[Khalid_the_Warrior]

 Know-the-Ledge, on 17 June 2011 - 11:59 AM, said:

Naaaaaaaaaaaray Hamzaaaaaaaaaaaah - Zindabaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad.

Hamzah, it's just a game of semantics; something that a pathetic being like me always plays with people; 'cos i'm a bad-boy leading insurrections. You've pretty much summed my sentiments up; it's a parapeletic paranoia complex; they believe it's important because they give such a significance to the personality-cult side-show that we have in Islam.

I second that KTL.I believe that this issue has been blown out of proportions by all parties. I think an agreement should be reached from both side. I was never into this debate from the start because I always believed that this is a non-issue. If you study the details level of arguments from the both side, you will come to conclusion that there's nothing wrong or right in saying both these naray's.

One should always remember why this Nara was introduced; it was an answer to the Shia. So answer them whichever way you like. However, this becomes problematic when both sides starts calling each other Kharji or Shia. That’s where things have become messy in the last few years and Its upto our Ulemas to sort thing out. We will always have differences between us but it’s how we reconcile our differences with each other is the important question.

Haq Char Yaar - They believe on all the sahab's being on haq as well as chaar yaars
Haq Sub Yaar - They believe on chaar yaars being on haq as well as all the sahahb's.

[Khalid_the_Warrior]

 Desert-Sheikh, on 16 June 2011 - 02:37 AM, said:

Sister piara-madinah,

Everyone is busy with small small issues, i think we have small small scholars, we don't have big big scholars.

Brother DS, I think that's the problem. We have small small scholars, yet we believed them to be big big scholars.

[piara-madinah]

 hafiz-qadri, on 17 June 2011 - 01:05 PM, said:

May kidi burai kehti,Asli tusi parday kuch aur ho tey samjday kuch aur ho,isi wastay may challa hoeegiya.Ik ghal sun meri jadu hun Manazara hoya utay tussi bay jana.May aurtan dey naal larda nahi ah,Tusi marda diya gala vich bolna Band karna siko,Karama waliyeah koi aur vi aurat dehki hay jo boldi hay.Quraan say koi bari daleel hai (urdu sorry)Agar hai tu samany laho.I rest my case.Samajdaro ki liye ishara he kafi hai.

HAQ SAB YAAR 160 LASHES FOR THOSE IN DENIAL

main nay kider kaha hay kay ham ayat ko nahe manty koi muslim bhi nahe esa jo na many jub donon narhay ok hain to jhugra kesa sirf dosry parties ko necha dikhany kay liye that is bad.

rahi baat aurton ki to kiya yeh forum sirf murdon ka hay , ya quran sumjhna ya sumjhana sirf admion ka kaam hay baat ko lumba na kijyee jo topic hay us per baat kijye kay DR Tahir sahub ka or jo or uk kay scholers hain ,pakistan kay scholers hain ,un ka view kiya hay about haq chaar yaar , kion kay app kay hi bhion nay sara forum per jaloos nikala howa hay is narha kay bary or dosron ki takfeer ker rhay hain jo is narha ko nahe lagaty is liye is topic ki zarorat ai hay , yeh jo bhai nay video send ki hay is ko bhi goor say sunen kiya DR sahub keh rhay hain ,kiya unhon nay woh ayat nahe purhi hain .

logon ko confuse kerny ki bajye scholers key views laiyen or sabut kijye jinhon nay haq chaar yaar naraha ki favour ki hay unhon nay ayat nahe purhi hain ya woh inkari hain.

deen kay mumalaat ko twist kerna choreen .

rahi batt aurton ki to app kehty hain aurta na boly ham say na jhugroo ,deen ki sumjh fehm kay liye aurt bhi boly gi nahe to sumjhy gi kesy or sumjhy gi nahe to sikhye gi kesy .

app jub aurton ko bolny nahe dety hain to un ko teach bhi nahe karen gay , Islamic history utha ker dekh loo aurton kay kaam woh Nabi paak SAW kay zmanay main bhi deen seekhty or sikhaty theen app aurt ko chaar dewari main bund ker kay murdon ki hakomat lana cahty hain , khood ko educate kijye .

if you got any solid points on the topic join warna jider main post likhty hon app uder hi a ker jhugra ker rahy hain murd banoo .achay murdon ka yeh kaam nahe kay aurton main nuqs niklany ko her her post dekhty phireen.


pory forum per aik bhi bhai esa nahe hay jo in ejsy bhion ko sumjha sakay .

