That's a very unconvincing and deceptive lie you've come up with there.

Note down the following words
---

In Nazm al-Mutanathir min al-Hadith al-Mutawatir (p.202) al-Alim al-Rabbani, al-Sayyid Muhammad b. Jafar al-Idrisi al-Kattani (d.1927) mentioned that the Ahadith on the afdhaliyya of Abu Bakr over the Sahaba are mutawatir by meaning. He quotes Qastallani's Irshad al-Saari Baab Tafadhul Ahl al-Iman fi al-A'man from the Book of Imaan who quotes Ijma` of Ahl al-Sunnah on this. He also quotes Ibn Hajar from al-Sawa'i al-Muhriqa and Ibn Taymiyya from al-Wassiyyat al-Kubra who mention that it the reports are mutawatir. Ibn Taymiyya's words are very interesting "the Ahl al-Sunnah agree on what has been mass-narrated from Ameerul Mumineen Ali ibn Abi Talib (May Allah be pleased with him) who said: the Best of this Umma after its Prophet is Abu Bakr, and then Umar (May Allah be pleased with them both)."

Also, Verily this issue is not from amongst the Usool of our religion. However, if one says, because this issue is not from the Usool of our religion and not Qat’I, therefore, we are free to choose whether to accept it or not, the Imam says, “Tell them to leave all the necessary (Waajib) aspects of the religion and then observe what kind of a wrath the Shari’ah brings upon them. When it has become known and clearly proven by the statements of our predecessors, it is necessary for one to accept it”. Verily when scholars apparently differ we must reconcile and accept those that are the pillars of our religion, especially those who mentioned this issue as being Qat’i. Imam Ahmad Raza writes, “Amongst them is he who has mentioned this issue most, the lion of Allah, whose blessed face Allah has glorified. It is established through Tawaatur that he would give superiority to the Shaykhayn (Abu Bakr and Umar) above himself and the whole of the ummah. Further he removed all ambiguity from this issue in the narration of Daar Qutni where he said, anyone who gives superiority for me above Abu Bakr or Umar, verily I shall punish him the punishment of an accuser. Imam Zahabi says the narration is Saheeh. Is it possible that Sayyiduna Ali (Allah is pleased with him) would carry out such statement if it was not Qat’I and had contradiction? Whereas it is he who narrates from the Prophet (peace be upon him), wave punishments as much as possible for the Muslims. Amongst them is also Sayyiduna Maymoon Ibn Mahraan who is amongst the Fuqaha of the Taabi’een. He was asked if Abu Bakr and umar were more superior or Ali. His hair rose in fear and his veins began to expand upto the etent that his knife fell from his hand and he said, I had never thought that I’d live to see the day when people begin to give superiority for another above Abu Bakr and Umar. From amongst them is Imam Maalik Ibn Anas when he was asked who is most superior after the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), he replied, Abu Bakr and Umar, then he said, is there any doubt in that? Also, amongst them is the great Imam Abu Hanifah. He was asked about the signs of the Ahl Al-Sunnah. He replied that the sign of the Ahl Al-Sunnah is that one believes Abu Bakr and Umar as most superior after the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him. How can it be a sign if one who believed otherwise would also remain amongst the Ahl Al-Sunnah?). Also, amongst them is the great Imam Muhammad Ibn Idris al-Shafa’I who recorded the ijma’ of the Sahabah and the Tabi’een on this issue. Among them is also the Imam of Ahl Al-Sunnah Wa Al-Jama’ah Imam Ab Al-Hasan Al-Ash’ari, Imam Hujjah Al-Islam Al-Ghazali, Imam Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, Imam Ahmad Al-Qustalani, Imam Abd Al-Baaqi Al-Zarqaani and Imam Mulla Ali Al-Qaari and many others (May Allah shower mercy upon them all). Al-Sayyid Al-Shareef Ab Al-Husayn Al-Noori narrated from his Sheikh and Murshid Ale Rasool Ahmadi, he said that I heard from Shah Abd Al-Azeez Al-Dahalwi, he used to say that the superiority of the Shaykhayn (Abu Bakr and Umar) is Qat’i or similar to Qat’i”.

