nooruddin slandering alahazrat

we have a few more things to say about the ignorance of nooruddin al-ahmaq and the stupid host.


wa billahi't tawfiq.

 

alahazrat has mentioned the same dream/vision in another fatwa:

FR v28, p.485-86 in a fatwa refuting tafzilis.

 

nooruddin and his jahil pal may say that alahazrat did not know this. but only those who opened a 30 volume book - not to read - but pick out a line for what has become the vaudeville of our time - abject ignorance dancing to the gallery in the form of youtube podcasts talking about islam without knowledge, or without shame when slandering ulama.

---
khayr alahazrat mentioned this dream in another fatwa. as i said, FR is not a book written from chapter 1 to chapter x. rather it is a collection of fatawa given at different times.

in vol.21, p.564-65 alahazrat mentions this dream/miraculous vision citing maasir al-kiraam:






again he cites saba sanabil, and its praise to emphasise the importance of knowledge. this is another segment worth translating in full.

a man whose zeal in enjoining learning and knowledge - would endorse a saying like "chishti rasul"? but that would require one to have a heart of a believer - clean for other believers - especially ulama and read their work to see what they say. instead of picking a line that zanadiqah fussaq have thrown at them, and in their mindless hatred and abject ignorance jump at it and chase it like a mad puppy.

 

who is aazaad bilgrami?

mir ghulam ali husayni al-wasiti bilgrami was a famous scholar, poet and historian. 1704-1786 /1116-1201 AH.
he is a contemporary of shah waliyullah dihlawi (1703-1762/ 1114-1176 AH).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azad_Bilgrami

his work maasiru'l kiraam tarikh bilgram - memoirs [lit. achievements, legacy] of the noble folk: the history of bilgram is well-known in scholarly circles as one of the earliest biographical compendiums of indian scholars.

---
in his maasiru'l kiraam, he mentions sayyid mir abdul wahid bilgrami al-wasiti (1509-1608 CE / 915 - 1017 AH), the author of sab'a sanabil and among the ancestors of the sayyids of marahrah.

mir sayyid abdul wahid bilgrami is even before of shah abdul haqq muhaddith dihlawi (1551-1642 / 958-1052 AH), and shaykh ahmad sirhindi mujaddid alf thani (1564-1624 / 971-1034 AH).

i.e. mir abdul wahid bilgrami was 56 years old when mujaddid alf thani shaykh ahmad sirhindi was born. and 41 years old when shaykh abdul haqq muhaddith dihlawi was born.

he had passed away 97 years before shah waliyullah was born.

-----
the reason i have to mention this is - lowly wretches who do not even seem to know basics jumping like monkeys to attack some of the most prominent ulama and elders - and they do this merely out of the hatred of alahazrat.

another prominent historian is shaykh abdul qadir badayuni of bilgram (1540-1615 / 947-1024 AH) who was a contemporary of mir abdul wahid bilgrami and has mentioned him in hsi muntakhab al-tawarikh.

====
so azad bilgrami's work: maasir al-kiram, mentions this dream about mir abdu'l wahid bilgrami and his book saba'a sanabil. he says that he went to meet kalimullah chishti who was a prominent sufir and scholar and he would praise mir abdul wahid bilgrami. on this occasion he says:

... went to meet kalimullah chishti quddisa sirruh. the mention of mir abdul wahid bilgrami quddisa sirruh came up in the conversation. the shaykh praised him and spoke about his legacy, glorious work and he also said:

"i was in madinah munawwarah, and was lying on my bed one night and i saw a vision [in reality] that i and sayyid sibghatullah baruji were together in a gathering (majlis) in the presence of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. and many Companions and awliya are also present.

among them was a person with whom RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam was speaking sweetly and smiling at him when speaking, and was giving him special attention. when the gathering dispersed, i asked sayyid sibghatullah about the who this person was who was given special attention by RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. He replied: 'this is mir abdul wahid bilgrami. and the reason for this felicitation is the book he has written: [saba'a] sanabil has been accepted in the court of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.​

----
whether it was a vision - or a dream in half-sleep, both are possible. it is possible to see RasulALlah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam with waking eyes. this was a sufi speaking highly of a scholar from the previous century - and these great men walked this earth centuries ago.

since alahazrat was writing to another scholar, he did not clarify that it was a dream or a vision.

such glad tidings (mubash'sharat) are filled in books of scholars - illiterates who read 2 and half book would not know.

