Fadak and khatā

Discussion in 'Aqidah/Kalam' started by Waqar786, Jan 2, 2021.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    a few hadith from bahar e shariat on gali galoch:

    bahar e shariat, dawate islami edition vol.2 part 16, p.524

    bes v2p524.png
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2020
  2. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    now someone might come up with the ruling in bahar e shariat about using these words to defend irfan shah's deplorable profanities.

    bes v2p398.png


    but this will not avail him. he was not saying it as a word of abuse - instead he was citing a hadith to 'prove' that a certain person was one of the three and kept chanting "harami bacha" etc.

    of course, ta'wil can be done of anything.

    if people do ta'wil to protect openly faHsh gaalis of a person to prevent him from the hadd of qadhaf, then doing ta'wil the other way of a mild statement of another person and stretch it and distort it to gustakhi and kufr is the height of hypocrisy.

    to put it in other words:

    irfan shah can utter faHsh galiyan about another muslim's mother under the excuse of "bahar shariat did not deem it qadhaf" - and hence be exempted from the ruling, even if he used those harsh words explicitly


    jalali cannot say 'khaTa' - EVEN if the word is deemed harmless when used with prophets and not considered disrespect to them; BUT using the same word is disrespect and gustakhi of sayyidah raDi'Allahu anha. [according to these folk]​

    and to prove this they play fast and loose with terms like ismat and hifazat, ma'Sum and maHfuz. shahji, the world has moved on.and this alone is enough to be considered as "not recognised the haqq of ahl al-bayt". calling out errant sayyids will be termed the same. i.e., one can stretch any statement and apply this ruling of 'not recognised the haqq of ahl al-bayt'.

    what is the difference between you folks (irfan shah and others in this issue) and the wahabis who use such ta'wils and false equivalence to term muslims as mushriks?


    those who constantly remind the world that they are sayyids and they have a special place have probably forgotten that they didn't do anything to 'become' sayyids. dhalika faDlullah, Allah gives to whom He pleases. but being a sayyid does not give them the liberty to play with the religion of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

    the late sayyid, mawlana muhammad kichauchavi raHimahullah aptly said:

    fazl e a'amal pe hai fazl e nasab bhi mawquf
    bu lahab ke bhi laga haath na tabbat ke siwa

    may Allah ta'ala give sense.

    wAllahu a'alam wa ilmuhu atam.
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2020
    Ghulam Ali, shahnawazgm and abu Usman like this.
  3. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    Closet rafidi Hanif qureshi's video that I linked where he said the exact same word "khata" (without the qualifier ijtihadi) for ummuna 3aishah radi Allahu 3anha and those opposing Mawla Ali radi Allahu 3anhu has suddenly disappeared.

    Let any stooges of Hanif qureshi know that YouTube is not your a3maalnama. It won't disappear from there nor will you be any smarter in your scheming or shamelessness when you call Jalali a badbakht for using the exact same word for Sayyidah Fatimah radi Allahu 3anha. Plus in Hanif qureshi's video he used the word with full disgust

    (apparently Irfan Shah was also taught to check people's adab in body language too along with words when mentioning akabireen... See his interview with sabri, he expressly mentions this regarding adab in "body language" and manner of expressions in the start of his talk)

    Anyways here is another video showing the rafidi's usage of the same word. Irfan Shah can comment on body language and andaze bayan. Unfortunately it doesn't have his facial expression as the former video had

    I don't know if this too is from the same speech but he cites a purported sahih Hadith without giving reference:

    In this video he's crying crocodile tears that people are out to get him:

    Last edited: Jul 22, 2020
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  4. sherkhan

    sherkhan Veteran

    exactly my sentiments. When Unbeknown was busy decoding/understanding Shah sahib's speech, I was besides myself wondering about the need for so much husn-e-zann.
  5. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    someone needs to call out irfan shah. one thing is certain - if the clip is true and not doctored (and in the absence of denial, it will be deemed genuine) - anything irfan shah says is rejected.

