Shaykh Abdal Qadir al-Husayn fil Mizan

وَ مَا قَدَرُوا اللّٰهَ حَقَّ قَدْرِهٖۤ

 

jazak Allah
I didn't mean to deny that this is the sunni aqida. Apologies if it did come across that way. I didn't mean to say that Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wasallam's knowledge is equal to Allah naudhubillah.
Shaykh abdul qadir al hussayn has the same aqida of ilm ul ghaib as us (as is apparent from his video). The thing is that sometimes it is not what you say but how you say something, such as mirza saying "nabi to Allah ke agey shay hi koi nahi" naudhubillah (literally meaning that Prophets are nothing compared to Allah) naudhubillah. Although the meaning is true, it is the way he says it, the wording he chooses and the implication which he gives which makes this disrespectful. As you might know, I am not a student of mirza Alhumdulillah and consider the the biggest fitna of our times, but why is it that him saying "Umar to rasulullah ke agey shay hi koi nahi" (literally, oumar is nothing compared to rasulullah) is disrespectful but saying that "the knowledge of Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wasallam is nothing, nothing, nothing. Zero. Compared to Allah ta'ala's knowledge"? Furthermore, I can't speak arabic so can't tell exactly what his tone was but whilst reading the subtitles and listening to his tone, was that okay as well?

Furthermore, I wanted to ask a question on shirk. Of course, it isn't our aqida but if someone believes that someone from the creation has the same level of knowledge as Allah but believes it to be atai, this is kufr qatii but is it also shirk?

 

no. and as noori bhai and sherkhan have said earlier, it is the correct sunni aqidah.

alahazrat described as comparing a billionth part of a drop of water to a billion oceans - and even that is only to give you an idea of the magnitude; and in reality is far greater than that.

in spite of the this clear statement, devbandis and wahabis accuse alahazrat of equating the ilm of nabiy sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam with the knowledge of the Creator.

 

he is 100% correct, there is no disrespect. this is the correct sunni aqidah,

 

Anything in comparison to "Infinity" (or Infinite in Knowledge) is zero (mathematically speaking). It's not determinable.

Whether you call it "a drop in comparison to ocean" or "a grain in comparison to all the sands of the desert" - it's a similar expression. The comparison is merely to highlight the infinite-ness of Divine Knowledge. To me, there's nothing wrong with Shaykh's expression.

 

salam everyone.
I am not trying to cause fitna. I wanted to ask that is what shaykh abdul qadir al hussayn said at 02:16 disrespectful to the prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wasallam and the way he said it: "So, the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wasallam knows the entire knowledge of creation, but what is that in relation to the knowledge of Allah subhana wa ta'ala. It is nothing and nothing and nothing! Zero! In comparison to the knowledge of Allah. Yes, in comparison to us, the knowledge of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wasallam is something phenomenally immense and he is the best of creation and the Leader of the Messengers."


sorry i can't speak arabic (though there are subtitles I don't think i should go into that part here)

 

I admit i made a serious error about shaykh abd al qadir al husayn Hafizahullahu ta'ala
I retract, repent and admit my mistake and vow not to do so again.

 

The shaykh had met Dr Ashraf Asif Jalali recently and i doubt Dr Ashraf Asif would sit anyone unless he is certain about their Aqīdah

 

Maybe the scholar in question about Sh Abdalqadir was mistaken in his assessment then....

 

which portion? can you please point out the segment?

what do you mean not in arabic? the phrase used in arabic is mentioned in qur'an and hadith according ot the shaykh.

 

this is incorrect.

he clearly says that we cannot say anything against a sahabi (especially in the context of sayyidna muawiyah raDi'Allahu anhu).

---
people from the subcontinent are accustomed to titles and honorifics to the point that if someone does not say: 'hazrat' or follow up with a 'rahimahullah' or 'raDi'Allahu anhu' we deem it to be disrespectful. so it is mostly a cultural thing.

when alahazrat mentions sahabah or even ulama, he usually mentions lofty titles and laudatory remarks, which is considered as elegant style. but in english, such epithets/remarks appear grandiloquent and are sparingly used.

this is also true to an extent in arabic. even imams such as nawawi and subki say: muawiyah ibn sufiyan without the prefix "sayyiduna" or the prayer suffix. check ibn hajar al-haytami's sawayiq al-muhriqah and tat'hir al-janan. surely, one cannot accuse him of being shiyi or tafdili?



this is the way arabs speak. so we shouldn't measure them according to the cultural/linguistic mores of the subcontinent.

----
now for the statements made by the shaykh in the clip below about the asharah and the rest being superior to hazrat mu'awiyah, he is reciting from jawharah and there is no objection for what he says. it is true that hazrat mu'awiyah is among the later sahabah and there is no comparison with mawla ali or even the rest of the asharah.





