Shaykh Pir Sayyid Abd al Qadir Shah Jilani and a Couplet

Discussion in 'Aqidah/Kalam' started by abu Hasan, Feb 25, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i have been receiving such comments other than the forum, so i think it is best to clarify. first of all, i did not do takfir of the shaykh - friends who received private correspondence know that i told them that: uttering a kalimah of kufr is something else; doing takfir is something else. [i also wrote that in a post here itself]

    certainly we should always do tawba, but this particular thing does not necessitate it. because the intention was never to attack a sunni scholar - just to clarify the matter. moreover i did not do takfir as some people believe. al-`iyadhu billah. and Allah ta'ala knows what is in the hearts.

    i wrote in my post that: 'if the shaykh is saying just like i have heard and transcribed it, then it is a kalimah of kufr'.

    i reiterate that i did not have an axe to grind with shah sahib [pir sayyid jilani]; i heard something on video, which if not understood properly does amount to an enormous thing. i asked for a clarification. one cannot simply ignore it because a big scholar has said it -then what difference between us and the deobandis and their pir parasti? - and this was not a small thing either.

    secondly, i was only asking for a clarification. having husn zann etc, is fine but it is a duty of every muslim to ask. there are still some things about that speech but in the light of a misunderstanding [that is now cleared] and the schadenfreude of deobandis, i will not continue it any further.

    thirdly, the reason why i am clarifying this excessively is because the shaykh is a sayyid. we must not forget respect towards the ahl al-bayt and particularly those who are scholars; and i never meant disrespect. abu faDl in his comments somewhere said that i made derogatory remarks, which i did not. i only dropped the 'shaykh' and said 'pir jilani' in the context of a pending enquiry.

    fourthly, please let us remember that nobody is above the shari`ah.

    wa billahi't tawfiq.
  2. abu nibras

    abu nibras Staff Member

    yes what you say is certainly true. The medium of video and audio though seem to accurately reproduce the real talks, they do take their toll.

    i did not comment on the video but i do think that sidi abu Hasan has sincerely apologized for something that anyone would have believed if he had listened to the video.

    I request the brothers from to remove the video from Google due to this problem with it.

    and yes there needs to be more husn-dhann towards our scholars.

    thread closed.

    was salam

  3. Abu Fadl

    Abu Fadl Banned

    I think a big lesson must be taken from this for us all. If you are not sure about something, never speak on it. how many times have the ulama said not to talk on matters which you don’t have complete knowledge of, which is why it is best to remain silent and not even hint negative remarks, never mind words like kufr, especially when it concerns great scholars. The blame and sin which results from such irresponsible comments is immeasurable. The ulama mention how disrespecting elders can at once devoid one of faizaan and even cause nuqsaan and be-barakati.
    if in doubt, leave it out.

    I know the matter is cleared and people have apologised, but as genuine advice I think some people need to go further and do tawba as the comments such as kufr were serious and necessitate tawba.

    Yes I agree, it is not the common folk decide who is a scholar but rather who the scholars consider a great scholar. This is where one is considered an authority in matters of deen.

    Allah give us the tawfiq to respect and honour the scholars of Ahl us Sunnah!
  4. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    Allahu Akbar
    Ya RasulAllah
    Ya 'Ali

    we cannot separate the Na'ra e Risalat from Na'ra e Takbir. why?

    shah sahib did a speech 2 days ago in cape hill mosque, smethwick, birmingham. he said aaqa 'alaihis salatu wassalam asked abu bakr al-siddiq [whom shah sahib described as the shahanshah of this ummah] to make a ring with the word Allah on and nothing else engraved.

    abu bakr radiyAllah ta'ala anhu got the ring made but added Muhammad too. when the ring came to the messenger sallAllahu 'alaihi wasallam, it had engraved:

    Abu Bakr

    Aaqa said to abu bakr, i asked you to engrave only Allah. abu bakr said i cannot separate your name from the name of Allah. but i didnt add my own name. then there was waHi or something else that revealed, those who dont separate the name of Allah with the name of Muhammad, then their name [abu bakr] is not separated from our names.
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  5. :s1:

    masha Allah!
    Nara e Takbir!
    Nara e Risalat!
    Nara e Haidari!

    "One big happy family" again. I'm so happy that this has been clarified and Allah bless Sidi Abu Hasan for being noble and honest and man enough to say sorry. That is something certain mockers on this forum could learn.


