Fadak and khatā

Discussion in 'Aqidah/Kalam' started by AR Ahmed, Apr 4, 2023.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Waqar786

    Waqar786 Veteran

    @sherkhan... I have been naive about the situation, as I thought that Jalali would get his time in court. I said this because Jalali sahib himself said he wanted his time in the Supreme Court to debate and refute his opponents.

    The Deobandis would never help Jalali sahib but I thought Allama Khadim Hussain would be more forthcoming. Political differences can be put aside to safeguard our principles. Mufti Muneeb ur Rahman again should be doing more but it looks like these big sunni organisations are only useful in name only.

    one thing our scholars lack is foresight to see that either refuting or staying silent on the Jalali Sahib issue, the shias are benefitting.

    I thought Syed Irfan Shah would finally see sense and drag the other syeds back onto the Aqeeds of their Burzugs. That is what I was waiting for However, it seems like a marriage of convenience with the mutual interest of sidelining Jalali sahib.

    like I said @sherkhan I've been naive in this regard. The political element should reveal itself in due course but I am not even going to hazard a guess.
  2. Abdullah Ahmed

    Abdullah Ahmed Veteran

    not to defend them, but to be fair, they did speak up when Allamah Khadim Hussain Rizvi was jailed. And they supported his dharna in support of Khatme-nubuwwat.
    but it could also be that Allamah Jalali sahib openly challenged the deobandis (specifically Taqi Usmani) to a debate on Hussam-Al-Haramayn, so they dislike him more so, for that.
    whereas, Allamah Khadim Hussain hasnt ever directly criticized the deobandis in his bayans, (as far as i know, at least).
    Wallahu Alam.
  3. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    devbandis stand for nothing. agreed, they could not stand up for a 'barelwi' scholar.
    but they could have refuted the rafidis and their sympathisers?

    cowards, who will only speak up if their maulvis are refuted.

    clearly it is only those who stick to the maslak of alahazrat will speak up for the right and speak the truth.

    wa lillahi'l Hamd.
    Noori and Aqdas like this.
  4. sherkhan

    sherkhan Veteran

    Didn't you say this earlier?

    Didn't I say so:
    So what happened? Have you now lost faith in the Pakistani court? How will the matter get decided now? How much longer will we need to wait?
  5. Waqar786

    Waqar786 Veteran

    After 3-4 Judges refused to hear Jalali sahib's application for bail, the 5th one rejected it. What's the point of worrying about the threat of Israel or India, Pakistan's biggest threats are those puppets in position of power within Pakistan.

    Shias have openly opposed the Bill and have said so much bakwas against the Sahaba on social media but nothing is done about them. Really disappointed in our prominent Sunni organisations in not rallying around to protect the Sunni principles, even if they have issues with Jalali sahib.
    Abdullah Ahmed, Noori and Aqdas like this.
  6. Waqar786

    Waqar786 Veteran

    Sayyid Muzaffar Hussain Shah have been conspicuously absent from the recent gatherings of the opposition. It is possible that they disagree with the fatwa put on Jalali sahib but maintain their initial stance on Jalali sahib, which would be consistent with their earlier positions. I think I remember a brother mentioning that Shah Sahib does not like the word 'khata' to be even used for Amir Muawiyya in public because it creates misunderstandings and doubts.
  7. izz al-Din

    izz al-Din Well-Known Member

    Could you translate this brother?
    Fiqh alAkbar(quote)

  8. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    request to post only fadak, khata or jalali sahib related posts here. all other related topics - especially that are informational may go in their own threads.

    and post a link to the thread in this one if you think it is related here.
  9. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    after watching the speech of qari zawar sahib, we should indeed congratulate ourselves.

    this is the maslak of alahazrat. we will not spare anyone if they step out of line of ahl al-sunnah.

    apropos to sh. saeed foudeh's comments that alahazrat's followers are fanatical and will not brook any criticism of alahazrat, he can see why alahazrat is the mainstay of ahl al-sunnah in the subcontinent.

    as a rock-solid representative of the jama'ah, it appears as if he IS the jama'ah.

    sh. fiqh al-akbar:

    sh. fiqh alakbar.png
  10. Waqar786

    Waqar786 Veteran

    Allamah Saeed Asad has been all over the place in the issue, which is probably stemming from previous issues with Jalali Sahib. Alhamdulillah, He has ostensibly left the opposition camp and instead concentrating on the Rafzis.

