So there are ulama who believe that for takfir even if there are overwhelming scholars who have called some Muslim as kafir but If there is 1 genuine scholar who has not then the verdict of that single scholar could be “havi” upon those many, had you known about Jirah wa Tadil you would have understood this, Imam Nasa'i has stated that for some narrator to be weak one requires to have all Muhaditheen to be unanimous against him, however to declare some narrator to be “Thiqa (trustworthy)” even qawl of 1 scholar would be taken as hujjah, Islam has prescribed strict criteria even on finding weakness in other people let alone making takfir upon them (this is also a slap on face of wahabis who declare Muslims as Kafirs for believing in so called Daeef ahadith)
Another example which could be helpful is that vast majority of Ulama greater in status than Ala Hazrat (rah) have made takfir on Yazid (Lanat Ullah), Imam Ahmed (rah) has gone to the extent of proving that “HOW CAN ONE NOT CURSE YAZD WHEN QURAN HAS ITSELF CURSED HIM” but still Hujjat ul Islam, The mighty Sufi, Mujaddad and Wali Ullah Imam al-Ghazzali (rah) has written in detail over defense of Yazid and even accepted that we can write Rahimuhullah with his name and to accuse him even of “FISQ” is not acceptable, now would Hujjat ul Islam (rah) become kafir for not considering Yazid as kafir?. For certain barelvis whose life starts and ends at takfir this might be strange, but why doesn’t their Ghayrah awaken on Muhayuddin Ibn Arabi (rah) or Imam Ghazzali, now these same people who accuse others of not loving Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) at all, I ask them do they love Prophet (salalaho alaihi wasalam) more than Ala Hazrat? If they love Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) more then they should know that accepting something “bad as bad” is enough not that we have to force other people in accepting some verdict of any given scholar, In light of this Sheikh Nuh has proven all the sunni aqaid in the same very article...
Hence proven deobandis are right according to aamir
lol
18 Jul (6 days ago)
The wisdom/reasoning behind Sheikh Nuh's analysis
Sheikh Nuh has actually supported Ala Hazrat in the best fashion because for Ala Hazrat aqaid also mattered the most,
Sheikh Nuh has nailed Deobandi in their rejection of Hadhir Nadhir, In their rejection of “Kulli” Ilm ul ghayb to Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam), Sheikh Nuh has even talked about Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) to be Mukhtar e Kull, he clarified Waseela issue and proved deobandis to be confused like Wahabis and on other places he has verified all other sunni aqaid, however for muhaqiqeen even the rejection of Takfir by Imam Ghazzali (rah) is a proof of his greatness, let's see why... due to his rejection of takfir the same Wahabis who used to call him misguided Sufi have started to use the title Hujjat ul Islam with his name before mentioning his verdict on Yazid, Alhamdulillah Sheikh Nuh has been a guide for many Wahabis/Deobandis too, had he been a typical Mullah who did wild takfir in this “SPECIFIC TIME” (note: Sybarite do not misinterpret it and say that I have said it about Ala Hazrat… naudhobillah) then he would not have been honored as one of the leading scholars of Ummah.
Anyone who knows ranking of sheikh Nuh amongst scholars would only bow his head down in humblness, the panel of Sunni ulama at
sunnipath.com respect sheikh Nuh rather many Ulama are students of Sheikh Nuh, the ulama present at
sunnah.org respect him, I have personally witnessed Minhaj ul Quran sending a whole team to welcome sheikh Nuh with gifts and flowers, even Wahabis accept the amount of humbleness and knowledge which Sheikh Nuh holds...
18 Jul (6 days ago)
Aqaid cannot be wrong but verdicts could be!
Hence sheikh Nuh not endorsing Takfir (but at the same time proving aqaid of barelvis to be right) has great Hikmah, the way of Sufis is to bring people back to original aqaid, he has perfectly done that and in today’s time when the fitnah of Wahabism has spread like a virus it is not appropriate to make Takfir upon other people and their Akabireen
Note: Sybarite went to the extent that Jews/Christians should be considered then, in my sight according to Quran even Jews and Christians should be asked to come on common terms between us and them, Quran has taught us to use Hikmah and Quran has even praised the honest monks and promised reward to those who believe in Allah and day of judgment, now what are those common terms which Muslims have with Jews and Christians? They are belief in 1 Ilah and his sent Prophets, If we start calling them Kufaar straight away and boycott them totally then they will consider Islam to be a barbaric religion.
The examples can even go back to the era of Sahaba who had differed within themselves not only on minor but rather “MAJOR” issues, If we start applying our own ijtihad like Sybarite applied on a Wali Ullah (just because he differs with takfir) then even Sahaba could be accused, for example every Muslim knows for a fact that Bughz against Mawla Ali (a.s) is sign of Munafqat, Sunnis also accept the fact that Haqq was always with Mawla Ali (a.s) too and that Ali is from Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) and Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) is from Ali (as Sahih ahadith prove), despite all this Sahaba even went on war against Ali (ra), some Sahaba even joined the army of “Khawrjites” there are even specific ahadith which prove Ameer Muawiya (ra) to be amongst Baghis, but still we do not have the right to call him one.
18 Jul (6 days ago)
detailed biography of Ibn Taymiyyah by Ibn Kathir
I have used only 1% of Sheikh Nuh’s beautiful hikmah in my reply above, although my whole stance is based upon clarification given by the great Wali-Ullah, Had some Wahabi accused my sheikh then it would not have hurt me, but to witness some ill-informed layman-sunni to call my Murshid as Illegitimate child is really shocking and is major hurdle in the way of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jammah, I have started to consider a vast difference between moderate scholars like for instance Dr Tahir ul Qadri (rah)/Sheikh Nuh (rah) and fanatic barelvi viewpoints now.
Now I will refute Sybarite in detail according to magnificent article of Sheikh Nuh, note that Sybarite has cunningly lied that Sheikh Nuh only relied upon Al-Muhannad in order to take back takfir, but the reality is that Sheikh Nuh has relied upon Quran, Sunnah, the principles of Shariah and usool of fiqh to analyze the deobandi/barelvi divide amongst Muslims.
The very first thing which Sheikh Nuh clarified was: Charging fellow Muslims with unbelief (takfir) is an enormity in the eyes of Allah. It is the fitna or “strife” that destroyed previous faiths, and whose fire in Islamic times was put out with the defeat of the Kharijites, only to be revived on a wholesale scale almost a thousand years later by Wahhabi sect of Arabia in the eighteenth century, from whence its acceptability has spread today to a great many otherwise orthodox Muslims, becoming the bid‘a of our times, and one of the most confusing Islamic issues
….
Hence the sects which consider only themselves to be Muslims and everyone else to be Kafir even those who differ with their takfir to be kafirs have Khawarji inclinations, the fitnah of this labeling started from Khawarjites till it was revived by Najdi-Wahabis, the forefather of neo-Khawrjism was Ibn Taymiyyah al-Harrani, he had many students who are still revered by Ahlus Sunah as major Sunni scholars like Imam Dhahabi (rah), Al-Hafidh Imam Ibn Kathir (rah)...
18 Jul (6 days ago)
had he been a typical Mullah who did wild takfir in this “SPECIFIC TIME” (note: Sybarite do not misinterpret it and say that I have said it about Ala Hazrat… naudhobillah)
Whom you referring as "typical Mullah" who did "Wild Takfir". Give us some names.
Anyways thats an another issue. I expected a reply on the thread I made with the title "Aamir". First things first as per you own ideology. Answer my posts then we'll proceed further.
I wont even bother myself to read any further posts by you unless you answer the earlier thread.
18 Jul (6 days ago)
Even Takfir on father of Wahabism was rejected!
Imam Dhahabi said: I do not think you have reached the rank of Ibn Taymiya therein, or by Allah, even approach it, yet you saw what happened to him: the attacks on him, people leaving him, and his being called misguided, a kafir, and a liar—rightly and wrongly—while, before he got into this field, he was illumined and enlightened, and bore the mark of the early Muslims on his face; whereafter most people felt that he grew dark and eclipsed, and a shadow fell upon him; becoming in the eyes of his enemies a liar, impostor, and unbeliever; in the eyes of the intelligent and fair-minded an inaugurator of blameworthy innovations (mubtadi‘) in religion, though personally virtuous, painstaking, and skilled; and in the eyes of the majority of his low-bred followers the ‘standard-bearer of Islam’ and ‘defender of the faith.’ I can tell this as a fact” (Zaghal al-‘ilm, 42–43).
Imam Dhahabi (rah) has called his enemies to have called him Kafir only and even considered the takfir to be “possibly” right or wrong, he kept his personal opinion to be neutral and considered it to be a fact that Ibn Taymiyyah was standard bearer of Islam and defender of faith. Now this is the same Ibn Taymiyyh in whose Kufr many ulama have not doubted atall...
18 Jul (6 days ago)
Inspite of disgusting Kufrs by Ibn Taymiyyah!
For example Ibn Taymiyyah coming down from his mimbar and saying: Allah descends to lowest heaven like this (Naudhobillah), Ibn Taymiyyah making analogy between existence of Allah and that of moon/sun by saying Allah comes infront of us like Sun/Moon come infront of us though they are in the sky, his sayings like hell fire is not eternal (which is direct rejection of Quranic ayahs), his sayings like all attributes of Allah like his hands/feet/eyes/shin etc… are to be taken literally (naudhobillah), he saying regarding Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) that to TRAVEL FOR VISTING MADINA IS DISOBEDIENCE (Maaz Allah, Thuma Maaz Allah) and he considering even Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) not free from “SINS” astaghfirUllah, He saying that Islam of Mawla Ali (ra) is not sound because Islam accepted by youngsters is not relied upon (Naudhobillah), Ibn Taymiyyah not only said these ugly things bluntly but also defended them, when he was put in jail he considered himself to be a Mujahid like other Aima of 4 schools who were also tortured for spreading truth.
Alright let’s come towards another issue, many esteemed scholars have tried to prove that Parents of Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) were Kufaar and are in hell fire (Naudhobillah), Mullah Ali Qari who according to some unconfirmed sources repented later, however he had written a complete book in refutation of Imam Suyuti (rah) and tried to prove with vigor that Parents of Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) were Naudhobillah Kufaar, even if assuming that there is proof of his repentance then the issue which comes in mind is that scholars did not declare him Kafir even when his book was spread around having open refutation of all people who considered Parents of Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) to be Muslims.
18 Jul (6 days ago)
Ulama went overboard too!
Alright let’s give benefit of the doubt to Mullah Ali Qari (rah), but what about Imam Ibn Kathir (rah) who in his tafsir has also tried to prove the same and there is no proof of his repentance, the simple answer to end these disputes is not to use the formula of “Imputed intentionality” because It will make them Bari from accusations of Kufr, now I ask what possible interpretation could there be for considering the Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam)’s parents as Kufaar? On top of this there is an odd (shaz) hadith regarding this in Sahih Muslim in which Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) said to another man that Your and my Father are in Hell fire (naudhobillah) (detail of it being shazz can be given on demand)
To me Hurmah for Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) is a universal concept and nobody is to be spared if there is hint of disrespect regarding Prophet (salallahoi alaihi wasalam), this applies on all because Quran has even strictly ordered the wives of Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) to beware of angering Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) and Allah warns them of double the punishment in Surah Ahzaab and double the award if they are watchful, now in relevance to imputed intentionality let us look at this following hadith:
A'isha (Allah be well pleased with her), who said: I became jealous of the women who offered themselves to the Messenger of Allah and said, “Does a woman offer herself?” And when Allah Most High revealed:Postpone [the daily turn of] whomever you will of them [your wives], and draw near to you whomever you will; Whoever you wish [to return to their original turn], of anyone you have set aside, it is no reproach against you (Qur’an 33:51), I said, “I don’t see but that your Lord rushes to fulfill your own whims” (Bukhari, 6:147: 4788).
The Lord only rushes to fulfill the desires of Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam)??????? Had the ruling of imputed intentionality not played in then Sayyidah Aisha (ra) would have been accused too!
18 Jul (6 days ago)
Prophet (salallaho alaihi waslam) taught the Usool
Sybarite might say that the scholars have pointed out that when it is a matter in time of Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) then the verdict of Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) will be used, The answer to this is that our Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) said “Every Bidah is misguidance” but as we know for a fact that Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) himself accepted Bidat al Hasanah in deen so we get a perfect reply to wahabis by saying Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam)’s sunnah cannot ever contradict itself and the usool which Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) uses is irrefutable, for example the Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) was even made to forget in Salah so that we the Muslims learn from it so it automatically proves that Anbiya are pure of minor mistakes too (let alone sins), so the above incident also happened for a reason which is that we cannot pass verdicts on imputed intentionality.
This specific proof of mine could be deliberately altered and presented wrongly to people but Alhamdulillah I can put my life on this and say that what I have said above is in actual perfect praise of our beloved Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) because our Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) had made all usool clear to us. I will shed some more light on this.
To be Continued tomorrow Insha ALLAH… (Refutation of Sybarite pseudo accusations and understanding of Sheikh Nuh’s words/explanation plus the 10 so called points which he and his chillaz yell about)
To be Continued tomorrow Insha ALLAH… (Refutation of Sybarite pseudo accusations and understanding of Sheikh Nuh’s words/explanation plus the 10 so called points which he and his chillaz yell about)
dont use your shaikh name as you dont follow him. he have already called them kafir
besides that how cheap you can go we can see here.
lol
sybarite i think you should start asking in same way
like:
Hazrat Ali (RA) did jihad against khawarij so that was wrong too??
war of yamama was wrong too??
18 Jul (6 days ago)
A little correction
I had said by mistake: Overwhelming scholars could be named who believed that Allah has literal hands/eyes and is "Bi Dhatihi" on Arsh on top of this they rejected the taweel of Ashari’s
Instead of "Bi" It is simply "Dhatihi"
18 Jul (6 days ago)
Let him cry a river Umer! Auratooo aur Na'mardoo ke munh nahi lagna! When he'll be a man enough to settle earlier issues first as per his own ideology, I'll reply him. If I'll reply him here, he'll hop to something else then will start babbling over that and so on... Ye bhi iss koi HIKMAH hogi jis ke sabab iss ki bolti band hai uss thread per. A HIKMAH to save his ego!
18 Jul (6 days ago)
Deobandi Maaro! Mulk sanwaro!
abdullah buri baat aisai nahi boltay
sahi sai bolo
Allah Allah kar bhaiya deobandiyo sai bach bhaiya
18 Jul (6 days ago)
mamla koi bhi thora bohut hansi mazaak chalta rehna chahiye warna dil murda ho jata hai
... I'd say
Koi patther se na maray Aamir ke Nanotwi ko!
20 Jul (4 days ago)
Sybarite's catchy statements to spread deceit
Sybarite quoted me as: Sheikh Nuh ha Mim Keller (Rahimuhullah) is not amongst those scholars who do wild takfir and this is why I can see natural biasness from some people against him, just like there is on Sheikh ul Islam Tahir ul Qadri (rah)
At this he replied: As everyone can see, Aamir or even Nuh Keller's article is all based on Ala Hazrat's verdict over those Scholars. Directly or indirectly, Aamir accusing Ala Hazrat, a mujaddid of doing Wild takfir.
First of all It is a deception to say that whole of the article by Sheikh Nuh is based on Ala Hazrat (rah)’s verdict over those scholars because pretty much half of the article first clarifies the usool with magnificent proofs from classical scholars and then from about half of the page down it starts on Deobandi/Barelvi divide where Sheikh Nuh nails/destroys the deobandi Aqaid totally, however using this cleverly and saying that directly or indirectly I am naudhobillah accusing Ala Hazrat of doing wild takfir is nothing but a trick to somehow misguide people in believing that I have somehow insulted Ala Hazrat (Rahimuhulh) – Audhobillah min Dhalik, first of all Ala Hazrat has himself not done wild takfir which Alhamdulillah I knew before this Sybarite accused me, but some people try to colour his takfir to be general/wild (its from clan of Sybarite not mine), Its these people whom I have referred to, i.e. the typical Mullah mentality which is present amongst extremists (irrespective of sects) who declare other Muslims as kafirs, I personally got a fatwa authenticated from a Barelvi institution in Lahore i.e. You cannot marry deobandis because they are Kafirs, there was nothing written in it that whether those deobandis believe in the kufriya statements whether they know of them or not, If somehow this verdict is falsely attributed to Ala Hazrat (Rahimuhullah) then Barelvis would be themselves reducing the status of the great Imam..