Also, I recommend you take heed of the following:

files.aqdas.webnode.com/200000048-abd52a...dil_al_shaykhayn.pdf

tafzilis cant understand. sorry to say that. they are effected by shia rafidi beliefs.

Mfalah, there are numerous problems with your copy and paste but before i point those out. let me say that this need not turn into a sledging match; that would defeat the purpose of the discussion and would be against the ethics of our deen as the Qur'an is clear "reason with them in the best manner"...that being said let furnish my point of view.

1. there are no ahadith from Rasul Allah(saw) which express afDhaliyya of a particular sahabi over others but rather there are ahadith with sahih asnaad which say that ahlul bayt are afdhal as reported by Dar Qutni, Tibrani and sanctioned by alahazrat in fatawa rizaviyya volume 23.

2. there are opinions of sahaba about afDhaliyya such as abdullah bin omar in sahih bukhari where he specifies first three khulafa but then says that after that all are equal etc..this was criticised by many muhadithin such as ibn abdil barr in his various works considers it as unacceptable and mulla ali qari tries to explain it in his mirqaat that ibn omar was only talking about sahaba and ahlul bayt are a special case and they are exempt from this classification. you may ask that he says otherwise in sharah fiqh al-akbar, then we wonder why the contradiction? also there are three different versions of that book with many different readings. however, the point is that we have have abdullah bin omar's opinion and on the other hand we have 51 sahaba holding Ali bin abi talib(alay salaam) afDhal just survey asma ar-rijaal works on many sahaba. anyway, abdullah bin omar himself explains the hadith in riyadh an-nadhra that I did not mean the classification of ahlul bayt but only amongst sahaba!


3. the latter ages also had divergent opinions on afDhaliyya. for example, Dhahabi writes in his tadhkiratul huffaz that all the students of abudullah bin masud held him to be most afDhla sahabi. and those students were actually the teachers of imam azam abu hanifa...hanafi forefathers were all tafDhilias you would call them but of abdullah bin masud!

4. in minhaj al-sunna where ibn taymiya mentions 80 lashes report then in footnote salafi wahabi says that this reports is weak and has many problems with the chains just as i said earlier, checj volume 6 for your self.

5. other reports where Ali bin Abi Talib(alay salaam) saying that shaykhain are afDhla is a correct one and this question was aksed from imam zain al-abideen and imam Baqir (alayhuma assalaam).... in tarikh of kahtib baghdadi and mujam shuyukh ibn al-arabi both with different chains in 4th century. Imams said that Ali bin Abi Talib said those things out of humility and humbleness otherwise how can He be not afDhal because hadith of manzilat is clearly suggests that Ali was afDhal!
also Abu Bakr siddeeq abdullah bi quhafa(r) himself said when he became the kahlifah that I am not afDhal to any of you...this is in various places in sihah and elsewhere...so why dont you say that He is not afDhal? you would say that it said out of humility but then why not accept that Ali bin Abi talib was also saying it out of humility?

6.Imam shafi having said that there is ijama of sahaba..well...another misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation....that quote is in al-etaqaad of bahiqi and quoted ibn hajr asqalani in fathul bari...it says that there is ijma of sahaba that first kahlifah abu bakr then omar then osman then Ali...that ijma is about the matter of righful khilafah and not about afDhaliyya because look if that was the case then what about famous difference even you wouls agree between Ali and Osman in afDhaliyya? those who considered Ali would be deniars of ijma of sahaba as the order by shafi in ijma is clearly stated so what would you call deniars of ijma of sahaba amongst basris and kufis and tabieen at that? furthermore, imam shafi in his diwan clearly says about Ali bin abi talib that 'khaira imam wa khaira haadi' that ali is afDhal Imam and Afdhal guide?

