exactly my sentiments. When Unbeknown was busy decoding/understanding Shah sahib's speech, I was besides myself wondering about the need for so much husn-e-zann.
Fadak and khatā
- Thread starter Aqdas
- Start date
exactly my sentiments. When Unbeknown was busy decoding/understanding Shah sahib's speech, I was besides myself wondering about the need for so much husn-e-zann.
Closet rafidi Hanif qureshi's video that I linked where he said the exact same word "khata" (without the qualifier ijtihadi) for ummuna 3aishah radi Allahu 3anha and those opposing Mawla Ali radi Allahu 3anhu has suddenly disappeared.
Let any stooges of Hanif qureshi know that YouTube is not your a3maalnama. It won't disappear from there nor will you be any smarter in your scheming or shamelessness when you call Jalali a badbakht for using the exact same word for Sayyidah Fatimah radi Allahu 3anha. Plus in Hanif qureshi's video he used the word with full disgust
(apparently Irfan Shah was also taught to check people's adab in body language too along with words when mentioning akabireen... See his interview with sabri, he expressly mentions this regarding adab in "body language" and manner of expressions in the start of his talk)
Anyways here is another video showing the rafidi's usage of the same word. Irfan Shah can comment on body language and andaze bayan. Unfortunately it doesn't have his facial expression as the former video had
I don't know if this too is from the same speech but he cites a purported sahih Hadith without giving reference:
In this video he's crying crocodile tears that people are out to get him:
Last edited:
abu Hasan
Administrator
now someone might come up with the ruling in bahar e shariat about using these words to defend irfan shah's deplorable profanities.
====
but this will not avail him. he was not saying it as a word of abuse - instead he was citing a hadith to 'prove' that a certain person was one of the three and kept chanting "harami bacha" etc.
of course, ta'wil can be done of anything.
if people do ta'wil to protect openly faHsh gaalis of a person to prevent him from the hadd of qadhaf, then doing ta'wil the other way of a mild statement of another person and stretch it and distort it to gustakhi and kufr is the height of hypocrisy.
to put it in other words:
and to prove this they play fast and loose with terms like ismat and hifazat, ma'Sum and maHfuz. shahji, the world has moved on.and this alone is enough to be considered as "not recognised the haqq of ahl al-bayt". calling out errant sayyids will be termed the same. i.e., one can stretch any statement and apply this ruling of 'not recognised the haqq of ahl al-bayt'.
what is the difference between you folks (irfan shah and others in this issue) and the wahabis who use such ta'wils and false equivalence to term muslims as mushriks?
sub'HanAllah!
====
those who constantly remind the world that they are sayyids and they have a special place have probably forgotten that they didn't do anything to 'become' sayyids. dhalika faDlullah, Allah gives to whom He pleases. but being a sayyid does not give them the liberty to play with the religion of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.
----
the late sayyid, mawlana muhammad kichauchavi raHimahullah aptly said:
fazl e a'amal pe hai fazl e nasab bhi mawquf
bu lahab ke bhi laga haath na tabbat ke siwa
====
may Allah ta'ala give sense.
wAllahu a'alam wa ilmuhu atam.
====
but this will not avail him. he was not saying it as a word of abuse - instead he was citing a hadith to 'prove' that a certain person was one of the three and kept chanting "harami bacha" etc.
of course, ta'wil can be done of anything.
if people do ta'wil to protect openly faHsh gaalis of a person to prevent him from the hadd of qadhaf, then doing ta'wil the other way of a mild statement of another person and stretch it and distort it to gustakhi and kufr is the height of hypocrisy.
to put it in other words:
irfan shah can utter faHsh galiyan about another muslim's mother under the excuse of "bahar shariat did not deem it qadhaf" - and hence be exempted from the ruling, even if he used those harsh words explicitly
BUT
jalali cannot say 'khaTa' - EVEN if the word is deemed harmless when used with prophets and not considered disrespect to them; BUT using the same word is disrespect and gustakhi of sayyidah raDi'Allahu anha. [according to these folk]
BUT
jalali cannot say 'khaTa' - EVEN if the word is deemed harmless when used with prophets and not considered disrespect to them; BUT using the same word is disrespect and gustakhi of sayyidah raDi'Allahu anha. [according to these folk]
and to prove this they play fast and loose with terms like ismat and hifazat, ma'Sum and maHfuz. shahji, the world has moved on.and this alone is enough to be considered as "not recognised the haqq of ahl al-bayt". calling out errant sayyids will be termed the same. i.e., one can stretch any statement and apply this ruling of 'not recognised the haqq of ahl al-bayt'.
what is the difference between you folks (irfan shah and others in this issue) and the wahabis who use such ta'wils and false equivalence to term muslims as mushriks?
sub'HanAllah!
