Offshoots from khata thread

A

AbuSulayman

Banned
It’s sad to see so called Sunnis on this forum not having a single thread in honour of Sayyid ash Shuhada Hazrat Imam Hussain (a.s) in these first 10 days of Muharram and yet you’ve spent he best part of two months trying to prove Jalali was correct in attributing actual khataa to Sayyida e Kainaat (s.a)! You claim to respect Hazrat Tajdar e Golrawi Pir Mehr Ali Shah (ra) when you felt it would strengthen your position but didn’t even have the decency to mention the passing away earlier this year of his grandson Hazrat Pir Sayyid Shah Abdul Haq Sahih (ra) and you regularly criticised Hazrat Pir Syed Naseeruddin Naseer Jilani (ra) on this forum. You even have started criticising Syed Irfan Shah Sahib whom you used to big up just because he exposed your hatred of the Ahlul Bayt.

as to the question which aqdas has asked the Sahaba can do khataa ijtihadi and those who were against Mawla Ali (a.s) did do it. The reason Sayyida e Kainaat hasn’t done it is because she is Mahfouz from sin because she’s in the Ayat e Tatheer along with her father, husband and sons. All were placed under the cloak of the Prophet when this verse was revealed and he said Oh Allah these are my Ahlul Bayt ! In other words only they are Panj Tan Paak. Emphasise on word Paak. Pure. Mahfouz from sin. Not masoom but in practice it’s just the difference between intrinsically impossible (masoom = prophets, angels) and contingently impossible (Mahfouz= 5 Pure Ones). In theory they could do a sin but they didn’t as Allah protected them.

Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra) is afzal amongst Sahaba but he’s not included in the ayat of Tatheer. Most Sunnis in the U.K. and Pakistan are on the side of Syed Irfan Shah Sahib on this issue.

sad this is a Nasibi infested forum now.
 
AbuSulayman said:
In other words only they are Panj Tan Paak. Emphasise on word Paak. Pure. Mahfouz from sin. Not masoom but in practice it’s just the difference between intrinsically impossible (masoom = prophets, angels) and contingently impossible (Mahfouz= 5 Pure Ones). In theory they could do a sin but they didn’t as Allah protected them.
Click to expand...

Oh dear! Intrinsically impossible and contingently impossible all over again!

Also I'm curious where you got the number of mahfouzeen as just 5. What about the rest of the Sahaba and Ahlul Bayt, they're not mahfouz (contingently impossible to sin)?

AbuSulayman said:
Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra) is afzal amongst Sahaba but he’s not included in the ayat of Tatheer.
Click to expand...

Shaykhayn are Afzal than the Ahlul Bayt too. If you don't know Sünni aqaid, learn them.

This is what megalomania does with peerzadas. Deen is Ghar ki kheti. Twist it as you please and misguide people all for the sake of your own ego. Irfan shah should be ashamed of himself. These kind of comments by AbuSulayman are a direct result of his egotistical gambits.
 
@AbuSulayman... Lets clear up a few things for you.
Firstly, The mothers of the believers are included in ayat e tatheer. Syed Irfan Shah said that Sayida Aisha used to cry about her khata in relation to the battle of Jamal.

Secondly, You've misunderstood what khata e ijtihadi. It does not entail sin and in fact it entails one good deed.

Thirdly, check the definition of Nasabism before you label brothers.

Fourthly, I've spoken to a couple of Muftis who have said that tawba is wajib on Shah Sahib because of their unwarranted fatwa of kufr and their bad language. Try watching that video with family members and see if they don't ask you to turn it off.

Yes a lot of scholars opposed Jalali Sahib's statement but that does not mean they support Shah Sahib's stance. 150 ulema and mashaykh were present in that conference where that fatwa was passed. They only got 20-25 signatures.
Ulema across Indo/Pak and the UK have accepted Jalali sahib's clarification. Shah Sahib and others have been banned from doing conferences in some areas at the behest of some of the Sunni locals
Fatwa of kufr on khata e ijtihadi is zulm on the pristine shariah and when that was not enough, they got Jalali Sahib arrested.
These are all facts that you seem to want to sweep under the carpet and just want to emotionally blackmail people. Disappointing!
 
We do respect Pir Mehr Ali Shah and we have not used them to strengthen our position. Pir Mehr Ali Shah's work was the context in which Jalali Sahib made the statement hence why it was analysed. It's really telling that Shah Sahib did not analyse it.

You mention that Pir Naseer was criticised on this forum but don't mention why they were criticised. Maybe they come under your definition of Mahfuz. Shah Sahib mentioned that they did ruju shortly before they passed away. Why did they do this?

The brothers on the whole have been respectful of Shah Sahib, not just because they are syed but because they used to strongly defend the sunni aqaid. However, their current stance and behaviour can't be justified.

