sidelines of the discussion on atabek-shaykh asrar debate

i did?

which?

if you mean this sentence:

it is a rhetorical device. 'you' doesn't actually mean you do it. it means is that what you are looking for?

 

Firstly, I was not trying to be intelligent, as that is how I write and probably is a fault that could be attributed to me. However, my style of writing is not deliberate but I agree that I could be more plain and direct. Your last part is a slander and a disgusting assumption on your part. That shows your narrow-mindedness and proves my point that anyone that just suggests that the Ahl al- Sunnah are not limited to Ala Hazrat, they are effectively against the Ahl al-Sunnah or using the word of your friend- a deviant. You talk about earning my respect but you have lost mine with that comment. Is that plain and direct for you. Those who know me know what I am and they know how much respect I have Alahazrat and there is nothing that I have said that suggests otherwise. It just assumptions on your part and as an administrator of this forum- I expected better.

I was not around then but looking at it logically, that book would not have disseminated amongst the masses and kept between the scholars. Printing was not widespread then and there was certainly no Pdf's. If a provocative title, distracts or puts off one from gaining an understanding of the issue, then the purpose has been defeated.

 

if you were around then, you would probably
be pelted with shoes and stones and would be called a hypocrite.

don't act like atabek's student. atabek is a donkey.

clearly you are a pandering to the masses. Haqq is the last on your mind. you want popularity, and in the process if you can convey something, fine. else. being proper, politically correct and oh-so-nice is more important that saying the truth.

truth is bitter.

 

you need to provide proofs, otherwise it is baseless objection and bad opinion without evidence.

staying away and warning others by pointing out heresies and heretics are two different things, the first one is necessary and the other is important. you need to read ahadith about deviants, they don't advise only staying away with them but they demand us to be harsh with them, and do a social boycott of them.

not in every case and for everyone, so you cannot generalize it. besides, you are confusing fu'u with usul, the difference in usul is not acceptable.

also my point - if such a layman is that big dolt then why does he follow one and abandons other. i see this attitude among the supporters of those listed above that they close their eyes so tight, they don't read or listen to arguments of their opponents. it is not about disparaging, or titles of books, they simply don't listen or read.

when i explained the issue to some of my own relatives and asked them to read TKM, they simply refused to read it, and to date they have good opinion regrading nuh keller, padri, and et al, yet they call us haters etc. one of them, whom i asked to read TKM, replied first he wanted to finish ihya and other works , on the other hand he had read nuh keller's article and liked it very much. it was four years back, and he hasn't read TKM. do you think you can make such idiots understand?

you are making petty arguments, there is no specific authority, it is the quran and sunah which defines who is deviant and who is not, otherwise this view of yours is nothing different from sullah kullies, they repeat the very argument that who we are to judge this and that big scholar, but at the same time you'll find them discrediting those ulama who refute/reject their beloved scholars.

you must be thinking very high of yourself.

are all the issues with them of the same level or severity? if not then your view about them should be according to that severity level. sorry, you didn't provide a clear view of yours. do you think hamzah yousuf a muslim or a murtad? do you think tahir al qadri a sunni, deviant, or murtad?

who asks you to spend your time disparaging them, and why do you assume that others spend their time ONLY disparaging them? however, honestly speaking their is no room for being very nice with the deviants, you need to read ahadith and history, if hazrat umar raDiAllahu anh can kick a person out of his house while he was his guest and having meal, when ibn sireen rahimahullah would refuse to listen quran from a deviant, when sufyan thawri rahimahullah would reject to pray the funeral of a deviant then from where do you find this being very very polite theory?

yes, but they would have courage to read nuh keller's full article and praise it, listen to filth of hamzah yousuf and gobble it down their throats into their hearts, but they won't read anything which is against their favorite personalities, so it is not about titles, or disparagement, rather they want to remain biased and don't want to change their views.

 

and then call yourself a sufi? one should be eager to see and read what others are saying and criticising oneself - not look for praises about self and feel good. besides, you know the level of people who judge a book by its cover...or its title.

---

as i said, if you had ghayrah more than hypocritical adab you have learned in the west, you would not say it thus. nuh keller shamelessly supports the view of dihlawi that the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is not aware of his own state - just like a hypocrite.

some erroneous conclusions indeed.

---
regardless, the rest of your long post is plain nonsense. utter balderdash. just being wordy doesn't mean it is useful or intelligent. you are just using flowery language to disguise your hatred of alahazrat and ahl al-sunnah. learn to speak plain and direct, maybe you will earn some respect.

