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

What on earth are you on about?

 

menu patta si, pehlwAn!

 

in the tafsir of surah rum verse 19 and surah ale imran verse 27:

Allah(S) says:It is He Who brings out the living
from the dead, and brings out the dead from the living






hazrat salman farsi and al-hasan say that it means taking out mu'min from kafir and kafir from mu'min.

imam tabari relates the story of Adam(a) in this regard and how mu'min and kafir was taken out of within Adam(a):
حدثنـي حميد بن مسعدة،
قال: ثنا بشر بن الـمفضل، قال: ثنا سلـيـمان التـيـمي، عن أبـي عثمان، عن
سلـمان، أو عن ابن مسعود ـ وأكبر ظنـي أنه عن سلـمان ـ قال: إن الله عزّ
وجلّ خمَّر طينة آدم أربعين لـيـلة ـ أو قال: أربعين يوماً ـ ثم قال بـيده
فـيه، فخرج كل طيب فـي يـمينه، وخرج كل خبـيث فـي يده الأخرى، ثم خـلط
بـينهما، ثم خـلق منها آدم، فمن ثم يخرج الـحيّ من الـميت ويخرج الـميت من
الـحيّ، يخرج الـمؤمن من الكافر ويخرج الكافر من الـمؤمن.







imam suyuti in his tafsir reports the same:

وأخرج سعد بن منصور
وابن جرير وابن المنذر وابن أبي حاتم والبيهقي في الأسماء والصفات وأبو
الشيخ في العظمة عن سلمان قال: خمر الله طينة آدم أربعين يوماً، ثم وضع يده
فيه فارتفع على هذه كل طيب، وعلى هذه كل خبيث، ثم خلط بعضه ببعض، ثم خلق
منها آدم. فمن ثم { تخرج الحي من الميت وتخرج الميت من الحي } يخرج المؤمن
من الكافر ويخرج الكافر من المؤمن.












وأخرج ابن مردويه من طريق أبي عثمان النهدي عن سلمان الفارسي قال
" قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: لما خلق الله آدم عليه السلام أخرج
ذريته فقبض قبضة بيمينه فقال: هؤلاء أهل الجنة ولا أبالي، وقبض بالأخرى
قبضة فجاء فيها كل رديء فقال: هؤلاء أهل النار ولا أبالي، فخلط بعضهم ببعض
فيخرج الكافر من المؤمن ويخرج المؤمن من الكافر "




فذلك قوله { تخرج الحي من الميت وتخرج الميت من الحي }.







وأخرج ابن مردويه من طريق أبي عثمان النهدي عن ابن مسعود أو عن سلمان " عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم { تخرج الحي من الميت وتخرج الميت من الحي } قال: المؤمن من الكافر، والكافر من المؤمن "







Imam Razi in his tafsir:
ذكر المفسرون فيه وجوهاً أحدها: يخرج المؤمن من الكافر كإبراهيم من آزر، والكافر من المؤمن مثل كنعان من نوح عليه السلام



Now, who is kafir? those who call a muslim a kafir become kafir themselves. I let you dwell on these tafsirs from our aslaaf. I will translate later. this is for abu hasan sahib. only an appeal to your sincerity is made. nothing else. I am awaiting for your response to the above and you can see that our aslaf have said in the light of the verse bringing living out of dead and bringing dead out of living. it came 'within' Adam(a) as above and like kin'an came out of hazrat Nuh(a).

hum ko ek harf e anul haq pe bura kehti hai
wohi makhluq jo har but ko khuda kehti hai.

 

answer my questions first.

 

you know punjabi and if you are sincere then what is the value of saying:

nabiyan kolon ghat na riha har sifton har wasfon

and also...nabiyan te jadd aukard aye ruh meeran ta pohta.

c'mon lets see? and if you dont then we will know how haq parast you really are.

