"Shii Influence" in Zaleel's diseased mind

dar al-uloom deoband and binnori town fataawa, zameel should add them to his list of kuffar as well;

 

here’s another name zameel should add to his list of those whom he thinks hold a kufri belief — mufti riḍā al-ḥaqq, a deobandi scholar. he wrote a sharḥ of badʾ al-amālī in two volumes titled badr al-layālī. in volume 2, from pages 327 to 330, he discusses the issue of the īmān of the parents of rasūlullāh ʿalayhi afḍaluṣ-ṣalāti wa-ssalām.

i’ll translate only the relevant parts here to highlight zameel’s ignorance — because according to his own logic, mufti riḍā al-ḥaqq deobandi himself would be a kāfir for believing in the faith of the parents of rasūlullāh alayhi afḍaluṣ-ṣalāti wa-ssalām.

the title page of the book reads:

Notes: mufti riḍā al-ḥaqq, shaykh al-ḥadīth and mufti, dār al-ʿulūm zakariyyā, south africa
Editing and ordering: mawlānā ʿalāʾ al-dīn jamāl and mawlānā muḥammad ʿāmir ʿabdullāh
Verification and annotation: mawlānā muḥammad ʿuthmān and mawlānā muḥammad faheem
dār al-ʿulūm zakariyyā, lenasia, south africa
majlis al-buḥūth wa’l-iftāʾ, mumbai, india

he writes:

“it is narrated from sayyidunā abū hurayrah raḍiyallāhu ʿanhu that the Messenger of Allah ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam sought permission to pray for forgiveness for his mother, but permission was not granted; however, he was granted permission to visit her grave (ṣaḥīḥ muslim, ḥadīth no. 976). according to some scholars, both the parents of the Prophet ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam were brought back to life, and they were blessed with faith.”

then he presents what he considers the best interpretation for why the Prophet ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam was not granted permission to seek forgiveness:

“the best interpretation is that the messenger of Allah ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam sought permission for forgiveness, but it was not granted — because seeking forgiveness (istighfār) is only for those who had believed of their own free will, whereas the people of the fatrah will be tested.”

he also mentions the names of muḥaddithīn who accepted the narration about the Prophet’s parents being brought back to life and accepting īmān. zameel, by his own logic, should look at these names and declare them — along with his own deobandi mufti riḍā al-ḥaqq — as holding a kufri belief.

“however, other scholars such as ʿallāmah ibn shāhīn, al-khaṭīb al-baghdādī, ibn ʿasākir, al-ṭabarī, ibn sayyid an-nās, and as-suyūṭī raḥimahumullāh accepted this narration as established but regarded its chain as weak. ʿallāmah al-qurṭubī also considered it authentic and established.”

then, on page 330, he writes;

“the opinion regarding the non-belief of the noble parents, which mullā ʿalī al-qārī mentioned in adillat muʿtaqad abī ḥanīfah al-aʿẓam fī abaway ar-rasūl ʿalayhi as-salām, he certainly retracted from it. yet, it is puzzling why the view of non-belief continues to be strongly attributed to him. the detail is that mullā ʿalī al-qārī completed his commentary on ash-shifāʾ three years before his death, in the year 1011 ah. in it, he affirmed the faith of the noble parents and cited it as the position of the distinguished scholars. he writes:

(as for abū ṭālib, his islam has not been authentically established. regarding the islam of his parents, there are differing views, but the soundest opinion is that they were muslims, as agreed upon by the eminent imāms, as as-suyūṭī explained in his three treatises on the subject.)
(sharḥ ash-shifāʾ by mullā ʿalī al-qārī, 1/106, 1/648)

he continues:

objection: if the version “mā mātā” (“they did not die”) is authentic, and so is “mātā ʿalā al-fiṭrah” (“they died upon the natural faith”), then why was permission for forgiveness not granted?

answer: seeking forgiveness is only valid for those who have died upon faith. before their test, a supplication for forgiveness would be like saying, “O Allah, let so-and-so pass the test without being tested.”

and in the end, he notes that it’s difficult to decisively conclude either way — yet zameel insists that believing in their īmān is kufr, which, by that logic, would make many deobandis kāfirs too.

