Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Zubd'.
Found 1 result
Introduction: In recent past the method of Ahle Sunnat Wal Jammat was that call of Nara e Takbir, fallowed by in this order Nara e Risalat, Nara e Tehqeeq, Nara e Haidri, and Nara e Ghausiya were made during a speech and people would respond accordingly: Allahu Akbar, Ya RasoolAllah!, Haq Char Yar, Ya Ali, and Ya Ghausiya or Ya Ghaus e Azam. For decades this practice was fine, no dispute on this and no one objected but the Wahabi/Deobandi's. Then the fitna Abdul Qadir emerged from the clan of chor-Pirs. In pretext of love of honarary ahli bayt more specificly Hadhrat Imam Hassan (radiallah ta'ala) and care for his status of being Khilafah e Rashid questioned the validity of Nara e Tehqeeq as well as its response Haq Char Yar From there onwards the ikhtilaf of Nara e Tehqeeq morphed into altogather different dispute. This evolved gradually and crystalised into the dispute of all companions being on haq. And resulted in accusation Nara e Tehqeeq's traditional response results in negation/rejection of haqqaniyat of all companions except the four. Abdul Qadir’s Position On Nara e Tehqeeq: Abdul Qadir believes that right answer to Nara e Tehqeeq is Haq Sab Yar [Truthful All Companions] because, 1) Haq Char Yar is invention of Deobandi's who invented it in response to Nara e Khilafat and we have to oppose their sign. 2) Haq Char Yar is said because of Khilafat e Rashidah then Hazrat Hassan's (radiallah ta'ala anh) six month Khilafat should be counted as part of Khilafat e Rashidah; therefore Haq Panj Yar [Truthful Five Companions] should be response to Nara e Tehqeeq. 3) When haq or any descriptive attribute, quality is prefixed to a sentence it serves as hasr; meaning it restricts, limits, the haq for whom the statement is about and excludes the rest. 4) The response Haq Char Yar [Truthful Four Companions] negates the rest of Sahabah being haq. Part One - A: Haq Char Yar Was Invented By Deobandi's: One of the argument against Haq Char Yar forwarded by Abdul Qadir is: Deobandi's invented Haq Char Yar in response to Nara e Khilafat hence it has become a sha'ir, sign, symbol of Deobandi's hence we should reject it. For sake of entertaining a argument lets grant it was minted by Deobandi's who had innovated the response Haq Char Yar. It would is foolish to argue for abandonment of Haq Char Yar on the basis of Deobandi inventing it. Deen of Islam does not instruct opposition to heretics or infidels in all cases. Deen of Islam and Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) was sent to guide the crooked ways of Mushrikeen to straight path. What he could reform he reformed and what could not be reformed or made made compatible with teaching of Islam he destroyed, eliminated, prohibited. Part One – B: Sunnah Of Reforming Errors: Practices of Mushrikeen which Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) reformed was the manner which the Mushrikeen of Arabia performed the Tawaf of Kabah being naked. He instructed that no polytheist was permitted to perform Tawaf around the Kabah and no naked person was permitted to perform Tawaf of Kabah naked. Instead of naked Tawaf he instructed had instructed companions to perform Tawaf with ihram. Also the mushrikeen recited in their talbiya: “Here I am at Thy service, there is no associate with Thee.” ... “But one associate with Thee, You possess mastery over him, but he does not possess mastery (over you).” [Ref: Muslim, B7, H2671] And this talibya in which the polytheists reflected their creed of god-partners with Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) was reformed according to teaching of deen of Islam: “Labbaika Allahumma labbaik, Labbaika la sharika Laka labbaik, Inna-l-hamda wan-ni'mata Laka walmu Lk, La sharika Laka.” which translated means: “I respond to Your call O Allah, I respond to Your call, and I am obedient to Your orders. You have no partner, I respond to Your call. All the praises and blessings are for You, All the sovereignty is for You, And You have no partners with you.” [Ref: Bukhari, B26, H621] Also it is recorded in hadith: “When the Prophet came to Medina, he found (the Jews) fasting on the day of 'Ashura' (i.e. 10th of Muharram).” And the Jews believed: "This is a great day on which Allah saved Moses and drowned the folk of Pharaoh. Moses observed the fast on this day, as a sign of gratitude to Allah." To which he Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) replied: "I am closer to Moses than they." and then hadith records: “... he observed the fast (on that day) and ordered the Muslims to fast on it.” [Ref: Bukhari, B55, H609] Another reformation of polytheistic practice is of Sai/Tawaf between the two mountains of Safa and Marwa. Originally the practice of performing Tawaf/Sai between Safa, Marwa was a polytheistic practice. Which is indicated by the answer of Hadhrat Aysha (radiallah ta'ala anha) when she was asked why people performed Tawaf/Sai of the mountains of Safa and Marwa, she replied: "Out of reverence to the idol Manat which was placed in Al-Mushailal, those who used to assume Ihram in its name, used not to perform Sai between As-Safa and Al-Marwa … There were men from the Ansar who used to assume lhram in the name of Manat which was an idol between Mecca and Medina.” [Ref: Bukhari, B60, H384] And has a result of Saif/Tawaf of Safa, Marwa being symbol and part of pre-Islamic polytheistic era the companions of Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) disliked performing Tawaf/Sai of Safa, Marwa: “... "Did you use to dislike to perform Tawaf between safa and marwa?" He said, "Yes, as it was of the ceremonies of the days of the Pre-lslamic period of ignorance, till Allah revealed: 'Verily! (The two mountains) As-safa and Al-marwa are among the symbols of Allah. It is therefore no sin for him who performs the pilgrimage to the Ka'ba, or performs 'Umra, to perform Tawaf between them.'” [Ref: Bukhari, B26, H710] Until the verse permitting it was revealed: “Verily! As-safa and Al-Marwah (two mountains in Makkah) are of the Symbols of Allah. So it is not a sin on him who performs Hajj or Umrah of the House to perform the going between them. And whoever does good voluntarily, then verily, Allah is All-Recogniser, All-Knower.” [Ref: 2:158] After which Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) performed Sai of Safa, Marwa by running to show strenth to Mushrikeen: “Allah's Apostle performed Tawaf of the Ka'ba and the Sa'i of Safa and Marwa so as to show his strength to the pagans.” [Ref: Bukhari, B26, H711] Part One – C: Haq Char Yar In Perspective Of Sunnah: Now the point worthy of consideration; it is sunnah of RasoolAllah (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) to