khayru'l quruni qarni

Brother Naqshbandijamati sahib, thank you for that professional translation and I hope that everyone has read it and now the mystery about Hazrat Shah abdul aziz's fatwa in english is over and I am sure your translation will now do the rounds on the internet forums whenever there is a discussion on tafzil.
notice, the things shah abdul aziz sahib singles out in which the shaykhayn or Imam Ali are afzal. during the zahiri life time of the Prophet(s) and after.
 
from p.411 of fatawa azizi

Question: What should we say about the Imamiya sect according to their modern day beliefs? Should we say salam to them or not?


Answer: The Imamiya sect without doubt denies the khilafa of Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq radiyAllahu ta’ala 'anhu and it is mentioned in the books of fiqh that whoever denies the khilafa of Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq, he is a denier of Ijma’a Qat’yi and thus a Kafir. Hence, it is in Fatawa Alamgiri:
Translation: The Rafidi who speaks ill of Shaykhayn and sends damnation upon them, we seek Allah’s refuge from this, he is a Kafir; and if he doesn’t speak ill of them but believes that Hazrat Ali has superiority over Hazrat Abu Bakr, then he is not a Kafir but is an innovator [bid’ati] and if he accuses Hazrat Aisha radiyAllahu 'anha, then he is a Kafir.​
Click to expand...
​
​
 
Last edited:
Oh I've been put in the dock so I guess I have to answer before I'm banned.

I'm not a scholar so there is not much point in asking for my view but thank you anyway for valuing my opinion.

My view is:

Hazrat Abu Bakr is Afzal among the sahaba.

Happy? I've said it many times before so I'm not sure why AH, AQ and other zealots are on my back.
 
But [caveat] whether this is qati or not, is a different matter. Considering I'm in the dock I'd say the jury is out on this one. I have been keenly watching both sides since the debate started.

What I would say is that in the last few months, well since Jilani Shah Saheb's book and after watching the three videos of Hasnain Raza Shah I would say the stronger view seems that it is not qati and there is not much basis to say that on--unless, there is a robust rebuttal to all the points raised, and questions asked.
 
Dear brother aqdas sb, [though it irrelevant] the very passage from aalamgiri which declares rawafiz kafir for the denial of the khilafat of shaykhayn karimain and disparaging them and many other similar references were also quoted prior to his own opinion by hazrat alahazrat in his booklet on radd of rafizis: here: http://www.alahazratnetwork.org/modules/booksofalahazrat/item.php?page=11&itemid=128
والاحوط فيه قول المتكلمين انهم ضلال من كلاب النار لا كفار و به ناخذ

his final verdict on those who deny khilafat of the two and curse them are not kafirs.
" the correct opinion is that of the dialectical theologians that such people are misguided and will go to hell but are not kafirs. this is what i believe and agree with"

so look, if the same passage of jurists can be set aside for takfir then why not for bida'? countless, muftis issued fatwas that tabarra of the two shaykhayn and denial of their khilafat is kufr yet hazrat alahazrat says No they are not kafir on the basis of tabarra and denial of khilafat yet what about those fuqaha who did consider them kafir for denial of khilafat and tabarra?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i know that, dear tafzili gg [about the difference between fuqaha and mutakallimin].

my point was that on p.411, shah abdul aziz quotes alamgiri's fatwa of bid'ah for tafzilis [and note: has no problems with it] and then two pages later, we have the fatwa [as nj translated].

two different opinions in just three pages? just wondering if the fatwa translated by nj needs to be explained by someone as the one i've translated above is clear in calling tafzilis bid'ati and is of course in line with all the other fatawa of imams of ahlu's sunnah...
 
Last edited:
I think Aqdas that the first words of the p.411 fatwa explain the apparent contradiction.. "The Rafidi..."

