khayru'l quruni qarni

gg keeps going on that alamgiri calls them bid'ati because they consider sayyidina ali to be more suitable for khilafah. i actually don't think the alamgiri quote is about khilafah at all. gg, please show me where the alamgiri quote is about khilafah specifically and i will not post anymore in this thread.

just to save you scrolling up, the alamgiri quote:

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

---
btw gg, it seems earlier today, you also believed the fatwa of bid'ah was to do with tafzil proper and not to do with khilafat, you wrote:

so look, if the same passage of jurists can be set aside for takfir then why not for bida'?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I have said all I had to say and replied to all your questions from, both, counter argument and argument. you have not replied to many of my crucial questions; which i understand because there is no reply. the fatwa on loving the shaykhayn and considering Imam Ali afzal issued by hz shah abdul aziz dehlavi is that such a person is also sunni not RAFIZI. as for the red herring, well, it is about rafizis; the basis of whose aqida is the rejection of khilafat. it is their foundation to consider afzaliyyat as a condition for being a khalifah. so the only reason they consider afzaliyyat is to deny the khilafat claim. shah abdul aziz sahib's reading of it is clear from the immediate commnets prior to the quote. if i ask a question then you must answer too. but all that has happened is I have been answering and you have been evading. therefore, i think, it is pointless for me to continue. I respect you and hold no feelings of antagonism against you.

I am not prepared to call our aslaaf as bidatis. I can sacrifice all of the latter day saints on just one Imam of ahl al-bayt. as for ijma this and ijma that I could actually show you from Imam mohammed ibn ismael al-san'ani that ahl al-bayt had ijma that imam ali is afzal!
i know it is difficult to break the mind forged manacles.
 
If there is ijma on afzaliat of Imam Ali amongst the Imams of Ahl al Bayt why does Mufakkir e Islam differ with them then by telling people he is against them?
 
Thank you for the translation NJ.

Hazrat Shah Abdul Aziz Saheb was a mujaddid of his time.

It may seem like an apparent contradiction but it can be can perfectly reconciled. I think you have misunderstood Aqdas and there is no contradiction in Shah Abdul Aziz or the fuqaha (and other groups for that matter).

The tafzil that has been called bida refers to those that hold Hazrat Mola Ali as afzal but do not hold Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddique and Hazrat Umar Farooque in high regard. These people are bidatis.

It's impossible that the salaf who held the superiority of Hazrat Mola Ali over other Sahaba would be called bidati by the mujaddid.

It's confirmed in Shah Abdul Aziz when he makes the distinction of those holding Hazrat Mola Ali as afzal but also holding Shaikain in high regard are SUNNI (not bidati), and those that do not hold them in high regard are NOT SUNNI (but bidati).

2 types of tafzil, and once this is grasped perhaps the argument is settled, and over.
 
It's impossible that the salaf who held the superiority of Hazrat Mola Ali over other Sahaba would be called bidati by the mujaddid.
Click to expand...
was mujaddid alfi thani not a mujaddid? he called those people jahil who deny the superiority of siddiq e akbar radiyAllahu ta'ala anhu. did he not know what some 'mufakkir' of the 21st century claims to?

The tafzil that has been called bida refers to those that hold Hazrat Mola Ali as afzal but do not hold Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddique and Hazrat Umar Farooque in high regard. These people are bidatis.
Click to expand...
you people are making ta'wil of the alamgiri quote when it is clear. aF, you are wrong above because alamgiri clearly says even if they don't abuse shaykhayn, they are still bid'ati for giving sayyidina ali radiyAllahu ta'ala anhu superiority.

gg, i am not going to discuss the difference between the fuqaha and mutakallimin, that is not the topic. i am just asking about the alamgiri quote and where does it specify khilafat? if it doesn't, then why are you twisting it when it is clear?

---
i am going to leave it with the learned brothers now as i am not qualified to answer ALL your questions. i was only pointing out the alamgiri quote, which, if you are fair, calls tafzilis bid'atis.
 