 

this fatwa is in vol.14 p.656.

the question was sent by mawlana sayyid muhammad aasif two years before alahazrat's passing.
28th safar 1338 AH.

the question is about an attribution to mawlana faDlur raHman ganjmuradabadi that he admitted the possibility of krishna (a name hindus consider as god) to be a prophet. similarly mirza mazhar jan-i-jananan has "written" that we cannot call them kafir until we have proof.

ironically, it is a similar situation that we find ourselves in - respected and prominent ulama are attributed a faux position and alahazrat is refuting it.

so mawlana aasif is enquiring in this istiftaa if it is indeed true - and if so, how can he say so - whether it is an interpretation of a dream or is it something else.








alahazrat replies to this - and the full fatwa is a valuable document in itself giving clarity to such questions. in sha'Allah, i will translate that separately in full. here we come the contested part.

alahazrat says that: (next page 14/657)

it is said in a letter (i.e. not a researched book) and if it is indeed a letter written by mirza sahib - then we say how can you accept it without any proof merely on claim? if you take this approach, then why don't you take mir abdul wahid bilgrami's book in which he called him (i.e. krishna) a kafir? and compared to the value of the letter - mir abdul wahid's book saba' sanabil is more reliable as it is accepted in the court of RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam.

here alahazrat does not elaborate that it is a dream - because he is writing to a scholar who is familiar with this. hence says:

mir abdul wahid bilgrami - quddisa sirruhu al-saami - has said in sab'a sanabil - which has been presented in the court of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam and has been accepted by our master sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.






----
understand the context in which it was said. unlike presented by the two dishonest individuals, this was not to promote the "chishti RsulAllah" statement - that is the impression given in the hack job.

 

the fact is - it was indeed a dream.

you may say - but it is not mentioned in the fatawa. the reply is: when someone goes to pick one sentence from 22,000 pages to castigate someone, you would not be looking for anything else. ignorance of something does not mean it does not exist.

we will see more about this dream. in sha'Allah.

this is because - it was not his own dream. it was someone else's dream. and scholars, people of knowledge were aware of this thing and did not require explanation. besides this question was asked by a prominent scholar, and it was a scholar replying to a scholar.

not a book written for the awaam - and there was nothing wrong even if it was the case. just refuting the stupid assumption of an illiterate fool who thinks alahazrat wrote a book "releasing for the awaam".

this is the result when incompetent illiterates delude themselves as scholars. alahazrat's endorsement of a book does not mean he endorsed every line of the book.

this statement of the illiterate nooruddin would be tenable ONLY if alahazrat himself had said about this specific line: 'i do not reject it' or 'i endorse every line in the present version of the book which includes this line.'

---
and when i present documentary evidence - will nooruddin al-ahmaq have the shame or "humility" to apologise in public and recant? i do not have any hope - but we will do our job. in sha'Allah.

 

illiterate fools think that alahazrat compiled a book and named it fatawa al-ridawiyyah.

actually, these were individual questions sent by various individuals - especially ulama and alahazrat was answerign them. 100-150 years ago, people would write on the same paper (the question was sent) and return it. thus, many valuable fatawa of alahazrat were lost to history. if those were also recorded, the 30 volume you see would be like 80 volumes and 60,000 pages or more.

the quality of the fatwa is there for everyone to see.

now, in later years, alahazrat's disciples/students/scribes - who were towering scholars in their own right - recognised the value of such research and instead of sending it back to the questioner, who would most likely not preserve the paper - they began to make a copy of the fatwa before dispatching it. there were no photocopiers and fatawa had to be copied by hand.

may ALlah reward the students of alahazrat who made fair copies of the fatawa - and all those people who preserved the fatawa (which were not copied) and were later compiled in 12 volumes known as the fatawa al-ridawiyyah.

of course, alahazrat himself structured the fatawa and organised the first volume, designed its index and was published in his lifetime.