[piara-madinah]

 Khalid_the_Warrior, on 17 June 2011 - 01:47 PM, said:

Brother DS, I think that's the problem. We have small small scholars, yet we believed them to be big big scholars.

khalid bhai ham nay izzat respect kay toor per her small scholer ko bhi big maan liya hay is liye hi to esa ho rha hay ik ik country main kai kai muffkair e islam or ameer or tjushriha tajuololiya hain main buzurgon ki boht izzat kerty hon scholers ki bhi lakin ,kiya sab big to nahe ho sakty na or un kay followers din raat title machine say jury hain her rooz ik new title dey rhay hain .

is liye jo big hain woh gumnam ho gye hain or gumnam big .

ub waqat hay kay jo jitna big alim hay scholer hay bus us ko utna hi manoo sahed in kay bahmi jhugry khtam ho jyen yeh dekh ker kay ummat ko hosh a gya hay .

[blogger]

 qadrimuslim, on 17 June 2011 - 02:36 AM, said:

1) Haq SAB yar is the more correct answer. Someone who says 4 yar has not actually paid attention to what he is saying but may still be genuinely trying to praise the Sahaba and this is why we dont question the motive of Dr Tahir ul Qadri because he is among the few Sunni Ulama that genuinely loves and praises the Ahle Bayt. However, there are those who use this Nara Tahqiq to shun the Ahle Bayt and the burden to differentiate lies with you.

How does one go about judging other's motives? this is a slippery slope which can lead to conclusions based on conjecture, do you always have to prove to everyone that you love the Sahaba before replying to Naare Hadiri? People whose lineage leads to the Ahle Bayt, people who have delivered countless speeches in love of the Ahle Bayt and proclaim Haq Chaar Yaar but are not judged by the same standard as Dr Tahir-ul-Qadri, where's the balance?

 qadrimuslim, on 17 June 2011 - 02:36 AM, said:

1) Sunnis should just stick to the original formula Takbeer, Risalat, Haideri, Ghawthia. When you shout "Ya Ghawth al Azam!" that in itself rejects the rafizis. The majority of Sunnis around the world don't even use Nara Tahqiq and I think they're doing just fine without it!

Using your standards I could come to the conclusion you hold enemity against the Khulafa-e-Rashideen unless you tell me otherwise. Using the same principles as those advocating Haq Sab Yaar the above has alienated so many, Khulafa-e-Rashideen, Ashara Mubashara and other noble Sahabas Radiallhu Anhum Ajma'een.

qadrimuslim, looking at your naraa formula above you seem to follow the same logic and philosophy adopted by the Haq Chaar Yaar camp, in that the responses to slogans are a gesture of inclusion and NOT a gesture of exclusion of those not mentioned.

Personally, I agree with Dr Tahir-ul-Qadri Saheb. There are people that are explicit in their dirty attitude towards the first three Caliphs (at the same time they have no hatred towards Imam Hassan Radiallahu Anhu). There are others who adopt the same hate-filled attitudes towards Hazrat Ali radiallahu Anhu. Therefore, a need arises to distance ourselves from these people making our stance clear that we accept all four personalities.

I am not aware of any groups of people who hold enemity against Hazrat Hassan Radiallahu Anhu but not Hazrat Ali Radiallahu Anhu and vice-versa and so a need does not arise to specifically include Hazrat Hassan Radiallahu Anhu. The principle of the slogans is to show a gesture of inclusion and to exclude one from the groups of people who reject these people.

[shaheensa]

I consider that brothers and sisters who are discussing on this thread are educated enough to understand the difference between the following two sentences.

(1) Haq par char yar hain.

(2) Char Yar Haq per hain.

