[objective-enquirer]

the BIG question: why is it that in four sunni schools of jurisprudence there is an ABSOLUTE silence on lashing 80 lashes for tafdhil? why has been totally ignored in ALL the principle books of fatwa? why has been ignored from the chapters of hudud?

this alone makes it unreliable otherwise it would have been part of Islamic Law.

[sunni-star]

salaam brother,

be realistic, telling them to come to sunni confrence is just causing fitnah,

even a set-up munazrah will acheive nothing.

you seem to have a more personell grudge than others?

[hafiz-qadri]

Quote

sunni star (01.08.2010)

---

salaam brother,

be realistic, telling them to come to sunni confrence is just causing fitnah,

even a set-up munazrah will acheive nothing.

you seem to have a more personell grudge than others?

Aslaamualikum

I can assure you I have no personel Grudge against anyone but i do dislike those Groups whom through Ignorancy turn Deaf and Dumb when reality Hits them.Just look at the Fabulous piece of work OE presented them with,they are still working overtime just to Refute it,this you can refer to as a Personal Grudge.By inviting Trashtalk.com for a debate will actually stop their hatred towards Pure and Proper Sunnis

[objective-enquirer]

in response to the inheritors of the syrian pulpit, I will follow the wise maxim: jawaab e jahilaan khamoshi. the response to the ignorants is silence.

day by day, i am not only convinced that they are liars and fraudsters, for example, deliberate fraud in sticking names of one person onto the other, hacking the quotes to suit their agenda etc, and I am also convinced that  they are a bunch of juhala with total lack of comprehension about what they quote and its implications.

for example, a brother says that Darqutni reports 80 lashes in his book 'al-mu'talif wa al-mukhtalif'...hence he argues it is not in sunan darqutni but it is in his other book al-mutalif wa al-mukhtalif. 

let me educate you a little more as you are already using my vocabulary in your posts, perhaps, it's a subconcious admission!

three books of darqutni that have been mentioned: 

1. sunan darqutni

2. illal darqutni

3.al-mutalif wa al-mukhtalif

the first one is a hadith book, which was written for that purpose alone and contains ahadith and aathaar. the book's purpose is hadith. thats it.

the second book is about weak and fabricated reports as you yourself admit.

the third book is about the correct pronunciation of names of reporters, where there is some confusion in names, to put it simply. this is the only purpose of this book and is not a hadith reference book but rather has a totally different genre' just like illal has a different genre'  and ulama only refer to it for such clarifications alone.

so once again, these are not small matters but big matters in science of hadith and advancement of a sound argument. imam suyuti in his tadrib, for example, clearly explains this genre' and whats more cites this very book as an example!!

the report is cited under hakam bin hajal (about whom ibn hibban in thiqat and ibn abi hatim deny that he heard from Imam Ali...but we leave that as it would be too much for you to understand)

now, hajal in many books is written in different ways, some thought it is jahl jeem-ha-laam, others thought it is ha-jeem-laam, and some though it is hajl, without fatha on jeem.

darqutni's method in that book is not under the chapters of hadith or fiqh like he does in his hadith book sunan but here he indexes them by a single name which have same writing style but different pronunciation.

under hajal, he merely quotes what is claimed about him and where the name occurs in his knowledge and suggests whats correct name. since hakam bin hajal is mentioned in this weak/fabricated report, which he himself questions in Illal!!, darqutni mentions the chain which reached him. thats all. it is about clarification of the pronounciation and where the repoters occurs. thats all. its not a book of hadith as such.

in the same book, you will find darqutni gives chains from himself to known fabricators and there are many such examples. for example, maqatil bin sulaymaan, the the fabricator by agreement of all. just check his tafsir, he has variant readings of Quran paak!!!

now, since darqutni mentions a hadith in there from him in the chains so by following your jahili method, we will end up vouching for this known kazzaab.

just maulana irfan shah sahib on ummah tv, saying that this report is correct because imam ahmed bin hanabl mentions it in fadhail as-sahaba and ibn asakir mentions it in his tarikh as well as al-mutalif wa almukhtalif. the last one i have explained. if that is the case then in the very same books we have two reports in imam hambal's fadhail and 13 reports in ibn asakir which say that ali'un khair al-bashar that Ali is the most afdhal. now, according irfan shah sahib's method, we from the same books have Imam Ali is afdhal. now what? links are provided in the main refutation above on page 2.




BUT I am now saying for argument's sake that this report is SAHIH. and this the main point and not the reports.

now, answer the following question, which ALL of you guys have been avoiding from the word go. not a single person out of five that are arguing with one of me have answered this and you will never answer it either.

the big QUESTION once again:

this is for all serious intelligent neutral readers.and notice that niether in our brothers writing nor in their lectures this question in answered.

the text alleged to be from Imam Ali clearly states: whoever holds me afdhal to shaykhain then I will punish them with the hadd/divine ordinance of a muftari/slanderer.

Hadd is that which is prescribed by Allah(swt) and His Noble Messenger(s) alone. there are four hudud in number only. for zina, for theft/highway robbery, for drinking and for false accusation of zina.

these are clearly stated in our four schools of jurisprudence. all belong to actions and there are no hudud for aqeeda and other corporal punishments, for example, tazir is NOT hadd!

 

80 lashes are given to an accuser of zina and for a drinker of khamr alone. both are hudud.

 

Imam Ali says that I will give who holds me afdhal hadd of muftari (which is 80 lashes).

 

now, this text does not say that it is a sin only because if Imam Ali said that we would agree with our brothers, even if it was a weak report. BUT the question here is that the alleged text from Imam ALI promises a corporal punishment of hadd of 80 lashes. this changes the whole scenario. this makes it a very serious matter implemented in this world with 80 lashes of punishment.

the text has two things:

1. it considers such an aqeeda to be a HADD.