---
so it was not like 'writing' a book as such. it is important to know this fact to understand a key point of my argument.

 

anyone with basic understanding and common sense would interpret the statement positively. throughout history, many dreams have been reported by respected ulama and awliya about various books—such as sahih bukhari—being accepted in the court of rasul allah alaihi afdalus salat wat tasleem. similarly, ala hazrat rahimahullah may have either seen such a dream himself or come across dreams reported by earlier scholars or saints, in which rasul allah alaihi afdalus salat wat tasleem praised the book. however, he did not claim to have seen a dream himself.

also, the statement can easily be understood as a du‘a or hopeful expression, not a literal report or transmission. though ala hazrat did not explicitly add “insha’Allah” before or after the sentence, its intent is clear. instead of recognizing this, dhulmat-al-jahl has gone into an exaggerated and baseless critique, which only reflects his own misunderstanding.

regarding the allegation of the phrase “chishti rasul allah”, this is clearly an insertion and has been strongly refuted. the phrase is linguistically flawed—“chishti” is not an arabic word, and the arabic language contains no letter “chay”. furthermore, every prophetic kalimah includes the name of the prophet, while “chishti” is not a name but an attribution. this makes it an implausible and fabricated addition.

 

now that we have answered nooruddin in simple terms that he may understand, we will go towards academic refutation with proofs.

in sha'Allah wa bi tawfiqih.

 

clearly the ignoramus has no clue about the author. he picked the quote from some zindiq or a webpage and tries to act smart as if he has read the book. if not, let him swear by Allah that he had read 10 pages from the book.

because these are lies. neither of the two has read the book in urdu or in farsi and neither knows about the author. plus there are few haraams both commit in this nice little segment:

lying: "when you read the book" which they have not

deception: "when you open the book and you read it" as if the book has only these things. the fools have no clue about the book.

slander: what they quote, what they say are pure lies; and based on their misreading they slander awliya and ulama. we will see shortly, in sha'Allah.

suu-zann of muslims, especially scholars: restating from the qur'an: "some doubts/suspicion/Zann are sin"

spreading falsehood: circulating lies without even checking facts.

belittling ulama: this one nooruddin may contest because he thinks he is greater than alahazrat, or his students or all the ulama in the subcontinent. [he sneers that hadith knowledge of ulama in the subcontinent is 'terrible'] this will only lead him to make more and more stupid videos until he becomes the laughing stock of the town and humiliation of a lifetime. nas'alu Allah al-aafiyah.

even if ulama have made mistakes, it is necessary to conceal unless it is a matter of islam and aqidah. but you may say that, here "chishti RasulAllah..." is being said. we will come to this shortly, in sha'Allah.
​

he doesn't look like he has the ability to read fatawa ridawiyyah. nor does his guest. like a couple of beggars, bragging about how they visited a gold and diamond shop and bickering about the perceived flaws in those diamonds. by two paupers who have never seen a tenner in their lives.

lies. and he twisted it. he said saba' sanabil and he quoted from hasht bihisht. if one reads the books, it is obvious - but those whose knowledge is mainly gained from clips and pieces will think they know everything.

​

he quotes from hasht bihisht and switches back to saba'a sanabil. and alahazrat's description of the book.

this man does not even stop to think or assess. he shoots from the word go.

how?
i can also say the same thing about nooruddin. but what is the proof?