“in summary: there are evidences supporting both affirmation and negation; therefore, to decisively conclude one way or the other is difficult. the better approach is to withhold judgment. thus, mullā ʿalī al-qārī said:

(i have written a treatise on this matter, and what i see as best is to refrain from asserting or denying either position.)

(al-maqāṣid al-ḥasanah, 1/48)”

 

and do we need to provide a list of their practices and beliefs that have no conformity with the mutaqaddimūn?

 

i haven’t been following this thread for a while, and i just noticed some excellent posts by sidi aH.

inshaAllah, i’ll translate the full fatwa later, but for now, here’s a transliterated list of the works mentioned. in fact, this list can be extended by adding many more works inshaAllah.

Books written on the salvation of the Prophet’s parents
many great scholars have written works that prove and affirm the noble parents of our beloved Prophet alahi aDalus salat wattasleem were saved and are among the people of faith and honor. among those who discussed this issue in detail was Imām al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Suyūṭī, as mentioned earlier.

Here are some of the books written on this topic:

1. al-Intiṣār li-Wāliday an-Nabī al-Mukhtār, by Imām al-Sayyid Muḥammad Murtaḍā al-Zabīdī
2. Ḥadīqat al-Ṣafā fī Wāliday al-Muṣṭafā, also by Imām al-Zabīdī
3. Taḥqīq Āmāl al-Rājīn fī anna Wāliday al-Muṣṭafā min an-Nājīn, by al-ʿAllāmah Ibn al-Jazzār
4. Dhakhāʾir al-ʿĀbidīn fī Najāt Wāliday Sayyid al-Mursalīn, by al-ʿAllāmah al-Asbīrī
5. Murshid al-Hudā fī Najāt Abaway al-Muṣṭafā, by al-ʿAllāmah Waḥdī al-Rūmī
6. Maṭlaʿ an-Nayrayn fī Ithbāt Najāt Abaway Sayyid al-Kawnayn, by al-ʿAllāmah al-Manīnī
7. Hadāyā al-Kirām fī Tanzīh Ābāʾ an-Nabī ʿalayhiṣ-ṣalātu was-salām, by al-ʿAllāmah al-Badīʿī
8. Bulūgh al-Maʾārib fī Najāt Abaway al-Muṣṭafā wa ʿAmmihi Abī Ṭālib, by al-ʿAllāmah al-Azharī al-Lādhqī
9. Taʾdīb al-Mutamarridīn fī Ḥaqq al-Abawayn, by al-ʿAllāmah ʿAbd al-Aḥad al-Siwāsī
10. ar-Radd ʿalā man Iqtaḥama al-Qadhaḥ fī al-Abawayn al-Karīmayn, by al-ʿAllāmah al-Bakhshī
11. Sadād ad-Dīn wa Sadād ad-Dayn fī Ithbāt an-Najāt wa ad-Darajāt lil-Wālidayn, by al-ʿAllāmah al-Barzanji
12. Qurrat al-ʿAyn fī Īmān al-Abawayn, by al-ʿAllāmah ad-Duwāykhī
13. al-Qawl al-Mukhtār fīmā Yataʿallaq bi-Abaway an-Nabī al-Mukhtār, by al-ʿAllāmah ad-Dairbī
14. al-Jawāhir al-Muḍiyyah fī Ḥaqq Abaway Khayr al-Bariyyah, by al-ʿAllāmah at-Tamartāshī
15. Sabīl as-Salām fī Ḥukm Ābāʾ Sayyid al-Anām, by Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar al-Bālī
16. Inbāʾ al-Aṣfiyāʾ fī Ḥaqq Ābāʾ al-Muṣṭafā, by ar-Rūmī al-Amāsī
17. Tuḥfat as-Ṣafā fīmā Yataʿallaq bi-Abaway al-Muṣṭafā, by al-ʿAllāmah al-Ghunaymī
18. Risālah fī Abaway an-Nabī, by al-ʿAllāmah al-Fanārī
19. as-Sayf al-Maslūl fī al-Qaṭʿ bi-Najāt Abaway ar-Rasūl, by al-ʿAllāmah Aḥmad ash-Shahrazūrī
20. Khulāṣat al-Wafā fī Ṭahārat Uṣūl al-Muṣṭafā min ash-Shirk wa al-Jafā, by al-ʿAllāmah Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā ibn aṭ-Ṭālib
21. Mabāhij as-Sunnah fī Kawn Abaway an-Nabī fī al-Jannah, by al-ʿAllāmah Ibn Ṭūlūn
22. Saʿādat ad-Dārayn bi-Najāt al-Abawayn, by al-Sayyid Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Mālikī
23. al-Qawl al-Musaddad fī Najāt Wāliday Sayyidinā Muḥammad ﷺ, by al-ʿAllāmah Muḥammad al-Ahdal
24. Nukhbat al-Afkār fī Tanjiya Wāliday al-Mukhtār ﷺ, by al-ʿAllāmah Muḥammad ibn Sayyid Ismāʿīl al-Ḥasanī
25. Ījāz al-Kalām fī Wāliday an-Nabī ﷺ, by al-ʿAllāmah Muḥammad at-Tabrīzī
26. Irshād al-Ghabī ilā Islām Ābāʾ an-Nabī ﷺ, by one of the scholars of India (mentioned in Iḍāḥ al-Maknūn fī Dhayl ʿalā Kashf aẓ-Ẓunūn, vol. 3 p. 61, Dār Iḥyāʾ at-Turāth al-ʿArabī)