Another claim that we should not criticise Shah Sahib because of their previous efforts but that works both way. Look at Jalali Sahib's previous record but it is fair game to call them a gustakh/kafir and to get them locked up. Contradictions and double standards but yet we should just close our eyes and run with it.

It's becoming a massive issue in our ranks, blind following personalities and ignoring sunni principles.
 
AbuSulayman said:
in these first 10 days of Muharram
Click to expand...

As for this Muharram blackmail flying around on social media,

We'd rather try our best to follow in the footsteps of Imame Aali Maqam by standing up for the truth, than just pay empty lip service by ignorance-laden egotistical bayanaat by peers looking to run shop, coupled with money showering soulless naatkhwani.

Unless of course if any taqiyyabaz Shias want us to start reciting nohas and marsiyas.
 
Also @AbuSulayman, you said that most of the scholars in the UK and Pakistan support Shah Sahib's stance. Could you kindly provide the names of the scholars who said that:
1. Jalali Sahib's statement+ its clarification is kufr.
2. He should be referred as 'Walad ul Haraam'
3. Jalali Sahib should be severely punishment in jail

All 3 are part of Shah Sahib's stance and have been defended or sweeped under the carpet by the likes of Shaykh Nabeel under the pretence that DrJalali is a gustakh and an enemy of the Ahl ul Bayt.

We await an answer to this claim of yours. Remember there are many scholars who disagreed with Dr Sahib'a statement but it does not mean they support Shah Sahib's stance. Give us the names of those who support Shah Sahib's stance and everything will become clear.
 
Finally, in the interview Tasleem Sabri tried to exonerate those scholars/pirs that have some Rafzi beliefs. Shah Sahib said it was wrong to call them Rafzis or words to that affect. However, Shaykh Nabeel and co are using the term 'Nasabi' for sunni scholars in every other post. This what really grates me, its one rule for one side and another rule for the other side.
 
AbdalQadir said:
These kind of comments by AbuSulayman are a direct result of his egotistical gambits.
Click to expand...

of-course @AbuSulayman could be a clueless blind muqallid - and merely parroting the "party line" - but he could just as easily be an insider sent on a mission - with lots of free time to waste.

we don't know whose hiding behind the pseudonym ...
 
Unbeknown said:
we don't know whose hiding behind the pseudonym ...
Click to expand...

That's why he needs to be told point blank that what is being done to Jalali is nothing but zulm, and the perpetrators are following NOT the Sunnah of Imame Aali Maqam radi Allahu 3anhu or his grand father salAllahu 3alaihi wa sallam, but rather acting like yazeed paleed. The perpetrators should all hang their heads in shame.

This message needs to hit home loud and clear.
 
Last edited:
As I mentioned before, a quote from George Orwell fits in our current times: 'The more a society moves aways from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it'.

It's a general trend in society, whatever is trending and whoever one is inclined to, their version of events are accepted, even if it has no relationship with the reality of the situation.
 
AoA
I will try to answer all the replies/questions according to my own personal belief. I am in no way a representative of Syed Irfan Shah Sahib Mashadi and have never met him but I have always respected him and still do.

1. @AQ, the panj tan paak are the Prophet, Imam Ali, Imam Hasan, Imam Husayn and Bibi Fatima (a.s.). All of them are mahfuz and the Prophet is masoom. We believe none of them made a mistake and for the Prophet it is impossible too (muhaal). The other 4 are not masoom but mahfooz but their mahfuz level is so high it is practically masoom. That's why I made the distinction between contingent and intrinsically possible.

2. I believe Dr Jalali is wrong and the words he used for Bibi Paak Sayyida e Kainaat was gustaakhi for which he should have done tawba and taken back his words.

3. However, personally I don't believe it was correct to get him arrested or to involve the government in what is a theological debate. This is what is wrong with blasphemy laws -- they are open to abuse and misuse. Sadly maulvis of all sorts in pakistan constantly use these laws to settle scores. I think to stop this the law should be amended. I hope Jalali is released.

4. I don't agree with swearing on the minbar nor with childish name calling of people you disagree with. Khadim Hussain Rizvi does it a lot for example! It's a bit rich from you people as you lot regularly refer to Tariq Jameel as Zaleel, Tahirul Qadri as Padri or Tahirul, Shaykh Hamza as just Mark Hanson etc. on this forum. It's not clever nor funny so you can't complain if others do it.

5. I agree with the jamhoor of Ahlus Sunnah that Hazrat Abu Bakr is greatest after the Prophets. However I also believe if someone believes Hazrat Ali or Bibi Paak are more afzal (or Hazrat Umar or any other Sahabi) it is perfectly ok. Most of the Banu Hashim believed Ali alaisalam to be better. Imam Malik said no one is more afzal than Sayyida Fatima. Are they tafzilis according to you?