reform practices of mushrikeen in accordance with teaching of Islam and replace their polytheistic chants with Taweedi chants. And also it his Sunnah to jealously celebrate what the enemies of Islam celebrated by fasting on the day of ashura. This establishes a methodology; reform what opposes teaching of Islam until it accords it and jealously celebrate something which enemies of Islam celebrate by doing good it yourself. If one for the sake of argument conceeds; the Nara e Tehqeeq was formed after Deobandi invention of Nara e Khilafat then the derived principle from Sunnah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam); reformed customs, practices according to teaching of Islam are permissible. Here will be the key to understand the formation of Nara e Tehqeeq and its response Haq Char Yar. In the context of concession one can argue the Ulamah knew the basis of Nara e Khilafat and its response Haq Char Yar. They also knew that this does not accord with teaching of Ahle Sunnat. So they had number of options to formulate a new response to Nara e Khilafat which accorded the creed of Ahle Sunnat – Haq Panj Yar or they had choice to formulate a new call. The Ulamah instead of saying Haq Panj Yar invented a call which accords with teaching of Ahle Sunnat. They invented a new call; Nara e Tehqeeq and its response remained the same Haq Char Yar. So they dressed the Deobandi misguidance in clothing of Nara e Tehqeeq and jealously held to Haq Char Yar because Allah (subhana wa ta'ala), Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam), and the scholars of Ahle Sunnat of past/present have distinguished the four companions from rest of Sahabah (ridwan ullahi ajmaeen). And we the Ahle Sunnat are more worthy of declaring the Haqqaniyat of the four companions then the Deobandi heretics. From the examplary Sunnah of beloved Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) we learn that if a practice is a sha'ir of a heretical sect or part of a religion but the practice can be moulded according to principles of Islam then doing so is acceptable. Part One – D: Haq Char Yar In Balance Of Truth: Recitation of Quran [excessively] is sha'ir of Khawarij mentioned in many ahadith of Bukhari and Muslim: “There would arise from my Ummah a people who would recite the Qur'an, and your recital would seem insignificant as compared with their recital, your prayer as compared with their prayer, arid your fast, as compared with their fast.” [Ref: Muslim, B5, H2333] Yet no one has prohibited recitation of Quran [excessively] and one who recites Quran [excessively] while practicing fundamentals of deen will is not warned of punishment or committing a sin. Nor Abdul Qadir or his ill-illuminated suppoters have ever censored recitation of Quran [excessively] with reasoning; this is a Khariji sha'ir so we should oppose it and chance of him doing do so in future is nill. So why should the zikr of haqqaniyat of four companions be thorn in the heart of Abdul Qadir and his supporter on the basis of reasnoning that Haq Char Yar was sha’ir of Deobandi senct because it was part of Nara e Khilafat. Importantly there is ample evidence to prove that Nara e Tehqeeq and its response Haq Char Yar predated Nara e Khilafat and its response Haq Char Yar. Syed Irfan Shah Sahib Mashadi stated he is first hand witness to Nara e Tehqeeq and its response Haq Char Yar being called during speeches of Muhaddith e Azam Maulana Sardar Ahmad Qadri (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala). Therefore antagonism against sha’ir of Ahle Sunnat just because the Deobandi heretics have hijacked the response of Nara e Tehqeeq and inserted their own call is foolish. Nara e Haidri is sha’ir of Ahle Sunnat as well as Rawafiz and Nusairi Shia. Should we abandon Nara e Haidri and its response Ya Ali on the grounds that Rawafiz as well as Nusairiyyah have made it their sha'ir. Hence by saying Ya Ali there will be mushabat with Rawafiz! Absolutely not, it would be foolish to abandon a practice of Ahle Sunnat because heretical eliments have adopted it and same principle applies to Haq Char Yar. We do not have to abandon Haq Char Yar due to mushabat with Deobandi’s nor have to abandon it because Deobandi’s hijacked and perverted it with their Kharijism. For argument sake, if we conceed that Deobandi’s were inventors of Haq Char Yar then as long as we the Ahle Sunnat hold to correct understanding regarding Khilafat e Rashidah responding to Nara e Tehqeeq with Haq Char Yar is not blameworthy. Instead one who clothed Haq Char Yar with Nara e Tehqeeq acted upon the Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) by reconciling it with teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam). Part Two - A: Haq Char Yar Was Response To Nara e Khilafat: One of the original and the easliest argument propelled by Abdul Qadir against Haq Char Yar was: Haq Char Yar was invented by Deobandi's as a response to Nara e Khilafat. Khilafat e Rashida lasted for thirty years and it includes Khilafat of Hadrat Hassan (radiallah ta'ala anhu). Nara e Tehqeeq is called for sake of Khilafat hence the response should be Haq Panj Yar otherwise Khilafat of Hadhrat Hassan (radiallah ta'ala anhu) is negated/rejected. Even though Abdul Qadir claims call of Nara e Tehqeeq was Nara e Tehqeeq was invented to afirrm Khilafat e Rashidah. There is no decisive evidence which establishes the exact reasons for its invention. Also there is no clear cut position amongst scholars of Ahle Sunnat for why the Nara e Tehqeeq was invented. According to Syed Hashmi Miyan and Mufti Asif Jalali the reason was to afirm the Khilafat of four Khulafa. Syed Irfan Shah Sahib, Mufti Abid Jalali and if I recall correctly Mufti Ansar Ul Qadri hold to the position that Nara e Tehqeeq was invented to because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) said; Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) chose for me, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhuma ajma’een) as special companions. Therefore idealy the best option would be that both possibilities are discussed but in light of the point of Abdul Qadir. Part Two – B: Intentions & Nara e Tehqeeq: Lets suppose the Nara e Tehqeeq is for sake of enquiring from gathering about the Khulafah of Khilafat Rashidah and the members of gathering respond Haq Char Yar. Even then the response does not imply negation/rejection Khilafat of Hadhrat Hassan (radiallah ta'ala anhu). Nor does the response 'Haq Char Yar!' in any way imply these four are only Khulafa e Rashideen. To affirm belief in Islam, affirmation with tongue and its confirmation in heart is essential. In the similar fashion for disbelieving in any concept of Ahle Sunnat explicit negation of a concept with tongue is required