----
we say raDi'Allahu anhu for ulama and awliyaa. it literally translates to: "Allah ta'ala IS pleased with him". or say raHmatullahi alayh: "mercy of ALlah upon him." numerous ulama have used it for senior ulama, imams, awliya. how do they know? and since only Prophets know - will you brand them all as

"this person has given himself such authority that behaving like a prophet..."​

if not, why not?

the reason is, even though the words are in definite tense, this is meant to be a prayer for them and good hope for the person about whom it is said.

in our everyday speech we say things like: "the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam said: actions are according to intentions.."

does it mean WE directly heard from the prophet? does it mean that we claim that?

"no. no. no. you did not say it with sanad. you should have said: 'in a hadith of the prophet reported by a sahabi... but you are giving authority to yourself..."​

is that sensible even? suppose you suspect that someone intends so - the right approach is to ask them, verify whether indeed it is the case. one cannot take a statement and spin off adding his own interpretations and attributing it to the person.

---

strawman. nooruddin simply went insane and began extrapolating and imputing intentions as if he knows from other sources or as if alahazrat himself had claimed this. have some shame man, you are putting words in his mouth, which he never said.

alahazrat only said: 'this book is accepted in the court of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam'.

how can you even read so many things from this such as:

insane. anyone who says the Prophet said this or did this comes under this ruling by the great faqih, nooruddin al-ahmaq al-ghabi.

here nooruddin gives the impression that alahazrat listed many books and approved some and disapproved some of them. because the usage of "which" indicates many 'from which' some where categorised thus and some others thus.

also, nooruddin should produce evidence for which book alahazrat has said: "this book has been rejected in the court of RasulALlah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam".

who said this and in what context? who are these people? if you cannot produce proof, admit you are a liar worse than the jobless men who gossip on the roadside. at least, they don't claim to be scholars and muftis.

when nooruddin comes down from his high horse and righteous anger, he can inform us about who is doing such things. we will also rage about it... IF true.

here nooruddin imputes that alahazrat insinuates that he can speak on behalf of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

he should produce proof for this false allegation. ulama have said that if a muslims says something and it may have 100 interpretations - 99 of which are kufr and one has a valid meaning, we must withhold our tongues from pronouncing takfir.

here, a harmless statement was twisted and distorted and fanciful interpretations created - without any fear of Allah.

again insinuates that ulama like alahazrat do not have humility. this man's having hallucinations.

as if alahazrat was not so cautious and they were not scared to misquote him. all of these are his allegations. no proof whatsoever.

this is a quick summary of only a portion of alahazrat's works:



how many pages has nooruddin or that idiot who gaslights him has read - OR - are capable of reading? can they even read the names of those books? do you know how many hadith and ahkam have been cited in these fatawa?

even the style of fatawa is priceless - and arguably, few, if any, of the fatawa prior to him have been compiled in such a manner, especially in the subcontinent. it is not to say that alahazrat was greater than early masters; no. but he was definitely a pioneer in writing fatawa - by enriching it with citations from fiqh works, precedents, case studies, hypothetical situations and extrapolations, explaining usul where needed. i am not saying that no one else did this before or that they were not capable. but:

كم ترك الأول للأخر
how much the early ones have left (undone) for the later ones (to do)

those who have seen books of fatawa of earlier ulama - and compare alahazrat's fatawa cannot help but notice the depth and breadth of his learning and the incredible manner in which he builds the argument. it is like asking AI to disclose its reasoning. alahazrat's fatawa appears as if it was written for scholars (as many of the mustafti/questioners, were scholars). and therefore, just reading his fatawa gives immense insight on how a mufti should think.

just like imam bukhari was not the first muhaddith - not the greatest muhaddith. but his compilation of sahih had no precedent, and outstripped even though muhaddithin who were his teachers, grand-teachers and great grand teachers. imams ahmad ibn hanbal, shafiyi, malik and even our imam abu hanifah. imam bukhari is far lesser than them - but his work is next only to the qur'an.