Last edited:
al-Amir as-San'ani was obviously influenced by the Zaydis of Yemen, and there idea of 'Ijma' of Ahl al-Bayt'. In fact, the Zaydis claim ijma' of Ahl al-Bayt in some instances when it is narrated in their own books that Imam al-Baqir or Imam as-Sadiq contradicted it.
 
Hazrat Shah abdul aziz dehlavi explicitly says:

This is just like the Sunnis say that the Two Shaykhs have superiority over Hazrat Ali in these matters--as discussed above--but they are passionate in the love and obedience
of Hazrat Ali and are firm in following his words and action.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. The imamate of this type of Tafzili is permissible and some scholars and Sufis
of the Ahlus Sunnah were also of this persuasion. For example, the muhaddith Abd al Razzaq and Salman Farsi and Hassan ibn Thabit and some other Companions were
also of this view.
Click to expand...
 
was mujaddid alfi thani not a mujaddid? he called those people jahil who
deny the superiority of siddiq e akbar radiyAllahu ta'ala anhu. did he not know
what some 'mufakkir' of the 21st century claims to?
Click to expand...


the mujaddid also said that shaytan can come in our dreams pretedning to be the Huzur Paak(s). is the mujaddid correct here?
 
poor hasanayn shah lamented this in his video.

---
just pick and choose (but ONLY according to pir abdu'l qadir's sahib's choice. otherwise you are a hypocrite.)
 
abu Hasan said:
according to your methodology, why should we take shah abdu'l aziz sahib's opinion?
Click to expand...


sidi abu hasan,

exactly. that is the point. there is sufficient difference of opinion. not just from hz shah abdul aziz sb but many other sunnis. the problem is that you do not acknowledge that there is and was a difference of opinion.

i am sure you will also disagree with alahzarat when he says that you can have 'dabwana, massaging your hands, your back, your lower legs from na-mehrum women as long as you are not alone with them or do not fear fitna from it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
you can cite as many scholars as you can for your position, and i will cite for my position that the shaykhayn are afDal (shah abdu'l aziz sahib is in our favor btw) and the bystanders can see who is a minority
Click to expand...

sidi abu hasan,

you have already admitted that there is a majority and a minority in this matter so what is the point for the discussion to continue?

secondly, I have, previously, provided you with what you asked, for example, remember this claim by you:

to reject a SaHiH hadith whose chain is rigorously authenticated, is kufr
Click to expand...

I gave you what you asked yet it has been weeks but no reply. it seems that you always demand, my dear brother, but nothing happens! apart from threats of banning.

just out of curiosity, can you please give the alahazrat and the mujaddid-e-alf-e-sani quote?
Click to expand...

OK, let me give you alahazrat first. then i will like your response. if you respond then i will give you the second because i am tired you asking and i'm giving and then nothing happens.

below, from fatawa ridawiyya, volume 22, page 237:
it says: "on the condition that a man is not alone and that it is not mahall e fitna then a man can have a non-mahrum woman massage his hands, his back and his lower leg (pindli)"

i think, shaking of hands with women can be arrived at from this!

http://www.alahazratnetwork.org/modules/booksofalahazrat/item.php?page=237&itemid=38
 
With all due respect Abu Hasan, is that a submission that you will not be responding to the three videos? That's what I was anticipating - a point by point rebuttal.

I'm a little unclear about your claim because surely the onus on you is to establish that the afzaliat of shaikain is qati (or first khalifas afzaliat is qati depending on your position - or that it's just Hazrat Abu Bakr) and that there is no difference of opinion on it.

This has yet to be done by anyone (from qati/ijma side) and this is what the whole discussion is about! No offence brother (the last sentence is a general statement).
 