    he has lost his capacity to be a sharayi witness. he has lost his adalat. let that sink in.

    beating their chest that they are sayyids will not avail them. we respect sayyids so long as they are in line with the shariah of their blessed grandfather SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam - and while it was the duty of sayyids to "give pahra" [i.e. keep a watch] to this blessed religion who are now happy setting fires like pyromaniacs, we won't stand by watching them burn the house down.

    qadhaf is a kabeera. accusing another muslim's mother of adultery without 4 witnesses amounts to qadhaf and in sha'Allah, i will make a post on qadhaf - and every maulvi who was snickering in that gathering should die of shame.

    is this the teaching of mustafa sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. al-iyadhu billah? is this what you want muslim children to learn? call each other profanities?

    laa Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah.

    you call yourselves sayyids; how will you shew your faces to the sayyidu'l awwalin wa'l akhirin SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

    the shariat of mustafa SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam will make no distinction between a sayyid or a non-sayyid. if it is proven that a person violated the pristine shariah, he is held accountable.

    considering ahl al-bayt as not immune from khaTa is such a serious issue - but making qadhaf mainstream is not? anyone who supports irfan shah in this matter is attempting to rip down the sharayi Hukm of qadhaf.

    surah nur s24 v4:

    in the past, i have seen certain videos where such profanities were uttered. i personally dislike using bad language, but we didn't call him out because he was throwing these on a group. not a specific person. and similar to 'lanat on a group' and 'lanat on an individual', we made ta'weel of it.

    Allah ta'ala knows better - to the best of my knowledge i have never liked the swearing of these 'scholars' (my friends can vouch for me) - neither irfan shah's swearing nor khadim rizwi sahib's nor others. but we ignored it because we didn't want to cause fitna. their cussing was their amal, and they will answer for it.

    may Allah ta'ala forgive us for not having spoken sooner.

    shame on all those who were in the gathering and did not stop him or took offence [if they could and did not] to such blatant insult of RasulAllah's religion sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. by Allah! sayyidah fatimah raDiyALlahu `anha would have never tolerated this kind of open insult to her noble father's religion SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

    the question is this: what is the ruling on a man who publicly abuses another muslim as a "son of adultery". this was not said in a state of inebriation and the man was not drunk (if he was, it would be another ruling - but the person is free to plead his excuse).

    what does the pristine shariah of Mustafa alayhi wa ala aalihi afDalu's Salatu wa's salam command us concerning the state of this person? has he committed a kabirah or not? if yes, what is the Hukm concerning him. if not, WHY NOT?

    بينوا توجروا


    first we must stop this madness of citing aayaat indiscriminately without rhyme or reason. i have lost respect for irfan shah - because for me, he is now an enemy of the blessed shariah of my master sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. he loves to quote the verse of surah qalam and apply it to whoever he likes without having understood the context of that aayat.

    what irfan shah needs to actually learn is the meaning of the verse (surah nur, s24, v19):

    we will soon talk about this in sha'Allah.
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2020
    shahnawazgm likes this.
  6. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    From the fatwa I linked Screenshot_20200721-135018~2.png Screenshot_20200721-135030.png
  7. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    Just got this fatwa and msg support of Shaykh Jalali
  8. Waqar786

    Waqar786 Veteran

    I agree that @ramiz.noorie has asked about Shah sahib's language. Shah sahib needs to be censured for this because again these sort of things do nothing for their credibility and the credibility of sunnis.

    Overall, as I mentioned before, I've lost a lot of respect for shah sahib on this issue. Their language has always been harsh but these contradictory, water muddying speeches just show they're are not just defending the creed but there is some other reasons. I'm not going to speculate about the motives but they're going to lose a lot of credibility over this, if they've not already done so.