ذلك فضل الله يعطيه من يشاء

the most authentic book after the qur'an. among others, this is attributed to imam nawawi:
وهما أصح الكتب بعد القرآن. والبخاري أصحّهما

is there a qur'an verse or sahih hadith that says it is the most authentic book after the qur'an? or is nawawi taking the authority of a sahabi or a prophet proclaiming which books is in which order? al-iyadhu billah.

which groups and where did they do so. can nooruddin give citations other than the above (which will be refuted presently)

suppose that statement REALLY meant the way this madman raves about.

it is still ONE statement. for the sake of argument, it is one slip (though not in reality)
how can you generalise over thousands of pages - and going by the low IQ both individuals display - they will not be able to read two volumes in 200 years.

yet, they have the temerity to scoff about alahazrat.

 

so here is the transcript of the two morons:

3.48 host:

number one, we have mentioned this many times.. and because its the topic, i am going to mention once again. regarding the book of... sab'a sanabil.

in fatawa al-rizawiyyah...uh..imam ahmad riza khan barelwi, he said: this book has been accepted in the court of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa aali wa sallam. and.. when you open the book and you read it, you see the same story from the book called hisht [sic] bihisht which says..the..a man came to .. you know.. khwajah gharib nawaz, and said to him: i want to be your disciple, and then he said.. you know... read your kalimah ...and the he read you know the noble kalimah we normally read.. and then he said now you read 'laa ilaaha illa Allah, chishti Rasulun.. audhu billah.

this is the number one, where he has attributed that this is a book that has been accepted in the court of the Prophet sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam, what do you say about this?​

4.38 the [jahil-safeeh] noor:

you see this is worse than all of them. this is not fabricated hadith. this is not even baseless. because you know what they do with baseless hadith- they say - oh..this sahabi said the Prophet said this. right?

or they say...o..this hadith..there is a hadith the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam

this person has given himself such authority that behaving like a sahabi. basically what he is giving himself the position to do is..like a sahabi narrates from the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. the prophet said this, the prophet did this...

he is now in the position of the sahabi, he can tell the world what the Prophet is saying. it is so so insane...and i am sorry...i am going to have to use this word, arrogant.

like..an average muslim, to think that he can speak on behalf of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam ... even a jahil person would be like... what am i doing... he will shudder... he will shake... quake before he will say anything regarding the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

this man is there telling you which book is accepted by RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam and which is not.

even if he said something like: ok. i saw a dream and in that dream i saw the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam and he says this..ok fine..he is conveying a dream. even then we would say why are you releasing this kind of thing to the awaam, and the book that you have... give it some thought, because in that book, it is got chishti rasulullah, its got such a terrible terrible story, which barelwis tell us that: no our ahlus sunnah our barelwi scholars, they reject this story. they don't reject it. ahmad rida khan did not reject it.

ahmad rida khan said: 'this is a book which is accepted by Rasulullah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. its really really bad. its shocking.

and i am not...i am not saying this is only ahmad rida khan, there are other people, historically who say this kind of... the Messenger of Allah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam loves this and this likes this... and accepting this and... who do you people think you are?

seriously. have some humility. the sahabah - they used to be so cautious...mmwwmmn.. they saw the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam, they heard the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam, even then they were so scared... i don't want to miscrow.. [misquote?]...

you know when you read hadith narrations and sometimes it says, this or this; this was said or this was said. and sometimes its from another narrator... and sometimes from a sahabi.

the sahabi does not want to attribute to the prophet sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam make it hundred percent sure.

but this is the arrogance we have. certain groups of muslims they just feel they can attribute anything to the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

and in this case, this is not even a hadith, i get to speak about what the prophet loves and what the prophet sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam does not. astaghfirullahi'l azeem.​

