Pir Hasnain Shah lectures on Tafzil

muslim 1st Sunni 2nd said:
Herein lies the problem you guys love to degrade an individual choosing to ignore the argument. There are scholars that are verbally scolding others just because they are simply posing questions (with utmost respect and regarding Ala Hazrat as Mujaddid) to some of Ala Hazrat's research.

I'm sure Ala Hazrat if alive would have encouraged this and provided a detailed response, this kind of scholarship dialogue is what strengthens our religion but we're finding scholars trading insults.
Click to expand...
Your inference from what I wrote is staggering brother. You have done this time and time again (also ignoring what is being said).
 
Chishti raza bhai, I think muslim 1st Sunni 2nd has a valid point. since you have a problem then why not refute each point presented by the speaker. simple. for example, point one then point two then point three...in the order they are questioned etc.
 
ghulam e Ghaus said:
Chishti raza bhai, I think muslim 1st Sunni 2nd has a valid point. since you have a problem then why not refute each point presented by the speaker. simple. for example, point one then point two then point three...in the order they are questioned etc.
Click to expand...

Shah Jee why do you not put your research into writing?
 
a man goes to a kanjus person's house and asks for a cup of tea. the host replies, would you like it in a cup or a glass? he said in a cup...should the cup be small or big? small would do. should it be black or white? white is fine. should this white cup have flowers pictures or people pictures?...flowers pictures are fine...should it have roses or daffodils on it?.....
 
Sayyid Sahib is right. He has been man enough to place his views on video. There is no point in trying to divert the points made. Now those who disagree should counter his arguments either by writing or through a similar medium.
 
And neither should the counter using a pen name like some have been doing. Maybe when Mulla Sahib gets back from Makkah or wherever he is he can be notified to refute the points?
 
a man goes to a kanjus person's house and asks for a cup of tea.
Click to expand...
i would question the man's wisdom - going to a kanjus person's house to ask, when he can always go to villas of generous rich men.

why ask such questions and expect answers from students and beginners? why can't shah sahib just go to scholars and get their input? and if he disagrees with them, he could compile all these as a book.

----
should it have roses or daffodils on it?.....
Click to expand...
i wish* i could give you both roses and daffodils. rather, i was wondering about the tea: do you wish it to be strong or light? with milk or dark?

...with a little sugar, or bitter?




*because, unfortunately, i am a pauper. not just a kanjus person who has, but is not willing to give.
 
I have to agree with KattarSunni's post. Shah Sahib has made his own POV clear in the video and presented his arguments and, in my opinion, in a very rational and intelligent manner* and now it is upto those who disagree with his arguments to refute them point by point either in writing or by video or in any other medium.

* caveat emptor: the one thing I didn't like about the video was the singing 'Ya pound salam alayka!" I understand why he was emotional and the point he was trying to make but I think he could have done better without that. To his credit he did apologise in the video.
 
Muslim 1st Sunni 2nd I do not want to waste to much time with you Brother but why didn't Pir Abdul Qadir put the challenge in writing when he wrote his book? He is writing the second chapter so he can maybe put it in their. As for the reply to his book its written already Umda tu Tahqeeq which Pir Abdul Qadir need to reply to.

Why shall we put others to the side? Pir Auladdin attacked Pir Abdul Qadir so why did Nisar Baig challenge him? If he can do it their why not here? Is it because Pir Auladdin wasn't a debater and they know Shah Sahib is and they won't stand a chance with them? Also when has Pir Abdul Qadir or Molvi Zahid said something to Shah Sahib's face? They sit in their own homes and throw stones from their.
 
in a very rational and intelligent manner*
Click to expand...
as you see it... and not necessarily true.

by point either in writing or by video or in any other medium.
Click to expand...
eventually, it will be done by someone. i insist on written statements because, it is a chore to listen to speeches and to rewind a few times until one is sure about what the speaker has said. this is why i suggested that he list them down in one or two pages. indeed, it is also fine, if he can just release a transcript of that talk.

some people prefer reading to listening.
 
Sidi ah
i see your point of view too but multimedia has a much wider audience than the written word especially even people as a rule don't read much. Reading is awesome.

I think the main point was to counter the arguments by whoever as opposed to making other remarks of a ad hominem nature or diversionary tactics. (not by you i hasten to add)
 
I've just finished listening to part 3. Whatever position you might take on this he has to be applauded for two reasons. The three lectures contain a vast amount of research leaving the ijma camp with even more questions to answer. 2. It was delivered in a very respectable manner.

I hear your point about ya pound salam alaika but the point is actually bang-on in terms of how people champion the name of ala hazrat when it suits them. And chishti-raza and others this is where you are absolutely wrong (when you say it's no big deal when it's about fiqh) because Ala Hazrat says these people are fasiqs and you cannot pray behind many of the fikr-e-raza ulama. Ala hazrat also says you must avoid the company of the fasiqs yet many people on here praise those with black dye on their beards and those with chains (including Irfan shah and other jalalis). Not to mention all those who have photos taken and have been video filmed.

