so tahir's 3 grand shuyukh are also his 'rivals on this issue'? He's hardly going to follow his grand shaykhs now is he???
sorry i neither saw the video nor read your post properly - yet, but let me get my head around this 3 of tahir's grand shaykhs certified and endorsed Ala Hazrat's fatwas against the deos, and yet he has no problems sticking up for deos and their elders did i get that right? is it one of those 'i'm a Hanafi who Imam-e-A3zdham personally tutored from 9-20 years and yet i rubbish his rulings on diyat and call him as 'my rival on this issue'' things? so tahir's 3 grand shuyukh are also his 'rivals on this issue'? am i making sense here?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?<wbr>v=xlVwH8G8WZ0 thanks to aN for sending me the clip. ---- in this clip, tahir gets his facts wrong as usual, but what is remarkable is, he tries to belittle and attempts to take away the sheen from the greatness of alahazrat. the events of husam al-haramayn and al-dawlatu'l makkiyyah are so famous, that even well-informed sunni children know about it; but so called 'direct-student' of alahazrat doesn't know such an ordinary thing. he could have looked up al-malfuz [if he forgot to ask this in aalam e ru'ya baTariq e manam] tahir and minhajis may please note: 1. ulama of haramayn did not send a letter to alahazrat asking him to clarify his position. 2. alahazrat did not answer that letter which 'took a form of a short risalah'. 3. alahazrat did not take the risalah with him and go to makkah for attestations. 4. also, those 'ba'az ulama e devband' is khalil ambhetvi, whose badhl al-majhud tahir used to display in his shelf - (but curiously in this video the volumes are of plain labeling - if this is a recent development, it must be because of the tuhfatu'l ahwazi affair, where tahir proved his ignorance - sitting with the book in the shelf and claiming that 'manaqib of sayyiduna mu`awiyah' cannot be found in any older works and is a recent act of yazidi Tola.) 5. in brief: alahazrat went to makkah for Hajj in unexpected circumstances - he did not go there for attestations; but upon reaching makkah, the reason for this push became apparent. two leading scholars gave him a sheet of paper with questions about ghayb raised by wahabis, which he promptly set down to answer. they told him not to rush and reply in a detailed manner. which the imam did - meeting deadlines and in spite of interruptions and ill-health (and the Divine Ordainment for those interruptions had immense wisdom in it which would be apparent a hundred years later..). he wrote the book ad-dawlatu'l makkiyyah without access to his books. and which was recited to the sharif of makkah by a noble sayyid in the presence of alahazrat and overwhelmingly applauded and wholesomely acknowledged. 6. tahir, out of his jealousy tries to belittle this book and says: "which took form of a short risalah" what an envious scamp. from what we have seen so far, i don't think tahir can even read the book - he can prove us wrong by reading a copy that sunnis will hand him (the old MS style without diacritics). 7. notice how he tries to eat his cake and have it too. use alahazrat's name, but only for furthering his own glory. alahazrat went to haramayn seeking approval of MY grand-shaykhs. in other words, tahir tries to qualify HIS own 'greatness' (i am the student of the student of such people whom even alahazrat respected). indeed, those were great ulama but it does not mean tahir is great too. the foolish, lying, treacherous and fasiq student of a great men does not become a great man; nor does the fasiq's shenanigans diminish the greatness of his teachers. waSil ibn aTa remains a heretic, even if he is the student of Hasan al-baSri; and sayyiduna Hasan al-baSri's greatness remains unblemished, even if his student turned out to be one of the biggest heretics in islam and the schism of iytizal (which was picked up by the neo-mutazilite ismayil dihlawi and his followers from devband and lackeys from kharabsheh who insist that lying is included in the Divine Power of Allah ta'ala - fa ya khusrana ahla'l iytizali!). what tahir is trying is known as fallacy of association. 8. if tahir had a clean heart, he would have at least read out what mawlana umar ibn hamdan wrote about alahazrat. muhaddith umar ibn Hamdan al-maHrasi was 20 years younger to alahazrat and was a khalifah of alahazrat. among his shuyukh are shaykh abdal Hayy al-kittani who took ijazah from alahazrat at that very juncture (during the writing of dawlah). the ulama of Haramayn not only validated alahazrat, but shaykh ismayil khalil said: "rather, if i say in his praise: that he is the reviver of (islam) in this century, it would be rightful and truth." [بل أقول: لو قيل في حقه إنه مجدد هذا القرن لكان حقا وصدقا] unlike tahir, who is called mujaddid by common people, alahazrat was acknowledged as mujaddid by imams of hadith and fiqh in his time! ----- in the end, he cannot even get the name right: al-maaddah bi'l ghaybiyah. even after retries. ----- the question is: does tahir attest to this very husamu'l haramayn, which his grand-shaykhs attested, or not? remember the exhortation: "awlad baDi jab banti hai jab baDoN jaise chaley"