to determine ones belief. Abu Huraira reported Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) said: “Verily Allah does not look to your faces and your wealth but He looks to your heart and to your deeds.” [Ref: Muslim, B32, H6221] The heart is the place where the intention about actions is made; for Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) or for glory and fame. In another hadith which is narrated by Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta'ala anhu) that Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) said: "The reward of deeds depends upon the intention and every person will get the reward according to what he has intended. So whoever emigrated for Allah and His Apostle, then his emigration was for Allah and His Apostle. And whoever emigrated for worldly benefits or for a woman to marry, his emigration was for what he emigrated for." [Ref: Bukhari, B2, H51] Hence the criteria to judge ones action is based on his intention and intentions are known to Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) as well as to those Awliyah-Allah whom he has granted means to know. So if one responds to Nara e Tehqeeq by saying Haq Char Yar with intention of negation/rejection of Hadhrat Hassan (radiallah ta'ala anhu) being Khalifah Rashid then his response will be judged as such by Allah (subhana wa ta'ala). Or if he makes his ill intention known verbally then Ahle Sunnat will judge him according to what he has affirmed explicitly but we do not assume and determine ones aqeedah based on ambigous statement or actions or by reverse inferal. If I agree for sake of entertaining argument of Abdul Qadir with the following; Nara e Tehqeeq is called for sake of Khilafat hence the response should be Haq Panj Yar otherwise Khilafat of Hadhrat Hassan (radiallah ta'ala anhu) is negated/rejected. If this was the case Haq Panj Yar is unjustified because Hadhrat Umar bin Abdul Aziz (radiallah ta'ala anhu) was a Khalifa e Rashid. Therefore the Haq Panj Yar is excludes Khilafat e Rashidah of Hadhrat Umar bin Abdul Aziz (radiallah ta'ala anhu) hence he would be guilty of negating/rejecting Khilafat e Rashidah of Hadhrat Umar bin Abdul Aziz (radiallah ta'ala anhu). Secondly, if one was to apply the rules of qasr/hasr as presented and held by Abdul Qadir then Haq Panj Yar or Haq Chay Yar both would spell out the exclusivity of haqqaniyat for the five/six and this would negate/reject the haqqaniyat of all other companions, in other words it would negate/reject Haq Sab Yar, which he so 'cherishes'. To justify his position of Haq Panj Yar or Haq Chay Yar, first he must create permissibility of affirming Haqqaniyat for the five/six seperately from all the companions by reinterpreting the principles of hasr/qasr. Or apply different principles of hasr/qasr which will allow Haqqaniyat to be affirmed for a small group without implying negationg/rejection of Haqqaniyat of major group. In addition to this he must provide evidence of Quran or Hadith where the Haqqaniyat of five/six is exclusively affirmed or these five/six have been singled out for their qualities, merits from the rest of companions. If Abdul Qadir successfully reinterprets the rules of hasr/qasr and creates a loophole through which he can squeeze Haq Panj Yar and Haq Chay Yar into Haq Sab Yar. Then servants response in defence of Haq Char Yar would be; same principles rules of qasr/hasr apply to Haq Char Yar. He should know Haq Panj Yar does not protect the Khilafat of Imam Hassan (radiallah ta’ala anhu) but it would negate the Haqqaniyat of all companions according to his own held principles of hasr/qasr. Right now situation is that if coin is tossed and Abdul Qadir chooses which ever side he looses. Heads, Abdul Qadir looses. Tails, Abdul Qadir looses. Part Two - C: The Rawafiz Shia Hate Three Companions: Rawafiz hate, revile Hadhrat Abu Bakr Sadeeq (radiallah ta'ala anhu) because they believe Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta'ala anhu) should have succeeded Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) as his Khalifah but Hadhrat Abu Bakr Sadeeq (radiallah ta'ala anh) usurbed the his right to Khilafat. Yet Hadhrat Abu Bakr Sadeeq (radiallah ta'ala anh) was chosen by Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and apointed by the Sahabah as the first Khalif of Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam): “The Prophet said, "Nay, I should say, 'Oh my head!' I felt like sending for Abu Bakr and his son, and appoint him as my successor lest some people claimed something or some others wished something, but then I said (to myself), 'Allah would not allow it to be otherwise, and the Muslims would prevent it to be otherwise". [Ref: Bukhari, B70, H570] They also revile, hate him because he did not grant the Fidak as property to Hadhrat Fatimah (radiallah ta'ala anha) on the basis of what Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) taught: "I heard the Prophet saying, 'Our property is not inherited, and whatever we leave is to be given in charity. But the family of Muhammad can take their sustenance from this property.” [Ref: Ref: Bukhari, B59, H368] And out of many fabricated stories they narrate that Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta'ala anh) broke the door of Hadhrat Fatimah (radiallah ta'ala anha), the door fell on her and it resulted in death of Hadhrat Muhsin (radiallah ta'ala anhu) who was in the womb. Yet fact is Hadhrat Muhsin (radiallah ta'ala anhu) had died in the time of Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) long before the so called Hadhrat Umar's (radiallah ta'ala anhu) forced attempt to gain bayt of Hadrat Ali (radiallah ta'ala anhu). For such reason Rawafiz hate the first three khulafah of Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) and always attempt to portray these three as being at odds with Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta'ala anhu) and have resorted to character assassinate these righteous khulafa. In their hate which has exceeded the boundary of decency they portray the first three pious, righteous, khulafah of Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) as hypocrites [some have even gone far as accusing them of being kaffirs], homosexuals, as children of illegitimate union, alchaholics, people of hell, and murderers. As a counter to the false propoganda of Rawafiz the scholars of Ahle Sunnat have always revealed the actual brotherly ties, friendship between the Khulafah salasa and Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta'ala anh) as well as delivered speeches, written books on merits, praiseworthy qualities, piety of the four khulafah. In this context, and the opposition to Rawafiz; the trend of zikr of the four Khulafah in speeches, books, took