Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Topics' started by Hassan_0123, Mar 16, 2022.
but your opinion does not have to be THE right one.
looks like you have no idea of tajwid. granted you might have learned how to recite, but tajwid - as in science of articulation - about the attributes of letters and how it is articulated has not been in your curriculum.
if it is not haa هـ what is in its place? is he uttering a hamzah? if so differentiate between how haa and hamza are different and how sh. asrar's is saying hamza instead of haa.
should be easy to demonstrate. go ahead. we are waiting.
i don't know where. the haa هـ is not quite pronounced (as in emphasised), but he does say rahimahullah and Allah.
i do not like to get into silly debates like these, but such objections are made by people who might have learned tajwid in a school and have very very limited exposure to speech of natives. for example, an indian/pakistani who learns english in an indian/pakistani school may find scottish or yorkshire accents unfamiliar and even declare them as non-native speakers!
i found the yorkshire accent amusing in my youth, owing to geoffery boycott's commentary which was markedly different than others (brits that is) who usually were close to the RP. richie benaud was another good example for australian accent.
i am no expert in arabic - just a student as must be obvious by now - having lived among arabs for decades, i can easily tell the levantine, yemeni, sudani, egyptian, khaleeji or maghrebi accents. and even with each of these, one can tell a lubnani from a halabi or a dimashqi or a hamwi; and a qatari from a saudi by their intonation and peculiar way of saying some words or pronouncing some letters (muu-heyk?). egyptian being the most difficult to follow for non-arabs. (my opinion kida, feel free to disagree).
many of them drop letters (much like cockney dropping aitches) or pronounce it differently - the yemenis and khaleejis articulating the qaaf as gaa (as in goat - gultu for qultu. hear the speeches of habayib for examples). the egyptians change jeem to gaa (gumhur for jumhur) and they slip here and there even in formal khutbahs and lectures. egyptians and levantines lop off the qaaf altogether (except in some words). emaratis change Daad (ض) to Dhaa (ظ) and jeem to yaa (ya rayyal, is ya rajul; jaayiy is yaayiy) and they differentiate the feminine by introducing the ch (as in charming) lak for masc. and lach. for fem.
this is no rocket science. anyone who is around native speakers and has some affection for the arabic language can easily notice these accents.
nobody bickers about their "incorrect" pronunciation, because that is the way language is spoken. habib umar even says "gaa" in reciting the qur'an replacing qaaf - i found it very upsetting, but a long time ago i had read that it was an uncommon but acceptable pronunciation as it matches the attributes of qaaf (perhaps ibn durayd said this if i remember, but please don't quote me; wAllahu a'alam).
however, one should take care in reciting the qur'an - and even there, non-arabs have many concessions.
coming back to shaykh asrar, i did not feel like he said ح (Haa) in the word Allah or that he dropped a haa in Rahimahullah. even if he did, it is a non-issue, one can see such variance (from the standard) in speeches of prominent and highly respected native arab ulama - buti, metwalli sha'arawi, ali gomaa or habib umar.
someone seems to be really bitter.
nas'alu Allah al-aafiyah.
If you watch any of his talks he always get Rahimahullah wrong too.
He says Rahimullah all the time رحم الله
It is رحمه الله
For someone who picks on the faults of the "barelwis" his tajweed and articulation is very bad.
I disagree that his pronunciation of the word Allah at 23 seconds is correct. You don't hear any one pronounce it in the way Sh Asrar does.
Brother this is pettifogging.
I went back and relistened to the clip. His accent is such that maybe it might sound like
but its actually ha. this can be affirmed from the manner in which he says Rahima hullah...the ح in Rahima is much more stronger than the 'ha' (I plugged my headphones maxed the volume to 100 and heard it). at 23 seconds the ya Allah is correctly pronounce with the 'ha' at the end
also important to note. at around 2 mins he does mention the iftiraa that Mawlana Abu Hasan mentioned which is correct. the only part he slipped (due to him not fully understanding the fatawa) is that he included the ya junaid part in the iftira.
FR even some of the subcontinent ulama whose mother tongue is urdu, they dont understand it well.
I still commend shaykh being a british scholar trying to read FR and using it as a source of reference.
