it is tuu. the aap aur tum etc as 'respect' is found in indian languages.

besides, he did not know that he was a sahabi. even if he knew, this is just an expression.

be sharmi ki bi hadd hoti hai - unless you are a rafidi or a devbandi.