hold amongst the scholars and sufia and over the period of centuries the detailed zikr of the four in gatherings was abandoned as practice. But this practice gave rise to short phrase 'four companions' which the poets also incorporated in their poetical works written in praise of the four companions and this culminated into 'Haq Char Yar!' Part Two – D: The Tehqeeq Behind Nara Of Tehqeeq: Before going into implications of Haq Char Yar it would be best to explain the meaning of Nara e Tehqeeq and the reason why it was invented. Nara means call, slogan, Tehqeeq means of investigation, realisation, hence it means call of investigation, call of realization. In reality the actual word of importance is Tehqeeq and when one says Nara e Tehqeeq it is to get the answer based on the tehqeeq of respondant. The sources of this tehqeeq (i.e. investigation/realization) of respondant are Quran and Ahadith. Note the slogan of Tehqeeq is raised in association with the four companions; in other words the Tehqeeq is associated with the four companions, therefore the respondant states: Haq Char Yar. Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) states: “Those who believe, and adopt exile, and fight for the Faith, in the cause of Allah as well as those who give (them) asylum and aid,- these are (all) truthful (i.e. haqqa) believers (i.e. mominoon): for them is the forgiveness of sins and a provision most generous.” [Ref: 8:74] “These are truthful (i.e. haqqa) believers (i.e. mominoon): they have grades of dignity with their Lord, and forgiveness, and generous sustenance.” [Ref: 8:4] The verse establishes that Mominoon are haq and describing the qualities of Mominoon Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) states:“The mominoon (i.e. pious believers) are only those who, when Allah is mentioned, feel a fear in their hearts and when His Verses (this Quran) are recited unto them, they (i.e. the Verses) increase their Faith; and they put their trust in their Lord (Alone). Who perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat) and spend out of that We have provided them.” [Ref: 8:2/3] Mominoon are those who had believed in Allah (subhana wa ta'ala), acted righteously and these Momineen were granted the Khilafat by Allah (subhana wa tala): “Allah has promosed to those among you who believe [like Momineen] and work righteous deeds [like Momineen], that He will, of a surety, grant them in the land, inheritance (of power), as He granted it to those before them; that He will establish in authority their religion - the one which He has chosen for them; ...” [Ref: 24:55] As promised Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) apointed the four Mominoon companions of Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) as Khulafah of his beloved Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam). Also the quality of companions of Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam), the quality of Mominoon, is that they are gentle with each other but harsh against non-believers: “Muhammad is the apostle of Allah and those who are with him are harsh against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.” [Ref: 48:29] In the context of Tehqeeq the choice of word haq (i.e. truthful) is no coincidence rather a well thought selection which reflects insight of one who invented this slogan of Tehqeeq. The word Haq in Haq Char Yar hints all the qualities mentioned in the Quran about Mominoon. Therefore the call of Tehqeeq and its response refutes the Rawafiz who portray the Khulafah e Salasa being at odds with Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta'ala anh) as well as to portray them as hypocrites, apostates, alchaholics, murderers, homosexuals, people of hell, and kaffirs. The four companions are mentioned togather in response to Nara e Tehqeeq as being Haq Char Yar because the [Nara e] Tehqeeq about the four is that they are Mominoon. Each of them has a unique rank with Allah (subhana wa ta'ala), they were apointed as Khulafa by Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) because they had believed as they supposed to have believed in Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and acted on guidance of Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam), as was expected from them. These four khulafa were gentle with each other and harsh against the disbelievers. Part Four - A: Qaulity Prefixed To A Statement Implies Hasr: Abdul Qadir giving evidence for his position stated in the debate:When a quality it is prefixed to something should be before the quality then it establishes hasr. As a result it restricts, limits the Haq for whom statement is made about and negates for all other. Therefore Haq Char Yar negates Haqqaniyat of all other companions. The principle which Abdul Qadir invoked to criticise Haq Char Yar and argue that it means [Only] Truthful [Are] Four Companions is not agreed upon the scholars. The vast majority of scholarship has rejected these principles of hasr/qasr. Abdul Qadir’s this tactic of using strange and rare scholarship to refute established concepts is like Wahhabi strategy of employing strange, odd, opinions to weaken Ahadith which are against their understanding. Maulana Saqib Shami and Maulana Syed Zulfiqar Shah Gilani in their response to Abdul Qadir cited the references. They have done great justice to the subject of Haq Char Yar in light of Mantiq, Balaghat and Nahw. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) said: “Two are better than one, and three better than two; so stick to the Jama’ah for verily Allah, Most Great and Glorious, will only unite my nation on guidance.” [Ref: Musnad.I.Ahmad] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) said two are better than one, three are better then two, because two is majority, three is majority in relationship to one and two. So advice of adhering to the Jamah was about the majority of Jamah and this is explicitly instructed in another hadith:“My nation will not unite on misguidance, so if you see them differing, follow the great majority.