The fact that he misunderstood A'lahazrats fatwa from FR which led him to believe the entire waqiya is false, might have possibly led him to saying 'people of innovation'. This would make sense to me due to the following e.g.
zayd believes the story of ya junaid is false (innovated- as it never happened, its falsely narrated), therefore those who narrate this incident have narrated an innovated story, as its false according to zayd.
one might still argue to say shaykh should of said "people narrate this innovated story, rather than saying people of innovation"
somebody needs to notify shaykh asrar of his misunderstandings of FR to which he will correctly answer this question again.
He doesn't say this is bidah- when he starts speaking about bidah, he talks about sajdah at graves and whatnot. Where did he say narrating the story is bidah? I may have missed it.
I don't hear the ح sound although maybe it's just my ajam ears unable to pick it up.
A comment on fb
Where did Alahazrat say that Imam Junaid told the man not to say Ya Junaid ? A’la Hazrat is saying the opposite of what Shaykh Asrar is claiming. A’la Hazrat said “ who will stop someone from calling Ya Junaid especially when Junaid was alive and in front of him “( even the wahabis will not stop this kind istighaasa). I will have Husn Dhann that Shaykh Asrar is not deliberately deceiving people and it was due to his ignorance whereby he was unable to understand this basic text by AlaHazrat. A’la Hazrat actually confirmed the anecdote of Our Master Junaid baghdadi mentioned in Almalfooz and only rejected the addition made by the questioner which is not found in Al Malfooz.
Take my explanation to any reliable sunni scholar with the 26th volume of the Fatawa and people of knowledge will confirm how weak Shaykh Asrars understanding is when it comes to the texts of fatawa. According to Alahazrat this anecdote is about Imam Junaid and Shaykh yusuf Al Nabhani, shaykh Abdul Ghani an nabulusi in Hadiqa Nadiyyah and Kashf an Noor recorded a similar anecdote about Shaykh Mohammad Al hanafi Al shazili. According to Shaykh Asrar, shaykh Al Islam Madani miya, AlaHazrat, shaykh yusuf nibhani, shaykh Abdul Ghani and Mufti Azam hind were all story tellers and mubtadi’ deviants wal iyadhu billah. The shaykh must retract and accept that he has falsely accused Imam Ahmad Raza due to his ignorance.
Madani Miya narrates the exact story so he is a person of innovation according to Sh Asrar. I'm sure Sh Asrar has khilafat from madani miya or his family members.
Sh Asrar clearly doesn't know urdu properly. He should tell his followers that.
As a side note sheikh asrars tajweed is really bad. He really struggles to say the word Allah. He sounds like he is saying ح at the end instead of the ه every single time.
The lam on the word Allah is pronounced incorrectly too.
At around 1:07 Shaykh Asrar seems to invalidate the whole story itself before trying to interpret Ala Hazrat's fatwa.
Then at around 1:40 he mentions the fatwa where Ala Hazrat states that the incident actually occurred at the river tigris.
Then he further follows it up stating that as per the fatwa Hazrat Junaid (RA) did not instruct the man to say Ya Junaid.
Finally at around 2:10 he goes on in the bidah direction, whereas Ala Hazrat never negated the calling of Ya Junaid to be a bidah.
Unfortunately Shaykh Asrar has not been clear in explaining things clearly in his speeches recently and going by this example maybe he has not understood Ala Hazrat correctly. Or perhaps he has been a bit too technical in his answer for common folk like myself to correctly comprehend what he was trying to convey!
The brouhaha is that Shaykh Asrar rejects the Ya Junaid part too. He is not correctly conveying the fatwa of Ala Hazrat.
yes. he has not rejected the entire waqiah as fabricated. instead in his fatawa he has pointed out spurious additions.
besides he gives a rational explanation to the anecdote and when you read it properly, no one can find fault with it per se.
- is calling out "ya fulan" to a person physically present in front of him kufr or shirk?
- and if someone calls out someone who is in front of them FOR HELP - is it shirk?
what is the brouhaha about?
just asking for a small clarification Mawlana sahab.