The question is also about someone who is already in "the Imamiya" (i.e. Shia sect).
So, my understanding of these two fatwas combined is that the one on page 411 is about people who are definitely Shia whereas the one I translated is about Sunnis who do tafzil of Hazrat Ali. And the latter part of the page 412/3 fatwa also makes sense as there Shah Sahib writes that those who do not respect the Shaykhayn are the second type of tafzili .i.e. the innovator type.
 
aqdas, the following is pretty straightforward too and imo doesn't need "explaining" by a scholar:
This type of Tafzili is included in the Ahlus Sunnah w'al Jama'ah although they have erred in the matter of tafzil
and this error of theirs is like the difference between the Asharis and the Maturidis.
Click to expand...
 
btw I believe Hazrat Abu Bakr is afzal but it seems both from hazrat e dihlavi's fatwa and the numerous sunni references in hasnain raza shah sahib's videos that this point was at least disputed amongst scholars.
 
brother aqdas sb,

that reference from hazrat alahazrat was just to demonstrate that he did not agree with its verdict of kufr for a person cursing shaykhayn and denying their khilafah whilst alamgiri clearly does takfir on those points. who is right alahazrat or fatwa alamgiri?

secondly, the reading shah abdul aziz dehlavi is that alamgiri's statement is within afzaliyya in khilafat only. hence you yourself translate what he said preceding the quote from alamgiri:

Answer: The Imamiya sect without doubt denies the khilafa of Hazrat Abu Bakr
Siddiq radiyAllahu ta’ala 'anhu and it is mentioned in the books of fiqh that
whoever denies the khilafa of Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq, he is a denier of Ijma’a
Qat’yi and thus a Kafir. Hence, it is in Fatawa Alamgiri:
Click to expand...


so here we have denial of khilafah of the two shaykhayn karimayn and as pointed out by NJ that it is for Rafidis. the premise on which it is based that rafidis. naturally, if the rafidi does not speak ill but consider Imam Ali more suitable and afdal for kihilafah. hence the hukm as hz shah abdul aziz made it clear in comments prior to the statement by alamgiri as follows:
Translation: The Rafidi who speaks ill of Shaykhayn and sends damnation upon them, we seek Allah’s refuge from this, he is a Kafir; and if he doesn’t speak ill of them but believes that Hazrat Ali has superiority over Hazrat Abu Bakr, then he is not a Kafir but is an innovator [bid’ati] and if he accuses Hazrat Aisha radiyAllahu 'anha, then he is a Kafir
Click to expand...
as for his clear cut two fatwas as translated by NJ, then it is clear that to consider Imam Ali afdal yet love the shaykhayn karimayn as done by hz salman al-farsi, for example, then such a person is sunni and their difference with others is like Ashaira & Matutridis.

if you say it is bidat then it can't be bidat today only but those that held such an opinion amongst the sahaba, tabieen, etc would also be bidatis. do you think that Imam Zayd al-Shaheed was bidati? or seyyeda ayesha siddiqa (s)?

you may continue this discussion because i think, it is going to turn into an something i wouldnt like to be part of.
​
 
if he doesn’t speak ill of them but believes that Hazrat Ali has superiority over Hazrat Abu Bakr, then he is not a Kafir but is an innovator [bid’ati]
Click to expand...
why is he an innovator?
 
well, that is the reading of hazrat shah abdul aziz dehlavi because he separates those who hold Imam Ali afzal but love shaykhayn are sunnis and their diffrence is like that asharis and maturidis. and those who are 'rafidis' and hold him afdal. it is quite clear that rafidis unanimously consider that Imam Ali was more suitable for khilafat because he was afzal. this the conerstone of their belief tha an afzal must be khalifah. whereas ahlesunnat do not have afzaliyyat as a condition for khilafah.

therefore, shah abdul aziz dehlavi says about rafidis that they cast doubt over khilafat
Hence, it is in Fatawa Alamgiri
Click to expand...


also it is quite starnge that the very word Rafidi has its origins with Imam Zayd al-Shaheed(a). and he called them rafizi for disparaging shaykhayn but in the same instance he said that Ali is afzal but I love shaykhayn.
 
because tafdil alone is not kufr, just bid'ah.
Click to expand...

no brother, the question was why did alahazrat not follow alamgiri in the kufr of those who curse shaykhayn and deny their khilafat.

you see there two elements to that fatwa. kufr and bidat. yet you accpet one but reject the other!
 
Greater harm is done to religion by an immethodical helper than by an enemy whose actions, however hostile, are yet regular. For, as the proverb goes, a wise enemy is better than an ignorant friend
Click to expand...

brother abdalqadir, I absolutely agree!
 
rafidi and khariji situations are analogous. rafizis consider imam ali afzal and deny the khilafah of shaykhayn wheras khawarij are admant that shaykhayn are afzal but deny the khilafat and iman of imam ali.





* khuda hafiz for now. kal milayn ge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top