====
those who constantly remind the world that they are sayyids and they have a special place have probably forgotten that they didn't do anything to 'become' sayyids. dhalika faDlullah, Allah gives to whom He pleases. but being a sayyid does not give them the liberty to play with the religion of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.
----
the late sayyid, mawlana muhammad kichauchavi raHimahullah aptly said:
fazl e a'amal pe hai fazl e nasab bhi mawquf
bu lahab ke bhi laga haath na tabbat ke siwa
====
may Allah ta'ala give sense.
wAllahu a'alam wa ilmuhu atam.
Last edited:
Unbeknown
sunniport user
irregardless, I did not subscribe to a deen that commends shouting abuses from a stage.
I consider myself fortunate that my return to mainstream sunnism was the blessing of having respect for the saadaat kiraam - as it was occasioned by zakir naik's defense of yazid.
And I am thankful that this episode did not take place back then - as I don't know what I would have made of a "jama'at" in whose ranks group-abuse on a public stage is seen as some sort of a "dileri".
nas'al Allahu ta'ala 'aafiyah
Unbeknown
sunniport user
my reasons were these:
- Get a fair picture of what he is saying (I am sure you know that even the most messed up data can be organized in some way or the other and see a pattern emerge)
- Once we are sure that we are not burning down strawmen - we can highlight the fallacies
- To highlight the self-contradictory nature and the weakness of the arguments put forward
---
for the record I have not watched a single speech of irfan sahib and when a transcript was provided I dived in to see what he was about - as it is quite possible that among a 100 invalid arguments he might have a handful of valid ones but because of his manner - he is unable to convey them to any receptive ears.
Though I felt tempted multiple times, I have studiously avoided watching the abuse-laden clip - because I did not want to defile my ears with the products of the very lips from which I have heard beautiful and moving speeches - and because I did not want to see a sayyid at his worst.
I do not commend or make light of what was said (initially I did feel that this was a regular "pakistani thing") - but when people better than me are already calling him out, my repeating the same things would be redundant.
I hope and pray that irfan sahib will not leave us with this legacy and that his last of deeds will be his best.
And Allah is our Protector.
@Unbeknown... brother, the video with the English transcript is the only one that they could transcribe because of the language used. It felt scripted then and the transcript does not do anything to reject that premise.
However, what I ask you is did you pick up on the fallacies and what were they, if you found any?
However, what I ask you is did you pick up on the fallacies and what were they, if you found any?
Shah sahib was first to pronounce kufr, before other tut-punjiya maulvis piled in with gumrahi, kharij (ahl-e-sunnat se) etc.
Leaving aside gali galoch and istilahi/lughwi/taweel this and that, what is the sharayi basis for hukm of kufr on Dr Jalali (with and without selective use of clips)?
I presume we all know the answer, but besides Mawlana Nazir Sialwi's fatwa (posted by AbdalQadir), I haven't seen any written fatwa (neither for nor against).
The reference the other camp quote on shah sahibs use of the word “ha**mi”and three options is based on a report but it has no chain of narration. Can some brother learned in the science of Hadith kindly shed some light on this ? I shall include a screenshot.
The second Question which is on my mind perhaps if some student/ shaykh of the deen can help here. Now that shah Saab’s camp says the difference in Masum and Mahfouz is simply one being Qati and the other not, does this apply to all the Noble Wives and Ahlul Bayt too by this definition. E.g would now this definition extend to all the sadaat e ikraam by ascribing such a level of protection to them or is this only hass for ahle kissa. If it is how are they gonna do this Takhsees?.