7.all other names that are just thrown in, are not as you say. for example, you mentions imam zurqani, well, he clearly says that Ayesha siddiqa(R) said that most afDhal after the Prophet(saw) is Fatima zahra(salaam Allah alayha)and imam zurqani says that this is reported with the reporters of sahih bukhari in tibrani. it is not just women but rather All because exception is made by Her Father(saw), who was a Man so it includes all and the sanad is just as good as bukhari because reporters are those of bukhari/muslim. also ghazali did not say that but said that there is conjecture about afDhaliyya and so on...

8. we all believe in Noor of Rasul Allah(saw) and that hadith is reported by abdur razak in his musannaf...in the same book with EXACTLY the same sanad from imam abdurazak he says that tabieen ma'mar and waki both said and agreed that whoever holds either ali or abu bakr afDhal is fine by us! now, deny that but also then deny Noor...this you can also see in sawaiq muhriqa of ibn hajar!

9. Finally, you mention shah abdul aziz dehlavi, well, he doesnt say that at all...check his fatwa aziziyya and he clearly says that the difference of afDhaliyya between Ali and Abu bakr amongst ahl al-sunna is like that of ashaira and maturidi and that if someone respects shykhain but holds Ali afDhal then that such a person is sunni and one can read namaz behind him.

10.imam azam abu hanifa's saying is not from him because fiqh al-akbar is not by him but rather attributed to him even deobandi ulama say that..however, lets suppose that is from him then it does not say afDhaliyya but tafzil of shaykhain and hubb of khatanain....excellence of shaykhain and love of khatanain...where do you get afDhaliyya from? the correct way would be afDhaliyya of shaykhain....then would have been right...also zaid bin ali bin hussain famously held ali bin abi talib afDhal as reported by al-ashari yet imam azam does his bayah and says that whoever fights for him is like fighting on the day of badr...check Dhahabi etc on this.

this much is sufficient to make the case for afDhaliyya not being as important and wajib as you guys seem to think. through out the ages people have given their opinions and other ulama diagreed with them...this alone tells you that matter is not as certain as you guys are trying to make it out.

abu zar you quote alla Hadret alayhi rehma what was his aqeeda on this issue? Shaykh raja sahib stated all qadiri's believe that hadret Ali is afdhal is a completely debase. Ala hadret's fatawa is clear he states that the fadhila is in the tarteeb of Khilafat, hadret ali sheri khuda being afdhal in certain aspects is not kulli (absolute) but would be jazwi (partial) this in that case would be qaadi itifaaki not qaadi ikhltilaafi, its like saying panjtan paak are pure that does not take away from the azwaaji mutahira, the sahaba ikram ridwanullkahi ta3ala majmaeen or the other memebers of ahlul bayt being paak (pure). Please staopm trying to mislead others in saying ala hadret's aqeeda was that hadret Ali is afdhal because that is completely debase, Alal hadret (may allah bless him) states that we are all the children of imam rabbani and imamam rabbani qada salla sirru noorani's aqeeda is "afdhal basher ba'ad ambiya bit tahqeeq abi bakrinis sadeeq!" ala hadret azeemi barkat was very clear on this point and what his opinion was.

I am also sure you are versed in hadith and usul al hadith brother abu zar, especially when the ulema have said if there are narations of hadith regarding an issue and if those narations differ then you cannot take any of those hadith as daleel (proof) for a particular position example when hadret nabi kareem was in hujjeri aisha radi allahu ta3ala anha and there was dispute amongst the blessed sahab nabi said for them to leave (1), hadith (2) states the same thing but refures to hadret umer hadith (3) narates the same even but states in the wording of the hadith that the ahlul bayt should leave the room (all 3 hadith are present in Bukhari shareef, which should we take as correct? therefore it is wrong for the shiah for example to stress hadith (2) when someone else could stress hadith (3) or hadith (1) in such case the muhaditheen are in agreement such hadith cannot be used as proof for an issue.