    This is why it is imperative that the senior scholars step in and put an end to this charade and give a decisive rulings on the points I mentioned in a previous post.
  9. Waqar786

    Waqar786 Veteran

    @ramiz.noorie... brother, where have I mentioned that I agree with the treatment of Jalali sahib.
    Why do you think those sincere sunni scholars went to Jalali sahib, and asked him to apologise, even though they said he got the masla correct.
    It is because using words like 'khata' without qualification can be interpreted negatively by the public because of its connotations. Jalali sahib himself has mentioned this that the negative connotations of the word 'khata' have been propagated to the awaam when the so called sunnis slander Amir Muawiyya. Now when they watch the original clip, what are they going to think? What connotations of 'Khata' is going to come to their mind?

    It's pointless trying to say that these statements are found in the books of our elders because on the whole who reads them, yes the scholars. They understand the nuances but the unsuspecting awaam don't. There is a difference between a scholarly response written in a book and a response in what we call a majma e aam. We know that clip has been presented in a Machiavellian way but the're Dr Sahib's words. This is why an apology at the start then followed by a clarification of what he actually meant would have calmed the waters. Sometimes wisdom needs to be employed.

    I hope this makes things clear for you. Don't be like the opposition and deal in emotional outbursts. Be objective and consider what would be best in this situation.
  10. ramiz.noorie

    ramiz.noorie Active Member

    @Aftab Malik

    if anyone it should Pir Irfan Shah Mashhadi who should be jailed and lashed as per Islamic law for defamation and slander. Nine (9) minutes of slander and verbal abusation does not befit a SYED PIRZADA that too claims to be an alim.

    i challenge you to listen to those 9 minutes with your parents, mother, sister, daughter or your children.

    Who would use words like Menstrual Period born jalali son of zina or your mother had (deleted...)

    very strange, no jail no case booked against wahhabis deobandis shia rafidis but the mawlana takes public slander with jail and possible prison time.

    nothing but settling scores and personal agenda. like i said, mafia and gangsters running the show.

    All those mawlanas who approved of slander and ghali should be lashed in public including the guy who asked for mob attack on Dr Jalali from India ( Tanveer Hashmi Who should be put behind bars )


    why doesn't Gulam rasool saeedi, imam adham abu hanifah and several other scholars like nur ul haq dehlawi get the same treatment like dr asif jalali?

    there is nothing wrong with the wording or choice of words. Can you cite any scholar supporting this claim?
  11. Waqar786

    Waqar786 Veteran

    It is time that the senior scholars stepped up and gave a definitive stance/ ruling on the following issues:
    1. Is it correct to associate Sayida Fatima with Khata e ijtihadi in regards to the Fadak issue?
    2. What is the ruling on those who insult the Ahl ul Bayt and the Sahaba? (Is it one ruling or does it change depending on who is being insulted).
    3. Is it kufr to associate Khata ijtihadi with the ambiya without qualifying it?
    4. What is the difference between Ma'sum and Mahfuz?
    5. Is it permissible to call any person (apart from the ambiya) ma'soom?
    6. What is the definition of rifz in light of Quran and Sunnah?
    7. What is the definition of nasabism and Kharjism in light of Quran and Sunnah?

    As these questions are in the public interest, we will ask that the mukhtar mazhab is presented and not the aqwaal? (That's playing fair according to Shah Sahib)

    This will provide clarity and make clear how the awaam like myself are being fooled.
  12. Waqar786

    Waqar786 Veteran

    @Aftab Malik. Brother try to understand the issue at hand.
    Yes a number of scholars have spoken up against Jalali sahib but quite a few did not label what he said as a gustakhi. They even said he explained the masla correctly but the choice of wording or the way it was said was not befitting. When we saw the clip, most of us on this forum had the same view that Jalali sahib should apologise (I still believe he should have)

    However, now what has happened is the tahreek against him with Syed Munawwar Jammati as the Qaid and syed Irfan Shah sahib as the main spokesperson is misrepresenting sunni principles to make a fatwa of gustakhi fit.

    The majority of the scholars don't regard what Jalali sahib said as a gustakhi or something where a fatwa can be put on, especially when they clarified what was meant.