SuleimanalMuslim said:
al-Amir as-San'ani was obviously influenced by the Zaydis of Yemen, and there idea of 'Ijma' of Ahl al-Bayt'. In fact, the Zaydis claim ijma' of Ahl al-Bayt in some instances when it is narrated in their own books that Imam al-Baqir or Imam as-Sadiq contradicted it.
Click to expand...

lets say, for the sake of the argument that it is the case as you say. still, dear brother, ijma' of ahl al-bayt does not mean, none at all. the least it can mean a large majority of ahl al-bayt considered Imam Ali(a) afzal. or does imam san'ani's use of ijma perhaps mean the opposite that there were none amongst ahl al-bayt who considered Imam Ali(a) afzal. would that be correct?
 
Dear brother Abu Hasan, considering I was placed in the dock and asked a straight forward direct question and also considering that I obliged, can I actually ask what your belief is on afzaliat?

Is the afzaliat of Hazrat Abu Bakr qati only, or is the afzaliat of the shaikhain qati, or is it of the first 3 khalifas, or is it of the first 4?

Of course the option of the 5 khalifas (including Imam Hasan) afzaliat being qati in that order might be a view too, or an entirely different order for that matter.

Apologies if I sound rude but that's not the intention and I don't mean to put you on the spot either (in the way that I was), it's just for clarification.
 
most responses were expected and some are still not there. khayr.

you have already admitted that there is a majority and a minority in this matter so what is the point for the discussion to continue?
Click to expand...
the problem is that many luminaries have an aberrant position or the other. one cannot follow only the aberrant positions citing 'difference' of opinion. i will post an illustration, inShaAllah.

but ponder about this methodology:

a) pir abdu'l qadir and his students dismiss saHiH hadith that does not suit their framework or understanding. even when there is a risk of (al-iyadhu billah) dismissing the Prophet's own words (sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam). "this is my framework, and i will reject even a saHiH hadith".

b) on the other hand, they take an aberrant position from some scholar and will stick adamantly to that as if the sanad for that position is more impeccable than imam bukhari's sanad!

this clearly indicates following one's own whims and not the truth.

I gave you what you asked yet it has been weeks but no reply. it seems that you always demand, my dear brother, but nothing happens! apart from threats of banning.
Click to expand...
not really. the threats of banning were for a different reason. and as soon as i find time, inShaAllah, i will comment on it.
OK, let me give you alahazrat first. then i will like your response. if you respond then i will give you the second because i am tired you asking and i'm giving and then nothing happens.
Click to expand...
yes, i agree. i would be frustrated if someone asks me for proof and then disappear without commenting or acknowledging it.

the reason i have not commented on your previously given quotations is because, i need to first investigate:

a) whether such a quote really exists?
b) whether the scholar held this as his final position or did he change it afterward?
c) has any other scholar commented on this topic and this scholar?
d) is the quote in context?
e) are there other quotes that contradict this one, etc.

and so forth. for example, i can rush to comment on your quotes from mustasfa - but one has to cross-check in other sources. this takes time.

With all due respect Abu Hasan, is that a submission that you will not be responding to the three videos? That's what I was anticipating - a point by point rebuttal.
Click to expand...
i have seen only the third part and i sense mistakes. i have browsed through his citations, but need time to analyse them and i am busy at the moment; therefore, i have not made a commitment. you are free to assume whatever you want.
This has yet to be done by anyone (from qati/ijma side) and this is what the whole discussion is about!
Click to expand...
it is not easy to refute the doubts people cast on ijma'a without discussing the ijma'a itself. otherwise, some people who are impressed by cockiness will think that the flamboyant speaker is right and the hesitant responder is wrong. as any student of usul knows, ijma'a is a big part of the subject. unless, i find a way to explain the issue convincingly to the uninitiated, i prefer to remain silent.

i don't think the discussion is only about this. pir abdu'l qadir sahib has started a trend of picking aberrations and inciting the awaam. moreover, he publicly disparages prominent ulama.