 

I was not around then but looking at it logically, that book would not have disseminated amongst the masses and kept between the scholars. Printing was not widespread then and there was certainly no Pdf's. If a provocative title, distracts or puts off one from gaining an understanding of the issue, then the purpose has been defeated.

 

'i'm not defending haris786, but again enlighten us with your understanding of the wider picture of the school that ala hazrat rahimahullah represented, give some references form his books please.'

What I meant about the wider picture is that the school is not limited to Alahazrat, so when someone holds an opinion that is different to the one that Alahazrat has, it does not automatically qualify them as a deviant. The issue that I have with @Harris786 and the like is that they limit themselves to Alahazrat and those who do not support Alahazrat or Hussam ul Haramain (because they do not understand the whole background to the conflict) are criticised and labelled all sorts. This is narrow-mindedness and should be avoided.

'if one cannot understand why an scholar said what, and did what because he is not an scholar then what is the benefit of listening or learning if one's understanding is so poor that he cannot reach at a decision or recognize truth from falsehood? this is an old absurd argument that one has no right to talk about scholars. when people make such argument they ignore that it is not about scholars but deviant scholars.'

Is it not sufficient that when you are warned about certain positions of scholars, then the layman does not follow that position, instead of making disparaging comments. Just because some scholars have been labelled deviant does not mean, we then have a free path to say what we want, is it not just better to avoid that scholar. There are always going to be differences of opinion between scholars but that is of little concern for the layman, as they will not understand the full background to the issue. 'it is not about scholars but deviant scholars.' This comment is baseless because who judges that so and so scholar is deviant, so therefore disparaging comments can be made. Again, that is not the layman's job, that is the role of the scholars.

hamzah yousuf
- tahir al qadri
- nuh keller
- hussain nasr
- atabek shukurov
- abd'ul qadir (uk)

I avoid all these personalties, mainly because they are not in the UK and I have been told that there are issues with them. However, I don't spend my time disparaging them because what that does is detract from the real issues. It becomes a personality clash and supporters of these personalities have an easy get out clause because they will say that all who oppose them do not have much knowledge and just rely on insults and emotional rhetoric. My point has been that we must tackle the issue and not the person, so it does not appear that it is personal. Also the approach must be academic because the aforementioned individuals are surrounded by people, who have an interest in academia, diplomacy and so forth.

'your profile says that you are only 24, therefore the advice goes to you too that first you should learn rather than become a keyboard advocate.'

If that is your reasoning, then why was Alahazrat giving out verdicts when he was a teenager but I understand where you are coming from. I am currently learning and I am far from being a keyboard advocate, as the paucity of my posts evidence. I am unlike others who post just to get likes and create hype and when I do post, I have the intention of wanting to improve the forum because in many circles this forum is just ridiculed as a 'fitna forum.' I do not need to mention names because I am sure that they will be labelled 'deviant.' I am layman, so most of my discussions are with laymen and they find it hard to accept that someone as popular as Hamzah Yusuf is labelled certain things. They think it is just jealousy but had the criticism of him been objective and with the concentration on the issue, rather than his person, the claim of jealousy would not hold water. We must be responsible with what we post, so the layman is made aware without being turned off.

'only propaganda because they cannot counter his arguments. again, explain to us what is your definition of narrow minded brelvi and open minded brelvi?'

This is exactly what I mentioned earlier, yes it is propaganda and it diverts the attention away from the issue, then why give them that chance. It is an easy get out clause. The casing example is Hamzah Yusuf's response to the Dante issue, how many people did he fool by claiming that people are doing takfir of him. He got sympathy for that and at the same time, it diverted people's attention from the real issue.

why? it is simply a befitting title, have you not seen such befitting titles from ala hazrat rahimahullah and other elder scholars? did you really read the entire book? what is your view about the contents? don't tell us in vague words like "which raises some important points", rather tell us what is your stand about nuh keller after reading the book?

it is quite a witty title but how many people would have looked at the title of the book and been put off. The points that Abu Hasan made were pertinent but if I was Nuh Keller and I say a copy of the title, am I going to be enthused to read it? probably not. My personal view of Nuh Keller is that his intentions were sincere but because of those who helped him, he made some erroneous conclusions , which Abu Hasan dealt with well. With regards to his view of Imkan e kidb, I cant say much because that is a very complex issue and deals with some nuances within the Ashari school. That is a scholarly debate and not for the layman.