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B36, H3950] The majority has rejected the rules of hasr/qasr invoked by Abdul Qadir and the majority has rejected the criticism of Haq Char Yar based on these rules. They have held to response Haq Char Yar and explained the position of Ahle Sunnat. Abdul Qadir’s position is against the majority of Ahle Sunnat therefore wrong by default or atleast accepting it is against what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) tought. Part Four – B: The Four Essential Eliments Of Hasr: In the fallowing sentence the quality (i.e. sachay) is mentioned before the number of friends; voh sachay char dost hen.' yet there is no indicaiton of hasr/qasr. When number of friends (i.e. four) are mentioned before the quality there is no indication of hasr (i.e. sachay): voh char sachay dost hen. Both these statements mean exactly the same and position of quality in the sentence before or after the number of friends makes no difference to its meaning nor do these sentences hint hasr/qasr in their meaning. The reason for this is that in these two sentences there is no exceptive or subtractive particle nor there is set/group from which the exception is made. There are certain contexts in which these two sentences can be understood to imply qasr/hasr but the sentence must have four central eliments; the predicate, the first noun, exceptive or subtractive particle and the second noun. Now if we write a sentence according to these four principles; sab logoon meh voh char sachay dost hen, or sab logoon meh voh sachay char dost hen, autometicaly hasr/qasr is warranted because the sentence consists of four central eliments; the predicate (i.e. sachay) the first noun (i.e. logoon) exceptive particle (i.e. char) and second noun (i.e. dost), therefore the four are excepted from all of the people. This can imply the others are not as truthful as the four, in other words, it can be Qasr e Haqiqi A’dahi. Or it can imply that others are not truthful at all, which is Qasr e Haqiqi Waqi’i. In three words; Haq Char Yar, there is no exceptive or subtractive particle; meaning the four are not being excepted from another set/group and without this being part of sentence there is no hasr/qasr. Therefore Haq Char Yar does not autometicaly negate that haqqaniyat of all the other Sahabah because there is no qasr/hasr found in the response of Nara e Tehqeeq. If the call was Nara e Sahabah and its response was Haq Char Yar then there is hint of hasr/qasr because the word Sahabah is used often to refer to all the companions. This hint of qasr/hasr does not imply the person negates/rejects haqqaniyat of all companions because its implied and not explicit. If someone argues against Haq Char Yar in context of Nara e Sahabah. It can be argued; the word Sahabah is plural hence it was used for four and not for all the companions. Explicit negation/rejection in this context would be Haq Sirf Char Yar. Also if the reply to Nara e Tehqeeq was Sab Yaroon Meh Say Haq Char Yar then from all the companions Haq is excepted for the four companions and this would also imply negation of Haqqaniyat for all the other. Yet the response to Nara e Tehqeeq is Haq Char Yar and Haq is not being excepted in this sentence for the four from a major group. Part Four - A: Quran Teaches All Companions Are Haq: Abdul Qadir argues: Quran teaches that all Sahabah are Haq hence response to Nara e Tehqeeq should be Haq Sab Yar not the popular traditional response. Haq Char Yar results in negation/rejection of Haqqaniyat of all the other Sahabah (radiallah ta'ala anhuma ajma'een).The fallowing verses of the Quran were employed by Abdul Qadir in his debate with Abid Jalali to establish his position: “These are truthful (i.e. Haq'qa) mominoon: they have grades of dignity with their Lord, ...” [Ref: 8:4] “... these are (all) truthful (i.e. Haq'qa) mominoon: for them is the forgiveness of sins and a provision most generous.” [Ref: 8:74] The evidence presented to establish position of Haq Sab Yar refutes itself in light of Abdul Qadir weir and strange qasr/hasr rules. If logic of Abdul Qadir and principles of hasr are employed then his own position of Haq Sab Yar is also refuted. Quran teaches that all Momineen are Haq hence response to Nara e Tehqeeq should be Haq Sab Momineen not Haq Sab Yar and not Haq Sab Yar. According to Abdul Qadir’s employed hasr rule both would result in negation/rejection of Haqqaniyat of all the Tabi'een, Taba Tabi'een, Awliyah-Allah and the Saliheen of the Ummah. Part - B: Saliheen And Awliyah-Allah Are Amongst The Muhajireen: Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) states: “Those who believe, and adopt exile, and fight for the Faith, in the cause of Allah as well as those who give (them) asylum and aid,- these are (all) truthful mominoon: for them is the forgiveness of sins and a provision most generous.” [Ref: 8:74] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in next verse states: - “And those who believed afterwards and emigrated and struggled hard with you; they are of you (i.e. Momineen).” [Ref: 8:75] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) defined who is Muhajir: “The Prophet said, "A Muslim is the one who avoids harming Muslims with his tongue and hands. And a Muhajir (i.e. emigrant) is the one who gives up all what Allah has forbidden." [Ref: Bukhari, B2, H9] Another hadith affirms the same: “The Prophet said, "A Muslim is the one who avoids harming Muslims with his tongue or his hands. And a Muhajir is the one who gives up (abandons) all what Allah has forbidden." [Ref: Bukhari, B76, H491] Implications of these two Ahadith are that companions, two generations succeeding generations and all the AwliyahAllah are Muhajir because they gave up what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) had prohibited. Therefore the following verses of Quran are inclusive of two succeeding generations and AwliyahAllah; Those who believe, and adopt exile, and fight for the Faith, in the cause of Allah as well as those who give (them) asylum and aid,- these are (all) truthful mominoon: for them is the forgiveness of sins and a provision most generous.” [Ref: 8:74] “And those who believed afterwards and emigrated and struggled hard with you; they are of you (i.e. Momineen).” [Ref: 8:75] According to strange and weird rule of hasr invoked by Abdul Qadir it is possible to argue; affirming the Haqqaniyat of all companions by saying Haq Sab Yar will negation/rejection of Haqqaniyat all those Momineen who came after companions. Rejecting explicit text of Quran is kufr therefore Abdul Qadir and his chor clan will be guilty of kufr [if we strickly hold to his weird rules of hasr] because of negation/rejection the Haqqaniyat of Momineen. Therefore if Abdul Qadir believes a non-Sahabi is Momin and believes they are not upon Haq despite being Momin he commits Kufr. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi Footnotes: -  Abdul Qadir of London is the great gate opener to Shia'ism if not a closet Shia. He believes if a Sunni was to believe Hazrat Ali (radiallah tallah anh) is superior then Hazrat Abu Bakr Sadeeq (radiallah tallah anhu) then he will still remain a Sunni. Yet there is Ijmah on the Afziliat of Hadrat Abu Bakr Sadeeq (radiallah tallah anhu) and Ulamah have termed anyone who believes in Afziliat of any other companion over Hadhrat Abu Bakr Sadeeq (radiallah tallah anhu) as Tafzeeli Shia. The Rafzi twist in his aqeedah is that he has hatred for Hazrat Amir Muawiyah (radiallah tallah anh) and at times it surfaces while he is on the microphone but he has so far managed to conceal his hatred, thanks to taqqiyah. His companion Muzammil Shah displayed his hatred for Hadhrat Amir Muawiyah (radiallah tallah anhu) in a gathering of Rafzi Shia's. Abdul Qadir does not believe that wives of RasoolAllah (sallalahu alayhi was'salam) are part of his ahli bayt, declared in Ahzab verse thirty-three and this rejection is kuffr. Just like the Rawafiz he does not believe that Hazrat Umar (radiallah tallah anh) is not married to Umm ul Kulthum (radiallah tallah anha) the daughter of Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta'ala anh). And the basis accords with the Rawafiz; Sayyidah is not permitted to marry a ghair-Sayyid and because Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta'ala anh) is not Syed. With regards to this man's character, he enjoys being complimented, and being centre of attention. His arrogance is evident to anyone who lends him a ear. He boasts about his achievements yet there is nothing to substantiate his claims. In short he is boastful, arrogant, full of pride, over confident, under educated, abusive; example of his vile, disgusting language is recorded in a debate with Abid Jalali on subject of “Haq Yar Yar!” or “Haq Sab Yar!”. Where he adressing someone sitting in the direction of recording camera uttered the fallowing words: ”Chup ker oye yaddar nay'ya!” or “Bas ker oye yaddar nay'ya.” Please do excuse the uncertainity of his actual words. I am not going through to that entire debate so I can find his exact abusive words. If exact quote is such a priority for you be my guest and torture your self by listening to unpresedented display of stupidity by two imbeciles. Now those who speak the language will understand the exotic abuse and for ?benefitt? of those who don't I will translate. If the first was true then it means: “Oye shut up [you son of woman] who fucks.” and if the second was true: “Oye enough [you son of woman] who fucks.” Do excuse the explicitness of the content here. Usually the words are used to insult a man by accusing the man's mother of having illicit sexual relationship. In other words insult by insinuating that man's mother is adulterous woman. Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) states about those who falsely accuse a woman of adulterous relationship: “And those who accuse chaste women (of adultery) and then do not produce four witnesses — lash them with eighty lashes and do not accept from them testimony ever after. And those are the defiantly disobedient. Except for those who repent thereafter and reform, for indeed Allaah is Forgiving and Merciful." [Ref: 24:4] And frankly the one who had gotten that abuse should have taken the issue up with the Ulamah so the fat which Abdul Qadir had accumulated on him with nazrana's of taxi driver mureeds would be ripped off with those eighty lashes. Continuing, his boasting dwarfs his intellectual, academic achievements. Proof of which is that so far he has not produced a lemon in his garden; a scholarly individual would be too much to ask. His company is of those who excessively praise him and often people are only called to deliver a short speech in praise of this heretic in his presence. -  Sayyidi Ala Hazrat wrote: “Soona jangal raat handeri chahi badli kali heh, Sonay walo jagtay raho choron kee rakhwali heh.” At present vast majority of Pirs, and Pirkhana are major dens of Shayateen and in this era giving bayt to a Pir is like giving license to Iblees to misguide you. In this era of darkness follow the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah who adhere to teaching of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Barelwi (rahimullah alayhi ta'ala). They must fallow his aqeedah, his teaching of fiqh and anything which he did not adress in his books fallow the middle course between two opposing opinions of scholars of Ahle Sunnat. Fallow his teachings your self and those who fallow him. Trust no Pir, no Jubba, no Syed, no khanqah of a great saint, not long beard, or Arabic speaking 'brothers' who bump into you on the road with leaflets. Do not be fooled by ten yard long titles or believe in stories of karamat of modern Pirs nor let the beautiful voices, elequent speeches, super natural ability of memorisation misguide you. These are relative to all mankind, even the filthiest, scummiest, enemy of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and his beloved Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) will possess these qualities as well as men of piety, firm belief. Men/Women of Karamat are dead and those who are living will not be known to you. Stay awake in this darkness protect your iman and aakhirah. -  Ahli bayt of Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) are of four types. The fundamental members of ahli bayt are wives of RasoolAllah (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) and their status was confered to them by Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) in surah Ahzab verse thirty-three. Second degree of ahli bayt are honarary ahli bayt, Hadhrat; Ali, Fatimah, Hassan, Hussain (Allah be pleased with all of them) then extended family of Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) who accepted Islam and finally the Ummah of beloved Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam). Denying/rejecting the Quranic status of ahli bayt of wives of Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) is kufr and rejecting Hadhrat Ali's (radiallah ta'ala anhu) family being part of ahli bayt of RasoolAllah (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) is heretical. -  The hadith of Prophet of Allah (sallalahu alayhi was'salam) that Khilafat e Rashidah will be for thirty years: Safinah reported the Apostle of Allah (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) as saying: “The Caliphate of Prophecy will last thirty years; then Allah will give the Kingdom or His Kingdom to anyone He wills. Sa'id told that Safinah said to him: Calculate Abu Bakr's Caliphate as two years, Umar's as ten, Uthman's as twelve and 'Ali's so and so. Sa'id said: I said to Safinah: They conceive that 'Ali was not a Caliph. He replied: The buttocks of Marwan told a lie.” [Ref: Abu Dawood, Vol 3, Chapter 1685, Hadith 4629] On the basis of this hadith Abdul Qadir argues that six month Khilafat of Hadhrat Imam Hassan (radiallah ta'ala anh) has to be added to make thirty years because the Khilafat of Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta'ala anh) ended on twenty-nine years six months. Note that Ulamah of Ahle Sunnat already believed as well as taught that Imam Hassan (radiallah