A semi literate may not find the difference between the two sentences but a scholar must know the difference between the meanings. Knowing the difference and ignoring it under any pressure or any wisdom (muslihat) is another thing but educated people must understand and hold to the right positions.

Firstly, who so ever, invented this slogan of "Haq Char Yar" did not think about itcritically. When you say Allah o Akbar, you testify that Allah is the greatest and nothing is like him. The slogans of Ya Rasool Allah, Ya Ali, and Ya Ghous Azam are calls to those personalities. Some time people chant slogans like long live a particular scholar or Pir. These are prayers for the long life of those personalities. Nobody has objection to all that because in those you are not testfying in them except in case of Allah o Akbar. What you mean is that Allah is Akbar,everything else is Asghar, i.e. no body is like him except himself. Calling Rasool Allah or any body else or praying for any one does not affect others negatively in any sense. On the other hand, when you say, "haq char yar" you are testfying that they are haq and none is like them in this respect. This testimoney, excludes other sahaba and momineen from being on haq.

I testify that "char yar haq per hain" but I would not testfy that "Haq per char yar hain", because it would make them exclusively on haq, and that is not true.

These are the fine points for the litterate to understand and guide the masses accordingly.

[Faisal]

 Hamzah, on 17 June 2011 - 10:19 AM, said:

I personally feel that the haq chaar yaar response is a valid response. (To a matter which is not from the essentials of deen!!). To consider Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali to be on haq is not to say that the rest of the companions are not on haq. In the same way that to consider the Ashara Mubashara to be Jannati, does not mean the rest of the companions are excluded, Ma'azAllah.


The issue that remains is why Imam Hasan is excluded. The Naara is not specifically for khilafath, it symbolises the great status of these four companions of our Messenger SAWAS, as those who were his most closest aids. Syedina Hasan is the son of Syedina Ali, and so his relationship with Our Messenger SAWAS, differs from that of his father (RA) and his father's peers. If we are also to include imam hasan, then why should Imam Hussain be left out? This is just being picky and playing semantics. We could go on and on and find reasons and excuses to obstruct a lot of minor actions, which no one considers to be from the important matters of deen.


If mentioning of the blessed four is considered a problem then what will you say of Imam Busiri, who writes:
thumma al-rida `an abi bakrin wa `an `umarin / wa `an `aliyyin wa `an `uthmana dhi al-karami

And may Allah's good pleasure be with Abu Bakr, `Umar, `Ali, and `Uthman the noble one,




To be honest, I feel that this problem could have been avoided a long time ago, if we all started using the naare tahqiq in our gatherings, and everyone responded however they wish, be it chaar, panj or sab yaar. You would not really notice different replies. At least there would have been unity. But instead what we find is that in some gatherings, whilst the naara e tahqiq was not proclaimed at all, the naara e haidiri was used as a political tool, proclaimed many times repeatedly, though the naara e takbeer and risalat were only proclaimed once, and proclaimed more loudly. Outsiders feel that a point is trying to be made, and cant understand why there is such stubborness against shouting one small nara at the end - any nara, whatever you want to call it, in favour of the sahaba.




That's the other side to the story. As i have said before, the slogans are not as important as is what is in the heart. Nobody can hide that, nor can anybody else see that. As long as our love for the Blessed family and Blessed companions remians constant we have no concerns, InshaAllah.

Best post I've seen on this topic so far.

[Faisal]

 shaheensa, on 17 June 2011 - 05:20 PM, said:

I consider that brothers and sisters who are discussing on this thread are educated enough to understand the difference between the following two sentences.

(1) Haq par char yar hain.

(2) Char Yar Haq per hain.

A semi literate may not find the difference between the two sentences but a scholar must know the difference between the meanings. Knowing the difference and ignoring it under any pressure or any wisdom (muslihat) is another thing but educated people must understand and hold to the right positions.

