At 11 mins, the Mawlana sahib says Allah ne istiymal farmaye. I believe one of the akabir said this shouldn't be said about Allah ta'ala because istiymal is from amal and Allah ta'ala is free from amal.
it is kufr. al-iyadhu billah. someone tell these idiots that we are muslims; we are not hindus or christians who have no restriction on how they describe what they worship. a Muslims should be careful and withhold his tongue when speaking of Allah taala or His Messengers - and speak only as much as the shariah permits us. if you do not know what are the limits, then first find out. read a beginner book on aqidah/creed. and what makes you a muslim and what makes you a kafir. wa billahi't tawfiq.
On a similar topic, what can be said about this line from 3:52 () "the pain of separation was intolerable even for God"
There are other issues too, he was invited to a wahabi jalsah and he said there were no major issues with them, the differences are of secondary nature.
Btw, I think he retracted after the discussion with Mufti Rashid Mahmood Rizwi. That was at the start, before Irfan Shah went extreme and did takfir. Meaning, perhaps Saeed Asad sahib just thought Jalali sahib shouldn't have said khata.
I did not say that the asha'ar are problematic al iy'adhu billah, I just said (or meant to say) that tafziliyyah can present these or similar asha'ar from our elders, for example, the 6th shai'r in the image "na mangon main tum say to phir kis say mangon". I don't see any problem with it but I can see that tafziliyyah will try to use such asha'ar to justify their mushrikanah shai'r.
Masha'a Allah, very nice as always, and I do stand corrected, but I do think that takfir will not be made because I know that the tafziliyyah will make ta'wilaat and try to use couplets from elders' kalam to justify it.
except when such a verse would be said by an upright scholar, and known to be a staunch sunni, and his other work clearly absolves him of tashayyuy or rifz or having used it in an absolute sense. in such a case, it will be considered a lapse on the part of the poet [shat'Haat of awliyaa], or that it was said in a state of being engrossed - as we come across certain problematic words in the speech of sufis; or that he had something else in mind, which was not adequately conveyed in words. we can do ta'wil to avoid takfir. however, it cannot be repeated. it cannot be read out in public. especially in these times of closet shia/tafzili/rawafiz showing their true colours. nas'alu Allah al-aafiyah Allah ta'ala knows best.
malik e kaunayn hain go paas kuch rakhte nahin do jahan ki niymaten hain unke khaali haath mein he is the master of both worlds, though he doesn't keep anything with him the gifts of both worlds are present in his empty hand [or "just" his palm] khaali is used cleverly as both: 'empty hand' and the idiom: in "just" his palm. 'empty' because he would give away everything. sahih bukhari: #6998: tirmidhi, #2369 --- ghaus e kaunayn ki ghulami se jagat aaqa hai ahmad e noori ghaus e kaunayn is RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam; and by becoming his slave, ahmad noori has become the master of this world. jagat= dunya (in hindi); meaning master of people in this world (i.e. after him). kaunayn is also used in urdu to mean: men and jinn - so it can also be used to indicate 'relative'; but when you couple this with rizq and without any other indication of being relative, it simply gives the meaning of absolute - as we see in the shiyr. ---- zinat e ka'abah mein tha laakh aruson ka banaaw jalwah farma yahan kaunayn ka dulha dekho in the bedecked ka'abah was the adorment of a million brides come see the resplendence here of the presence of the prince of both worlds [i.e. near the mausoleum of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam] ----- la wa rabbi'l arsh jis ko jo mila in se mila bat'ti hai kaunayn mein niymat RasulAllah ki sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam by Allah, the Owner of the Throne - anyone who gets, get its by his means the blessing of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is shared in both worlds. in se mila - via him, through him, by his means. ---- sayyid e kaunayn sultan e jahan zill e yazdan shah e deen arsh aastan the chief of both worlds - the king of the world the shade given by Allah (for the creation) - the master of the religion, the one who has been on the Throne. even taymiyyites should not crib because according to them RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam will be on the arsh on Judgement Day. ---- hay khaak sey ta'amir mazar e shah e kaunayn ma'mur isi khaak se qiblah hai hamara the blessed tomb of the prince of both worlds is made from this dust [of the earth] and our qiblah - the direction we turn to worship our Lord - the ka'aba is also made from this very earth.
