Pir Abdul Qadir Jillani Attacks Imam Bukhari

a humble request to the mod who removed my former post 124 on this thread. if there was an academic/Islamic reason for it, it would be much appreciated if you could advise me of my mistake, be it publicly or privately, for my own knowledge. if there was another reason, its your call if you wish to let it be known or not.

 

There is also another very important question related to your previous posts AbdalQadir. The question is, what do Sunnis have to do with all of this. That Imam Bukhari was against the ahl al-bayt.; that Imam Ghazali was against the ahl al-bayt. Why is Shah Sahib raising these issues these days? Who needs them? Does it help our imaan in the ahl al-bayt get stronger? juveniles onlookers get the wrong idea and outcomes YN.

But I personally believe, it is the same thing that is happening in Walthamstow, that had happened earlier with the Habashis and their Shaykh in Lebanon.

For example, on the issue of the Qibla, Shaykh Harari had a particular opinion. Shaykh NuH Ha Mim Keller mentions this. But when clarified by other Sunni scholars, Shaykh Harari agreed with the other position and changed his mind! But immediately, he was interrupted by one the henchmen (a bodyguayrd, a 'murid') around him, and his voice was subdued, and the murid's voice became louder eventually causing Shaykh Harari to be quiet and the murid speak instead. So, the wrong position of the Habashis regarding the Qibla in North America persisted. But it could have ended right there, if it were not for these 'murids'.

It is highly probable that Pir Abdul Qadir Jilani is being pushed onto these NO-ISSUES by someone around him from his 'murids'. These people are using him for their aspirations, and then suddenly posting him on to their pathetic website.

I clearly remember Tahir Riaz saying on his YN website, that Shah Sahib dearly loves hasnain shah, the twelver shia. Tahir was saying that hasnain shah is very knowledgeable. I was asking him whether hasnain shah was a scholar. So, all of this useless commotion is the result of this.

I wish objective people, or may be brother Muhammadi realizes this and informs Pir Abdul Qadir.

 

I took a few boxing lessons at one point in time and I've just come up with a stupid rhyme.

It was a sport I liked to play, so I guess you could mention me with Mohammad Ali Clay!

building on that, I would like to mention:

c) To offer an objective critique of someone, one has to be a contemporary in order to present all direct and circumstantial evidences in support of such criticism AND one has to be at par with the one he/she is critiquing. (which means, in our case, we will only accept evidences by scholars on the 'aqidah of the Ahlus Sunnah. Any evidence presented by ahlul bid'ah or ahlul kufr doesn't even count for furphy!)

Roughly 12 centuries later, NO ONE is in a position to offer any objective evidence in praise of or against Imam Bukhari, except that which comes to us by way of other Sunni scholars who have mentioned him over the centuries. We can read and praise his work but we simply can't objectively judge it.

So the million dollar questions are:

Which muhaddith or giant scholar of the Ahlus Sunnah who was a contemporary of Imam Bukhari, has accused him of harboring ill feelings towards the Ahlul Bayt? (we're not talking about the other ijtihadi errors that Imam Bukhari may or may not have committed)

Who amongst the scholars of that era have said that he had engineered the selection of ahadith and/or chain of narrators in his book for the sole purpose of branding yazid as a jannati? Who amongst our greats has said that he had an infatuatuation towards yazid? ("baa-qaayedegi se" "tadbeer" and "sirf yazid ko jannati kehne ke liye" are the exact words he has used)

Leave aside contemporaries or those of a closer era. Who amongst the era of Ibn Abidin or Ali al-Qari has made such claims?

Which of the subcontinental greats have even hinted at such- Mujaddid Alf Thaani, Shah Abdul Haq, Shah Abdur Raheem, Shah Waliyullah, Imam Ahmad Raza and others?

rahimahumullaah

I concede I am not a mufti or scholar or even a proper student of knowledge. This is a very objective question from my side, not an attempt to be sarcastic or smart. If you (Muhammadi) have answers to these questions in defense of this gentleman, please bring them forward.

----

My assumption is that he would have made similar statements about Imam Ghazali. (i.e, malice towards Ahlul Bayt)

Would like to ask the same questions on that point: What are the direct and circumstantial evidences that Sunni scholars have provided, IF ANY, in support of such a claim, if indeed such a claim against Imam Ghazali existed before this gentleman's allegations.

Perhaps we could start a new thread on it.

----
Disclaimer:
My comments on this gentleman are restricted to his allegations against Imam Bukhari (and possibly Imam Ghazali). Regarding the tafdeel issue, I have asked some qualified people I trust for some definitive details and explanations regarding the ijma' and any real or perceived ikhtilaf, along with final rulings- which is not something possible through the internets and forums where any one can copy-paste snippets from books and/or spin words around them for any reason- with due respect to all sincere and educated Sunni brothers on all forums.

 

that was plum lbw!

