nooruddin slandering alahazrat

what a vulgar display of ignorance! poor fellow nooruddin, tries to masquerade as some hadith scholar, but falls flat on his face on simple things.

according to NR, one can be excused if it is live - because he builds the argument to absolve himself, which he does close to the end. however, he ignored that it was not citing the hadith that was problematic, but the conclusion and the grandstanding and the ego trip which NR cleverly ignored. for shame.

this thing about people making a slip in live talks - i have said this myself many times in the past. and i agree with nooruddin here as well. i granted him that excuse in his slip even before he claimed it for himself. check the other thread.

we will examine other things later, in sha'Allah, but one of the most important things about malfuz and this narration.

---
what is malfuz? it is similar to what we see in arabic as amaali, dictations of scholars.

unlike amaali, where a scholar dictates or annotates something, malfuz is a discussion of scholarly topics in an informal setting.
however, LIKE amaali, it is written down by one of those present in the gathering.

both amali and malfuz are similar to an informal Q/A session in a private gathering, where the scholar answers briefly and cites from memory.

both the morons did not realise that malfuz is the same as a live conversation - except that a video captures everything exactly as was said, but the scribe can mix it up or add something or omit something as he is writing down a live conversation.

try inscribing any video without hitting rewind to listen again. use a pen and paper and begin writing down what nooruddin says, and then go back to check - there will obviously be gaps and misses.

---
the first thing is that in a majlis/gathering, alahazrat was asked about pari/fairies being muslims. he said: 'yes'.

notice the remark of the scribe: "in the same discussion he mentioned" [vol.1 p.12]




which indicates that something was being discussed and a narration was said. it is quite probable that the imam would have said: "even though it is a mawdu hadith, it has been mentioned that..." there is no proof that the imam cited it as an authentic or even a dayif hadith as NR insists:

a muslim with basic manners should have husn zann of other muslims, especially of scholars. and on what basis does nooruddin claim that he "narrated it". even the scribe did not say that he narrated the "hadith". it was just mentioned inter alia perhaps. and since such a hadith has no bearing on haram halal or aqidah, it was simply recorded as said without insisting it to be a hadith or disregarding its being mawDuu.

but when one is bent on vilifying someone, such concerns as husn zann will not apply. and the punishment of vilifying awliya is instant. we will see how stupid nooruddin sounds in his own self-contradictory proclamations.

the other small difference any beginner student of hadith would know is between: 'narrating' and 'citing'. if imam ahmad rida really mentioned a chain and said, "i narrate..." it would be narrating a hadith. here, it is most appropriate - and fair - to call it as 'citing a hadith'.

if a donkey imagines itself to be a lion, let it be. the braying will betray its reality.

---
secondly, the book was written by mufti azam hind in 1338 AH. he began making notes in gatherings and wrote down as much as he could. though he went on to become a great mufti and imam, at that time he was only 28 and it is possible that it escaped his notice that it was a fabricated hadith. and no one brought it to his attention, and it remained without comment.





====
even if you insist that imam ahmad rida khan cited it as a hadith, what harm does it do his stature as a muhaddith?

 

i picked out the first 19 minutes of garbage in the clip where nooruddin slanders alahazrat and tries his best to belittle him.



relevant clips from the conversation of two ignoramuses:

1.03 jahil questioner (JQ):

he related back to the prophet sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam, when in fact it is a fabrication.​

1.32 JQ:

used some fabrications in his book.​

1.54

hadith mawduu: a fabricated hadith; this is a narration you can find somewhere in some hadith books. and it has a chain but in the chain, there is a liar or a fabricator. that hadith, the hadith scholar say: 'this is a fabrication, this is a lie against the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam'

you actually have something worse than that which is called: hadith "laa asla lahu" bi dooni asl .. ok.

the hadith "la asla lahu" in english is a baseless hadith. that is the hadith you can't find in the original works.

you can't even find a chain for. now, it doesn't sound as bad as fabricated. baseless, does not necessarily sound as bad as fabricated. but it is actually worse. because with the fabricated hadith, you find it somewhere, it's got a chain but the chain is fabricated.

this one is just like - it is made it up - just can't find it anywhere, just made it up. and it is extremely sinful, extremely sinful to make up lies against the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.​

at 8.22:

and in this book, he mentions something about fairies.​

[nooru giggles]

i heard about tooth fairy, but i don't know why fairy this is. but anyways the question is asked.​

9.57 nooru:

first of all lets just check the translation - he translated it as fairy..pari?​

compere:

yeah the translation says fairy.​

nooru:

ok and this translation is by dawat e islami.

yeah so nobody can come back to us and say you mistranslated it. you mistranslated alahazrat. he said pari, and you translated fairy. don't speak to us. this is the translation of the devoted followers of ahmad khan barelwi, the dawate islamis. ​

10.24

don't blame us for translating pari as fairies.​

====
jahil responder's self promotion at 12.00. ad break.