 

he has added a footnote, for this dumb zindiq, we always need to post screenshots

 

Glad that this has a screenshot as he has now updated it without having the decency to be transparent with an edit date etc:

'* Meaning, if it is valid to follow aberrations of the muta’akhkhirun when not in conformity with the mutaqaddimun, and it is not necessary to follow a proper and principled method of tarjih, then it certainly follows that it can be valid to follow other aberrations of the muta’akhkhirun (especially those of figures considered to be major scholars like Nabulusi and Barzanji'

Still a stupid argument though as:

1. Doesn't prove these opinions are actual aberrations. For example, the list of ulema who allowed mawlid is far longer than those who didn't, and that's just from the classical period. How is the position of the majority an aberration?

2. What does it mean to 'not be in conformity with the mutaqaddiumoon'? Does it mean to say something they didn't say or does it mean to contradict them? For example, if someone says driving a car is halal... You can't find that amongst the opinions of the earlier scholars because cars didn't exist but using the methods they established, you can reach that conclusion about new matters. Mawlid is similar to this. Just because they didn't affirm it, because it wasn't practiced, doesn't mean that this isn't in conformity to their teachings. Otherwise I challenge zameel to prove the words of his kaafir teachers is somehow in conformity with the mutaqaddimoon. Surely not being in conformity can only be to be 'in opposition to' in this instance.

3. He said a principled method of tarjih is needed but he didn't actually provide one in this article. I don't see any usool being quoted?

4. Even if he was correct, and somehow the fatwa re mawlid is an aberration and which isn't in conformity with the early scholars- why would that mean we need to accept aberrations in aqeedah since fiqh and aqeedah are not the same and shouldn't be treated as such? Deobandis always complain about barelwis turning mawlid into an aqeedah issue and look at the comparison zameel is drawing himself?

 

as for the opinions of ulama mentioned in passing - they are numerous. in fact, those who disagreed are an extremely small minority among later ulama. as alusi mentioned that numerous ulama of ahlus sunnah have held this position (of salvation).


in an anecdote about sayyiduna umar ibn abdul aziz, wherein he reprimanded a person on employing a man whose father was of a different religion (in other reports yatadayyanu bi'l majusiyyah) the man said: 'why should i bother about his father? after all the Prophet's sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam father was a mushrik."

hazrat umar said: 'aah' and fell silent bowing down his head. he then raised his head and said: "should i cut off his tongue or should i cut off his hand and leg? or should i strike off his head?" he then said: 'are you drawing comparisons with this fellow with the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam? don't come near me until i live"

 

this is a fatwa from egypt awqaf - click here.

it is worth translation in full. i hope some of our sunnis do it.

a short list of books mentioned in this fatwa: apart from the six monographs of suyuti on the subject.

