[Fatema-the-resplendent]

I don't want to hijack this thread with my views, however I think it's important to address the lies, conceit and hate of the ahle bayt which exists in many Ahle sunnah Scholars. The examples above of Irfan Shah Saabs hateful speech and calling everyone a Shia who express love for the family of the Prophet is disgusting.

I disagree with you Br Joe dacky I think there is real danger of these peanut molvies to try to manipulate historical events in Islamic history to spread their version of Sunnism; which has been hijacked. The classical writers and hadith compilations are severely misrepresented as truth, though most learned people are aware of their tactics some may still fall prey to the lies.

I Think the speech refuting Irfan Shah Saab is clearly an academic one and requires answers which they can not give.

As for respect of such Molvies, I don't believe they deserve respect, just tolerance. There is no way the term Maulana should be used for a Nasibite. Our love is for those who love Ahle bayt, not for those who are jealous of them.

[Fekay]

I think it's fair we ALL have our liniage before our names; Call me Raja Fekay for now on!

[piara-madinah]

objective-enquirer, on 15 December 2011 - 02:42 AM, said:

mulla-ism in its extreme form has always been busy in reducing the status of panjtan paak. it majority/jamhur ahlesunnat position that ayat e tatheer was revealed for the Five only: the Prophet(s), Imam Ali, Seyyeda Fatima, Imam Hasan and Imam Hussain.

the above is the position of hujjatul Islam Syed zahid hussain Bukhari Rizvi; which he mentioned on ummah channel last years with references. the clipper has edited the whole but never the less, he presents maulan irfan shah's refutation in which he first makes personal attacks then says that such a belief is shia rafiz belief to consider that ayat taheer 33:33 was revealed for pajntan only. i will post two clips one which says it is shia rafizi belief by maulana irfan shah sb and then the second lecture which will prove from ahl al-sunna imams from 3rd century to 12th century who say that majoirty ahlesunna belief is that ayah tatheer was revealed for panjtan only. now, in his extreme opinion irfan shah sb has classified the majority of ahlesunna as rafizi shia. there could be two reasons either the man has not read the principle books on the subject and hence lacks knowledge or that he blinded by hate.

irfan shah sb:



now lisaten to the evidence that majority of ahlesunna from classical times held the opinion that it is for panjtan paak. you decide.




this alone tells you NOT to trust this mulla mafia.

hazarat saab uger ahle bait wiladat ki app baat kerty hain to phir Nabi paak saw ki baqi daughters ka bhi ziker hona cahiyee or is main teen betiyan shamil honi cahiyee. App chaleen hawaly dety hain boht say kay is say un ki azwaaj murad nahe hain is ayat main lakin un ki baqi daughters ko to shamil kijyee .

[Fatema-the-resplendent]

PiarahMadinah

At the time of revelation of that Ayah, no other sister of Seyyeda Fatema was alive. But one must ask the question to RasoolAllah why he only included those 4 in the Shawl with him, don't ask why's from Scholars of today.

[sunniskeptic]

FTR,

Calm down and have a sheesha or something Sis. I find it astonishing that you can so brazenly and confidently call Pir Sayyid Irfan Shah sahib a Nasibite! Do you even know what a Nasibi is? It is
someone who has hatred for the Ahle Bayt. Whatever one may say about Sayyid Irfan Shah's manner of speaking or giving speeches to doubt his love of the Ahle Bayt is just ignorance. There are
countless speeches of his on the fazail of the Ahle Bayt e Paak. You can find them online in a few moments of searching. Just because he might differe on a few secondary issues with you, doesn't
make him a Nasibite. He is also a Sayyid so according to your warped logic he is jealous of his own ancestors! and you should be careful about making allegations of his being a Nasibi without proof. There IS no proof on this particular allegation. It is nothing but a lie.

You should not be so extreme in your views. You've got to die one day and answer to Allah and His Rasool sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam. This is what I mean about today's Sunnis
not being able to tolerate a difference of opinion without name calling -- Nasibite, Rafidite, Kharijite.

[sunniskeptic]

BTW, is it the general opinion of people on this forum that Pir Sayyid Irfan Shah sahib is a Nasibi? If so I must say I am shocked and disgusted.
Yes, I can accept that people have differences of opinion with him
on certain issues but to jump from there to labelling him a Nasibi is a sign of extremism. That is my own opinion but I'd
like to know if this view about the Sayyid is held by many on here or just a few on the fringes?

Respecting those we disagree with is one of the hallmarks of civilisation. You can even disagree vehemently, but to attach false labels
is not only Islamically wrong it is morally wrong too.

