Pir Abdul Qadir Jillani Attacks Imam Bukhari

i am also confused as to why there was a need to attack imam bukhari whereas a man like imam bukhari has full knowledge of the importance of loving the ahlul bayt more than shah sahib and he deliberatly tried to accuse imam bukahri of favouring yazeed that presents to us the clear lack of knowledge shah sahib has and if shah sahib did have enough knowledge i dont think he would have gone down that lane in the first place. i think shah sahib needs to go back to the drawing board and thouroughly do research on the topic because clearly he has messed this speech up.

 

what is ghayrat? translate please, because I do not know.

I did not see any forum rule here stating that using the name of thanvi was illegal except when used in refutation.

You should have stated that earlier. In order to avoid getting banned, I would never use that name, because I am incapable of refuting him as I am not a subcontinental. sorry

 

I don't know if there exists some sort of an implicit or explicit blackmail over here (considering some other comments I have seen on another forum) because of Shah sahab's Syed-ness or pir-ness, but if it does, what will all those people say about Syed Abul A'la Maudoodi? ... and that's just the start of Syeds (real or perceived) not on our camp. Will they blissfully embrace Maudoodi-ism with open arms? What about the train load full of Syeds (real or perceived) in the shias?

He did not question anything.

He made direct accusations of a deliberate bias on the part of Imam Bukhari rahimahullah. He actually implicitly accused him (Imam Bukhari) of plotting against the ahle bayt.

At one point he said "baa-qaydegi se ..." which translates to "systematically" and/or "deliberately" as I am sure most people here know.

Another point he directly accuses him of making a "tadbeer" which is once again as most people know "planning" and "plotting", or in other words, a pre-meditated intention with malice in his heart.

... all for what? "sirf yazid ko jannati kehney ke liye" (JUST SO he can brand yazid as a jannati).

PS. I don't have sound at this PC. Shah sahab's quotes I mentioned in blue text are from memory of the 2 posted videos (the 2 minutes one and the 10 minutes one) and not verbatim.

That is NOT "questioning". That's as blatant as an accusation gets!

Since when did the whims of personalities and big names and celebrity status validate concepts and facts and methodologies of the Ahlus Sunnah and since when were emotions a valid daleel for anything, much less a justification for trashing muhadditheen and/or a'ima-e-mujtahideen? If he can speak with flaring emotions regarding Imam Bukhari, why can't someone else speak with emotions about him?

It is the methodology of the Ahlus Sunnah and facts that validate the mashayekh and personalities, not the other way round.

Sorry to anyone who takes offence, but that is typical desi stand-up maulvigiri, more so with that "shaytan ka putla" bit.

The masses of common people don't need this. We need the basics of Sunni 'aqaid explained to us simply and lucidly (above and beyond the "mawled is allowed and here's why") and we need everyday fiqh of hijab, salah, zakat, marriage and so on. It really is not funny just how stone ignorant and uninformed some of our [desi] Sunni brethren are on these fronts.

 

subhanAllah, Imam al-Bukhari raDyAllahu anhu is being attacked, and people claiming to be Sunnis, are worried more about attacking each other.

What about the rutba of my master Imam al-Bukhari raDyAllahu anhu?

Attacking our elders?

 

I'm not defending Shah Sahib for what he said in the shorter clip. I'm simply presenting the facts that I found in his longer lectures which are at complete odds with what he said in the short clip. My summary is for the 'benefit' of those who haven't heard (or bothered to hear) or understood the detailed lecture (for those who don't understand Urdu).

Unlike few others, I prefer not to sit and judge people in public, indulge in cheap politics, settle scores, call names etc. I'm too deficient myself to gain anything by doing so.

---

Unlike some, I don't have an itchy backside (which can only be relieved by keeping fingers busy in typing rubbish on forums).

---

It's no coincidence that hyenas/vultures make cameo appearance when someone is dead/injured/being attacked to perform the last rites on the victim. Ever seen the vermins when everything is hunky-dory?

---

Anyone else noticed the emphasis on "** Must SEE **"! Months of 'research' must have been spent to bring this 'blockbuster' to the public. Those who queued for ages in anticipation of this blockbuster are now lapping it up!

 

reply to Aqdas:

Its an example Aqdas, example of a double standard. Its not my problem the example, ashraf ali tahanavi, happens to be deobandi. I could have used some other example.

 

edit mod [aqdas]: if you don't want others to bring deobandis into it, then why are you?

I will tell you. Shah Sahib is someone who is not worth a dust particle under the blessed na'layn of Imam al-Bukhari raDyAllahu 'anhu.

'Shah Sahib' questions the scholarship of Sayyidina Imam al-Bukhari raDyAllahu anhu? I know why. Listen to that long speech again. How many times does 'Shah Sahib' use the urdu phrase

'maza aa jaye ga'

So its all about maza and jokes. I can bet the vast majority of the uncles sitting in front don't even know their basic farD 'ayn properly and they are being taught the weaknesses in Bukhari Sharif

lahawla wala quwwata illa bilAllah

 

what does that mean sherkhan?