 

I will upload when I have time and means, from last year a whole lecture live on TV by the scholar where it clearly demonstartes that Prophets(a) of all Allah are ma'sum and free from sins and defects and he even argues that some people have written that anbiya can commit minor sins etc but i do not hold to such thesis and that Prophets(a) absolutely infallibe.

of course Iblis has a prior existence but the discussion is about human beings.
the Quran Paak says:

Code:

It is He Who brings out the living 
from the dead, and brings  out the dead from the living

 
 

in its tafsir, for example, al-nasafi says that one of the meaning of bringing dead FROM living and Living from dead is bringing mu'min from kafir anf bringing kafir from mu'min:

{ يُخْرِجُ ٱلْحَيَّ مِنَ ٱلْمَيّتِ } الطائر من البيضة أو الإِنسان من النطفة أو
المؤمن من الكافر { وَيُخْرِجُ ٱلْمَيّتَ مِنَ ٱلْحَيّ } أي: البيضة من الطائر أو
النطفة من الإِنسان أو الكافر من المؤمن،

also Ibn Kathir says the same: والمؤمن من الكافر، والكافر من المؤمن

so it is in the Quran that Mu'min comes from kafir and kafir comes from mu'min.
secondly, did you miss that no ghair nabi can be superior to a nabi in the speech. so whatever is mentioned has to be from that interpretive framework unless you want to vent your anger and twist to something out of context. by the way that is 3 minute clip. why dont you put the whole speech, before and after?

is it not true that 900,000 were made muslims by Khawaja Gharib nawaz? converting such huge numbers is surely unique in history. has anyone ever done that? if he had said the children of Umar(r) then i'm sure this issue would not have been raised and it is only when Ali(a) is mentioned that we find all kinds of interpertations. if someone has categorically in the preceding statement said that NO ghair nabi can be afdhal to a Nabi then it all makes the following as under that umbrella. of course it is a record in history that no one has converted 900,000 to Islam except for gharib Nawaz and that is actually a faizan and miracle of the Prophet(s). simple.

 

so is iblis before or after?

----
by shifting the emphasis and conveniently dropping offensive statements, you are trying to find an excuse for extremely stupid statements which border on kufr. (i hesitate because, i am still trying to find a proper excuse to exempt that speaker from takfir. even if we can find a lame excuse, we should and will withhold from takfir.)

---
if it is not for superiority, then what is the need to mention the numbers? as for the technique of literal interpretation similar to wahabi/devbandis, consider these statements:

1. the speaker is fat man

2. the speaker is an old man

3. the speaker's voice is that of a fat old man

would you go up to the man - and if he was your father - address him "fat old man" and shrug saying: 'it is the truth, not an insult'?

-----

alas! if the fat old speaker had said it in such words, who would complain? but what you don't mention is that the speaker repeatedly insisted that 'ths children of ali (or fatimah) broke such records which no prophet did'

frankly, why would anyone mention such numbers if not to mean superiority? it is plainly obvious that the 'record breaking' feat is meant to insist on superiority. if not, what is the difference between making 900K muslims and 9 muslims?

ad hominem. that is the name of the fallacy.

and you will still have to prove the accusation(s).

 

ala hazrat also believed in the nikah of umm kulthum to hazrat ali and also he believed in the fazail of hazrat abu bakr and he also believed that if anyone believes hazrat ali is greater than that person is a tafzili. and he also didnt make fun of imam ghazali or try to find fault with bukhari sharif and he also stayed silent on the issue of kufr of yazid and so on. in fact he had all the beliefs you guys criticise us sunnis for having and call us haters of the ahlul bayt (nauzubillah).

funny barelvis u guys are!

 

how come no other sunnis share these beliefs of you and your tafzili gang oh mr. ghulam e ghaus so much so that you have to go and deny facts agreed upon by all for millenia such as the nikah of hazrat umm kulthum bint ali alayhisalam to hazrat umar :ra: ?

does believing in this nikah make us nasibis too?!
it is easy to blame everything wrong you do and believe on 'we do it for love of the ahlul bayt' and to criticise everything you dont believe in as 'for the sake of the ahlul bayt'. isn't that what rafidis do? oh yeah i nearly forgot...

