Mawlana Nabeel on khata

@abu Hasan These scans were forwarded to me in regards to Sh Nabeel's defence of Shah Sahib's definition of Masoom/Mahfuz.

Could these be clarified further. I remember Jalali Sahib's student saying that this was misquoted and not fully quoted as the discussion continues.
 

Attachments

  • IMG-20200822-WA0005.jpg
    IMG-20200822-WA0005.jpg
    176.9 KB · Views: 284
  • IMG-20200822-WA0006.jpg
    IMG-20200822-WA0006.jpg
    197.5 KB · Views: 265
  • IMG-20200822-WA0004.jpg
    IMG-20200822-WA0004.jpg
    117.6 KB · Views: 257
abu Hasan said:
using the word khata for sayyidah fatimah raDi'Allahu anha - whether it is permissible or not (irrespective of whether such a description is justified or not), all this filibuster can be looked into.
Click to expand...
This is what I've been saying for months but to no avail.

Whether or not ijtihad occurred regarding Fadak and if there was a mistake - that can be debated - but how on earth is it blasphemy?! Khata ijtihadi has even been attributed to prophets عليهم السلام.

The most you can say is, Jalali sahib was wrong because there was no ijtihad or that there was but sayyidah wasn't mistaken.

But the bottom line is, how can something attributed to prophets عليهم السلام become blasphemy for anyone else?
 
Sh Nabeel keeps saying that 'we are balanced' but look at the latter part of his talk. He exhausts all efforts to defend the issues with Shah Sahib but not willing to listen, no rather twist the clarification of Jalali Sahib to make it appear that he is has some bugz against Sayida Fatima.

The coup de grace is when he appeals to the audience that don't forget Shah Sahib's efforts in safeguarding the creed of the sunnis yet he has no problem to call a scholar who has been at the forefront in the last few years a gustakh and a Nasabi.

If Sh Nabeel had actual dard for sunnis and the Ahl ul Bayt/Sahaba, he would take Shah Sahib to task for calling Sahaba 'pagal', misrepresenting a hadith to use filthy language and misrepresenting the difference between ma'soom and mahfuz.

Blindly defending the mistakes of your shaykh is the policy of the deobandis that you (rightly) strongly refute.
 
Further to the claims by Sh Nabeel that the conference yesterday was an example of a Nasabi gathering and these sort of things should not be discussed in Muharram.
Firstly, he did a 2 1/2 hour lecture on the same topic on the first of this month.
Secondly, Imam Hussain's sacrifice and the philosophy behind it is to defend the haq and not bow your head in front of batil. Those who claim to be lovers of Ahl ul Bayt need to reflect on the teachings of the Ahl ul Bayt.
The scholars who are supporting the release of Jalali sahib are following the teachings of Imam Hussain.
The arrest of Jalali Sahib (injustice)
Fatwa of kufr on Jalali Sahib (injustice)
Open attacks on the sahaba from the rafzis going unpunished to such an extent that the woman who started this issue by insinuating that Sayiduna Abu Bakr was a 'zaalim' has been involved in preventing Jalali sahib getting bailed.(injustice)
Open denial of the 3 daughters of the Holy prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and the khilafah of the first 3 caliphs by the Rafzis when they opposed the Bill. Syed Munawwar Jammati also opposed the same Bill. (injustice)

All this injustice is happening and then to be told that to speak out against it is an example of nasabism, is in fact another injustice borne out of hate and blind following.

Those who are bravely defending sunni principles and the truth (including those who don't agree with Jalali Sahib's original statement) are following the example of Imam Hussain. The opposition are using emotional blackmail to hide the truth and also surpress the errors of their shaykhs.

Syed Irfan Shah tried to claim that labelling Sayida Fatima's request as an ijtihadi Khata supports the rafzi narrative (a weak argument in reality) but their involvement (including alleged continual dialogue with the shias) has clearly only benefited the Shia and not the Sunnis. Their stance hinges on emotional blackmail, half-truths and contradictions.
 
Had Shah Sahib and others not got Jalali Sahib arrested, it is more very much conceivable that a satisfactory conclusion could have been reached amomgst Sunnis. The Rafzis can bark all they want, we don't need to pander to them.

It is valid and somewhat justified to disagree and oppose Jalali Sahib's original statement but when he clarified, he should have been left alone. A lot of scholars have said that on Jalali Sahib's statement there is no fatwa and is not gustakhi. Why is the need to be extreme?

Until this day opposition can't prove it was a gustakhi but the likes of Sh Nabeel still say it is. This can only be an example of blind following because if Sh Nabeel admits that it was not gustakhi, he will then have to admit that the fatwa of kufr was wrong (and its shari implications), any justification for the bad language used goes out of the window and the arrest of Jalali Sahib was an injustice.

The reality is in order to protect his Shaykh, he has to defend the gustakhi narrative. Personality before Sunni principles and like @abu Hasan said, his reputation will also suffer as a result of collateral damage in regards to refuting an incorrect and unjust narrative.
 
Waqar786 said:
The reality is in order to protect his Shaykh, he has to defend the gustakhi narrative. Personality before Sunni principles and like @abu Hasan said, his reputation will also suffer as a result of collateral damage in regards to refuting an incorrect and unjust narrative.
Click to expand...