    Syed Irfan Shah just need to take step back and evaluate his role because he is in danger of losing the support of the sunni public.

    Syed Muzaffar Shah has gone quiet, so maybe he has decided better to take the back seat. Obviously, the family issues have made it hard for him.

    The others obviously have their own agenda. Overall, like @AbdalQadir said, this was not an issue that should have reached this stage. it just shows the lack of unity and above all sincere leadership in our ranks
  11. Brother Barry

    Brother Barry Veteran

    @AbdalQadir Saeed Asads statement from 11:35 onwards.

    According to his weak intellect "there was never even any form of discussion on requesting Fadk and it's all just a made up story"
  12. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    my support. don't give these rafidis a free pass.
    Noori likes this.
  13. AbdalQadir

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

    Noori likes this.
  14. AbdalQadir

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

  15. AbdalQadir

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

    Yes, and since the conversation never took place, there's no question of "jis waqt maang rahi theen, khata par theen" (my understanding of Irfan Shahs contention)

    This is what I understand Irfan Shah to be conveying in the interview to sabri.

    that's why he mentioned in the sabri interview about 3 other turuq of narrations on the matter that purportedly don't mention a direct meeting/conversation...

    and boasted that he could've responded to rawafid from another '10 different angles' without committing the enormity that Jalali did.
    if someone thinks I got it wrong, please correct me. I reiterate, denying the request for Fadak absolutely (whether in person or through delegation) will be more than jahil and stupid

    not from me. In my post #92, I said I need to study the veracity of Irfan Shah sahab's claims.
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2020
  16. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    ok. so this is the issue.

    anything else?
  17. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    if there is confusion, it is because the issue is not explained well. aqdas asked me to write something, and i was really shocked [this is deja vu] that people who have four line titles don't know basic stuff. i am not exaggerating, but i find it embarrassing to explain basic things.
  18. AbdalQadir

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

    @Waqar786 @sherkhan @abu Hasan

    thanks for reminding me, the other claimant was Saeed Asad

    of course. the nature of request (whether direct or through delegation) is a moot point.

    it's idiotic to suggest that asking for Fadak in itself (whether directly or through delegation) is all fiction. neither the for-Jalali nor the against-Jalali side suggests this, to the best of my knowledge.

    i'm not sure if Saeed Asad denied the request mutlaqan or only denied the asking in person.

    it will be highly absurd if the rafidi and munawwar jamati inclined camp suggests 'request for Fadak never happened mutlaqan' to appease their shia cohorts, while they indeed themselves say it did happen


    the starting point of this issue was Jalali citing a narration and saying "jis waqt maang rahi theen, khata par theen" (or something close to this)

    in the interview with sabri, irfan shah says that the specific narration Jalali cited itself is weak/maudu3 and the raawi is matrook (or something like that, watch it if interested)

    it would have been fine if the anti-Jalali side left it at that.

    but thenceforth everything spiraled out of control with discussions on the defnition of ma3soom and mahfooz, denial of khata ijtihadi, cussing, ego trips, what have you. i don't know who said what after that in regards to the event itself (requesting Fadak) or what they implied when talking about it (asking direct or asking through delegation)

    again, denying the request/event absolutely (with or without delegation) would be supremely idiotic


    everyone congratulate yourselves. our ulema have successfully made a circus of a very minor issue and they have also drawn circles round our heads.
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2020
  19. Waqar786

    Waqar786 Veteran

    Yeah we've already contended that Allamah Saeed Asad's claim was incorrect. I was responding to @AbdalQadir comment about Sayida Fatima not going in person, how does the nature of the request link to Ijtihad being done or not as Shah Sahib wanted to impress on jalali sahib. This is the part that I am struggling to understand.

    The way I see it is that the nature of the request is a mute point in relation to the issue of the ijtihad.
  20. sherkhan

    sherkhan Veteran

    Mawlana Saeed Asad claimed in one of his videos that he will bring a proof that Sayyida Fatima (radiAllahu anha) never ever asked for Fadak. So if no request was made, then where was the question of ijtihad, and consequent khata (as deemed by other camp)? Of course, Mawlana Asad never brought forth that proof.

    Mufti Chishti pooh-poohed Mawlana Asad's claim of proof and contended that request for Fadak was indeed made, but not as shias describe with usual exaggerations.

Share This Page