Sayyidi A'lahazrat is not negating the ya junaid ya junaid right?
he is negating the part "dont say Allah Allah" am i correct? so the waqiya is still correct...but just the manner in which its being narrated by ulama might be abit incorrect (if they narrate the iftiraa, as pointed out by Sayyidi A'lahazrat)
Shaykh Asrar has mentioned this previously when he responded to the Disastrous Duo:
inasmuch as alahazrat's own opinion is concerned, he does not reject the entire anecdote as a fabrication. he points out some inaccuracies.
but the most interesting part of the fatwa is his refutation of mirza engineer
even the wahabis do not consider as shirk, when one calls out to someone as 'ya fulan', especially if he is physically in front of him and have still not tasted death. the wahabis consider it as shirk when one calls upon the dead or when one calls upon someone from afar.
thus the objection on this anecdote is absurd.
suppose mirza engineer does not know how to swim, and is drowning in a lake and spots his friend, let us say 'zaheer' walking away from the bank. will he call out 'ya Allah, ya Allah' or 'ya zaheer, ya zaheer'? and suppose he calls out 'ya zaheer' - would it be shirk?
and would any muslim hold the belief that zaheer would help without the power given to him by Allah? of course not. one calls out to him as a means (sabab).
when you go to the doctor, you know well that shifa is in Allah's Power. but the doctor tells you "if you have any problem in the night you can call me". and if one's condition deteriorates, will they keep calling "ya Allah, ya Allah" or will they call the doctor? common sense tells us that they would call the doctor - and not even an illiterate muslim has the belief that the doctor has the power of healing and besides that of Allah . al-iyadhu billah.
the doctor is the means, and we go to them. awliya are the wasilah - going to them does not mean they can help when Allah does not (al-iyadhu billah) or their help is out of and beyond the Power of Allah (al-iyadhu billah).
Allah knows best.
notes and warnings based on the over-enthusiastic mawlana refuting mirza engineer.
should al-malfuz be treated as an interview and unreliable?
the book al-malfuz is NOT an unreliable collection of sayings, and casual talk as in an interview. indeed, the answers were given extempore and hence references or words transposed should not be counted as mistakes of the imam. it is in fact, a living testimony of the memory of alahazrat, that almost all of the references are accurate and can be traced back to the source mentioned by him. therefore a few mix-ups can be ignored.
why should we consider al-malfuz as reliable?
of course, there could be a statement reworded or a hadith or a reference that could be slightly off in the original [i do not recall any, but this is possible]. this should not be used to paint the whole book as inaccurate or unreliable.
especially, because the book al-malfuz was compiled by mawlana mustafa raza khan aka mufti azam hind, who was himself a prolific writer, a pious man, a towering scholar, and famous for his exceptionally strict adherence to shariah. he was alahazrat's own son, and a mirror of his noble father's talent. these are not mere words of an admirer talking about his heroes. anybody who has had the good fortune of perusing the books of either the sons or their father will know the quality of their research and erudition. raDi'Allahu anhum wa nafa'ana-Allah bi ulumihim wa barakaatihim.
is al-malfuz totally error-free?
perhaps not. imam shafiyi is said to have revised his book seventy plus times and he was still unsastisfied and finally left it saying: "only the Book of Allah is free from error". therefore, it could be said of ANY book in the world (other than the Book of Allah) that there could be errors in it. but that does not mean the books should be discarded or considered unreliable due to existence of any error therein.
are the supposed errors in al-malfuz ground shattering? or as grave as blasphemies in the books of deobandis and others?
CERTAINLY NOT. first of all, the so-called errors can be explained. and if indeed, they cannot be explained, these may be attributed to the copyists mistake etc. but the book in itself, is a treasure-trove of knowledge which spans hadith, tafsir, fiqh, tasawwuf, histories.
since mufti azam-hind recorded al-malfuz, should it not be considered as alahazrat's work?
in the same way as al-mabsut is not imam sarakhsi's work and the various amali of ulama available to us. in amali/dictation or malfuzat/dicta of scholars, there are two scholars involved - the one dictating and the one recording, which should be obvious to anyone who has a passing acquaintance with books.
however, without a recording device - the compiler relies on his memory or notes and the possibility of error exists. and thereafter, the error could be introduced by the copyist. minor inaccuracies - you cannot call them as errors due to the nature of the work - quoted from memory, and most likely carried over by the compiler in his own memory until he writes that down. besides, other than qur'an and hadith, everything can be reworded and does not have to be verbatim.
