Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Aqidah/Kalam' started by AR Ahmed, Apr 4, 2023.
does not play
A new clip from Hazrat Sayyidi Muhaddith e Kabir Mumtaz ul Fuqaha Allama Ziya al Mustafa Amjadi damat barakatahum. Seems like the caller wants to impute his views onto Hazrat.
Getting worse each day - Usul and adab burnt at the stake of laffazi and josh.
the way these people dismiss traditional scholarship is remarkable - so sa'eed sab has understood the Qur'an better than pir mihr 'ali shah and others?
yesterday I got a chance to browse through at-tasfiya and I was so overjoyed to see how our ulama defend sunniyat - with logic and proofs - and without forgetting anyone's maratib. No emotional blackmails either.
for those intersted, there's a whole chapter on fadak and another on ayat e tatheer - and the language is lucid - not laden with technical terms - do check it out.
http://s595909773.online-home.ca/KB/Tasfiya Ma Bain-e-Sunni-Wa-Shia PU-1840/WQ.pdf
Sorry. It works now.
Link not working
Some responses to Nabil Afzal sab's FB post based on my discussion with a friend:
Error and Sin are not synonymous. Putting a forward slash won't make them so. He didn't use the word sin (gunah).
Yeah, and he was gnashing his teeth and spitting fire too. Needless dramatizing.
What courage are you speaking about? He was answering the rawafid who claim that the sayyidah can neither err nor sin - neither intentionally nor otherwise - not even in ijtihaad - in other words ma'soom like the anbiya - and even greater than that - and hence sayyiduna Abu Bakr (raDyiAllahu 'anhuma) was an oppressor (zaalim).
Doesn't your blood boil when you hear such buhtaan and gustaakhi against the first Khalifa of Islam - the muhsin of the Ummah about whom the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself said - "I have repaid everyone's help except Abu Bakr. Him I shall repay in the hereafter"?
Or is that what you believe too - that the sayyidah is ma'soom like the Prophets?
That's Platts. Among the many translations, he does not include sin, but he does include oversight and unintentional fault.
If you meant that in Arabic 'Urf it means sin (prove it first) - then it's inapplicable in the context of an Urdu/Punjabi speaking population.
If you say that since it was used by a scholar, Arabic 'urf is applicable - then the reply will be that a scholar is more likely to use a word in its technical meaning rather the an urfi one.
In all three cases this contention is invalid.
He has already clarified what he meant. So griping about it is disingenuous.
And even if you insist on holding him accountable for his original wording - "a word which no one has used " is not sufficient - you would still have to prove from the books of Usul that using it thus is gustakhi and kufr.
That's exactly why he used it. Because the rawafid not only claim that the ahl-e-bayt are ma'soom like the anbiya but also that the ismah of the ahl-e-bayt is so complete that the possibility of even an ijtihadi-khata is precluded. And hence, Siddeeq e Akbar's non-compliance with the request is akin to disobeying a command of Allah or His Rasul (peace be upon him).
This also answers the question as to why did jalai sab use an instance which even according to him was not sin but only an ijtihadi-khata - to disprove ismat - whereas he also agrees that this type of khata is not precluded from ismat - only its continuation is precluded.
The reason he might have used it - is because the opponents are claiming that it was impossible.
Lastly, why call it an "excuse" in a sarcastic sense? Did you never come across the hadith that when a Muslim presents an 'uzr (excuse) - it should be accepted?
Or the caution from scholars of kalam that if a word has 100 meanings of which 99 connote kufr and only 1 not-kufr, then the 1 should be given preference over the 99, and not be hasty in takfeer - unless there are obvious (wwazeh) qara'in that the speaker had one of the 99 meanings in mind.
You can say that his reasoning was poor, or his arguments incoherent - but you surely need more than that for takfeer?
See the reply to the third contention above.
Scholars have mentioned that Siddiq e Akbar's ijtihaad was better. The same comparison can never ever be made between a Prophet (ma'soom) and a non-prophet (non-ma'soom). That would be kufr.
Now while explaining this in the context of fadak he used the word "khata" - by which he meant khata-e-ijtihaadi (as he later clarified).
Counter-question: No sunni scholar in 1400 years has said she's ma'sum (mutlaqan - without qualification). Why have your ulama started doing so?
