Jump to content

Maulana Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi


Awais88

تجویز کردہ جواب

(salam)

 

I am muslim and follow Hanafi school of fiqh.

I am against all type of Shirk and Biddah. I am here to have meaningful discussion on different topic.

 

I request to stick to one topic at a time and not bring irrelavent points.

 

I was told about this forum on paltalk and I hope my questions will be answered here.

 

The brother whom I met on paltalk was discussing about Fazle Haq Khairabadi and he was trying to potray Fazle haq as a righteous man !

 

Now I present my proof that Fazle Haq was against Ismail Shaheed [Rh].

 

Mawlana Shah Ismail shaheed was barred for 40 days from preaching in public because of fear for so-called fitna. After that Shah shaheed wrote to the mayor of Dehli and mentioned 80 reasons why he should be allowed to preach. Mayor was convinced and signed an order and told Mawlana Fazl Haq Khairabadi to issue this order. After few days when Mawlana Shah shaheed received no reply to his letter he went to meet the mayor. Mayor appologized and mentioned that I have signed a new order allowing you to preach. At this Mawlana shaheed mentioned that he has received no such order. It had been six days and Fazl Haq Khairabadi was suspended for three months for not following the orders. He left Dehli for Rampur. This incident had a great impact on the general public and more and more people joined the lectures of Shah Ismail shaheed.

 

[Hayat Tayibah, 105-106]

 

This incident took place during the reign of Akbar Shah II, second-to-last of the Mughal sultans. He ruled from 1806 to 1837

 

 

My question is

 

How can some people priase this man who did this type of act?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

I am muslim and follow Hanafi school of fiqh.

I am against all type of Shirk and Biddah. I am here to have meaningful discussion on different topic.

 

I request to stick to one topic at a time and not bring irrelavent points.

 

I was told about this forum on paltalk and I hope my questions will be answered here.

 

The brother whom I met on paltalk was discussing about Fazle Haq Khairabadi and he was trying to potray Fazle haq as a righteous man !

 

Now I present my proof that Fazle Haq was against Ismail Shaheed [Rh].

 

Mawlana Shah Ismail shaheed was barred for 40 days from preaching in public because of fear for so-called fitna. After that Shah shaheed wrote to the mayor of Dehli and mentioned 80 reasons why he should be allowed to preach. Mayor was convinced and signed an order and told Mawlana Fazl Haq Khairabadi to issue this order. After few days when Mawlana Shah shaheed received no reply to his letter he went to meet the mayor. Mayor appologized and mentioned that I have signed a new order allowing you to preach. At this Mawlana shaheed mentioned that he has received no such order. It had been six days and Fazl Haq Khairabadi was suspended for three months for not following the orders. He left Dehli for Rampur. This incident had a great impact on the general public and more and more people joined the lectures of Shah Ismail shaheed.

 

[Hayat Tayibah, 105-106]

 

This incident took place during the reign of Akbar Shah II, second-to-last of the Mughal sultans. He ruled from 1806 to 1837

 

 

My question is

 

How can some people priase this man who did this type of act?

 

First of all, IslamiMehfil welcomes you to this portal.

 

I'd like to ask a few things before getting into a detailed discussion.

 

As you said you're a Hanafi which obviously makes you a muqallid then what opinion do you hold for ghair'muqallideens as well as for Shah Ismail Dehalvi? Was he a muqallid?

 

As per your statement;

 

Now I present my proof that Fazle Haq was against Ismail Shaheed [Rh].

 

Do you consider this against shariah laws? I mean is disagreeing with Ismail Dehalvi a sin or what?

 

And if you are a Hanafi muqallid, what makes you present an excerpt from Mirza Hairat Dehalvi's Hayat Taiyabbah, a ghair'muqallid doctrine? Do you consider it authentic enough? If yes, then on what grounds?

 

I hope you'll answer the queries in an adequate manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

Thanks .

 

Brother, I stated in the begining that we are not diverting the topic.

 

It does not matter whether Ismail Shahid Dehalvi [Rh] followed a school of fiqh or not.

 

I am not discussing what is the ruling on those who dont follow any school of fiqh.