 

as usual, you have no distinction between the general and the specific and generally try to get away with a brushing aside argument. and you have no dalil except your own fancy that this is musib.

imam ahmed's position was specific to yazid as he considered him a kafir; and this is conveyed by ibn al-jawzi, whom shah sahib ridiculed in another lecture. anyway, that does not entitle you to send la'anat specifically on anybody you please. you and your friends at yn are acting as if you are mujtahids and our elder scholars were incompetent whereas you folk don't know the basics of islam. the dunning-kruger paper was meant for you.

have you learnt yet that iddah is for women and not for men?

----

indeed, imam ghazali or imam bukhari might have made mistakes, but:

a. these mistakes are not in the issues on which shah sahib excoriates them accusing them of bigotry.

and

b. their mistakes are not the same as shah sahib's - both in quality and quantity. apart from the fact that he is nowhere in comparison to them or their huge contribution to ahl as-sunnah.
​

-----
i don't expect the fanatical admirers of shah sahib to change, but i hope those who are munsif (judicious) to see that they are careful in taking from a man who makes so many mistakes. some are so sordid, where he overturns the usul/principles held by the entire jama'ah. i cannot understand how you can argue with that in spite of facts that can be verified easily.

for example, in a recent clip (which you demand a full version be posted; i will concede that it could be out of context) shah sahib says that Allah's name does not coincide with abu bakr or umar except with that of 'ali.

in which case, other sahabah who had hum-nam (similar to the name of Allah) should also be special

1. salam, the nephew of abdullah ibn salam

2. rafi'y, about 36 sahabah are named rafi'y

3. Hakam, about 19 sahabah

4. Hakim, about 9 sahabah

5. barr

6. Jabbar (although, RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam renamed one of them to Abdu'l Jabbar)

7. nafi'y, about 19 sahabah named thusly

8. ghaniy (though his being saHabi requires examination)

9. ali: there are about 13 sahabah named ali including mawla ali karramAllah wajhah.

the point is that, the distinction carved out of this non-issue is obviously non-existent. indeed, mawla ali had many superior attributes but just because that name coincided with one of the names of Allah makes him superior to abu bakr is certainly not a valid one.

if it is only a name that indicate greatness, then the first SaHabi to named as siddiq is abu bakr as-siddiq; and the qur'an puts down the order thus:

Allah has favored upon the prophets and siddiqs and martyrs and the pious [v.69 from surah an-nisa]
​

this clearly demonstrates that after the nabiy, it is siddiq - and there is tawatur that RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam himself named abu bakr as siddiq.

Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

La'nat-e-Shakhsi is also a Sunni Mauqif

You are entitled to your opinion.

I recognise that the above is a Sunni mauqif amongst a few others however I opine Imam Ahmad bin Hambal, Imam Taftazani and Imam Suyuti's [etc.] mazhab is musib in this particular issue.

Imam Ghazali, Imam Bukhari and/or Shah Sahib.

Allah Ta'ala knows best.

 

i have a tough time disagreeing with both extremes. we don't send la'nat on individuals unless there is a explicit naSS to that effect.

and a mistake is a mistake - whoever does it.


Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

jazakAllah for sharing. Taqi Usmani is a wahabi just as all the other deobandis.

Shaykh Faraz says deobandis do istighatha. The above piece by Taqi shows deobandis deny istighatha, and imply those who do it as mushriks. Once again, who do we believe? I noticed one of the salafis on that page had the logo of the Habaib. The Habaib do istighatha, so, are the habaib mushriks too?

This is classic abdal qadir. It clearly shows the hypocrisy of these wahabis that aH was pointing to above. They lie to the sunnis in the arab world and afghanistan and turkey. If you want to see who these devils are, go to the sub continent.

 

Ahmad Nithar Baig is a big liar. He willfully lied about the Pirs of Golra Sharif in Pakistan.

 

Khalid Mahmud's humiliating defeat at the hands of Shah Sahib

It is pertinent to note here that Shah Sahib debated and defeated Khalid Mahmud in the late 70s in Manchester, UK subsequently ousting Mahmud from the first and markazi Mosque of Manchester which was under rigorous Deobandi control at that time [milad banned, fatihah banned, slogans of risalat and haidari banned, niyaz banned, 'urs gatherings banned, loud zikr banned, etc. - all "haram" actions were listed upon a notice board in the shoes area!].

The markazi Mosque is where the Annual International Na'at Conference occurs that kicks off all the Na'at conferences in the UK.

Khalid Mahmud conversed with Shah Sahib - for the first few minutes - in Arabic and when he realised that Shah Sahib was responding in Arabic he quickly changed to Urdu at which Shah Sahib challenged him to continue the debate in Arabic only to be faced with an embarrassing decline by Mahmud. All three judges voted in Shah Sahib's favour.

Shah Sahib then installed 'Allamah Ahmad Nithar Baig Sahib Qadiri as the first Sunni Imam at the markazi Mosque. Khalid Mahmud - on the other hand - literally fled the country and resides in Pakistan until this very day - if he has not thankfully died; may Allah's la'nat be upon him.

Shah Sahib then organised a tour of the UK in which he exposed and expounded upon the kufriyyat of the akabir of deoband and most of you will have probably noticed [observing Shah Sahib's schedule], he is the only Sunni 'alim in the UK who tours the kingdom every month so you can imagine why Deobandies were and are agitated at him.

