Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Aqidah/Kalam' started by Waqar786, Jan 2, 2021.
From Baraily Sharif
bahar e shariat, dawate islami edition vol.2 part 16, p.524
the arabic texts from al-targhib wa'l tarhib of al-munziri.
Can you kindly provide a page number for reference. Personal and social rectification.
Mawlana Ghufran Siyalwi.
I think the formulation is self-evidently contradictory. However, I will share my other impressions later.
that's an important point.
Years ago, I have heard a young (as in 20 something) muqarrir sahib, say in a jum'ah bayan, that surah qalam-verse 13 'proves' that every wahabi is born out of wedlock!
He emphasized it several times, saying: it's not my hukm, the Qur'an says that.
The Qur'an says that a gustakh was born out of wedlock
All wahabis are gustakh
Having tons of wahabi relatives myself, including real aunts and uncles, I was thinking ... umm .. what?
Now at the time I was just getting initiated with deeni topics so didn't have any recourse but my own limited knowledge and mind, so imagine the emotional turmoil of a teenager who's just heard such a thing - he doesn't want to go "against" the Qur'an and, on the other hand, has his ancestors to think about...
At last I consoled myself with the ta'weel that all my close relatives were born sunnis and crossed over to wahabism much much later in their lives.
even if it were a mutawatir hadith the abuse couldn't be justified as there is no gustakhi in the first place!
those who use weak hadith to justify abusing other muslim's parents need to tell us, why shouldn't they be judged similarly on the basis of hadith whose status is higher (hasan or sahih).
these hadith from al-targhib wa'l tarhib of al-munziri.
yes it is accepted in fadail - but it is not a swiss knife that can be pulled out by people to justify anything they do.
there are numerous such hadith which say that such and such an action is tantamount to kufr or fisq etc.
a person who does gheebah is worse than committing adultery.
a person who takes interest is worse than committing adultery.
a person who omits prayer deliberately has committed kufr.
so will you use these hadith and apply rulings literally? so all those who take interest, will you begin calling them "a son born out of forbidden act"? and takfir made of every muslim who does not pray regularly?
why don't we apply the same standards and apply "implications" from SAHIH hadith for those who commit things such as hurling profanities and using foul-language?
i have to reiterate that "implications" from a weak hadith become proof for abusing a muslim's mother; but there cannot be any implication from SAHIH hadith that explictly forbid certain action!
rafizi zeal encapsulated in khariji fatawa... laa Hawla wa laa quwwata illa billah.
the astute reader will not miss the groups mentioned - ahl e bayt, anSar and the arabs.
isn't it amusing that a weak hadith is used as an excuse to utter gaalis, BUT naSS qaT'yi and sahih hadith ignored?
if the hadith "whoever hurt faTimah has hurt me" should be taken literally for the implication, why shouldn't the hadith "sibab al-muslim fisq" be taken literal likewise?
so ta'wil is a convenient tool that need not be governed by any rules.
abu'sh shaykh in tabaqat al-muhaddithin, v3 p414:
JazakhAllah Khair for that information. I guess they would argue in fadhail it’s acceptable and that ala hazrat mentioned it.
Could you touch a little on my second question as the general application of this camps interpretation of masum and Mahfouz and then the application on all Sadat e ikram without takhsis. Interestingly the rawafidh akhbaris all apply such narrations to all Sadat e ikram, whereas the usuli bunch do takhsis as for them Ahlul Bayt is only 14 personalities.
the hadith has sanad but it is weak.
musnad al-firdaws, #5955
maqasid al-Hasanah #21 (mentioned under another related hadith)
shu'ab al-iman #1614 (new DKI ed) v2 p232
In case people have forgotten a few years ago Irfan Shah also mentioned that "Allah khud gustakh ko gaali deta hai". I have been trying to search for that video to no avail. However I found this video where he responds to somebody who asks him the question whether it is appropriate to use the word 'gaali' with Allah.
His logic is twisted when he uses that as a reference to being a gaali and how we can give gaalis to any gustakh. By this own twisted logic he has perhaps thought it to be fine to utter all that filth he did about mufti Jalali sahibs mother!
So as per my understanding it absolutely fine according to Irfan Shah to use the derogatory word 'gaali' for the creator whereas it is totally unacceptable to use the term 'khata' towards Sayyida Fatima Zahra!
this is mentioned in a fatwa by alahazrat:
fatawa ridawiyyah v22 p420-21
[thanks to aqdas who pointed that it was mentioned by alahazrat]
The reference the other camp quote on shah sahibs use of the word “ha**mi”and three options is based on a report but it has no chain of narration. Can some brother learned in the science of Hadith kindly shed some light on this ? I shall include a screenshot.
The second Question which is on my mind perhaps if some student/ shaykh of the deen can help here. Now that shah Saab’s camp says the difference in Masum and Mahfouz is simply one being Qati and the other not, does this apply to all the Noble Wives and Ahlul Bayt too by this definition. E.g would now this definition extend to all the sadaat e ikraam by ascribing such a level of protection to them or is this only hass for ahle kissa. If it is how are they gonna do this Takhsees?.
Shah sahib was first to pronounce kufr, before other tut-punjiya maulvis piled in with gumrahi, kharij (ahl-e-sunnat se) etc.
Leaving aside gali galoch and istilahi/lughwi/taweel this and that, what is the sharayi basis for hukm of kufr on Dr Jalali (with and without selective use of clips)?
I presume we all know the answer, but besides Mawlana Nazir Sialwi's fatwa (posted by AbdalQadir), I haven't seen any written fatwa (neither for nor against).
@Unbeknown... brother, the video with the English transcript is the only one that they could transcribe because of the language used. It felt scripted then and the transcript does not do anything to reject that premise.
However, what I ask you is did you pick up on the fallacies and what were they, if you found any?
my reasons were these:
Get a fair picture of what he is saying (I am sure you know that even the most messed up data can be organized in some way or the other and see a pattern emerge)
Once we are sure that we are not burning down strawmen - we can highlight the fallacies
To highlight the self-contradictory nature and the weakness of the arguments put forward
for the record I have not watched a single speech of irfan sahib and when a transcript was provided I dived in to see what he was about - as it is quite possible that among a 100 invalid arguments he might have a handful of valid ones but because of his manner - he is unable to convey them to any receptive ears.
Though I felt tempted multiple times, I have studiously avoided watching the abuse-laden clip - because I did not want to defile my ears with the products of the very lips from which I have heard beautiful and moving speeches - and because I did not want to see a sayyid at his worst.
I do not commend or make light of what was said (initially I did feel that this was a regular "pakistani thing") - but when people better than me are already calling him out, my repeating the same things would be redundant.
I hope and pray that irfan sahib will not leave us with this legacy and that his last of deeds will be his best.
And Allah is our Protector.
irregardless, I did not subscribe to a deen that commends shouting abuses from a stage.
I consider myself fortunate that my return to mainstream sunnism was the blessing of having respect for the saadaat kiraam - as it was occasioned by zakir naik's defense of yazid.
And I am thankful that this episode did not take place back then - as I don't know what I would have made of a "jama'at" in whose ranks group-abuse on a public stage is seen as some sort of a "dileri".
nas'al Allahu ta'ala 'aafiyah