Not so quick. See this video: Qari Tayyib Sahib did get found out by Dr Jalali, after the former issued his 1st video saying that attributing khata ijtihadi is something that hasn't been done by anyone (when he himself had done so in his tafsir). After these charges and counter-charges, it was clear that he wouldn't take it lying down. Hanif Quraishi and PAQ have been commended in his latest video. He makes his own admission about attributing a very severe allegation against Sayyiduna Ali (karamAllahu wajhu). Yes, Qari Tayyib appears sincere, moderate and doesn't seem to be on witch-hunt (like others). But his own judgement and previous pronouncements have been lacking the high standards he is trying to hold Dr Jalali sahab to.
https://musjidulhaq.com/2020/07/20/sayyed-irfan-shah-mashhadi-audio-transcription-on-the-status-of-sayyidah-fatimah-pertaining-to-the-issue-of-fadak-13-july-2020/ Downloadable PDF available at above link.
there was a big ruckus kicked up (our very own nawazuddin called them dawate nawasib), when Maulana Ilyas called "be gunah be kkhata Mu3awiyah" (lughwi sense, not istilahi, as he clarified later) so many "Sunnis" came out in defense of Sunni 3aqidah and that ghayr-nabi simply CAN NOT be called be gunah be khata now once again "Sunnis" are coming out, only in offense, and saying the word khata can't be used, even with the qualifier ijtihadi, and Ahlul Bayt HAVE TO be called be-khata-ijtihadi presenting this wonderful logic: - istilahi ma3soom means lughwi mahfooz - istilahi mahfooz obviously also means lughwi mahfooz - so, istilahi mahfooz means istilahi ma3soom hence proved! (miss my CBSE days)
@Unbeknown & @ramiz.noorie this ain't a fatwa or a qa3eda fiqhiyya - just my take considering the real world (with all its fitnahs) that i've seen in my life- as far as i'm concerned, if Muzaffar Shah sahab really is sandhi of Irfan Shah sahab (boy's side), then Muzaffar Shah sahab's opinion/bayan in support of Irfan Shah sahab is kal-3adm for me. i would consider his opinion if he spoke against Irfan Shah sahib. (feel free to shoot me down. as i said, this is strictly my personal take) as i said before, this issue in our times has been engineered in such a way that the awam keeps going round and round in circles (aimmae mujtahideen said this, aimmae ghayr mujtahid said that, so whats the issue with our contemporary saying this or that, we should use istilahi language, we should use 3urfi language, adab in istilahi books of imams, beadabi in our times in 3urfi language bayans to awam, lughwi explanation of istilahi terms, istilahi explanation of lughwi terms etc. the list goes on) --- all so that they can scream at the top of their voices in the peeri-mureedi flea market. i too am guilty of this going in circles let's cut to the chase. in my limited knowledge, for the purpose of this thread: 1. in the opinion of mutakallimeen, insulting non-prophets (lika sahaba) is not kufr, where nass of Quran is not denied, meaning 1a. the person who denies the sahabi status of Abu Bakr radi Allahu 3anhu, he is a kafir for denying nass of Quran (that automatically means takfir of Abu Bakr also makes one a kafir, as being Muslim is condition to be sahabi) 1b. qaadhif of Ummuna 3aishah radi Allahu 3anha is mutlaqan kafir and mustahiq-e-la3nat 2. in the opinion of the fuqahaa, however, insulting Shaykhayn (Abu Bakr and Umar, radi Allahi 3anhumaa) makes one a kafir (note here that insulting also includes takfir, so someone doing takfir of Abu Bakr would be denying his sahabi status by default and he would be a kafir even according to the scrupulous opinion of mutakallimeen) in this opinion of fuqahaa, calling the Shaykhayn as zalim, ghaasib, or doing takfir of Hazrat Umar, and so on, all would render the person kafir other than this, in my limited knowledge, i don't know if gustakhi (on its own, sans other charges) of anyone else carries the hukm of kufr. if someone knows, please advise me, i will be obliged. only writing without consulting books to the best of my knowledge, those Sunni scholars who call yazeed paleed a kafir, call him kafir for -saying he avenged his ancestors for Badr -believing shedding Muslim blood as permissible (as opposed to believing it to be impermissible and then doing it, like sinful Muslims believing drinking to be impermissible but still doing it) so let's come to the worst case scenario (regardless if you accept it or not) Jalali saying khata is gustakhi Jalali later on qualifying that he implied khata ijtihadi does not absolve him of the gustakhi mentioned above, as mere change of words does not prove rujoo3 so does that make a kafir? or does that make him a mubtadi3i? (please give reasons for this) or does that mean he committed a one-off sin (on this matter) and should repent for it? we need a hukm from a mufti on this. but don't hold your breath for a proper answer from a pakistani mufti!