What reputation did he ever have anyway, apart from being the right hand man to Sayyid Irfan Shah Mashhadi? As knowledgeable brothers here have expressed shock at Mawlana Nabeel's lack of basics, he doesn't have any collateral damage to worry about apart from having to expose his own inadequacies.
 
But Sayyid Mash'hadi himself has used the word khata for Sayyidah Ayishah رضي اللہ عنھا and even Adam عليه السلام in a mutlaq sense, I.e. without adding the word ijtihadi, etc.

Please, we have to avoid double standards.
 
@Aqdas: I've heard that Shah Sahib has used the word Khata for Sayiduna Adam (peace be upon him) but I have not seen the clip. With regards to Sayida Aisha, in that video of Sh Nabeel, he tries to distinguish between the two but misses the point. The point is if it it used unrestrictely does it still mean Khata ijtihadi, if so then how can you say what Jalali sahib is gustakhi and kufr.
I've heard clearly Shah Sahib clearly say that what Jalali Sahib said was kufr. This is what Sh Nabeel needs to prove. If he can't do it, just stay out of it and don't try to misguide and fool the public.
No doubt Shah Sahib's supporters (including Sh Nabeel) are saying all sorts about Jalali sahib (swearing and in some cases takfeer too) Sh Nabeel has defended this by making excuses for Shah Sahib's language. Degrading a scholar has serious consequences in the shariah and Sh Nabeel has inadvertently encouraged this. He should be taken to task for this.

When I criticised Shah Sahib's language and unjust fatwa by calling it embarrassing, he said all my objective is to disrespect and dishonour. Also said I would not be entertained any further. These are the double standards.

I spoke to another Mufti sahib, who said that tawba is wajib on Shah Sahib. Yet, Sh Nabeel just defends his shaykh's mistakes. What is the purpose of bringing all the books, when you are just going to defend errors. This is blind following.

I am not going to comment on Sh Nabeel's scholarly level because I am just a layperson. However, even as a layperson the contradictions are obvious to see.
 
Waqar786 said:
if it it used unrestrictely does it still mean Khata ijtihadi, if so then how can you say what Jalali sahib is gustakhi and kufr.
I've heard clearly Shah Sahib clearly say that what Jalali Sahib said was kufr. This is what Sh Nabeel needs to prove
Click to expand...

this is not just an attack on Doctor Jalali sahib But an attack on Sunni aqaid. On the one hand they will Openly and unrestrictedly call khata for Sayiduna Adam alayhisalam And that’s ok but the other side someone saying khata for Sayidah Paak with clarification of ijtihad is guatakhi and kufr?
 
I don't know if Nabeel Afzal grew up before the collapse of the soviet union, but 'my country, right or wrong' was a thing back then. That mantra has made a comeback now in politics, as well as shakhsiyat parast mureeds - my peer, right or wrong.

He seems adamant to burn straw men.

First his peer Irfan says 'keecharh uchaalna' and now he says that people are trying to prove Sayyidah as khatawar and have bughz against Ahle Bayt.

As for Hazrat Adam 3alaihis salam narration, who has said prophets can do khata in tabligh? Has he ever read Fiqh Al-Akbar?

Besides, he conveniently forgot about when Irfan Shah says khata for Ummuna Aishah, radi Allahu 3anha.
 
AbdalQadir said:
I don't know if Nabeel Afzal grew up before the collapse of the soviet union, but 'my country, right or wrong' was a thing back then. That mantra has made a comeback now in politics, as well as shakhsiyat parast mureeds - my peer, right or wrong.

He seems adamant to burn straw men.
Click to expand...

It takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies, but even greater to stand up to your friends.

So what about standing up to your pir - especially when you also happen to be his "official spokesperson"?

---
Nabeel is simply doing what a great many of us would have done if we were in his position.

That, in so doing, he also happens to be at loggerheads with the shari'ah and on the wrong side of justice, fairness and truth, is his great misfortune.

This is not to justify his actions, but to point out that they are not unexpected, a bit surprising maybe, but not altogether extraordinary.

One of the lessons that I have learned in the past few years, through personal experience, is that bigotry and groupism are a lot more commonplace - in all circles - than we might care to accept.

Simply put, Nabeel is a human - not a hero.
 
Unbeknown said:
It takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies, but even greater to stand up to your friends.

So what about standing up to your pir - especially when you also happen to be his "official spokesperson"?

---
Nabeel is simply doing what a great many of us would have done if we were in his position.

That, in so doing, he also happens to be at loggerheads with the shari'ah and on the wrong side of justice, fairness and truth, is his great misfortune.

This is not to justify his actions, but to point out that they are not unexpected, a bit surprising maybe, but not altogether extraordinary.

One of the lessons that I have learned in the past few years, through personal experience, is that bigotry and groupism are a lot more commonplace - in all circles - than we might care to accept.

Simply put, Nabeel is a human - not a hero.
Click to expand...
This is exactly why we've got our priorities wrong. First loyalty must always be to your religion. This corruption has indirectly resulted in Shia doing blasphemy against Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddīq may Allah be pleased with him. What is the new Tahreek doing? Bowing down to the sincere Shia!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top