 

It is a fact that kufr came from the descendents of hazrat
Adam(a) as there was no kufr prior to that. There are number of speeches where ismat of anbiya has been explained that anbiya are free from any kind of sin. It is a fact that hazrat gharib nawaz
converted more people to Islam then anyone else and that it is faizan of Rasul
Allah(s). Your ideas are based on ta’assub
which emanates from the hurt you feel from the fadhail of ahl al-bayt and the issue
of tafdhil being dhanni . I have nothing else to say because inaad has
no cure.

 

not content with one fallacy, you happily indulge in another: that of false analogies.

go ahead and try another.

----

 

Alahazrat says in malfuzat that he used to smoke huqqa and
did not say bismillah for it.
Mufti mohammed aslam qadri in anwar e shariat; which is
collection of ifadat by alahazrat, hamid raza khan, naeem uddeen muradabadi and
nizam uddeen multani. In it on page 329 volume one he says that there was a man
who had huqqa in his house for guests and by virtue of having a huqqa he never
did the ziyarat of the Prophet(saw).

Now make a clip:


Mufti mohammed aslam qadri brailvi says that alahazrat never
did ziyarat of Rasul Allah(s) because he smoked huqqa.

this exactly the same method you are using.

 

more straw men to burn...i wonder where all that straw come from...

 

In fatawa ridawiya and fatawa barely sharif in both it says that on the naqsh of nalayn it
is allowed to write Bismillah.





Mufiti iqtidar ahmed khan naeemi, the janasheen of mufti ahmed
yaar khan sahib says in his fatawa
naeemiya and book ‘naqsh e na’l par
asma Mubarak likhna’ page 3 and 9: to write bismillah on naqsh e na’l is
be-adabi and if you knowingly do it then its gustakhi and gumrahi.






Now make a clip: barelvi mulla mufti iqtidar khan naeemi considers alahazrat and akhtar raza khan
gumrah and gustakh!




it is the same logic.

 

frame a question then declare them kafir. it is very easy to call people be-adab gustakh kafir etc. we can easily ask the question: what about a person who considers quran having mistakes? simple. then we make a video of a maulana where he says quran has grammatical errors then say x says y is kafir.

we can ask: what do you say about a person who says that ghau paak is no less than prophets in every quality? then we say that x calls y a kafir.

it is very easy to engineer these things. it says in irfan e shariat page 42 of alahazrat and suroor ul qulub of maulana naqi ali khan (alahazrats father) that it is fine to read durood sharif in junabat state.
mufti faiz ahmed owaisi sahib says in shehad se meetha naame mohammed(s) page 139 that any mufit who says you can read durud in junabat are be-adab, bad-bakht and be-sharam and lack ishq e Rasul(saw).

now put the two together and conlude:

mufti faiz ahmed owaisi says that alahazrat and his father are be-adab, be-sharam and have no ishq e Rasul(s).

the khawarij said Hazrat Ali is kafir......

 

ذو العقل يشقى في النعيم بعقله
وأخو الجهالة في الشقاوة ينعم

 

آواز سگان کم نکند، رزق گدا را

 

Mufti Zahid Hussain Rizvi - Needs to Accept Islam and Get His Nikkah Done Again

 

Brother Ghulam Ghaus, this video clip was given to the Brother who uploaded it by a Scholar in Pakistan. This Kufar has even been mentioned in Allama Tariq Naqshbandis pamphlet written refuting Pir Abdul Qadir Jillani Sahib.

Rather than you just asking Molvi Zahid Shah to do open ruju and accept Islam again because Mufti Muhammad Yaar Qadri (who is a top sunni Mufti in the UK) has said Molvi Zahid Shah has done Kufar and he needs to accept Islam again and get his Nikkah done again, you are defending Molvi Zahid Shah.

If Molvi Zahid Shah has done Kufar like Ulema have said, then how can he stay with his wife? He needs to quickly accept Islam and do touba openly because he did this speech openly so needs to do tuju openly!

Also what you said about Hafiz Nisar Ahmad and Hafiz Afridi, they haven't got anything to do with the Kufar Zahid Shah has committed!