Masha-Allah listening to qari tayyib sahib was heart-warming - despite the fact that some of his arguments do not carry sufficient force to put jalali sahib in the dock, but some of the things that he called jalali sahib out on are noteworthy indeed. yes, this is the only sensible manner in which to deal with the issue - instead of andha-dhundh firing - try to make your opponent see reason and build pressure quietly and in less public ways. The humility and sobriety of mawlana sahib won my heart. As did his almost charming proclamations of "ye nahi hai, ye nahi ho sakta" - a very touching and sincere display of aqeedat and love. he is not from any group (as per him) watch the last five minutes. --- the only thing I did not like is his repeated attribution to jalali sahib of uttering the word khata - without mentioning the all important qualifier. that can further demonize jalali sahib in people's minds. And it also has the effect of making the word 'khata ijtihadi' sound like a cuss word. ---- One thing I noted is that those who are claiming that khata-ijtihadi is a gustakhi or a very severe be-adabi, are not quoting any precedence to support their claims, just personal ta'weels of the incident, whereas jalali sahib is bringing references - right or wrong. All in all, this bayan further proves that the issue is an academic one and can be debated in maqalaat or in private fora - rather than making a spectacle of it. Allah knows best. P.S: Please note that if some of my comments appear naiive, that may be because I haven't been able to keep up with the controversy - so I may miss veiled attacks or some clever rephrasing of misquotations.
@Aftab Malik: I really think you are the one that does not understand this issue. If we accept that Sayida Fatima did know the hadith, then it gives even more credence to Jalali Sahib's claim about Sayida Fatima doing itjihad. It actually weakens Sayyid Irfan Shah's claim that sayyida Fatima did not do ijtihad. I don't know how knowing a hadith or not is linked to sayida Fatima's knowledge of the unseen. It is certainly not repugnant. This is not a new issue and has been discussed at length by our pious predecessors. These sort of claims that you have just brought up are questionable at best.
why stop at Jalali? why not implicate great imams of the Ahlus Sunnah too? which aqidah text says this (that great grand children of Sayyidah had ilm al-ghaib). please advise. your argument implies that Sayyidah knows every saying of her blessed Father 3alaihis salam by way of ilm al-ghaib and it can't be any other way. that is, it's a wajib in the istilah of aqidah. specifically, you have to let us know the answers to the following: which aqidah text states that it is muhal for Ahlul Bayt to not have ilm al-ghaib and not be aware of a particular saying of the Prophet 3alaihis salam? does the same also extend to Ummahaatul Mumineen too - that it is muhal for them to not have ilm al-ghaib and be unaware of a saying of the Prophet? does the same argument also extend to the Khulafaa Ar-Raashideen - that it is muhal for them to not have ilm al-ghaib and to be unaware of a saying of the Prophet? does it also extend to the Badri Sahaba or the 3ashara Mubashshara? does it also extend to the rest of the sahaba? (ridwan Allahi 3alaihim ajma3een) you started this. now don't run and hide. you made a claim. you have to prove it. (incidentally, even Irfan Shah sab didn't say that saying Sayyidah wasn't aware of the Prophet's saying is gustakhi)
Watched each and every video posted on this forum and facebook. I find it repugnant and irresponsible to say: The Noble Lady Sayyidah Al-Zahra (R) did not know the Hadith of her Father صلى الله عليه وسلم ; This argument is used by all those making excuses for Asif Jalali sahib. great grandchildren of the Noble Lady had ilm al-ghaib and you say she did not know. This is lack of Adab which exonerates Sayyid Pir Irfan Shah al-Moosavi. I strongly urge and request everyone to consider the points of contentions.
