clearly the ignoramus has no clue about the author. he picked the quote from some zindiq or a webpage and tries to act smart as if he has read the book. if not, let him swear by Allah that he had read 10 pages from the book.
because these are lies. neither of the two has read the book in urdu or in farsi and neither knows about the author. plus there are few
haraams both commit in this nice little segment:
lying: "when you read the book" which they have not
deception: "when you open the book and you read it" as if the book has only these things. the fools have no clue about the book.
slander: what they quote, what they say are pure lies; and based on their misreading they slander awliya and ulama. we will see shortly, in sha'Allah.
suu-zann of muslims, especially scholars: restating from the qur'an: "some doubts/suspicion/Zann are sin"
spreading falsehood: circulating lies without even checking facts.
belittling ulama: this one nooruddin may contest because he thinks he is greater than alahazrat, or his students or all the ulama in the subcontinent. [he sneers that hadith knowledge of ulama in the subcontinent is 'terrible'] this will only lead him to make more and more stupid videos until he becomes the laughing stock of the town and humiliation of a lifetime. nas'alu Allah al-aafiyah.
even if ulama have made mistakes, it is necessary to conceal unless it is a matter of islam and aqidah. but you may say that, here "chishti RasulAllah..." is being said. we will come to this shortly, in sha'Allah.
in fatawa al-rizawiyyah...uh..imam ahmad riza khan barelwi, he said: this book has been accepted in the court of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa aali wa sallam.
he doesn't look like he has the ability to read fatawa ridawiyyah. nor does his guest. like a couple of beggars, bragging about how they visited a gold and diamond shop and bickering about the perceived flaws in those diamonds. by two paupers who have never seen a tenner in their lives.
you know.. khwajah gharib nawaz,
lies. and he twisted it. he said
saba' sanabil and he quoted from
hasht bihisht. if one reads the books, it is obvious - but those whose knowledge is mainly gained from clips and pieces will think they know everything.
where he has attributed that this is a book that has been accepted in the court of the Prophet sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam, what do you say about this?
he quotes from hasht bihisht and switches back to
saba'a sanabil. and alahazrat's description of the book.
you see this is worse than all of them.
this man does not even stop to think or assess. he shoots from the word go.
this person has given himself such authority that behaving like a sahabi.
how?
i can also say the same thing about nooruddin. but what is the proof?
----
we say raDi'Allahu anhu for ulama and awliyaa. it literally translates to: "
Allah ta'ala IS pleased with him". or say raHmatullahi alayh: "
mercy of ALlah upon him." numerous ulama have used it for senior ulama, imams, awliya.
how do they know? and since only Prophets know - will you brand them all as
"this person has given himself such authority that behaving like a prophet..."
if not, why not?
the reason is, even though the words are in definite tense, this is meant to be a prayer for them and good hope for the person about whom it is said.
in our everyday speech we say things like: "the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam
said: actions are according to intentions.."
does it mean WE directly heard from the prophet? does it mean that we claim that?
"no. no. no. you did not say it with sanad. you should have said: 'in a hadith of the prophet reported by a sahabi... but you are giving authority to yourself..."
is that sensible even? suppose you suspect that someone intends so - the right approach is to ask them, verify whether indeed it is the case. one cannot take a statement and spin off adding his own interpretations and attributing it to the person.
---
basically what he is giving himself the position to do is.
strawman. nooruddin simply went insane and began extrapolating and imputing intentions as if he knows from other sources or as if alahazrat himself had claimed this. have some shame man, you are putting words in his mouth, which he never said.
alahazrat only said: '
this book is accepted in the court of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam'.
how can you even read so many things from this such as:
you see this is worse than all of them. this is not fabricated hadith. this is not even baseless. because you know what they do with baseless hadith- they say - oh..this sahabi said the Prophet said this. right?
this person has given himself such authority that behaving like a sahabi.
basically what he is giving himself the position to do is..like a sahabi narrates from the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. the prophet said this, the prophet did this...
insane. anyone who says the Prophet said this or did this comes under this ruling by the great faqih, nooruddin al-ahmaq al-ghabi.