====
7.09 the shoe-shine boy:

i mean look..ya... that must be of certain books but this purely based upon dreams.. oh well.. the prophet came in so-and-so pir's dream and said to read this... so-and so and this is something you can't even find in the qur'an and the sunnah. this is because i had a dream and the Prophet sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam said read this 100 times and this will happen or that will happen. we've seen all of that happening as well... now coming...​

====
7.32 muftari kazzab nooruddin "engineer" rashid: [wannabe zindiq]

i am going to differentiate between that and what we just saw from ahmad rida khan barelwi. at least they have said it is a dream, right?​

[host:] yeah.

at least they said we saw a dream. they are not giving them the authority saying: 'the Prophet says this'... you see... sub'HanAllah... as if you get to speak for the Prophet

at least they say... i ... look. i saw a dream. and anybody can see a dream and maa'shaaAllah..a dream of the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam means blessing of Allah sub'hanahu wa ta'ala. the problem with those kinda dreams is people start treating what the shaykh has said: 'i saw this in the dream as if it is a hadith' that is the problem. and explain themselves. but at least they are saying it is a dream.​

 

before we treat the village idiots nooruddin and the shoe-shine boy: in case you are wondering who, these two imbeciles - stupidity written on their faces:



we need to first describe what we think of their verbal diarrohea: lies, slander, ignorance, an inveterate aversion to truth and fact, a gross inability to verify facts, stupidity by the cartloads, braggadocio and grandstanding by the blatherskite, vacuous hogwash, virtue signalling and inanity.

all of this will be self-evident in a short while. in sha'Allah.

 

we have one other item on our bucket list. about sab'a sanabil.

 

the shoe shine boy's slander a mix of ignorance, malice and licking spittle of the zindiq mirza.

this image is purported to be of alahazrat - and the zindiq in pakistan uses it, as well as many others, including well meaning folks use it.




this is slander. we don't know who this person was - but it is certainly not alahazrat. for the simple reason that alahazrat considered photos to be haram - his son and grandson refused to be photographed, and i do not think anyone would dare suggest alahazrat to get a passport photograph. there is a grainy photograph somewhere, but it is from a distance and claimed to be without alahazrat's knowledge - we do not know if it genuine.

BUT this one is certainly not his photograph.

if the imbecile duo have an iota of shame, they will remove this photo from their video and not reuse it again to represent alahazrat.

 

lol... I heard that and it reminded me of pathetic jahil bjp netas trying to sound logical and intellectual.

anyways, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it also the case that one waade3 in the chain doesn't necessarily mean the entire narration is graded mawdu3, especially if there are some thiqaat before or after him? Or if there are other corroborating narrations with stronger chains, for example, then certainly so, even the chain with a waade3 in between would gain strength.

Or if his status as a waade3 is in itself contentious and subject to debate between scholars of rijaal?

 

poor nooruddin struggling to explain a simple concept as mawDuu hadith and his falling upon himself on "laa aSl lahu".

what is the difference between mawDuu/fabricated and laa aSla lahu? he tried to add "bi doon asl" a descriptor.
anyway, what is "laa aSla lahu"?

this one is just like - it is made it up - just can't find it anywhere, just made it up. ​

and what is fabricated?

a fabricated hadith; this is a narration you can find somewhere in some hadith books. and it has a chain but in the chain, there is a liar or a fabricator. that hadith,​

====
so fabricated is not 'made up'? where did nooruddin learn english or hadith terminology? since the poor fool does not know basics, let us teach him.

a fabricated hadith IS a made-up hadith. someone crafted it. the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam did not say it - but someone put together a narration and concocted a sanad and attributed it to the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

وضع - to put, to forge, make-up. mawDuu literally means a made up hadith.

---
and what is laa aSla lahu? it simply means that it has no sanad. it could be fabricated, it could be not.

for example in lisan al-mizan, 3/91 - (nothing specific, i just took out a random entry looking for "la aSla lahu")

here the hafiz says: 'there is no sanad for this hadith via malik"





this does not mean it is worse than fabricated.