20 Jul (4 days ago)
In today's time scholar has to see different sides
Anyone who is not even aware of Kufrs how could he be considered as Kafir and this is true for vast majority of Deobandis who are indeed not aware of these things some even reject them and refute their own scholars, Keeping this in mind there are many people who are influenced by Sheikh Nuh but have been misled by Tableeghi Jamaat, such people needed desperate guidance on Aqida of Ahlus Sunnah not on Takfir, when Sheikh Nuh came to Pakistan they saw the Nur on his face and also accepted to give him bayah, their aqaid have drastically changed and they think in conformity with Ahlus Sunnah now, I have personally seen Tableeghis coming in great number in gatherings of Sheikh Nuh, this is something they would not do on other Barelvi Ulama except for some great scholars like Sheikh ul Islam Dr Tahir ul Qadri (Rahimuhullah), so had Sheikh Nuh been a typical Mullah who would have done Takfir then he would not have been a guide for so many people, I can say with surety that Sheikh Nuh has been a guide for many Barelvi Sunnis too.
Sybarite then said: As of Dr. Tahir, please show us how and where he differed with Ala Hazrat's takfir on those deobandi scholars and said the verdict is lifted. Reffering a Mujaddid's verdict as "Wild Takfir" is no disrespect for Aamir but if one disagrees with his Sheikh, he is going straight to hell!The second part has been answered above and I never said anyone who differs with my Murshid he goes straight to hell, show me where I said that Sybarite, what I said was that YOU HAD DECLARED MY MURSHID AS KAFIR HENCE THE TAKFIR RETURNS BACK TO YOU, I did not say “ONE” who disagrees with my sheikh goes to hell fire If you are truthful then I challenge you to show this right now, secondly Did Dr Tahir ul Qadri (rah) make Takfir on the Deobandi Akabireen? Had Sybarite read my above lines he would have known that I had said there is natural biasness against Dr Tahir ul Qadri (rah) sahib...
20 Jul (4 days ago)
Scholars should not be abused on differences
....I did not say anywhere that Dr Sahab has enforced Takfir on the 4 mentioned Deobandi Akabireen, Dr Sahab has kept Silence on this issue being a Pakistani and being fully aware of the Deobandi/barelvi divide, however anyone who reads his magnificent book called “FIRKA PARASTI KA KHATMA KYOON KAR MUMKIN HAI” would know that Dr Sahab is all for unity and that too including Deobandis/Shi’ites.
Sybarite quoted me as: But overall I do not believe in Takfir of Deobandis, I also take back takfir on 4 deobandi scholars and this is according to beautiful analysis of Sheikh Nuh,
At this he replied: You called me a laymen and what not just because I differed with your Sheikh's analysis on this matter and yet you find yourself capable enough to take back the verdict of a mujaddid!
This is height of trickery spread by you, I called you layman FOR NOT BEING CAPABLE OF MAKING TAKFIR ON MY MURSHID, on the other hand I differed to Takfir being “DIRECTLY” a student of Sheikh Nuh, You have not taken bayah on Hand of Ala Hazrat himself and also you do not have direct link with him so you were not even capable of making takfir, secondly you have nailed yourself by showing the so called Barelvi fatwa, so now tell me do they not have link with Ala Hazrat to make takfir on Sheikh Nuh and this itself proves that Takfir cannot be made like this and there are many criterias for takfir, had the misinterpretation of Ala Hazrat’s fatwa been right which you keep on ranting about then even those scholars would have made takfir without any second thought, kahir you have all the right to differ with sheikh Nuh but this does not mean you call him Illegitimate child like you did and You have still not done tawba over it, you yelled at other threads that according to my logic first things are to be cleared first, then this is the answer that you were not clearing first things first so I went to other places refuting you and your chillaz aswell .
20 Jul (4 days ago)
Why Ulama even differed on Kufr biggest Bidatis
I will also refute your lie that you have more knowledge than Sheikh Nuh on this specific issue, secondly I have only differed in accordance to my sheikh and this does not require me to be a scholar, I have not disrespected Ala Hazrat in any fashion nor any of your shayookh but your tone regarding awliya itself makes you a Ghustakh of Awliya.
Now a crucial question arises: How could possibly Sheikh Nuh differ with Takfir of Ala Hazrat, let us analyze this through mentality of people like sybarite: How could this be imagined, Ala Hazrat cannot be differed upon “Even If there were bigger scholars who were differed upon by later ones and that too on Kufr of bigger Ghustakh e Rasul than Deobandi Akabireen” but still I do not care, I do not care about classical scholars, differing with Ala Hazrat man that is too much, It is blasphemy, It is our Aqida that to differ with Ala Hazrat is blasphemy, Ala hazrat had all the right to even differ with Imam Abu hanifa, but who gave any other scholar the right to differ with Ala Hazrat? Islam itself prescribes that you have to agree with Ala Hazrat If not then you are kafir, you do not have the right to hold “VALID” understanding of Islamic jurisprudence, even if you are a scholar who has ijaza both in Hanafi and Shafi schools, who has studied from Al-Azhar, who is Sheikh e Tariqat, who has perfect grip over Arabic and sunni aqaid and is globally renowned as one of the leading Scholars/Awliya of Ummah today.
If Ulama differ with Sheikh Nuh’s beautiful analysis then the intelligent (which will only include sufiya) would only say that Sheikh Nuh was right in his Ijtihad whereas the ordinary will keep on fighting and fighting, In Summary: Ala Hazrat (rah) could be differed upon even in the Takfir he made and this does not mean the scholar who has differed could be disrespected, this is precisely why I have even given so many examples above including that of Ibn Taymiyyah who had transgressed limits in making Kufrs and defending them...
20 Jul (4 days ago)
He called Sheikh ul Islam by even upright scholars
Note that Ibn Taymiyya was an inspiration to even Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab al Najdi to start his fitnah, who is Sheikh ul Islam not only for many deoabandis but also to many classical “UPRIGHT” scholars, how dare these upright and pious scholars refer to him as “Sheikh ul Islam” when his Kufrs are not even to be doubted? I dare Sybarite to doubt the Kufrs of Ibn Taymiyyah.
Sybarite said: Besides Nuh Keller none of the scholars of Ahle'Sunnah differed with Ala Hazrat's verdict in such a slanted fashion. Like the Jayyed Ulemas of Indo-Pak including Mufti-e-Azam Hind Hazrat Allama Mustafa Raza Khan, Hazrat Allama Saeed Ahmed Kazmi (mostly addressed as Ghazali-e-Zama Razi-e-Doran by most of Ahle'Sunnah scholars) Do you think Nuh Keller is superior to all these great scholars?
It is a wild statement itself that “NONE” of the scholars differed with Ala Hazrat, Imam al Said Shafi (rahimuhullah) and many other Ulama who had endorsed takfir of Ala Hazrat, they had later taken it back, I know this will be hard to absorb but I will cite proof of this, meanwhile one thing would suffice a Sunni scholar Hazrat Jamaat Ali Shah (rah) wrote back to ulama of Haramayn shareefayn after death of Ala Hazrat (rah) and clarified things to them, had they not taken the takfir back then he would not have written back to them. The fact is that Imam al Barzanji (rah) has even written a book in refutation of Ala Hazrat and he did not believe the term “ALIM UL GHAYB” to be right for Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam), brothers this is a very complicated and technical difference, I openly say that I believe Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) to have “KULLI ILM-UL-GHAYB” hence I do not want anyone to cleverly misinterpret my statements, but the term Alim ul Ghayb to be used for anyone other than Allah has been differed upon by Ulama....
20 Jul (4 days ago)
Sybarite's second point proves his total ignorance
However Sheikh Nuh has beautifully taken side of Ala Hazrat (rah) in his article on this issue and justified the analogy which Ala HAZRAT GAVE IN HIS MAGNIFICENT BOOK DAWLA AL MAKIYYAH (i.e. Allah’s knowledge is like of oceans whereas Prophet salallaho alaihi wasalam’s is like drop of water OR EVEN LESS) but I being honest will even write that Sheikh Nuh also understands that this analogy has itself been disputed upon because even to compare Allah’s Ilm to oceans and Makhlooq’s to drop cannot be done because Allah’s Ilm is simply not comparable full stop.
Sybarite now started to make stupid points in desperation and because he himself does not have proper knowledge of these issues
He said: 1. Did Nuh Keller read Al-Muhannid by himself?2. Can Nuh Keller even read Al-Muhannid all by himself? (as its in Urdu)
Anseer to 1: I was with Sheikh Nuh about 4 years ago when all the deobandi books were lying infront of him, I got to know that Sheikh Nuh has been doing research on this issue even before that, then I personally asked Sheikh Nuh by mentioning the statements of Ashraf Ali Thanvi and Ismail dhelvi in English by emphasizing on the Ghstakhana words and when Sheikh Nuh was sure that I was done and made everything clear, he replied in this fashion: There is no doubt that Ismail dhelvi was actually a Khawarji/Wahabi who became a major influence on other deobandis, then he turned towards Thanvis statement and declared it completely rejected and “Tantumant to Kufr” after this he brought my attention towards the verdict of Ibn Abideen ash Shami (Rahimuhullah) who was without any doubt the Leading Faqih of Hanafi Maslak in his times and is accepted till today, his explanation clarified me to satisfaction that something being Kufr is one thing but making Takfir is another...
20 Jul (4 days ago)
The Same Sybarite who claimed to have known more
the idea of Ala Hazrat being aware of Usools was also in my mind but I was satisfied because If this is the case then classical scholars knew usool better than Ala Hazrat himself so Ala Hazrat had no right to differ with them, this strategy of saying that “Common Ala Hazrat also knew the usool” is not Hujjah and is also a weak justification, If we take it into count then Islam will come to a Hault and Ijtihad will be nullified but Ijtihad goes on and scholars differ with other in relevance to the times people live in.
Answer to 2: This question reveals total ignorance of Sybarite on this issue because Muhannad was written in Arabic and I have it in my hands right now, Sybarite is proven to be total nincompoop due to this point itself, this is the same sybarite who claimed to know more than Sheikh Nuh (Naudhobillah), a person who thinks a book which is written to Satisfy Arab ulama would be written in Urdu then such a person is nothing but a fool.
Sybarite wrote: 3. Did Nuh Keller read the splendid refutation of Al-Muhannid by Ahle'Sunnah Scholars? (if yes why he didnt quote anything from them)
4. Who asked all those queries mentioned in Al-Muhannid? (Please provide the names here)
5. Who were these Arab Ulema who took back their Takfir and where are the proof of it?
Answer to No. 3: As I have explained in another thread that not mentioning something is not proof of someone not knowing it, Sheikh Nuh had been doing research on Barelvi Deobandi issue for more than 6 years, and with my personal experience with him he is not of those scholars who would pass verdicts without proper knowledge,, when I debated a deobandi over this issue of why Sheikh Nuh proved all Barelvi Aqaid to be correct, he was like Sheikh Nuh is total Barelvi in his approach and used deceit to nullify the debandi Aqaid totally...
20 Jul (4 days ago)
The Usool proven by Imam Tahawi (rah)
...Sybarite is also accusing Sheikh Nuh of deception though he forgets that for Ahlus Sunnah Aqaid matter the most and differing with any given scholar whether it is Imam Abu Hanifa provided you are within the framework of perfect Sunni scholar and having true Aqaid then anyone who loves the Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) more will know that yes Aqaid are the main issue.
Answer No 4: Al Muhannad ala Mufannad has proofs in the end that many Arab Ulama retracted from Takfir and some are same scholars as were mentioned in Hasam ul Haramayn, this made another Sunni scholar i.e. Hazrat Jamaat Ali Shah (Rahimuhullah) to write back to Arab Ulama.
On Page No. 107 of Al-Muhnnad Published by Idara e Islamiyat Anarkali Lahore It has the fatwa from the very first scholar who is present in Hassam ul Haramayn too i.e. Hadrat Muhammad Said Shafi Bil Baseel (Rahimuhullah)
Then there is list of many other ulama even ulama fom Syria and other countries, The fight may continue on this issue but still Ala Hazrat in “HIS TIME” was right to make Takfir, Al –Muhannad was written after his passing away and thus we do not have final verdict of Ala Hazrat, but looking at Ala Hazrat’s versatility, his magnificence and the reasoning why he did not make Takfir upon Ismail dhelvi It is clear that other scholar whether late or present do have the right to take back takfir and in relevance to the time the scenarios can change too.
I know that a reply would be that Muhannad is total fraud and the testification of Ulama taking back their verdicts will not be accepted, however I will show an Usool which will clarify the issue on atleast making Takfir (Note Muhannad was written later)
Imam Tahawi (Rahimuhullah) one of the leading and greatest classical Hanafi Faqih, he writes: If the individual then denies that he has made such a statement, he is legally considered as having repented of it (Mukhtasar al-Tahawi, 259).
20 Jul (4 days ago)
Why assumptions are futile?
Answer No.5 Already answered above, plus there are stamps of Arab ulama in the end and they have written Arabic replies of taking Takfir back.
You said: The Sajaada Nasheens of Golra Sharif and Pir Syed Ghulam Qutb-ul-Haq Gilani are present in this world today. Have you ever bother to ask them about what aqeedah they hold for Deobandis and what aqeedah their grandfathers held or you know their grandfather better than them? You would’nt be taking Pir Mehr Ali Shah’s name in this regard if you’ve read “Mehr-e-Munir" by this great WaliAllah!
I have Mehr e Munir with me, and I am talking like this because I DO HAVE READ IT, In it both the Deobandi and Barelvi are called as “ISLMIC SCHOOLS” and tone of unity has been used too plus there is no TAKFIR WHATOEVER IN IT, I CHALLENGE YOU TO SHOW ME TAKFIR RIGHT NOW!!
Alhamdulillah I have Hassam ul Haramyn, Al Muhannad and also Subhan as Sabooh wth me right now, I can write it down that you have yourself not read these works yourself and the proof of this is that you were claiming that Muhannad is written in “URDU ONLY” an ignorant who does not even know the basics and claims to know more than Sheikh Nuh is nothing but a fool, Khair I will come back towards the Usool which Sheikh Nuh uses and this supersedes whether Muhannad is to be accepted or not because Usool in Shariah can never change.
You said: Besides it is not important for every person to give a fatwa of Kufr against those or agree to the fatwa of Kufr against people whom past scholars did. There are many instances like that. That doesn't mean they agree with their kufr but there are other reasons. Did your Sheikh Nuh Keller issued fatwa against Qadiyanis yet? If not should we consider that Nuh Keller consider Qadiyanis as muslims?
Continued....
20 Jul (4 days ago)
...
Sheikh Nuh has indeed declared Qadiyanis as Kafirs and I have personally heard it, for further verification go to
www.masud.co.uk and read Masud Ahmed Khan’s analysis on Qadiyanis (Note he is amongst the foremost and barguzida Mureeds of Sheikh Nuh), here is what he said:
“What you will see is that it is quite clear, without a shadow of a doubt that finality of Prophethood is something that is necessarily known as being part of the religion of Islam. Hence the rejection of this belief is Kufr and quite rightly the Qadianis have been declared as kafir by the leading ulama of this ummah then and now”http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/finality_mas.htmHowever by using the above rhetoric Sybarite has trapped himself because he has dared to get into technicalities of Usool such as If one is silent then what happens, If one does not call someone kafir then what? In relevance of this I dare Sybarite to refute the introduction which I gave above plus the overwhelming examples of Ulama differing with Takfir upon classical scholars, also do not forget the Yazid issue whom If he does not accept worst than Deobandis but I am sure would accept equally worst, If Sybarite makes an analogy with Qadiynis that there could be ulama who past and “PRESENT” who had accepted Mirza to be Prophet then I want sybarite to show explicit proof not just assume things that tomorrow someone will defend qadiyanis too, Islam is not based on assumptions, such trickery is only used by people who cannot prove things in present so they hold onto assumptions of future, It is more like approach of Mirza himself when he claimed that this will happen in future that will happen in future, hence assumptions of Sybarite are on par to that of Mirza’s.
20 Jul (4 days ago)
Tawba will be done if Usool are proven wrong
I will summarize the Usool in the end and ask Sybarite to refute them, If Sybarite soundly and rightly refutes them then I will do open Tawba and consider Sheikh Nuh to be wrong in this analysis, It is my promise infront of you all.
The he quoted my honest and perfectly justified statement: Ala Hazrat (rah) was indeed a great scholar but this does not mean we try to make him infallible, I do not even consider Mawla Ali (ra) as Masoom then ofcourse why would I present Ala Hazrat in this fashion?
At this he replied: If you can consider the verdict of Ala Hazrat as lifted or invalid as per your Sheikh's analysis and dont like to present Ala Hazrat as infallible then why cant we stick to the analysis of much better scholars than Nuh Keller on this issue and consider Nuh Keller infallible even ignorant enough about this particular issue to misunderstood it completely? Or is it like Nuh Keller is infallible to you?