this man is there telling you which book is accepted by RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam and which is not.
here nooruddin gives the impression that alahazrat listed many books and approved some and disapproved some of them. because the usage of "which" indicates many 'from which' some where categorised thus and some others thus.
also, nooruddin should produce evidence for which book alahazrat has said: "this book has been rejected in the court of RasulALlah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam".
there are other people, historically who say this kind of... the Messenger of Allah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam loves this and this likes this.
who said this and in what context? who are these people? if you cannot produce proof, admit you are a liar worse than the jobless men who gossip on the roadside. at least, they don't claim to be scholars and muftis.
and accepting this and... who do you people think you are?
when nooruddin comes down from his high horse and righteous anger, he can inform us about who is doing such things. we will also rage about it... IF true.
to think that he can speak on behalf of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam ..
here nooruddin imputes that alahazrat insinuates that he can speak on behalf of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.
he should produce proof for this false allegation. ulama have said that if a muslims says something and it may have 100 interpretations - 99 of which are kufr and one has a valid meaning, we must withhold our tongues from pronouncing takfir.
here, a harmless statement was twisted and distorted and fanciful interpretations created - without any fear of Allah.
seriously. have some humility.
again insinuates that ulama like alahazrat do not have humility. this man's having hallucinations.
they used to be so cautious...mmwwmmn.. they saw the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam, they heard the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam, even then they were so scared... i don't want to miscrow.. [misquote?]...
as if alahazrat was not so cautious and they were not scared to misquote him. all of these are his allegations. no proof whatsoever.
this is a quick summary of only a portion of alahazrat's works:
how many pages has nooruddin or that idiot who gaslights him has read - OR - are capable of reading? can they even read the names of those books? do you know how many hadith and ahkam have been cited in these fatawa?
even the style of fatawa is priceless - and arguably, few, if any, of the fatawa prior to him have been compiled in such a manner, especially in the subcontinent. it is not to say that alahazrat was greater than early masters; no. but he was definitely a pioneer in writing fatawa - by enriching it with citations from fiqh works, precedents, case studies, hypothetical situations and extrapolations, explaining usul where needed. i am not saying that no one else did this before or that they were not capable. but:
كم ترك الأول للأخر
how much the early ones have left (undone) for the later ones (to do)
those who have seen books of fatawa of earlier ulama - and compare alahazrat's fatawa cannot help but notice the depth and breadth of his learning and the incredible manner in which he builds the argument. it is like asking AI to disclose its reasoning. alahazrat's fatawa appears as if it was written for scholars (as many of the mustafti/questioners, were scholars). and therefore, just reading his fatawa gives immense insight on how a mufti should think.
just like imam bukhari was not the first muhaddith - not the greatest muhaddith. but his compilation of sahih had no precedent, and outstripped even though muhaddithin who were his teachers, grand-teachers and great grand teachers. imams ahmad ibn hanbal, shafiyi, malik and even our imam abu hanifah. imam bukhari is far lesser than them - but his work is next only to the qur'an.
ذلك فضل الله يعطيه من يشاء
the most authentic book after the qur'an. among others, this is attributed to imam nawawi:
وهما أصح الكتب بعد القرآن. والبخاري أصحّهما
is there a qur'an verse or sahih hadith that says it is the most authentic book after the qur'an? or is nawawi taking the authority of a sahabi or a prophet proclaiming which books is in which order? al-iyadhu billah.
but this is the arrogance we have. certain groups of muslims they just feel they can attribute anything to the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.
which groups and where did they do so. can nooruddin give citations other than the above (which will be refuted presently)
and in this case, this is not even a hadith, i get to speak about what the prophet loves and what the prophet sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam does not.
suppose that statement REALLY meant the way this madman raves about.
it is still ONE statement. for the sake of argument, it is one slip (though not in reality)
how can you generalise over thousands of pages - and going by the low IQ both individuals display - they will not be able to read two volumes in 200 years.
yet, they have the temerity to scoff about alahazrat.