ومن المصنفات في ذلك أيضًا:
- الانتصار لوالدي النبي المختار (صلي الله عليه وآله وسلم).
- حديقة الصفا في والدي المصطفى (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)؛ كلاهما للإمام السيد المحدث العلامة محمد مرتضي الزبيدي.
- تحقيق آمال الراجين في أن والدي المصطفى صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم من الناجين، للعلامة ابن الجزار.
- ذخائر العابدين في نجاة والدي المكرم سيد المرسلين (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) للعلامة الأسبيري.
- مرشد الهدى في نجاة أبوي المصطفى (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) للعلامة وحدي الرومي.
- مطلع النيرين في إثبات نجاة أبوي سيد الكونين (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) للعلامة المنيني.
- هدايا الكرام في تنزيه آباء النبي عليه الصلاة والسلام، للعلامة البديعي.
- بلوغ المآرب في نجاة أبوي المصطفى وعمه أبي طالب، للعلامة الأزهري اللاذقي.
- تأديب المتمردين في حق الأبوين، للعلامة عبد الأحد بن مصطفى الكتاهي السيواسي.
- الرد على من اقتحم القدح في الأبوين الكريمين للعلامة البخشي.
- سِدَاد الدِّين وسَدَادُ الدَّيْن في إثبات النجاة والدرجات للوالدين، للعلامة البرزنجي.
- قرة العين في إيمان الأبوين، للعلامة الدوايخي.
- القول المختار فيما يتعلق بأبوي النبي المختار (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) للعلامة الديربي.
- الجواهر المضية في حق أبوي خير البرية (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) للعلامة التمرتاشي.
- سبيل السلام في حكم آباء سيد الأنام (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) لمحمد بن عمر البالي.
- إنباء الأصفياء في حق آباء المصطفى (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) للرومي الأماسي.
- تحفة الصفا فيما يتعلق بأبوي المصطفى (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) للعلامة الغنيمي.
- رسالة في أبوي النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) للعلامة الفناري.
- السيف المسلول في القطع بنجاة أبوي الرسول (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) للعلامة أحمد الشهرزوري.
- خلاصة الوفا في طهارة أصول المصطفى (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) من الشرك والجفا، للعلامة محمد بن يحيى بن الطالب.
- مباهج السنة في كون أبوي النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) في الجنة للعلامة ابن طولون.
- سعادة الدارين بنجاة الأبوين، للعلامة السيد محمد علي بن حسين المالكي.
- القول المسدد في نجاة والدي سيدنا محمد (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) للعلامة محمد بن عبد الرحمن الأهدل.
- نخبة الأفكار في تنجية والدي المختار (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) للعلامة محمد بن سيد إسماعيل الحسني.
- إيجاز الكلام في والدي النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) للعلامة محمد بن محمد التبريزي.
- إرشاد الغبي إلى إسلام آباء النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) لأحد علماء الهند -كما في "إيضاح المكنون في الذيل على كشف الظنون" (3/ 61، ط. دار إحياء التراث العربي)-.


​

but zameel will blame only barelwis.

 

and the amusing part is that the issue of the parents of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is not just barzanji, nablusi and suyuti. let us take alahazrat out of this because zameel's screed is entirely meant to vituperate against the imam. so that is anyway a given.

in the following generalisation:



so my question to zaleel is - for the sake of the argument - we will not even cite both the above scholars in the matter. neither barzanji nor nablusi. we will cite numerous other scholars. what then? do we still fall under the profound wisdom the zaleel e zamanah: 'entails that is valid to adopt the their kufr belief'? whose kufr belief?

entails
that it is valid
to adopt
their kufr beliefs

read the above again whether it makes sense.

---

1) barelwis rely on the muta'akkhirun on the three issues. [let us ignore the muta'khirun on whom they rely, but just vilify the barelwis]

2) which entails [meaning of entails: involve (something) as a necessary or invevitable part or consequence.]

3) it CAN be valid [be vague and equivocal so no one can hold you to it. did he say IS valid? he just said CAN]

4) to adopt the kufr beliefs [why? is it compulsory to accept everything a scholar says jsut because i accept ONE ruling?]

5) of barzanji and nablusi [there. there. here is the sleight of hand. first he said "muta'khirun." one would think there may be many who held this position on nur, mawlid and iman abawayn. but by stating only 2 whom he criticises, he did the vanishing trick of making it only the belief of barzanji and nablusi.]

6) if they accept this - accept WHAT? kufr beliefs or beliefs that muta'akhirun hold - i.e. nur, mawlid and iman abawayn.? OR accept the kufr beliefs? aren't these two separate issues? why should acceptance of one ENTAIL acceptance of the totally unrelated issue?
​

absurd.

