nooruddin slandering alahazrat

this is correct and is bleedingly obvious. anyone with a little fairness and common sense will be satisfied with this reply.

---

you have seen the general ruling about all such books as explained by alahazrat himself. again, this is understood spontaneously by anyone who reads books.

also, the reason i created the timeline is to give an idea of how long it has been. without a decent circulation (mutadawal) and literally no oversight, anyone could claim that a certain book belonged to a certain luminary. until a few decades ago, we did not even have the tools to verify their claims.

for example, if one claimed that they had seen a manuscript - it could not be contested on facts. his claim (that it indeed is,) would be as good as mine (that it is not). but post 2010 we have access to digital copies of MSS, which would previously be possible only if you were resident in an institution with a huge library and access to manuscripts.

----

 

in the farsi edition of fawayidu's salikin: p.28

====
older translations of fawayidu's salikin have slightly varying matter: these are 100 year old translations:


version 1





version 2




====

notice the discrepancy between this and this being cited in saba'a sanabil.

 

alahazrat has rejected that any of these books are reliable - so how can anyone claim that he has praised the criticised passage?
one can clearly see the ignorance and malice of these youtubers.

the farsi version of saba' sanabil printed in alahazrat's time has the passage thus:





the urdu translation is probably based on the same version:

================================================

there are three glaring errors in this related to the citation from fawayidu's salikin.

firstly, the only famous shaykh among chishti mashayikh prior to khwajah gharib nawaz is abu yusuf chishti, not yusuf chishti.

secondly anachronism: shaykh abu yusuf chishti (d.439 AH) passed away 98 years before khwajah muyinuddin was born in 537 AH. the passage from sab'a sanabil quotes khwaja muyinuddin being present in khwajah abu yusuf chishti's gathering!

thirdly, fawayidu's salikin does not mention yusuf/abu yusuf chishti at all! instead it mentions khwajah bakhtiyar kaki narrating it as an incident in khwaja muyinuddin's majlis! in other words, the purported source has a different set of people.
​

how can a man of learning such as shaykh abdul wahid bilgrami not know the anachronism? and how can he cite yusuf/abu yusuf instead of khwajah muyinuddin?

clearly it is a tampered, altered, or adduced version.

 

in one of alahazrat's celebrated risalah - which even enemies grudgingly acknowledge - al-zubdatuz zakiyyah in which he proved emphatically that sajdah tazimi or prostration of veneration towards anyone is haraam.

one of the arguments for permissibility was citations from the books fawayidu's salikin etc. alahazrat refutes this in point #52-53:

on page 23 he has mentioned dalilu'l arifin, fawayidu's salikin, tuHfatu'l ashiqin - but did not present the actual citation.

[we have seen earlier that] the references of page number that he has cited turned out to be an explicit lie, how can he be trusted here [when he just mentioned the books and not the actual citations]

suppose a passage to that effect is indeed present in those books and bakr [person presenting citation for his argument] has not been deceptive; in which case:

firstly he has to present proof that these books attributed to these noble personalities [may Allah be pleased with them] are indeed theirs. many books are printed with false attribution [to luminaries] - a discussion of this aspect will be seen in the close of the third section.

secondly, even if it is established by trustworthy scholars that these luminaries have indeed written a book of such name [attributed to them] - then these are not famous nor well-circulated in scholarly circles [mutadawal]; rather these are termed as rare or unusual books [kutub gharibah] - and it is not permissible to rely on unusual books.

allamah sayyid ahmad Hamawi says in ghamz al-uyun al-baSa'ir sharh al-ashbah wa'n naZa'ir citing the great researcher, the author of al-bahr al-ra'iq:

it is not permissible to cite from unusual books, which are not well-known.
​

in fat'h al-qadir, bahr al-ra'iq, nahr al-fa'iq, minah al-ghaffar:

if one find in some copies of uncommon opinions [nawadir] in our time - it is not permissible to attribute it to [imam] muhammad or [imam] abu yusuf, as they are not well-known in our time, or in our lands nor are they in circulation [mutadawal].

however, if an uncommon opinion is mentioned in a famous and well-known book such as al-hidayah or al-mabsut, it is permitted relying upon the [well-known] book.
​

it is clarified that such a book is not famous in our time - which means - even if the book was famous in an early age, it is not reliable in our time; not that such epistles which were never famous - a copy was pulled out from a cupboard and was printed. this does not make it 'well-known'.​

====
these books were found in the 18th 19th century and printed. because these were not well-known books such as ihya or kimiya e sa'adat etc. once printed (due to ease of printing multiple copies) they spread - but one cannot find multiple manuscripts and down the ages.