'so, do you call the title as tirade, or are you referring to the contents? if it is the later then kindly do mention some of those tirades please.[/QUOTE]'

This was not in reference to the book, as I only mentioned the title of the book to evidence where some people might be put off and how the detractors could use that to colour the issues at hand. The tirades were in reference to referring to scholars as donkeys and the like.

 

And also;

"If an `ālim [scholar] is defamed upon the basis of him being an `ālim then it is kufr and nikāh is invalidated, be the detractor himself an `ālim or a jāhil [ignoramus]. It is impermissible for a jāhil to denigrate an `ālim, no matter what state a [sinful] `ālim's deeds may be in. However, a deviant and misguided person, even if he calls himself an `ālim must be disparaged, but only to that extent to which he is deserving and it is necessary that all vulgar language be refrained from therein."

- Answered by, Imām Ahmad Ridā Khān al-Qādirī al-Baraylawī (`alayhi al-rahmah wa al-ridwān) in his, al-`Atāyā al-Nabawiyyah fī al-Fatāwā al-Ridawiyyah [The Bestowal of Prophetic Blessings in the Rulings of Ridā] - Vol. 21, Pg. 294

(Also translated by this faqir)

I don't believe 'donkey' constitutes vulgar language in this context, as there is basis for it. Mawlana Abu Hasan is right to call Atabek a donkey.

 

Something which is somewhat relevant to some points you made. What A'la Hazrat said upon the disparaging of misguided scholars (by Sunni scholars). (a humble effort in translation by this faqir, some time ago);

" To denigrate an `ālim-i dīn (scholar of the religion), who is sunnī sahīh al-`aqīdah (a sunnī possessed of authentic creed) and a dā`ī il-Allāh (one who calls toward Allāh Almighty) is kufr. In Majma` al-Anhar it is mentioned,
"To denigrate the `ulamā' and sādāt [prophetic descendants] is kufr"(¹), further on in this, it is mentioned,
"Whomsoever, says 'mawlawīyā'(²), out of contempt, to an `ālim is a kāfir".
Whilst what is said above [is correct], it must be borne in mind that only one who is a sunnī sahīh al-`aqīdah (a sunnī possessed of authentic creed) can be an `ālim, the `ulamā' of the misguided people cannot be regarded as `ulamā'-i dīn (scholars of the religion). In regards this, even amongst the Hindūs there are pandits (priests) and amongst the nasārā (Christians) there are ministers.
And how great an `ālim was Iblīs who was known as mu`allim al-malakūt (teacher of the angels)?

Allah Almighty states in al-Qur'ān al-Karīm:

"وَأَضَلَّهُ اللَّهُ عَلَى عِلْمٍ"
(³)

"...and Allah has sent him astray despite him having knowledge..."(⁴)

To denigrate such people is not kufr, on the contrary, it is fard (obligatory) to disparage them till the extent of one's capability.
In a noble hadīth the Messenger of Allah (salutation and peace be upon him and his household) stated;

"Do you refrain from making mention of the fājir [egregious transgressor]? How then will the people recognise him? Make mention of the fājir by that which is contained in him, so that people may save themselves from him." (5)"

- Answered by, Imām Ahmad Ridā Khān al-Qādirī al-Baraylawī (`alayhi al-rahmah wa al-ridwān) in his, al-`Atāyā al-Nabawiyyah fī al-Fatāwā al-Ridawiyyah [The Bestowal of Prophetic Blessings in the Rulings of Ridā] - Vol. 14, Pgs. 611 - 612

(¹) Majma` al-Anhar, of Shaykh Zādah `Abd al-Rahmān ibn Muhammad al-Hanafī (`alayhi al-rahmah) - Vol. 2, Pg. 509
(²) A pejorative derived from the honorific 'Mawlawī' (often used to denote an `ālim in the Subcontinent and beyond), it is a common derogatory corruption of said word.
(³) al-Qur'ān al-Karīm, Juz' 25, Sūrah 45 - al-Jāthiyah, Āyah 23.
(⁴) English Translation of the Qur'an by Mawlānā `Āqib Farīd al-Qādirī, based upon the translation of the Qur'ān into Urdū by Imām Ahmad Ridā Khān (`alayhi al-rahmah), named Kanz al-Īmān (The Treasure of Faith).
(5) al-Sunan al-Kubrā, of Imām Abū Bakr Ahmad ibn Husayn al-Bayhaqī (`alayhi al-rahmah) - Vol. 10, Pg. 304, Hadīth No. 20,914

 

@Waqar786

thanks for the advice - i appreciate your sincere intention, as religion is all about good advice.

phool ki patti se kat sakta hai heere ka jigar
mard e jahil* par kalam e narm o nazuk be asar​

---
*naadan - with apologies to iqbal.

