Shaykh Asrar debates Nooruddin

as i have said, i do not know much about him except that which is quoted here. if he has a deviant position, he will be called a deviant. no hesitation there.

 

salam huzoor.
I recently, remembered this. Nooruddin denies ilm ul ghaib for the awliya, in fact calls it an attack on the finality of Prophethood. In this video mufti rashid sahab momentarily brought up ala hazrat's fatwa on the 12 category of ilm ul ghaib and the ruling regarding the person who denies each one of them. I believe denying of 1-5 was kufr, 6 and 7 deviance, and the rest are disputed.


Here, doesn't number 6 mean that the denial of ilm ul ghaib for the awliya is deviance. On this basis, can we call him deviant?

 

I just wanted to say that I did rewatch the video again, and maybe when he (brother hassan) mentioned kufr, he wasn't talking about the "Khuda Ta'ala ne unki zuban se guftugi farmai", and rather talking about the statement attributed to Imam Abu Yazid about the flag. I just wanted to do public tauba. May Allah forgive me and in sha Allah I will take better care next time.
Apologies everyone and brother hassan (if you read this).

 

one more item remains in my refutation of nooruddin. after which i won't bother with nooruddin. i had to do this only to demonstrate his shallowness. i don't have time to answer every stupid objection of morons whose depth of learning cannot drown a housefly.

 

I'm sure in the debate with shahid Ali, he stated that he wouldn't make takfeer of a blasphemer such as thanvi. I can't remember if he's one of those people who believe only a qadhi can do this

 

what kind of adab? you treat him as any other muslim.

that is only a scholar who is known to be a staunch sunni scholar and people benefit from him - but due to his personal failings, he does things which are not seen as that bad among common people but ulama classify as fisq. such as shaving or trimming beards and things etc.

there is an illah to do so - that is, people benefit from his knowledge even if he himself doesn't. not that going to a madrasah and getting a degree endows a special status to the person. do not be misled by an out of context reading of a fatwa by alahazrat. in 1920s very few people could read or write - and the majority relied upon the local scholar for common masayil. scholars in general did not act as if they had come down from the third century (AH) and hence accept and reject at will. and even the ahl hadith scholars of past century respected senior scholars of madh'habs.*

to prevent common men from breaching that line of deferring to scholars and becoming freethinkers and independent mujtahids (in spite of ignoranced), ulama advised them to be respectful towards scholars. all of that is overturned in our times - juhala dressing as scholars shamelessly point out "errors in imam azam's ijtihad". what is the point of 'respecting' and showing adab to such 'scholars'?

anyone can wear an imamah nowadays and claim that he is the direct descendant of imam nasafi's neighbour, and has therefore the primary right to expound on hanafi fiqh - even if he turns out to be an illiterate masquerading as a scholar.

the only difference between atabek and nooruddin is that the latter tries to speak english with a posh accent. traits common to both: lack of adab of elder ulama, obnoxiousness, grand delusions that they are the greatest hanafi scholars of our time, etc.

---

i think he is trying to say that someone may try to do ta'wil about the statement. and in the 1 min clip i didn't see anything wrong with it.

*read the books of sayyid nazir husayn dihlawi, siddiq hasan bhopali, khurram ali, waheeduz zaman etc. while they too suffer from the same malady ghayr muqallidin of our age do - they are markedly different in the manner they refer to early ulama.

Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

not every youtuber who wears a sherwani and cap is an aalim.

this is a 21st century aphorism - har youtuber aalim nahin hota; har aalim youtuber nahin hota!

 

but what about his comment on ismail dehlvi's donkey statement, wasn't that kufr? here it is
https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxBOJjbZFDKMh84FK9NZnDHdoRFrkFdBec
he says the following "those who want to explain this statement. You must start by saying in its current form it is abhorrant and then the explanation needs to be reasonable. Personally I would not advise anyone to go down that route".

 

salam
Does this mean that the laypeople, like me, should still show adab whilst talking about him (but still have the differences which we have with him) since I have heard that even if an alim is fasiq, we should respect him (unless he becomes a deviant)?

 

as of now, i do not have proof to say that he is deviant in the meaning of mubtadiy. but he is certainly a jahil and fasiq. and insolent towards ulama and awliya. fasiq because of the many haraams he commits in his videos - lying and slander being two main traits. it is haram to ask him fatwa and haram for him to give (as he has neither knowledge, nor adab). prayer behind him is wajibu'l i'adah assuming his tajwid is correct.

Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

can we say he is deviant?

 

السلام علیکم۔
I love the work you are doing ma sha Allah, especially mawlana abu hasan sahab. May Allah grant him barakah. Ameen
I was having some incoming thoughts (perhaps they are wasawis) but it would be wonderful if you could please shed some light on these as well.
But before, I would like to say, again, that I am not a nooruddin chamcha alHumdulillaah and consider him wrong.

1) In this video , he refutes the deobandi statement as well (though he says something wierd about the donkey statement and I mentioned it in the thread "sulleh kulli nooruddin ..." Would it be incorrect to consider him as a sincere individual who is actually doing what he thinks is right instead of blind following like the deobandis, since they deobandis know these statements are kufr but still defend them? Or would this be wrong?
2) With regards to brother hassan. He refuted nooruddin by saying that "this was said in a spiritual state" but the passage from which he quoted had the phrase "khuda ta'ala ne unki zuban se guftugu farmai". Brother hassan then (in the physical debate with nooruddin) said that Allah ta'ala didn't speak through his mouth and shaykh asrar said that we don't say that. The argument presented in the video is that brother hassan quoted kufr (kufr being Allah ta'ala speaking through his mouth according to brother hassan). In the context in which brother hassan said it, wasn't what brother hassan did wrong? Because i) if he believes the statement to be kufr (Allah speaking through his mouth one) then why did he quote it to support his point which would mean he agrees with it? If he considers the statement to be kufr and was just quoting it then why didn't he quote with refutation since you are not allowed to quote kufr without refutation?
3) I loved your refutations of him recently regarding what he said about Ala Hazrat, but can you please take out some precious moments from your time to answer the first objections: why is affirmation of speaking via a wali not affirmation of wahy after Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wasallam, why Allah speaking via people doesn't go against tanzih? I am asking about the second point as well because in the debate of mufti shahid sahib, mufti sahab brought forward the argument of kalam nafsi and kalam lafdhi. But in almost all the urdu tafasir I have read, they take the stance that when talking to musa alayhis salam via the bush, in the verse about the bush, he heard kalam qadeem bila kayf. Here is sirat ul jinan. I believe sadr ul afazil says the same thing.

The only tafsir which mentioned kalam lafdhi was tibyan ul qur'an, and even in that, he mentioned it as a valid position held by imam maturidi (which I think nooruddin misunderstood in the debate with mufti shahid sahib since the wording is ever so slightly different between this position and the mutazili position but makes the entire difference) but according to him the position of imam ash'ari (which is the position that he heard kalam qadeem and heard it bila kayf) is stronger. He also then quotes imam razi mentioning the mutalzili position. This is all, in the case what is mentioned in tibyan ul qur'an is correct but you can guide better in sha Allah.


So the question which I wanted to ask was that, did musa alyhis salam hear kalam qadeem or lafdhi? If he heard kalam qadeem (as affirmed by a lot of urdu tafasir), then why do they differ with imam maturidi.
Also, in the translation of ruh ul bayan by huzoor faiz e millat, he also said that "if Allah can BILA KAYF speak to musa alayhis salam via a tree then why can he not via insani shajar.
Apologies for so many questions

 

this moron never shuts up.

 

written debates are the best.
use our forum if you want - we will restrict the thread and posting for only the parties involved.

alternatively, write a paper - get a refutation - do a rejoinder and so forth.
---

 

Nooruddin's clarification


He seems to suggest that Hasan first tried to 'defend' the statement by not translating it and instead adding his own explanation that 'it was a spiritual state'. He then concludes that this amounts to Hasan 'justifying the statement', then changing tact in the 'debate'.

 

The irony of those who are on a unity flex is how their tongue and pen is harsh on those who are staunch Sunnis.

 

Yes he does seem very focussed on the Barelwis for some reason. I don't think he has gone to the same extent for the Deobandis.


You are right, he didn't affirm kufr for the individuals - he said the statements are abhorrent and shouldn't be explained and it's wrong.

 

Not sure he went quite as far as affirming the kufr of the individuals but seems to recall him saying the statements were bad etc. I'd be interested to know whether he conducted that same WhatsApp exercise with Deobandi Muftis, students etc and whether they took the same line as us usman of bradford with Mufti Bandylawi of defending the statements.

 

I think he has condemned 3 statements of the deobandi akabir already. it's part of the video that started this whole thing off.