Sayyidah e Kayinat

Discussion in 'Aqidah/Kalam' started by Unbeknown, Sep 14, 2020.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    do you have the jurrat to write to Bareilly and ask them put a fatwa on one who says:
    1. using 'Sayyidah e Kaainaat" for sayyidah paak should be avoided
    2. unless it can be proven that previous ulama - major scholars of ahlussunnah - big luminaries that is - have used it in their books
    3. one should use "sayyidatu nisaa al aalameen" instead as it is present in hadith
    go ahead - get a damning fatwa for us

    we are waiting ...
    Ghulam Ali and Aqdas like this.
  2. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    the same fatwa clearly says that jalali sab hasn't committed any crime - whatsoever - which means that irfan sab, muzaffar sab and others are in great wrong. do you agree with the fatwa?

    Muzaffar saab even went so far as to openly disagree with the "markaz" - saying that he doesn't trade in chanas.

    so, muzaffar sab has already shown the "jurrat to put a fatwa against them and say they are wrong".

    so according to you, what does this make muzaffar sab - what level of crime?
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  3. Razvi92

    Razvi92 New Member

    According to my post, The markaz of Ahlus Sunnah Bareilly Sharif also refers to Hazrat Fatima as Sayyidah e Kainaat. Do you have the jurrat to put a fatwa against them and say they are wrong?
  4. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

  5. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    let me remind you, that in that thread, i responded to you already but you left quoting some classy poetry.
    since i didn't have time to expound in english i listed my sources in farsi/urdu.

    the only thing that remained was th same exposition in english and now that you have reminded me, i will complete it soon as i can eke out some time. wa billahi't tawfiq.
  6. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    He who says salam to ahlul bid3ah has aided in the destruction of Islam.

    This guy is a supporter of rafidi's and minhajis.
  7. Nawazuddin

    Nawazuddin Veteran

    السلام علیکم ورحمة الله وبركاته

    Randomly checked this forum after a long time and guess what, you guys are mentioning my name as if someone arguing with you is me. All I can say is that والله it's not me. I remember, I was last here on a thread about tafdil and waiting for abu hasan to respond, to which he has not yet... I'm really busy and have no time. Anyway, take care. والسلام
  8. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    if you are truly following "huq" then reply to my arguments or get a rejoinder.

    if sayyidah e ka'inat is permissible for sayyidah fatimah, then sayyid e ka'inat should be permissible for hazrat ali.

    why should it not be understood in context?

    or sayyidah fatimah should also be called sayyidatu waladi aadam - after all, it is much more restrictive (only bani-adam excluding angels and other creatures) than ka'inat!

    or as i asked already: raHmatu'l li'l `alamin following gangohi sahib's fatwa?
    Noori, Umar99 and Aqdas like this.
  9. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    sayyid muzaffar shah sahib is misinformed and those who carried tales to him should be blamed. besides, his arguments based on flawed premises have been refuted here.

    shame on those who deliberately misrepresent and lie to get opinions from ulama that seem to support their positions.
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2020
    Umar99 likes this.
  10. Abul Hasnayn

    Abul Hasnayn

  11. Razvi92

    Razvi92 New Member

    Fatwa of Darul Ifta Bareilly Sharif by Mufti Asjad Raza Khan demanding Pakistan government to release Jalali sahib also refers to Hazrat Fatima as Sayyida e Kai’naat.

    Attached Files:

  12. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    As aH said days ago, we'll ban him but will first show how shallow he is. AH did that in his now renowned style and Hasanayn Shah brushed it off like a fly in the nose! How shameless.

    Anyway, that's why he got to stay so long. Otherwise, we knew he's a troll long ago.
  13. sherkhan

    sherkhan Veteran

    I recently heard Mufti Fazl Chishti say that shias are worse than qadianis and kafirs (hindus/sikhs, as he defined it) in blaspheming and uttering filth. Shias have said worse, disgusting things about Allah (azza wajal), prophets and sahabas than all other groups combined. Their propensity (given their size, history and methodology) for mischief is worse.

    For all their rant against ideologically opposite nasibi/khwariji salafis, shias fear the barelwis/sunnis the most (since they are only ones to take initiative to routinely expose the sick rafidi beliefs).