Can you prove the usage of the word ma'soom (unrestricted, without qualification) for the sayyidah or for the ahle-bayt from the first three generations?
raDyiAllahu 'anhum ajma'een
Let the ulama explain this - but its clear that peer mihr 'ali sahib (raHimahu Allah) is saying that not all types of khata are precluded. Also he is saying that if a "khata" did transpire - it will be encompassed in 'afw and tatheer [notice the itlaaq - without the qualification].
Glad that here you have acknowledged a distinction between the two and translated khata as error.
He made that clear because ignoramuses were taking khata to mean sin.
A baseless accusation based on extreme su-az-zann. Do you mean to say that khata-e-ijtihaadi is not a sub-type of khata and that the two words are so disparate that the former cannot in any way have been on his mind?
Like Mawlana Ziya ul Mustafa Azmi?
Rather, it's you who need some good heart-scrubbing for harboring so much bad-ghumaani for a sunni aalim that whatever he says you don't want to let go of him - but must keep saying "no but he .. no but he... " as if this were the only topic left in the world for sunnis to lose sleep over.
Given you accept the clarification as valid - you can't cry about him not abandoning the original statement - a clarification is meant to remove doubt or confusion - that is, it's a tawzeeh via takhsees or ta'meem, it doesn't mean that the original statement was wrong, per-se, poorly worded at worst.
He meant khata ijtihadi. Do you believe that none of the sahabah ever committed khata ijtihadi?
yeah, so he is saying that - despite not being gustaakhi, it's best avoided and should not be used unless absolutely necessary.
Was it necessary in this case? - maybe not - but you can't kill the guy over it.
Dis-analogy. Qiyaas ma'al fariq. Apples and Cyanide.
What Thanwi said was explicit - sareeh - unambiguous - not amenable to any ta'weel. Badeehi. GET THAT.
Thanwi insulted RasulAllah ﷺ. It was shatm - blasphemy - it's a distinct category of kufr where no latitude is brooked.
[For a clear and comprehensive treatment of the subject see abu Hasan's excellent TKM].
Where did Jalali sahib insult? Where is this unambiguous shatm - even in the first statement?
If you are saying that it is explicit and unambiguous - then, in effect, you are doing takfeer of 100s of sunni awaam and scores of ulama.
Hosh mein aaiye.
See reply to contention#10.
This is a strawman.
Nobody says that the word KHATA has 'even' been used for Prophets عليهم السلام - they only say that the word "khata e IJTIHAADI" - has 'even' been used for Prophets عليهم السلام and they do not stop at this but further add that if - by the Mashi'at of Allah - if such an ijtihaad does occur - Allah does not let a Prophet continue with it - but immediately alerts him and informs him of the path that He subHanu wa ta'ala wants the Prophet to take. That is baqa and istiqraar are not possible - so there is no question of error in da'wa or in communicating the message.
Counter-point: Those who say that the difference between mahfuz and ma'sum is so negligible that a mahfuz is effectively ma'sum to the extent that using the word khata for a mahfuz is blasphemy - are very much treading on the boundaries of shariah.
So why did ulama call it khata ijtihadi? Were all these ulama ignorant? What's the ruling on them?
And this is not the only incident from which the ulama have deduced the possibility of khata-e-ijtihaadi for the Prophets ('alayhimus salaam) - so this is actually a red-herring.
Exactly! And since he has clarified that that's what he meant - you must now get off his neck.
That's why you have not given even one proof yet.
Not an appropriate thing to say. Saying it on a stage - totally incorrect in-fact. But what's the ruling for saying that?
Can you prove that it's blasphemy?
Did they say that he has insulted - like you lot are saying? Or did they just say, it's best to change the words?
I have no knowledge of this but - in hindsight - its understandable why he wouldn't have wanted to - if at all it was offered that is.
Brother you will kindly excuse us if we request to see the proofs.
You're very welcome to SunniPort if you wish to discuss with people who CAN write Arabic.
Also, speaking about people who can't read Arabic, did you mean Munawwar Jamati. Just askin.
Not a single speck.
His clarification was enough for leading ulama but not for you.
Nasb means to hate Mawla 'Ali and his family (raDyiAllahu 'anhum ajma'een).