 

mirza zindiq, and all the clowns who show hasht bihisht or saba'a sanabil and accuse "barelwis" of this should look at the timeline, and if they have any shame stop slandering alahazrat and barelwis.

1. this is purported to be a malfuz of of khwajah bakhtiyar kaki by khawjah fariduddin mas'ud ganj shakar. there is no proof that it was actually said or certainly written down by the scribe. it is nearly 800 years to date.

2. it could have been tampered with, added, modified whatever. frankly there is no reason to believe that it is conveyed soundly.

3. what about saba' sanabil? even this was written 321 years AFTER the purported incident.

4. in fact, there is not proof that saba' sanabil is untampered and conveyed without any changes, modifications, additions.

5. on the contrary there is definitive proof that it may have been a spurious addition in saba'a sanabil.

6. therefore there is no harm in praising the book, based on the dream of a prominent scholar and shaykh 203 years ago. (in our age it would be 311 years). the praise was for the original book - not the spurious addition.

7. those who pick up one or two stray statements - from otherwise useful books - and excoriate their authors or those who praise them clearly demonstrate that they are phenomenally ignorant and have no clue of how books work - how they were copied by hand, how printing is a recent phenomenon; how scribes would add-delete sometimes deliberately, sometimes by error; and that they lack basic decency - which even disbelievers display and acknowledge - that you cannot judge someone hundreds of years ago based on statements in a book attributed to them.

especially, if they are not widely known and well-circulated (mutadawal).


8. in spite of all of this, one can still manage a ta'wil for the sab'a sanabil quote. not that we approve or promote it - but only to absolve pious ulama of wicked allegations made by fussaq of our time.​

 

some people may still not understand timelines. i made a quick timeline to illustrate:

difference between the book fawayidu's salikin and the idiots of our time: 798 years.

difference between fawayidu's salikin and saba'a sanabil: 321 years.

difference between alahazrat's time and saba'a sanabil: 371 years.

difference between alahazrat's time and fawayidu's salikin : 692 years.

difference between shah kalimullah narrating the dream to azad bilgrami and the time of alahazrat: 203 years.​

 

JazakAllah, it's not because of impatience, it's just to ensure I got the thrust of my questions across clearly enough.

The other side is renowned for moving the goalposts and strawmen, so it makes it necessary to cover all angles.

 

why am i taking this long route?

in this age of instant coffee and instant gyaan and youtube/social media scholarship, people have no clue of scholarship, books, citations etc. they think it is continuous in time and everything is verifiable and indisputable.

just wait until i am done.

 

JazakAllah Shaykh, just to ensure I have understood correctly, is the principle that Ala Hazrat Alayhir Rahmah was agreeing with praising the direct content of Saba Sanabil (by mentioning the dream in a praiseworthy manner, thereby ratifying it) WITHOUT necessarily confirming acceptance of its references out to other works (i.e. without the Fawayidus Salikin references of Chisti...).

And is there any evidence to say that this specific reference to the passage from Fawayidus salikin would have been absent from the copy of Saba Sanabil in the hands of Ala Hazrat Mujaddid e deen o millat?

I have heard from Mufti Rashid Mahmood Rizvi that Ala Hazrat Rahimahullah stated the books of mashaikh e Chist have suffered from tampering, which could serve as evidence to say he also believed the same about passages in Fawayidus Salikin.

Apologies if the answers to the above were already forthcoming, I am really just sick to the death of this new firqa that has been set up under mirza jhelumi.

 

as you can see, they are showing a highlighted passage from fawayidu's salikin in hasht bihisht (collection).

so, the correct attribution is: this passage is found in fawayidu's salikin by bakhtiyar kaki. the chimney sweep may not know who he is, but he in his stupidity follows the mirza zindiq of pakistan, freely slandering awliya.





the quote from sab' sanabil also mentions: fawayidu's salikin.



====

here is the snip from fatawa ridawiyyah displayed in the video



====
we will examine fawayidus salikin, but before that, i need to reiterate that alahazrat's fatwa is shown here in which he praises saba'a sanabil does not mean every line from SS is validated and praised.

the line from saba' sanabil that is criticised is quoted from fawayidu's salikin. remember this.

 

the other hasht bihisht is a collection of the urdu translation of 8 malfuzat of mashayikh e chisht.

malfuzat as we have seen are discourses, and informal speech that is recorded by students and disciples.

--
in the future if any idiot shows this book and chirps: "the same staoreee..." about chishti rasul, then you confront them whether they have even seen the book. the printed urdu translation is 650 pages and is a collection of eight books compiled in different ages.