Firstly, who so ever, invented this slogan of "Haq Char Yar" did not think about itcritically. When you say Allah o Akbar, you testify that Allah is the greatest and nothing is like him. The slogans of Ya Rasool Allah, Ya Ali, and Ya Ghous Azam are calls to those personalities. Some time people chant slogans like long live a particular scholar or Pir. These are prayers for the long life of those personalities. Nobody has objection to all that because in those you are not testfying in them except in case of Allah o Akbar. What you mean is that Allah is Akbar,everything else is Asghar, i.e. no body is like him except himself. Calling Rasool Allah or any body else or praying for any one does not affect others negatively in any sense. On the other hand, when you say, "haq char yar" you are testfying that they are haq and none is like them in this respect. This testimoney, excludes other sahaba and momineen from being on haq.

I testify that "char yar haq per hain" but I would not testfy that "Haq per char yar hain", because it would make them exclusively on haq, and that is not true.

These are the fine points for the litterate to understand and guide the masses accordingly.

Saying either "char yar haq per hain" or "Haq per char yar hain" does not make a difference, both are correct. Where the problem arises is when you add the word "sirf" (only), that is what makes the being on haq exclusive and negates others. For example if you said "SIRF Haq par char yaar hain" then that would be wrong!

[True-Seeker]

will anybody be asked this question in their grave ?

or how does this benefit anyone in any way ? i think its time we get over this and focus on something better

[shaheensa]

 Faisal, on 18 June 2011 - 12:05 AM, said:

Saying either "char yar haq per hain" or "Haq per char yar hain" does not make a difference, both are correct. Where the problem arises is when you add the word "sirf" (only), that is what makes the being on haq exclusive and negates others. For example if you said "SIRF Haq par char yaar hain" then that would be wrong!

Brother Faisal, I mentioned this difference is for scholars, even Mufti Jalali was not able to comprehend what is the difference? I try to explain you in another way. For the first the question will be Haq per kaun loug hein? Now if you respond, Haq per char yar hain" that means only these four are on haq, the other people who are on haq are excluded, so the answer is not correct. For the second sentence the question will be: Char yar kaise hain? The answer is "char yar hag per hain. Now this sentence tells that these four are on haq but it does not negate the others are not on haq. Since the question was about those four then the answer is specific to them. It does not exclude other being on haq, where as in the first case, the question is more general and answer has to be all inclusive which would be sub yar or all momineen. That is why when you bring haq first the meanings change. The people who are well versed in language grametics can see the difference quite easily.

In English language if you say, on haq are these four. It means only these four are on haq. On the other hand if you say, these four are on haq, it means that these four are on haq but others can be on haq too.

I hope it helps to get you understand the difference.


Shahid A. Shaheen

[shaheensa]

[quote name='Hamzah' timestamp='1308305976' post='425316']


I personally feel that the haq chaar yaar response is a valid response. (To a matter which is not from the essentials of deen!!). To consider Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali to be on haq is not to say that the rest of the companions are not on haq. In the same way that to consider the Ashara Mubashara to be Jannati, does not mean the rest of the companions are excluded, Ma'azAllah.


This comparison is not valid because the distinction of ashra mubashra has been made by Rasool Allah (peace be upon him)by the permission of almighty Allah, but no such distinction is made for those four. That is what mufakkire Islam was asking Mufti Jalali to provide the evidence from Quran and Sunnah that would distinguish them from others who are on haq. There is no daleel that can distinguish them from others sahaba as far as the matter of haq is concerned. They have more fazail than others and they were khulafa but Quran considers them all to be on haq. To say that they are more on haq than others, one needs a daleel based on a matwatir hadees or a mashoor hadees to make distinction in this matter which Irfan Shah and Abid Jalai have failed to produce.



The issue that remains is why Imam Hasan is excluded. The Naara is not specifically for khilafath, it symbolises the great status of these four companions of our Messenger SAWAS, as those who were his most closest aids. Syedina Hasan is the son of Syedina Ali, and so his relationship with Our Messenger SAWAS, differs from that of his father (RA) and his father's peers. If we are also to include imam hasan, then why should Imam Hussain be left out? This is just being picky and playing semantics. We could go on and on and find reasons and excuses to obstruct a lot of minor actions, which no one considers to be from the important matters of deen.[/font]

