the donkey apparently claims to be the only TRUE hanafi living, and his basics are oh-so profound. here it is from the donkey's mouth: 11.46 first of all, let's understand. because he was saying that it is incorrect in Hanafi school of thought. so let us understand what Hanafi school is. so first of all we have three category of riwayat in Hanafi school. so we have to get it correctly. so first is Zahir al-riwayah, then nawadir, then nawazil. 12.09 so zahir al-riwayah is the actual Hanafi position. because in nawadir and nawazil we have all sorts of things. 12.17 so thats why if some opinion from nawadir and nawazil will conflict with zahir al-riwayah, so obviously, the mu'tamad is zahir al-riwayah, so that is the first thing. 12.26 the second thing is the order of the books in Hanafi school. first.. in total we have three levels. mutun, shuruH and fatawa. mutun are the actual books [video jarrs] of the Hanafi school of thought. and when we say mutun we mean, the books which actually summarise, the six books of zahir al-riwayah. 12.48 so it is: mukhtaSar taHawi, and mukhtaSar quduri, and mukhtaSar karkhi, and niqayah [sic], mukhtaSar al-wiqayah as well as bidayata'l mubtadi, which is explained in al-hidayah. these are the mutun. ok. 13.03 so shuruh is fat'H al-qadir of ibnu'l humam or.. for example baHr al-rayiq, and all of these shuruH books will go second. 13.15 whenever, there will be conflict between shuruH and mutun, mutun are the mu'tamad. as well as fatawa will come as last. 13.22 so whenever, there will be conflict between fatawa and shuruh, what is in shuruH is more reliable than what is in fatawa, so let's get that correctly. ----- we will see something here too, in-sha'Allah wa bi tawfiqih.
the whining donkey said accusing shaykh asrar, which i assume the shaykh must have answered later. [i am still stuck in the beginning] 10.50 first thing you actually said is actually... 10.56 it is just devil advocate. it is not my position. but because you are claiming that i'm opposing qur'an and qur'an says that:"light should appear from sharq" prove: where God mentions, that you have to start fasting where light comes from sharq. 11.18 [winks] that is my question to you, you will have to answer that one ok. sharq is nowhere in the verse because Allah says: [recites the qur'anic verse] 11.33 because of the light. that is the first thing. but in this issue, i do not have any issue, but his claim that 'sharq is qur'an' it is just side note. but it is nothing to do with what i am going to explain. =============== the devil says in his advocacy, that shaykh asrar said: 1. light should appear from sharq. 2. second time he says, shaykh asrar claimed that "sharq is in qur'an" ================ you see? he cannot understand in 3 minutes, plain english. he makes him repeat the same (i assume, as i did not hear sh.asrar properly). he throws quite a few accusations, but honestly, this is a new one even for me: even before sh. asrar spoke, the clairvoyant jedi knew that it will be foggy and he is facing an uphill task. then, he makes up his own version and puts it in shaykh asrar's account and wants him to prove it; look at the confident dismissal he makes - there is no mention of sharq in the verse! fools can marvel at the donkey's attempt to do ballet. i can only shake my head in disgust.
just for reference. this is what made me curse the donkey. actually, i do not consider him a muslim at all. harris post #17: http://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/avicenna-academys-latest-antics.12565/#post-54760 --- al iyadhu billah. nastaghfirullah wa nau'dhu billah.