12.27:

not only when they are live cause i said you can make a bit of an excuse when the ...is live...a bit of an excuse...but..​

12.35

but when it is written you don't have much of an excuse left now.

he is supposed to be this great muhaddith, he should know that this imam abdar rahman ibn al jawzi, in his book al-mawDu'aat, mentioned this in that book as one of the fabrications. not only did he say that hadha hadithun muhaal, this is impossible.

just any person who is to read that hadith - you don't need to be a scholar. i am not saying he should reject it right away


a jahil person would do that. a person at the beginning of the study would do that. but this great scholar - as far as they are concerned - has no concern, he is just narrating it.​

JQ 13:18:

i mean i have to give it to the guy who has put it on the footnotes that he accepts that it is a fabricated hadith. and he left alahazrat's reply over there. he left it.​

at 16.19 the jahil ghabi saith:

even mawlana ilyas qadri in this - i will make a bit more of an excuse for him. for he is speaking live. he is still wrong, ok. but he is speaking live. it is terrible. it is wrong. if i were to hear a hadith like that i guess the first thing that would come to my mind: 'i need to check it" but at least he is saying it live. he should correct himself.

but what excuse does ahmad rida khan have? this is written.​

16.48

but let me finish this off, imam abdar rahman ibn al-jawzi: he said that it is fabricated. imam al dhahabi quoted imam abdar rahman ibn al jawzi and he also mentioned this fabrication and he with his explanation. imam ibn hajar al asqalani raHimahullahu ta'ala he has mentioned in the footnotes i believe he also spoke of the fabricated nature of this. even imam al suyuti - a lot of people love to use imam suyuti when it comes to sufi stuff, he even conveyed this. and imam al-shawkani. these are some scholars i came across.

this is a complete fabrication. one of the problems people say oh its in this book its in this book it is found in this book, if you know anything about the science of hadith, just because some hadith is found in some book, even if it is an early book, it doesn't make it authentic.​

17.40

the scholars have been speaking of hadith fabrications from almost the beginning of the collection of hadith. so yes, sub'HanAllah, this is shocking. you know why it is so shocking becasue even an average muslim would say that "i need to check this hadith"​

18.11

at the very least say hold on i have to check...and this great scholar, no checks whatsoever.​

[look at the glee with which he jeers as if a homeless beggar starving for a week has found out at half-pence]

 

we will presently analyse the lies and damned slanders of the two juhala.

in sha'Allah.

 

yes, i was about to post in my reply to the clip. the correct pronunciation is tajribah in arabic, though tajrubah is also acceptable in urdu.

 

the general answer to this is that alahazrat mentioned the analogy of a pig taking a walk in the park.

the park may have beautiful and fragrant flowers, nice curated lawns, and lush trees with shades and tasty fruit.
the pig is not concerned with it, nor does it enjoy anything delicate or beautiful in it. it keeps looking for something filthy or dirty to satisfy its desire. if it happens to chance upon a puddle or a small cesspool, it will happily jump into it and wallow in it - because the poor pig can only see what it can relish. have you ever heard of a pig enjoying the fragrance of flowers and admire the scenery?

----
alahazrat wrote nearly a thousand books - many of them without precedent. what is a half-pence jahil like nooruddin? towering ulama and hadith masters like imam yusuf al-nab'hani, imam ja'afar al-kattani, shaykh abdu'l hayy al-kattani, the son of shaykh badruddin al-hasani apart from the leading scholars of haramayn acknowledged his mastery of the sciences.

initially, the devbandis had gloated that these were only names and there was nothing in reality. the lying slanderer ihsan ilahi, whose shameless lies modern detractors regurgitate, also dismissed them as fiction propagated by alahazrat's followers. at that time, it was painful for sunnis as they were taunted by mubtadiys. al-Hamdulillah, by the effort of our ulama - sunnis produced the proof - and how! alHamdulillah, nearly 300 of these books are published now and most are on ridawi.org. and the supplementary work on alahzrat's work reaches nearly 2000 works.