    And I apologise unreservedly too to brother Abu Hasan for any tart comments I may have made earlier and also, above all, to Huzoor Qibla Pir Sayyid Mufakkir al Islam Shaykh Abd al Qadir Shah Jilani, for any misconceptions this thread may have started about him.

    I think we can all learn a lesson from this episode.
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2007
  6. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    alHamdulillah! aH from the beginning asked for an explanation and i wanted the same too. and sidi asif has provided it.

    yes, i certainly agree. a scholar is not him who is recognised as a scholar by you and I; a scholar is he who is recognised as an 'alim by 'ulama themselves - and shah sahib is certainly acknowledged.

    fact of the matter is we misheard and misunderstood.

    see, in the heat of the moment, some speakers may say things that aren't right. i thought the same had happened here. obviously not.

    i am a great fan of shah sahib. whenever he is in the vicinity, i go to his duroos. may Allah grant him a long, long life.

    i too could not believe it but that's what it sounded like and i wish i knew allama iqbal's couplet earlier so that i could not even entertain the thought of shah sahib saying such a thing. unreserved apologies to shah sahib are due.
  7. Abu Fadl

    Abu Fadl Banned

    Deobandis aside, I am still in shock how some people could have even thought that a scholar of his calibre, and im sure most people agree that there are not many people who could match his scholarship and command on 'uloom, could possibly imply that Allah sleeps.
  8. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    wa lillahi'l Hamd.
    wa lillahi'l Hamd wa alf shukr.

    that certainly makes sense. this is wonderful news and i am a very happy man. i take this opportunity to apologize to the sayyid. i don't know if anybody believes me - i am not bothered in the least that i am proven wrong [anyway, i always insisted on getting a clarification]. i am overjoyed to be proven wrong.

    anyway, that is why i repeatedly asked on this forum, if i heard it properly. and therefore i will remove all my irrelevant comments because they are useless.

    i will summarize the whole thing here:

    the shaykh - pir sayyid `abdu'l Qadir jilani said something in a speech which taken out of context sounds terrible. i stated it here and - i acknowledge that it was hurried - but i repeatedly insisted that we must seek clarification.

    the clarification has come through and we apologize unreservedly to the sayyid for the whole fracas - and seek forgiveness to those we have wronged.

    wa lillahi'l Hamd wa alf shukr.

    ps: some other comments were deleted inadvertently [i think a whole thread] - please post them if you think you should.
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2007
  9. This I think settles the matter. Qibla Shah Sahib, Mufakkir al Islam, stands vindicated. Deobandio ab sarro!
  10. :s1:

    It appears the critics of Shah Sahib were wrong after all. I have got a couple of emails which have clarified the point and which quote the correct verse which Shah Sahib actually quoted:

    The actual verse (by Allama Iqbal) is:

    Soya hai kahan jag ab aey Fitna-e-Mahshar

    Ruswa kabhi Youn Deen-e-Peghamber na Howa tha

    Shah sahib precedes this verse in his speech by saying "Ay Rabb e Karim" and because there is no pause between that and the verse itself some people misunderstood it as if he was referring to Allah when he said 'sona' [sleeping]; rather this clearly shows it was the fitna e mahshar that is addressed with this word.

    These are the email responses which were forwarded to me and asked to be put on here. I think it is only fair to reproduce them verbatim to clear Hazrat Shah Sahib as the charge was a big one. BTW the emails were mailed to a friend who forwarded them to me. Neither of the emailers is a mureed of Shah Sahib either:

    [first email response]:

    Dear Brother, I did watch it many times but this idiotic thought never came into my mind that Mufakir-e-Islam is saying a "Kalimah-e-Kufr", because an Alim can't say "O the Generous Lord! wake up, where have you been sleeping?" and Mufakir-e-Islam isn't only an Alim but a great teacher of Aqaaid, a great Muhadith, Mufassir, Faqi and famous Walli.