This is a huge leap to somehow consider Ala Hazat as infallible and I will refute this because It is very dangerous to even think about believing in someone else other than Prophets to be infallible, Sybarite I will only ask you one thing on this and Let us see how truthful and honest you are, Come and say openly that you accept that Ala Hazrat can indeed make mistakes and that other scholars can differ with him (and you do not have Wahi from Allah to say that Sheikh Nuh is lesser in status than your other so called Barelvi scholars, so let’s leave that to Allah)
Sybarite said: Declaring "other people as Kafirs"? Who said anything about "people" here? Arent we talking about the disputer scholars on whom Ala Hazrat gave a verdict? What are you talking about? You mean to say we cant declare the said Deobandis scholars as Kafirs according to Ala Hazrat's verdict or what? Please elaborate.
Continued...
20 Jul (4 days ago)
An Ashari Imam on same Issue
Now let us come to disputed Deobandi Scholars, First of all Sheikh Nuh has refuted the Kufriya Ibaraat of deobandis, the only scholar upon whom It could be assumed that Sheikh Nuh has possibly defended is Rashid Ahmed Gangohi, however close look at analysis on Gangohi also proves that Sheikh Nuh has not doubted the Kufri aspect of such a thing i.e. Naudhobillah Allah can factually lie, first of all let us see a verdict of a classical scholar
Imam Haskafi in his al-Durr al-mukhtar: A fatwa may not be given of the unbelief of a Muslim whose words are interpretable as having a valid meaning, or about the unbelief of which there is a difference of scholarly opinion, even if weak (Radd al-muhtar, 3.289).
Now there is indeed an opinion from a classical “ASHAR’I” scholar hence the takfir should be returned back to him first, the point is that even if 1 classical scholar differs in any given issue then the verdict of Takfir upon such a person is lifted and this is precisely why takfir was not made on Ibn Taymiyyah or even Yazid by many intelligent scholars (Note this does not mean those who made takfir were wrong too, from this analogy it should be understood that both Ala Hazrat and Sheik Nuh are right in their own perspectives)
Ala Hazrat said about Gangohi that he followed the guide of his sect i.e. Ismail dhelvi in this opinion but the reality is that some Muslim Mutakalimeen (theologians) hd also delved into this very issue and had espoused tis before Ismail dhelvi and Gangohi, one such scholar is Imam Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Sanusi (d. 895/1490) of the Ash‘ari school of ‘aqida on pages 455, 456, and 465 of his ‘Umda ahl al-tawfiq wa al-tasdid (c00), one of the most important reference works of the school.
Now whether the opinion is weak or strong, the Takfir would be lifted and above all Sheikh Nuh has rejected factual possibility of Allah lying and said that no Muslim believes this.
20 Jul (4 days ago)
The acceptance by Thanvi Sahab
Molvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi has been declared Kafir only on 1 statement of his which is present n Hifzul Imaan, Indeed this statement is Kufr without any shadow of doubt, but has Thanvi Sahab given any answer regarding Takfir on him? Ashraf Ali Thanvi later himself accepted the takfir of Ala Hazrat, he specifically told deobandis “NOT TO PUBLISH” this wording in the book anymore and he even changed his statement, secondly after passing away of Ala Hazrat (rah), Thanvi Sahab asked his Murids to unite in order to make dua for Ala Hazrat (rah), one of his mureeds exclaimed: But he considered you Kafir a this Thanvi sahib replied:
"I have great respect in my heart for Ahmed Raza Khan (radi Allahu anhu). He calls us Kaafirs, but he says this only on the basis for his love for the Prophet (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) and not out of any other reason.".
Ashraf Ali Thanvi sahab is not even understood by deobandis themselves, Thanvi Sahab is also poven to be different from Deobandis by Deobandis themselves, he did not indulge in mainstream deobandi activities and stayed apart, he was Murid of Haji Imdad Ullah Mahajir Makki (Rahimuhullah) and has written books like Imdad ul Fatawa and others, Haji Sahab did not do takfir on Thanvi sahab and he remained his mureed till the end.
Keeping all this in mind we look at Thanvi sahib’s retraction from his own words, Thanvi Sahab writes:If someone believed whether directly or indirectly or agrees to what Ahmed Ridha Khan had understood or misunderstood from my text, then I (Ashraf Ali Thanvi) would in accordance with the principles of Shariah consider such a person to be “OUTSIDE THE BOUNDRIES OF ISLAM” because of his disrespect to Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam)… this is documented proof from Thanvi Sahab in questions being asked from him by people who were troubled by his statement.
20 Jul (4 days ago)
Ending with the Hadith and verdict of Imam Subki
For many barelvi Ulama Takfir is still immanent whereas other sunni Ulama can indeed differ on this point, 2 great scholars whom I can personally confirm i.e. Sheikh GF Haddad and Sheikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller have not enforced takfir upon deobandi Akabireen in todays time and other scholars like Dr Tahir ul Qadri have opted to remain silent.
I will end my discussion with a beautiful Hadith of Sahih Muslim plus a verdict from great Islamic scholar
The Hadith states: Truly, Allah rejoices more at the repentance of a servant when he repents to Him than one of you would if riding his camel through a wasteland, and it wandered off, carrying away his food and water, and he despaired of ever getting it back; so he came to a tree and lay down in its shade, without hope of ever seeing his camel again; then, while lying there, suddenly finds it beside him and seizes its reins, [so overjoyed that he cries, “O Allah, You are my slave, and I am Your lord”—making a mistake out of sheer happiness (Muslim, 4.2104–5: 2747).Sheikh Nuh said: It is difficult to think of an utterance more blasphemous or offensive to Allah than the latter, had it been intentional. But since it was not, the principle of Imam Subki necessarily applies that the person who says such an expression without intending to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) cannot be judged an unbeliever.
Taqi al-Din al-Subki says in his al-Sayf al-maslul, a more than five-hundred-page work on the legal consequences of insulting the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)—[bmay be either intentional or unintentional, while only if a person intends giving offense to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) has he thereby committed kufr… (al-Sayf al-maslul (c00), 135).
Wassalam
20 Jul (4 days ago)
Summary of the Points you should reply
1. Is it not open and explicit Kufr to believe that Allah has literal hands/feet/shin etc... when then weren't many ulama who firmly proved this declared as Kafirs?
2. Many scholars have declared Sheikh Muhayuddin Ibn Arabi (rah) as Kafir and some have even gone to the extent of Whosoever doubts his Kufr is Kafir himself (This verdict was passed by Imam Alaudin Bukhari al Hanafi), how is then considering him Sheikh ul Akbar a right viewpoint? [Note I am only asking according to your viewpoint i.e. we cannot differ with Takfir of Ala Hazrat, then why can we differ with Takfir of many classical scholars on Muhayuddin Ibn Arabi]
3. This is linked to the above one, If you say that there is difference between greatness of Ibn Arabi (rah) and stupid debandis (which ofcourse I agree) then tell me isn't it a more severe crime to declare a Wali Ullah as kafir? so wy doesn't the Takfir return back on those Sunni scholars who had made the mistake of declaring him kafir?
4. Ulama have even differed upon Takfir of Yazid, whereas Hujjat ul Islam (rightly or wrongly) went to the extent of defending him, now Yazid is the same person who rejoiced after martyrdom of Imam Hussain (ra) and claimed to have "AVENGED IMAM HUSSAIN (RA)'S ANCESTORS" so was Yazid a lesser Fasiq/Kafir that Ulama had differed on him too? would Imam Ghazzali become miguided for allowing to write Rahimuhullah with his name?
5. Sheikh Nuh has actually proven the essential aqaid of Ahlus Sunnah and spported Ala Hazrat (rah) in the best fashion, are Aqaid less important to you and Takfir more important that you present sheikh Nuh wrongly that he was naudhobillah biased though not in 1 aqida of Ahlus Sunnah has he given a different viewpoint.
6. Does anyone who differ with the Takfir of Ala Hazrat become Kafir or misguided? why are you so spcific to Ala Hazrat only why don't you apply the same rule upon other classical scholars who without any doubt hold greater status than Ala Hazrat himself.
20 Jul (4 days ago)
Continued...
7. Why cannot a modest approach be used to bring Deobandis and Barelvis together, Quran has even told us to come to common terms between Us and you (i.e. Jews/Christians), hence If a scholar who has true Sunni Aqida and is revered highly by many eminent scholars tries to bring Deobandi and Barelvis closer, then Isn't Takfir the only hurdle between the 2 factions when the aqaid could be easily explained to them provided we are not rigid in approach?
8. The Sahaba had themselves differed in "MAJOR" issues, the hadith about Aisha (ra) which I had showed above, what is your opinion on it If you do not believe in the Usool of taking intentions into account? Do you understand the Imputed Intentionality thing which Sheikh Nuh explained?
9. What is your final stance on Ibn Taymiyyah after knowing that even classical and upright scholars have written him to be Sheikh ul Islam, do you doubt his Kufrs which crossed all boundries? Why does he get special status when disrespect to Allah/Prophets/Sahaba/Awliya is to be treated as a universal concept?
10. What do you say of unanimously accepted classical scholars like Mullah Ali Qari (rah), Ibn Kathir (rah) and many others who also went over the board, Do you doubt in Kufr of person who tries to prove that Parents of Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) will be in Hell fire (Naudhobillah), What is the Taweel to this which you give?
11. Do you accept that Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) made us understand Usools based on truth and that he implemented everything himself, for example If imputed intentionality not played in then even Sahaba could have been accused.
12. Why did you quote me out of context as If I was directly insulting Ala Hadrat though I have not.
13. You claimed that I said whosoever differs with my Murshid is going straight to Hell, could you prove this accusation of yours?
20 Jul (4 days ago)
Conclusion
14. You claimed: Can Nuh Keller even read Al-Muhannid all by himself? (as its in Urdu).. in spite of such ignorance you accused Sheikh Nuh with bad names yourself, You also made a claim that you are more knowledgeable in this matter, when you do not even know Muhannad was written in Arabic or Urdu how can you come and discuss this matter in detail?
15. What do you say about the Usools proven by Imam Tahawi (rah) i.e. : If the individual then denies that he has made such a statement, he is legally considered as having repented of it (Mukhtasar al-Tahawi, 259).
16. What do you say about the Usool proven by Imam Subki that even on kufr rearding Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) the Intentions will be taken into account?
17. What do you say about the hadith in which the Man cried out: O Allah you are my Abd and I am your Lord, If you reject taking intentions into account then why that man remained to be Muslim whether he made that statement in JOY!
Do not make sweeping statements, you claimed yourself to be more knowledgeable than Sheikh Nuh, hence refute these sound principles even more soundly and that too with knowledge.
Wassalam
i.e. Sheikh GF Haddad and Sheikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller have not enforced takfir upon deobandi Akabireen in todays time and other scholars like Dr Tahir ul Qadri have opted to remain silent.
lol thats really funny Shaikh Nuh is declaring todays deobandis have same ideology as wahabis and called them kafir and here aamir i proving that his mursheed have not enforced takfeer upon deobandis
i think is the best solution is talk to Shaikh Nuh directly and tell him whats his mureed is doing here by supporting deobandis.
right now all i have to say is:
Hence deobandis are proven right by aamir.
lol
20 Jul (4 days ago)
Anyone who is not even aware of Kufrs how could he be considered as Kafir and this is true for vast majority of Deobandis who are indeed not aware of these things some even reject them and refute their own scholars,
Noone here is discussing about "Luzoom-e-Kufr" and "Iltizaam-e-Kufr". Were are NOT discussing the general deobandis but the said four scholars who are scholars themselves and was aware about Kufr so stop hoping around and get back to the track.
Keeping this in mind there are many people who are influenced by Sheikh Nuh but have been misled by Tableeghi Jamaat, such people needed desperate guidance on Aqida of Ahlus Sunnah not on Takfir, when Sheikh Nuh came to Pakistan they saw the Nur on his face and also accepted to give him bayah, their aqaid have drastically changed and they think in conformity with Ahlus Sunnah now
Are you trying to say that Nuh Keller is accepting the "KUFR" to increase the number of his deobandi mureeds or to convert Deobandis into sunnis? I dont get the lame logic here. Firstly according to you Nuh Keller dont consider them kafir and yet you say they have desperately need guidance on Aqida of Ahle'Sunnah. If they are misguided as per Aqida of Ahle'Sunnah then what are these Aqaids? Why they depereately need guidance and what for? And yet again, its about the general Deobandis and not the said four scholars on whom Ala Hazrat did Takfir and for whom you said they are Muslims. Again a lame try to divert or mix things up right in the start!
20 Jul (4 days ago)
I have personally seen Tableeghis coming in great number in gatherings of Sheikh Nuh, this is something they would not do on other Barelvi Ulama except for some great scholars like Sheikh ul Islam Dr Tahir ul Qadri (Rahimuhullah), so had Sheikh Nuh been a typical Mullah who would have done Takfir then he would not have been a guide for so many people, I can say with surety that Sheikh Nuh has been a guide for many Barelvi Sunnis too.
This is what Ulema-e-Ahle'Sunnah would never do to increase the number of their mureeds! They would never do Wild Takfir as you're accusing them of again and again and yet have no courage to tell us whom you're addressing as typical Mullahs. Ulema-e-Ahle'Sunnah never declared the Awaam of deobandis as Kafir unless one who knows those Kufriya Aqaid and yet affirms them. What your Sheikh is doing is nothign new. This is what Wahabis/Najdi even Tablighi Jamat have been doing since ages. They simply ignores what belief one hold, they just call him for Dawa and then as a slow poison takes away thier faith! More like a typical Jaali Babas on the Saddar and Burns Road Areas (Karachi), Nuh Keller simply ignoring what belief his mureed hold, he just want to increase the number of mureed to become a famous Sheikh and doing it all under the name of Unity of Ummah! As for Nuh Keller being a guide for Barelwis, yes you can say that to an extent. Even your Sheikh has never shown courage to discuss his difference on opinion on the Takfir of Ala Hazrat and you inherited this cowardice from your Sheikh to the highest degrees! And thats what deceiving most of the Sunnis. Just tell me, did you Sheikh said a word about this Takfir issue when he visited Pakistan? If not, why? Isnt he a man enough to express his so highly scholarly opinion in public? This is becase he ever did so, he would've been kicked out right away by the public if he had said that Ala Hazrat's verdict has been lifted or justified those four buffoons of deobandis as he did in his article.
20 Jul (4 days ago)
Though addressing such an issue in Pakistan will be more effective than publishing an article on internet. They why your Sheikh didnt dare to address this issue when he visited Pakistan? Public ke jooto ke darr se ya Ulema-e-Ahle'Sunnat ke munh toor jawab se?
Writing an article and publishing it on internet! Is that all your Sheikh or you can do? The dispute is certainly over a decade old and will not be decided or concluded based on a contemporary Scholar’s review who dont even know the complete detail about this dispute.
Aamir then quoted my statement and simply ingored the query in it. Shame on you Aamir! Answer it!
Reffering a Mujaddid's verdict as "Wild Takfir" is no disrespect for Aamir but if one disagrees with his Sheikh, he is going straight to hell!
You've stated this more than once in your posts. Why dont you dare to tell whom you're addressing as "Wild Takfirist" or "Typical Mullahs". Wild Takfirist doesnt it mean those who made Takfir when they should'nt. Doesnt (as per your phenomenon of returning takfir) it returns their Wild Takfirs to themselves, thus making themselves Kafirs? You've disrespected countless Ahle'Sunnah by declaring them Wild Takfirist and calling them Kafirs indirectly and that is why you're running here and there and not answering such queries which will expose your slander against Ahle'Sunnah scholars. That is the only reason why you've answered only the half of my statement which you've quoted! You've said the second part is answered above, however one can easily see that you didnt say a word on that in your earlier posts.
20 Jul (4 days ago)
Let me elaborate again;
I have said;
Reffering a Mujaddid's verdict as "Wild Takfir"
Everyone here knows whom I addressed as "Mujaddid" in the above statment. None else but Imam-e-Ahle'Sunnat Imam Ahmed Raza Khan (Rehmatullahe Allaihe). And even you knew that or you would've asked me whom I am talking about. And yet, there is no denial or anything like it from you where you've said you didnt mean to address Ala Hazrat's verdict as "Wild Takfir". So you're guilty of calling Ala Hazrat's verdict as "Wild Takfir".