Video looks to be the more popular mode of output. Whether it's video, audio or written it's the content that matters. abu hasan, perhaps you could make a youtube video in response?

He has raised on a number of questions and everyone has the right to respond, and I think they should for those interesting in learning.

We have certain people on here who are extreme barelvi to the core (even if hypocritically) so instead of getting worked up it might be a good idea to listen with an open mind to part III.
 
The concept of i'jma is confused by Sayyid Abdul Qadir Sahib and others. The questions relating to i'jma have still yet to be answered. First Pir Sahib was of the position of jamhur and i'jma dhanni and then later the goal posts were changed. All that was done in a period of 2 to 3 years.
 
The third part raises interesting questions (of course with greatest adab to Ala Hazrat) because this book is the main one quoted by the ijma camp to say there is definitely ijma on it because Ala Hazrat proved it (although I was surprised when I read Hafiz Aslam's book that he did not mention it-probably because he didn't know about it).

There were people on this forum who said Matla ul Qamarain is being released very soon and it will finish off the party who says no ijma.

This is why I think part 3 of the videos is significant and someone should definitely respond to it. I think Abu Hasan or one of the pakistani shamis (who have been very vocal on the issue) should give answers to the questions. This is because the main foundations of the book and its evidences have been doubted (as far as the video is concerned) which has repercussions on the whole debate of tafzeel.

Since Jilani Shah Saheb's book and other developments in recent months (including these videos) I have already seen a big shift in the way people are discussing the issue. The Ijma camp was adamant there was ijma and it is qati and now I can sense a relaxation/concession with questions about jamhoor and zann!

This means I was right all those months ago when I said the the answer is not so clear cut so people like Muhammad Ali should put a sock on it before slandering people, and to wait and see how it develops.
 
Abu Fadl said:
And chishti-raza and others this is where you are absolutely wrong (when you say it's no big deal when it's about fiqh)
Click to expand...
I know that it is useless engaging with Abu Fadl but please aF don't manipulate my posts (though I know that this is in your nature). I believe that I was lucid enough in writing that there is a difference between an issue of Aqa'id AND one of Fiqh [which was a response to m1s2].
 
Chishti Saheb, the key thing is that they are fasiqs, cannot be prayed behind, and their company should be avoided according to Ala Hazrat. Truth can be sour, I know. That's why none of you bat an eyelid.
 
SuleimanalMuslim said:
What is 'an extreme barelvi to the core', Abu Fadl?
Click to expand...

That last video (part 3) has highlighted a stinking hypocrisy and I find it very disturbing (I'm not referring to the few rigid Ulama in India who don't get pictures taken, appear on video, dye beard black, chained watches etc. They are at least consistent).

Look what has been revealed in this video: Allamah Sharafat Nushahi (relative of Pir Maroof Nushahi), the well-known Nushahi writer admired by Nushahis and others in the UK, writes that Mola Ali is afzal/superior to Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddique and Hazrat Umar Farooque.

The book is distributed from Bradford, signed by Pir Maroof Nushahi Saheb. Pir Nushahi Saheb is the patron of Irfan Mashaddi Saheb and Ansarul Qadri etc., yet no fiery speeches were made and no fatwas passed by anyone.

This book was written way before Jilani Shah Saheb's book and furthermore, crucially, Zubda-ut-Tahqeeq does not in any place say Moula Ali is afzal but simply discusses whether afzaliat is qati or not, yet you have all the fiery speeches and name-calling from the very same camp!

If this is not hypocrisy then what is? This is where I think ya pound salam alaika is the only way to describe it because in the former case it's about the UK visa and other financial benefits.

Wait! It gets worse yet. the same molanas (Irfan Saheb and Ansar Saheb) not only turn a blind eye to Ala Hazrat's fatwa this time but actually totally contradict Ala Hazrat when it comes to their patron. Both of these scholars argue that Pir Nushahi Saheb is a syed even though he is not from the children of lady Fatima, when Ala Hazrat has clearly stated that syeds are only from the children of Fatima, Hasan & Hussain.

Why this double-standard and hypocrisy? They simply use Ala Hazrat's name for either money or politics and the proof of that is they way they selectively use his name to hate on people for political/financial benefit.

Sorry if I got a bit emotional but I'm sure all people looking straight at this can see the cause of frustration. It's a valid question that needs to be asked.
 
^Assuming there's truth in your post (I don't know, I don't live in the UK) how exactly does the above diatribe give an answer to brother Suleiman's question of "What is 'an extreme barelvi to the core'"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top