ta'ala anh) was a Khalifah e Rashid. And Abdul Qadir had contributed nothing toward this fact. It was not already known and believed by Ahle Sunnat. -  This claim of Abdul Qadir is without evidence. Contrary to his claim there is sufficent proof avaliable to substantiate that Nara e Tehqeeq and its response Haq Char Yar was raised in religious gatherings of Khalifa of Ala Hazrat Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad Qadri (rahimullah alayhi ta'ala). During the munazra with Abdul Qadir, Abid Jalali brought the issue of Haq Char Yar predating the Deobandi usage of Haq Char Yar Abid Jalali wanted to substantiate with evidence that Nara e Tehqeeq and its answer Haq Char Yar predates Deobandi usage of it but Abdul Qadir replied [if I remember correctly]; the issue has become obsolete. This indicated that his misconception was corrected by his own co-religionists and since then it has not been used as an argument against Haq Char Yar apart from the initial outburst. -  “... During the pre-Islamic days women circumambulated the Ka'ba nakedly, and said: Who would provide cloth to cover the one who is circumambulating the Ka'ba so that she would cover her private parts? And then she would say: Today will be exposed the whole or the part and what is exposed I shall not make it lawful. It was in this connection that the verse was revealed:" Adorn yourself at every place of worship" (vii. 31).” [Ref: Muslim, B043, H7179] in another hadith: Hisham narrated on the authority of his father that the Arabs with the exception of Hums who were Quraish, and their descendants, circumambulated the House naked. They kept circumambulating In this state of nudity unless the Hums supplied to them the clothes. The male provided (clothes) to the male and the female provided clothes to the female. And the Hums did not get out of Muzdalifa, ...” [Ref: Muslim, B007, H2808] -  “On the Day of Nahr (10th of Dhul-Hijja in the year prior to the last Hajj of the Prophet when Abu Bakr was the leader of the pilgrims in that Hajj) Abu Bakr sent me along with other announcers to Mina to make a public announcement: "No pagan is allowed to perform Hajj after this year and no naked person is allowed to perform the Tawaf around the Ka'ba. Then Allah's Apostle sent 'All to read out the Surat Bara'a (At-Tauba) to the people; ..." [Ref: Bukhari, B8, H365] This is confirmed in another hadith: “That during the Hajj in which the Prophet had made Abu Bakr As Siddiq as chief of the, Hajj before the Hajj-ul-Wida,' on the day of Nahr, Abu Bakr sent him along with a group of persons to announce to the people. "No pagan is permitted to perform Hajj after this year, and nobody is permitted to perform the Tawaf of the Ka'ba naked." [Ref: Bukhari, B59, H649] -  Ala Hazrat Mujadid e Millat e Islamiyyah wrote: “Jan'nan banay gi muhib'ban e char yar ki qabr Jo apnay sinay meh yeh char bagh leh kay chalay.” [Ref: Hadaiq e Bakshish, Volume 2, Page 91] Baba Fareed Ganj Baksh (rahimullah alayhi ta'ala) wrote: “Allah, Muhammad, Char Yar. Haji, Khawaja, Qutb Fareed.”, which Sayyidi Mehr Ali Shah Golari (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) attested in his book Mehr e Munir. Hazrat Mian Muhammad Baksh (rahimullah alayhi ta'ala) wrote: Musnad al Firdosi andar Dehalmi Te Anda, Sarwar e Alam shah nabiyan ay'yeh aya farmanda. Sher ilm da meh han yaro Abu Bakr bunyadan, Umar deewar te chath Usman dar haidar shadan.” [Ref: Hidayatul Muslimeen, page 7] -  Abdul Qadir wrote: “In 1953 or there after in Jehlum the scholars of other faction invented 'Nara e Khilafat!' and chose 'Haq Char Yar!' has its response. Scholars of our faction to consolidate our position instead of 'Nara e Khilafat!' invented with ijtihad 'Nara e Tehqeeq!' but remained muqallid of other's in regards to it's answer and as replied with 'Haq Char Yar!' as answer. Had they responded with 'Haq Panj Yar!' then [the concept of] Khilafat [e Rashidah] of Imam Hassan (radiallah ta'ala anhu) would have been protected.” [Ref: Zubda Tu Tehqeeq, page 127/128] -  If I were to select a plausible reason then I would nominate the second position because there is over whelming evidence going back centuries in form of poetical works of Awliyah-Allah where these four are mentioned togather, either with names or indicated by use of phrase ‘four companions’. I base the plausibility on the assumption that inventor was inspired by the zikr of four found in hadith, poetical works and as result opted to keep the response but invented a new call. -  Wahhabiyyah practice reverse inferal technique and on it base their takfir of Ahle Sunnah. Let me illustrate my point, Wahhabi; worship is for Allah (subhana wa ta'ala). Prostration is worship. Sufis prostrate to graves. Graves are their idols-gods, conclusion they worship the graves as idols gods. Abdul Qadir fallowing the footsteps of Wahhabiyyah starts with; Deobandi Nasibi's invented 'Nara e Khilafat!' and its response 'Haq Char Yar!'. They denied Khilafat Rashidah of Hadhrat Hassan (radiallah ta'ala anhu) by saying 'Haq Char Yar!'. 'Haq Char Yar!' rejects/negates Khalifat of Hadrat Hassan (radiallah ta'ala anhu). 'Nara e Tehqeeq!' response is 'Haq Char Yar!' therefore it is same as 'Nara e Khilafat!'. 'Nara e Tehqeeq!'. And response 'Haq Char Yar!' rejects/negates Khilafat of Hadhrat Hassan (radiallah ta'ala anhu). [Now Zahid Hussain 'Rizvi' will conclude on behalf of Abdul Qadir] therefore Barelwis are Khariji Nasibi's. The methodology of Abdul Qadir is a leaf from the methodology of Wahhabiyyah and his methodology is sign of his heretical creed. Note: His this allegation is natural conclusion of reverse inferal but also the explicit allegation of Ahle Sunnah Wal Jammat being Nasibi-Khariji is avaliable on: on youtube. Surprisingly this jahil is ignorant of the fact that those who hated Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta'ala anhu) because he signed peace treaty with Hadhrat Amir Muawiyah (radiallah ta'ala anhu) were called Khawarij and those who hate Hadhrat Hassan (radiallah ta'ala anhu) due to his concession of Khilafat to Hadhrat Amir Muawiyah (radiallah ta'ala anhu) are called Nawasib. Therefore the closest of Khawarij and Nawasib in hate, dislike of Hadhrat Amir Muawiyah (radiallah ta'ala anhu) are; Abdul Qadir, Zahid Hussain, Muzammil Shah, the ugly darth vader whos name I cannot recall. -  Hadhrat Umar bin Abdul Aziz (radiallah ta'ala anhu) became khalifa e Rashid. Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat Imam Ahmad Raza Khan (rahimullah alayhi ta'ala) in response to question: -  This was natural result of fitna of Khawarij being successfully contained by scholars of Ahle Sunnat. Hence there was no need to continue the practice but this practice continued where Sunnis and Shia populations are living side by side. -  “To those who believe and do deeds of righteousness hath Allah promised forgiveness and a great reward.” [Ref: 5:9] - “Haq Char Yar kay joh dalahil hen, us meh Haq pehlay aya heh, Yar bad meh aya heh, jistereh [Arabi quote] kay kissi cheese ka maqam bad meh ho aur ussay pehlay laya jahay hasr lazam ata heh. Haq joh heh yeh khabr heh Char Yar ki is ko pehlay laya gaya, lehaza is ka hasr lazam ata heh. […] Jis waqt kissi cheez ko mo’akhar honay wali ho us ko muqadam laya jahay faida hasr ka deta heh. Is ka mana yeh heh kay Haq pehlay kehnay say yeh mana nikla kay sirf yahi Char Haq hen.” [Ref : www.youtube. com/watch?v=hlOds3gTY6I, from 4 min 35 sec onwards.] -  What Abdul Qadir is arguing is the word haq in 'Haq Char Yar!' precedes char hence according to rules of grammar qasr is warranted. -  The Wahhabiyyah find rare, fringe eliment opinions and understandings to refute established, traditional scholarship of Ahle Sunnat. If you present a hadith to them as proof they will find someone who has criticised the matan or sanad or a single narrator and reject the opinion entire scholarship on this hadith. What I mean is, strange, rare, positions, understandings are given prominence to refute the Ahle Sunnat and Abdul Qadir is no different. Everything strange, weird, rare, rejected by the Jammah, opposed by the Jammah, is compiled and called the cream of research. A more accurate name would be, compiled cream of; weird, strange, fringe, rejected, opinions, positions, understandings. Leaving mainstream scholarship in any field and basing a opinion on the understanding of fringe eliments was and is habbit of heretics. Genuine scholar works within the parametres set by mainstream scholarship. Abdul Qadir in opposition to Haq Char Yar has gone to a fringe, weird, strange, rules of hasr/qasr which were never employed not by scholars not before him and only imbeciles influenced with his fitna ways will employ it thereafter. -  Maulana Zulfiqar Shah Gilani; , Maulana Saqib Shami speech; -  First statements translates: They are truthful four friends. and translation of second statement: They are four truthful friends. The difference in both is position of word; truthful. Its been placed before and after the word; four. -  The predicate; expressing the action or situation or quality or attribute to which the exception refers to. In this case 'Haq Char Yar!' the predicate is haq. -  The first noun, is the set from which the exception is made. Example; 'Out of the entire family Ali is best in character.' The first noun in this sentence is 'family'. -  Common Subtractive or Exceptive Particle are words such as, but, except, and only. -  Second noun, excepted or excluded member from a group or set. Example; Out of the entire family Ali is best in character. The second noun is Ali. -  A jahil mureed of jahil Abdul Qadir contended with me; Mominoon mentioned in the verse are companions hence the specific reference from these verses for Sahabah (ridwanullahi ajmaeen) is correct. But jahil mureed had no paitence to listen to reason of haq and consistently interjected while I attempted to explain his error. I say; no one has right to make a mutliq to muqayyid haqiqi but Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and his beloved Messenger (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam). A mutliq can be interpreted as a muqayyid tafsiri with valid shar'i evidence. Now being generous grant that Abdul Qadir possesses valid shar'i evidence for his position of Haq Sab Yar. The real question is; what will Abdul Qadir do with his weird, strange principles of hasr/qasr? He has two choices; one, hold to weird, strange principles of hasr/qasr and cancel he validity of his muqayyid tafsiri evidence which supports his position of Haq Sab Yar because even though muqayyid tafsiri evidence will permit his position, his principles are against his own position of Haq Sab Yar. Or two, he can hold to muqayyid tafsiri evidence which supports Haq Sab Yar but then he looses his weird, strange principles of qasr. Note that the shar'i evidence and principles of hasr/qasr as explained by him are two diametric opposites. Therefore he cannot hold to the principles of his weird, strange rules of qasr/hasr as well as muqayyid tafsiri evidence. If he strickly adheres to weird, strange principles of qasr/hasr then no evidence is valid in light of these principles. Not even if there was a verse of Quran or hadith of RasoolAllah (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) which stated explicitly Haq Char Yar or Haq Sab Yar because according to him these principles indicate that for whom the Haq is stated they are only haq and no one else. Hence the verses/hadith of Haq Char Yar and Haq Sab Yar will contradict each other as well as verses/hadith of momineen are Haq. One may ask; is there room for accepting evidence of Quran or Hadith while holding his weird, strange rules of hasr/qasr? The reply is: No! These rules as presented by him allow no room for even possibility of Haq Char Yar or Haq Sab Yar. He demands evidence of Haq Char Yar what if it is provided? Will he accept it while still holding to his twisted rules of qasr/hasr? Or will he make exception to his weird, strange rules of hasr/qasr? If one says; he will still hold to his weird rules of qasr/hasr then I would question; have you realised he propogates that according to his twisted rules of qasr/hasr; Haq Char Yar restricts Haq for only these four and negates Haq for rest of the Sahabah? If answer is: Yes! Then claim that he will still hold to these rules of qasr/hasr is illogical and irrational. If one says; he will make exception to his findings of hasr/qasr. Exception can only be made on the basis of some other valid rule of hasr/qasr and this exception can only be made if the rules of qasr/hasr have been misrepresented, misunderstood, misinterpreted otherwise possibility of exception is muhaal because the manner which Abdul Qadir presented them is definite and allow no flexibility. Hence no evidence would be suffcient to establish Haq Char Yar or Haq Panj Yar or Haq Sab Yar or Haq Chay Yar they all would contradict each other as well as Haq Sab Momineen if principles of hasr/qasr as interpreted by Abdul Qadir are applied to Haq Sab Momineen. As a result believing in any of these apart from Haq Sab Momineen would be negation, rejection of haqqaniyat of the Momineen; Tabiyeen, Taba Tabiyeen, and all the kamil Awliyah-Allah. The choice for Abdul Qadir as well as his mureeds is between book of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala), Hadith of RasoolAllah (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) and philosophical deductions, logic, weird/strange rules of qasr/hasr.