If only these four were the closest then why the prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) chose some one else to confide the names of munafikeen not any of these four? Your claim is based on just conjectures, have you any daleel for it? These Sahaba were not the friends of the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) but his relatives. He was father in law of two of them, and other two were his sons in law.
[/size][/font]
[/size]
If mentioning of the blessed four is considered a problem then what will you say of Busiri, who writes:
thumma al-rida `an abi bakrin wa `an `umarin / wa `an `aliyyin wa `an `uthmana dhi al-karami

And may Allah's good pleasure be with Abu Bakr, `Umar, `Ali, and `Uthman the noble one,



Again you give an example which has nothing to do with their being exclusively on haq. They are all worthy of praise but you can not take that for their being more on haq. I f one calls them Ya abubakr Ya Omar, Ya Uthman like we already say Ya Ali no objection can be made, because all these are nidia slogans and do not testify any thing but haq is a testification.



To be honest, I feel that this problem could have been avoided a long time ago, if we all started using the naare tahqiq in our gatherings, and everyone responded however they wish, be it chaar, panj or sab yaar. You would not really notice different replies. At least there would have been unity. But instead what we find is that in some gatherings, whilst the naara e tahqiq was not proclaimed at all, the naara e haidiri was used as a political tool, proclaimed many times repeatedly, though the naara e takbeer and risalat were only proclaimed once, and proclaimed more loudly. Outsiders feel that a point is trying to be made, and cant understand why there is such stubborness against shouting one small nara at the end - any nara, whatever you want to call it, in favour of the sahaba.



When you noticed that Nahra Haidri is proclaimed more loudly and more often in some gatherings, then you also must have realized that there were efforts from other side to stop nahra haidri or at least demote its order (tapes are on yanabi.com). Muslims have been chanting those slogans before even khalafat started. Slogan of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was proclaimed by the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him), Sahaba (including those mentioned in char yar),and angels when Khalafat was not in existence. Therefore, it is an obvious reaction that Nahra Haidri is chanted more loudly to let others know that they may not change the tradition of Ahl Sunna by their self created and flawed slogans.

Shahid Shaheen

[Naeemia]

Hamza please revisit the last one hour of the debate between Mufakkir e Islam and Abid Jalali. The notion of 'Haq' and the 'faza`yl' is different.
First of All, how loud might it be, Naara Haideri is Sunnah of Huzur Sayyid e Do Alam Alyhe Salatu Watasleem. ( you cannot question it !)


Abid Jalali repeatedly said " phir Naara Haideri Kyu Lagatay ho" , this not only indicates the academic caliber but brings on the face that what goes inside the hearts.


Naara Tahqiq is a BIDA`A whether it be Char Yar, Sab Yar etc However to validate it through fundamental and basic Islamic sources, it would be quite difficult to find an argument in favor of "haq Char Yar". As you could see in the debate, all they had was a Riwaya of Iqrima and a Muazu Hadith. However, 'Haq Sab Yar" is validated by Quran explicitly.




And if you see the background and context, this non-issue was raised and ignited by the Barailvi Ulema who do takfir of Pir Karam Shah Al Azhari and Allama Shah Ahmed Noorani.

[Hamzah]

When I gave the example of the ashara mubashara my point related to the specific mentioning of some not being an exclusion of others. The ashara mubashara is just being used as an example, but instead of focusing on the point of mentioning few not being an exclusion of all, you have jumped 10 steps forward to where the daleel for ashara mubashara comes from - which I was well aware of before i posted that example! You're completely missing the point!

As I mentioned nobody considers this matter to be from the essentials of the deen. It is not a matter of aqaid, it is a matter of love! I don't understand why you are trying to fit a matter of love into an academic framework - it won't work! You don't need dalail to show your love! The most important point is that praise of a small group of sahaba should not suggest that the remaining sahaba are not entitled to the attributed praise. NOBODY has said that the rest of Sahaba are not on Haq, and you know very well that this is not the intention of the naara. So why the nit picking?