in his fatawa alone, he has mentioned numerous hadith. suppose one or two or some are weak or fabricated ones - is it enough to throw away his entire corpus? Allah ta'ala has commanded us to be just. i do not think clowns making videos are sincere - and if they fear Allah, they should ask themselves with Allah as their judge - is this right?

as imam shafiyi has said, the euphrates will not be dirtied, if on a fine day, a mangy cur decides to put its mouth or urinate in the river. let nooruddin write a scholarly refutation of any of alahazrat's books instead of licking the spittle of a zindiq from pakistan - mirza engineer or recycle his objections, which ulama have already answered. at least be original in your hatred.

i could list down the extensiveness of imam ahmad rida's knowledge - enemies and jealous people will ignore or keep trying to find faults in his books. alahazrat's versatility and expertise in multiple disciplines is a joy to behold - we have been fortunate to bring a glimpse of it in the form of his khutbahs and commentaries of his beautiful lines. going by the quality of his discourse, i doubt nooruddin will be able to produce a fraction of a thousandth of his work - no one may even remember his name six months after he is dead - alahazrat's work continues to illuminate and educate more than hundred years after his passing. look at the creativity of imam ahmad rida which we have put on posters (and more will come) - and all his enemies can manage is cackle like a bunch of hyenas.

حَسَدوا الفَتى إِذ لَم يَنالوا سَعيهُ
فَالقَومُ أَعداءٌ لَهُ وَخُصومُ

hasadu'l fataa idh lam yanaalu sa'a-yahuu
fa'l qawmu a'adaaun lahu wa khusuumu

they envied the man, as they could not attain what he has achieved
therefore people became his enemies and fought with him (or opponents)

where is keller? keller was humiliated and i believe it was because of his slander of a waliy of Allah (i believe alahazrat is a wali and so do numerous sunnis). look at tahir - the shameless hypocrite's lies were caught by swine-eating christians on live TV. such humiliation!

remember:

من عادى لي وليا فقد آذنته بالحرب

aql hoti toh khuda say na laDa'i letay
----

buffoons on skits will not sully the reputation of ulama whose erudition is acknowledged and available to see.

---
coming to mawlana ilyas qadri. he started a movement to teach laypeople basic aqidah and the everyday fiqh. so also offshoots such as SDI and other such grassroots movements. look at the millions of people who pray 5 times a day, learn basic masayil of their everyday needs - the thousands of madrasahs, online classes, and madrasahs, masjids, and charitable activities.

are DI, SDI etc perfect?
no.

should we support and defend everything they do ?
no.

do they have problems and issues with their organisations?
yes.

but you should take each case and refute that one, instead of picking on one clip by ilyas qadri and heh-heh-heh they are not "ashiq e rasul" - from where did nooruddin al-ahmaq get this knowledge that they are not? according to his own standards, isn't he arrogant and acting like he is a prophet?

according these two incompetent clowns - all of the work dawat e islami has done is useless and mawlana ilyas qadri is etc etc. as they describe him for one mistake in a clip of few seconds.

of course, we do not support that mistake. mawlana ilyas should not have said that. i am not justfying that. however, in his defence, he might have read in a book which he trusted and innocently repeated it. so all the work that mawlana ilyas did was laid to waste? if not, then why make a song and dance about it. just say that it is wrong and move on - instead of judging his entire life on the basis of one or two mistakes.

and nooruddin the hypocrite sheds crocodile tears on the 'extremism' of 'barelwis'.

---
disclaimer: there may be mistakes here and there - everyone makes mistakes. only petty minds will make a scene out of it - because they have very little to offer. you may say that i did the same with his slip - i have clarified that if it were just a slip, i would have ignored it. i had to call it out because nooruddin tried to promote himself by disparaging imam abu hanifah. otherwise, i do not even bother about such silly fools.

astaghfirullah.

 

he says 'tajrubah', is he from subcon?

 

in a clip a jahil asks another jahil questions. and the jahil replies without knowledge as said in the hadith - that there will come a time when ignorance is widespread; and people will ask juhalaa/ignoramuses and they will answer in spite of their lack of knowledge. [hadith restated].

---