whereas in the video of Naṣīruddīn Naṣīr he said about Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh having Taʿaluq with the deobandis and even being taught by them. That was were the question of "whos word is weightier popped up from" one who is from Pir Ṣaḥibs direct lineage or Syed Muzaffar Shāh
I am sorry brother, your response does not touch my argument against yours at all - anything naseer sab might have said cannot be accepted at face value - and I mean *anything* - unless he brings solid verifiable evidence to the table. His lineage adds no weight to his words, because the subject under discussion has got nothing to do with family.
Second why would ʿAllāmah Aṭā' Muḥammad write this in his book if he didnt believe it to be authentic.
you misunderstood me - what I meant to say is if the quote from the book is indeed by bandyalvi saab (i.e. it's not an interpolation or a misattribution) - then we must try to interpret it in the light of other evidence (see below).
Which brings me to my final point:
but he was corroborated by ʿAllāmah Aṭā' Muḥammad Bandyalvi
there is no corroboration.
Naseer sab is painting a picture in which hazrat mihr is bon homie with devbandis (and the undercurrent is that, this was despite him knowing about the blasphemous passages - an unsubstantiated claim).
Ata saab's claim is much more conservative - that he adopted silence.
Thirdly, if you pay attention to the conext of ata sab's passage, he is trying to prove that hazrat mihr ali was not hasty in takfir and did not encourage people to do takfir. And yet, he does not say that: our master considered the deobandis Muslims because he did not believe the controversial passages to be blasphemous. No. Even though, such an unambiguous assertion would have bolstered his argument far beyond merely saying that he chose silence over the matter.
This measured statement further shows that the case is not so crystal clear as our opponents would have us believe.
Add to it, his direct disciple's statement thah shah saab seconded the fataawa in Hussam al Haramayn.
from their point of view, even Shah sahab's saying that he will teach Hussam ul Haramayn next day (the passage quoted by brother Nawaz) doesn't necessitate that he attests to the Barelwi side. zameel can come back and say, 'who knows, maybe Shah sahab found 300 mistakes in it and wanted to highlight them to his students!'
the recorder of the malfuz clearly says:
Hussam-ul-Haramayn ki ta'eed karte hue faramaya.
So zameel can't make that inane interpretation, or at least he wouldn't, if he were not so utterly
be-ghayrat.
Then again, what was mihr ali saab teaching alongside Hussam al Haramayn?
Futuhaat al Makkiyah? Isn't that
full of kufr according to these fanatic literalists, and their elder brothers, the wahabis?
Mihr ali saab's high regard for the futuhaat is well known.
Deobandis had better find a more suitable advocate.
---
The evidence so far leans in the favor of sunnis whereas the dayabina are merely clutching at straws as usual. An incurable malady of theirs.