in mufti-azam's lines there is no indication of absoluteness. tere rab ne malik kia tere jadd ko tere ghar se dunya pali ghaws e aazam your Lord-Almighty made your grandfather (sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam) the owner, the master of everything the world lives at the door of your household - o ghaws dunya - as opposed to kaunayn - refers to people in this world. and we use this as a common idiom - if there is a throng of people at a place, we say: "ek dunya palat aayi hai." when it was a public event: "saari dunya ne dekha", the whole world has seen this. some ulama are given the title: "allamatu'd dunya" - the greatest scholar in the world. even though greater than them might have come before. [imam abu hafS nasafi al-hanafi is one example who is given this title]. thus "dunya" is used for people for one's age and thereafter. imam ibn Hajar al-asqalani terms imam bukhari as: "imam al-dunya fi fiqh'il hadith" - the imam of the world in the understanding of hadith. for contrast, if we replace dunya with kaunayn, we can see that the relative meaning becomes absolute: how does "imam al-kaunayn fi fiqhi'l hadith" sound? --------- woh hai kaun aysa nahin jis ne paaya tere dar pe dunya dhali ghaws e aazam who among the people of this world who didn't avail the world turns to your doorstep o ghaws aazam the same idiom - people of the world. a famous man: 'aaj dunya mein use kaun nahin jaanta' / who doesn't know him in the world? if someone argues about iphones and that they are useless, one could say: "dunya istimaal karti hai" / the world uses it. or about windows: "aaj dunya meN kaun windows istimaal nahin karta" / who doesn't use windows in today's world. clearly the ma'ana of istighraq is not present in this usage. --- remaining lines must be understood in this context and relative meaning. not as absolute and all-encompassing. ------ Allah knows best.
that seems to be true. he is swaying from here to there and back again - attacking the aqidah of awwaliyah and when irfan shah created this controversy, he sat with him. and then swung back again to the other end. but in this matter, i seem to agree with him - the lines are offensive and should be avoided. saeed sahib describes it as "mushrikana" meaning - suggestive of shirk; and takfir was not made [at least in this clip]. yes, with a ta'wil takfir can be avoided, but the sheyr should be shunned at all costs. it is indeed "suggestive of shirk" ruk jaye agar maadar e hasanayn ki chakki kaunayn ko phir rizq ata kaun karega if the millstone of hasan-husayn's mother stops grinding who will then give sustenance to both the worlds? in other words: it is sayyidah's millstone that gives sustenance to both worlds. taking out the metaphor and saying it plainly: sayyidah gives sustenance to both worlds. [al iyadhu billah] by negating others [using an interrogative sentence - istifham li'l inkar], the sentence gives a meaning of 'absolute'. and by saying kaunayn - both the worlds - it indicates 'istighraq' meaning, applies to everything. and here 'ata' - to give is also suggestive of 'giving' and not 'means of giving' [tawassul]. by implication, this includes anbiya alayhimu's salatu wa's salam - and sayyidu'l awwalin wa'l aakhirin, our master sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam himself. ----- alahazrat's verses however make this distinction and makes our aqidah crystal clear: rabb hai mu'yti - yeh hain qasim rizq us ka hai, khilate yeh hain Allah is the real Giver, he (sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam) is the distributor sustenance (rizq) belongs Allah - but our master feeds us (from the rizq given by Allah). khalq ke hakim ho tum, rizq ke qasim ho tum tum se mila jo mila, tum pe karoron durud you are the master, the overlord, the ruler of the creation; you distribute sustenance whatever we get is through you - a million blessings upon you here "tum-se-mila" - due to the previous allusion to "taqsim"/distribution, clearly implies "through you" - not that you are actual giver. ---- rizq e khuda khaya kiya, farman e Haqq taala kia shukr e karam, tars e sazaa - ye bhi nahin woh bhi nahin you live on the sustenance given by Allah - yet you overlook and disobey His commands. gratitude for the Grace and bounty? fear of punishment? you have neither this, nor that. ----- in another manqabat ala hazrat clarifies this even further: khuda se leN laD'ai woh hai mu'Tiy nabi qasim hai tu muuSil موصِل ya ghawth they seek to fight with Allah? He is the Giver the Prophet distibutor and you deliver - o ghawth [shaykh abdu'l qadir jilani] the next couplet answers any objection aTa'en Muqtadir, Ghaffar ki haiN abas bandon ke dil mein ghil hai ya ghaws every boon, every grant, in reality, is actually given by the All-Powerful, the Forgiver people harbor a grudge needlessly, o ghawth! --- Allah ta'ala knows best.
Which line/couplet (of the pasted part) is problematic? I can't see a single asha'ar that can be objected to. Which verse by Mawlana Mustafa Raza is even parallel to the detestable rafizi verse/statement cited by Aqdas?
After discussing it with my teacher and pondering more on it I take my statement back, but still, a far-fetched interpretation can be made which will hold us from takfir, not like what saeed asad sahib said that it is absolutely and certainly kufr and shirk. if saeed asad sahib tahinks so then he should do takfir of iran shah and everybody sitting there and agreeing to this absolutely and certainly kufr and shirk.
I think this can be favorably interpreted, Saeed Asad sahib is no more a reliable critic. see the couplets by Huzur Molana Mustafa Raza Khan rahimahullah, the same objection can be made on these asha'ar (of course, which we will reject and do favorable sharh), and these are in praise of ibn Sayyidatin' Nisaa raDiyaAllahu Anha.