I asked my friend to wait for me until I wrote a few postcards to my friends in Tunisia to show them the picture of the place of Shaykh Abdul Qadir with its green dome. I wanted to prove to my friends and relatives in Tunisia my high state which brought me to this place that they have never been able to reach. (Then I was Guided, Tijani)
If you go to Baghdad, you will discover that Tijani is wrong and the dome in reality is blue in color.
Next al Tijani claims that he was a former sufi, and he has never been informed about who Imam Musa Al Kazim (as) was. Tijani question the shia "I asked him, "Whose shrine is that?" He said, "Imam Musa al-Kazim." I asked, "Who is Musa al-Kazim?" He said, "Praise Allah! You, our brothers, of the Sunni sect ignored the essence and kept the shell". (Then I was Guided, Tijani)." If Tijani was really a sufi how come he isn't aware personalities that are found in the Qadiri Silsila chain ? Wasn't he aware that Qadiri Silsila included 7 of the 12 imams of the Ahlul Bayt?
Qadiri Silsila Chain
* Caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib
* Imam Husayn
* Imam Ali Zayn al-Abidin
* Imam Muhammad Baqir
* Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq
* Imam Musa al-Kazim
* Imam Ali Musa Rida
* Ma'ruf Karkhi
* Sari Saqati
* Junayd al-Baghdadi
* Shaikh Abu Bakr Shibli
* Shaikh Abdul Aziz Bani Tamim|al-Tamīmī
* Abu al-Fadl Abu al-Wahid Bani Tamim|al-Tamīmī
* Abu al-Farah Tartusi
* Abu al-Hasan Farshi
* Abu Sa'id al-Mubarak Mukharrami
* Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jilani
Then again Tijani doesn't even know the difference between blue and green. Even a child in preschool can differentiate between the two colors.
Anyway, Al Tijani was not the first one to dismiss the linage of Ghous Al Azam (ra). In fact the first person to dismiss the syed linage was a shia scholar. The shia geneologist was named ibn Inaba, who died in 825 AH. His argument is that his father's name was persiian 'jangi dost' and that he never called himself a syed . These are lame excuses and definitely not according to nassabeen. Jangi dost was a title and his name was abu salih musa. the shaykh himself declared in his 'mutawatir' Qasdia Ghausia that 'annul hasani' I am hasani. The third thing people say that his grandson was the first to call himself syed that is also not true.
It is ijama of all ahl e sunna ulema that he was syed. All the awliya in every age considered him a syed such as the person who wrote 'shah ast Husain baadshah ast Hussain' and turned 9 millions hindus into muslims his name is syed moin uddeen chishti ajmeri...all the awliya believed him to be syed and allama mulla ali qari hanafi writes that there is tawatur/mass transmission that he was a syed in his book nuzhatul khatir.
Also it is important to note that ibn Inaba when writing the aqab of imams of ahl al-bayt(a), he himself has missed out some -great-great grandsons and added some extra great-great-grandsons sons that are not in earlier books of nasab, so does that mean that those claiming nasab from such sons are not syed ?
A biographies called Bahjtul Asrar whose author died in 713 AH gives the shaykh's lineage from Imam Hasan al-mujtaba(A), and this alone predates ibn Inaba by 112 years! Shaykh syed Abdul qadir jilani's son syed abdur razaq in 'Fatihat Futuhul Ghayb' gives his shajra from Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba(A). This refutes the claim that it was his grandson who was the first to call the Jilani (ra) a Syed. Also, his grandson shaykh abu salih nasr, about whose authenticity imam ibn Hajar Asqalani prides himself that I report with three links from him whose sanad is most high and declares him trustworthy and authentic in his book 'ghibta'. those who calim that it was his grandson, should also note that he was a very reliable and superior and honest reporter according to asma ar-rijaal imams.
Furthermore, it is also claimed that none of his contemporaries called him a syed is also a blatant lie. Sheikh's companion and disciple mufti of Iraq, Imam Abullah bin Nasr bin Hamza Bakri Baghdadi in his book 'Anwaarul Naazir' details the lineage of shaykh syed Abdul qadir jilani from Imam Hasan al-mujtaba(A)
The Maliki jurist and geneologist ahmed ibn Jawzy in his book of geneology called 'albayaan fi nasabul adnan' details the lineage of the shaykh from Imam Hasan yet he was not fan of the shaykh as is evident from his book 'talbis'. Also Sibt ibn Jawzy in his book on geneology called 'ansaabul qirtaas' details the lineage of the Shaykh from Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba(A) as well as the renowned historian al-Jabarti details the lineage of Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba and gives the shaykh as his descendent.
These are just a few refrences and you pick up any book on asma ar-rijaal after 561AH and you will see that all are unanimous in the siyadat of the shaykh. There is an absolute ijma from ahl as-sunna from every century on the lineage of hazrat shaykh syed Abdul Qadir jilani. As a matter of fact you can read a book by Qadhi Mohammed Makki bin Azouz, the Tunisian jurist and traditionist where he gives the list and books of sixty ulema of the past that have written on the hasani lineage of the shaykh. The book is called 'As-saif ar-RabbanI fi Unuq Al Mutarid Al Ghauth Al Jilani'.
Ibn Inaba (825 AH) denied nasab in his book, and all those before him as mentioned above consider him syed. The shyakh died in 561AH. So someone who comes 264 years after declares him a non-syed whereas nassabeen and biographers and contemporaries and his son are telling you he was a syed.
As for ibn inaba having extra number of great-great grandsons and less number of grandsons sons of imams in his book when compared to the nassabeen before him and how some shajras printed in Iran and Najaf do not tally with those sons and hence by default making some known syeds as non-syeds is another issue but one should realise that collection of nassabeen is how genoelogists operate and not just a single person's baseless word. there are various shades of opinions. He wrote it out of bias of being a shia or ignorance..
No comments:
Post a Comment