Mufakkir responds to Syed Irfan
- Thread starter Ghulam
- Start date
G
ghulam e Ghaus
well, the level of research of maulana irfan shah sb about which he is claiming so much that for two years live on TV he kept saying it was in sunan daraqutni...then we informed him that hazrat do first hand research your self sometimes and do not rely on sunni-sunai. it was after two years of sunan-daraqutni sunan-dadaqutni, without actually reading it himself. Because it is not in sunan-daraqutni. hence phantom reading claim cannot be compensated by dB record.
Last edited by a moderator:
G
ghulam e Ghaus
Oh! and I forgot to show the clip. here it is at 44 seconds onwards that it is in sunan darqutni. which means that he never read it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF1K4dn_G5A&feature=player_embedded#!
so ghulam? did he read it? or was it sunni-sunai?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF1K4dn_G5A&feature=player_embedded#!
so ghulam? did he read it? or was it sunni-sunai?
abu Hasan
Administrator
sub'hanAllah, pir abdu'l qadir is a liar and was refuted and a criminal who attacks imam e ahl e sunnat, sayyiduna abu'l hasan al-ash'ari.
he is an outright jahil who states and makes claims without any basis.
---
the pathetic, deplorable clip below was refuted here and his lies exposed. also here and here.
---
inShaAllah, we will have to compile a book on the inaccuracies and PAQ lies, but his blind followers will continue to hail him as a 'scholar'. i have said this before, and i repeat: a classic case of dunning-kruger effect.
he is an outright jahil who states and makes claims without any basis.
---
the pathetic, deplorable clip below was refuted here and his lies exposed. also here and here.
---
inShaAllah, we will have to compile a book on the inaccuracies and PAQ lies, but his blind followers will continue to hail him as a 'scholar'. i have said this before, and i repeat: a classic case of dunning-kruger effect.
G
ghulam e Ghaus
you did not even understand the point ya Ah!
Hazrat Mufakir al-Islam is saying that it is in maqalat al-islamiyyin and not that it is the position of al-ashari himself. secondly, so what He said ijma' instead of ittifaq but al-nawawi, for example, says ittifaaq in his sharh muslim and ijma in his tehdhib. yet alahazrat in matla quotes both but even for the first one where it says ittafaqa ahlasunnah....alahzarat preceding it says kutub e usool mein ba tasrih ijma naql kiya...first example is with the 'ittifaq' wording of nawawi and second one is nawawi's quotation of abu mansur and so on.
alahazrat in sharah sahih muslim understood ijma' from the words ittifaq of nawawi. though i agree that by ittifaq he meant ijma!
all your clips and undetstandings are out of context and doctored clippings sultan bahu trust yet they dont realise that fiaz al-hasan sb was next to tahir al-qadiri during the whole thing of hare rama hare krishna. why didnt he walk out? anyone can come and see that people are against it so i will make an excuse when i see the reaction. what happened when he was singing hare rama hare krishna...didnt say anything then? where is the clip?
mufakir al-Islam does not say that it was al-ashri's own opinion but that he has written it in maqalat. you guys are twisting and chopping so it seems as if it he meant al-ashari.
as for the three opinion of ahl al-sunna about yazid(L) in maqalat:
فزعمت الروافض أنه جائز أن يظهر الإمام الكفر والرضى به والفسق على طريق التقية وجوزوا ذلك على الرسول عليه السلام وقال قائلون: لا يجوز ذلك على الرسول عليه السلام ولا يجوز واختلفوا في إمامة يزيد: فقال قائلون: كان إماماً بإجماع المسلمين على إمامته وبيعتهم له غير أن الحسين أنكر عليه أشياء مثلها ينكر وقال قائلون بإمامته وتخطئة الحسين في إنكاره عليه وقال قائلون: لم يكن إماماً على وجه من الوجوه.
the rawafiz considered that in taqiyya it is allowed for the imams to manifest kufr and fisq and they also allowed it permissable for the Prophet(s).
the sayers said: that is not for allowed for the Prophet(s) and it (taqiyya) is not permissable. they (those who disallowed taqiyya) differed in the imamat of yazid: sayers said: He was an imam by IJMA' of muslims and al-Husayn refused and sayers said: he was an imam and al-husayn was wrong in denying hsi rule and sayers said: he was not an imam for a reason amongst other reasons.
the above were the three sunni opinions and one group claimed ijma on yazid's imamat.
this all what mufakir al-Islam said and quoted from maqalaat. and not that it was the opinion of al-ashari but said that even people believed 'ijma' on the isssue as al-ashari(r) has written.
it is the filter of hatred that blinds you because your beloved tafzil-cat is out of the bottle hence all kinds schemes.