6. You and your maulvis in opposition to Shah Sahib have called Sunni scholars like pir syed munawwar shah saab and mufti hanif qureishi saab rafizis which is a lie as both are pure sunnis. Name one Rafidi belief they have ever demonstrated? Yet you get angry if you are called Nasibis!

7. Why don't you remember Imam e Ali Maqaam alahisalaam on the first 10 days of Muharram like the majority of Sunni mosques in UK and Pakistan and everywhere? And what is wrong with reciting marsiya and noha out of love for the paak imaam? It doesn't equate to hating Sahaba or make you Shia! If its not bughz why don't you do it?

Again I represent no one but myself.
 
@AQ, I forgot to mention that the wives were not included in the hadith of the cloak when the verse of tatheer was recited. There are different types of Ahlul Bayt. The wines are one type of ahlul bayt. Only the 5 are included in those who are pure from sin which the hadith of the cloak makes clear. No, the other sahaba were therefore not like these 4 (mawla ali, mawla hasan, mawla hussain, bibi fatima) in this aspect of mahfuz touching the borders of masoom. it doesn't mean we disrespect the other sahaba though. hope that answers your question.

oh on the fadak issue i believe bibi paak was on haq in asking for her right. i don't believe the explanation that the event didn't even occur! bukhari is clear the when bibi paak passed away she was angry with hazrat siddiq e akbar and didn't speak with him for 6 months.
 
@AbuSulayman thanks for responding

AbuSulayman said:
Again I represent no one but myself.
Click to expand...

noted. however, there must be a source for your knowledge, claims, statements, etc.

woud you be so kind as to share references and sources for your below statements:

AbuSulayman said:
1. @AQ, the panj tan paak are the Prophet, Imam Ali, Imam Hasan, Imam Husayn and Bibi Fatima (a.s.). All of them are mahfuz and the Prophet is masoom. We believe none of them made a mistake and for the Prophet it is impossible too (muhaal). The other 4 are not masoom but mahfooz but their mahfuz level is so high it is practically masoom. That's why I made the distinction between contingent and intrinsically possible.
Click to expand...

any references from books of aqaid and kalam will be very helpful. at the same time, you can also link to talks by shuyukh you trust.

AbuSulayman said:
5. I agree with the jamhoor of Ahlus Sunnah that Hazrat Abu Bakr is greatest after the Prophets. However I also believe if someone believes Hazrat Ali or Bibi Paak are more afzal (or Hazrat Umar or any other Sahabi) it is perfectly ok. Most of the Banu Hashim believed Ali alaisalam to be better. Imam Malik said no one is more afzal than Sayyida Fatima. Are they tafzilis according to you?
Click to expand...

any references from books for your claims?

AbuSulayman said:
I forgot to mention that the wives were not included in the hadith of the cloak when the verse of tatheer was recited. There are different types of Ahlul Bayt. The wines are one type of ahlul bayt. Only the 5 are included in those who are pure from sin which the hadith of the cloak makes clear. No, the other sahaba were therefore not like these 4 (mawla ali, mawla hasan, mawla hussain, bibi fatima) in this aspect of mahfuz touching the borders of masoom. it doesn't mean we disrespect the other sahaba though. hope that answers your question.
Click to expand...

any books' reference for this, or links to talks by your peer or admired speakers -

regarding the 4 esteemed personalities from Panjtan Paak mahfuz touching borders of masoom?
what is the istilahi term for 'mahfuz touching borders of masoom' in books of aqidah, if any?
what is the istilahi term for the rest of the Sahaba and Ahlul Bayt who are mahfuz but DON'T touch the borders of masoom, if any?
where can i find these divisions and subcategories within the mahfuz people?

any book references or links to talks on the different types of Ahlul Bayt?
AbuSulayman said:
oh on the fadak issue i believe bibi paak was on haq in asking for her right. i don't believe the explanation that the event didn't even occur! bukhari is clear the when bibi paak passed away
Click to expand...

so basically you even disagree with Irfan Shah and Saeed Asad sahib, as well as those who are against them.

let's start with these and park the rest of your points 2, 3, 4, 6 & 7 from post # 50 for later once we get past these points first.
 
@AbuSulayman: apologises for linking you to Shah Sahib and their followers like Shaykh Nabeel.

To inform you about Mufti Hanif Qureshi's shia beliefs : his multiple comments against Ameer Muawwiya and Hazrat Abu Sufyan. He also misquoted a hadith to make insinuations against Sayida Aisha. He also gave a shia view with regards to the faith of Hazrat Abu Talib. This means there is a difference of opinion on the faith of Hazrat Abu Talib amongst Sunni ranks but the Shias question the faith of those people who believed that Hazrat Abu Talib did not accept Islam. Hanif Qureshi in one of his bayan supported this Shia view.