I am also sure you are versed in the hadith that state there was ijma amongst the sahaba that hadret Abu bakr sadeeq is afdhal. In regards to my personal position i try to follow what nabi paak sallahu alayhi was salam saidf which is follow my way (ahle sunnah) and the majority (al jamaat), so on this issue i find ala hadret and imam rabbani's opinion to be sound, if others want to disagree that is their opinion, but then you should think on this point you would then have no right to call your selves "brailvi" or "naqsbandi mujjaddadi".

ps still shaykh raja sahib has not asnwer my question!

1. there are no ahadith from Rasul Allah(saw) which express afDhaliyya of a particular sahabi over others but rather there are ahadith with sahih asnaad which say that ahlul bayt are afdhal as reported by Dar Qutni, Tibrani and sanctioned by alahazrat in fatawa rizaviyya volume 23.


As for your contention, you are confusing the afDaliyya of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr Siddiq radhiyAllahu anhu (which is an `ijma of all of Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah) with afdaliya Sayyida al-Nisa `ala al-Itlaq. Shaykh Yusuf al-Nabahani mentions on pg. 241 of al-Sharaf al-Mu`abbad that afdaliya Sayyida al-Nisa `ala al-Itlaq has to do with lineage (nasab wal hasab) and thus, there is a difference between al-afdaliyya al-mutlaqa (which is for the Shaykhayn by `ijma) and al-afdhaliyya min haythiyyatin ala al-aalameen alal itlaq (which is for the Ahl al-Bayt). Al-afdhaliyya al-mutlaqa is for the Shaykhayn radhiyAllahu anhum (by `IJMA) and al-afdhaliyya min haythiyyatin ala al-aalameen alal itlaq is for Ahl al-Bayt.

As I would say: "al-Afdhaliyya min haythiyyatin ala al-aalameen alal itlaq aur afdhaliya al-mutlaqa me zameen asman ka faraq hai."


2. there are opinions of sahaba about afDhaliyya such as abdullah bin omar in sahih bukhari where he specifies first three khulafa but then says that after that all are equal etc..this was criticised by many muhadithin such as ibn abdil barr in his various works considers it as unacceptable and mulla ali qari tries to explain it in his mirqaat that ibn omar was only talking about sahaba and ahlul bayt are a special case and they are exempt from this classification. you may ask that he says otherwise in sharah fiqh al-akbar, then we wonder why the contradiction? also there are three different versions of that book with many different readings. however, the point is that we have have abdullah bin omar's opinion and on the other hand we have 51 sahaba holding Ali bin abi talib(alay salaam) afDhal just survey asma ar-rijaal works on many sahaba. anyway, abdullah bin omar himself explains the hadith in riyadh an-nadhra that I did not mean the classification of ahlul bayt but only amongst sahaba!

Give us the exact references. Where in Sahih al-Bukhari?? In which book of Ibn al-Barr? Neither have you given references nor have you provided quotes. Nothing other than names, half the time filled with confusions and blunders. For example, in al-Mirqat, Mulla `Ali al-Qari is talking about al-afdhaliyya mn haythiyyatin `ala al-alamin and in Sharh Fiqh al-Akbar, Mullah `Ali al-Qari is speaking about al-Afdaliyya al-Mutlaqa. These two are completely which you have decided to befuddle into one issue in a long, ranting, confused paragraph.

I repeat myself once more: "AL-AFDALIYYA AL-MUTLAQA IS FOR SAYYIDUNA ABU BAKR AL-SIDDIQ (RADHIYALLAHU ANHU) BY `IJMA"

Also, where in al-Mirqat? Could you give us more than just empty claims, please?

Getting back to the topic however---It seems this goes back to your confusion about al-afdaliyya al-mutlaqa and al-afdhaliyya min haythiyyatin ala al-aalameen `ala al-itlaq.

Could you also give the exact reference from Riyadh al-Nadhra (which is written by Muhib al-Din al-Tabari al-Makki al-Shafi`i, by the way)?

Also, my apologies, but I was initially bewildered by the absolute lack of organization and relevance in your paragraph.