 

 

I am discussing Fazle Haq in historical perspective.

 

what makes you present an excerpt from Mirza Hairat Dehalvi's Hayat Taiyabbah, a ghair'muqallid doctrine? Do you consider it authentic enough? If yes, then on what grounds?

 

Pease note Hayat Taiyabbah is not a book of doctrine. It is a historical/ biographical work. I don't have to prove why and how it is authentic. It is you who have to prove that it is unauthentic and with reasons.

 

Any book on its default is accepted , unless otherwise proved to be wrong.

 

I once again request you not to move away from the topic and start discussing muqallid and gair muqallid issue in this thread.

 

Lets discuss everything in historical perspective

 

[ If you wish you can transfer this thread in english section ,since I am more comfortable in english]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

Thanks .

 

Brother, I stated in the begining that we are not diverting the topic.

 

It does not matter whether Ismail Shahid Dehalvi [Rh] followed a school of fiqh or not.

 

I am not discussing what is the ruling on those who dont follow any school of fiqh.

 

I am discussing Fazle Haq in historical perspective.

 

Pease note Hayat Taiyabbah is not a book of doctrine. It is a historical/ biographical work. I don't have to prove why and how it is authentic. It is you who have to prove that it is unauthentic and with reasons.

 

Any book on its default is accepted , unless otherwise proved to be wrong.

 

I once again request you not to move away from the topic and start discussing muqallid and gair muqallid issue in this thread.

 

Lets discuss everything in historical perspective

 

[ If you wish you can transfer this thread in english section ,since I am more comfortable in english]

 

Neither I tried to divert the topic but asked a few very simple queries which are actually relevant to the issue you brought up.

 

If it doesnt matter whether Ismail Dehalvi followed a fiqh or not then why you're entitling him with [Rh]? So before denouncing a renowned Sunni scholar from ghair'muqallid resources, its really important to know your views on ghair'muqallids. That'll help me answer your queries accordingly. I hope you wont consider it diversion anymore.

 

You didnt really dicuss it in historical perspective but ghair'muqallideen's perspective as Hayat-e-Tayibba is biography of Ismail Dehalvi (a ghair'muqallid) by Mirza Hairat Dehalvi (a ghair'muqallid), so when it comes to inter-sect discussion this book cant be considered as unbiased or authentic, even by the general rulings of debate and discussions. Whatelse you got in this historical perspective other than this ghair'muqallid source? Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi opposed ghair'muqallid openly even refuted Ismail Dehalvi on number of occasions so its not really surprising to see such an allegation from ghair'muqallideens.

 

And thats really ignorant to say that you dont have to prove whether Hayat-e-Tayibba is authentic or not and yet asking me to prove it unauthentic. Its you who presented a ghair'muqallid author's book to me, a staunch muqallid, so its your liability to prove it authentic to me, even to yourself as you claimed yourself to be a hanafi muqallid as well.

 

Let me put it simple. I am not sure how authentic is Hayat-e-Tayibba is for you, but for mainstream sunnis its not authentic at all as its written by a ghair'muqallid and I hope you know mainstream sunni's view especially Hanafi's views regarding ghair'muqallideens. We simply do not acknowledge Hayat-e-Tayibba.

 

And about accepting any book on its default then I'd say you should be reading Mirza Qadiyani as well!

 

Dont get me wrong, I mean look at you. All you got as an evidence is a book written by a ghair'muqallid! They openly oppose Muqallideens and Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi was a muqallid. Does it make sense to bring an opponent's word as an evidence, considering it unbiased? Tomorrow you'll be coming up with some shia material stating that sunnis are wrong, will you?

 

If you have anything against Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadia, try to bring something from unbiased and reliable sources. Right now, there is nothing to refute in your presented material. Do a google on Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi, even check Wikipedia entries and you'll find a lot more than this ghair'muqallid crap and that'll be way more authentic than Hayat-e-Tayibba as it'll be an unbiased view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry to tell you , but you have mentioned those points in this post which has no place in the argument.

 

I do not wish you get involved in those points which are off the topic.

 

So I will address only those points which are relavent here.