 

what a stupid argument! even piers morgan doesn't sound so stupid. when generalisation saw this passage, it swallowed a cyanide pill and jumped off the summit of burj khalifah.

apparently, if we rely on muta'akkhirun on the three issues, it means we MUST accept everything else SOME people among the muta'khirun have said. ha ha!! logic and zameel.

not just that we MUST accept, he added it to our account and completed the audit report. "it ENTAILS" it CAN be valid to adopt the kufr beliefs of ... and makes the high jump to mars. they reveal themselves as disbelievers and enemies of din..

---
we know that your writing is devoid of substance, facts and logic - at least take a few lessons writing clearly.

and people expect us to refute this hogwash.

 

thus, when it comes to deciding on using a certain hadith as valid, who would you trust?

the zindiq zameel whose pathetic life is spent proving that the Creator can lie - or those hadith ulama who spent their lives in the service of hadith?

qastallani is a hadith imam. suyuti, ibn hajar, ibn nasir dimashqi and numerous others - not even mentioning the likes of ibn asakir, bayhaqi, khatib and sabuni - who admitted this narration in fadayil. only a man with an urge to find fault will bicker and whine like a wounded cur, in an issue that has no bearing on iman/kufr or halal/haram.

no wonder the hindutva sanghis love the deobandis. both have a common cause in trying to find flaws or try to diminish the stature of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

dev kay bandon say hum ko kya gharaz
hum hain abd e mustafa phir tujh ko kya?

(abd ba ma'ana khadim aur ghulam)

 

among all the sects, sunnis are the most lazy, incompetent, callous and ungrateful. both among "ulama" class and the common man.

anyone with a decent reading should be able to refute all of zameel's points. but sunnis do not seem to be interested in it. the standard approach is: let someone do it and we will watch the show without sullying our hands.

there is so much information on this forum itself - posted by brothers and yours truly to some extent - that people can pick up and reuse. our sunnis are - as we say in urdu peyt-bharay - others have to spoon feed them by doing a search. i agree the search on this forum is not good, but still one can google it if they are desperate to learn the truth.

i know brothers (staunch sunnis - my friends) who would lament the attack of keller etc. on alahazrat and were eager to know when i would finish the reply, and the last i checked, a couple of years ago, they still hadn't found time to read TKM.

===
i would say - young english speaking ulama should use this platform and refute zameel. if they need help in what may appear as difficult portions, a number of senior members here can chip in; there are ulama here, who do not present themselves as such - who can join in and help. i too know a few things mostly because of being an old-timer, and i can also help in some cases.

===
if i did not have anything else to do - i would refute every objection of zameels'. but as @Waqar786 has noted, most of this has been refuted in urdu. that reminds me of another project that has suffered due to distractions.

btw, cannot leave without refuting at least one poitn from zameel's screed:




the wahabis and their cheap-desi ripoff, the devbandis mention fakihani and his "risalah". if it were not for suyuti's refutation in husn al-maqsid, and in which he said he has copied the entire risalah, none of the wahabi/devbandis could place the risalah. i could be wrong, but the only source of this risalah is suyuti's citation.

yet zameel accuses us of cherry picking.



fakihani,
shatibi
al-haffar.

these are the only names he could muster who "refute" mawlid. and the list of scholars and how big is the list of muhaddithin who not only allowed it but also celebrated it? does zameel have the courage to list the names?

zameel says:



he is being deceptive here or the moron does not understand what a fallacy means.

firstly, the issue of mawlid is one of istihbab - the devbandis made it into kufr/islam issue because they worship their tawaghit and will blindly follow them to the depths of hell. so according to the zindiq celebrating mawlid is kufr. if he protests that it is not - then why did he use this example in tertiary issues? is celebrating a mawlid a "kufr" or a "grave error?"

but the beauty of this passage is that the zindiq gives 3 names - "do you know more than these three scholars..." and ignores hundreds of other luminaries, some greater than these put together!

idiots on the internet think that 'appeal to authority' is ALWAYS a fallacious argument, ignoring the fact that in matters of expertise, everyone, including physicists resort to citing authorities. if it were not true, zameel would not cite fakihani whose fatwa on mawlid is known ONLY because of suyuti's refutation!

another fallacy the zindiq sneaked in the above is mentioning the names of alahazrat and suyuti, insinuating that only these two ulama held the position that the parents of RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam and his ancestors were ahl al-iman. whereas, there is an overwhelming majority of later ulama who supported this view - and even those who opposed it were not vehement or vilified those who held the view.

shaykh alusi in his ruh al-ma'ani said: "i fear kufr for a person who speaks ill about the parents of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.."