[Fatema-the-resplendent]

sunniskeptic, on 16 December 2011 - 10:33 PM, said:

FTR,

Calm down and have a sheesha or something Sis. I find it astonishing that you can so brazenly and confidently call Pir Sayyid Irfan Shah sahib a Nasibite! Do you even know what a Nasibi is? It is
someone who has hatred for the Ahle Bayt. Whatever one may say about Sayyid Irfan Shah's manner of speaking or giving speeches to doubt his love of the Ahle Bayt is just ignorance. There are
countless speeches of his on the fazail of the Ahle Bayt e Paak. You can find them online in a few moments of searching. Just because he might differe on a few secondary issues with you, doesn't
make him a Nasibite. He is also a Sayyid so according to your warped logic he is jealous of his own ancestors! and you should be careful about making allegations of his being a Nasibi without proof. There IS no proof on this particular allegation. It is nothing but a lie.

You should not be so extreme in your views. You've got to die one day and answer to Allah and His Rasool sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam. This is what I mean about today's Sunnis
not being able to tolerate a difference of opinion without name calling -- Nasibite, Rafidite, Kharijite.

I have heard him talk many a times, clearly him and the other lot are nasibies because they do bear a grudge in their heart for Imam Ali and Ahle bayt. I heard him say in one of his speeches, that Seyyeda Fatema was only included in chador of RasoolAllah because otherwise she would have been missed out. Basically his point was that the wives of RasoolAllah would naturally have taken precedence and the prophet wanted to make sure she would be included! What nonsense and what other purpose than to try to put her down, astaghfirullah. And I have heard him praise the bravery of Banu Ummaya, 'takkar ke log' to the enemies of Huzoor pak. Who in their right mind would praise the enemies of the Prophet? I think contemporary nasibism is defined by the antics of him and the Ummah Channel panel.

Hazrat Imam Hussain stood up to what was right not out of hate but love, Love for God and love of the Prophet. Anyone who disrespects the holy family of RasoolAllah overtly or covertly is deserving of nothing but contempt.

[The-Mughal-Sister]

Mod Notice:

Calm down guys and girls.

Stick to the topic.

Don't get personal or else thread will be locked and edited.

Behave.

[badman]

Salams,

what is a nasibi?

@FTR and SunniSkeptic My heart tells me one day both of you will learn so much from one another (both of you are very unique) The Junoon of AhleBayt (which is FTR) and a Skeptic Sunni (working for the right and in the middle) Insha'ALLAH RasoolALLAH Smiles on both of you and your loved ones (and thats straight from the heart)
May ALLAH Guide you, So that Good and Upright People like yourselves Guide people like me, Insha'ALLAH.

what is a nasibi? (av not come to break peoples heart on this thread)

[Desert-Sheikh]

badman, on 16 December 2011 - 11:18 PM, said:

what is a nasibi?

Who have preconceived hatred against Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu Alieh Wassalam's family (His Daughter Syeda Fatima, Her husband Hazrat Ali and both sons Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain radi Allahu anhum) and openly & violently preach it.

[qadrimuslim]

@ sunniskeptik

- its nice to see you trying to mediate with sincerity but the truth is that you must be out of touch with current affairs. Irfan Shah Mashadi has lost all credibility in the eyes of most *Muslims* that are familiar with his personality. You can find his lectures easily available full of Hatred, Takfir, Kharjiyyat, Nasibiyyat, Dirty swearing and Gustakhi of Allah, His Rasool (SAWAW), the Companions (RA) and blatant insults and slander against the classical Ulama and contemporary scholars.

- Here on YaNabi we have always discussed the issue and not the personality because we don't give him the limelight, which is all he really wants! To him and his small party any publicity is still promotion, even if its bad publicity! I hadn't commented on this thread yet, but seeing as some truths are coming out, I may aswell contribute to give a clearer picture of the historical context.

- As for using his real name: then it is common knowledge that his mother named him Zulfiqar Shah - Not Irfan Shah! He dropped the name of Imam Ali's sword (Zulfiqar) and replaced it with "Irfan". You think about that yourself for a minute.

- One major reason for the nasibiyyat is down to his father Jalal-uddin Shah Sahib ® losing a historically significant debate to a 12er Shia in Pakistan which caused hundreds of households in Punjab to convert to Ithna Ashariya. This had a profound effect on the young Zulfiqar and his views on Shia gradually became radical. He began Takfir of ALL Shia and then found himself allergic to anything the Shia revered. Naturally, the fazail of the Ahlul Bayt sat at the top of this hitlist so slowly young Zulfiqar began siding with the commentators who reduce the significance of the Ahlul Bayt and dilute their specialities. Then he wanted to become a Munazir to avenge the historic failure and also encouraged others from his camp to becomes Munazirs - none of which have made any significant impact for the betterment of Sunnis!

