maqasid al-hasanah, #926 the hadith: i have a time (apportioned) with Allah and neither the closest angel, nor a prophet sent forth has access in it. sufis mention this and it is mentioned in risalah al-qushayriyah with the words: "i have a time which is exclusively for my Lord-Sustainer" this is similar in meaning to a hadith found in shamayil of tirmidhi and ibn rahuwayh in his musnad narrating from mawla ali in a lengthy hadith that RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam, when he came to his place apportioned his time in three parts; one part for Allah ta'ala; one part for his household and one part for his own self - and then a part from his own time for people. in a lengthy hadith in shamayil al-muhammadiyyah of imam tirmidhi: #337 === in risalah al-qushayriyyah, under the topic al-talwin wa't tamkin:
around 4.00 minutes nabeelum can be seen looking at something screen or some other prompter when he begins talking about munazarah terms. bahut khoob. ---- whining about munazarah and listing out conditions to browbeat the other party. he goes on about munazarah until 7.30 minutes. then he picks out a mispronunciation "sha'aba" and a wrong attribution of hadith by shaykh zulfiqar. as long as such a mistake is not in aqidah and that it was not deliberate, it should be noted as an error and we move on. we all make mistakes. (except deobandis, who do not make mistakes and will never own up). as for names - the likes of imam bukhari and other muhaddithin have mixed up some names, and that in itself should not be an issue. mu'talif/mukhtalif is a separate sub-branch in rijal where later ulama research and clarify names that were mixed up by imams of muhaddithin. we are barely students of the science and honest mistakes on our part - especially in names - should be excused. in fact, shaykh zulfiqar carried over an error about shaykh yisa al-himyari of dubai, who was quoted by irfan shah thumping his book on the noor hadith. irfan shah lied when he said shaykh yisa also quoted that hadith, whereas sh. yisa notes that the hadith is forgery in that book itself. irfan shah: here irfan shah calls him "humayri", whereas he is al-Him'yari, which is a well-known yemeni tribe that was present even before the time of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. full disclosure: i also pick out pronunciation mistakes in some cases, but mostly to correct the error; sometimes it is a retort, such as a karam-farma ("benefactor") who tried faulting alahazrat for his hadith knowledge and he said "ibn Hajjaar" and i quipped that someone who doesn't know ibn Hajar trying to evaluate alahazrat's knowledge in hadith is rich. that said, this was only a passing shot; we all mispronounce names once in a while - for example, i had once typed "ubbi" as "ubayy" أبي - and the latter is a well-known name; and zameel whined about the mispronunciation and clean skipped the actual argument. that somali wahabi also tried to fault shaykh asrar on jeelani/jaylani and ibn furak/ibn fawrak. these are distractions. ----- nabeellum is acting as if he is some very big hadith scholar, the way he sneers at sayyid zulfiqar sahib. that reminds us that i have to get back on his pathetic defense of his shaykh in the recent past. ==== it is no secret that i am against the old format of munazarah. in the past, it was difficult for making the haqq clear to the public in the form of q/a and books - so they would gather in a place and settle the matter. a huge section of the population was illiterate and they could not read books and the argument/counter-argument. hence it was a public duel. today, that aspect of Q/A can be settled offline - one party posts something and another can refute answer etc. some restrictions of munazarah can be imposed such as - reply in 15 minutes etc. due to the short time of the munazarah, one had to be quick and could not afford time looking up the citations thrown by the other party. hence, the munazir had to be well-equipped, and aware of arguments and their objections, flaws and how to counter that charges. it was a skill that was time-sensitive and had to do it in real time ONLY because of the constraints. take my case for example. i think i am slow and i take time to think. when someone says something wrong, i can see the flaw of reasoning and (usually) identify the points that need to be ascertained - almost in real time. and i go back to books and references and fish them out, look for commentaries, other opinions and come back with my reply. this takes time. from a results perspective - the instant answer in a short window and a well-researched answer after rummaging in scores of references may not be the same. eventually, munazarah is to 'establish the truth' - whether you do it instantly or after research and giving it a thought. and since the public can easily see both sides of the argument. i also prefer a written munazarah because it is a well known fact that we think faster than we speak. sometimes we change our mind mid-way and therefore end up with silly sounding sentences. but if one writes, one can revise it and get one's thoughts in order. ---- nabeel can feel safe in the knowledge that i will never answer his challenge for a face-to-face verbal munazarah. but he is welcome to refute my analysis of a forged hadith - his master - irfan shah tried to pass off as a hadith narrated by imam ahmad. he was caught on that lie and instead of rujuu', the poor folks attack shaykh zulfiqar for a harmless mistake.
actually nabeel did a zameel in that video he addressed everything except the actual blasphemies of irfan and the status of those bogus narrations. i wanted to touch on his pedantics on pronunciation and say what you did but that would be taking his bait and getting sidetracked. as for Zulfiqar sahib erroneously mentioning a hadith popular among the ahlut tasawwuf as being attributed to Jami3 Tirmidhi, a long hadith with a part of it containing similar meaning exists in Shamail of Tirmidhi (#330), this is the part Kashf Al-Khafa of Imam Al-3ajluni mentions this hadith from Shamail of Tirmidhi as close in meaning to the hadith popular in tasawwuf circles (لي مع الله وقت) but yes speaking extempore Syed Zulfiqar saab erred and did the horrendous crime of attributing a hadith not from the six sihah to one of them, so Nabeel scored a fair point- he can go home, look in the mirror and give himself a medal! ps. i'm no student of knowledge or an expert on the works of Imam Tirmidhi. all i did was some elementary searching for 10-15 mins before opening my big mouth!
That segment where nabeel talks about shaykh mispronouncing a name reminds me of when he got demolished by imam shahid Ali on his own Arabic blunders. Suppose its fair enough to point it out but he should still consider the fact that irfan Shah doesn't even know how to pronounce هذا let alone anything else. Glass houses and all that
The case about Irfan Shah is clear. The problem is that JTI still have him as the jumuah khatib which ulama and awaam need to speak against.
Could it be that those posters were manufactured (by anyone) only to make Zulfiqar saab look stupid? Idk man, this whole thing with this tafzili-rafizi bunch is like a neverending soap opera! Sunni scholars should issue a decisive fatwa declaring Iran shah as a misguided heretic, and move on. They made the same mistake with tahirul and to this day there is no conclusivity on him for many common people.
i have seen some on fb but idk if he posted it directly. shaykh sayyid zulfiqar shah sahib is a good scholar and im sure he will not mislead people
Where are Zulfiqar saab's posters re the munazrah, and how can he publish confirmations without talking to Iran shah - or is Nabeel directly misleading people?
At 47:24 Mawlana Wali Raza Rizvi Sahib says that you must take an oath that Irfan Shah's name was used in the question I answer: Mufti Salim Noori Sahib Qiblah has just said that generally that is not how Dar al-Iftaas work.
https://fb.watch/ine7HbSpoQ/ I find it ironic that they are saying "jab qail ne apna murad wazih kiya phir takfir nahi hoga" - then why did "Mufti" Jameel Ahmad Siddiqui (Irfani) do exactly that?