    When Hazrat Mufakir-e-Islam, describes the horrific situation of Kerballa, he just cried that "Ae Rabba-e-Kareem" O the Generous Allah Azzawajal, then he says

    Soya hai kahan jag ab aey Fitna-e-Mahshar

    Ruswa kabhi Youn Deen-e-Peghamber na Howa tha

    He isn't asking Allah Azzawajal to wake up but he is doing "Sabkat-e-Kalami" (before completing the 1st stances, , move to the second one) which means after calling Allah Azzawajal, the next thing that came in his mind, he describes without completing the previous sentence or after calling Allah Azzawajal's mercy the next thing came into in his mind was that verse, Secondly any kid can get the correct meaning of the verse if he has a little knowledge of poetry, consider it again

    Soya hai kahan jag, ab aey Fitna-e-Mahshar, he is asking to blow the Mahshar, if I write very simply, he says where are you sleeping O Fitna-e-Mahshar, it is time to wakeup. So "sleeping" used for Mahshar not for Allah Azzawajal. For example, two brothers are present, Zaid & Bakr then I say " Bakr, wake up, where have you been sleeping O Zaid" so what does it mean? Am I asking Bakr to wake up or Zaid? It's clear that I took Bakr's attention but requesting Zaid to wakeup.

    I think this little explanation will help, also inform that guy "don't deceive people by misinterpreting words of legends of Ahle-e-Sunnah, first learn Urdu then ABC of Uloom-e-Shariah before judging the Great Sunni Scholars.

    If he issued a statement of Kuffr then it has returned back on him, forward this explanation to him and ask him to openly make Tobba from that act, Tobba must be open, on the same forum in a post otherwise it won't be acceptable.


    [second email response]

    Soya hai kahan jag ab aey Fitna-e-Mahshar
    Ruswa kabhi Youn Deen-e-Peghamber na Howa tha

    Add, 'Aey Rab-e-Karaam' at the beginning of the above verse and you will realise that the verse does not maintain its 'Wazan' anymore. 'Aey Rab-e-Kareem' is not part of the verse.

    'Mahshar' refers to the Day of Judgement. The poet has added the word 'Fitnah' before it to refer to the horrors that lie ahead and also to add a bit of poetic drama.

    The verse is self-explanatory. It potrays the idea of 'the Day of Judgement' as an entity, a presence, an existence which is dormant, waiting for its time etc. or in a poetic sense, 'asleep', waiting for its 'cue' to rise and awaken.

    What is this 'cue'?

    It is the time when the world shall disintegrate into chaos, when right will be considered wrong and vice versa. The poet thus calls upon it to wake up from its slumber as what other level of injustice is it waiting for? This particular one peaks them all.
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 24, 2007
  11. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    some of the threads about yazeed, la'nah and sayyid abdul qadir jilani maddazillahu now have upto 4 pages of posts. and i think people will keep posting.

    to summarise:

    some scholars adopt silence about yazeed - this is an accepted position.

    some scholars call him kafir and send la'nah upon him - this is an accepted position.

    those who support yazeed, call him ameer al-mu'mineen and talk against imam husain radiyAllahu ta'ala anhu and call him a baaghi are misguided at least. we will not tolerate their praise on this forum.

    sayyid abdul qadir jilani shah sahib, unless we all misheard, made a statement that was incorrect at least. we all agree it was incorrect, hence, we must seek an explanation from him. we must not use this to start an attack on scholars of ahlus sunnah as some have done.

    alaHazrat gave ashraf ali, whose knowledge is same as that of dogs and pigs, 13 years to explain and repent from his writing of kufr. he did not do so, then, and only then, did alaHazrat pass the fatwa of kufr.

    don't over complicate matters - ask shah sahib to explain. if he does not - then you can ask a mufti about this.

    some people have totally gone off at a tangent - what has credentials of irfan shah sahib got to do with these threads? any post that is not related to the topic will be deleted.
  12. okay having re-read your statement i agree with your point that the verse was possibly blasphemous and i myself do not agree with it and disassociate myself from it too. but until someone asks for clarification or a formal verdict from a mufti shouldn'twe all be silent and not issue our own indirect fatwas?

    but i admit, publically, on record, i was wrong in trying to find an excuse for the verse and make tawbah and disassociate myself from it and its utterer until further clarification has been sought. but i leave fatwas to the experts. i am simply a layman and a follower.
  13. Lurker

    Lurker Guest

    And in a previous post NJ wrote "dogs of hell-fire" in reference to Mawdudi and Mufti Shafi Usmani.

    Can we see some scans of their endorsements and some scans of where this book calls Yazeed a "jannati" and Hazrat Husain (alaihis salam) a "baaghi" BEFORE we start calling someone a dog of the hell-fire. I find this extreme and lacking proper ettiquette.