- There is no point in dwelling any further into the character of Irfan Shah, we are more interested in what he says. And everything he says points towards nasibiyyat and khwarjiyyat. It's sad but true. Whatever the discussion on Ahlul Bayt, he will always attempt to drop any speciality of the Ahlul Bayt. Today he is the crown of the Kharji Mullah Mafia. Never could they have asked for more than a Sayyid (Claimant) to fight their corner for them!

- I even heard he is taking bayyah these days! May Allah guide us all!

[objective-enquirer]

The sole reason of the thread was to demonstrate that maulana irfan shah sb by either lack of knowledge of the principle sources or by blind extreme hatred argues that to say that ayat tatheer is revealed for panjtan paak only, is actually a rafizi shia opinion. Actually it is the opinion of the majority of ahlesunnat. in one brush, the man is trying to convince others by declaring majority sunni opinion as a shia opinion.

The least you guys could have done is acknowledge that maulana irfan shah sb is extreme and wrong about ayat e tatheer by labeling others. it is a fact that when irfan shah sb gets stuck and has no answer then he comes out with some preposterous ideas, for example, again about being cornered about ayah tatheer from a grammatical point of view, he says that there are grammatical errors in the Qur'an. None in Islamic tradition argue that there are gramatical errors in the Quran rather they explain it grammar that it is grammatical. here see him give examples of verses which are (according to his limited knwoledge of grammar) ungrammatical. stop blaming the orintalists and christian missionaries because they also say the same thing.







so those who vexed about it on here, should first of all address the question is it not majority of ahlesunnat position that ayah tatheer was revealed for panjtan paak only? then why does irfan shah declare the majority of ahlesunnat shia? hasn't he read those 'classical' sunni works? because if he had read them then he will never say that and if he has read them then why is he hiding the opinion of the majority of ahlesunnat? in the latter option, it is either blind hatred or nasbiyat.

[Abdul09]

Asalaam Alai Kum

My assesment of the current TV Mullas, don't get involved in their idiologies as theres no immediate benefit to us. They have the responsibilities to contest any challenges as they believe they've earnt it. Ilm teaches two things, difference between Halal & Haram.....Ishq teaches you the true path.

Whichever Imaam you follow today, on the day of resurrection you will be placed alongside with them.
Choose wisely and don't be disappointed.

BTW.....Don't belittle anyones name or title, as its considered as backbiting.

HADRAT MIAN MUHAMMAD BAKSH SAHIB R.A RUMI E KASHMIR wrote

Daanish Mando Sunno Tumaamee
Arz Fakir Kareynda
Aapoo Changa Jey Koi Hovey
Har Nu Pala Takeynda

rough translation

All You God Fearing People Listen
To What I'm Saying
If One Believes He Is Good
Then He Must View Others In The Same Way.


Wasalaam Alai Kum.

[sunniskeptic]

QadriMuslim,

Brother, thanks for your reply but the reason I am a "sceptical" Sunni is due to exactly this kind of mud-slinging. Bro, you have made a whole host of allegations against Pir Sayyid Irfan Shah Sahib without providing
a shred of evidence for anything. As for what his real name is -- that has nothing to do with the argument yet you have spun it (assuming it is true) to imply he did it due to a latent hatred of Hazrat Ali.
Maybe I am out of touch but I am not that out of touch. I watch Ummah Channel and Takbeer TV and Noor Channel and the talks of Sayyid Abdul Qadir Shah and Sayyid Zahid Hussain Rizvi and Sayyid Irfan Shah Sahib and
apart from the fact that all these scholars disagree and have some differences I don't see any evidence for the horrendous charges you have made. Worst of all in my book, you suggested by writing "claimant" that he is not
really a sayyid. If this isn't ad hominem attacks I don't know what is.

It is just blatent injudiciousness and favouritism of their own pir or side that has turned me from a hardcore "Barelvi" into a sceptic. Because the extreme followers of Sayyid Irfan Shah sahib will also give a host of
insults to Pir Abdul Qadir Shah like tafzili, Rafidi, insulter of Imam Bukhari, Imam Ghazali and other classic scholars and say that his actual name is something else too and also doubt his 'sayyidness' just you did with Irfan Shah Sahib. Don't you see that both groups are mirror images of one another? It is just a litany of hate and exaggeration from both sides. People picking phrases out of lengthy speeches to try and score a point. The neutral or thinking person who is
not affiliated to either person but a simple Sunni gets confused. Imagine how it must look to an outsider! Both sides in my opinion are equally guilty. And the losers are the poor Muslims.