3. the latter ages also had divergent opinions on afDhaliyya. for example, Dhahabi writes in his tadhkiratul huffaz that all the students of abudullah bin masud held him to be most afDhla sahabi. and those students were actually the teachers of imam azam abu hanifa...hanafi forefathers were all tafDhilias you would call them but of abdullah bin masud!

That's an interestingly empty claim especially since Imam al-Dhahabi writes in Siyar al-`Alam al-Nubala (Dar al-Fikr ed. 12:483-492 §3530) that the shaykhayn is afDal and anyone who disagrees is a hardened Shi`a.



4. in minhaj al-sunna where ibn taymiya mentions 80 lashes report then in footnote salafi wahabi says that this reports is weak and has many problems with the chains just as i said earlier, check volume 6 for your self.

The Wahhabis are very good at tampering and evidently so are you! I am not so credulous that I will accept the judgments of the Wahhabiya sect.


5. other reports where Ali bin Abi Talib(alay salaam) saying that shaykhain are afDhla is a correct one and this question was aksed from imam zain al-abideen and imam Baqir (alayhuma assalaam).... in tarikh of kahtib baghdadi and mujam shuyukh ibn al-arabi both with different chains in 4th century. Imams said that Ali bin Abi Talib said those things out of humility and humbleness otherwise how can He be not afDhal because hadith of manzilat is clearly suggests that Ali was afDhal!
also Abu Bakr siddeeq abdullah bi quhafa(r) himself said when he became the kahlifah that I am not afDhal to any of you...this is in various places in sihah and elsewhere...so why dont you say that He is not afDhal? you would say that it said out of humility but then why not accept that Ali bin Abi talib was also saying it out of humility?

Again empty claims only with the name of books and nothing else. Everyone, don't be intimidated...these are simply put: empty claims. Where in the Tarikh of al-Khatib al-Baghdadi? Also, al-Mujam al-Shuyukh is not by Ibn al-`Arabi, it is by Shams al-Din al-Dhahabi!

In addition, as for your Shi`a claims about Hadith al-Manzilah, Imam al-Nawawi states in Sharh Sahih Muslim:

وهذا الحديث لا حجة فيه لأحد منهم , بل فيه إثبات فضيلة لعلي , ولا تعرض فيه لكونه أفضل من غيره أو مثله , وليس فيه دلالة لاستخلافه بعده , لأن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إنما قال هذا لعلي حين استخلفه في المدينة في غزوة تبوك , ويؤيد هذا أن هارون المشبه به لم يكن خليفة بعد موسى , بل توفي في حياة موسى , وقبل وفاة موسى بنحو أربعين سنة على ما هو مشهور عند أهل الأخبار والقصص . قالوا : وإنما استخلفه حين ذهب لميقات ربه للمناجاة . والله أعلم . ‏

صحيح مسلم بشرح النووي

This hadith is not a proof for them [i.e. the Shi`a] but on the contrary, it proves the merit of Sayyiduna `Ali not that he is better than other and there is no proof in it that he is a khalifa after the Messenger (sal Allahu alayhi wa salim)

I think responding to your other claims are not of benefit, as it now shows how truly deceptive the tafDhili Shi`a are in their lies.

Wa ma alayna ila al-balagh al-mubin

A long and detalied post by brother maraqialfalah,jazak Allah brother.I just want to add something and that,there are lots of internet molvis now a days,trying to give there own opinions without any daleel or references.So i agree with you about not talking without an authentic hadith or proof.

What i feel or think or what is my opinion about something doesnt really count.As a general gup shup its ok but serious things needs references and fatawas of sunni recognized Alims,i repeat recognized and accepted sunni scholars,since now a days many sheikhs and scholars out there who are stumbling on the right path.

salaam

jazakullah khair for you beautiful post brother maraqi al7amdullilah

New Videos on the Afzaliyat Issue and on the slogan of Narah Tahqeek:

JazakAllah Sayyidi Hamza.