I don't know but it seems he is referring to the "change of words" - where jalali sahib said "we will not use the word khata" - and muzaffar sahib is saying that substituting a different set of words does not qualify as ruju. This seems to be a response to hazrat's previous reply when he said that when the sayyidah (raDyiAllahu 'anha) did not know of the hukm in the first place, it cannot be called a "khata" - unless the demand was kept up - which isn't the case. As for the second audio, in which hazrat says that "khata ijtihaadi" is not synonymous with any gustakhi - and hence no tawbah as such is necessary [correct me if I have misunderstood hazrat's response] - muzaffar sahib has not responded to that. --- In this lecture muzaffar sahib stresses on the inappropriateness of the use of the word "khata" in our times, as it has gained a negative connotation - from this admittedly valid contention* - the leap towards gustaakhi and takfeer is really astonishing. On the flip side, he is defending irfan shah sahib's use of the word ma'soom - as just a linguistic variant of mahfooz** - failing to consider that it is just as inappropriate, if not more. Thirdly, he is quoting the elders' use of the word "tahira" as a an accommodating proof for using the word ma'soom - whereas that word has an explicit nass in the Qur'an. --- Lastly, the other mufti sab focusing on thew words "chane nahi bech rahe hai"*** seems to have misunderstood him, afaik, he wasn't using sarcastic language towards muhaddith-e-kabeer, in fact, he spoke with perfect adab. And Allah knows best ------ * many years ago a mawlana sahib had told me that he doesn't agree to using the word "khata" for sayyiduna mu'awiyyah (raDyiAllahu 'anhu) even with the adjective of "ijtihaadi", in the awaam, because people are likely to latch on to the first word and leave off the second. ** the jawaaz for which, says he, is found in the book - notice the irony, he is faulting jalaali sahib for using "book-language" without considering the present connotations, and yet he is OK with irfan sahib doing jut that. *** I hope the prices of the humble legume won't be affected in Pakistan due this off--the cuff remark : )
I can at least respect Allama Qari Tayyib Naqshbandi's attempt at being respectful in spite of the fact that I disagree with him. However, he keeps saying that he disputes the attribution in Mushkilat e Hadith and Bahare Shariat which doesn't make a difference. The difference now is what Allama jalali sahib damat barakatahum saying kufr or gustakhi? If so, put a fatwa on the authors. Secondly, Mawlana Tayyib sahib qiblah should know that his having a disagreement with Musallam al Thubut or Na`imat al Bari is not enough for us to not take it as a reference. That is an illogical statement on the part of the respected Mawlana. Furthermore, mawlana qari tayyib does not prove the da`wa given by his own group that this is "be-adabi" or "gustakhi" from Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani's ibarat. Rather he goes onto his own logic. Also if Mawlana qari tayyib has such a problem on Na`imat al Bari vol 14 and saying "Allah maaf farmayega" to sayyida Fatima al Zahra radhiALlahu anha, then why doesn't he put a fatwa on `Allamah Ghulam Rasul Saeedi rahmatullahi alayh? Maaf farmayega means forgive her ijtihadi mistake, as per the text of Na`imat al Bari. We do du`a for the maghfirah of the whole ummah. This includes the Ahl al-bayt.
janab AbdalQadir i am in total agreement that utmost respect should be shown. my point is this issue doesn't have anything to do with adab, more like a political and khanqah rivalry. if you had listened to mufti aslam bandalywi speech on this matter he quotes son of shah abdul haqq dehlawi and few other scholars. my question is why when Dr Asif Jalali says it become bad adab but when other scholars or early scholars say it doesn't become bad adab. Allmah gulam rasool saedi was quoted in this thread. why don't they do takfir of him. Imam e Adham Abu Hanifah was quoted, why not apply the same on Imam Abu Hanifah. hope you got the point.