As for the second part.about "going to hell", where I said that you made this statement. This is simply my analysis. The height of stupidity is that in the first part I blamed you for referring Ala Hazrat's verdict as "Wild Takfir" which you didnt dare to answer and the in the second part where I didnt blame you for anything you started the I-didnt-say-it-dance!!
20 Jul (4 days ago)
secondly Did Dr Tahir ul Qadri (rah) make Takfir on the Deobandi Akabireen?
Aamir himself accepted Dr. Tahir kept silence on the takfir of deobandi scholars. Now let alone Aamir, I'll be thankful to anybody in the world who can tell me on what basis one can say that being silence on takfir means that Ala Hazrat's verdict has been lifted? If you've seen the video which is widely known in which some of Ahle'Sunnah scholars asked Dr. Tahir about praying behind a Deobandi Imam. Dr. Tahir clearly said "mujhe jis shakhs ke maslak ke baray mein ilm ho, ke jis ke baray mein hum baat kar rahay hain, mein ne uss ke peechay kabhi namaz nahi parhi, aur agar kabhi parhi bhi hogi kisi majboori ke baa'is tu mein ne hamesha uss ka i'aada kya hai, aur agar kabhi kisi ke peechay namaz parhi hai tu iss liye ke mujhe uss ke aqiday ka ilm nahi, ya mujhe itti'laa na di gai" which is been later refuted by the other Ahle'Sunnah scholar that he told Dr. Tahir about the said Imam (behind whom he prayed) that he is maslakan deobandi. In reply to this Dr. Tahir in his defence clearly said that "Mein bohut se aisay logo ko jaanta hon jo maslakan-e-deobandi hain aur unn ibarato ko bhi ghalat samajahtay hain". Matlab Dr. Tahir un ibarato ko sahi samajhnay walo ko sahi nahi samajhtay. He didnt say that the takfir has been lifted from them because of Al-Muhannid or for any other reason! Neither Dr. Tahir ever tried to defend the said four deobandi scholars in a fashion as Nuh Keller and you did. If he did please provide the evidence. So stop dragging Dr. Tahir in this regard to get the sympathies and support from Minhajians by such a deceit! Besides the deobandi awaam, if deobandi scholars consider those statement as kufriya then why they are still being published?
20 Jul (4 days ago)
This is height of trickery spread by you, I called you layman FOR NOT BEING CAPABLE OF MAKING TAKFIR ON MY MURSHID, on the other hand I differed to Takfir being “DIRECTLY” a student of Sheikh Nuh, You have not taken bayah on Hand of Ala Hazrat himself and also you do not have direct link with him so you were not even capable of making takfir,
Another lame try to get off the track! The issue regarding the takfir of your sheikh has been resolved, if you still got any problem with that, you should've said that earlier. About being the "direct student", I told my lineage of Bayt. I am in direct contact with most of Ahle'Sunnah scholars who do believe in takfir of those said deobandi scholars including Hazrat Taj-us-Shariah who is a direct descendant of Ala Hazrat, under the bayt of Qutb-e-Madinah who is a jayyed Khalifa of Ala Hazrat! And Alhumdulillah all of Ahle'Sunnah scholars in Indo-Pak takes people in bayt as taking them under the flag of Ghous-e-Azam and Ala Hazrat even my very own Murshid used to say the same when giving bayt. Your lame argument that one cant differ with Nuh Keller if he havent took bayt on Ala Hazrat's hand is nothing but your personal theory. There is no such ruling in Tareeqat!
If you can take back the takfir of the said deobandi scholars relying just on your Shiekh's analysis then one can surely do the same with your Sheikh relying just on the verdict of Ala Hazrat! Now you're again gonna cry about "you a laymen cant do takfir of a scholar" then howcome you being a laymen can deny the takfir done by Scholars?
20 Jul (4 days ago)
secondly you have nailed yourself by showing the so called Barelvi fatwa, so now tell me do they not have link with Ala Hazrat to make takfir on Sheikh Nuh and this itself proves that Takfir cannot be made like this and there are many criterias for takfir, had the misinterpretation of Ala Hazrat’s fatwa been right which you keep on ranting about then even those scholars would have made takfir without any second thought
Here you again shows your hatred for Barelwis just because Ahle'Sunnah differs with your Sheikh's illogical and idiotic analysis. Why using the word Barelwis? Even those who refuted your Sheikh and declared his analysis as Illogical, call themselves Ahle'Sunnah! Go to a scholar and ask about what Ulema means when they say they are "giving a benefit of doubt" in Takfir. Benefit of doubt about what? Benefit of doubt of that may be the personal is being misinformed or dont know the details about that particular issue and thats what scholars said about your Sheikh! The scholars have given a benefit of doubt because may be Nuh Keller dont have proper information in this regard and thats what made him say so and may be after knowing the facts he might revert from his earlier opinion. In other words what your Sheikh said could be "Luzoom-e-Kufr" and not "Iltizaam-e-Kufr" and thats why scholars have given him a benefit of doubt. But again, luzoom-e-kufr is there, right there in that lame analysis.
20 Jul (4 days ago)
kahir you have all the right to differ with sheikh Nuh but this does not mean you call him Illegitimate child like you did and You have still not done tawba over it, you yelled at other threads that according to my logic first things are to be cleared first, then this is the answer that you were not clearing first things first so I went to other places refuting you and your chillaz aswell
I made it all clear in my post and after my posts you made two posts and didnt say word about this. WHY? Infact look what you've said that moment;
"Now I shall indeed move forward, the fatwa ........."
Why moving forward that time? If you had any problem with earlier things you would've mentioned it right there. But nah! You didnt. And now when you're trapped and have nothing to say you're using such a cheap way to get away with things.
Furthermore you wrote a whole post about it;
"The discussion with Sybarite shall start on another thread which I will create this time....."
discussiong with Sybarite shall start. Why you've decided to start discussing huh? Stop fooling around Aamir! You wont get away with this by such lame tricks.
20 Jul (4 days ago)
Now a crucial question arises: How could possibly Sheikh Nuh differ with Takfir of Ala Hazrat, let us analyze this through mentality of people like sybarite: How could this be imagined, Ala Hazrat cannot be differed upon “Even If there were bigger scholars who were differed upon by later ones and that too on Kufr of bigger Ghustakh e Rasul than Deobandi Akabireen” but still I do not care, I do not care about classical scholars, differing with Ala Hazrat man that is too much, It is blasphemy, It is our Aqida that to differ with Ala Hazrat is blasphemy, Ala hazrat had all the right to even differ with Imam Abu hanifa, but who gave any other scholar the right to differ with Ala Hazrat? Islam itself prescribes that you have to agree with Ala Hazrat If not then you are kafir, you do not have the right to hold “VALID” understanding of Islamic jurisprudence, even if you are a scholar who has ijaza both in Hanafi and Shafi schools, who has studied from Al-Azhar, who is Sheikh e Tariqat, who has perfect grip over Arabic and sunni aqaid and is globally renowned as one of the leading Scholars/Awliya of Ummah today.
Aamir yells a lot about "assumptions" and yet wrote this much on his own assumptions. Where I said my confrontation to you or your Sheikh is just becasue he differed to Ala Hazrat's verdict? My confrontation is because of being in agreement with Kufr. Nothing but an another try to confuse the mind of sunnis who dont know much about these disputes infact a rebel against Ala Hazrat, rebel against those who believe him to be a Mujaddid, just to prove his Sheikh and to help increasing the number of his murideen! Where in the world any scholar of Ahle'Sunnah ever said anything like it? We all stick to Ala Hazrat's maslak as no one, literally no one has ever been able to successfully find anything which goes against Shariah in his maslak! Not even your Sheikh!
20 Jul (4 days ago)
If your Sheikh had guts he would have presented the same ideology when he came to Pakistan. If your Sheikh had guts he would've discussed it with other Ahle'Sunnah scholars in UK! Zannan'khanay mein beth kar taaliya bajanay walay mujahidd nahi hotay! I dare you and your Sheikh to have a debate over anything he or you thinks is not in accordance with Shariah in Maslak-e-Ala Hazrat! I already asked you for an official response from your Sheikh. You being a "direct" student (relationship can be referred as the relationship between Gangohi and Nanotwi) of your Shiekh should have responded like, "I'll try to get it asap" but you kept queit. Na tumharay Sheikh mein itni aqal thi ke Ulema-e-Ahle'Sunnat se rijoo karta, na tum mein itni himmat hai ke apnay Sheikh se ye sawal karo!
I have not disrespected Ala Hazrat in any fashion nor any of your shayookh but your tone regarding awliya itself makes you a Ghustakh of Awliya
Above I've elaborated how you've done Gustakhis not just to Ala Hazrat but to countless Ahle'Sunnah scholars by addressing them as "Wild Takfirist" and "Typical Mullahs"! Also showing hatred for the term Barelwi by addressing Ahle'Sunnah scholars as "Barelwis" in an isolating tone as they are not a part of Ahle'Sunnah. You even did address the Ulama’ & Masha’ikh-e-Haqq of Jama’ah Ahl as-Sunnah [UK] as “Barelvi” Ulama of UK. Its clear that you dont even consider Barelwi as Ahle'Sunnah, however you do consider deobandis among Ahle'Sunnah!
20 Jul (4 days ago)
It is a wild statement itself that “NONE” of the scholars differed with Ala Hazrat
Read the statement completely you Kelleri munnay (it should'nt be declared as name calling, as Aamir even declared the Ahle'Sunnah scholars in an isolating tone, so I have all the right to out his Sheikh's name as his nisbat). Aadhi statement quote kar ke aadhi apnay deobandi bhaiyoo ki tarah kawwa qorma samajh kar khaa gaye? I said;
Besides Nuh Keller none of the scholars of Ahle'Sunnah differed with Ala Hazrat's verdict in such a slanted fashion; and when replying it, you just commented on half of it.
Imam al Said Shafi (rahimuhullah) and many other Ulama who had endorsed takfir of Ala Hazrat, they had later taken it back
What is the proof of it? And even if he did, what about the other 32 scholars? Aik taraf 1 (woh bhi mashkook), doosri taraf 32! And by the way, what about those 15 endorsements of Ulema-e-Arab on the book "Gayat-ul-Mamool" which deobandi themselves foolishly produced. This book contains the takfir on Baraheen-e-Qaatia, Tehzeer-un-Naas and Hifz-ul-Imaan.
meanwhile one thing would suffice a Sunni scholar Hazrat Jamaat Ali Shah (rah) wrote back to ulama of Haramayn shareefayn after death of Ala Hazrat (rah) and clarified things to them, had they not taken the takfir back then he would not have written back to them.
Provide the detail and let us all see what he wrote!
The fact is that Imam al Barzanji (rah) has even written a book in refutation of Ala Hazrat and he did not believe the term “ALIM UL GHAYB” to be right for Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam)
Talk about the topic at hand! And yeah, I'll love to talk about this issue as well
20 Jul (4 days ago)
Later on in your posts you started to mix everything! Like in reply to the first point, you started talking about Ala Hazrat's command over Usool and all that! What that has to do with the query number 1? I'll answer it anyways...
the idea of Ala Hazrat being aware of Usools was also in my mind but I was satisfied because If this is the case then classical scholars knew usool better than Ala Hazrat himself so Ala Hazrat had no right to differ with them, this strategy of saying that “Common Ala Hazrat also knew the usool” is not Hujjah and is also a weak justification,
The most simple smack on Aamir's face. Ala Hazrat can also be referred as classical when it comes to Nuh Keller, who was not only born after Ala Hazrat's demise but also accepted Islam much later. So as per Aamir's statement that "If this is the case then classical scholars knew usool better than Ala Hazrat himself " then we can say that "Ala Hazrat knew usool better than Nuh Keller himself". Ala Hazrat never wrote anything in such an illogical way like Nuh Keller about any classical scholar wheres as Nuh Keller did.
The dispute is almost over a decade old and will not be decided or concluded based on a contemporary Scholar’s review. A scholar who cant even read Urdu by himself even the fatawas he discussed were being translated by his students! Such a scholar trying to inform us that Ala Hazrat made a mistake in understanding the kufriya statements of deobandi scholars and their intentions behind it, whereas Ala Hazrat had a mastery over Urdu and Nuh Keller is not even able to understand it!
20 Jul (4 days ago)
This question reveals total ignorance of Sybarite on this issue because Muhannad was written in Arabic and I have it in my hands right now, Sybarite is proven to be total nincompoop due to this point itself, this is the same sybarite who claimed to know more than Sheikh Nuh (Naudhobillah),
Ok! I accept my mistake. However my further statements made it simple enough to be understood but I know your agony didnt let you. Yeah Al-Muhannid wasnt in Urdu, but what about all the statements it tries to justify? Were they all in Arabic? So the thing I was trying to say (where I made a severe mistake, more like a slip of tongue) is that, is Nuh Keller capable of analysing al-Muhannid as al-Muhannid is more like a justification of the beliefs which were actually written in Urdu. Let me give you an example (dont tell me you people started laughing already)
IF I write a book in Urdu and it says, Nuh Keller is just like deobandis, he will surely be resting right in between Gangohi and Nanotwi in afterlife.
And then later on, someone from my family writes a book in Arabic that says We do not think of Nuh Keller as a deobandi, and we dont believe Nuh Keller to be resting in between Gangohi and Nanotwi in afterlife.
Then what you gonna call a person who'll publish an analysis on my Urdu book when he cant read what I wrote? Same is the scenario with Nuh Keller.
20 Jul (4 days ago)
Answer to No. 3: As I have explained in another thread that not mentioning something is not proof of someone not knowing it, Sheikh Nuh had been doing research on Barelvi Deobandi issue for more than 6 years, and with my personal experience with him he is not of those scholars who would pass verdicts without proper knowledge,, when I debated a deobandi over this issue of why Sheikh Nuh proved all Barelvi Aqaid to be correct, he was like Sheikh Nuh is total Barelvi in his approach and used deceit to nullify the debandi Aqaid totally
Look at what I ask and what you're babbling about.
My query is simple. If Nuh Keller ever read the refutations written against Al-Muhannid or not? The answers could be simple like;
1. Yes
2. No
3. May be
4. May be not
Aamir in a deceitful manner, just like his Sheikh, said that Nuh Keller "had been doing research on Barelvi Deobandi issue for more than 6 years". 6 years of research and yet he didnt quote any of the refutation written against Al-Muhannid. Why didnt Nuh Keller presented those refutation (if he read them, as even Aamir didnt say YES so far). Its more like Nuh Keller wrote an analysis just for saving deobandis and thats why he deceitfully didnt presented the Ahle'Sunnah side of the picture, cause if he did, his lame analysis will be thrown into dustbin by public and he would've lost the support of deobandis for presenting the Ahle'Sunnah refutations which would've exposed the deobandi lies.
20 Jul (4 days ago)
and with my personal experience with him he is not of those scholars who would pass verdicts without proper knowledge,
Yes, he is not man enough to pass such a verdic which result in decreasing number of murid from deobandi side. Yet he is surely from one of those so-called scholars who analyze things without proper knowledge.
when I debated a deobandi over this issue of why Sheikh Nuh proved all Barelvi Aqaid to be correct, he was like Sheikh Nuh is total Barelvi in his approach and used deceit to nullify the debandi Aqaid totally...
I do respect Nuh Keller for his approach in defending Ahle'Sunnah aqaid. Same as I do respect Dr. Tahir for his approach for proving the aqaid of Ahle'Sunnah. But at same time I do openly disagree with Nuh Keller and Dr. Tahir's compliance with bad'mazhabs. I am a man enough to accept whats right and to deny whats wrong.
...Sybarite is also accusing Sheikh Nuh of deception
I am not accusing, I've proved the deception of Nuh Keller (in the regard of the said article only) by presenting the fact that Nuh Keller didnt present the Ahle'Sunnah stance in his analysis and thats make his analysis biased and illogical.
though he forgets that for Ahlus Sunnah Aqaid matter the most and differing with any given scholar whether it is Imam Abu Hanifa provided you are within the framework of perfect Sunni scholar and having true Aqaid then anyone who loves the Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) more will know that yes Aqaid are the main issue.
For sure Aqaid are the most important part but the dispute with deobandis is about the Aqaid too. Or the respect of Rasoolullah (Sallallahu Allaihe Wasallam) isnt a part of Aqida to Aamir?
20 Jul (4 days ago)
Al Muhannad ala Mufannad has proofs in the end that many Arab Ulama retracted from Takfir and some are same scholars as were mentioned in Hasam ul Haramayn, this made another Sunni scholar i.e. Hazrat Jamaat Ali Shah (Rahimuhullah) to write back to Arab Ulama.