consider his whining in the second round: 9:50 from what i understood, your catch is only on one thing, which is, light should shift towards sharq, east. thats only the thing [makes an absolute gesture]. did i understand you correctly? until 10.00 - what mawlana asrar says is not fully audible. but i will assume he explained it to the guy. at 10.08 the guy gestures with a thumbs up that he has understood it at this moment. and says: 10.08: excellent. so means, light shifting is the start time of fajr, and start time of siyam. did i understand you correctly? [again shaykh asrar's voice is not clear so i will skip it] 10.21: excellent. you see...now you are taking from my time. because i didn't understand in three minutes what you was actually catching on me. so that is why you was claiming you have to present your claim clearly. but that's fine. i hope that in your 20 minutes, after mine - you will make it clear so i will have my first 15 minutes to actually tackle what you are talking about correctly. thank you. ============= now let us go back and see what mawlana asrar sahib do to steal his time. [incidentally, that is less than half minute if you ignore his whining...] at 5.40 shaykh asrar comes on the stage. around 5.49 he begins to pin the mike.. starts at 5.45: --- at 6.05: brothers. the reason for the debate is to counter a proposition that has been made regarding the fajr time in the months in which the..dawn..the light of dawn does not disappear. or we would say: the shafaq - shafaq al-abyad - the white light which appears at sunset, that light does not disappear from the horizon. 6.33: now..when..during those days, when the light does not disappear, the fatwa given by, ustaz soliman and then defended by shaykh atabek is that maghrib prayer can be prayed, after which, a person has the decision to fajr all the way up to sunrise. and after they pray fajr prayer, the fast will commence. the fast will start and suhur will end. 7.08: now, this fatwa..the claim of the fatwa..proposition of the fatwa was that, this fatwa is in accordance with the hanafi school. 7.20: my purpose of countering this fatwa is to say that this fatwa is invalid according to all four schools. it is invalid according to the shafiyi school, hanbali school, maliki school, and the hanafi school. the reason being, that this verdict, contradicts al-qur'an al-karim; it contradicts the position of the hanafi school, that fajr time comes in once the light appears from al-sharq, the east. 8.00: the position that i believe, the opposition party should have taken, is that once the light shifts, from the western horizon, to the east, this would indicate the fajr time. so people will have, from maghrib time, time to eat suHur, up until the point when the light will shift to the east and the light will begin to grow. because this is in accordance with al-qur'an al-karim, and as ustaz atabek said: in accordance with mutawatir hadith. because we know from the Messenger of Allah SallALlahu alayhi wa sallam, that he alayhi's salatu was salam ordered the companions alayhimu'r ridwan, to stop eating at the time, of the growth of the light. 8.50 once the.. حتى يتبين meaning tabayyun is the actual growth of the light. now the purpose of debating this issue, is to show the mistake that has been made, 9.05 my position is that this proposition, given by ustaz atabek is a mistaken position, and to claim it to be the position of the hanafi school is also mistaken. may Allah sub'Hanahu wa ta'ala make this debate successful, and make us reach the truth. wa'l Hamdu lillahi rabbi'l aalamin. at 9.21 the shaykh puts down the mike. ---- for the record, in the first round, atabek goes on the stage at 2.05, pins the mike at 2.09 and says bismillah salat salam... ERRM! he quickly says bismillah alhamdulillah salatu salam ala rasulillah and i didn't catch it in the 3 seconds he said it. my previous accusation on him was incorrect - i acknowledge. it was so fast i didn't catch yesterday. my bad. anyway, apologies on missing it - but in my defence i will say that he said is so fast, that i simply missed it. regardless, no hesitation in acknowledging my mistake. ---- shaykh asrar clearly stated his position, which atabek couldn't understand in 3 minutes. because hearing is not the same as listening. a donkey can hear, but you cannot say that it is listening. but the cheek, he accuses shaykh asrar of stealing his time for his own inability to not understand. so how can you debate a donkey who needs to be told twice the same thing and yet he accuses you of not making him understand - his stupidity is your fault! by attacking shaykh asrar even before he had said a word and consigning it to foggy, he tried to set the narrative - poison the pond. admirably, shaykh asrar didn't go after the red herring. ---- am just pointing out the preliminaries. atabeck is just a donkey.