1. anisu'l arwaaH - malfuz of khwajah usman harooni (d. 617 AH)
compiled by khwajah muyinuddin chishti ajmeri, khwajah gharib nawaz (537-633 AH)

2. dalilu'l arifin - malfuz of khwajah gharib nawaz muyinuddin hasan sinjari ajmeri (537-633 AH)
compiled by khwajah qutbuddin bakhtiyar kaki al-awshi migrated to delhi (582-635 AH)

3. fawayidu's salikin - malfuz of khwajah quTbuddin bakhtiyar kaki (582-635 AH)
compiled by khwajah fariduddin mas'ud ganj shakar (595-669 AH)

4. raHatu'l qulub - malfuz of baba fariduddin ganj shakar (595-669 AH)
compiled by khwajah nizamuddin awliya mahbub sub'hani (631-725 AH)

5. asraru'l awliyaa - malfuz of khwaja fariduddin ganj shakar (595-669 AH)
compiled by khwajah badruddin is'haq (601-670 AH)

6. fawa'idu'l fu'aad - malfuz of khwaja nizamuddin awliya (631-725 AH)
compiled by amir hasan ali sinjari (660-736 AH)

7. rahatu'l muHibbin - malfuz of khwaja nizamuddin awliya (631-725 AH)
compiled by amir khusruw (625-725 AH)

8. miftahu'l ashiqin - malfuz of khwajah nasiruddin muhammad chiragh dihlawi (d.752 AH)
compiled by khwajah muHibbullah (d.1054 AH)

=====



=====

 

what is hasht bihisht?

in persian it means "eight paradises" - it either refers to eight doors of paradise as in the sahih hadith, or extrapolated to mean eight paradises - or paradise in its entirety. this idiom is found in persian poetry and literature. alahazrat has also used it in his famous line:

hasht khuld aaye wahaN kasb e laTafat ko raza
chaar din barsay jahan abr baharan e arab

all the eight paradises will come to gain pleasantness and beauty, o raza
where, for four days the cloud of splendour of arabia rains.​

hasht khuld = eight paradises
kasb = to gain, earn
laTafat = splendour, elegance, exquisiteness, beauty

chaar din = idiom to mean a few days, short time.

abr=clouds
bahar/baharan = spring
abr e baharan = the clouds of springtime; i.e. the source of the splendour of springtime.

here, abr e baharan e arab = refers to RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

also, eight paradises are cleverly juxtaposed with four days.

====

in hadith of sahihayn; see bukhari #3257 below:

there are eight doors of paradise - and one of it is named rayyan, and none except those who fast will enter through it.​

====
khwajah amir khusruw (625-725 AH) was a disciple of nizamuddin awliya mahbub ilahi (631-725 AH) and scholar and a sufi.

one of his famous books is an epic or an ode - a narrative poem in eight chapters - named hasht bihisht, which is said to be a rejoinder to haft paykar (the seven beauties) the famous work of the pioneer in narrative poetry (masnavi) in persian - the famous nizami ganjvi (535-606 AH).

[for a comparison of the two epics of khusruw and nizami, see the critical edition of mawlana sayyid sulayman ashraf of the urdu translation of hasht bihisht on p.245]

-----
it is necessary to mention this because, this should not be confused with the collection of 8 malfuzat, translated under the name hasht bihisht, which is commonly available - and is pulled out by juhala to find fault with sunni ulama - whether the zindiq mirza, or the devbandi clowns, or the two imbeciles we are talking about.

few pages from hasht bihisht of amir khusruw.










hasht bihisht, p5

 

patience.

no.

but there is a nuance in that statement - especially what mawlana ilyas qadri said. alahazrat brilliantly explained what taqlid means in his ajla al-iylam and if you can understand urdu, i suggest you watch the mufti course video of mawlana fazl sub'han who explains it in an excellent manner. maybe a separate post on that. in sha'Allah.

to his credit nooruddin explained this properly. he said if i remember well: sometimes you think this is strange or may find it incredible, but upon examination it may have a valid chain. so one cannot reject a hadith outright just when they hear it merely because it seems odd.

if someone is familiar with hadith and sirah works, one develops an 'ear' to the way narrations are. so a hadith master - or even a diligent hadith student may feel that something is amiss. so it is always prudent to check if it has been mentioned in hadith compendiums or listed in mawduu narrations, etc.

one thing to note is that in our times, it is easy to pose as a hadith researcher - due to the tools we have in our time; even in printed books, we have extensive indexes and cross referencing, we can use search engines, - and additionally, there are ai powered tools.

but alahazrat's time was different - even printed books were not easy to leaf through. many books were hand written and i doubt many "scholars" of our age can even read one page from such works. so in those times, citation meant that the person would at least have to read a book and copy it down; unlike the quick copy and paste we do these days. try looking for a hadith without search engines - and especially when only a taraf/snippet is available, with or without the sahabi's name. even with indexes we have in these days. even with super-collections such as jamiy al-saghir and kanz al-ummal, or books of aTraf.

