Mufti Zahid Hussain Rizvi - Kufar Has Come Within Sayiduna Adam AS

do you also believe in this? this is saba sanabil.

 

so, don't you believe in this sahih hadith of muslim sharif, kitab al qadr?


No baby is born but upon Fitra. It is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Polytheist.

and this hadith of bukhari in kitab al janaiz # 1358?



Every child is born with a true faith of Islam (i.e. to worship none but Allah Alone) but his parents convert him to Judaism, Christianity or Magainism, as an animal delivers a perfect baby animal. Do you find it mutilated?" Then Abu Huraira recited the holy verses: "The pure Allah's Islamic nature (true faith of Islam) (i.e. worshiping none but Allah) with which He has created human beings. No change let there be in the religion of Allah (i.e. joining none in worship with Allah). That is the straight religion (Islam) but most of men know, not." (30.30)

do you think that hazrat meer abdul wahid balgrami (or bilgrami?) rahimahulla did not know these ahadith? what he says is quite apparent, only a primary school kid would need this to be explained to him, though my 4th grader kid knows it well, wal hamdulillah.

 

so what's wrong in it?

1. All humans - including disbelievers - are children of Sayyiduna Adam (alayhe asSalaam)
2. With the exception of some prophets - chiefly the Holy Prophet Mohammed (Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) - the ahle Sunnah do not debate about the lineage of other prophets. In fact we do not even know the names of all.

 

I will just leave this here from saba` Sanaabil

 

Thank you for clearing it up, Brother Barry

 

Nope it was Molvi Zahid Shah

 

the video is down. this wasn't mufti zahid of sunniway, was it?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7QDRZUJufk

What is this daft old man going on about?

 

It is the Tafdili's who have always backed down from debating, not the Ahl alSunna.

 

I've just seen the video and it's apparent there's a lack of clarity and so Syed Zafarullah Shah said that further questions need to be asked from the person who said this. The motives of the questioner are very clear I abhor this and in my opinion it's clear that those adding fuel to the fire are not worth giving time to.

I'm getting tired of this tit-for-tat which hunt. Name a date, place and time and have the debate live on TV over and done with. It's very clear certain people have pure hatred for others and will analyse every word and sentence to find a defect.

 

Excellent Post Brother Abu Hasan and Jazak Allah.

The problem we have nowadays is that if a Syed even attacks Sahaba or Insults Ambiyah, his followers say you are Nasibis or Khawarij.

These people call Syed Irfan Shah Sahib Mashadi a Nasbi MAZALLAH and on Youtube they call him Marwan Shah, even though Shah Sahib themselves are Syeds and from the Family of Imam Moosa Kazim RA.

 

it is the rafidi who thinks that the sons of ali are ma'sum. we respect the children of ali raDiyallahu anhu but we don't believe they are ma'sum. moreover, criticism of spoilt and wayward children should not be equated with hate of their noble father.

this is one of the many fallacies contemporary fools indulge in. they quickly label any criticism of strange and stupid ideas as hate of mawla ali - and in a very rafidi like fashion try to browbeat sincere muslims.

---------------------
i have not read the whole thread, and i quickly glanced through a few posts. one technique of the salafidis do (modern day sunni-by-birth, rafidized in later age and using wahabi methodology) is to throw a quote and on the basis of this, try to justify their own idiosyncratic aberrations.

----------
let us take this quote:

ok. let us begin with the basic aqidah - as explained by thousands of ulama for more than thousand years: non-prophets are not equal to prophets.

if a senior scholar we respect, has said, or something is attributed to him that is contrary to the above aqidah, what should we do?

should we discard and discount the well-established aqidah for a spurious and suspicious statement?

-----
there are two possibilities here:

A) either the senior scholar said it;

B) or the scholar did not say it, but was introduced by those who came after and attributed to him.

in the latter case, it is easy to summarily dismiss it.

the former (if it is sufficiently proved that he has certainly said it) has two possibilities:

p) either it was said deliberately

q) or it was said by mistake
​

the former has two possibilities:
​

i) it was said deliberately and intended the very meaning (that is attributed to him - and in contradiction to the aqidah of the overwhelming majority)

ii) it was said consciously, but did not intend that meaning (attributed to him, in contradiction of the well established aqidah).

the former is problematic (which we will deal later) and the latter is easy to dismiss. he said something which was not what he really intended.*

​

the latter has two possibilities:

i) the mistake was made in a state of wakefulness and full consciousness

ii) the mistake was made in a state of absent mindedness or in a state of semi-consciousness. or in a state of ecstasy, like certain kalam of sufiyah.