    I ask you objectively, is it fair to call for a reputable sunni scholar to be excommunicated based on a tampered clip. When in their clarification, it becomes clear what they meant and when some of the major scholars have said that they got the masla correct. This can be evidenced by the scholars that went to see Jalali sahib and the speech of Muhadith e Kabeer.

    Apart from emotional rants and attempts to muddy waters about sunni principles, those who are against Jalali sahib have not provided much daleel.

    You say a gustakhi is a gustakhi but why is there no tahreek against those who openly slander Ameer Muawiyya and who used the same words in a worse fashion than Jalali sahib for Syeda Ayesha, and yet that individual is participating in conferences against Jalali Sahib.

    In reality what u don't understand (and me too) is that these issues don't get resolved on social media and big conferences. They get solved by ulema sitting together, exchanging their evidences and coming up with a conclusion, which can then be brought into public light.

    Brother if you look at it objectively, then it is clear that those against Jalali sahib (specifically those part of this tahreek) are not trying to sincerly resolve the issue but want to teach Jalali sahib a lesson based on personal agendas.

    The majority of scholars that you talk about are those of social media fame. There are a lot more senior scholars who don't engage with social media but as the brothers said, they need to evaluate the issue and give some sort of resolution.

    We are not going to be gullible and take things at face value. We don't take our understanding of the religon from what is trending, we understand it from the principles laid out by our prior predecessors. If these scholars just did recourse to these, this masla would have been dealt with weeks ago.

    It's not a numbers game but a matter of principles (which are currently being misrepresented).

    What speaks true in our current time is this quote from Orwell: the more a society moves away from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it'.
  13. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    Just about anything in this world can be divided into lughwi/istilahi. Furthermore, time too has a role to play. Istilahat can change with time too.

    The windows in your room are lughwi, the windows on your laptop is istilahi. But since your laptop is also kept on the table in your room, really the only difference between the windows on your wall and on your table is qat3i and zanni!

    I can't think of one mubtadi3 group that won't have a field day with this newly discovered "istilahi means lughwi" maxim - not one.

    @Aftab Malik you're a troll or else you would have replied to previous posts addressed to you. Your claim is hot air, just like tasleem sabri's "there's only a 100-150 supporters of Jalali on the internet who all keep posting with new ID's". Don't waste people's times.
  14. Aftab Malik

    Aftab Malik New Member

    Those who are defending Asif Jalali sahib, are 1 or 2. Fringe group.

    Those who are with Sayyid Pir Irfan Shah al-Moosavi are the majority of scholars from India and Pakistan. Council of Scholars. All the way from South India to Kashmir to Baluchistan to Punjab to Peshawar.

    Those defending Asif Jalali are going against the Majority of Scholars.

    Someone of you even have shown disrespect towards the Majority of scholars calling them Gundas, Donkeys, Jahil, Charlatan, Fraud, Fake, Shia, Rafidi.

    Gustakhi is Gustakhi whoever does it. Same Fatwa and ruling applies on them. It doesn't matter if he is reputed or has millions of followers.
  15. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    [Tr: Difference between Ma’soom (infallible) and Mahfooz (protected)]

    Some of our folks argue about the difference between Ma’soom (infallible) and Mahfooz (protected) then the difference is in its Qat’iyyat (definiteness) and Ghair Qat’iyyat (indefiniteness). If it doesn’t come within the reach of your intellectual grasp then refer to its definition in the book of Allama Abdul Aziz Parharwi rahimahullah entitled Al-Nibras which is commentary of Sharh al-‘Aqaid al-Nasafiyyah, then you will get to understand it. Even though Ma’soom means Mahfooz but the difference is only this much. I would say to those youngsters who often act like boys with toys who always get a kick out of discussions like this then listen, the difference is only its Qat’iyyat and Ghair Qat’iyyat. When we regard them (Ambiya and Angels) then this Aqeedah is definite (Qat’i) as we say that they are protected from any error. It is the very thing which Allama Abdul Aziz Parharwi rahimahullah explained in Al-Nibras the commentary of Sharh al-‘Aqaid al-Nasafiyyah that the difference is only in its Wujoob (necessity of infallibility) and Jawaaz (possibility of being divinely protected). If you have any intellect and insight into the matter then you will grasp its meaning. So this is the difference in these terminologies and the guideline to follow for the placement of any verdict concerning this issue.