@9.40 he tries to answer a question about his appointment of yazid. he takes a deep breath (as if he is reluctant to talk about it) and he says:

who was first to appoint a successor? there is no doubt he (i.e. hazrat muawiyah) was the first.
and who will question him for that? that is Allah. it is for Allah to ask him (yuHasibuhu Allah)

and it is not for us to call him to account. brother... compared to him, we should know our place (na'rifu maqamana) and our limits.
[he is..] a companion of the Prophet SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

who am i to speak about the companions [of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam].

i am nothing (la shayy) compared to the Companions of Sayyiduna Muhammad sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam

i should know my worth, my brother. [i shouldn't even speak of] tabi'yin who...

and i? i let my tongue loose about the Companions of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam?

such a tongue will be [should be] cut off that speaks [ill] of the companions of our master, the Messenger of Allah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.
or the blessed family (aal bayti) of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. or the awliya [friends] of Allah, the righteous folk.

​

===========
it is not fair to accuse him of being a tafdili. his position is that of ahl al-sunnah.

Allah knows best.

 

i asked a scholar about these videos

he said a lot of the stuff (baghawah in the shari' istilahi sense vs equaling zulm in the lughawi sense) is in our books but that he (abdalqadir) is trying to defend tafdhilis

similarly the statement about the 'amal of sayyidina amir mu'awiya radhiallahu anh and not being in his group has the ta'wil of referring to sayyidina Ali karamallahu wajhul karim being on the haq and sayyidina amir mu'awiya radhiallahu anh being on khata ijtihadi

that being saidd, this scholar told me that abdalqadir is defending tafdhiliyyah and should not have said it in the way he did. he also said the ibarat of bahar e shari'at is for the use of baghi/baghiya/fi'atul baghiya in urdu not arabic

i agree with this 'alim's assessment. I follow fatawa ridawiyya sharif and bahare shariat and maktubat sharif in saying khata ijtihadi nothing more

 

see 4:14 where he says he is not from the hizb of hazrat amir muawiya رضى الله عنه and is not pleased with the action of hazrat ameer muawiya رضى الله عنه

 

Note Shaykh al-Buti rahimahullah used this word also but did taraddi and clariified baghi and baghawah in fiqh al-islami entails ijtihad:



Note our position:

1. Our mashaykh have made it clear it is not permissible to use this term baghi because of change of 'urf (see Bahare Shari'at) and because this issue was an issue of ijtihadi khata : ‎عرفِ شرع میں بغاوت مطلقاً مقابلۂ امامِ برحق کو کہتے ہیں ، عناداً ہو، خواہ اجتہاداً ، ‎ان حضرات (حضرت امیر معاویہ، حضرت طلحہ و حضرت زبیر ) پر بوجہ رجوع اس کا اطلاق نہیں ہو سکتا، ‎گروہِ امیرِ معاویہ رضی ﷲ تعالیٰ عنہ پر حسبِ اصطلاحِ شرع اِطلاق فئہ باغیہ آیا ہے، ‎مگر اب کہ باغی بمعنی مُفسِد ومُعانِد وسرکش ہو گیا اور دُشنام سمجھا جاتا ہے، ‎اب کسی صحابی پر اس کا اِطلاق جائز نہیں ‎(بہار شریعت،حصہ 1، امامت کا بیان)
2. See also maktubat imam rabbani hisssa chaharam daftar awal
3. Imam Ahmad Rida in Fatawa Ridawiyya Sharif writes: ہم اہلسنت ان میں حق،جانب جناب مولٰی علی(مانتے)اور ان سب کو مورد لغزش)بر غلط و خطا اور حضرت اسد اللہّی کو بدرجہا ان سے اکمل واعلٰی جانتے ہیں مگر بایں ہمہ بلحاظ احادیث مذکورہ(کہ ان حضرات کے مناقب و فضائل میں مروی ہیں)زبان طعن وشنیع ان دوسروں کے حق میں نہیں کھولتے اور انہیں ان کے مراتب پر جوان کے لیے شرع میں ثابت ہوئے رکھتے ہیں،کسی کو کسی پر اپنی ہوائے نفس سے فضیلت نہیں دیتے۔اور ان کے مشاجرات میں دخل اندازی کو حرام جانتے ہیں، الخ

 

see 2:50-3:10

he says

"و معاوية كان باغي "
رضي الله عنه

 

he also uses the terms baghi and zaalim for Sayyiduna Amir Mu'awiyyah raDiyAllahu a'nh

 

He also sayss in one of the two videos that he is not from the group of Sayyiduna Amir Mu'awiyah raDiyAllahu a'nh and it is not necessary to do taraddi of him.