2. it legislates 80 lashes of punishment for such a hadd.

so clearly the matter pertains to ISLAMIC LAW.

now, my question: why is it that it is NOT considered a HADD by all four schools of jurisprudence. why do we not find it in any notable books of fiqh of all jurisprudential schools even wahabi literalist zahiri school?

why why why do we have an absolute silence on the matter in Islamic Law whilst the text clearly and distinctly considers it a hadd and 80 lashes???

this is the question. if you can show me from fiqh that it is a punishable offence by 80 lashes of HADD then I openly say here that I will admit it here at yanabi that your argument is the correct one. just answer this, forget all the chains discussion. this alone is what makes it a fabricated report because it goes against the known hadd principles from Quran and Sunnah!!

Imam ALi is the most knowledgeable after the noble Prophet(s) yet we find this coming from him. this doubts Imam Ali's knowledge of shariah. if it does not then why do the fuqaha not listen to him? and include tafzil as a hadd punishment? NO ONE EXCEPT ALLAH and HIS MESSENGER HAS A RIGHT TO PRESCRIBE A HADD. WHERe have They prescribed tafzil as a HADD?

whereas we know that in sunnah there is clearly stated and agreed upon by everyone that there is hadd for drinking and in hanafi texts we clearly find that for legislation of hadd explicitly they follow the Prophet(s) and for number of lashes they follow the opinion of Imam ALi.

so why not do they follow Imam ALi in this hadd of 80 lashes because it is a punishment of 80 hadd lashes as the text says. if it was a genuine report, my brothers, you will find all Islamic Law would follow Imam ALi's opinion and give 80 lashes of hadd for tafzil in Islamic Law.

neither the Quran say its a HADD nor the Prophet(s) says it is a HADD. only Imam ALi is alleged to have said it is a HADD. so why do the ISLAMIC LAW literature does not consider it a HADD. who is right? Imam ALi or Ijma of fuqha on its silence? one way of answering it that ALL jurists of four schools got it wrong and we should now consider this as HADD. if thats the case then what does that say about fuqaha? if that is not the case then what does it say about Imam ALi? only if Imam Ali did not allegedly say 80 lashes, we would agree with you but this is a matter of jurisprudence and not just hadith fadhail reports that we accept them blindly.

this is the question that you MUST address instead of beating around the bush.

 

 

 

[Qadri-Jilani]

Absolutely OE. The whole basis is flawed. Simple question, why did no faqih take this narration and mention it in the books of fiqh. It's non existent. No chapter of hadd mentions it. It clearly tells you what the views of fuqaha were on the nature of this narration. It has no standing. The very fact that Daraqutni does NOT mention it in his sunan but mentions it in his collection of the weak/fabricated narrations that he has separated should be sufficient for anyone. Similarly, al-mu'talif is not his sunan but concerns pronunciations etc. and also includes fabrications (as the subject again is not authentic narrations). I was talking to a very reputable scholar who has profound knowledge in Hadith and their weakness and he said that this narration cannot even be used in matters of fiqh, never mind in 'aqidah! 
Yet I have clearly heard one Moulana Shah Sahib say a number of times on TV that this is the basis for which we say the issue is qat'i (with a loud sounding 'ayn) because Sayyiduna Ali declaring it be a hadd punishment proves that Sayyiduna Abu Bakr's afdaliyya is definite and absolute.
If this is the case then why can't this Moulana Shah Sahib simply answer the question we have been asking all along: if it's a hadd punishment then why is it not mentioned in the books of law as a hadd punishment? Very simple but I do sense there will be continued silence on this question.

[servant-of-the-servants]

Assalam Alaykum

One of the brothers from Birmingham, who is well known and regarded very highly there (pm me if QJ or OE wants his name) said that:

Imam Bayhaqi in his book i'teqaad narrates from Imam Shafi (he also says with a full sahih sanaad) that Imam Shafi said none of the Sahaba or the Tabi'een radi Allahu unhum a'jma'een have had any difference with regards to Abu Bakr As-Siddiq and Umar Al-Farooq being the most foremost and the greatest of the companions

then from this as usual, they derive their famous formula of being a Sunni, that the ijma of Abu Bakr As-Siddiq being afdal is qati and if you dont believe this, then your not part of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah

I have a question for the brothers who are students of the ulama, if the ijma of Abu Bakr As-Siddiq is qati as some people say, then if someone denies this, do the ulama regard that person as disbeliever...?

If yes, so that means INDIRECTLY those guys who say the i'jma is qati are also saying one who doesnt believe in it is a disbeliver...? please clarify this

also what is the reasoning that the ulama give as to why someone who denies ijma (qati) is a disbeliever...?

The last point for the brothers please is that, when the Ansar and Muhajiroon had a disagreement as to who should be the rightful leader of the muslims, the main argument the Muhajiroon put forward was that the khalifah should be from the Quraish, here nasb was given preference to amal yes...? if NO then i dont have a question however if YES then the Panj Tan Pak's alayhi mu-salaam nasb is greater then all the Sahaba

So would it be correct to say that the whole event of the first khilafah was not based on who was afdal but rather on being part of the Quraish...?

If yes, then how have some ulama derived, that being khalifah means being afdal..? because when this event occurred from my understanding there was no mention of who was afdal, rather who was from the Quraishi lineage

If my understanding or facts are wrong please clarify this for me

thankyou jazak Allah khaira

 

 

 

[objective-enquirer]

all your new so called research is flawed on many levels. for example, just think, who was abu ubaida?....he was a total unknown of adala! he is the one that reports from hakam bin hajal. and also hakam bin hajal, who is not the main point but just to make a point. there are many people that he reports from and he reports from many yet darqutni singles only one suspected route, exactly as he cites under that in al-mu'talif.

you are now, talking of irsal, which is progress, and you should thank me for opening your eyes. it is amazing how irfan shah sahib says that tehzib al-kamal says that he reports from Imam ali yet in tehzib al-kamal it does not say he directly report from Imam Ali. ibn hibban says he was atba tabi, so if he saw or heard from Imam Ali then he would have been a tabi' and also ibn abi hatim also does not consider him from a tabi' either. darqutni is not saying he is a tabi' but saying that he reports from ali and his son reports from him and then goes and gives that particular chain in which he has heard about him thats all. but these are things which do not come with hatred and slander but you have to be sincere.