    [Tr: Ma’soom vs Mahfooz]

    What is the meaning of the root word عصم in the verse? It means protection. It simply means that Ma’soom means protected, and I have described the difference in detail previously with reference to Allama Parharwi’s definition with its distinction between necessity and permissibility. Only a man of knowledge appreciates the difference between the two. Words only scratch the surface, for the meaning of ‘Ismah is protected. I taught it in Usool al-Shaashi that the first meaning your mind stops at, that is the real meaning of the word. So the real meaning of Ma’soom is Mahfooz (protected). The difference is Ma’soom is Qat’i (definite) whereas Mahfooz is Zanni (indefinite). It is an internal difference. In our Punjab they say, a son will always remain a son, no matter how old he may become. I give you the Sadaqah of Sayyidah Fatimah’s feet’s dust, understand it now…. If you want to see any further then study it in Tohfah Ithna ‘Ashariyyah by Allama Abdul Aziz Muhaddith Dehlawi who is my roohani father in the field of Hadeeth. He also wrote that one should not be carried away by the simplicity of the word Ma’soom for there is none Ma’soom Shar’i besides the Ambiya and Angels…


    the upshot of shah sahib's formulation seems to be:
    • ma'soom (in istilaahi sense) can be definitively attributed to Prophets and angels only [qat'yi]
    • when it comes to awliya - they should be called mahfuz - but they can also be called ma'soom (in lughwi sense)
    • Then mahfuz should be defined as a probable ma'soom (of the istilaahi sense?) [zanni]
    • Which means that one should believe that it is possible for them to commit a mistake [khata - but also sins?]
    • But one cannot actually attribute a mistake to them
    • Which further means that they are ma'soom lughwi only from a theoretical view point - but ma'soom istilaahi from a practical viewpoint
    • So if a ma'soom lughwi is attributed with a khata [in any sense - even a reward-worthy khata] - it would violate his status of: probable-ma'sum-istilahi
    • which is blasphemy [qat'yi?]

    Now, I don't know if there is a further division of blasphemy as:
    1. qat'yi/zanni
    2. lughwi/istilaahi etc.

    and based on these what is the hadd for it:
    • capital punsihment
    • flogging
    • imprisonment
    • ta'zeer

    P.S: Any supporters of irfan sahib - feel free to correct me if I have misquoted or misunderstood or mis-represented shah sahib's opinion in any way. I will update this post accordingly.
  16. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    so according to irfan sahib's group - is jalaali sahib a kafir (blasphemer) or not?

    and all those who awaam and ulema who still consider him sunni - are they too blasphemers - their nikahs invalidated?

    if not, what do we consider someone who hints that a sunni is a kafir (in so many words)?

    is a fatwa some kind of a button - which changes the state of a person? or is it something that describes his state?

    as a favor for the awaam - shah sahib should clarify this - should people consider jalali sahib a kafir or not?

    if he speaks in hints - he seems OK with putting the imaan of so many at risk - why not aar ya paar?
  17. shahnawazgm

    shahnawazgm Veteran

    The above is the key. It will also show us who are the true flag bearers of the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaah.

    May Allah protect Mufti Jalali sahib from these gundas and keep him steadfast
  18. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator



    (Tasleem Sabri speaking…)

    Huzoor, there are just few more issues. It has been quite late now. We are less in status compared to the AhleBayt, but what are the implications of accusing a Sunni like me, the Ulama or the AhleBayt of being a Shia? Is it not a sin?