This clearly shows the ground of Aamir's stance. All Aamir has as a proof is a deobandi book! Please write all the names of those scholars who firstly endorsed Hassam-ul-Harmayn and then took back their endorsement in Al-Muhannid and also the actual signed and sealed endorsed statements from those scholars. Let everyone see what you got bachay! Or tell us that you only rely on deobandi sources just like your Sheikh!
mam Tahawi (Rahimuhullah) one of the leading and greatest classical Hanafi Faqih, he writes: If the individual then denies that he has made such a statement, he is legally considered as having repented of it (Mukhtasar al-Tahawi, 259).
As per this ruling (as you're trying to imply) even a lame theif can get away in a Shariah court by saying; I didnt do anything! Even if we rely on this ruling as per Aamir's understanding, just tell me Aamir why the books are still being published, still being defended by Deobandi scholars? I can show you almost a dozen of originally signed and sealed Fatwas from Deobandi muftis against other deobandi scholars just because they were told that these statements were made by Barelwis! I can show a lot of fatwas from Deobandi Muftis that declares your own Sheikh's beliefs as KUFR!
20 Jul (4 days ago)
I have Mehr e Munir with me, and I am talking like this because I DO HAVE READ IT, In it both the Deobandi and Barelvi are called as “ISLMIC SCHOOLS” and tone of unity has been used too plus there is no TAKFIR WHATOEVER IN IT, I CHALLENGE YOU TO SHOW ME TAKFIR RIGHT NOW!!
Are we discussing those scholars who kept Silence on Deobandi's kufr? NO! We are talking about those who tries to justify their kufr on the basis of Al-Muhannid! As for Mehr-e-Munir I CHALLENGE YOU TO SHOW ME WHERE IS SAID THE TAKFIR HAS BEEN LIFTED RIGHT NOW!! And why answering the second part of my statement only? Do you understand Pir Mehr Ali Shah Sahib's stance regarding deobandis better than his own khulfa and Sajjada'Nasheens of his Gaddi?
Alhamdulillah I have Hassam ul Haramyn, Al Muhannad and also Subhan as Sabooh wth me right now, I can write it down that you have yourself not read these works yourself and the proof of this is that you were claiming that Muhannad is written in “URDU ONLY”
Yeah I do made a mistake about Al-Muhannid and that was more of a slip of tongue, whether you accept it or not. However, let alone the books of Ala Hazrat, I have not just 1 but 2 editions of Al-Muhannid here with me;
al-Muhannid by Khalil Ahmed including Aqaid-e-Ahle'Sunnah wa' a'Jamah by Mufti Abdul Shakoor, published Idrah-e-Islamiya, Anarkali - Lahore.
al-Muhannid by Khalil Ahmed (Urdu), published by Darul Kutb, Deoband.
20 Jul (4 days ago)
Sheikh Nuh has indeed declared Qadiyanis as Kafirs and I have personally heard it, for further verification go to and read Masud Ahmed Khan’s analysis on Qadiyanis (Note he is amongst the foremost and barguzida Mureeds of Sheikh Nuh)
I demanded a DIRECT FATWA, just as you did. Not a reponse from his mureed. This clearly explains your DOUGHLA POLICY, your LOOTAPANA! You present the comments of your Sheikh's Murid when I asked about Takfir on Qadiyanis from your Sheikh, and yet you dont bother to consult Pir Mehr Ali Shah Sahib's not only Murid but his Khalifa and Sajjad'Nasheen in regard to Takfir on Deobandis!! You are a deobandi down to the core! Nothing but an another deobandi LOOTA!
This is a huge leap to somehow consider Ala Hazat as infallible and I will refute this because It is very dangerous to even think about believing in someone else other than Prophets to be infallible
Dont yell about the huge leap! No one here is claiming that Ala Hazrat is infallible. What I said is if we cant consider and present Ala Hazrat as infallible, then we can simply consider the same about Nuh Keller as well.
Come and say openly that you accept that Ala Hazrat can indeed make mistakes and that other scholars can differ with him (and you do not have Wahi from Allah to say that Sheikh Nuh is lesser in status than your other so called Barelvi scholars, so let’s leave that to Allah)
I hereby say infront of everyone around. I DO NOT BELIEVE ALA HAZRAT TO BE INFALLIBLE BUT MAHFOOZ. As for the status of Nuh Keller being lower than Ala Hazrat and his disciples (thats what I said) is my personal opinion not a fundamental belief. I stand firm on this opinion unless I see something good coming out from Nuh Keller. Again this is totally a perosnally opinion not a belief.
Now I demand the same from Aamir to accept that Nuh Keller can indeed make mistakes and that other scholars can differ with him.
20 Jul (4 days ago)
Later on Aamir babbled over some totally irrelevant issues which can lead to a whole different and lengthy debate.
Imam Haskafi in his al-Durr al-mukhtar: A fatwa may not be given of the unbelief of a Muslim whose words are interpretable as having a valid meaning, or about the unbelief of which there is a difference of scholarly opinion, even if weak (Radd al-muhtar, 3.289).
'Interpretable as having a valid meaning this is a common taweel done by deobandis to save their scholars. However all such interpretations which deobandi claims to have a valid meaning are being refuted by Ahle'Sunnah scholars. The words used and statements made by the deobandi scholars were clear & explicit in their meanings & contextual inference in the Urdu language, for which your Sheikh relied upon translations into the English language! If Aamir or Nuh Keller thinks that it can be intrepreted in a way which consist a valid meaning then why he or even Nuh Keller didnt bother to discuss it with Ulema-e-Ahle'Sunnah? And you as accept that statements are indeed Kufriya, here is an another excerpt from a classical book;
"wal'lafza'lahu'l'kafir basabibi nabiyi min al'anbiya'i laa' taqabbal taubata matlaqa'wa' man'shakka fi azabihi wa kufruhu kufr"
(there may be some mistakes in transliteration)
"Jo kisi Nabi ki shaan mein gustakhi ke sabab kafir ho, uss ki taubah kisi tarah qubool nahi aur jo uss ke azaab ya kufr mein shakk karay khud kafir hai"
(ad'Darr-ul-Mukhtar, Kitab-ul-Jihad, Baab-ul-Murtid, vol. 1, pg. 365, Matba' Mujtabai, Delhi)
20 Jul (4 days ago)
As for the reference you quoted from your Sheikh's article, I'd like to present an another statement from your Sheikh's article that elabore it in a much better way. Your Sheikh wrote;
"Unfortunately for Muslim unity in India, Gangohi’s concept of the jawaz ‘aqli or “hypothetical possibility” of God’s lying was mistakenly translated into Arabic by Ahmad Reza Khan as imkan al-kadhib"
Yet another stupid claim. I can show you the actual scans of Fatawa-e-Rasheediya where Gangohi used the same terminology and used the word "Imkaan-e-Kazb". An another deceitful statement by your Sheikh that Ala Hazrat mistakenly translated Gangohi's belief into Imkaan-e-Kazb. And as per your Sheikh's own statement such a position is not held by any other muslims means that Imam Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Sanusi didnt hold this position but Ganoghi did! Its a deobandi/wahabi's lame accusation that Asharis believe Imkan-e-kazb (maaza'Allah).
Ashraf Ali Thanvi later himself accepted the takfir of Ala Hazrat, he specifically told deobandis “NOT TO PUBLISH” this wording in the book anymore and he even changed his statement,
Please provide the reference for this. And if this is true, what about all those deobandis who are still publishing and reading that book?
20 Jul (4 days ago)
Haji Sahab did not do takfir on Thanvi sahab and he remained his mureed till the end
Hazrat Maulana Ghulam Dastaghir Qasuri (Rehmatullahe Allaihe), a prominent Khalifah of Haji Imdadullah Mahajir Makki (Rehmatullahe Allaihe) wrote "Takdis al-Wakil 'an Tauheen-ur-Rashid wal' Khalil" I guess the name says it all! Haji Imdadullah Mahajir Makki (Rehmatullahe Allaihe) himself endorsed this book.
Hazrat Maulana Anwarullah Farooqi (Rehmatullahe Allaihe), an another prominent Khalifah of Haji Imdadullah Mahajir Makki (Rehmatullahe Allaihe) wrote "Anwaar-e-Ahmadi" in refutation of Nanotwi and also been endorsed by Haji Imdadullah Mahajir Makki (Rehmatullahe Allaihe).
Did Thanvi accepted his own Murshid's endorsement and declared Gangohi, Nanotwi and Anbhetvi as Kafir? No because he was a LOOTA just like you! Iss Thanvi ki khabasat ne tu iss ki qabar se haddiya nikalwa kar gobar bharwa diya, tum apni fiker karo ab!
If someone believed whether directly or indirectly or agrees to what Ahmed Ridha Khan had understood or misunderstood from my text, then I (Ashraf Ali Thanvi) would in accordance with the principles of Shariah consider such a person to be “OUTSIDE THE BOUNDRIES OF ISLAM” because of his disrespect to Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam)… this is documented proof from Thanvi Sahab in questions being asked from him by people who were troubled by his statement.
Please provide the actual statement along with the complete reference (which is probably in Urdu).
Later you made an another political speech which I dont need to answer except a few points which are relevant to the topic.
20 Jul (4 days ago)
12. Why did you quote me out of context as If I was directly insulting Ala Hadrat though I have not.
You did, and I elaboreated it already in my earlier posts.
13. You claimed that I said whosoever differs with my Murshid is going straight to Hell, could you prove this accusation of yours?
I nowhere said that "YOU CLAIMED" this. Yet this is another false accusation you made against me.
14. You claimed: Can Nuh Keller even read Al-Muhannid all by himself? (as its in Urdu).. in spite of such ignorance you accused Sheikh Nuh with bad names yourself, You also made a claim that you are more knowledgeable in this matter, when you do not even know Muhannad was written in Arabic or Urdu how can you come and discuss this matter in detail?
About Al-Muhannid I made it clear in my earlier post, even twice. In a very similar tone, Nuh Keller dont know all about this dispute in spite of such ignorance he said that Ala Hazrat sent his Hassam-ul-Harmaym for endorsement whereas Ala Hazrat took "al-Mu’tamad al’mustanadd" personally to Harmayn Sharif.
15. What do you say about the Usools proven by Imam Tahawi (rah) i.e. : If the individual then denies that he has made such a statement, he is legally considered as having repented of it (Mukhtasar al-Tahawi, 259).
16. What do you say about the Usool proven by Imam Subki that even on kufr rearding Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) the Intentions will be taken into account?
What do you say about "Jo kisi Nabi ki shaan mein gustakhi ke sabab kafir ho, uss ki taubah kisi tarah qubool nahi aur jo uss ke azaab ya kufr mein shakk karay khud kafir hai"
(ad'Darr-ul-Mukhtar, Kitab-ul-Jihad, Baab-ul-Murtid, vol. 1, pg. 365, Matba' Mujtabai, Delhi)
20 Jul (4 days ago)
And then you ended up without answering a lot of queries. Let me write them again for you.
Did Nuh Keller read the splendid refutation of Al-Muhannid by Ahle'Sunnah Scholars? (if yes why he didnt quote anything from them)
Who asked all those queries mentioned in Al-Muhannid? (Please provide the names here)
How many scholars endorsed that biased article of Nuh Keller so far? 1, 2, 3...
Do you really mean to say even he is a proven munafiq the fatwa will be lifted?
How many scholar besides Nuh Keller said that its lifted?
By the way are you or even your Sheikh up for an official debate over Al-Muhannid, as everyone can see that the only thing in defence of Deobandis you're quoting again and again is Al-Muhannid. This is a serious matter so dont start yelling "he is ready for anything anytime" without getting an official confirmation. I think your Sheikh, who is according to you working so hard for the Unity of Ummah wont hasitate a bit to send an invitation to some scholar of different opinion on Al-Muhannid to have a debate, for the sake of Unity of Ummah! I'll anxiously wait for an official reply.
If you're really proud to accept them as muslims, why you seemed so offened when I prayed that may you and your Sheikh rest with these deobandis in afterlife? I mean what so offensive about it if you consider them muslims, infact muslims who are considered as not just scholars but Qutb-e-Rabbani, Qasim-ul-Uloom wa' Khairat, Hakeem-ul-Ummat, Fakhr-ul-Muhaddiseen, to a particular sect.
And a few queries which I didnt ask earlier.
As you said Nuh Keller had been researching on Deobandi / Barelwi dispute since last 6 years, I'd like to ask whether he just researching on only the disputed statements which are discussed in Hassam-ul-Harmayn or reading other disputed books by deobandis as well?
What do you consider about Wahabis? Do you consider them muslims or not?
What is Shaykh Nuh's current position?
21 Jul (3 days ago)
Sybarite ignored pretty much all the crucial Usool
Sybarite had promised that he would discuss this matter in a friendly environment but he has used obnoxious, disrespectful and ridiculing words for Sheikh Nuh once again rather his posts are filled with nothing but "Deperate hatred" for sheikh Nuh though Sybarite is still to prove my explicit and clear disrespect to any of his Shayookh let alone Ala Hazrat (rah) himself.
Crucial point: I had specifically summarized my posts and made the Usool clear in the end because I knew Sybarite will try to find excuses and not answer, he started straight from 12th and even those were not answered properly, Sybarite I ask you once again to read the summarized points carefully, the points before 12th are the crucial ones which I am sure you did read, for example the points on Classical scholars trying to prove attributes of Allah in literal sense but still getting away with it, the point on Sheikh ul Akbar Muhayuddin Ibn Arabi (rah), Point on Yazid plus Imam Ghaazali (rah) differing upon takfir of Yazid (Is Yazid beloved to you that you are ready to ignore this crucial point? Do you love Yazid and doubt the Kufrs which he performed? Did Prophet salallaho alaihi wasalam not cry and make his beard soaked upon tragedy of Karbala beforehand due to his knowledge of Unseen? Khair after this I highlighted scholars who had themselves gone overboard, Is Hurmah of Prophet Salallaho alaihi wasalam not a universal concept for you? For me It is but for me Usool is also to be understood hence I do not base things on illogical concepts, also read how classical scholars defended Ibn Taymiyyah though Ibn Taymiyyah is forefather of WAHABISM/DEOBANDISM, I gave example of Ibn Taymiyyah so that you somehow do not cleverly say that I am comparing deobandi Akabireen to Awliya like Muhayuddin Ibn Arabi)
Sybarite had promised that he would discuss this matter in a friendly environment but he has used obnoxious, disrespectful and ridiculing words for Sheikh Nuh once again
i agree with aamir. sybarite was suppose to discuss in a friendly manner same as aamir did
kahir you have all the right to differ"............"
if aamir called him kahir than sybarite should use word kahir only not other words. as sybarite promised that discussion will be peaceful.
NOTE for AAMIR:
HAVE SOME SHAME
STOP CRYING BY SAYING SYBARITE DIDNT TALK ABOUT THIS AND THAT. STAY ON TOPIC.
BY THE WAY I AM SORRY SYBARITE NAI TU SATYANAS KAR DIYA HAI TUMHARI SARI PASTING KA
21 Jul (3 days ago)
@Omer with love
Omer do you think I was ignoring you because I did not see you inbetween? You hopping up and down and writing replies in-between my posts to support sybarite is itself a proof that Sybarite has been totally thrashed and he has not even answered a single thing properly, Behas Barai Behas tou koi tum logoon say seekhay, Omer I dare you not to delete any of your posts, main tumhain simple few lines ka jawab likhoon ga upon your assumption that Sheikh Nuh considers even "WAHABIS" as kafirs let alone deobandis, tu idhar Afwah phila raha hai that Sheikh Nuh has declared deobandis as kafiir whereas tera apna Sybarite pagloon ki tarhan Sheikh Nuh ko bura bhala keh raha hai on the same point... ROFL!
Omer I want you to Say it in front of all that you will never come back saying sorry, your short tempered behavior and you bursting against others without reading things properly is not something new for me, I made the biggest mistake of even arguing with Sami Bhai to defend your stupidities and behavior of Gali Galoch, I know you will continue to hate me and declare me to be out of Islam or that I am actually deobandi or their supporter, Lekin Omer agar main Deobandi na Hoya tou Allah ki Qasam tera wo Haal ho ga Allah aur us kay Rasul (salallaho alaihi wasalam) kay samnay kay tere soch bhi nahi.
21 Jul (3 days ago)
aamir and omer
aslam o alaikum,
You both can fight as much as you like, but keep fights only here ,and I advise you both to be united infront of Badh aqeedas every where else on orkut,
I myself have differences with aamir and other sunnis on several issues, but for me ahle sunnah wal jammat and defending it by staying united against khawarijies matter more ,hope you both will show the same behaviour
period
21 Jul (3 days ago)
And I wont be surprised if you people will go against one another in islam community or other communities and might even take wahabi sides just due to personal difference.