 

please note that this is a side discussion. i have kept that main thread to discuss the debate itself.

 

Waqar do you think Imam Subki’s book title has also put people off who support the opposing view?

What about this photo of Ustad Israr and Sh Atabeck?

 

Your sentence would make better sense if you add the word "deviant" before "scholars", and then enlighten us what is that qualification that one needs to attain to be eligible to make disparaging comments about DEVIANT scholars?

i'm not defending haris786, but again enlighten us with your understanding of the wider picture of the school that ala hazrat rahimahullah represented, give some references form his books please.

to some extent true that it is not the duty of layman to find fault in scholars, because he is a layman, but when sunni scholars have declared or have warned laymen about the ugly beliefs of some so-called scholars then they won't be stopped to condemn those deviants.

besides, if one cannot understand why an scholar said what, and did what because he is not an scholar then what is the benefit of listening or learning if one's understanding is so poor that he cannot reach at a decision or recognize truth from falsehood? this is an old absurd argument that one has no right to talk about scholars. when people make such argument they ignore that it is not about scholars but deviant scholars.

be honest and open to tell us your opinion about the following personalities, what do you think about them. feel free to give references from ala hazrat alihi rahmah wa riDwan so that we can see the wider picture that you see and others don't.

- hamzah yousuf
- tahir al qadri
- nuh keller
- hussain nasr
- atabek shukurov
- abd'ul qadir (uk)


i think this list is enough to let us know your inclinations.


your profile says that you are only 24, therefore the advice goes to you too that first you should learn rather than become a keyboard advocate.

only propaganda because they cannot counter his arguments. again, explain to us what is your definition of narrow minded brelvi and open minded brelvi?

why? it is simply a befitting title, have you not seen such befitting titles from ala hazrat rahimahullah and other elder scholars? did you really read the entire book? what is your view about the contents? don't tell us in vague words like "which raises some important points", rather tell us what is your stand about nuh keller after reading the book?

so, do you call the title as tirade, or are you referring to the contents? if it is the later then kindly do mention some of those tirades please.

 

Ba Adab Ba naseeb
Be Adab Be naseeb

Ba Ghayrat Ba Izzat
Be Ghayrat Be Izzat

 

@abu Hasan 'i encourage all of you to call him a donkey until the donkey stops acting like a donkey'

You are not going to let the donkey lie. You are entitled to your view and I am sure this view will engage and enlighten the masses about the issues surrounding Ustadh Atabek.

The real shame is that when you do 'examine' issues, you make pertinent points but your detractors will just point to the style of your 'examination' and make it appear that you are just a narrow minded brelvi, who resorts to insults to hide his superficial knowledge. The casing example is your book 'The killer mistake,' which raises some important points but the title is a put off for someone who supports the opposing view. That is the crux of my earlier point, it is not that I am offended by the comments you make but they do not aid discussion or understanding, especially for those who want to understand the issue and not just read a tirade against the scholar.

 

First of all, you have summed up my point about refuting the person and not the issue and secondly, you deleted your second comment and you need to delete the one above too. Let alone have some facebook hype, I have never made a facebook account, posting on Sunniport is the closest thing that I get to using social media, I do not even have Whatsapp. I do not hide behind aliases and to your credit, you are one of the very few that don't on this account. You have mistaken me for someone else, so you might need to take your last comment down.

I do not have anything personal against you but unfortunately you are a person that gets involved in hypes and makes disparaging comments about scholars, when you are not qualified to do so. Your posts do not aid discussion or demonstrate the 'real wisdom' that you mentioned in your earlier post. It seems like that you find it appropriate to speak about scholars in belittling terms and, enjoy hypes and debate that you term 'interesting discourse.' You represent a narrow minded attitude that is growing amongst some Sunnis, who fail to understand the wider picture of the school that Alahazrat represented. Leave the disagreements to the scholars to sort out, it is not your duty to point out that this scholar is this or that, when you do not understand why they said what they did because you are not a scholar. It is a time to learn and understand, rather than being a keyboard warrior.

 

Ch Saab I have read your Facebook hype also at least my hype is from me and not from behind fake aliases( what is this account number 4? I'm loosing count ), do you remember your remark against the Sidis mother because you couldn't get your point across ?

Let's not get personal now.