Re. Syed Munawwar Jammati, he has a attestation on a book by Zahoor Ahmed Faizi where Amir Muawiyya has been attacked, inappropriate comment was made about shaykhan and references were misquoted to suggest Sayiduna Ali is superior to Sayiduna Abu Bakr.

Like the brothers requested, could you give us references where the belief that Sayiduna Ali is superior to Sayiduna Abu Bakr is accepted as a sunni belief.

Could you also support your claim about the fadak issue from either a statement from a Sunni scholar or text.

Your point on swearing has some credence but Shah Sahib's language was far worse than the examples you gave. Furthermore, Shah sahib has boasted that he has got a dictionary of swears and if he starts in the morning and finishes in the evening, he won't repeat the same swear. His supporters then try to claim these are not swears because if you label them swears then you have to say that Allah most High and the Holy prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) swear. This is our issue with him.

You also said that what Jalali sahib said is a gustakhi. Could you give a reference of a sunni text, where ascribing khata e ijtihadi to Ahl ul Bayt is gustakhi? It would be great if you did because you would have done something the likes of Shah Sahib have been unable to do.
 
I don't have time to list all my sources and i am just a layman but some scholars who i have listened to and trust include huzoor mufakkir e islam, pir naseeruddin naseer, sayyid irfaan shah sahib, shaykh osi efa, habib umar ibn hafeez, shaykh gf haddad, pir karam shah sahib, tajdar e golra, shaykh hamza yusuf, mawlana shaykh hisham and shaykh nazim, syed habib ali, syed zahid hussain shah sahib, pir siddiqui, hazrat abu bakr chishti, hashmi miyan and madani miyan, mufti hanif qureishi etc, mawlana tariq jameel, shaykh ninowy, daniel haqiqatjou, dr yasir qadhi, mufti abu layth, allama jawad naqvi, moulana ishaaq, etc. i listen to scholars who are knowledgable from all sects and try to take from each what i find beneficial and am not a fan of those who only shout and criticise others only.

@AQ, the bit about the different levels of ahlul bayt i heard from huzoor mufakkir e islam. the statement about mahfooz touching the boundaries of masoom i heard from the great late pir naseer in a gathering in victoria park mosque in manchester. if i had to list just one sunni personality i trust of modern times it would be him.

yes i respect syed irfaan shah a lot but it doesn't mean i have to agree with him on everything he says. i believe differences of opinion are just that and the sooner our scholars from indo pak learn to accept them without getting emotional and starting the 'you are no longer sunni!' attacks the better. i believe a person has a right to believe what they want and hate it when religious nuts resort to emotional or physical violence.

i am just a layman and follow various forums for entertainment and education.
 
@Waqar786,

thank you for the info about mufti hanif qurayshi. i don't think what he said is wrong or against sunni aqidah. i don't disrespect amir e shaam (ra) but believe he was wrong. i find the idea of ijtihadi ghalti when people go to war against each other a stretch to be honest. it is more honest to say hazrat muawiya was wrong to fight and rebel against mawla ali but because he is a sahabi we won't say anything bad against him unlike shia. that's my opinion after hearing both sunni and shia sides of the story.
i beiieve hazrat abu talib was a muslim (ra) and i know many sunni scholars in the past have held that view.
 
i just want to add out of all the english speaking sunnis i like shaykh asrar rashid as he seems open minded and open to dialogue with those who disagree. i just wish he wouldn't always be so serious!
 
Let me clarify a couple of things @AbuSulayman:
The issue is not whether Hazrat Abu Talib's iman is a sunni belief or not because yes sunni scholars have supported this view. The issue is when you doubt the faith of those who are not of the opinion that Hazrat Abu Talib accepted Islam. This is a shia belief.

Re. Ameer Muawiyya, you've tried to sugar coat it. Hanif Qureshi has previously linked the name Muawiyya to dogs. Then there has been open abuse of Ameer Muawwiya by some scholars who have a likeminded mentality to Hanif Qureshi. This is the biggest deception of these people that they claim that such beliefs are Sunni beliefs.

Pir Naseer that you have said that you trust the most had some positions that shortly before they passed away, they did ruju on. I would check with other Sunni scholars before just blindly accepting their view.

Shaykh Asrar if you speak to him privately is a lot more laid back than what you see in your videos. However, in this issue he has refuted Shah sahib.

It's clear that from the scholars you have listed, that you will take from whoever and whatever, which will inevitably result you in not understanding what is the actual sunni position on any matter. Aqida is not something you pick and choose to learn from
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top