If you would please sheikh, jazakAllah khair. Atabek seems to have the deluded notion of being the only 'True' Hanafi on the planet.
i don't expect a donkey to be entertained. fair point. but how can you refute a donkey? your logic is not right. i am not upset because atabek insulted me - in which case it would be tit for tat. i call him a donkey because he has no adab of referring to the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. and i encourage all of you to call him a donkey until the donkey stops acting like a donkey. as i said, a donkey won't listen to nice words - only when you beat it with a heavy stick, the donkey will budge. it is not cruelty to the animal - it is just the way the animal is. you need to prod it with a stick. --- your zeal is misplaced brother. did you read what the scoundrel wrote about the hadith of magic? it is a secondary issue, whether one agrees with the hadith or not - but only a person who is filled with garbage will say it like the donkey does. frankly, i feel a bit sorry for dragging a poor animal's name to describe a scoundrel. but it is the essence of being a donkey rather than the physical form itself. so a donkey - as in a quadruped is mindful of the adab of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam, and it is honoured and far better than many 'humans'. and a human, who talks and wears clothes like humans and even claims to be a muslim; nay claims to be a hadith scholar who faults bukhari and muslim - yet has no adab when talking about RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. such a 'human' may be a 'human' externally - but in reality, he is worse than a donkey. do you have any more questions about atabek the donkey? see, i have no problem with you talking about the issue. you are offended that i call atabek a donkey. but you are willing to debate a man [sorry, donkey] who has no adab toward RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. if you want to talk about how stupid that donkey is and his superficial knowledge of hanafi fiqh, i can try, in sha'Allah, to examine what the donkey is braying about. you can be nice to the donkey - even respectful to "ustaz" donkey - i am not stopping you, are i?
' I will not bother for the niceties. because a donkey budges only after a sound thrashing - and only when it is kicked to move; nice words will have no effect on a donkey.' Nice words or disparaging comments are irrelevant because Ustadh Atabek will not entertain either but the issue that I have and it is quite prevalent on this forum (I agree that this style is not your normal style) is that instead of refuting the point, too many times we refute the person and in a manner that makes it appear to the outsiders that it is personal and does not come across as articulate bur rather it seems more like a rant. This approach does nothing to educate the masses or tackle the issue. If Atabek has fallen short in regards to having the correct adab, then referring to him as a 'donkey' just makes it like tit for tat, rather than dealing with the issues. Cheap shots and disparaging comments do not enhance the debate or resolve the issues but rather they perpetuate the ill feeling and the disagreement. @Harris786 'Real wisdom means to learn something well and then apply it. ' I have read many of your prior posts and it is interesting that you mention 'real wisdom' when most of your posts just seek to spread hype and do nothing to spread learning and understanding. It is high time that we get away from these sort of hypes and concentration on subsidiary issues and move towards tackling the major issues of our time. Just look at the state of the Muslims in general and Sunnis in particular and see where we are heading. Surely, that is enough to see to realise that we are facing major problems. What should be our response- label so and so a donkey or a Sullah Kulli, or a Shaytan. What will that achieve or should we be imploring our scholars to work together to address the issues of our time. Forums like these should be a platform to discuss and tackle issues not to bad mouth scholars or ridicule them because they have a divergent view. Unfortunately, I feel this forum is fast becoming a vehicle for keyboard warriors to spread their hatred and narrow minded view. It used to be quite academic and informative but now it seems it just promotes hypes and discord. That what I thought when I was involved in the Shaykh Aslam thread and eventually left the thread when the likes of Shaykh Yaqiubi were referred to as just 'Yaqoubi.' Recently, a video was uploaded of Maulana Khadim Hussain Rizvi where the entire clip was a collection of swears directed at Tahir ul Qadri. I understand that we have issues with such individuals but swearing at them, disparaging them does not promote the reflection or protection of the truth, it just further reinforces the hatred and discord. Concentrate on the issue and not the person will help to achieve a better understanding of what is haqq and what is batil. Is that not what this forum is for?
masha Allah! Allah preserve Shaykh Asrar for his defence of the Ahlus Sunnah. Also i have to say it was nice to see the debate conducted in a nice polite manner.