---
those who read hadith - not just a passing acquanitance - can say the above statement. it indicates that one has a continuous engagement with hadith narrations and an odd sounding narration alerts them, and they would like to check its authenticity.

[update: upon second thoughts, i removed my comment suggesting nooruddin's statement may be a subtle reference towards his own learning. he may just mean that one ought to be careful.]

Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

salam.
may I please just what is wrong with the matn of the hadith. Nooruddin said that "if i hear a hadith like that, I feel like I have to check it". Why? Is it because of what shaitan said? But wouldn't it make another reason to insult shaitan: his lack of ma'rifah of Allah (he is attributing a defect to Allah to khulf al wa'ad)

 

Salam
Can anyone please also explain we should do taqlid (blind following) of ala hazrat?

 

Can somebody please explain the issue of Saba Sanabil Shareef and the kufriya statement in a methodical manner.

Is this a case of tampering done to later versions (i.e. the qawl is not found in the book that was in possession of Ala Hazrat Alayhir Rahmah)?

And if so, how widespread are these tampered versions? Who are/were they being published by? If the Qawl is found within recent Sunni publishing houses and has been present for some time, why has/was it not been picked up and removed with the passage of time?

Disclaimer: I have no issue with the claims of dreams, these claims are aplenty within the fold of Ahl Us Sunnah and there's a reason why Ahl Us Sunnah only report such blessed dreams (unfortunately the deviants think it's because they're all made up).

 

If zillat and stupidity had a face actually.

 

Mīr Sayyid ʿAbd al-Wāḥid Bilgrāmī—may his secret be sanctified—was among the eminent saints [awliyāʾ] of the illustrious Chishti chain. He was a disciple [murīd] of Makhdūm Shāh Ṣafī—may his secret be sanctified—by a single intermediary, and Shāh Ṣafī himself was a disciple of Makhdūm Shāh Mīnā—Allāh be pleased with him—also by a single intermediary.

Shāh Kalīm-Allāh Chishtī Jahānābādī—may his secret be sanctified—relates:

“One night, while lying upon my bedding in al-Madīnah al-Munawwarah, I beheld a vision in the visionary realm. I saw myself and Sayyid Ṣibghat-Allāh Barūjī both present in the noble court of the Messenger of Allāh—peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him. A gathering of the noble Companions [Ṣaḥābah] and revered saints was also present. Among them was a dignified individual to whom the Messenger—peace and blessings be upon him—spoke with a smile upon his blessed lips, addressing him with especial attention.​

When the gathering dispersed, I asked Sayyid Ṣibghat-Allāh, ‘Who was this gentleman upon whom the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—bestowed such profound regard?’​

He replied, ‘This is Mīr ʿAbd al-Wāḥid Bilgrāmī. The honour and esteem shown to him is due to the fact that his authored work, Sabʿ Sanābil, has been accepted in the Prophetic Court.’”​

The very same Mīr [ʿAbd al-Wāḥid Bilgrāmī]—may his secret be sanctified—writes in this very same divinely accepted book, Sabʿ Sanābil:

“O seeker of Truth! The scholars who tread the path of religion that they are the inheritors of the Prophets—upon them be peace—are of three categories:
First, the Muḥaddithūn,
Second, the Fuqahāʾ,
And third, the Ṣūfiyāʾ.”​

Behold how explicitly and unequivocally it is stated that the scholars of both the outward and inward sciences are the true inheritors of the noble Prophets—upon them be blessings and peace.


- al-Fatāwā al-Riḍawiyyah, v. 21, p. 564-565

(This is a rough English translation based on the Urdu translation of the Farsi quote, as found in Fatawa Ridawiyyah. Please let me know if any corrections are needed)

 

soon, there'll be another video—random quotes pulled out of context—pretending to expose more heresies and mistakes, while the real aim will be to sneak in a reply to abu hasan without admitting it. he won't have the courage to directly address abu hasan's analysis of his babble.

 

abd e wahid kay sabab jannat hai naam e bilgiram.

allamah murtada zabidi was also a bilgrami sayyid.