Discuss the issue with love, and donot create hate for one another in your hearts, We all differ in one issue or another, it doesnt means we should start showing extreme hatred towards each other and divide into groups
w-salam
aamir i cam understand your position. using kahir and than blaming it on me and telling people that sybarite is not answering you is a nice way to missguide people.
@saifi
unite against badh mazhab?? i can see clearly who is taking side of badh mazhab here and who is against them.
anyways let aamir play his games. atleast sunnis wont get unite at supporting badh mazhabs.
you can see how aamir involved tahirul qadri also to get support of minhajans but its good to know that even tahirul qadri didnt take takfir back.
lol
look at aamir condition even after losing debate and starting abusing still he thinks sybarite is not able to answer him. its really funny.
yes i am supporting sybarite cuz he is on haq.
21 Jul (3 days ago)
omer
I donot agree with aamir view on nanotvi issue as a brelwi, and aamir wont agree with some views which I have, aamir knows what I am talking about,We had differences on MSN a few months ago, but then we both forgot them just for the sake of Ahle sunnah and you also know what they are.
I personally have seen aamir always supporting Sunnis and their aqeeda including brelwis all over orkut.I never ever saw him supporting najdis or badh aqeeda on orkut, whether it be any where.
This is the one issue where he doesnt do takfeer on nanotvi ,with which I dont agree,
The only solution to it is, If we think aamir is wrong in this issue, Leave it to Allah to give him hidayat, brelwis have done their job and debated on all issue,
If aamir thinks we are wrong he should also leave it to Allah
Both should pray for one another that may Allah give each of us hidayat, and finish the issue, and work against najdis again
@saifi
I personally have seen aamir always supporting Sunnis and their aqeeda including brelwis all over orkut.I never ever saw him supporting najdis or badh aqeeda on orkut, whether it be any where.
in this thread he is not defending them??
in this community whats happening for last a couple of weeks?? aamir is not defending them by describing that takfir is not valid??
comeon saifi atleast dont say this. its open reality aamir is defending deobandis.
21 Jul (3 days ago)
@Aamir
Sybarite had promised that he would discuss this matter in a friendly environment but he has used obnoxious, disrespectful and ridiculing words for Sheikh Nuh once again rather his posts are filled with nothing but "Deperate hatred" for sheikh Nuh though Sybarite is still to prove my explicit and clear disrespect to any of his Shayookh let alone Ala Hazrat (rah) himself.
You've declared countless Ulema-e-Ahle'Sunnat including Ala Hazrat as "Wild Takfirist" and "Typical Mullahs", whereas I only criticized your Sheikh's particular article and this is because the article was published in early 2007 and been replied by Ulema-e-Ahle'Sunnat UK in almost mid of 2007. So I am not sure about Nuh Keller's current position. Aur tum ko qabar khood ke ghuss jao gay zameen ke under lekin iss ka jawab nahi do gay!
I being a laymen made a mistake about Al-Muhannid and you called me Stupid, ignorant, nincompoop, fool etc so what your Sheikh should be called when being a scholar he dont even know whether Ala Hazrat sent Hassam-ul-Harmayn for endorsement or took al-Mu’tamad al’mustanadd personally. This proves your Sheikh more stupid, ignorant, nincompoop and fool than me!
I am not good at begging for support like you do so I cant make such political posts. You said I ignored almost all the crucial Usool issues which you've mentioned.
Bachay! Yaha nanhay munnay bachay nahi jo tumhari lambi lambi posts ko aur classical books ke naam sun kar impress ho jaye. All the things you've said about Usool are for difference of opinion among scholars, classical scholars! Whereas your Sheikh not just declared Ala Hazrat to be mistaken but also took his takfir back.
21 Jul (3 days ago)
I had specifically summarized my posts and made the Usool clear in the end because I knew Sybarite will try to find excuses and not answer, he started straight from 12th and even those were not answered properly,
From point 1st till 4th you you've presented scenarios where Ulema differed in Takfir but did they said anything like "Fala Fala's takfir has been lifted"? "Fala and Fala had mistakenly translated this and that into Arabic"? You are trying your best to turn the actual topic to "difference of opinion" which isnt the issue at hand. The issues at hand are like;
Taking a classical scholar's takfir back by saying "Takfir has been lifted"
Justifying the Kafir without complete research
Analyzing a dispute among people of different language which you cant even understand
So just stop crying over "difference of opinion".
5. Sheikh Nuh has actually proven the essential aqaid of Ahlus Sunnah and spported Ala Hazrat (rah) in the best fashion, are Aqaid less important to you and Takfir more important that you present sheikh Nuh wrongly that he was naudhobillah biased though not in 1 aqida of Ahlus Sunnah has he given a different viewpoint.
If you keeps crying over a thing again and again then its not necessary to reply you again and again. I you've read my posts (which I seriously doubt) you must've read this too "I do respect Nuh Keller for his approach in defending Ahle'Sunnah aqaid". The reason why I called Nuh Keller's article biased is mentioned in my replies even twice. Asked you a very simple query which you didnt dare to reply. Go through my posts again and answer the queries I made earlier including a few new ones.
21 Jul (3 days ago)
6. Does anyone who differ with the Takfir of Ala Hazrat become Kafir or misguided? why are you so spcific to Ala Hazrat only why don't you apply the same rule upon other classical scholars who without any doubt hold greater status than Ala Hazrat himself.
Already been replied in my earlier posts. Again you tried to divert things towards "difference of opinion". Nuh Keller has the right differ with Ala Hazrat's takfir, but he has no right to make such lame statements like Ala Hazrat mistakenly translated Gangohi's stance into "Imkan-e-Kazb". The dispute is not just over the difference of opinion its about taking back Ala Hazrat's takfir on your own!
7. Why cannot a modest approach be used to bring Deobandis and Barelvis together, Quran has even told us to come to common terms between Us and you (i.e. Jews/Christians), hence If a scholar who has true Sunni Aqida and is revered highly by many eminent scholars tries to bring Deobandi and Barelvis closer, then Isn't Takfir the only hurdle between the 2 factions when the aqaid could be easily explained to them provided we are not rigid in approach?
Its a modest approach to increase the number of murideen and nothing else! You think Nuh Keller is the only one who care about the unity of Ummah? Our Scholars always ask deobandis to denounce the kufriya statements, just get over with those lame books and they are welcome to join us. You said "Isn't Takfir the only hurdle between".. NO! There are major differences in aqaid between us.
You think a laymen deobandi who wanders around with the-bug-league (tablighi jamat) know all about these Takfir issues? NO! Most of them dont even know who the hell was Gangohi! The think of us wrong by aqaid not because Ala Hazrat did Takfir on their scholars. Majority of deobandis dont differ with Ahle'Sunnah cause of takfir, they differ cause of Aqaid.
21 Jul (3 days ago)
In point 8th till 11th you again cried about "difference of opinion" which is not the issue here.
And already been replied onwards. Lunch time.. will get back and be ready to get a summary of the queries which you didnt dare to reply AT ALL!
21 Jul (3 days ago)
Difference between Imkan al "KADHIB" and Kizb!
Sybarite now what I am going to say will yet again reveal your ignorance on this issue and it will be same as you were caught on saying that Muhannad was written in Urdu, you constantly accept that you have made blunders and you are yourself ignorant of this issue, It is easy to fool people by falsely accusing sheikh Nuh but the reality is that there is huge difference between "IMKAN AL KADHIB" and "Imkan e Kizb" Imkan al"Kadhib" in arabic would mean that Allah can factually tell a lie and is already a Liar (KADHIB) (Naudhobillah) not that he can possibly lie or not (i.e. Imkan e Kizb), had you known Arabic you would have understood this technical difference (Ala Hazrat translated the terms in arabic and presented them to Arab Ulama, this also refutes your trickery that sheikh Nuh not knowing Urdu had no right to pass his honest judgment, according to your own Logic the Ulama of Haramayn also got to know things after translation too)
In the next paragraph you have yourself cleverly changed Imkan al Kadhib in "KIZB" in order to put dust in eyes of people, for example the statements of Nanotwi Ala Hazrat (rah) presented 3 different statements from Tahzirun Naas and made them into 1, after It he "HIMSELF" said :"THIS IBARAT" though It was not 1 Ibarat but 3 separate Ibaraat put together, I have Hassam ul Haramayn in my hands right now and I challenge you to prove me wrong, this does not mean Ala Hazrat was wrong in making Takfir according to the viewpoints which he held, nor was he trying t spread fraud because Sheikh Nuh himself clarified:
Whether this mistranslation was due to Ahmad Reza Khan’s honest misapprehension of Gangohi’s position, or directly carrying into Arabic a similar Urdu phrase without understanding the resultant nuance in Arabic, or some other reason, is not clear. But it is plain that to Ahmad Reza, it seemed to amount to a denial of the basic Muslim belief that Allah never lies.
Cont..
21 Jul (3 days ago)
In Arabic the termanology is different!
In Arabic Imkan al Kadhib is a different Istlah than "IMKAN E KIZB"
I know you will still not agree and try to taint this as an accusation on Ala Hazrat (rah) though it is not because when things come in Arabic their Istilah changes, Sybarite I will ask you same thing which you have been ignoring for too long now, according to Ala Hazrat (rah) Gangohi was following his teacher Ismail dhelvi, I challenge you to show me Ilani and Tehriri Tawba of Ismail dhelvi on this specific issue itself, because Ismail dhelvi had himself crossed all boundaries on this Kizb issue itself, why hasn’t then Ala Hazrat made takfir on Ismail dhelvi who was even cause of Gangohi’s misguidance on this issue itself? Gangohi got Barahin e Qatiya to be written by same Khalil Ahmed Ambethvi and who also wrote al Muhannad, in both these books and also in Fatawa e Rashidiyah they have not used the term “IMKAN AL KADHIB” for Allah, I challenge you to show me the term “IMKAN AL KADHIB” note: I am not asking about Imkan e Kizb but KADHIB!!!!!
21 Jul (3 days ago)
Sybarite's deception to defend his Abuses
When Sybarite was openly caught breaking promises and using abusive tone for Sheikh Nuh, he replied: You've declared countless Ulema-e-Ahle'Sunnat including Ala Hazrat as "Wild Takfirist" and "Typical Mullahs"
Previous time he was saying you have "Indirectly" done this but now he has cleverly removed indirectly from inbetween too, iss ka bass nahi chall raha so he is cooking up things himself, Naach na janay angan terha Sybarite.. Poor Sybarite is worthless in real time debates, I had called the people like you and pseudo scholars as Wild takfirists, stop covering p your lies with deception and I said such people are present irrespective of sects.
Sybarite said: I being a laymen made a mistake about Al-Muhannid and you called me Stupid, ignorant, nincompoop, fool etc so what your Sheikh should be called when being a scholar he dont even know whether Ala Hazrat sent Hassam-ul-Harmayn for endorsement or took al-Mu’tamad al’mustanadd personally. This proves your Sheikh more stupid, ignorant, nincompoop and fool than me!
Once again this fool is making comparisons of himself wih sheikh Nuh though he himself accepts a point on which his Auqaat has been made visable to all, Muhannad was in URDU YOU NINCMPOOP? when you do not even know basics about this thing then how can you claim to be a master of it? regarding Mu'tamad thing then Sheikh Nuh adressed the book with its "FINAL" name, he just did not go in details of what was it called before and what it finally came to be knowing, this is way of scholars when they are explaining things they exclude the hidden details.
Sybarite said: Bachay! Yaha nanhay munnay bachay nahi jo tumhari lambi lambi posts ko aur classical books ke naam sun kar impress ho jaye.
Teray posts bohat chotay hain jaisay? soch tou liya kar bongi marnay say pehlay
21 Jul (3 days ago)
Why r you constanatly ignoring the Crucial Usools
Sybarite there is no need to repeat the same things over and over again, I have given you answers before, I had clarified that It was your cunning lie that Sheikh Nuh only used Al-Muhannad to take back the takfir, he has proven through Quran, Sunnah, Principles and Usool of Shariah plus fiqh, hence I will now reply to the so called refutation which you "TRIED" to give to Usools because that’s the only time you get “MAN ENOUGH” in trying something otherwise you are saying nothing but absurdities, you ignored the first 12 crucial things which I had once again highlighted to you because you know you would fail miserably, I ask you once again to answer them sensibly by copy/pasting the exact summarized statements which I made and please note that I had said If you prove them wrong then I will do "OPEN TAWBA" and consider my sheikh to be wrong!!
You said: 8. "Jo alfaaz moham-e-tehqeer-e-Huzoor Sarwar-e-Kainaat Allaihe Salam hon, agarc'hay kehnay walay ki niyyat hiqarat ki na ho, magar unn se bhi kehnay wala kafir ho jata hai."
If you had read my previous posts properly then you would not have even dared to say this above, let me explain to you in simple words because you do not seem to be understanding the depth of Usools, Sybarite do you believe that disrespectful words used for Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) are to be taken universally? Whether some Sahabi says it, Some Wali says it or some other person? Answer this one very clearly and explicitly, I will split things for your own easiness now, If you say Yes then tell me why wasn't Ibn Taymiyyah declared as Kafir by many eminent scholars?????, Is Ibn Taymiyyah somehow in your lineage that you somehow do not comment on him? Is he beloved to you in the same way like Yazid is? What is your say on Imam Dhahabi and Imam Ibn Kathir for instance who did not declare him kafir rather praised him, and what about Imam Ghazzali (rah) who not only doubted in Kufr of Yazid but went ahead to prove that writing Rahimuhullah with him is fine.
21 Jul (3 days ago)
So Is Yazid your beloved, Mr Sybarite?
Let me repeat this again: YAZID your beloved who was refuted by none other than Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) himself, and many ulama had written this mightiest Ghustakh e Rasul and Ahle Bayt be Kafir, so Imam Ghazzali doubted his kufr and got away with it??? I know you do not have the guts to answer in-depth questions but due to your false accusations upon me that I am defending deobandis I have to nail you in this fashion, now If I defend Imam Ghazzali (rah) would I be defending Yazid???? The answer will be no because we have to look at principles and for me Imam Ghazzali (rah) is way way above Ala Hazrat (rah) in status come challenge this statement too
. Also tell me why weren't the mighty scholars who themselves went over the board not declared as kafirs? If you say they were scholars and Deobandis were not then you need to prove this from Usool that for scholars Ghustakhi is justified but for others It is not.
Sybarite this is your last chance to tackle the first 12 points very sensibly because you have been totally thrashed over here, I have said to the extent that I will do open Tawba If you prove me wrong in Principles, you have spread enough misguidance with support of your chillaz that I am somehow supporting deobandis although I am not, I am just supporting the Usool which comes directly from Shariah which to me is way above than Ala Hazrat and my own Murshid too, I say again It is way above than my own Murshid too, but why should I accept abuses for My Murshid when he has done a valid Ijtihad? Even if he has reached a wrong conclusion he will get 1 Ajr and he has by no means rejected the Sunni Aqaid which do not seem to be important for you but still you accused me of not Loving Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) atall.
21 Jul (3 days ago)
A tight Slap to Sybarite from Mihr e Muneer
You said: 9. If you can rely on Nuh Keller's student's answer in regard of Takfir of Qadiyanis, why cant you rely on the Sajjada-Nasheens of Golara Sharif in regard to Takfir of Deobandis by Pir Mehr Ali Shah?
Firstk you again to stop spreading lies because evenb last time I clarified that I rely firsly on Sheikh because I have personally heard him declaring Qadiyanis as Kafir, secondly even the article itself proves finality of Prophethood to be complete and anyone who rejects it will be Kafir, third You have spread enough misguidance On Pir Karam Ali Shah (rah)’s name already though I had asked you long time back to prove this, here I have Mihr e Muneer in my hands which has been compiled under guidance of Sajada Nasheens too plus you have now started hiding to mention Mihr e Muneer since the time I said that Pir Sahab has called both Deobandis and Barelvis to be “ISLAMIC SCHOOLS” now I will show you the complete passage.