Shaykh Asrar - Open letter to Ulama of Pakistan in Urdu. Instead of wasting time on internal disputes which are not actual Kalam (theological) issues but just divisive discourse and in some cases swearing and abuse coupled with confused definitions of well known concepts like 'masum'. Instead of firing up an already ignorant public with slogans and insults, all efforts should be made in teaching basics of Tawhid and the basic proofs. Instead the peers and maulwis are busy with fiery rhetoric telling the public that peers who they deem as awliya are mahfuz, and mahfuz is the same as masum (sinless) except the former is not decisive and the latter is decisive! All the while to justify swearing they introduce the bidah of saying Allah swears in the Quran (which is wrong and false). Then murids are taught to blind follow. Spread the letter to all Urdu speaking ulama: http://www.seekerspath.co.uk/question-bank/guidance-counsel/پاکستان-کے-سرمزین-اور-بیرون-ملک-میں-پاک/
you or me not showing adab to each other is a completely different case than someone being disrespectful towards Sahaba or Ahlul Bayt. don't mix up the two issues brother. of course we don't deny our Sunni 3aqidah, but still we have to maintain adab for the Sahaba and Ummahaatul Mumineen and Ahlul Bayt. this is why some people have said that this issue is best avoided lest awam go in circles, and someone flies off on a tangent. ---- according to Mashhadi sab's daleel/reasoning: 1. the person who speaks lightly about the blessed sandals of the Prophet 3alaihis salam becomes a kafir 2. therefore, the ruling will only be harsher on the person who speaks disrespectfully about Sayyidah Nisaa Al-3aalameen radi Allahu 3anha as the Prophet 3alaihis salam called her a part of himself my question: 3. what about the one who uses the exact same word (khata) for the wives of the Prophet 3alaihis salam, the Ummahaatul Mumineen (proven by nass) and 3ashara Mubashsharah (given the glad tidings by Prophet 3alaihis salam), radi Allahu 3anhum ajma3een? this is exactly what that hanif qureshi said: did he do rujoo3 from his previous saying? (please provide link if someone knows about it) if not, with what moral authority did he so shamelessly come to that conference yesterday to talk about adab for Sayyidah Nisaa Al-3aalameen? what were all those crocodile tears for when the issue just started? and why was he welcome by the rest? where was all this rage and spitting fire when Ummahaatul Mumineen and Sahaba were attacked - by every single one of them who's ready to pounce on Jalali? (as an aside, hanif qureshi also spewed further jahalat by alleging that saying both Mawla Ali and those opposing him were in haqq is the belief of nasibis and kharijis. there is hadith supporting saying such) did Mashhadi sab speak up with so much rage against the blasphemous cartoonists in europe: charlie hebdo, denmark etc.? did he go medieval on the qadianis and the mirza in the UK? (these are genuine questions by the way. i don't know if he did or didn't speak up back then) or did he even get so harsh with paqs? if not, then he's very slyly selective in his rage. there's no other way to say it. (i was trying to make excuses, but by spitting so much venom yesterday, it looks like he's all in by himself) afaik Khadim Hussain sab spoke abundantly against the blasphemers of europe, but it looks like he wasn't present in yesterday's conference. (correct me if he was). don't know about others if they did or didn't speak against the european blasphemers. ---- what are the senior muftis of the madaris and darul uloom's doing? i was told some of them would rather the fitnah die naturally than confuse the awam further or cause further polarization. but i digress. firstly the confusion and polarization is already caused and here to stay. secondly now that the fitnah exists, being ulema and owners of institutions, it's their duty to make the 3aqidah of Ahlus Sunnah and the ruling of the Shari3ah manifest. guidance comes only from Allah. our elders didn't wait for fitnah's to die naturally. they slayed it themselves. i feel some of them may indeed be thinking (rightly or wrongly) that it's best to let the issue die naturally, but i just feel some don't want to be caught in the crossfire between the peers. Allah knows best.