Hazrat Mufakir al-Islam is saying that it is in maqalat al-islamiyyin and not that it is the position of al-ashari himself. secondly, so what He said ijma' instead of ittifaq but al-nawawi, for example, says ittifaaq in his sharh muslim and ijma in his tehdhib. yet alahazrat in matla quotes both but even for the first one where it says ittafaqa ahlasunnah....alahzarat preceding it says kutub e usool mein ba tasrih ijma naql kiya...first example is with the 'ittifaq' wording of nawawi and second one is nawawi's quotation of abu mansur and so on.
alahazrat in sharah sahih muslim understood ijma' from the words ittifaq of nawawi. though i agree that by ittifaq he meant ijma!
all your clips and undetstandings are out of context and doctored clippings sultan bahu trust yet they dont realise that fiaz al-hasan sb was next to tahir al-qadiri during the whole thing of hare rama hare krishna. why didnt he walk out? anyone can come and see that people are against it so i will make an excuse when i see the reaction. what happened when he was singing hare rama hare krishna...didnt say anything then? where is the clip?
mufakir al-Islam does not say that it was al-ashri's own opinion but that he has written it in maqalat. you guys are twisting and chopping so it seems as if it he meant al-ashari.
as for the three opinion of ahl al-sunna about yazid(L) in maqalat:
فزعمت الروافض أنه جائز أن يظهر الإمام الكفر والرضى به والفسق على طريق التقية وجوزوا ذلك على الرسول عليه السلام وقال قائلون: لا يجوز ذلك على الرسول عليه السلام ولا يجوز واختلفوا في إمامة يزيد: فقال قائلون: كان إماماً بإجماع المسلمين على إمامته وبيعتهم له غير أن الحسين أنكر عليه أشياء مثلها ينكر وقال قائلون بإمامته وتخطئة الحسين في إنكاره عليه وقال قائلون: لم يكن إماماً على وجه من الوجوه.
the rawafiz considered that in taqiyya it is allowed for the imams to manifest kufr and fisq and they also allowed it permissable for the Prophet(s).
the sayers said: that is not for allowed for the Prophet(s) and it (taqiyya) is not permissable. they (those who disallowed taqiyya) differed in the imamat of yazid: sayers said: He was an imam by IJMA' of muslims and al-Husayn refused and sayers said: he was an imam and al-husayn was wrong in denying hsi rule and sayers said: he was not an imam for a reason amongst other reasons.
the above were the three sunni opinions and one group claimed ijma on yazid's imamat.
this all what mufakir al-Islam said and quoted from maqalaat. and not that it was the opinion of al-ashari but said that even people believed 'ijma' on the isssue as al-ashari(r) has written.
it is the filter of hatred that blinds you because your beloved tafzil-cat is out of the bottle hence all kinds schemes.
Last edited by a moderator:
just for laymen like me:
people can have deep discussions on the intricacies of ijma'a and include scores of technical terms, yet 99% of the 'awaam, like me, do not need to bother with it.
sayyidina imam e a'azam abu hanifa derived thousands of rulings from the qur'an and sunnah and we accept them. for 99% of us, we are not bothered with the proofs and rajih/marjuh etc. - we just take the ruling that is mufta bih.
for the issue of tafdil al-shaykhayn, beginners like those on our forum can argue till they are blue in the face but we have been told the ruling by ulama that are masters of every field of islamic learning. they KNEW the types of ijma'a far better than anyone today and their knowledge of all the texts, none of us can even begin to comprehend its expanse.
so, you just carry on debating ijma'a and we will just take the one line conclusion of our elders: he who gives precedence to anyone above abu bakr and umar is an innovator.
people can have deep discussions on the intricacies of ijma'a and include scores of technical terms, yet 99% of the 'awaam, like me, do not need to bother with it.
sayyidina imam e a'azam abu hanifa derived thousands of rulings from the qur'an and sunnah and we accept them. for 99% of us, we are not bothered with the proofs and rajih/marjuh etc. - we just take the ruling that is mufta bih.
for the issue of tafdil al-shaykhayn, beginners like those on our forum can argue till they are blue in the face but we have been told the ruling by ulama that are masters of every field of islamic learning. they KNEW the types of ijma'a far better than anyone today and their knowledge of all the texts, none of us can even begin to comprehend its expanse.
so, you just carry on debating ijma'a and we will just take the one line conclusion of our elders: he who gives precedence to anyone above abu bakr and umar is an innovator.
Last edited:
kattarsunni
sunniport user
No where does it say those qaailun are Ahl alSunna. They could have easily been Qadariyya, Mutazila and Ahl alSunna.
Also elsewhere Imam Abu Hasan Ashari states there is ijma' of Ahl alSunna.
Muhammad Ali
sunniport user
Must Watch for everyone, Molvi Muzammil Shah who Pir Abdul Qadir Sahib praised at start of his book Zubdah. What is his view on Afzaliyat?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7oUqswSGSw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7oUqswSGSw
G
ghulam e Ghaus
prove it!