    (Shah Saheb speaking…)

    [Tr: Implications of accusing a Sunni of being a Shia]

    One who believes in the necessities of Deen, now, to call such a person a deviant, it is one of major sins in the Shariah of Islam. Such a person is stripped of all authorities of giving Fatwa or any verdict. Why is that so? He loses his credibility. I would like to tell everyone this, whoever you talk about in this fashion by calling them Shia, then for as long as you did not clearly find them deviating from any of the necessities of Islam¸ then to say such things about them is utter ignorance and misfortune. It is forbidden and such a Mufti who goes about taking people out of the folds of Islam, he can be condemned. I would like share a piece of advice that if you are in favour of Ahlus Sunnah Hanafi Matureedi to flourish then approach someone who has different ways but not in Aqeedah, but rather in the way he may present himself or has connection with someone which he can fairly justify, then if you still strive for his reform, do not approach him by taking harsh measures, for it will not result positive. People are born free from their mothers’ wombs, they are not born as your slaves nor does it suite you to go about enslaving people and be on their case. If you want to rule over someone’s head then start by approaching his feet, and if the person feels that your intention is not to crush his head but you wanted to massage it then he will allow you. One must firstly feel comfortable with you and know that you are sincere. Understand this much that extremism does not solve anything. There is nothing in division. It is for this reason that I stopped inviting you to conferences because you were being extreme. These were my words during the conference that I need not the chopping block of a butcher but rather the needle of Baba Fareed which can unite the damaged hearts. We need more of those who can unite, and for that, all you need is love and compassion for the Ummah and sincerity. There should no show off. It is only then you start to see the fruits of your labour.




    (Tasleem Sabri speaking…)

    Huzoor, apart from the questions I had written down to ask you, you have also answered even those that were further from the reach of my intellect. There are however two minor things I seek clarity on, one that people have been requesting that the Muftis and Ulama should place a verdict on it, why are they shying away from it? Is there no such thing or that the matter is beyond Shariah parameters? How would you respond to things like these that are being said? Would you place a verdict on it?



    (Shah Saheb speaking…)

    [Tr: We are not those to cause a fire but those who put it off]

    Sabri saheb, what you have just said. As teachers, we have been teaching the lesson and leave little chance for someone to pose a question. There is something called answering something before it could surface and cloud the mind. What you have asked afterwards is a fundamental question. In this regard, I would like to address those who have asked the question and those youngster Ulama who have resorted to some rebellious measures, do not try so hard to seek personal verdict, otherwise there will be chaos. If we are saying that it is disrespectful then you are wise enough to assess that it is not hard for us to pass a verdict on blasphemy, but we do not need bloodshed nor fitnah and fasaad. Understand the sensitivity of the matter. It would take less than a minute to pass a verdict if required. I know that you put people into fitnah and caused bloodshed among the Ummah. And your mission seems to set this country on fire, it’s not what we do. My father used to say that we are Sayyed, and as Sayyed, if we step into a fire, we transform it into a garden. We are not those to cause a fire but those who put it off. You may call it my weakness but if you have some wisdom then you can understand it from the mere fact that we are calling it an insult and it will not take much to place a verdict on it but we leave it to those who are in proper position to pass the verdict. If they pass a verdict then SubhanAllah, which will save the country from fitnah and the issue will also be resolved at the same time.

  19. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    Yeah. If only the Darul Ulooms of Pakistan did their duty and spoke about the issue itself, awam like us wouldn't be talking about personalities. The current Sunniyat dynamics of the subcontinent are programmed in such a way that people talk about personalities not issues, even if they try their best not to want to. Our current elders see it as a salient feature of Sunniyat, not a bug!
  20. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    yeah, at this point, jalaali sahib has become the public face of authentic sunnism (whether he intended it or not) - and it has become essential for him to dig his heels in and stand his ground (easier said than done). May Allah keep him steadfast and turn the tide against the schemers.

    that thought crossed my mind too - "misapply the law against one of their own ranks and see them begging for it to be repealed".

    @AbdalQadir @sherkhan @AR Ahmed

    this is now appearing to be a brazen game of chess - and I am far behind the curve, so henceforth I will refrain from expressing opinions about individual personalities - as my comments are likely to cause confusion.

    wa's salaam

Share This Page