The second Question which is on my mind perhaps if some student/ shaykh of the deen can help here. Now that shah Saab’s camp says the difference in Masum and Mahfouz is simply one being Qati and the other not, does this apply to all the Noble Wives and Ahlul Bayt too by this definition. E.g would now this definition extend to all the sadaat e ikraam by ascribing such a level of protection to them or is this only hass for ahle kissa. If it is how are they gonna do this Takhsees?.
Attachments
shahnawazgm
sunniport user
In case people have forgotten a few years ago Irfan Shah also mentioned that "Allah khud gustakh ko gaali deta hai". I have been trying to search for that video to no avail. However I found this video where he responds to somebody who asks him the question whether it is appropriate to use the word 'gaali' with Allah.
His logic is twisted when he uses that as a reference to being a gaali and how we can give gaalis to any gustakh. By this own twisted logic he has perhaps thought it to be fine to utter all that filth he did about mufti Jalali sahibs mother!
So as per my understanding it absolutely fine according to Irfan Shah to use the derogatory word 'gaali' for the creator whereas it is totally unacceptable to use the term 'khata' towards Sayyida Fatima Zahra!
JazakhAllah Khair for that information. I guess they would argue in fadhail it’s acceptable and that ala hazrat mentioned it.
Could you touch a little on my second question as the general application of this camps interpretation of masum and Mahfouz and then the application on all Sadat e ikram without takhsis. Interestingly the rawafidh akhbaris all apply such narrations to all Sadat e ikram, whereas the usuli bunch do takhsis as for them Ahlul Bayt is only 14 personalities.
abu Hasan
Administrator
isn't it amusing that a weak hadith is used as an excuse to utter gaalis, BUT naSS qaT'yi and sahih hadith ignored?
if the hadith "whoever hurt faTimah has hurt me" should be taken literally for the implication, why shouldn't the hadith "sibab al-muslim fisq" be taken literal likewise?
so ta'wil is a convenient tool that need not be governed by any rules.
====
abu'sh shaykh in tabaqat al-muhaddithin, v3 p414:
if the hadith "whoever hurt faTimah has hurt me" should be taken literally for the implication, why shouldn't the hadith "sibab al-muslim fisq" be taken literal likewise?
so ta'wil is a convenient tool that need not be governed by any rules.
====
abu'sh shaykh in tabaqat al-muhaddithin, v3 p414:
abu Hasan
Administrator
yes it is accepted in fadail - but it is not a swiss knife that can be pulled out by people to justify anything they do.
---
there are numerous such hadith which say that such and such an action is tantamount to kufr or fisq etc.
a person who does gheebah is worse than committing adultery.
a person who takes interest is worse than committing adultery.
a person who omits prayer deliberately has committed kufr.
etc. etc.
so will you use these hadith and apply rulings literally? so all those who take interest, will you begin calling them "a son born out of forbidden act"? and takfir made of every muslim who does not pray regularly?
====
why don't we apply the same standards and apply "implications" from SAHIH hadith for those who commit things such as hurling profanities and using foul-language?
i have to reiterate that "implications" from a weak hadith become proof for abusing a muslim's mother; but there cannot be any implication from SAHIH hadith that explictly forbid certain action!
rafizi zeal encapsulated in khariji fatawa... laa Hawla wa laa quwwata illa billah.
Last edited:
Unbeknown
sunniport user
that's an important point.
Years ago, I have heard a young (as in 20 something) muqarrir sahib, say in a jum'ah bayan, that surah qalam-verse 13 'proves' that every wahabi is born out of wedlock!
He emphasized it several times, saying: it's not my hukm, the Qur'an says that.
His logic?
- The Qur'an says that a gustakh was born out of wedlock
- All wahabis are gustakh
- Hence proved
Having tons of wahabi relatives myself, including real aunts and uncles, I was thinking ... umm .. what?
Now at the time I was just getting initiated with deeni topics so didn't have any recourse but my own limited knowledge and mind, so imagine the emotional turmoil of a teenager who's just heard such a thing - he doesn't want to go "against" the Qur'an and, on the other hand, has his ancestors to think about...
At last I consoled myself with the ta'weel that all my close relatives were born sunnis and crossed over to wahabism much much later in their lives.
----
even if it were a mutawatir hadith the abuse couldn't be justified as there is no gustakhi in the first place!
Unbeknown
sunniport user
I think the formulation is self-evidently contradictory. However, I will share my other impressions later.