----
al-iraqi in his takhrij of ihyaa has mentioned many reports as: 'la aSl.." or "lam ajid lahu aSl" but zabidi found some isnads.
for example 9/540

about the hadith: "the love of this world is the source of all sin"

zabidi says:

thus daylami has reported in firdaws via hadith of ali and his sanad supports it; but his son did not mention in his musnad. iraqi has said: ibn abid' dunya reported in dhamm al-dunya and bayhaqi in shua'b thru the route of Hasan in a mursal chain.

i say: after mentioning this hadith in these words, bayhaqi said: 'there is no basis in the hadith of Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam except via mursal route through Hasan (al-basri).​

further he says:

abu zur'ah said: everything that Hasan has said attributing to the Prophet sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam, i was able to find the chains (sanad) [wajadtu lahu aSlan thabitan] except four...​

in tadrib al-rawi, suyuti says:

the meaning of hadith scholars saying: "la aSla lahu" there is no basis for this; this is baseless;
ibn taymiyyah said it means: 'this does not have an isnad'




=====
in another narration zabidi in ithaf 8/237

azdi said: his hadith via ibn abbas should not be written.
nasayi said: ismayil ibn ayyash is weak.
i say: this is all he said - this does not necessitate that the hadith is batil without any sanad. how is it possible when ibn majah has reported it [i.e. it has a sanad].

the furthermost he should have said is: ismayi ibn ayyash, when he narrates from hadith narrators who are not levantine, then his hadith cannot be used as evidence.

there is a difference between describing it as: weak and calling it: lies.
strangely, how did hafiz al-iraqi remain silent without criticising him...
​

as you can see, laa aSla lahu does not necessarily mean forged. nor does it mean it is worse than forged.

---
abu ghuddah in the preface of al-maSnuu fi ma'rifati'l hadith al-mawDu mentions various instance the phrase is used:

when hadith scholars say: this has no basis [laa aSla lahu], it means various things; i will summarise below:

1. sometimes, they say: 'this hadith has no basis' or 'this has no basis in these words' or 'this has no basis' or 'its basis is not known' or 'it basis is not found' or 'not found' etc. they mean that the hadith mentioned does not have a chain of authority by which it is narrated.​

he continues: on p20

2. sometimes, they say this for a hadith with a sanad - "this hadith has no basis".
by this, they mean that it is a fabricated hadith or a falsehood attributed to RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam or a saHabi or a tabiyi towards whom the sanad attributes the saying.

and that is because that even though the hadith has the mentioned sanad, but the sanad has a liar or a fabricator, or it clearly indicated or implied by other signs that have tell tale signs of falsehood that is being narrated.

then their saying: 'this has no basis' means "it is a false hadith"; not that it does not have an isnad.​

and so forth. the point is: 'la aSla lahu' does not mean 'worse than fabricated'


Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

from the video, it is bleedingly obvious that it was concocted by the two clowns as an attempt to manage the damage caused by sidi abu hasan to "nooruddin"—or more accurately, dhulmat al-jahl—after his disgraceful accusation against imam abu hanifah rahimahullah. abu hasan's response not only exposed the absurdity of the claim but laid bare dhulmat al-jahl’s sheer ignorance in hadith sciences and even the basics of critical thinking and analysis.

now, dhulmat al-jahl and his dimwit host dare to dismiss abu hasan’s critiques simply because they haven’t seen his face, as if seeing the man behind the words will somehow relieve them from the piercing reality of his arguments. they try to paint him as just a “keyboard warrior,” pretending that his identity matters more than the content of his response, and does showing their faces on video magically make their nonsense scholarly?.

is it mandatory, when refuting arguments from a book, to know anything about the writer besides his name as the author? if not, then why is it any different when it comes to refutations on the internet? what difference would it make if you knew who abu hasan is, what he looks like, or what else he does besides dismantling your nonsense?

if knowing someone’s personal details is a requirement for answering their arguments, then why did you choose to attack imam ahmad riDa rahimahullah? you’ve never seen him, and you clearly haven’t studied his works—only read from his detractors. yet you had no issue belittling him to cover up your own ignorance.

you have sidi abu hasan’s questions in writing. if you two aren’t complete ignoramuses—or worse, intellectual eunuchs—then respond to the questions. but dodging them with stupid distractions only exposes your weakness further.