    AbuS was entertained here for too long. Come to think of it; he was accusing abu "Hasan" of being a hater of ahl ul-bayt!
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2020
  14. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i have kept my promise.
    the filthy rafidi is banned.
  15. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    your post reminded me of a joke - a kabardiya (bhangarwala or scrap dealer) finds a bicycle pedal lying in a dump of garbage. he picks it up and brings it home, and tells the wife, "yeh pedal rakh le. is mein cycle dalwaenge."

    that's the way these tafzilis and pseudo-shiites work - they're just intellectual kabardiya's - they see a shiite belief that looks relatively better than the other shiite beliefs around it, they pick it up, and hope they can recycle it or put it to some good use. likewise, they also pick up pieces of scrap that they think they can utilize from the "usul of fiqh" of the wahabis, the tafseers of devbandi akabireen, a line of poetry or a tasawwuf point from Sunnis that would look awesome in its proper setting, an unheard of mawdu3 narration from some obscure source, etc. etc. and try to connect it all together.

    in the end, you come up with the intellectual equivalent of a product that looks like this:

    abu Usman and Unbeknown like this.
  16. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    mujhe achanak yaad aaya...

    gangohi gave a fatwa that raHmatu'l li'l `alamin can be said to others on the basis of ta'wil. that is using it as a metaphor.

    hence on the books of gangohi they used to write: "raHmatu'l li'l `alamin" with his name.

    i assume muzaffar shah sahib has no problem with this. chalo devbandion se nahin magar let him begin using this phrase for mawla ali or Hasanayn.

    Noori, Unbeknown and Aqdas like this.
  17. Waqar786

    Waqar786 Veteran

    I remember studying History at A-Level, and the old Poor Law Inspectors used to write the conclusion first, and then find proofs to support it.
    @AbuSulayman has decided (in his mind) with a little nudge from the likes of Pir Abdul Qadir Shah that Ahl ul Bayt are essentially Masoom. After this he will find evidence to support this position. This is a revisionist approach to conveying Sunni Aqaid and at best it is a bida but more likely it is trying to peddle Shia beliefs under the guise of 'tahqeeq' and 'broad' nature of Sunni Islam.

    What the reader does needs to realise that his questions are loaded? He claims that he follows the Jumhur position that the Shaykhayn are afdhal then repeatedly insinuates that Syeduna Ali did not want to follow their way. He of course will argue that we are not aware of his heart and he is just asking a question. He is not, he wants us to accept there is divide and of course that the Ahl ul Bayt were correct in each and every incident, small or big. Peddling Rafzi thought. The way of the Sunnis is to present the love and connection between both.

    Unsurprisingly, Pir Abdul Qadir Shah is the master of this thought. The disclaimer comes first, I believe the afdhaliyat of the Shaykayn, so please don't forget that. Then the rest of the speech we will see that position getting deconstructed. This is why the brothers are mentioning Taqqiya.
    Another good example is how the Deobandis present their elders. Uthman Deobandi will proudly exclaim that anyone who believes another prophet can come is a kafir and then go on to extol the virtues of Qasim Nanotwi and Tahzir un Naas.

    Sunnis need to wake up to this revisionism and this deceit/theft of our principles by people who claim to be Sunnis.
    Unbeknown likes this.
  18. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    who said it is not about caliphate? this particular citation/translation and my objection it is about nepotism. hazrat umar feared that people would accumulate power and strengthen their bases by appointing their own kin. for he was at a different level altogether... and from a different age.

    by the time we come to the bay'ah of hazrat uthman, able people - the likes present in hazrat umar's time have gone. so hazrat ali refused the condition that he would not employ anyone in banu hashim, and historical facts support him. for example, he had hazrat hasan and husayn - who can doubt their abilities? agreeing to the condition of hazrat umar would mean these two REAL princes wouldn't be helping mawla ali, which no one in their right minds would think was a sensible thing to do.

    wAllahu a'alam.
    Umar99, shahnawazgm and Unbeknown like this.
  19. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    we are not done yet. we have 4 more references to check. actually they are all ONE reference, but let us not be lazy.


    “I said to Abdul- Rahman ibn Awf that: why did you swear allegiance to Uthman and forsook Ali? He answered that: “I went to Ali first and told him that: I swear allegiance to you based on Allah’s book, the tradition of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم.) and the way of life of Abu Bakr and Umar”. Ali said: “if I become your guardian, I will follow Allah’s book and the tradition of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم.)”.[1]

    [1] - Musnad ibn Hanbal, vol. 1, p. 162, tradition no. 557; Al- Muntazim, vol. 4, p. 337; Tarikh al- Islam lil- Zahabi, vol. 3, p. 304; Tarikh al- Khulafa’, p. 182.


    so here is from al-muntazam of ibn al-jawzi. 4/337. luckily i have access to the same version.

    muntazam, v4p337.png

    we check tarikh al-islam of al-dhahabi, 3/304. same edition, same volume, same page.