    The shaykh quotes a line of poetry attributing "sleep" to Allah Most High, yet everyone says it's just "poetry" out of being cautious and having husn az-zann, so the least you can do before sending someone off as a dog of the hell-fire is to show explicit proof of the book's contents and their endorsements of it. Trust me, I'm no diehard fan of either of the two, but I believe in being just and accurate.
  14. sidi AH,

    the shaykh does not say 'hussain tere gadda ko salam' rather you must have misheard. he says, 'hussain tere jadd-e-kareem ko salaam' [hussain, salutations to your generous grandfather!].

    he uses punjabi occassionally to address those of his mureeds in the audience who hail from the villages of punjab and who dont understand high falutin' urdu. in this speech he only uses it for any length of time when talking about shaykh ul islam allama abdul ghafoor hazarwi sahib [one of his teachers i believe] :ra:. apparently during one of hazarwi sahib's speeches someone sent a letter saying you call yazid a kafir but your imam, abu hanifa, stayed silent on this issue. the shaykh quotes the punjabi reply of hazarwi sahib (a quick paraphrase): look, i know he did not call him a kafir but he did not call him a muslim either --he repeated this punjabi sentence 3 or 4 times!--[muslim nee aakhiyaa] and he who my imam [e azam abu hanifa] does not call a muslim i will not call him a muslim either! as to why he stayed silent i am his follower, i know: the imam's silence means: look there is a limit [hadd] to iman and to kufr. what do i call someone who broke both these limits?! then the final bit in punjabi the shaykh again quotes from shaykh al islam hazarwi sahib that, 'abu jahl is a kafir because he hurt the body of the Prophet. what then about yazid who wounded the very heart of the Prophet [ meaning imam hussain] ?

    this is the bit where the shaykh then carries on in urdu about the kufr of one who insults even the shoelace of the prophet....

    i recommend everyone to listen to it ALL and then judge.

    as for what's the point of a speech exposing yazid's kufr the point, as aqdas bhai said, is that many so-called muslims, who even call themselves sunnis, have defended yazid paleed and continue to do so till this day. they even had the nerve to write a sick disgusting book in the defence of yazid the damned dog and against imam e paak with the title 'rasheed ibn rasheed'. amongst the scholars who put their seals and signatures to this disgusting book [which called imam paak as 'baaghi'; yazid was called amir ul mumineen, in this sick book and a jannati and that imam e paak did khurooj. naudhubillah. here is a list of some of the enemies of the ahlul bayt who gave their seals of approval [taqriz] to this sick book:

    mawdudi, mufti muhammad shafi deobandi (taqi usmani's father), mawlvi ismail --head of jamiat e ahle hadis pakistan, etc.

    la'aanat on all of these and other enemies of the ahle bayt.

    ahle bayt e paak se bay-adbiyaan, baybaakiyaan
    la'anatullah alaykum dushmanaan e ahle bayt!
  15. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i seldom listen to speeches, with due respect to speakers but i did a little this time. i did not understand parts of it because i don't understand punjabi [which i guess the shaykh seems to..correct me if i am wrong].

    somewhere around 8:00 minutes playtime, he says [probably reciting a couplet]:

    ay rabb e karim, soya hai kahaN jaag...
    O the Generous Lord! wake up, where have you been sleeping? [al-`iyadhu billah]

    did i hear it correctly? did anybody else too?

    regardless, speakers get carried away and say whatever they like putting words in the mouth of elders and use any term without much deliberation. inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un.

    [he says husain ke gada ko salam, did he?]
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2007
  16. Exposing Yazid : Shaykh Pir Sayyid Abd al Qadir Shah Jilani

    <embed style="width: 400px; height: 326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="" flashvars="">

    A fairly short speech of about 20 minutes in which the Shaykh highlights the following points:

    -Difference between fisq, fujoor and kufr.
    -Evidence for Yazid's kufr
    -Yazid's making the halal haram and the haram halal.
    -Disrespecting even the shoelace of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is kufr!
    - Why Imam Abu Hanifa stayed silent on the question, Is Yazid a kafir?
    -Hafiz Shirazi's poems about Imam Hussain :as:
    -Difference between the namaz of the ascetic and the passionate lover!
    -Greatness of Sayyidina Abu Bakr Siddiq :ra:
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2007
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page