 

does nooruddin have ilm al ghayb that he says: "no checks whatsover"? anyone with common sense can see the stupidity of this statement. how exactly did nooruddin reach this conclusion that alahazrat did not make any checks and he "narrated" this?

maybe a fairy whispered in his ear.

 

so let this illiterate joker prepare for judgement day for this accusation. but that is for those who believe in judgement day.

"SOME" which others shoe-shine boy?

see how he positions the question. only to present it in poor light.

the question in urdu was can jinn and female-jinn (pari/fairy) be muslims?
the simple answer was yes.

and thereafter some more things were being discussed and a report was cited. we do not know whether it was mentioned without comment, or noted as a mawDuu. the scribe wrote it down without comments.

people with faith and uprightness will try to be considerate - but scoundrels with malice in their heart will insist that it was "narrated" as a hadith, even though the scribe did not mention it either.

---
and because of the malice in heart, which you can see on his face:

obviously, nooruddin is an ignoramus who has no clue of hadith or hadith scholarship.

would he say the same things about scholars who NARRATED mawduu hadith, and included in their hadith collections?

this was an extempore QA session, where it was mentioned and we do not even know that if it was commented upon. and look at the seriousness and "shocking" face that nooruddin makes.

but hadith masters included mawDuu hadith in their narrations with asanid as well. remember that these books are not malfuzat - these are written. and in the words of nooruddin:

will nooruddin ask the same question about imams of hadith and fiqh? to give a few examples:

1. ibn majah

2. hakim and his mustadrak

3. daraqutni in his sunan

4. darimi

5. abu nuaym al asbahani

6. imam ghazali in his ihya

and numerous others.

----
should we ignore such reports, citations, etc?
certainly not.

we should point out a fabrication where it is found, but mere one example is not enough to dismiss the entire scholar. in fact, scholars picked out fabrications from books but they did not disparage such imams.

will nooruddin have the courage to say the same about imam ghazali?

---
check another thread on this issue.

https://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/fabricated-ahadith-in-the-books-of-scholars.16113/

 

i don't understand why he giggles and beside himself with glee. what is wrong with pari being translated as fairy?

this happens with people with very little knowledge and they are so full of themselves, that they do not realise that there is a world of knowledge out there. for your edification:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parī

the closest in english for a pari is fairy. cackling in an english accent will not make you a shakespeare.

however, in urdu, pari is used as a female for jinn - and used in a pair as in: jinn-pari. in arabic it is jinniyah. in the same clip mawlana ilyas also mentions it as a jinni (i.e. female jinn).

in english, there is no equivalent of jinn - but fairies do. nooruddin acts as if it is sacrilege. we await his next video: "ahmad rida khan's blasphemy that he called a jinniyyah a pari and his followers translated to fairy. don't blame us. don't blame us. don't blame us..."

as usual, both morons have never read the original, nor the complete translation. they picked it up from either a devbandi video or mirza zindiq's ravings and like faithful lick-spittles regurgitate this thing. the translation is not by dawate islami. though it is by a sunni aalim and khalifah of mufti aazam.

is it fair to castigate someone on the basis of a translation? even if the translation was by their followers? how can you attribute to someone a position who passed away 100 years ago, on the basis of a translation 100 years after his passing?

this is to demonstrate that the morons do not understand basics of refutation or analysis. the idiots are drunk up on their own greatness and do not realise the simple mistakes they make.

---
if pettiness had a face...