I have nothing further to add or say to you twins because you do not comprehend at all and i will not bring myself to your 3rd class level of morality and ethics. finally, below is what i said yesterday and this the QUESTION all you guys avoid.

even if this athar of Imam Ali is accepted as having an absolutely sahih sanad, which is more than you claim. so now, there is no longer talk of chains. Now, you must answer the follwoing question, which NONE of you answer. my challenge is there from day one. prove me wrong now, I am saying it you, I have made it easier for you now. it is on the basis of the following that i consider this report a fabrication. Ya Imam Ali Bin Musa al-Raza(a).

Quote

objective enquirer (04.08.2010)

---

BUT I am now saying for argument's sake that this report is SAHIH. and this the main point and not the reports.

now, answer the following question, which ALL of you guys have been avoiding from the word go. not a single person out of five that are arguing with one of me have answered this and you will never answer it either.

the big QUESTION once again:

this is for all serious intelligent neutral readers.and notice that niether in our brothers writing nor in their lectures this question in answered.

the text alleged to be from Imam Ali clearly states: whoever holds me afdhal to shaykhain then I will punish them with the hadd/divine ordinance of a muftari/slanderer.

Hadd is that which is prescribed by Allah(swt) and His Noble Messenger(s) alone. there are four hudud in number only. for zina, for theft/highway robbery, for drinking and for false accusation of zina.

these are clearly stated in our four schools of jurisprudence. all belong to actions and there are no hudud for aqeeda and other corporal punishments, for example, tazir is NOT hadd!

 

80 lashes are given to an accuser of zina and for a drinker of khamr alone. both are hudud.

 

Imam Ali says that I will give who holds me afdhal hadd of muftari (which is 80 lashes).

 

now, this text does not say that it is a sin only because if Imam Ali said that we would agree with our brothers, even if it was a weak report. BUT the question here is that the alleged text from Imam ALI promises a corporal punishment of hadd of 80 lashes. this changes the whole scenario. this makes it a very serious matter implemented in this world with 80 lashes of punishment.

the text has two things:

1. it considers such an aqeeda to be a HADD.

2. it legislates 80 lashes of punishment for such a hadd.

so clearly the matter pertains to ISLAMIC LAW.

now, my question: why is it that it is NOT considered a HADD by all four schools of jurisprudence. why do we not find it in any notable books of fiqh of all jurisprudential schools even wahabi literalist zahiri school?

why why why do we have an absolute silence on the matter in Islamic Law whilst the text clearly and distinctly considers it a hadd and 80 lashes???

this is the question. if you can show me from fiqh that it is a punishable offence by 80 lashes of HADD then I openly say here that I will admit it here at yanabi that your argument is the correct one. just answer this, forget all the chains discussion. this alone is what makes it a fabricated report because it goes against the known hadd principles from Quran and Sunnah!!

Imam ALi is the most knowledgeable after the noble Prophet(s) yet we find this coming from him. this doubts Imam Ali's knowledge of shariah. if it does not then why do the fuqaha not listen to him? and include tafzil as a hadd punishment? NO ONE EXCEPT ALLAH and HIS MESSENGER HAS A RIGHT TO PRESCRIBE A HADD. WHERe have They prescribed tafzil as a HADD?

whereas we know that in sunnah there is clearly stated and agreed upon by everyone that there is hadd for drinking and in hanafi texts we clearly find that for legislation of hadd explicitly they follow the Prophet(s) and for number of lashes they follow the opinion of Imam ALi.

so why not do they follow Imam ALi in this hadd of 80 lashes because it is a punishment of 80 hadd lashes as the text says. if it was a genuine report, my brothers, you will find all Islamic Law would follow Imam ALi's opinion and give 80 lashes of hadd for tafzil in Islamic Law.

neither the Quran say its a HADD nor the Prophet(s) says it is a HADD. only Imam ALi is alleged to have said it is a HADD. so why do the ISLAMIC LAW literature does not consider it a HADD. who is right? Imam ALi or Ijma of fuqha on its silence? one way of answering it that ALL jurists of four schools got it wrong and we should now consider this as HADD. if thats the case then what does that say about fuqaha? if that is not the case then what does it say about Imam ALi? only if Imam Ali did not allegedly say 80 lashes, we would agree with you but this is a matter of jurisprudence and not just hadith fadhail reports that we accept them blindly.

this is the question that you MUST address instead of beating around the bush. 

[Qadri-Jilani]

I can tell you something else, they did not even know there was such a thing as ijma qat'i until we mentioned it. That's another thing they learnt from us.

Another thing I can tell you is that they do not know how Ijma qat'i is established either. Another thing I can tell you is that they do not know of the different types of ijma' either. Their knowledge of ijma' is bogus and superficial, whether it's someone they regard highly or not brother Talib ul Ilm. I can tell you this for certain because I know someone who has been speaking to those fools.

It's only until we will talk about it that they will learn these things. It's easy to act macho in front of your own crowd but for us it's quite simple to see their shallowness. Sometimes I think why do we even bother.

[objective-enquirer]

Quote

A messenger arrived from Khalid bin Walid to Sayyiduna Umar radiyAllahu anhu saying people are drinking wine and making light of the punishment, what do you see that should be done? Umar radiyAllah anhu said, They are there with you (ie in Syria and not in Madinah). Mawla Ali radiyAllahuanhu said: I sse it (his ijtihad) that when a man is drunk he speaks in vain, and when he speaks vaintalk he will do iftra. So i see he should be given the hadd of a muftari, that is eighty lashes.So they sent this verdict to Khalid radiyAllahu anhu and it was implented throughout the Muslim world.