Mihr e Muneer, Chapter No. 5, Page No. 127:
Topic: Barelavi and Deobandi “SCHOOLS” With respect to the issue which the Barelavi, Deobandi and other “ISLAMIC SCHOOLS” of thought held divergent views, Hadrat took every opportunity to clarify his own thinking from time to time. Although he disapproved of the conflicts based on differences among the various sects on minor and peripheral issues, he nevertheless supported those views of the discordant sects which he considered to be just and fair. Concerning “Allama” Ibn-e-Taimiah and his pupil “Allamah” Ibn-e-Qayyim, for example, WHOSE VIEWS WERE CONDEMNED BY ULAMA OF THE BARELAVI SCHOOL IN “VERY STRONG TERMS”, HE EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT WHILE THERE WAS NO DOUBT ABOUT THEIR BEING ERUDITE SCHOLARS AND SINCIRE SERVANTS OF ISLAM, ....
"hence I will now reply to the so called refutation which you "TRIED" to give to Usools because that’s the only time you get "
is ko kahtay hain bhagnay ka aik aur rasta :D
according to aamir he is right.
now i really wonder why ahlay sunnah of Uk which offcourse i dont think include only barailvies have refuted that article.
sab kuch khatam ho chuka hai ab siwai bhagnay ka rasta talash karnay kai.
so lets watch how he will run.
sybarite kai questions ka answer diya nahi apna naya usool bana kar us par shuro.
let me explain to you in simple words because you do not seem to be understanding the depth of Usools,
depth of usool:
deobandis 4 scholars are right. lol
21 Jul (3 days ago)
Come forward and prove it even from Zia ul Quran!
they had adopted rather extremist views on certain issues on which there was general consensus among the ulama of Islamic Ummah. Furthermore, they had, in his opinion, set wrong example by misrepresenting and misinterpreting the standpoints of certain ulama of their opposing school of thought, especially the Wahdat-ul-Wujud concept put forward by Shaikh-e-Akbar Muhayuddin Ibn-ul-Arabi (rah). In short, even if Hadrat found just one out of a large number of factions to be favorable to the person commited on, he FORBADE OTHER ULAMA FROM DOUBTING THE SINCERITY OF THAT PERSON’S INTENTIONS. [Mihr e Muneer, Page Nos 127-128]
There is no Takfir whatsoever, Pir Sahab also refuted Ismail dhelvi but did not make “Takfir upon him even” rather in the end Pir Sahab’s work is mentioned to unite SUNNIS AND SHIAS, wait a minute unity with shias? Where will you go now O extremist barelvis? Shias are badtareen Kufaar and Paleet right? We should not forget that Sybarite claimed that had I read Mihr e Muneer I would have known about Takfir of Pir Mehr Ali Shah (rah), Sybarite has been stripped naked now.
Khair Sybarite you had also claimed that Pir Karam Ali Shah (rah) also rejected Takfir “Initially” could you please show me verdict of Ahlus Sunnah scholars upon him when he rejected Takfir? You also claimed that in later years he enforced the Takfir and you took support of Tafsir Zia ul Quran too, I dare you to mention the Volume Number and Page Number of this Tafsir....
So Is Yazid your beloved, Mr Sybarite?
covert channel
hahahha
koi tu rasta milay nikalnay ka
21 Jul (3 days ago)
@Omer
You said: now i really wonder why
ahlay sunnah of Uk which
offcourse i dont think include only barailvies have refuted that article.
Iss ko kehtay hain Jahiloon ko beech main nahi bolna chahyay, jabb 2 Ilm main baray baat kar rahay hoon tou tum jaisay logoon ko side par beth jana chahyay, let me tell you why: You have yourself first claimed above that those scholars were ahle sunnah and then you said "offcourse i dont think include only barailvies"
hence are you trying to prove that Barelvis have nothing to do with Ahlus Sunnah? why are you calling those non-barelvi scholars as ahle sunnah then?Aur omer abb Mukar kyoon raha hai apni statements say k Sheikh Nuh declared Deobandis as Kafirs?? ROFL! You think bogus fatwas from these so called Barelvis have let mighty Ulama like Sheikh ul Islam Dr Tahir ul Qadri and now Sheikh Nuh down? Sheikh Nuh only becomes out strong and was perfectly right in his beautiful analysis.
Support of Omer for Sybarite = Khawajay ka Gawah Daddoo
21 Jul (3 days ago)
And haan omer itna shok hai beech main bolnay ka and of giving pseudo lame comments then khud aa ja sybarite ki jagah, agar himmat hai tou first 12 Points jo mainay sumerize kiyay thay un ka Jawab day, wait a minute Yazid is your beloved too right?
Omer abb kahay ga no no Sybarite bhai mujhay beech main naa anay dena, I know Aamir will nail me in no time, app nay tou phir bhi kuch bongiyan maar deen hain lekin mera kaam tou siraf hawai fire karna he hai
21 Jul (3 days ago)
@ Aamir
Hows
your thornvi, nanatovi, gundgohi...?
Iss ko kehtay hain Jahiloon ko beech main nahi bolna chahyay, jabb 2 Ilm main baray baat kar rahay hoon tou tum jaisay logoon ko side par beth jana chahyay,
2 ilm mai baray??
hahahahah khud ko kis khatay mai bara kar liya??
oh yes you are right tumharay jaisai jin ko baray honay ka shoq hota hai woh sullah kulli ka sahara lai kar khud ko bara bananay ki koshish kartay hain kai dusray un kai sath ho jain. koi baat nahi keep it up. waisai aik suggestion hai sulah kulli mai qadyaniyo ko bhi galay laga lo aur baray ho jao gi
let me tell you why: You have yourself first claimed above that those scholars were ahle sunnah and then you said "offcourse i dont think include only barailvies" hence are you trying to prove that Barelvis have nothing to do with Ahlus Sunnah? why are you calling those non-barelvi scholars as ahle sunnah then?
aap ki is logic sai hi aap kai ilm mai baray honay ka pata chal gaya hai. hahahahahah
meray statement sai agar yah matlab nikalta hai tu phir tu sahi tum deobandi kai 4 baro ko sahi kafir nahi kah rahay ho kiu kai yah tumhari samajh sai upar ki baat hai.
Aur omer abb Mukar kyoon raha hai apni statements say k Sheikh Nuh declared Deobandis as Kafirs??
hairat hai mai mukar gaya aur mujhay hi nahi pata
hahahahaha
thats really funny. by the way i do understand when someone try to proof wrong things right this normally happens
ROFL! You think bogus fatwas from these so called Barelvis have let mighty Ulama like Sheikh ul Islam Dr Tahir ul Qadri
oh yet another try to involve manhajians. anyways you are saying now fatwas are bogus of barailvies and they are so called barailvies???? nauzubillah ab aamir jaisai deobandiyo kai ashiq batai gai kai barailvi kaun hain phir sybarite tumharay shaikh ko kuch kahay ga tu phir ronay baith jao gai aur sab sai kaho gai kai ankho mai anso hain tumharay.
keep it up.
Support of Omer for Sybarite = Khawajay ka Gawah Daddoo
yah daddoo hona bahtar hai bajai deobandiyo kai kufr ko support karnay kai
tum sulah kulli karo
aur mai in par peeshab karta houn :D
And haan omer itna shok hai beech main bolnay ka and of giving pseudo lame comments then khud aa ja sybarite ki jagah, agar himmat hai tou first 12 Points jo mainay sumerize kiyay thay un ka Jawab day,
Omer abb kahay ga no no Sybarite bhai mujhay beech main naa anay dena, I know Aamir will nail me in no time, app nay tou phir bhi kuch bongiyan maar deen hain lekin mera kaam tou siraf hawai fire karna he hai
in dono bato ka aik hi jawab hai. aap jaiso kai liyae faltu time nahi hai meray pas.
jis ki halat yah ho kai baat ko kuch ka kuch kar dai jaisai kai abhi neechay example dou ga tu us ko 10 bar salam aur jis gumrahi par ho ja raha hai us par hi janay daina chahiyae aur us ki barbadi ko dekh kar sabaq laina chahiyae
example:wait a minute Yazid is your beloved too right?
yah tu haal ho gaya hai tumhara logo par jhoot aur bohtan bandh rahay ho.
have some shame aamir.
is halat kai baad insan ko us ki tabahi par rokna nahi chahiyae.
so keep it up.
i really salute sybarite who is still trying hard to stop aamir from missguidance
busy for chat Abdullah
@ Aamir
Hows your thornvi, nanatovi, gundgohi...?
bacha samajhta hai magar self proclaimed "ilm mai bara" nahi samajhta
aisai ilm sai tu jahil rahna hi bahtar jo missguide kar dai
22 Jul (2 days ago)
1. As per you claim Nuh Keller had been researching over this dispute since last 6 years.
1a) Did he read any of the refutation of Al-Muhannid by Ahle'Sunnah Scholars?
1b) If he didnt, what is he researching about?
1c) If he did, why didnt quote any of them in his article?
2. Who asked all those queries mentioned in Al-Muhannid? You and your Sheikh both have al-Muhannid. Give me some names here.
3. How many scholars endorsed that biased article of Nuh Keller so far? If none what seems more authentic, your Sheikh's article or Hassam-ul-Harmayn (almost 30 endorsements) and Al'Sawarim-ul-Hindya (268 endorsements)?
4. Do you mean to say that even if al-Muhannid is a proven bunch of lies the fatwa will be lifted?
5. How many scholar besides Nuh Keller said that the takfir has been lifted?
6. As you claim, Nuh Keller had been researching on this dispute since last 6 years, I'd like to ask whether he just researching on only the disputed statements which are discussed in Hassam-ul-Harmayn or reading other disputed books by deobandis as well?
7. As per your claim, your Sheikh had been researching over this dispute since last 6 years then he must have read al-muhannid and most of other books by Deobandis on this issue. And you also claimed that your Sheikh is working real hard for the unity of Ummah. Then go and ask your Sheikh whether he is ready to present his ideology on this dispute to Ulema-e-Ahle'Sunnat especially from Indo-Pak for the sake of Unity among Ahle'Sunnah and Deobandis.
8. "Jo alfaaz moham-e-tehqeer-e-Huzoor Sarwar-e-Kainaat Allaihe Salam hon, agarc'hay kehnay walay ki niyyat hiqarat ki na ho, magar unn se bhi kehnay wala kafir ho jata hai."
Have you read this before?
9. If you can rely on Nuh Keller's student's answer in regard of Takfir of Qadiyanis, why cant you rely on the Sajjada-Nasheens of Golara Sharif in regard to Takfir of Deobandis by Pir Mehr Ali Shah?
22 Jul (2 days ago)
10. If a Scholar keeps silence on someone's takfir, does it mean that the scholar claiming that other scholar's takfir has been lifted? If not then why you are again and again dragging those scholars who kept silence in this regard?
11. If Nuh Keller really did it for the Unity of Ummah, is he ready to talk to Ulema-e-Ahle'Sunnat UK? Like Hazrat Allama Irfan Shah Mashadi Sahib? For sure if he ever convince Major Ulema-e-Ahle'Sunnat on his views he wont be facing any such opposition from general Awaam of Ahle'Sunnah.
12. What Allah and his beloved Prophet (Sallallahu Allaihe Wasallam) says about those who brings only the disputed matters among muslims to discuss just as you did?
13. In your posts you highlightened and wrote "Barelwi" instead of Ahle'Sunnah. Even those who replied your Sheikh calls themselves "Ulama & Mashaikh-e-Haqq of Jamah Ahl as-Sunnah [UK]". Why didnt you address them as they did?
14. You cried a lot over "Usool". Tell me which Usool says that even if one's proven munafiq in rejection of his takfir because of disrespecting Rasoolullah (Sallallahu Allaihe Wasallam) the earlier takfir on him is lifted?
15. The reply and invitation Ulama & Mashaikh-e-Haqq of Jamah Ahl as-Sunnah [UK] wrote to Nuh Keller is being replied by Nuh Keller yet or not? If not why? If your Sheikh really did it for the Unity of Ummah then why didnt consulted the Ulema who know about this dispute much better than himself?
22 Jul (2 days ago)
there is huge difference between "IMKAN AL KADHIB" and "Imkan e Kizb" Imkan al"Kadhib" in arabic would mean that Allah can factually tell a lie and is already a Liar (KADHIB) (Naudhobillah) not that he can possibly lie or not (i.e. Imkan e Kizb)Aamir wrote two definitions;
1.
Imkan al"Kadhib" in arabic would mean that Allah can factually tell a lie and is already a Liar (KADHIB) (Naudhobillah)Please tell us how Imkan al'Kadhib means "Allah already a liar" (Naql-e-kufr, kufr na'bashid). If its means
already a liar then there is no need to use the word
Imkaan. Imkan = Possibility, and if a thing already occurred then you cant about the possibility as its already done. Let me give you an example
;
There is a possibility of Aamir being born.
And if you're already born, will there be any space left for possibility?
Even your Sheikh in his article wrote its means like this;
Unfortunately for Muslim unity in India, Gangohi’s concept of the jawaz ‘aqli or “hypothetical possibility” of God’s lying was mistakenly translated into Arabic by Ahmad Reza Khan as imkan al-kadhib, which in Arabic means the “factual possibility of [God’s] lying”Either your Sheikh did Tehreef or you're doing it. Drowned deep down in the love of Gangohi you denied your own Sheikh's statement! Aap ki chaddi aap ke Sheikh ki translation ne aik jhatkay mein utaar di.
22 Jul (2 days ago)
Al Widah
Lo jee abb meray posts delete bhi kar diyay gayay hain Idhar say, Abb jitna charcha machana hai that Aamir was defeated, Aamir ran away, Aamir had no answers blah blah kar lo, but my previous posts which I hope do not get deleted have answered on this issue in detail, I am not a defender of Deobani Maslak, plus mine and my Murshid's aqaid are in perfect conformity with Ahlus Sunnah wal Jammah, I have not defended the Kufriya asepcts of deobandi statements nor do I doubt in them, but the thing is that Usool matters to me more. I have personally gone through the phase which Sybarite seems to be going through, I pray for Hidayah of Sybarite plus myself rather all youngsters who atleast want to be sincire in their approaches.
MaY Allah Bless you all and may Allah bring the glory back of this Ummah for which our beloved Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) used to cry, cry and cry, he used to say : My Ummah, My Ummah and the ayah which is mentioned in description of this community itself, it states:
And hold fast, all together, by the rope which Allah (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude Allah's favour on you; """for ye were enemies and He joined your hearts in love""" so that by His Grace, ye became brethren; ""and ye were on the brink of the pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus doth Allah make His Signs clear to you: That ye may be guided""(3:103)
Not a single time has Quran talked about disunity and the unity which Quran prescribes is not just unity with people who think alike, rather Quran proves ENEMIES TO HAVE LOVED ONE ANOTHER AND EVEN THOSE WHO WERE ON THE BRINK OF THE PIT OF FIRE!
Wassalam
i just received call from sybarite he got some network problem and requested not to post until he completes his posts.
Aamir
Al Widah
Lo jee abb meray posts delete bhi kar diyay gayay hain Idhar say,
rona shuro
hahahahahahah
aamir ruko abhi puri baat tu honay du. plz aisa na karo. loug kia sochai gai.
pahlai sai jhoot boltay aa rahay ho
ab koi rasta nahi mila tu post delete ka rona shuro
you have no shame at all.
MaY Allah Bless you all and may Allah bring the glory back of this Ummah for which our beloved Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) used to cry, cry and cry, he used to say : My Ummah, My Ummah and the ayah which is mentioned in description of this community itself, it states:
this is called misuse of hadith and verses
since when khawarij became umah??
if its like that than why Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) declared jihad against those who deny to pay zakat?? or you know more than Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) about ummah??
if its like that than why Hazrat Umar (RA) killed that imam?? or you know about umah more than Hazrat Umar (RA)??
if its like that than why Hazrat Ali (RA) fought against khawarij?? or you know more about ummah than Hazrat Ali (RA)??
stop misusing verses and hadiths plz.
22 Jul (2 days ago)
Aamir
Al Widah
Lo jee abb meray posts delete bhi kar diyay gayay hain Idhar say, Abb jitna charcha machana hai that Aamir was defeated, Aamir ran away, Aamir had no answers blah blah kar lo,
Excuse me aamir....please I didnt delete any of your posts...and I can swear in the name of Allah....
Which posts were deleted can you inform it .....
22 Jul (2 days ago)
Lets answer the previous things first then we'll proceed to Aamir's latest posts.
In the next paragraph you have yourself cleverly changed Imkan al Kadhib in "KIZB" in order to put dust in eyes of people, for example the statements of Nanotwi Ala Hazrat (rah) presented 3 different statements from Tahzirun Naas and made them into 1, after It he "HIMSELF" said :"THIS IBARAT" though It was not 1 Ibarat but 3 separate Ibaraat put together, I have Hassam ul Haramayn in my hands right now and I challenge you to prove me wrong,Imkan-e-Kazb and Imkan al'Kadhib means the same. Possibility of lieing and Possibility of being a liar! What the example you've given has to do with this anyways? As for Hassam-ul-Harmayn, I dont know which copy you got. Can you please upload the scan. Hassam-ul-Harmayn is available for online reading as well on
dawateislami.net, can you atleast direct me to the page number.