a scholar can issue fatawa which can be either malfuz or maktub - that which the scholar says as a ruling is considered as a malfuz fatwa, and that which he has written or dictated it to his scribes (and written down then and there) is a maktub or written fatwa. examples abound in islamic literature. if deobandis whine, they should be asked whether they are aware of the malfuz fatawa in fatawa rashidiyyah.
if you have still not understood my point, you must try to obtain a copy of al-jamiy al-saghir of imam muhammad and try to find the books in which imam abu hanifah wrote down those opinions that imam muhammad attributes to him.
similarly, the compiler [mufti-azam] is a towering scholar himself, conveying the opinions of his father, the imam.
Allah ta'ala knows best.
what should a sunni (especially follower of alahazrat) do when someone objects on al-malfuz?
they should seek clarification from ulama.
unfortunately, some ulama are also rather defensive in dealing with some objections. the edition of al-malfuz by dawat-e-islami/ilmiyyah is criticised by their detractors for this very reason: in places where the editors could not understand the passage or did not have knowledge of, they decided it was an error and bowdlerised it. unfortunately, the commendable work in this critical edition was overshadowed by their overzealous 'corrections'.
the ilmiyyah edition is good for their indexes, the formatting, takhrij etc. so it should not be discarded as unreliable. i use both the original edition (printed from bareilly in the 80s) and the new DI/ilmiyyah edition for indexes mainly. i hope the ilmiyyah edition is rectified by replacing the original text thereby making it a valuable reference, like the DI/ilmiyyah bahar-e-shariat edition.
wa billahi't tawfiq.
Heres a research (al burhan 170 pages) on this matter by Mufti Muhammad Akhtar Rida Misbahi (not taj al-shariah) on this statement of al-malfuz.
The author mentions that a similar monograph was written by Mufti Faizanul Mustafa (ghosi, shaykhul hadith jamia amjadia).
He further mentions how Huzoor Mufti e Azam hind would be sad sometimes when books used to be back from printers, due to to the errors made when printing or copying the book.
Mufti Akhtar misbahi says, Imam abdul Ghani nablusi cites this incident using Imam Shadhili Alayhir rahma. Imam yusuf an nabhani also cites this work (using imam shahdhili) in compilation of karamats of awliyah. Also a reference is made to imam abdul wahhab sha'rani alayhir rahma
A very intresting read. The author answers questions on objections to alahazrat.
The name of the risalah of Mufti Faizanul Mustafa is mentioned. If somebody can find it. Please do share.
let us first translate the istifta and fatwa.
what do ulama of the religion say concerning [the following anecdote]:
junayd is a respected elder and accomplished [scholar/sufi; buzurg e kamil].
he was on a journey and on the way he came across a river. he was crossing it when a man said: "please help me cross the river". the venerable sage said: "keep saying 'ya junayd, ya junayd and follow me; and i will say 'Allah, Allah' and walk across."
when they reached the middle of the river, the man began to say: "Allah, Allah" and the man began to drown. at this moment the sage said: "don't say Allah, Allah. [instead] say: ya junayd ya junayd"
the man said 'ya junayd, ya junayd' and he did not drown.
is this correct or not?
[if true,] what is the [sharayi] ruling upon the accomplished sage and what is the ruling upon the man?
please explain and obtain reward [from Allah].
it is incorrect to say that they came across a river in the course of his journey. the anecdote IS actually about his crossing the river Tigris.
another addendum [in the original anecdote] is: "i will say Allah Allah and walk across..."
and the statement: "he said: don't say Allah, Allah" is a fabrication, an utter lie [iftiraa]
who can prohibit saying 'ya junayd' especially in his worldly life [hayat e dunyawi], and more so when he is physically present in front of him?
so what is the point of asking the ruling about the man?
and as far as asking the ruling about sayyidu't ta'ifah [the leader of the group of sufis] junayd baghdadi raDi'Allahu anhu is utterly disrespectful, insulting and mindless drivel.
Allah ta'ala knows best.
It took me a while to understand it(I have trouble reading nastliq) but compared to the actual scan from the Malfuz provided by @abu Hasan , the story you quoted seems to have interpolations.