 

You didnt really dicuss it in historical perspective but ghair'muqallideen's perspective as Hayat-e-Tayibba is biography of Ismail Dehalvi (a ghair'muqallid) by Mirza Hairat Dehalvi (a ghair'muqallid), so when it comes to inter-sect discussion this book cant be considered as unbiased or authenti

 

To prove that this book is biased you need to bring evidence. Mere opinion won't work. You will have to prove from another history book or record that Hayat e tayyiba is biased .

 

Tarikh Ibn Kathir was written by Imam Ibn Kathir [ a student of Ibn Taymiyya]. We don't reject it on that basis , but we check the authenticity of its narration by analysing the chain or other historical reports.

 

Please employ a smiliar methodolgy in rejecting Hayat e Tayyiba.

 

And thats really ignorant to say that you dont have to prove whether Hayat-e-Tayibba is authentic or not and yet asking me to prove it unauthentic. Its you who presented a ghair'muqallid author's book to me, a staunch muqallid, so its your liability to prove it authentic to me, even to yourself as you claimed yourself to be a hanafi muqallid as well.

 

This is another mistake on your part. It is not a book of Fiqh that you will not take its ruling since it is from a dfferent school of fqh . I presented a historical work and if you are not satisfied with it , please prove that it is wrong.

 

If I ask you , do you know what is the speed of light ? Then ask you to prove me this answer from a muslim , muqallid's research! You won't be able to do that.

 

so my brother please stop beating around and don't bring this muqallid verses non muqallid on this issue.

 

Let us say , I agree your view that Mirza Hayat was a ghayr muqallid . But to prove that he wrote wrong historical records and was biased against a particular set of people , you need to being evidence , not your opinion.

 

And about accepting any book on its default then I'd say you should be reading Mirza Qadiyani as well!

 

You are wrong again. Mirza Qadyani has been proved wrong. So his books are not authentic. Buy you fail to realize that Mirza Hairta's book has not been proved wrong. And you want me to accept that his book was not correct , just because he was a ghair muqallid and you say so!

 

Please stop moving away from the topic and prove me from historical records/ book that this book is not correct.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

 

Awais , please read here

 

http://www.islamieducation.com/en/refutati...-fazle-haq.html

 

And if you are a sincere seeker come with truth by reading original book. Do not rely on your deobandi friends who are spreading lies on internet.

 

 

Also you would like to read this to see how deobandis lie openly

 

http://www.islamieducation.com/en/refutati...ethodology.html

 

Hope you will relaize how your friends fool public by giving wrong information .

 

Abdullah Qadri

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I appreciate my brother's effort but you dont really have to go anywhere to get your queries replied. I had written the reply but you know how our electricity departments works. Anyways, I am at work now and about to leave the office. Replies will be posted tonight InshAllah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry to tell you , but you have mentioned those points in this post which has no place in the argument.

 

I do not wish you get involved in those points which are off the topic.

 

So I will address only those points which are relavent here.

 

First of all I wasnt really expecting such an arrogance from you, not atleast at this very beginning.

 

You simply kept your mouth shut on the things you declared yourself as "off the topic". Anyways, thats not something new we've seen on this forum.

 

You said you wanted to talk with historical perspective and yet you dont want to talk about whether Hayat-e-Tayibba is a general historical book or a biography of a deviant named Ismail Dehalvi and only popular among a certain school of thought, that is ghair'muqallids.

 

To prove that this book is biased you need to bring evidence. Mere opinion won't work. You will have to prove from another history book or record that Hayat e tayyiba is biased.

 

The most logical and valid proof is that the author of this book had total personal disagreement with the beliefs of Fazl-e-Haq Khairabad as he himself is a ghair'muqallid. It is widely known that Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi always refuted their beliefs. So you cant take an opponent's report which is not proven by any other resources, as an evidence! Try to prove it from some other resources than that, if you can. Like if you were there in that era and if Mr. Hairat Dehalvi would have accused Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi of murder, you would be asking the court to take that evidence and charge Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi for murder! Just because Mr. Hairat Dehalvi wrote so!

 

Tarikh Ibn Kathir was written by Imam Ibn Kathir [ a student of Ibn Taymiyya]. We don't reject it on that basis , but we check the authenticity of its narration by analysing the chain or other historical reports.