I remember Deobandies sending me private messages via different forums requesting from me the Imam Bukhari [rahimahullah] comments by Shah Sahib under the pretext of increasing knowledge!

I will compile all the details and post them soon, insha Allah.

 

Brother AbdalQadir,

that link to the latest fatwa by Taqiya Usmani was a real classic of two-faced sheer hypocrisy. It leaves Faraz Rabbani with a lot of egg on his face too. See, this is what happens when people lie to cover up the satanic doctrines of these deobandit akafireen like gangohi etc by pretending they were ok with istighaatha and so on when anyone who knows them --especially people from Indo-Pak--will know they are just Indianised Wahabis. Gulabi Wahabis.

--
khalid mahmood is dead? i know the great Sufi Mian Muhammad Bakhsh* Sahib says we shouldn't gloat at the death of our enemies (dushman maRe teh khushi na karo, sajnaa vii marjaana: do not rejoice if your enemy dies, your friend too shall die) but given this man's poison against the Ahle Sunnat his whole life whether in Pak or in Manchester I have to say, "margyaa mardood na fateha na darood!"

---
i agree with sidi AH 100% that our differences with the YN crew and Shah sahib are one thing but it doesn't give the Wobblers and Dobbies any reason to be pleased. What they've said and written is much much worse and so they need to be treated harshly. I'd recommend people listen to the great Pir Sayyid Irfan Shah Sahib to get an idea of the contempt we should hold wobbies and dobbies in. He says that these gustaakhs (Dobbies) are so impure [paleed] that...

*Muhammad Bakhsh: What a beautiful Sunni name which itself points at istighaatha: Muhammad Forgives or "One who has been forgiven due to the Intercession of the Prophet!" Compare this to the strange names of the Dobblers: MaTola, Banori, Thanvi,
etc.

 

bro isnt that the reason y u wont delete his post 2 show hypocrisy of deos.

 

i won't answer as you expect me to, but what makes you so sure that i said that taz is a deobandi?

 

I don't know how many of you have seen this beauty:

http://www.islamicaweb.com/forums/r...-speaks-convo-w-faraz-rabbani-istighatha.html

Wonder what the Western and Arab Sunni 'ulema have to say to this, oh-so-tacky preservation of tawhid!

Wonder what Faraz Rabbani and his Arab/Western associates have said/will say to this.

Word spinning and changing colors like a chameleon seems to be the hallmark of their "akabir"! Really feel sorry for their common folk and the ignorant ones.

 

brother abu hasan, what makes u so sure that taz is a deobandi? do u know him personally?

 

"khalid mahmud"..hasn't this guy recently died? So he has gone forward to what he sent forth in this life...the filthy aqeeda and lies about the Ahlus Sunnah and its Ulema.

 

don't forget that deobandi maulvis deserve more; some of them deserve to be executed: like asharrfiyli thanawi and rashid gangohi (it is another matter that now they are dead and rotten) who have insulted RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam and deobandi maulvis keep snivelling apologies.

other deobandis to this day to find excuses for their shameless behavior.

may i suggest that prior to anybody else, one deobandi jahil, zahil known as khalid mahmud be whipped too for his outrageous slanders against alahazrat? will he agree to a munazarah on the condition that if he loses, he will be lashed in public? together with those hypocrites who show one face to arab sunni ulama and another to the desi folk.

anyone who claims that Allah ta'ala can lie should be whipped; any 'alim' supporting that wahiyat should be whipped; any idiot fighting for that utterly despicable aqidah should be whipped. ibrahim desai should be whipped. many forumites on deobandi-forum should be whipped. i don't know if you should be whipped too, but if you sympathize with the deobandi insulters, you too should be whipped.

the repugnant deobandi tariq jameel who spews shameless kufriyyat as surfaced in his speeches should be whipped. why are the deobandis silent on him? just because he is a deobandi?

shah sahib must have spoken a little too much on imam bukhari, but deobandits have said worse things concerning the Messenger of Allah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam and Allah ta'ala.

---
for a moment, i was about to delete your post but then kept it to show the ugliness and the hypocrisy of deobandis and deobandi sympathisers. the only reason you post here in glee is because a sunni alim* is criticized. we do not like to do this but unlike deobandis, we ain't hypocrites to criticize others and turn a blind eye to one of our own.

----
*as long as shah sahib continues to profess that he believes abu bakr to be afDal, we have no reason to consider him out of ahl as-sunnah. it is another matter that he has made unfortunate choices in matters of ilm and overstepped his limits.

Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

I suggest the pir be approached for his evidences for attacking imam Bukhari .
If he has them and senior ulema accept them and blame imam bukhari for being an enemy of ahlul Bayt, then syed shah sahib should be removed from all blame and everyone on the forum should shut up.

If on the contrary he has no response, then I suggest he be whipped in public and be banned from speaking in Masajid in the future.

 

brother muhammadi what was the response u got from the pir, i hope we are all going to get a justification for all that he has said.

 

I don't have a car. Ever heard of a communication device called phone? Try it to make your point heard directly. Unless you're really dumb, I'm sure you can make yourself heard.