I see more integrity in someone like Christopher Hitchens ( who tragically died today) --even though I disagree with his atheism-- than in the vast majority of Muslim scholars of today who are surrounded by
sycophants.

A wise man once said, "If such are the leaders, God bless the congregation!"

caveat emptor: I have to say that Sayyid Hasnain Shah sahib is one person pn here who never makes personal attacks on Sayyid Irfan Shah Sahib and presents a civilised and logical attempt at refuting despite his difference
of opinion.

I hope I don't get banned now!

[badman]

Salams
Inna Lillahi Wa Inna Ilaihi Raji'un

[Fatema-the-resplendent]

Sunniskeptic

You are missing the point, instead of discussing Irfan Shah Saab and the other Scholars why don't you shed light on the actual topic itself.

Perhaps getting your view on the religious matter at hand is more conducive to your understanding of loyalty and respect.

What is your view on this mans opinion that Quran has grammatical errors? WAKE UP!

[sunniskeptic]

Just so you know I am not in either camp I have to agree that Sayyid Irfan Shah Sahib should not shout so much or use abusive words in his speeches when he gets
emotional. Video evidence of that is something I have seen and cannot deny yet as for all the other charges against him I haven't seen unequivocal evidence which would stand
up in a court of law for a single one. At the same time their is also video evidence of Sayyid Abdul Qadir Shah sahib making unflattering marks against both Imam Ghazali and
Imam Bukhari. In my opinion neither of these are reason to start this massive hate campaign against each other by the followers of each. Both are human and both can err.
I think the problem is twofold: a tendency among our people to elevate their own pir or shaykh to sainthood and consider them in practise if not in theory impeccable and infallible (despite
protestations to the contrary) and, secondly, the general obsequiousness we Muslims tend to show to ulema/pirs which gets to their heads as they too are human. A third is that we are extremely
emotional about our scholars which effects our judgement.

Meanwhile Rome burns whilst all we can do is play the fiddle!

[sunniskeptic]

FTR,
Salams. To answer your question (1) I don't know for sure that what you claim IS the opinion of Sayyid Irfan Shah sahib. Please show me where he says that. The onus is on you to provide the evidence. (2) I don't know any Arabic so could not say whether a grammatical mistake had occured or not. (3) I don't know what the mainstream Sunni opinion is on this but I suspect that there is, historically, a range of opinions by different scholars as tends to be the case for
most issues in Islam (4) my personal feeling is that the Koran is free from any grammatical errors but that is based on my own belief and cannot be used in an argument.


Hope that answers the question.

[sunniskeptic]

Fatema-the-resplendent, on 16 December 2011 - 10:52 PM, said:

clearly him and the other lot are nasibies because they do bear a grudge in their heart for Imam Ali and Ahle bayt [...]And I have heard him praise the bravery of Banu Ummaya, 'takkar ke log' to the enemies of Huzoor pak. Who in their right mind would praise the enemies of the Prophet?

masha Allah glad to know you can tell what is in people's hearts for certain! As for the Banu Umayya, many of them like Hazrat Abu Sufyan and Hazrat Amir Muawiyyah radhi Allahu anhu became Muslims afterwards as you know so they were not any longer
the 'enemies of Huzoor Paak.' as you put it but honourable Sahaba. So your point is moot.

And logically--even if they had not later accepted Islam--it was a part of Arab culture to praise bravery on the battlefield and praising a brave enemy is not an insult. But since they became Muslims they were no longer
enemies anyway. No one denies the bravery of say Khalid ibn Walid before he became a Muslim so if someone says Khalid was brave in the early battles in which he fought against the Muslims, would that person
be guilty of being praising an enemy of the Prophet and hence, in your weird logic, a Nasibi?

BTW you haven't answered my questions in earlier post to you above re the grammar errors issue.

[qadrimuslim]

brother skeptik,

you are not the first to stand up for this individual, and alhamdulillah, you will not be chastised for it like you think. You ask me for proof, believe me the proof is all out there and available. I will let you go and seek it for yourself lest anyone accuse me of feeding it to you. Everyone should be allowed to do their own research and make up their own mind, so go ahead - Seek and ye shall find ;o)

One thing for you to bear in mind though, you are most welcome here on YaNabi, but go to the hater websites and see how welcoming they are to you with your approach.

Once you have done your background research, come back and participate in this discussion. Take care.