I think those who say Haq Sab yaar is a better response, are perfectly right to say so, no problem - say it then, i don't have a problem with that, end of story.

 shaheensa, on 18 June 2011 - 04:19 AM, said:

When you noticed that Nahra Haidri is proclaimed more loudly and more often in some gatherings, then you also must have realized that there were efforts from other side to stop nahra haidri or at least demote its order (tapes are on yanabi.com). Therefore, it is an obvious reaction that Nahra Haidri is chanted more loudly to let others know that they may not change the tradition of Ahl Sunna by their self created and flawed slogans.

As for anybody trying to "stop" Naara e Haidiri - this is a sign of ignorance (at the least) and bughz for Syedina Ali and the blessed household (at the worst). I totally agree that this naara is one established by hadith and has been the traditon of the ahlus sunnah, whereas the naara of tahqiq is much more recent. Nobody can stop the naara of haidiri.
The sad thing is, as you have admitted yourself in the above quote, you are shouting the naara more than usual and more loudly for political reasons to tell the others - "you can't stop the naara". Here's me thinking the naara was an expression of love!



Like I said, I dont need anybody's dalail to express my love - I will do so, how and when I wish! In my heart I have love for all the blessed family and all the blessed companions and that is sufficient.

But I have said it before and I will say it again, to completely miss out the companions and any slogan in their name in your gatherings is an injustice! I'm not bothered what the naara is, make up a new one for the sahaba if you wish - but be just.

I don't want to discuss this topic any further, I have made my view clear. I'll do what I want, thank you very much and your welcome to do what you want.

This post has been edited by Hamzah: 18 June 2011 - 11:49 AM

[qadrimuslim]

Im really bored of this topic now so haven't read everything written since my last post and probably wont in future


1) They demanded a DEBATE on Nara Tahqiq / Haq Char yar - thats what our brothers and sisters here must understand. We would have preferred a debate on something more important but now that we know what little substance they have and how limited their understanding of Islam is, it makes sense. When you beg a debate with a bonafied scholar on ANY topic you will get dalail that you never expected. Complaining afterwards is just childish.

2) Some people here are crying that we should avoid getting into the "linguistic complexities" of the slogan, probably because Jalali and co were cornered by Pir Sahib on the linguistic sciences.

Some are trying to imply HAQ CHAR YAR is now the same as saying it backwards YAR CHAR HAQ. If thats the case then I invite you to say it backwards infront of Irfan Shah and see what he says.

The wording of "HAQ 4 Yar" in itself is a play on language so how can anyone with any substance not want to talk about the linguistics????!!!
Once they cannot answer the dalail please don't start begging how the linguistics are not important

3) Some say HAQ 4 Yar! is to refute the rafizis. What of the similar rafizi view that only 4 of the Sahaba were on HAQ? When a rafizi shouts HAQ 4 Yar he means something else. When a deobandi shouts HAQ 4 yar he means Khulafa e Rashideen. This is all too complicated for the common Sunni.

4) My personal opinion is that we should leave the mess to the neutral Ulama like Mufti Haneef Qureshi and other top scholars who say that Nara Tahqiq is ok as long as you don't drop Nara Haideri.
Allama Saeed Asad came to the UK around 10 years (when he was neutral) and openly said "I have seen a strange phenomena in the UK where people shout Nara Tahqiq without Nara Haideri - I disapprove because Ali's name differentiates Mu'min from Munafiq" Someone should have that speech somewhere and it was an excellent analysis on the fasaad of the time.

If we are a JAMAAT then we should seek resolutions to our differences from arbitrators. Camps that differ should seek resolution and show the public that the Ulama are civilised people and have structures in place to settle their differences like educated people.

[Mudassar-Rana]

In reply to the original question of what dr saab's views are - my answer is - should any one care?

This is a discussion that cannot be even called a discussion. We have got our knickers in a twist over semantics, over status etc - yet we are not fit to judge any of them and neither are the scholars. This is a discussion if that needed to take place should have been private and would be solved within 5 minutes.

Br. KTW highlighted the plight of the muslim ummah - the alledged scholars will be held accountable for their actions moreso than the ummah - and they will be asked what they were doing when the ummah was being raped and pillaged. Discussing the semantics of slogans isnt really the right answer.

My plea is can we move forward?