What kind of a pir is he if he cannot even control his nafs? All those 'murids' are lost I tell ya mate. They are all lost.

dont start that deobandi thing again. to me your crawling is no different from their crawling. its all the same.

 

2766 حدثني إسحاق بن يزيد الدمشقي حدثنا يحيى بن حمزة قال حدثني ثور بن يزيد عن خالد بن معدان أن عمير بن الأسود العنسي حدثه أنه أتى عبادة بن الصامت وهو نازل في ساحة حمص وهو في بناء له ومعه أم حرام قال عمير فحدثتنا أم حرام أنها سمعت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول

That 'Umair bin Al-Aswad Al-Anasi told him that he went to 'Ubada bin As-Samit while he was staying in his house at the seashore of Hims with (his wife) Um Haram. 'Umair said. Um Haram informed us that she heard the Prophet saying.....

More later...

 

This hadith is narrated in greater detail in Shah Sahib's another speech as posted by Muhammadi in this thread. The above facts are also corroborated (see the clip around 22:40 min). In this speech, there is no attempt to cast any aspersion on Umm Haram radiyallahu anha or on Imam Bukhari himself.

Rather the hadith is stated to be munkar on the grounds of specific narrator Umair bin Aswad Ansi Damashqi being unreliable for various reasons (such as being alone in such narration, of unknown background, being ghair-mahram to Umm Haram etc.)

The above facts are again stated in Shah Sahib's aforementioned lecture. He goes on to state at least 6 other hadith from Umm Haram (5 from Sahih Bukhari and 1 from Sahih Muslim). Shah Sahib also rubbishes the hadith on lice (see the clip around 56:40 min).

The hadith of Constantinople as narrated in the first hadith (in Shah Sahib's lecture) is proven in his speech to be weaker compared to 6 other hadith he goes on to cite later. The later hadiths are narrated by people of Madina (as opposed to the first one coming from a chain of narrators in Damascus) and by thiqa Sahabis related to Umm Haram radiyallahu anha.


---

I am puzzled why Shah Sahib needed to discredit Imam Bukhari and cast aspersion on his love for ahl ul-bayt, when he also delivered a well-reasoned and researched speech as refered above. It would have been understandable if someone unversed of facts had made disparaging statements, but it's surprising that these statements were made despite the knowledge of the facts (presented by Shah Sahib himself).

The detailed speech is definitely worth listening (though I'm not qualified enough to judge the contents).

---

I don't think that the clip posted by ST is doctored. The clip is very much from Shah Sahib (even though the selective presentation of short clip may raise questions on distortion of context).


It appears that Shah Sahib's questioning Imam Bukhari's intention occurred in his weaker (emotional) moment. Ironically, Shah Sahib himself prefaces his lecture (as posted by Muhammadi) by saying that although he is capable of delivering emotional speech, he has chosen to deliver the afore-mentioned lecture in a deliberate manner. Clearly emotions got better of Shah Sahib in short clip (presented by ST for his obvious motives).


---

All of sudden, taz (and faqir) come crawling out of the woodwork!

 

i was reading still and came across one narration in tabaqat ibn sa'ad (vide fat'h al-bari) that ubadah ibn samiT divorced umm Haram and she married 'amr ibn qays thereafter.

there are a couple of problems with this report and one way to reconcile is that she was first married to ubadah and he divorced her; she married 'amr ibn qays and he was martyred; and then she remarried ubadah.

raDiyallahu 'anhum ajma'yin.

[fat'H al-bari, under hadith 6283]

---
Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

we're still awaiting a response from the previous video muhammadi bhai re: the maqalat of al-ashari which was refuted by shaykh GFH!

 

Humble request

I would greatly appreciate it if somebody was to kindly summarise all the objections raised so that I may forward them to Hadrat Shah Sahib - may Allah preserve him - and receive a prompt response.

 

Brother Alama Abu Ammar is a sunni scholar from bristol uk. He has a program running on Noor tv called Azala Shubuhaat.

 

i dont really know much about his background but i have recently visited a website which has many of his boks available to read online but from his writings it can be assumed that he is totally sunni scholar.

http://www.islamicinformationcentre.co.uk/alsunna.htm

you will find the info on weak hadiths in shaih bukhari in Muslim & Bukhari are the Only Sources of Sunna! chapter.

 

i began writing a comment on the above, after a paragraph, i thought of googling for this abu ammar and i stumbled upon shaykh gibril's article:

http://livingislam.org/k/whb_e.html.

i would like to know who is this abu ammar and what is his book called.

 

Shocking..

 

but not all hadiths in bukahri are sahih, the scholar abu ammar has discussed this in his book understanding the ahlussunnah you may want to read that book. however i agree that this pirs analysis is completely wrong and agree with abu hasan.