The hadd for drinking was changed from 40 to 80 by the sahabah!!! So if they exerted their ijtihad on the lashes for a person drinking to be 80, both Sayyiduna Umar and Sayyiduna A'li agreed to lash the one who gives them superiority over Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (radiyAllahu anhum).

So what is the real reason for the mufaddila to deny this reality?

 

exactly! this is what you do not understand. the basis for HADD of drinking already existed. it is in sunnah that drinking has a HADD. Now, when Imam Ali was asked not that it is hadd but How many lashes? He argued as above and since then it has become part of an explanation of the quantity of hadd. the sahaba did not MAKE UP AN HADD. it was already considered a HADD by the shariah.

so if EVERYONE agreed with IMAM ALI in quantity of 80 lashes and we find that fuqaha fill their kitab al-hudud with it, the muhadithin fill their kitab al-hudud with this very 'exaplanation' of how many lashes then WHY do they NOT listen to IMAM ALI in the matter of tafzil and do likewise. they are already trusting his judgment.

the fact is that neither ALLAH nor His Beloved Prophet Prophet(s) legislated a HADD for tafzil. and NO ONE else has a right to legislate a HADD for tafzil. the 80 lashes narration not only says 80 lashes but legislates it as well.

in drinking, there is already ruling that it is a HADD and IMAM ali only advised the sahaba that it should be 80 lashes.

you see, this is why it is a fabrication. it first calls tafzil a HADD and then says it should be 80 lashes. the jurists know that Only Allah and His Prophet(s) legislate HUDUD.

fuqaha accept IMAM ali's opinion of 80 lashes for drinking because its an explanation of already considered hadd by the lawgiver.

the jurists knew that it is a bogus report because it is not about ordinary masail in which we can do ijtihad. HUDUD ALLAH are already established by the law giver. if Imam ALi said that I will punish him without considering it a hadd, we would still accept this weak report but it talks about HUDUD.

there are four hudud in number. detailed everywhere in all books. be it fiqh or hadith. you will not find tafzil amongst them. it is because HUDUD are not ordinary legislations or punishments. hence in light of hudud laws, this report is a fabrication and contrary to Islamic principles of hudud. more later but stay here now. the total absence from ISLAMIC LAW of the hadd of tafzil is sufficient for anyone to consider this a fabrication. moer later.

[hafiz-qadri]

Aslaamualikum

Brother OE they the trash.com know you have destroyed them but what beggars believe is the Lengths they are going to,just to justify a Fabrication.How about a question to Syed Irfan Shah and co,Lets say for the Argument sake the 80 Lashes Hadith is Pure and not Fabricated then what Hadd? would Hazarat Ali Sher E khuda have put on people like Syed Irfan Shah for comparing Abu Sufyan with Sarkar e do Alam (Sallalhualihiwasalam).

Kattarsunni Mullah Asrars brother has recently stated Trashtalk.com members are all very knowledgable and are students of Mullah Asrar,unlike Pir Syed Abdul Qadar Shah Sahib and Syed Zahid Hussain Shah Sahib their Audience are Taxi Drivers.My response to this Gibberish carry on following your Master (SHAYTAAN),remember he had tons of Knowledge and look what happened to him.Taxi Drivers are a hard working Group and possibly the Biggest Donators to Mosques and Islamic centres,I suppose you don't know about that because Living on Handouts all your lives has become a custom to Kattarsunni and his Bro

PS Kattarsunni and co,when are you going to accept the Challenge,Please Hurry Pure Sunnis are getting impatient with your Hide and Seek Formular.

[objective-enquirer]

Quote

Also if the hadd of slander could not be applied to matters of Aqeeda or any type of punishment could not be applied to matters of Aqeeda then why did Imam Subki order a Rafidhi to be killed who was insulting the Shaykhayn?

 

Quote

And where is the hadd ruling for killing the one who insults the Shaykhayn from?? But most likely you will reject this ruling because it does not go with your desires

 

the above clearly explains that you do not comprehend what a HADD is. the case of subki is not a hadd. and the ruling of killing someone for insulting shaykhain is not a hadd.

 

this is the problem with you guys. you present 80 lashes reports on the strength of it being in books and not on rijaal but i let that one go.

more seriously you do not know what is a hadd! so how can one argue with usool with someone who does not even understand the essence of the whole argument.

as for killing someone for insulting shaykhain the hazrat umar bin abdul aziz clearly said when he was told of people insulting shaykhain and said that killing is only for the one who insults the Noble Prophet(s) but this is not our subject here.

the question for you is: WHAT IS A HADD?

calrify this before we move on.

[Zarb-e-Ali]

The case is all clear. Irfan Shah and his students are exposed to core. The more the disagree the more they expose themselves. The reason to disagree now is only to save themselves and their master from ultimate humiliation. They won't ever agree to this fact because it will make Irfan shah look like a clown and will ruin his credibility at all levels. If he accepts his mistake, he will loose everything.




This matter is now a war for survival for the students of irfan shah (if any exist) - to save the dying reputation of their master.








Ali [a] is noor of Prophet [a] And the noor of Prophet [a] is most supreme! 

[hafiz-qadri]

Aslaamualikum

Final Conclusion of the 80 Lashes issue.

Pir Syed Zahid Hussain Shah Sahib openly challenged anyone to come forward and Refute his Tehkeek and that includes Mullah Assrar,Irfan Shah and Kattarsunni.Now none of these guys have accepted Qibla Shah Sahib's Challenge and the reason being is they have been caught out as Fabricators fraudsters and corrupt.One other point,stop doing merry go round atleast show some decency Mullah Assrar and answer OE questions because you know you have been Blasted.Simple either accept it (the challenge)or Shut It.