---
shaykh nidal should have taken note - in his commentary on fiqh al-akbar, he blackened 38 pages, exposing his own ignorance and making stupid remarks - and poor shaykh did not realise the stupidity in his own reasoning - but that is a subject for another day. he foolishly followed ali al-qari (may Allah forgive him) and compounded his mistakes.

until this point i used to like him as a brother used to share snippets of his talks or opinions. when i stumbled on this, i cancelled him. may Allah ta'ala give him sense to repent. after vehemently arguing against the iman of abawayn al-karimayn for nearly 38 pages, in the end he advises that one should not speak about this as it may hurt RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam and hence endanger one's iman! ya miskeen! why didn't you heed your own advice and swallow all that you had blurted in your arrogance of "knowledge" and taken it to your grave instead of sullying your own book of deeds? if nidal can call ulama names and accuse them of jahl, so too can abu hasan criticise his jahl which is evident from his silly arguments.

---
alahazrat acknowledged that this is not an issue in which we claim definitive evidence. but those who oppose have do not have it either. and when great imams of hadith have not taken a definitive stand, why should people in our time act as if they are better than all these hadith masters?

coming back to zaleel's holier than thou reproach:

Ultimately, kufr is kufr and grave errors are grave errors, no matter who espouses them. ​

yes - when a maulvi equates the knowledge of the best of mankind with those of quadrupeds, it is kufr. no matter who espouses it. when a blind mufti says that falsehood has already transpired in the speech of Allah (ta'ala Allahu uluwwan kabeera), it is kufr no matter who espouses it. when a maulvi says that the possibility of another Prophet coming after the coming of our Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam will have no effect on his being a seal (i.e. the last prophet) is kufr, no matter who espouses it. one who claims that the expanse of the knowledge of satan is proven by scripture, but questions where is the scripture for the knowledge of the best of creation (sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam) has committed kufr, no matter which zindiq espouse that.

and every zindiq who tries to justify these kufriyat is a kafir himself.

----
however, the issue of mawlid, or iman of parents of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is not a matter of kufr or grave error. the first one is all settled, except one or two outliers who didn't get the memo bark about it.

and the second is utmost an issue upon which ulama have differed. and alahazrat summed it succintly:

we agree that this issue is not one in which we do not have definitive evidence, nor one upon which there is consensus [that the honourable parents attained salvation]. but where is such definitive evidence or ijmaa on THEIR side? [i.e. those who oppose/refute this]

if a man makes an error on the side of respect - is million times better than one who makes an error on the side of disrespect.​

====

 

Zameel has been around for a while and his reach even within the wider deobandi circles is limited. The new generation don't care for this polemic, so like a few learned brothers have said om here, let's not give Zameel any more traction than he deserves. Leave him to crow because it's all recycled claims that have been refuted in the language they were first posed in.
@AbdalQadir made a salient point, why is it that we have to constantly defend ourselves, when the hetrodoxical groups can be platformed and their deviant views legitimised. If their creed is unsound, they should be fixing that before trying to defame those who have universal credibility than the charlatans they themselves repeatedly have shown themselves to be. This is a indirect nod to those so called 'sunnis' that are actualy infected with a shii influence too. All deviants have this trait, try to hold others to an academic standard that they themselves can't even dream of let alone demonstrate.

 

Deobandis and pseudo sufis all should be exposed and documented.

I must thank Abu Hasan that he is responding to the Deobandi and pseudo sufis. This is very important, because if you don't refute and expose these liars our new generation will fall for it.


Infact all the text from that article of Deobandi should be pasted here.

We need an organized response.

For example, Abdullah ghumari is used but does the Deobandi show you that Abdullah ghumari was a lamadhabi shadhili.

We should be fair and square

 

There's no way that zameel can be considered to be attempting to reach the truth and just getting to the wrong conclusion. He's clearly constructing deceptive arguments. Think of the first issue he raises, the hadith of Noor:

1. He implies that no sunni ever quoted this until after the Shia quote this in the 300s of the hijri calendar

2. At the same time, the earliest source on the sunni side he provides is ibn arabi from the late 500s of the hijri calendar, thereby seeking to show that it originated from the Shia and crept into sunni books after.