the latter can be dismissed easily, because the shariah does not hold responsible someone not in a conscious state of mind. and such statements of awliya are not to be admitted when they contradict established aqidah.

the former has two possibilities:

1) the mistake was because of confusion of a concept

2) or because of an improper choice of words (similar to another possibility above)
the latter is easy to dismiss, but the former has two possibilities:

1.1) the confusion of the concept was due to ignorance of the aqidah of ahlu's sunnah

1.2) or the confusion was because of a misunderstanding of the speech of awliya and taking figurative speech on face value.

the latter can be dismissed as a misunderstanding, and the former is similar to deliberate speech. -
​

we do not believe that our scholars are ma'sum; and one should not follow a scholar in his mistake, when it stands starkly opposed to the generally accepted aqidah of the jam'hur. it is easier for us to reject the aberration of one scholar than reject the whole jam'ah.

-----
uluhiyyat hi ahmad ne na payi
nubuwwat hi se tu aaTil hai ya ghaws

saHabiyyat huwi phir taba'yiyyat
bas aagey qaadri manzil hai ya ghaws

hazaroN tabiyi se tu fuzun hai
woh Tabqah mujmilan faazil hai ya ghaws

even ahmed (sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam) was not God
and o ghaws, you are not a prophet;

and then, were the companions, and their successors -
and next to that is your station.

even though you are superior to thousands of tabiyis,
the group [of tabiyis] is in general superior


in the lines above, alahazrat explains that we do not consider anyone equal or partner to Allah ta'ala; not even ahmed sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. and the rank of ghaws e a'azam is only after sahabi and tabiyis; the last line means, though many tabiyis in taqwa and ma'rifah or worship did not reach the level of ghaws e a'azam, yet, the mere company of a saHabi granted them that rank.

this is the aqidah of ahlu's sunnah - and my ears are deaf to anything contrary to this.


wAllahu a'alam wa ilmuhu atam.


*there is an issue here as well, in matters of explicit statements concerning essentials - daruriyat, zaruriyat e din; like insulting Mustafa sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam - where this excuse won't be accepted.

 

actually, brother muhammad ali, you should reply to a piece of poetry with a hadith that says:

'the sign of a munafiq is that when he fights, he resorts to profanities.'

-----
laa nabtaghi'l jahilin.


nevertheless, gg is banned.

 

The Quote is Urdu or Punjabi? And it is a poem? Place the actual Urdu so we can discern the individual words.

Also a few couplets before and after.

 

now, stick to your words and here is the quote. by the way, it is not something I believe so all your fatwas shouldnt be towards me but rather to the writer.

1. Nabiyan kolon ghat na riha har sifton har wasfon
Ghaus paak was no less than Prophets in every sift and every wasf. (except for wahi).

2.Nabiyan te jadd aukard aye ruh meeran da pohta.
When the Prophets were faced with problems then Ghaus e azam’s ruh helped them.

and brother abdal qadir, address that 'severity' to the above.

 

Ahem!! The one who makes the d'awa presents the dalil as he is mustadill.
What the opponent would have to do is make naqd of that da'wa and dalil. (Munazara Rashidiya)

Now you want me to make a da'wa and you will present a dalil.

What is going on is that you have a quote from a prominent scholar, and you want to make us say that the person who says this is misguided, then you will present your quote.

Now you have said what is the ruling on someone who says a Wali, in this case alGhawth alA'zam radiyAllahu anhu, is no less than Anbiya in every Sifat and Wasf?

I will give you the answer if you present the quote and reference. If you are still unwilling to do so then present the actual quote without telling us who said it.

 

do you know the severity of the words you utter?

what is your daleel? point to specific texts that state that nonprophets are equal to prophets "in every sifat and wasf".

quit playing mind games and hiding behind rhetoric and blackmail.

 

I do not want to reply to the filth that has come out of Ghulam e Ghous mouth. I request the moderators to have a look at the poem he has wrote refferring to me. If people can't talk without disrespecting others they shouldn't be on such forums. Their is no where, where I have personally attacked him or Molvi Zahid Shah. I just mentioned what the ulema said!

 

first of all, it amazes me that you do not know what is going on. However, what is the hukm for someone who says that Ghaus al-Azam dastageer's ruh helped Prophets and that Ghaus al-Azam is no less than Prophets in every sift and wasf? this is what you should elucidate. first make a dawa then i will give you the daleel.

and something for you to ponder MA:

hai bughz e Ali khaami e khilqat ki alamat
hum se na ulajh maan ki khaynat ka gila kar.