Kattarsunni/mulla assrar have you forgotten SBT was under investigation for Fraud and it was proven,would you want me to put the Newspaper Aritcle up.Please stop Robbing innocent people of their Money and Aqeeda shaarm Karo.

[objective-enquirer]

What is a HADD?

that is a simple question, which you avoid from day one then it turns out that the twins actually do not understand what a hadd is as pointed out above from their own writing. I know why you are avoiding it and you know why you are not replying to it. you may do all kinds of siffini-propaganda but the fact is that you have no answer.

talking of high moral standards, if you had a standard you would atleast admit that the brother who wrote that lashes article has deliberately lied and defrauded in the matter of Deen as pointed out earlier. but you treat it as a matter of biradari and we are not wrong and you are wrong, eventhough you know that he lied in the rijaal of that report.

as for you, If i want I can demonstrate the weakness and majaheel and other problems in those reports and what amazes me is the fact that you spend a considerable time on darqutni, for example and some other books, yet you do not know that it is the same report with mohammed bin talhah and abu ubaida. even just abu ubaida is enough to make this report untrustworthy. with that sanad you can take out six books that you quote. and there is more for other reports. even you admit for one that there is irsaal/reporter missing in the report etc. If I want I can point the usul al-hadith judgements about the rijaal and the type of report it is and what we call zz-report etc.

but to save time and have a meaningful discussion, I said OK, lets suppose that the report is not only weak but sahih. so all your writings which you do not comprehend just like your brethren is useless and misplaced. If I want I cant deal with all that and open your eyes like i did with your liar brother. all other examples which you quote fall in a category and I will tell you what that is...here again, you misunderstand. it may be good on ladypool road but not here!

simply, I consider the report a fabrication and you consider it weak or even sahih. even in my reply under textual implications I have said that argument in response to the fraudster piece that you jointly wrote. now, if you are sincere then why avoid the question: what is a hadd?

do not waste time in other nonsense, this is the crucial and most relevant question.

answer this, if you are truthful!!

otherwise its goodbye.

by engaing with you people, I have brought shame on myself. The pathetic moral standards that you have, speak a million words about your upbringing.

[objective-enquirer]

this is my last post on this.

brothers, you write pages upon pages but dodge the question: WHAT IS A HADD?

spare us your frequent rant about '.........' etc...that would mean inferiority complex. the motive for all your talk. since your joint article was exposed as a deliberate lie, now, your rant again and again and that our teachers(your own brother) have landed from mars and others are earthly creatures etc etc...all that is a deep rooted complex and I am sorry that I cannot do anything about that.

I asked you a simple question, many times, for many days, but you dodge it. you will not define a hadd. all you offer is red herrings because you are stuck. goodbye and goodluck with the complex.

[objective-enquirer]

Quote

And constantly mentioning the old article like I said a student wrote it and therefore it would be prone to amateurish mistakes, it was just bait you latched onto and then we showed you some real 'Tahqiq' on the matter.

 

Still no admission that you guys together defrauded in the matter of Deen.  Instead admitting the deliberate fraud, you actually are proud of the fact that you lied in the matter of deen as a ‘bait’. Astaghfirulla, this much is enough for your siffini-credibility and dishonesty.

    ا

Quote

لحد فی الشرع عقوبة مقدرة وجبت حقا لله تعالی

Finally, we have a definition of a hadd, without translation to give a false impression to those who do not know, like you have done throughout and hacked quote after quote in line with your usual methods.

However, it means a hadd in shariah is a stated punishment and is a right of God.

It expresses Allah and His Prophets(s)’s restrictive ordinances par excellence and Ijma of sahaba. In other words, the punishments which are legislated via hudud are from definite sources. Hanafis consider hudud to be a right of God and others, for example, include qisas/retaliation as hadd which is a right of man. It is on the latter basis that the number of hudud is different.

The hudud according to hanafis are four in number or five if you include sukr/intoxication separately just like the hadd of theft and highway robbery can be separated but in theory they are the same.

When sukr understood as separate hadd then hanafis have five hudud in number and others have seven hudud who also include apostasy and qisas as hudud but the common factor in the all of them is that they all have a stated and fixed punishment. (al-fiqh al-islami wa adillatuhu, volume 7, page 5275...to quote what you quote!)  

Quote

I have shown above also how the word hadd has a wider application according to the majority of the fuqaha

No you have not. If we include all four schools then its seven hudud only. But you are implying as if its hudud galore. There is only two hadds that are different, thats it and those are also sanctioned by Quran and Sunnah direct.

So adultery/fornication, accusation of zina, theft, drinking/intoxication(liquid), apostasy and qisas according to all others the only hudud.

This begs the question: where is tafzil in the list? It is not to be found in any principal books of any school.

Quote

Then what do you say about the HADD punishment which is meted out on the one who insults the Shaykhayn

In light of the above, no one considers this as a hadd. I have provided the reference from the same source as you although I look towards classical times for my references.

This is what you do not understand from day one.

Then you give me an example:

Quote

There was a group of companions who did not believe in shortening th prayers while travelling. From amongst them was  Sayyiduna Uthman, Sayyidatuna Aish, Sayyiduna Salman and 14 others.

This position was not taken by the four schools.

Again you misconstrue what my point is. It is not if any of the schools did not take the fatwa of hazrat Osman al-Ghani® but conversely  no one even mentioned it in the fiqh literature under hudud ordinances that there is a hadd or fatwa of hadd on tafzil!

Of course, the order of the noble Messenger(s) is that upon you is My sunnah and of khulafah Rashideen. In the above quote, you should say that no fiqh book mentions this disagreement  but we find that, for example, al-mabsut by Imam Sarakhsi (d. 490) clearly cites that opinion of hazrat Osman al-Ghani in atleast two places under the disagreement. Seek answers there.