    tarikh,zahabi, v3p304.png

    then comes tarikh al-khulafa of suyuti, a different page as i have a different edition. p.124 "the pledge of allegiance to uthman"

    tarikhulafa, suyuti, p124.png

    as you can see all of these three point to the same source: musnad imam ahmad, reported by abi wayil.

    here is my attempt at translation:

    abu wayil says: i asked abdu'l Rahman ibn `awf: how did you pledge allegiance to uthman and left out ali?

    he replied: what could i do? [lit. what is my fault?]

    i started with ali and asked him: "i will pledge allegiance to you upon the Book of Allah, and the sunnah [tradition] and the example of abu bakr and umar. he replied: "as much as i can".

    then i presented this to uthman, who said: "yes".


    so where is this portion in the above three references?

    Ali said: “if I become your guardian, I will follow Allah’s book and the tradition of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم.)”.

    he [hazrat ali] only said: "to the best of my ability".

    when you string it in the sequence presented to us by our friend,

    1. you see the claim that three times it was presented to him and he refused.

    2. reference from 4 major sunni scholars given where hazrat ali is purported to have avoided the promise to be in accordance with the life/rule of abu bakr and umar.

    3. a reference where an express rejection is mentioned: "by Allah, i will never agree..."

    easy to hoodwink layman like abu sulayman.

    oh, btw, here is the main quote from musnad ahmad:

    msndahmd, v1p560.png

    in the footnote it is mentioned that this specific report by abi wayil is weak.

    however, in the footnote another narration is mentioned where hazrat abdul raHman is reported to have repeated the offer thrice to hazrat ali and which he replied CAUTIOUSLY. not a refusal to abide by the sunnah of khulafa before him.

    even in this narration, it is said: hazrat ali replied: "no. i will follow to the best of my ability".

    NOTICE - that he did not say: 'i will follow qur'an and sunnah; but abide by the lives of earlier khulafa according to the best of my ability'

    EVEN such a statement is fair - but here mawla ali is being circumspect and cautious. the path of the greatest men is in being circumspect and cautious. so mawla ali only said: "TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY". and this includes, following the book of Allah and the sunnah of RasulAllah!

    if anyone claims 'rejection' - this narration would imply hazrat ali rejected following the Book and Sunnah (ma'azAllah!).

    finally, why did hazrat uthman accept when hazrat ali was cautious? hazrat uthman was no less in ma'rifah than hazrat `ali; besides he had guarantees from the Prophet SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam: "after this day, anything uthman does, will not hurt him". [sahih hadith from jamiy tirmidhi]. so perhaps he had a different perspective. besides, we believe that Hazrat uthman is superior to mawla ali.

    Allah knows best.
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2020
    Umar99, Unbeknown and Aqdas like this.
  20. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    so why did abusulayman use this particular citation?

    because it is conducive for his magic trick. it has the 'rejection' of ali, though it is in a different context. you can use other hadith to build a context and use this 'narration' to cite the 'express words of rejection'.

    let us go a little up in this same narration. the line where i begin citing hazrat uthman, let us read a few lines above this:

    imamah, v1p44.png


    miswar ibn makhramah [continuing his narration] says:

    he [abdul raHman ibn awf] came to me in the night and found me sleeping. i came out to meet him: 'do i not see you sleeping? by Allah, my eyes have not rested these past three days [or able to catch a wink in these three days]; go call so-and-so [among a group of muhajirun] - and i called them. and he parleyed with them in the masjid, where he had a lengthy meeting; and then they stood up and left that meeting.

    then he called ali and had a lengthy conference with him; and he [ali] then left him with hope. [the word used is Tama'a].

    then he said: 'call uthman for me'. i called him and he had a lengthy meeting with him until the time for dawn prayer, whence he [uthman] left.

    then everyone of them prayed the morning salat together.

    thereafter he [abdu'l Rahman] gathered them and took a covenant from each one of them [al-`ahd wa'l mithaq] that "if i pledge allegiance to you, you will uphold the Book of Allah, the sunnah or RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam and the sunnah of your two companions [i.e. abu bakr and umar] before you.


    also, that "if i pledge my allegiance to anyone other than you, you will accept it and your sword will be on my side against whoever rejects"


    after this comes the part translated below.

    in this narration, it clearly says that hazrat ali agreed and pledged to the condition of being in accordance with the tradition of hazrat abu bakr and umar!

    where is the proposal 3 times and rejection 3 times?

    as for the condition that hazrat ali rejected, it is clear to you why.

    one itsy bitsy detail about this narration in kitab al-imamah; there is no isnad for this narration. none. nada. zilch.

    wAllahu a'alam wa ilmuhu atam

Share This Page