How is it hatred to use a word for the Sayyidah that has even been used for Prophets?
A rafidi hag who insulted the aan-baan and shaan of Islam is roaming about freely.
A sunni aalim who took her to task for it - with several hours long speeches - is behind bars - because the great wise men of the age decided that he was more harmful to sunnism and Islam and his views more in need of censor than hers.
They did not go after her with the determination and zeal which they displayed against the sunni aalim. He has a fatwa plastered on his brow and is undergoing Allah knows what emotional, psychological and physical trails.
And yet the witch-hunt continues.
Khadim e Ahle Sunnat sab - thank you very much.
Saeed Asad sahab clarifies his contention is just against Jalali's choice of words and that he has nothing to do with the fatwa against him
Exposing Hanif Quraishi and claim that he is a mureed of Sayyid Haseenuddin Shah:
Sayyid Hasan Askari (Askari miyan) on resolving the matter:
Syed Haseenuddin Shah sahab had nothing to do with all of this.
Is this released from someone's official page, or someone just decided to experiment with his Photoshop skills?
I came across this today:
While Sunnis were stabbing Jalali in the back, he made Shias stab themselves in the eye, bi hamdillah.
9 min video MUST WATCH
at his hearing in court Jalali blasted the Rawafid and publicly named and shamed those who did gustakhi against the honor of Tawhid, Risalah, Sahaba, and Ahle Bayt themselves.
See this rafidi lose his mind after hearing Jalali's defense of himself in court and blasting his own zakireen as dollar hungry yazeedi stooges!
Absolutely brilliant. Now Irfan Shah and the rest of them will be (or should be) really embarrassed that Jalali alone blasted the Rawafid in court, while they were too busy in group hugs and betraying Sunni creed.
Well done to those who kept maligning Jalali sahib until he got locked up and missed the janazah of his own brother!
You disgust me. All of you. You don't know basic Sunni aqidah and what constitutes heresy, etc.
The condemnation of Dr Jalali's arrest has been near universal among Indian sunni organisations (barring some fringe neem-rafizi, minhaji groups masquerading as sunnis). As I said, tafzilism is lesser problem in India than in Pakistan (and by extension in the UK).
irfan shah sahib. din dhalne laga...laut aayiye.
things were hunky dory, until neem-rafizis infiltrated our ranks. Good old days! I hope sunnis unite again against rafizis/tafdhilis:
Sayyid Irfan Shah Mashhadi on Dr Asif Jalali:
Dr Asif Jalali on Sayyid Irfan Shah Mashhadi:
Sayyid Irfan Shah Mashhadi on Hanif Quraishi:
Even during the latest conference circus, Shah Sahib can be seen giving Hanif Quraishi a cold shoulder.
Shah sahib has been sinisterly used by peerzadas. I daresay without Shah sahib's weight the anti-Jalali campaign would have fizzled out without even a whimper. He was roped in to lend credibility to peerzadas (Munawwar Jamati et al). It's sad that the rafizi stratagem worked in breaking up the unity and sullying few hard-earned, well-deserved reputations.
calm down sunnis - and tahir is a big example. those who deviate do their own selves harm. after a couple of decades and huge following etc, he exposed himself badly. we were saying that he was a liar, but common people were skeptical. Allah ta'ala made his lies apparent.
sunniyat will remain and Allah ta'ala will protect it.
take the wahabis - in spite of the full force of power and money, they eventually lost. in just about a 100 years, wahabi thought is circumscribed and the followers of their hardcore, extremist leaders dissipated. there was a time when bin-baz and albani were ringing everywhere, people were quoting them as if they were next to the saHabah. i remember going to bookshops in Haram al-sharif in 2001; you could only see bin baz or albani editions. merely ten years later, traditional books were back on the shelves.
take kemalists - in spite of everything they tried to wipe out islam, muslims were suppressed for a while and then there was a resurgence.
the same will happen. after tahir dies, his fitna will die - and people will come back to sunni fold.
don't worry. islam will always be triumphant.
I thought he was suffering from coronavirus! All of a sudden, he has made a miraculous recovery. His 'sick' apology issued in June was a spectacle of highest order, as if he was on his death bed.