i understand adab is important however this is part of the adab to clarify the position. lack of adab is to attribute falsehood like making claims of masoom or mahfooz bowing to rafidi shia pressure. quotes from fiqh al-akbar were posted, would someone claim lack of adab ? shaykh salih asmari mentions here more http://sasmari.com/portal/news/print_a/122 the matter may be sensitive to some but it certainly was not sensitive to the giants of this ummah. you can check statement from shaykh al-azhar here https://www.mobtada.com/details/349652 don't see any thing which indicates bad adab from shaykh al-azhar or shaykh salih asmari or the early scholars. also brother what about the adab card when it comes to cursing and swearing? is that part of islam?
try using https://www.bitchute.com/ for videos - it's DMCA safe. there's no need to speak in such generalizations. these are sensitive matters and the route of adab is the safest. that's the sad part.
Lest we forget, in past we were willing to overlook Sayyid Irfan Shah's harsh/crass language (despite squirming at the choice of words) as long as it was directed against PAQ etc. Even though Pir Munawwar Jamaati appears to be orchestrating the charges, it would be disingenuous to suggest that he is behind Sayyid Irfan Shah's poor language. Despite his ubiquitous presence at the latest series of conferences, I suspect Pir Munawwar is not as influential a figure as it may appear. He is always a figurehead/ sadar at this majlis and that; I have never ever heard him say anything useful/scholarly. He probably has a knack of being everywhere. Look at purveyors of soft-tafdhili aqeeda: scions of Alipur sharif, Golra sharif, Eidgah sharif, this sharif, that sharif. Each disavowing the work of their own predecessors: Golra sharif disavowing tasfia, Arshad Kazmi claiming that Allama Saeed Kazmi's "mushkilat ul-hadith" (cited by Dr Jalali) is spurious. ---- In his latest video, Allama Tayyib Naqshbandi sahab has repudiated/questioned ibarats presented by Dr Jalali (from mushkilat ul-hadith, bahar-e-shariat, Imam Asqalani's fath ul-bari, niamat ul-bari* etc.). To be fair to him, Allama Tayyib is more even-handed and doesn't explicitly side with parties charging Dr Jalali. * Allama Ghulam Rasool Saeedi has been known to create a handful of unfortunate controversies in his works.
I couldn't even go through the entire clip, astaghfirullah, the language was so foul. How can he say such words about the mother / parents of mufti Jalali Sahib! Utterly disrespectful man I have to say even though he is a Sayyid he is not above the shariat. Did he bring forth 4 witnesses when he made such an accusation? And isnt he afraid of Allah that kufr will come on to himself should the person he is accusing of not being a Muslim is not a kafir? And what about the rest like Munawwar shah bukhari of Blackburn and all who were so enthusiastically raising their hands in agreement when all this pollution was coming out of Irfan Shah's mouth? Do they think that Allah won't touch them as they are Sayyid? I applaud these fakes for exposing themselves to the public.
@Sunni By Nature linked to the videos that have now come up on youtube. i'm assuming Hamid Kazmi sab's speech will also be uploaded soon. he said tahir is a fitnah but if we write off all his fans Ahlus Sunnah will become weak. just the same 4shared has become a menace, you gotta register to watch/download the shared files/videos. we might never know the true position of Muzaffar Shah sahab, as he's (i've heard) the father in law of Irfan Shah's son, and considering how aggressive Irfan Shah sab can get, he might be in a tough spot. we all know desi culture of family and in-laws dramas commercial naatkhwani, emotional speeches, naarebazi, over-the-top aqeedatmandi, and lofty seven lines long titles are drugs that the Sunni awam is addicted to, and the dealers are the unqualified peers this is really a mureedi turf war with people hiding behind real or unreal aqidah and hukme Shariah points (as people familiar with ground realities are saying) i was told Asif Jalali sab, and Khadim Hussain sab too are well known for their aggressive behaviour and colorful language towards other Sunni scholars. so really the gaalis cancel each other out on both sides of the equation and no one needs to get emotional at any real or perceived mazloom Allah help us