You are full of wudu/isntinja masa’il examples but what we are dealing with is hudud punishment of 80 lashes. And no one disagrees that 80 lashes in not a hadd punishment. You should furnish examples which deal with this unique punishment. The jurists have explored all avenues of hudud rulings and there is a total silence on the tafzil hadd. This is what makes that 80 lashes report a fabrication.

What you miss is that, say, if there is a sahih sanad of 80 lashes, it would still be rejected because it goes against hudud laws and why would such a crucial report is NOT discussed in Islamic Law for punishments and why has it not found its way in any of the chapters in hadith books specific for hudud. It is not a ta’zir because it talks about hadd al-muftari; which is 80 lashes. Nowhere in Islamic jurisprudence there is a ta’zir of 80 lashes!!!

These are the existential questions that you need to answer instead of the kabbadi kabbadi!! Oh! Wait, I should say kodi kodi!

Prove to me that any other punishment apart from a HADD can be for 80 lashes!!

  You spend so much time and effort on the sanad; which is flawed according to usul al-hadith and I have already proven and can demonstrate even further but lets stay here for now as I have said lets treat it as sahih. For example, look at the following hadith from sahih bukhari:

If we had just relied on the sanad then this hadith has a  sahih sanad from sahih bukhari and it is also from a companion but look at the content:

Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun:
During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them.

I will not discuss the implications further but there is nothing wrong with the sanad and it does not have defects like the one about 80 lashes of HADD.

The point is that 80 lashes has serious defects not only in the chain but  more importantly  in the text  like the monkey one above and this one is from sahih bukhari.

However, Hudud as numbered above have basis in Quran/sunnah/ijma sahaba. But where is the hadd for tafzil in that list???

Quote

We have proven how the hadd for one thing can transfer to another when a new 'ilah' for the same 'sabab' comes about

No, you have not. That is merely your own conjecture.

Imam Abu Bakr al-Jassas al-Hanafi (d. 370) says in a few places in his Usul al-Jassas that Hudud CANNOT be justified with qiyas/analogy.

لا يسوغ القياس في إثبات الحدود

لا تثبت الحدود قياساً......

Here we have the usooli Imam say that hudud cannot be proven with qiyas/analogical deduction.

Furthermore, hudud have their basis in Quran and Sunnah. For example, the hadd for drinking which was fixed from 40 to 80 by ijma of sahaba on the advise of Haider e Karrar(a). But it had its basis in the words and practice of the Prophet(s) for it to be classed as a Hadd in the first place.

Lets quote your favourite book ‘fawatih ar-rahmut’ on this point:

Quote

they misread works which are beyond them like 'Fawatih al Rahmoot'

in there you will find the following about hadd for drinking which you consider as qiyas only.

لم يحد في الخمر بالقياس

The hadd of khamr/drinking is not based on qiyas!

And further he says:

ان حده كان أخذه بإشارات رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم

The hadd (of 80 lashes ) was derived from the indications of the Messenger of Allah(s).

So  wine is prohibited by the Quran, and the Prophet(s) punished people with 40 strikes with it. It has its basis as a hadd in the Quran and Sunnah. And upon it there is Ijma of sahaba about 80 lashes, which was a hadd already  and sahaba by Ijma extended 40 to 80 and not 10 to 80. Minimum hadd punishment is 40 as it is in the sunnah.

However, the point here is that qiyas cannot LEGISLATE a HADD hence we find that there is an absolute silence in the jurisprudential literature about HADD for TAFZIL.

Whilst we find the twins arguing that Imam Ali, on the mimbar of kufa gives khutbas that whoever holds me afzal to shaykhain then I will implement HADD of 80 lashes on that person.

This is such a serious punishment and Imam Ali is declaring it in his khutbas in kufa with hundreds and thousands of people listening to him.

We also find in sahih bukhari, for example, that hazrat Omar al-faruq® says that Ali is the best Judge amongst us.

أقضانا علي

We know that fiqh hanafi is based around Imam Ali and Abdullah bin masud.

We know that Imam Azam abu hanifa also was in kufa and died in 140. He was tabi’ and had more of a chance of having heard this claimed-massive report.

But what do we find, total silence. Nothing in any hanafi texts. Nothing in the most important chapter in punishments. Not only hanafi but all books of all schools totally ignore this 80 lashes hadd of tafzil. Why?

It is not like your other ijtihadi matters where there is difference of opinion reported from many different people on the same issue. Here we have only one view and that also of the best JUDGE in  Islam after the Prophet(s).

Whereas we find, page after page that Ali said this and Ali said that all fiqh works.

O Imam Azam Abu Hanifa!, why do you consider that there is no qiyas in hudud yet your school is Iraqi school, from the same place where Imam Ali said saluni qabla an tafqiduni...Ask me anything!

If anyone,  the kufa based hanafi school should have been the one to consider qiyas in hudud because it was the capital of Imam Ali and only one link between him and Imam abu hanifa. The thousands that must have heard him on the mimbar of kufa would have atleast had a foornote on the fiqh literature in the all important discussion on hudud.

These are things that make the report of 80 lashes of tafzil via qiyas unacceptable. The very schools that was based in kufa denies qiyas in hudud. Strange!

Furthermore, ‘hadd-punisments are stated matters/ummur muqaddrah whose ground or inner meaning/ma’na which caused their prescription cannot be understood. Qiyas indicates the result which comes out of understanding the cause of the rule of law of an original case. The exercise of qiyas is unfeasible in the rules of law whose cause is not intelligible like the number of lashes.

Hudud are punishments/uqubaat. In the exercise of qiyas there is a probability of error and thus qiyas becomes doubtful. The punishments/uqubaat are averted/tudra’u by doubts in accordance with the tradition: avert hadd punishments by doubts.