 

Ibn Kathir was a student of Ibn Taymiyya but if you read his work, you'll find a lot of things which are in total contradiction to his teacher's work and in accordance with mainstream sunnis. And by the way, you said "by analysing the chain or other historical reports" now would you please tell me by which other historical reports you analyzed Hayat-e-Tayibba' report?

 

Now please employ a similar methodology in analyzing Hayat-e-Tayibba and tell how many other historical resources affirms this report.

 

This is another mistake on your part. It is not a book of Fiqh that you will not take its ruling since it is from a dfferent school of fqh . I presented a historical work and if you are not satisfied with it , please prove that it is wrong.

 

Neither I said that its a book of fiqh. And we cant even expect a book of fiqh from ghair'muqallids as they dont even believe in fiqh. And once again, its not a historical work, its a biography, even by its name! Its not about my satisfaction, its about the most general and basic ruling! You cant accuse someone on behalf of a report from his opponent ONLY!

 

If I ask you , do you know what is the speed of light ? Then ask you to prove me this answer from a muslim , muqallid's research! You won't be able to do that.

 

Similarly if I ask you to tell who is the last prophet of Allah, and then you replies me with qadiyani resources then am I bound to accept it as truth? So stop beating the bushes and try to bring something authentic enough than an individual's (a ghair'muqallid individual's) report.

 

Let us say , I agree your view that Mirza Hayat was a ghayr muqallid . But to prove that he wrote wrong historical records and was biased against a particular set of people , you need to being evidence , not your opinion.

 

Same theory applies on you too! To prove that report as authentic and true you need to present similar reports from other resources as well not just from a particular sect (opponent as well).

 

You are wrong again. Mirza Qadyani has been proved wrong. So his books are not authentic. Buy you fail to realize that Mirza Hairta's book has not been proved wrong. And you want me to accept that his book was not correct , just because he was a ghair muqallid and you say so!

 

Same is the case with Ismail Dehalvi and his creed. Proven wrong since ages and still being refuted successfully, thus we cant take his follower's word as authentic, just like you wont take any Qadiyani's word when it comes to denounce some sunni scholar.

 

Please stop moving away from the topic and prove me from historical records/ book that this book is not correct.

 

In reply, I want you to do the same. Provide anything from historical facts (not an opposing individual's report) that affirms what you quoted from Hayat-e-Tayyiba.

 

Here I got something interesting for you from Hayat-e-Tayyiba;

 

When Mawlana Ismail Dehalvi was lecturing on jihad in Calcutta, and was describing the oppression of the Sikhs, a person asked: ‘why don’t you rule (give fatwa) to do jihad against the British?’ Replied Mawlana (Dehalvi): ‘it is not wajib in any case to fight against the British. Firstly because we are their subjects; second, they do not interfere in our religious affairs and we have all kinds of freedom under their rule. But in fact, if any one attacks the British, it is the religious duty of Muslims to fight against them and protect our (British) government.

(Hayat-e-Tayyiba, pg. 302)

 

Now how can we rely on a person (Mirza Hairat) who praises a person (Ismail Dehalvi) who thinks that defending British is the duty of muslims!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now lets examine the excerpt you quoted.

 

Mawlana Shah Ismail shaheed was barred for 40 days from preaching in public because of fear for so-called fitna. After that Shah shaheed wrote to the mayor of Dehli and mentioned 80 reasons why he should be allowed to preach. Mayor was convinced and signed an order and told Mawlana Fazl Haq Khairabadi to issue this order. After few days when Mawlana Shah shaheed received no reply to his letter he went to meet the mayor. Mayor appologized and mentioned that I have signed a new order allowing you to preach. At this Mawlana shaheed mentioned that he has received no such order. It had been six days and Fazl Haq Khairabadi was suspended for three months for not following the orders. He left Dehli for Rampur. This incident had a great impact on the general public and more and more people joined the lectures of Shah Ismail shaheed.

 

 

1. Its clearly evident from various ghair'muqallid and deobandi material that Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi was an opponent of Ismail Dehalvi's beliefs. Now why the Mayor ordered an opponent to issue such an order?