Sybarite I will ask you same thing which you have been ignoring for too long now, according to Ala Hazrat (rah) Gangohi was following his teacher Ismail dhelvi, I challenge you to show me Ilani and Tehriri Tawba of Ismail dhelvi on this specific issue itself, because Ismail dhelvi had himself crossed all boundaries on this Kizb issue itself, why hasn’t then Ala Hazrat made takfir on Ismail dhelvi who was even cause of Gangohi’s misguidance on this issue itself?Ala Hazrat clearly mentioned in his word that "
Ismail Dehavli ki toubah mashoor honay ke sabab....". You think Ala Hazrat was lieing about his toubah being famed? It clearly elaborates the "Ihtiyaat" of Ala Hazrat regarding takfir! Ala Hazrat given Ismail Dehalvi a benefit of doubt cause of his toubah being famous.
22 Jul (2 days ago)
Previous time he was saying you have "Indirectly" done this but now he has cleverly removed indirectly from inbetween too, iss ka bass nahi chall raha so he is cooking up things himself, Naach na janay angan terha Sybarite.. Poor Sybarite is worthless in real time debates, I had called the people like you and pseudo scholars as Wild takfirists, stop covering p your lies with deception and I said such people are present irrespective of sects.
Stop running around in circles! Though you tried real hard to cover up your lame and disrespectful statements against Ulema-e-Ahle'Sunnat but after all "jhoot ke paoo nahi hotay". You really wanna see what actually is a slapping statement, read below;
Sheikh Nuh ha Mim Keller (Rahimuhullah) is not amongst those scholars who do wild takfir
You were addressing me as a scholars? WOW! Am I a Mullah too? Aik paisay ki bhi sharam hai zameen pe thooko aur ussi mein doob ke marr jao!
And your cries over "Indirectly", read my earlier posts. Yeah at first I did claim it as an indirect disrespect but later on you made it clear by your very own lame replies!
22 Jul (2 days ago)
Once again this fool is making comparisons of himself wih sheikh Nuh though he himself accepts a point on which his Auqaat has been made visable to all, Muhannad was in URDU YOU NINCMPOOP? when you do not even know basics about this thing then how can you claim to be a master of it? regarding Mu'tamad thing then Sheikh Nuh adressed the book with its "FINAL" name, he just did not go in details of what was it called before and what it finally came to be knowing, this is way of scholars when they are explaining things they exclude the hidden details.
I feel pity for you, seriously! All you have to cry about is my mistakes which I openly accepted. You are crying again and again about Usool, tell me what usool says if a man commits a mistake and then repents from his mistake openly, is it okay to keep mentioning his mistakes again and again? You think by such a lame approach you can your prove yourself as righteous!
Blaming me for trickery again and again. Lets see who is trying real hard to play tricks! This is what your Sheikh's wrote;
.....Ahmad Reza Khan’s sending them his own Husam al-Haramayn to ask for endorsements....
It is clearly evident that your Sheikh who has been researching on this dispute since last 6 years dont even know whether Ala Hazrat SENT Hassam-ul-Harmayn or TOOK al-Mu’tamad al’mustanadd personally to Ulema-e-Hijaz.
You tried real hard to ignore the word sending and babbled only about the book's name!
Tsk tsk ... yet lame try to deceit sunnis!
22 Jul (2 days ago)
Sybarite there is no need to repeat the same things over and over again, I have given you answers before,
Yet another lame try to get away with the queries. Alright, if you say so, then please dont answer the queries again but atleast direct me to the posts in which you answered my queries explicitly. Post numbers will be much of a help for all of us who are looking forward to your answers on these queries.
I had clarified that It was your cunning lie that Sheikh Nuh only used Al-Muhannad to take back the takfir, he has proven through Quran, Sunnah, Principles and Usool of Shariah plus fiqh
Where I said your Sheikh didnt quoted anything from Quran-o-Hadith or Fiqh books? I clearly said in my posts that your Sheikh just relied on the deobandi sources regarding this dispute and didnt present any of the Ahle'Sunnah refutation to false justifications of deobandis. And even though I asked you again and again that why didnt your Sheikh bother to present the refutations written against Al-Muhannid, you didnt say a word. This clearly shows you dont have any answer for this but yet you're shamelessly trying to deceit sunnis by not answering and diverting things to something which I didnt inquire about.
you ignored the first 12 crucial things which I had once again highlighted to you because you know you would fail miserably, I ask you once again to answer them sensibly by copy/pasting the exact summarized statements which I made and please note that I had said If you prove them wrong then I will do "OPEN TAWBA" and consider my sheikh to be wrong!!
All your babbling over the Usool has nothing to do with the issue at hand. All the usool you mentioned are about the difference of opinion and not for lifting one's takfir! Read my post number 77. You didnt dare to reply on that!
22 Jul (2 days ago)
"
Jo alfaaz moham-e-tehqeer-e-Huzoor Sarwar-e-Kainaat Allaihe Salam hon, agarc'hay kehnay walay ki niyyat hiqarat ki na ho, magar unn se bhi kehnay wala kafir ho jata hai."
In reply to my above statement you cried a lot and totally ignored the actual query I made on this. I simply asked you whether you read this statement before or not. Answer would be simply yes or no! Please answer the query simply.
As for the issue of Yazid, I'd just like to ask you a very simple query. Do you stand with the opinion of Imam Ghazzali (Rehmatullhe Allaihe) or with the majority of Ahle'Sunnah scholars who holds a different opinion than Imam Ghazzali's (Rehmatullahe Allaihe)? Your answer will reply all the lame justifications you brought up in this regard and same goes for Ibn Taymiyyah as well.
Firstk you again to stop spreading lies because evenb last time I clarified that I rely firsly on Sheikh because I have personally heard him declaring Qadiyanis as Kafir, secondly even the article itself proves finality of Prophethood to be complete and anyone who rejects it will be Kafir,I asked a
DIRECT VERDICT ON QADIYANIS in the same fashion you demanded a
DIRECT VERDICT ON NUH KELLER from Ala Hazrat. So answer this query in the same fashion you made the query.
third You have spread enough misguidance On Pir Karam Ali Shah (rah)’s name already though I had asked you long time back to prove this, here I have Mihr e Muneer in my handsLol!! THE HEIGHT OF FRUSTRATION! Pir Mehr Ali Shah sahibd and Pir Karam Ali Shah Sahib are two different personalities kid!! Below is the link of an answer of a similar query on Pir Mehr Ali Shah Sahib's stance in this regard by Syed Shah Turab-ul-Haq Sahib. An official scholarly reply on Pir Mehr Ali Shah Sahib's stance!
Pir Mehr Ali Shah Sahib 22 Jul (2 days ago)
Khair Sybarite you had also claimed that Pir Karam Ali Shah (rah) also rejected Takfir “Initially” could you please show me verdict of Ahlus Sunnah scholars upon him when he rejected Takfir? You also claimed that in later years he enforced the Takfir and you took support of Tafsir Zia ul Quran too, I dare you to mention the Volume Number and Page Number of this Tafsir....
Where I said "Pir Karam Ali Shah (Rehmatullahe Allaihe) also rejected Takfir"? He reverted from his early opinion because he wasnt aware of their kufr. He did not REJECTED the takfir ever!
Nothing but an another buhtan from you! I dare you to show me where I said "he enforced the Takfir" in Zia-ul-Quran! If you are a legitimate birth show me where I said that! My words a crystal clear to everyone! Read again what I said;
Peer Karam Shaah Saahib Al-Azhari (Rehmatullahe Allaihe) published a "Touba Nama" or a "Declaration of Repentence" in his own monthly magazine "Zia-e-Haram, October 1986 on page 49" from his earlier opinion about Deobandis and on page 44 of the same dated magazine, he presented a detailed refutation of Nanotwi's "Tahzeer-un-Naas" and shows Nanotawi's definition of "Khaatamun-Nabiyyeen" as against Ijma'. Peer Karam Shaah Saahib Al-Azhari (Rehmatullahe Allaihe) also refuted Nanotwi's beautifully in his masterpiece "Tafseer Zia-ul-Quraan."
(I just missed a word "Nanotwi's belief" in above statement).
22 Jul (2 days ago)
Aamir in a typical deobandi tone said this to Omer;
abb 2 Ilm main baray baat kar rahay hoon tou tum jaisay logoon ko side par beth jana chahyay,
"2 Ilm main baray"? Aik tu tum hoye, apnay munh miya mitthoo, doosra kaun? Mujhe tu khud tum jahil, laymen, fool, stupid, absurd aur pata nahi kitnay alqaab se nawaz chukay ho. Mein kidher se Ilm mein bara hogaya! Even I refute this statement myself. Mein tu ilm mein kisi angle se "BARA" nahi. Ulema-e-Haqq ki kitaboo se hi quote karta hon warna meri apni ilmi auqaat tu kuch nahi. So stop accusing me of being "baray Ilm wala". Ye barai tumhay hi mubarak... hum Ulema-e-Haqq ke darro ki jootiyoo brabar hi bhalay!
As for the issue regarding distinctive addressing Barelwis, if you are man enough, you wont be addressing the creed of Keller as Ahle'Sunah! You should be addressing them as Kelleris!
please let me add
its
self proclaimed "ilm mai bara"
lol
22 Jul (2 days ago)
Lo jee abb meray posts delete bhi kar diyay gayay hain Idhar say, Abb jitna charcha machana hai that Aamir was defeated, Aamir ran away, Aamir had no answers blah blah kar lo,
Kaun si posts delete ho gai? Kis ne kardi? Iss community mein tu koi moderator bhi. Sirf aik Waseem hai jo tumhari posts delete kar sakta hai ya phir tum khud. And Waseem made himself clear.
Even agar koi post delete ho bhi gai tu iss mein gala phaar phaar kar baiwaoo ki tarah roonay ki kiya zaroorat hai? Kai baar mein post likh chuka hota hon electricity failure ki wajeh se post zaya ho jati hai. Kai baar mein network down honay ki wajeh se mein posts ghar ke pc per word mein type kar ke office ajata hon aur phir wohi dobara se likh kar office ke pc se post kar deta hon. Agar koi post delete ho gai hai (jo tumharay aur Waseem ke ilawa koi nahi kar sakta) tu ussay dobara post karne mein kahay ki sharam? Waqt ka pa'band bhi nahi karta miya tumko! 2 din 3 din jitnay din lagay dobara type kar do!
Mein yaha sab ke samnay apnay Rabb-e-Karim ki qasam khaa kar kehta hon ke mein ne Waseem tu kya, kisi se bhi tumhari posts ke delete karnay ki request tu kya iss mamlay per koi lafz bhi nahi kaha.
I demand the same from Waseem and Aamir too. Dono yaha qasam khao ke tum ne posts delete nahi ki.
Balkay Aamir jaisa Loota tu iss qasam mein bhi koi raasta nikaal le ga ke khud delete na ki ho post kisi aur ko apni id se login karwa ke delete kar wa di hon! Aamir qasam khao ke tum posts khud delete nahi ki, na kisi aur nay tumhari id se delete ki aur na tumhay kisi bhi tarah se ilm hai ke tumhari posts delete ki gai ya karwai gai!
22 Jul (2 days ago)
sybrite
Kaun si posts delete ho gai? Kis ne kardi? Iss community mein tu koi moderator bhi. Sirf aik Waseem hai jo tumhari posts delete kar sakta hai ya phir tum khud. And Waseem made himself clear.
Come on guys..... Aamir is a good friend of mine why would i delete his posts
.....
I never had a fight or argument with him ...... and i don't delete ny posts
without reporting as was in Ali's case.....
Mein yaha sab ke samnay apnay Rabb-e-Karim ki qasam khaa kar kehta hon ke mein ne Waseem tu kya, kisi se bhi tumhari posts ke delete karnay ki request tu kya iss mamlay per koi lafz bhi nahi kaha.What do you mean..... I donot support any sunni @ OAS all are equal to me whether it be Ali or aamir..... and i don't delete posts like a coward
I SWEAR TO ALLAH THAT I DIDNT DELETE ANY POST OF AAMIR FROM THIS THREAD.IF I LIE MAY I GO TO HELL hope this is enough
I demand the same from Waseem and Aamir too. Dono yaha qasam khao ke tum ne posts delete nahi ki.kha li kasam
.....aamir knows me well .....we never had a fight b4 so Y would i do such an act....
22 Jul (2 days ago)
What do you mean..... I donot support any sunni @ OAS all are equal to me whether it be Ali or aamir..... and i don't delete posts like a coward
Neither I blamed you for anything, but Aamir did, as you're the only one except Aamir who can delete his posts. I already read your post in which you swore upon Allah.
kha li kasam .....aamir knows me well .....we never had a fight b4 so Y would i do such an act....
I demanded that so that none can be blamed falsely for deleting Aamir's post. If Aamir's knows you that well why did he cried about his posts being deleted. Aur tu koi mod tha nahi...
its nothing
bhagnay ka aik rasta
ab face to face debate karna cha raha hai
yaha dusray sunniyo kai samnay reality khul gayee hai tu ab yaha sai bhagna zarori hai
i really wonder why aamir is no more talking in this thread??
i would like to post the reality here which i understand so far.
asal mai aamir ki halat buri ho chuki hai aur woh is debate sai bhagna cha raha hai
yaha reply kar nahi raha dusro kai peechay para hai
bilkul hi choi moi wali condition hai us ki
kisi nai sans lai li tu woh sazish kar raha hai aamir kai khilaf.
aisi condition ho jati hai jab admi kufr kai statements par sai takfir ko lift karnay ki koshish karay
waisai tu aamir nai real issue ko ghaib kar kai usool par baat karni chahiyae hai
magar ufsos ki baat yah hai kai us mai bhi jhoot ka sahara liya hai
aur us ki waja sai itnay jutay paray hain kai ab yaha sai bhi bhag gaya hai
apni next post mai mai sab ko dekhao ga aamir kai sath howa kia hai
2 main issues after changing the real one
1 - aamir wanna debate about "usool"
for which sybarite have already said that usool is based ont he theory that there can be difference of opinion between scholars. but since when it has become usool that takfir is lifted??
sybarite last message:
All your babbling over the Usool has nothing to do with the issue at hand. All the usool you mentioned are about the difference of opinion and not for lifting one's takfir! Read my post number 77. You didnt dare to reply on that!
he have already explained it.
2 - "IMKAN AL KADHIB"
as aamir said:
there is huge difference between "IMKAN AL KADHIB" and "Imkan e Kizb" Imkan al"Kadhib" in arabic would mean that Allah can factually tell a lie and is already a Liar (KADHIB) (Naudhobillah) not that he can possibly lie or not (i.e. Imkan e Kizb)
for this sybarite posted aamir shaikh definition:
Unfortunately for Muslim unity in India, Gangohi’s concept of the jawaz ‘aqli or “hypothetical possibility” of God’s lying was mistakenly translated into Arabic by Ahmad Reza Khan as imkan al-kadhib, which in Arabic means the “factual possibility of [God’s] lying”
aamirs question is answered. aamirs lies are exposed here in both the points raised by aamirThe reality is aamir ran away after his both points are exposed
aamir is nothing but a liar
after running from this thread he is attacking other members of this community who are not in aamir favor
and aamir is also spreading lies that sybarite didnt answer him
4 lies of aamir:
1 - aamir posts are deleted
2 - sybarite cleverly deleted aamir posts so aamir thought aamir posts are delete (this is what "height of frustration" is)
3 - aamir lied that sybarite didnt answer about usool issue
4 - aamir lied about imkan al kadhib aamir doesnt follow his own mursheed for the definition of imkan al kadhib
i request owner to ask aamir to answer the questions which we are waiting for last one week within 2 days
if he wont answer and still keep fighting to all the members i request owner to ban aamir from this sunni community
aamir is trying hard to inject kufrana ideology of deobandis in sunnis imaan
aamir statement that takfir is lifted will misguide all the sunnis
even tahirul qadri whom aamir was using to get support from other members never said that takfir is lifted
if owner wont take answers from aamir or ban him after 2 days owner will be responsible for any damage of sunnis imaan infront of Allah as owner have made this community on the name of ahlay sunnah wal jammat.
Note: other way of aamir to stay in this community is he should do tawba infront of all the members and should stop spreading theories which can damage imaan of sunnis
Omer 