can I actually ask what your belief is on afzaliat?
Click to expand...
that which has been said by alahazrat and other imams. that the shaykhayn are afzal to mawla ali raDiyallahu `anhum ajma'in. that there is an ijma'a on the afzaliyat and that one who does the reverse is a tafzili. obviously, those who disparage the shaykhayn are the tabarrayi. imam taftazani - an undisputed master of the usulayn, whose talwiH is a formidable work - has said that there is an ijma'a on this issue. did he not understand the ijma'a when he quoted from the salaf? he says (paraphrased): 'we ought to have husn zann of our salaf and that they would not have said so, if they didn't have strong reasons'.

i proposed an exercise to gg and i am willing to set aside time for it, if necessary.

there are extreme reactions on either side, and i believe that the middle path is the safest. alahazrat has mentioned that it is khafif bida'ah (mild bid'ah) and i have also said this earlier.

Is the afzaliat of Hazrat Abu Bakr qati only, or is the afzaliat of the shaikhain qati, or is it of the first 3 khalifas, or is it of the first 4?
Click to expand...
qaTi'y has two meanings according to alahazrat and it is pointless hairsplitting in this age to rake up this issue.

Apologies if I sound rude but that's not the intention and I don't mean to put you on the spot either (in the way that I was), it's just for clarification.
Click to expand...
there is no need to apologize. what is good for should be good for me - otherwise, we are hypocrites. but, you misunderstood the 'docking' demand. "if you rake up an issue, you should state your stand".

wa billahi't tawfiq.
 
brother abu hasan,

that was also very much predictably expected. there is nothing of substance stated. all the questions asked have been, as usual, left to the 'future'. there are assertions and assumptions and evasions. sorry! but i would like to deal with evidence and proof rather than vague rhetorical labels.

I do not mean any disrespect.

the two questions which you may reply to if we wait long enough are:

1.
to reject a SaHiH hadith whose chain is rigorously authenticated, is kufr
Click to expand...

and what you asked again in this thread and i provided about following alahazrat's fatwa:
on the condition that a man is not alone and that it is not mahall e fitna then a man can have a non-mahrum woman massage his hands, his back and his lower leg (pindli)
Click to expand...


and since you have heard it and think there are mistakes in it and whats more it addresses directly and explicitly alahazrat's justifcation of ijma' in his celeberated work matla al-qamrayn and you say:

i have seen only the third part and i sense mistakes
Click to expand...

all other discussion will be pointless. if the questions are asked of imam e ahlesunnat then those questions should take priority! please respond in chronological order. point one then point two then point three. i think, only the first three points would be sufficient to end this whole issue, once and for all.
----
on a lighternote,

a guy becomes a muslim in Ramadan, not used to taravih prayers. however, he goes with other muslims to pray. on the first night imam saab recites surah baqara ( the cow). it took sooo long that then this new muslim missed a few taravihs on subsequent days. eventually, he goes back again. this time hears that imam saab is going to recite surah feel (the elephant)...he goes 'agar baqara itni lambi thi to feel kitna lamba hoga! andgoes home from the wuzu khana!
 
all the questions asked have been, as usual, left to the 'future'. there are assertions and assumptions and evasions. sorry! but i would like to deal with evidence and proof rather than vague rhetorical labels.
Click to expand...
as i have already said, i can understand your frustration.

wa billahi't tawfiq.
 
ghulam e Ghaus said:
lets say, for the sake of the argument that it is the case as you say. still, dear brother, ijma' of ahl al-bayt does not mean, none at all. the least it can mean a large majority of ahl al-bayt considered Imam Ali(a) afzal. or does imam san'ani's use of ijma perhaps mean the opposite that there were none amongst ahl al-bayt who considered Imam Ali(a) afzal. would that be correct?
Click to expand...

It is very possible that he was simply relaying the Zaydi position, without adequate Tahqiq. When the Zaydis talk about 'Ahl al-Bayt', and Ijma' -- despite their ostentuous prohibition of taqlid -- almost always tend to mean the muta'khirin descendants of Imam al-Qasim ar-Rassi, who inhabitted Yemen. Thus, they are termed haadawis.

was-salam
 
Back
Top