 

2. From your quoted excerpt its evident that Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi was suspended for not following a BRITISH ORDER! Since when not following a British Order for stopping an evil is declared as an Islamic crime? Now there could be conditions;

 

a) either you think of Ismail Dehalvi as a righteous person, the one who declared muqallideen as deviants. If yes, please let us know.

 

OR

 

B) if it wasnt a crime to stop an evil to misguide people of faith than what are you accusing Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 12 years later...

Fadl e Haqq Khairabadi was of heretic views. He wrote some works against 'Imam 'Ahlussunnah 'Ash-Shah 'Isma'i:l Shahi:d RH:. Although it is controversial weather the works of Fadl H:aqq are Corrupted [Tah:rif] of are conserved [Mahfiz:]. I have read two books :- 1] Tahqiq 'Al Fatwa Fi 'Ibt:a:l 'Ahl 'At:t:agh:wa . 2] 'Imtina'Un Naz:ir.

Both of these books use abusive and arressive languages against the Great 'Imam of 'Ahlussunnah , 'Ash-Sha:h 'Isma'i:l Shahi:d. Takfi:r and Tafsi:q is also embedded in these two books.

https://issuu.com/alimkanwalimtinaa/docs/the_alleged_participation_.docx

So those who doubt that Fadl e H:aqq was not against 'Imam Shahi:d RH: may read these two works cited above before making a final decision. How ever there are some points which makes doubts in these two works.

 

Fadl Haqq died in 1861 CE in Islands of Andaman . The book 'Imtina 'An Naz:ir was first published in some year  between 1902 CE and i910 CE. So there is a possibility of corruption and manipulation in the text. Any How the present text of the book is in Persian. The book named Tah:qi:q Al Fatwa was published much latter. One may see a scholarly work on the credibility and incredibility of these two works.

https://www.scribd.com/document/306014853/Imtina-Un-Nazeer-Tardeed

https://issuu.com/ahlussunnahvaljamaah/docs/google.docx

But one thing is clear. Fazl e Haqq was not a Barailvi , yet Barailvis try to include him in there latter founded sect.

So if the works are assumed to be conserved and credible then one has no option but to accept that Fazl e Haqq was a Heretic who was the first person in Subcontinent who attempted to prove that he Nazir of Holy Prophet is Muhal Bizzat. Alsodeclared that to speak a false sentence is MuhalBizzat.

Fadl Haqq not only disputed but also declared 'Iman 'Ahlussunnah 'Shah Shahi:d as Bid'ati or Kafir. Coming back to the other option if these works are manipulated and incredible then he was just an opponent . So this is an open field. 

https://issuu.com/ahlussunnahvaljamaah/docs/ahlussunnah_waljama.docx_cdb3f12a288ed7

I personally think that Fazl Haqq finally revertedo the beliefs of Imam Shahid before his death , but 'Abdul H:aqq his son rejected his reversion and deliberately hide his reversion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imam Fazal Haq rahimullah was a Sunni Aaalim. Shah Ismail Dehalvi author of Taqwiyat ul iman and Sirat e Mustaqeem is the famous Kafir and Dajjal who took pride in insulting prophets of Allah and Awliyah in guise of championing tawheed. We have extensively written exposing this Kafir for what he wrote. 

Here i offer a example. He wrote to think of prophet in salah is worse then drowning in thoughts of donkeys n bulls. Before that he wrote if one thinks of zina during salah its better to think of with wife. Ismail dehalvi wrote many more suxh statments. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

بحث میں حصہ لیں

آپ ابھی پوسٹ کرکے بعد میں رجسٹر ہوسکتے ہیں۔ اگر آپ پہلے سے رجسٹرڈ ہیں تو سائن اِن کریں اور اپنے اکاؤنٹ سے پوسٹ کریں۔
نوٹ: آپ کی پوسٹ ناظم کی اجازت کے بعد نظر آئے گی۔

Guest
اس ٹاپک پر جواب دیں

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • حالیہ دیکھنے والے   0 اراکین

    • کوئی رجسٹرڈ رُکن اس صفحے کو نہیں دیکھ رہا
×
×
  • Create New...