مَثَلُ الَّذِينَ حُمِّلُوا التَّوْرَاةَ ثُمَّ لَمْ يَحْمِلُوهَا كَمَثَلِ الْحِمَارِ يَحْمِلُ أَسْفَارًا ۚ بِئْسَ مَثَلُ الْقَوْمِ الَّذِينَ كَذَّبُوا بِآيَاتِ اللَّهِ ۚ وَاللَّهُ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ The example of those who were entrusted with the Taurat, and did not carry out its commands, is like the donkey carrying books; what a wretched example is of the people who denied the signs of Allah; and Allah does not guide the unjust. (Surah Jumu'ah 62:05)
"A scholar who does not practice what he has learned is like a donkey with a load of books" -The books carried in the donkeys saddlebags cannot transform the donkey, and neither can the books that are only carried in the scholars head. Real wisdom means to learn something well and then apply it. via http://sunnirazvi.net/library/
people know me here for some time and i generally don't do this. but atabek is a donkey. your reasoning is circular brother. atabek is a donkey and not a scholar, THAT is why shaykh asrar should not have debated him. you may feel annoyed that i keep referring to the donkey as a donkey. that is because the donkey has no adab when talking about ulama, saHabah and even RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. he is so full of himself (which is anyway filth) so i will not bother for the niceties. because a donkey budges only after a sound thrashing - and only when it is kicked to move; nice words will have no effect on a donkey. unless the donkey learns to speak about our elders and RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam with adab, i will continue to call him a donkey and his sidekick a dunayki. if you want me to show 'respect' to his third rate arguments or pedestrian facebook posts (which the donkey is quite proud of) you will be disappointed. have you ever imagined a nicely dressed man on the roadside, asking a donkey to do something?
The debate on the Fajr issue again highlights the need of some sort of 'fiqh council' or the like, as this issue needs to be discussed and deliberated on by the scholars, so some sort of solution can be provided for the layman. This was certainly a constructive discussion and again like @Abu Hamza mentioned, Shaykh has stepped forward to defend and clarify things. There is no doubt that he is a great asset for Sunnis but we need to see Sunni scholars working closely together, if not to eradicate, then certainly to make it difficult for minority positions to gain a foothold and cause confusion for the masses. @abu Hasan- Ustadh Atabeck certainly holds some erroneous positions but there is no need to refer to him as a 'donkey'. He is a scholar or otherwise Shaykh would not have debated him and comments like yours do not do anything to portray us in a positive light. It is more beneficial to tackle the issue and refute the erroneous position, than to resort to disparaging and degrading comments about the individual concerned. It was a constructive discussion on Saturday, so that should be followed by constructive analysis and feedback on this forum.
atabek was highly impressed with shaykh asrār, he clearly under estimated him. sunnī's should be grateful they have someone like shaykh asrār who goes out his way to set the record straight, he has done it time & time again. Not only did he debate the issue, he made mention of a few of atabek's social media rants. Allāh táā'lā grant him success in both abodes, Āmīn.
atabek was very disrespectful. made many snide comments, got frustrated and was shouting. think there'll be more discussions with abatek in future as we now know from the debate that he believes that the asharis say that Allah lies, he considers qadi iyad as insulter of the Prophet ﷺ, he says alahazrat has heterodox positions, shah walliyyullah is 'taymiyyan' and he defends ibn hazm.
atabek is a donkey and he whines even before the debate started. what a loser! --- the donkey has absolutely no adab. i was telling my friend that the donkey thinks that he is a swan and an eagle and a lion and a nightingale and a deer all at the same time. [EDIT: the donkey doesn't even begin with bismillah - we know that the donkey is deprived of the great blessing of saying the durud sharif. but apparently the biggest shaykh in the western hemisphere is not given tawfiq to say bismillah or durud sharif - rather he begins blaming and insinuating and casting aspersion] UPDATE: atabek DOES say bismillah and salat salam ala Rasulillah at 2.11; it was so fast that i didn't catch it. my mistake. and sorry for that. i have left the original text above just for the record. nas'alu Allaha al-aafiyah. --- hope shaykh asrar has learned not to debate a donkey in the future. --- i watched about first 17-18 minutes.