G
ghulam e Ghaus
al-Dhahabi says about Ahmed ibn abdullah al-'Ijli is his siyar:
الإمام الحافظ الأوحد الزاهد ، أبو الحسن ، أحمد بن عبد الله بن صالح بن مسلم ، العجلي الكوفي
the imam, the hafidh, the pious....
in other words, he was great ahl al-sunna imams who died in 261 AH.
now, what was the aqeeda of this ahlesunna IMAM?
here we have from tehdhib al-Kamal of al-Mizi where he gives the opinion of Imam al-Ijli about umar ibn sa'd:
وقال أحمد بن عبدالله العجلي : كان يروي عن أبيه أحاديث، وروى الناس عنه.
وهو الذي قتل الحسين، وهو تابعي ثقة
Umar ibn sa'd was an authentic reporter, who reports from his father and people report from him. He was the KILLLER of (IMAM) al-Husayn. he was a tabi' and authentic reporter.
siyar:http://www.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?idfrom=2326&idto=2326&bk_no=60&ID=2188
tahdhib: http://islamport.com/d/1/trj/1/137/3334.html
so we have an ahle sunnah Imam considering the killer of IMAM Husayn as a reliable reporter and a tabi'
الإمام الحافظ الأوحد الزاهد ، أبو الحسن ، أحمد بن عبد الله بن صالح بن مسلم ، العجلي الكوفي
the imam, the hafidh, the pious....
in other words, he was great ahl al-sunna imams who died in 261 AH.
now, what was the aqeeda of this ahlesunna IMAM?
here we have from tehdhib al-Kamal of al-Mizi where he gives the opinion of Imam al-Ijli about umar ibn sa'd:
وقال أحمد بن عبدالله العجلي : كان يروي عن أبيه أحاديث، وروى الناس عنه.
وهو الذي قتل الحسين، وهو تابعي ثقة
Umar ibn sa'd was an authentic reporter, who reports from his father and people report from him. He was the KILLLER of (IMAM) al-Husayn. he was a tabi' and authentic reporter.
siyar:http://www.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?idfrom=2326&idto=2326&bk_no=60&ID=2188
tahdhib: http://islamport.com/d/1/trj/1/137/3334.html
so we have an ahle sunnah Imam considering the killer of IMAM Husayn as a reliable reporter and a tabi'
kattarsunni
sunniport user
I will look up your request and what you have posted.
In the mean time, as you are posting, can you answer the questions and queries on ijma' which were posted on another thread?
In the mean time, as you are posting, can you answer the questions and queries on ijma' which were posted on another thread?
G
ghulam e Ghaus
Sorry Buddy! don't really have much time for that, the other things are a one minute job but why don't you reply to your own questions? I'm sure you have the capacity to present a worked out theory of Ijma' that has an ijma' on it. after all, what good is a theory of Ijma that does not have an ijma on it. this pretty much defeats the purpose. if there is no ijma on a particular theory of ijma then that can hardly be considered an ijma! I'm out.
Last edited by a moderator:
naqshbandijamaati
sunniport user
people are planning manned missions to Mars and robotic missions to Jupiter's moons and we are arguing about whether ijma is qati' or dhanni on an issue involving people who lived in the 7th-8th century!!
meanwhile millions of people in our countries do not have two meals a day nor electricity nor clean drinking water even in 2011
subhan Allah!
meanwhile millions of people in our countries do not have two meals a day nor electricity nor clean drinking water even in 2011
subhan Allah!
kattarsunni
sunniport user
By not following jamhur a person can become a faasiq and mubtadi' according to some.
@NJ: It is on the Muslim scientific community to make advances in sciences and not the maulvies. The job of the maulvie is to tell you the limits of science and where it can get unethical.
@NJ: It is on the Muslim scientific community to make advances in sciences and not the maulvies. The job of the maulvie is to tell you the limits of science and where it can get unethical.
abu Hasan
Administrator
it is futile to argue with people like gg who simply throw something and act as if they have been 'rigorous'. i have followed KS and he should not engage with any new query with people like gg unless they have acknowledged the answer to the previous query. they are time wasters.
people who jump from one branch to another like certain primates and act as if it is a smart thing to do.
----
and as for NJ:
people who jump from one branch to another like certain primates and act as if it is a smart thing to do.
----
and as for NJ:
why not go to the moon once again? and did they really go to the moon?
naqshbandijamaati
sunniport user
abu Hasan said:
Ya Allah! Yes they did. Multiple times. There is irrefutable evidence. Why does an intelligent person like you fall for the most extreme conspiracy theories. You can go to a museum of natural history and touch moon rock.
abu Hasan
Administrator
multiple times?
so why did they not go back to the moon for 40 years, even though computers on desktops are far more powerful than they used far back then; overall technology has grown leaps and bounds, but why did they not go back again?
irrefutable evidence? did you see it? except for NASA's pictures - and they conveniently lost the original tapes, because they misplaced it. if there is any other evidence, i would like to see it.
getting a moon rock is possible even without manned machines.
---
remember that we don't say that you cannot go to the moon; we just question whether it is true. instead of dismissing this as a conspiracy theory, why don't you keep your mind open and evaluate those objections?