Primarily, it is necessary that the cause of the original case should be found in the parallel case, for extension of the rule of law of the original case to the parallel case is due to the similarity of the cause of both cases. Hence the self same cause should be found in the parallel case. The cause of the parallel case should be equal to that of original case. The extension of law is based on the similarity of both cases. For example, similarity of intoxication found in nabidh like that of wine. The law of similarity is applied on the basis of the similarity between the causes of both cases. But since the cause of the parallel case is doubtful, the law cannot be applied.

 

Finally, the Quran says:

وَالَّذِينَ يَرْمُونَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ ثُمَّ لَمْ يَأْتُوا بِأَرْبَعَةِ شُهَدَاء فَاجْلِدُوهُمْ ثَمَانِينَ جَلْدَةً وَلَا تَقْبَلُوا لَهُمْ شَهَادَةً أَبَدًا وَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ (24:4)

·  24:4 (Y. Ali) And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors;-  

Here the accusation upon the chaste women is that of zina. To prove the accusation, the accusers must be four muslim male witnesses who have seen the pen in the pot clearly. If they cannot bring four such witnesses then the punishment is 80 lashes for the accusers.

This is very serious and not a matter of fadhail; which we can prove from daeef hadith. Such a hadd requires solid evidence.

Now, in the case of Imam Ali along with Ijma of sahaba decided on the previously 40 lashes of hadd that when someone drinks then he will start raving and when he raves he will do iftira/accuse people of adultery. Hence, since the Quran says that the punishment for accusation of adultery is 80 lashes, therefore, this person should be given 80 lashes.

In both cases, the original case and parallel case, the cause is accusation of adultery.

Where is the accusation of adultery in the matter of tafzil???

It is for this reason that whoever gives afzaliyya over shaykhain I will punish him 80 lashes of hadd...does not add up. It is for this reason that jurists of all schools have ignored this report in their legal verdicts. It is for this reason that hadith scholars have ignored this report from their chapters on hudud because it does not qualify.

All other imaginary extensions are the work of the zealot mind and do not add up. This is not a matter of fadhail that we accept without question but this is a matter of hudud which requires Quran/sunnah/Ijma.

If it is as you say it is then why is it absent from hudud in fiqh chapters of our al-matun al-araba and of other schools of jurisprudence??? Imam Ali is the reference point for shaykhain in matters of Deen. Harzat Umar said law la Aliun lahalaka Umar...Imam Ali helped them out whenever they were unable to find answers for legal verdicts yet we have all four schools ignoring this verdict absolutely. Why? Because it does not add up to the stringent rules of jurisprudence and fuqaha kept the fabrications at bay. In the history of jurisprudence, you will be the first to quote this 80 lashes of tafzil for justification of the idea of qiyas in hudud. Otherwise, show me. If you cant then THINK why has not anyone ever quote this pertinent example to or supportive evidence in the concept of qiyas in hudud justification???

Ramadhan  mubarak.

Wishing you well.

Ghaus e azam darmiyan e awliya chun Mohammed(s) darmiyan e ambiya.

[Zarb-e-Ali]

Thanks brother, thanks once again for the effective postmortem of this false narration used by neo-nasibis to spread terror within the group of Ahl e Sunnah. They are intellectual terrorists who murder history and use propaganda techniques to spread the hidden agenda, they try to hide under their long beards and fool the emotional public tricking them to into believing that they are more pious then everyone else, but they still expose themselves every now and then.




They cant terrorize the masses and force them to degrade Imam Ali [a]. I believe that if the nation of Islam wants peace within them and between the sects, they need to get rid of these fitna-mongers, and not project them as pious beings. Sunnis need to get realistic and stop the shame-less boot licking of these corrupt liars who use Masjids as monkey making house. These people will forever keep an average muslim preoccupied with false issues created by their evil minds, and this will keep muslims from progressing in this post-modern world. A world, where non-muslims will be discovering realities of this universe using particle accelerators, while these muslim will still solve self-created issues of 15 centuries old.

[objective-enquirer]

it took us many days to get a defintion of hadd from the unknown foul mouth deliberate fraudsters in matters of Deen from potha. eventually we got one, where a definition from syed sharif jurjani was provided and deliberately without translation. since then we have dealt with the most important discussion and highly usooli aspect and the main problem with the fabricated narration as we have argued for.

it has been many days but siffin ground from the syrian direction like many times before in many other issues like ijma after disgreement etc, have been shutdown...Here is something for you to ponder:

والظلم في خلق النفوس وان تجد


ذاعفة   فلعلة    لا يظلم

 

 

[objective-enquirer]

I do not have much time to furnish a detailed explication of the difference between Hadd and T’azir from classical sources therefore I will just comment on what has been presented as another attempt, after almost a year, to refute our argument on page 3 of this thread especially three posts above this one. I ask those interested to re-read that and perhaps the whole thread to see the deceptive methods and deliberate fraud in the name of scholarship. Someone has just pointed me towards that new Ustadh’s post elsewhere.
Since I do not have time to reiterate what was argued three posts prior to ths, written in August 2010, for the context.
The new argument is that Imam Ali(a) was not actually saying it is hadd but He meant T’azir.