3. He claims Al Qastallani quotes from Abdul Razzaq but this isn't in his musannaf. Yet I'm 100% certain he knows that the musannaf has missing chapters as mentioned by it's editor. The reason why he doesn't mention the missing chapters is... The musannaf is dated to around 200 hijri which would mean it existed BEFORE the Shia quote that zameel cites (which is over 100 years later)

4. If Al Qastallani quotes from the musannaf, this indicates he had a full copy in front of him from which to quote from. We do not have a fully copy with us now. The citation by Al Qastallani is in itself evidence that he saw such a narration in his copy otherwise are we saying he made it up?

5. Al haythami also cites Abdul Razzaq so did he also make it up? This actually indicates he also had a full manuscript in front of him and cited from it and corroborates Al Qastallani's claim

6. If the musannaf did have this narration in it, it would mean that the sunnis didn't get this from the Shia even if the narration is fabricated because the point in question in this article isn't the authenticity question, it's the borrowing from Shia theology question

 

actually, i avoid that accursed blog - simply because i will then feel compelled to refute - wasting my time.

--
common people among devbandis and other heretics are not willing to accept the mistakes of their elders even when you show them hundreds of times.

whereas, our sunni brothers will be disturbed by every objection - even when the accuser has been proven wrong scores of times. and when we refute them, do they share - propagate? they just move on until another doubt is raised - it appears as if they trust zameel's word more than alahazrat's!

sub'HanAllah.

and wasting our time. if we do not answer - even if it is due to lack of time - some people will look at it as if our whole manhaj is flawed - whereas, devbandis can be refuted numerous times, but their cult is not suspect (as we say in urdu: un par aanch na aaye).

hum aah bhi kartay hain toh ho jaatey hain badnaam
woh qatl bhi kartay hain toh charchaa nahin hotaa

 

Brother, you keep sharing links from Zameel and even Noor and his sidekick, and then ask for a rebuttal or help

You shouldn’t be engaging with such content if you’re not equipped to address it

As mentioned before, just ignore it unless it gains significant traction - otherwise, you’re the one giving it more visibility by sharing it around

 

bro, take the good advice you got.

I’ve said elsewhere on the forum. These devbandi tramps have been playing this cat and mouse game with Sunnis for over a 100 yrs.

DON’T let them have the satisfaction of sitting in the driver seat or pushing you around.

whether it’s abu Hasan or scholars before him, they can’t be on call like emergency doctors, that everytime some sleazy devbandi opens his pie hole, they need to straight away refute the filth coming out of the shaytan’s mouth!

we need to put THEM on that side of the game and make sure it’s US who are in the driver seat and on the OFFENSIVE against deviants, and we should also cooperate with the likes of Abu Hassan or Asrar Rashid or Shahid Ali or others so that they can work in that offense to heretics

we don’t need to get worked up every time some stray mongrel barks on the street!

 

the only point here is - that none of the three issues are unique to alahazrat. sunni ulama all over the world have the same position - but if zameel opens his mouth to bark at them, he will be kicked back into his filthy kennel.

---
the celebration of the birthday of the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam - or mawlid al-nabi - is celebrated all over the world and all the scholars of sunnah in all countries commend and celebrate. only the wahabis, devbandis and their guru wail on this day.

but zameel will bark at alahazrat.

---
as for the issue of the parents of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam, there are numerous mistakes and distortions and even plain lies in that accursed article. laa Hawla wa laa quwwata illa billah.

actually, this article is exhibit 2009384 about the ignorance of zameel and rest of the devbandis, who do not know how to read books. imbeciles.

numerous sunni scholars hold this view, but the scoundrel with hiqd in his heart and khabasat in his skull will single out alahazrat to bark at. for example:



alahazrat's work is no different than the other ulama - or even his own elders in deoband - but the filthy hypocrite will bark only against alahazrat.

---
khalil ambhetvi said that ibn hajar said that the hadith was sahih - and that qurtubi and ibn nasir validated it. why is it that zameel singles out alahazrat for his bile?

(reference provided by zameel himself: badhl 10/525)