“

Quote

I shall lash him the lashes of a falsifier." Mawla Ali is stipulating the number of lashes the individual shall receive, i.e. 80, and the underlying reason as to why he is receiving the punishment. I.e. for slandering Mawla Ali.
...If this is not a penal punishment [Hadd] then what remains is the existence of the eighty lashes as 'Ta'zir'”

So above it is claimed that actually *80 Lashes* are for T’azir and not Hadd. It is common knowledge that there is considerable difference in the quantity of the lashes of T’azir. For example, in Bukhari/Muslim there is marfu’
hadith in which the Prophet(s) said ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ?? ???? ????
Do not lash more than ten except for Hudud. However, this is not my point but rather something for the readers to think about.
However, The new ustadh admits that it is *80 Lashes* for T’azir and not for Hudud. He is trying to avoid the question that if it was HADD then why is it not mentioned as part of the hudud in Islamic law? Hudud are legislated by the lawgiver and this report which says HADD of Slanderer is absolutely absent from Islamic law of the four schools. Therefore, a new theory is porposed that actually it is not HADD but T’azir. And T’azir is meted out at the discretion of the judge and is not legislated by the lawgiver as Hudud punishments.
Thank You for admitting that It is NOT a Hadd hence tafdil as hadd is not in any books of Islamic law. This is what we are saying that the report regards tafdil of Ali as Hadd yet we do not find it as part of Islamic law. This proves that the report is unreliable and not worthy of its claim hence jurists have totally disregarded it because it legislates a punishment which does not qualify.
Hadd of a slanderer i.e. accusation of adultery is *80 lashes* this much is agreed upon by all and this is what the report says that I will lashes the lashes of accuser of adultery which 80 lashes.
Now, the new theory is that 80 lashes is not for Hadd but actually it is T’azir. This is the most preposterous thing I have heard recently. I know you are a bunch of juhala who lie and deceive but that you will be so jahil...that was even beyond my imagination. It is like saying H2O is actually Carbon dioxide. There is so much to say about this claim alone but I have no time. Just see below what the cowboy says:

Quote

.....This shows lack of research. In reality reference to this is made in the works of Hanafi Fiqh. In the Hanafi Madhab there exists a narration of Abu Yusuf that Ta’zir can be given up to eighty lashes and the fuqaha comment that this has been reported from Mawla Ali (Peace be upon him) i.e. giving ta’zir of up to eighty lashes “Wa huwa ma’thurun en Ali” [2].....[2] Al Ikhtiyar li Ta’lil al Mukhtar; Abdullah Al Muwsili ______ 599AH – 683AH; 2/311; Dar at Tib’a; Damascus, Syria

In line with their tradition of deception and lying, we have another fraud. My advice is that this is the result of promoting Umayyad traditions and as a side effect when you can’t find evidence then just make it up.
In that 7th century book, it does NOT say what you are saying but actually it is arguing opposite to what you are claiming. Either you are a Jahil or a liar. These are the only two possibilities for such a claim. Here is the WHOLE passage from al-Musli’s al-Ikhtiyar:

Abu Yusuf’s position about T’azir is that the maximum number of lashes are 75 and in another reported opinion by him is that maximum number is 79. The reason for this position is that the Prophet(s) has said that whoever reaches the quantity of Hadd in punishment which not a Hadd then He has transgressed. The two positions reported about Abu Yusuf are hence less than the quantity of Hadd punishemnet ( not 80 lashes but less than 80). And the lashes of a slave in hadd of drinking or slandering is 40 so for t’azir punishment for slave in the two cases we will have one less lash i.e. 39 (because 40 is Hadd quantity) and Abu Yusuf argued for less than the quantity of 80 lashes of hadd for a free-man hence he considered FIVE less than 80 and this (75 lashes) is also what has been reported from Ali ®.


? ??? ?? ?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ??
????? ? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???

Therefore, it is not upto 80 lashes but LESS THAN 80 lashes which according to the position of abu yusuf must abided by because a t’azir cannot be equated with a hadd. This position supports our point of view that a HADD is 80 lashes. the t’azir is NEVER and cannot be like a Hadd i.e. 80 lashes. the very reference that you find after a year supports our point of view. Imam Ali is supposed to have said that I will lash him 80 lashes of hadd; which you agree that it is 80 lashes but say that it is t'azir and present abu yusuf as saying 80 lashes for t'azir whilts actually Abu yusuf says less than 80 lashes and what Imam Ali is reported to have said is maximum 75 lashes for t'azir. here we have Imam Ali himself, according to your own reference, saying that ONLY HADD can be 80 and a t'azir has to be less and in this case 75 because the Prophet(s) forbade any punsihemnt which is not a hadd to be equal to hadd such as 80 lashes for t'azir. the very 'research' that you bring after a year is actaully vehmently saying the opposite and it is also our position. this saying in al-ikhtiyar of al-musli even further strengthens the argument that Imam Ali says hadd of 80 lashes in that 80 lashes report yet here we have the same Imam Ali also saying that only hadd can be 80 and t'azir is maximum 75, which is also what abu yusuf argues. now, Imam Ali is saying in your reference that maximum t'azir can be 75 yet in 80 lashes report He is saying 80 lashes for tafdil. one place he ragards it as Hadd for tafdil, which is totally absent in all four schools of law and on the other hand you say He meant t'azir and say 80 lashes is t'azir yet Imam Ali himself in your reference says maximum 75 lashes for t'azir. see the contradiction in your claim!! by the way, this is when it is said 'shooting yourself in the foot'. Brother fear Allah(s) and do not defraud in the name of Islam. The question remains: why is this punishment of 80 lashes of hadd for tafdil not included in any authentic fiqh books, why is this report of 80 lashes for tafdil even not listed in any of the kitab al-hudud in any notable hadith books?

the side kick comments after his older brother has lied and defrauded as following:

Quote

The truth is i did not want to furnish ANY references. Why? Because i will just make the Tafdili Sects job easier for them. If they do not read any fiqh works or any works at that that is their problem.
By us referencing those works for them we make things easier for them.

We are not like you. we will make it easier for you to actually for once comprehend what you are reading. Shouting you head off is not a subsitute but demosntartes lack of knowledge and in compensation you shout. How many times will you lie and cheat? sharam karo!! by the way, in feroz al-lughat the meaning of 'kattar' is besharam so if you say 'kattar sunni' then it mean besharam sunni!

[Imran.]

Oh dear,back to the pohta sher drawing board it seems?