Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Glossary' started by SuleimanalMuslim, Jul 10, 2010.
What a waste of a thread... Everyone means the same, la musha-hata fil istilah
usually i do not visit any forum other than sunniport and rarely use my moderation rights here on sunniport. i visited the link given by sidi aH to see if there is anything relevant and found something very funny. a user named owaisi commented about me that
well! brother, no doubt that i am an idiot but i did not say that, either my English is not good enough to say what i meant, or you have misunderstood in a haste read, what i wrote was
i read my statement twice and did not find what you are attributing to me, actually i meant the contrary, specially when i had written before that
kindly re-read my post carefully and not in haste.
this is a very trivial issue and i am surprised that people have time to waste on such issues.
i will not reply any further.
this is the extract from malfuz [english translation by shaykh abdul hadi - vol 1, pg 138]
Question: Respected Imam, is it permissible to address the Almighty Lord as 'Allah Mia'
Answer: Certainly Not! In the Urdu language 'Mia' has three meanings. Two of which are disrespectful to Almighty and one will be correct to use. Therefore, if a word has more than one meaning with applications of good and bad, then it is not permissible to attest such a word to Almighty Allah. The good meaning of the word 'Mia' is 'master' and certainly Allah is the Master BUT it is also used as 'a husband' and 'an agent of a prostitute'.
you sure ? reference?
can i get a brief summary from who ever knows the matter, on the reasoning due to which addressing Allah as "sahab" is allowed by Ala Hazrat. JazakumAllahu khayr. As far as I know none of the Barelvi translators have used this salutation in Quran translations, the only one's using it being some deobandis.
i'm also confused with regards to the posts that those links point to that was sent through by sidi aH ... is he [the originator of those posts] referring to another forum? it certainly does not correlate to the posts within this forum thread.
concerning a comment, i am only curious to know, who among us said: 'the greatest reviver of his century'?
to abdul qadir, ala hazrat did say saying Allah mian is not allowed in malfuzat which was compiled by mufti azam e hind. he also allowed saying Allah saheb is allowed
I hear pakis all the time saying "Allah Miiyan", is it haram / makruh to say this and if so then what is the reason.
i wanted to type so much in regards to that link abu hasan gave, but i think it's best to give the links to the definition of mythomania
in the past, it used to be the turf of the ahlul bid'ah only. "Sunnis" finally caught up! ... and "weird" is spelt w-e-i-r-d
i think i have just discovered the 4 basic qualifications required by people to join the ever-expanding sheeple's club
1) gross ignorance
2) the attention span of a 3 year old with severe reading/listening comprehension issues
4) pride to ensure that the above 3 ingredients never run out of stock
disclaimer- ALL of us need to work on our knowledge and taqwa and this is not a pompous claim to being a better Muslim in any respect wal 3eyadhubillaah, but we need to at least separate the absolutely silly from being switched on - as a Muslim. seriously.
relevant to this thread i presume.
The title was also used by Qadi Mufti Shaykh Shaheed 'Alam al Ridwi al Nuri hafizahullahu Ta'ala who is a teacher, and the Mufti of Jamia Nuria Ridwia Bareilly Sharif in his Haashiyah, Raf'u al 'Illah fi Hall Istilaahaat Kashf al 'Illah on Shaykh ul Islam Mujaddid A'azam Imam Ahmad Rida rahimahullahu Ta'ala 's book Kashf al 'Illah 'an Simat al Qiblah.
Also by Amin al Millah Shaykh Dr Sayyid Shah Muhammad Amin Mian al Barkaati al Mahrehrawi hafizahullahu Ta'ala in his Tasdeeq and Taqreez to Jam'i al Ahaadith al Muktaaraat al Ridwiyyah min al Ahaadith al Nabwiyyah wal Aathaar al Marwiyyah.
man, that's just berlllloody insane! (not to imply you brothers are lying, it's just mind boggling)
in the middle east's urdu tv channels in the 80's, the news anchors used to use it for heads of state, for example, "alahazrat sultan qaboos"
in urdu "hazrat" is a title used specifically for humans, as is "sahab"
if anything, some of their moronic translators have used words like "sahab" and "shakhs" for Allah, Jalla wa 3ala, wal 3eyadhubillaah... and now, the entire crew of desi "sunnis" (real and claimants) have copy pasted Mufti A'zdham's* fatwa of not using "miyan" for Subhaanahu wa Ta3aala. alhamdulillaah, that they finally got it. der aaye durust aaye.
you should see these email meme's floating around from novice maududwi mullah's how it's haram to say "miyan" for Allah, which is nothing but a cheap copy-paste job from Sunnis.
*someone please correct me if it is originally Ala Hazrat who said Allah Subhaanahu wa ta3aala should not be addressed as "Allah miyan" - in my knowledge it is Mufti A'zdham
i too think this way and i believe/think/have heard that it is reserved for Imame A'zdham rahimahullaah and if true, it's understandable why obviously
mawlana zafaruddin bihari who was a'ala hazrat's student was satisfied with 'mujaddid e mi'at e hazirah' and 'chaudhvin sadi ka mujaddid'. so also many ulama of that time - like muhaddis a'azam e hind* - and they were more knowledgeable
i think we are mixing up issues here - mujaddid is a very specific attribute and calling someone mujaddid e a'azam means that they are the chief of that group. that is my understanding.
wa billahi't tawfiq.
*so there can be many muhaddithin in a time; and he was muhaddis a'azam of his time.
they actually do object to it. there was a book against āálā ĥazrat that i read a while ago. this was raised as an objection against us. someone also questioned me about it; he raised the objection that by appending the 'āálā', we [bareillwis/sunnis/sufis] raise his rank [ALLAH forbid!] to that of the highest of the dignified/respected ones and hence we raise his rank to the rank of prophethood [ALLAH forbid!].
well! perhaps you haven't seen deobandi's puerile objections and arguments regarding this title for āálā ĥazrat while they themselves use it for ĥajī imdādullāh álaihi raĥmah, the problem is that they are dual bandits, reject one thing and allow it for their own elders.
i don't think any urdu speaking subcontinental of any sect objects to it. they even use it for political leaders, nawabs and so on.
if āálā ĥazrat can be regarded as greatest mujaddid of and/or after his era with the possibility that there were some other mujaddideen in other lands as well, then it can also be assumed that he had a greater status than at least some of the mujaddideen before him. who is greater than whom is something that only Allah Subĥānahu wa táālā knows and with His given knowledge His Ĥabib Álaihi afDaluşalāt wat-tasleem knows, none of these titles are meant in their absolute sense.
personally i do not find any problem using mujaddid-e-azam for āálā ĥazrat if it is not meant ABSOLUTELY or to belittle early mujaddideen. We do not know with certainty such as through revelation if he was a mjaddid at all, it is only our strong conviction in the light of all the signs of mujaddid found in aĥadith that he was.
I am pretty sure that there is no harm in assuming that there can be ranks among mujaddideen as there are among messengers of Allah, the companions, and awliā kirām, like shaykh al-kabar or gawth al-azām. gawth al-āa'dham was also mujaddid-e-azam and āálā ĥazrat was only a servant of his court.
with all due respect, this is already buying into the false attribution of the opposition, don't they object on using the title āálā ĥazrat?should we not keep good opinion for an esteemed scholar like sharīf al-ĥaq álaihi raĥmah that he knew that it was not exaggeration to use this title? and nobody including sidi aH would say that sharīf al-ĥaq álaihi raĥmah meant it absolutely.
can there not be more than one mujaddid in a single century? **
** my disclaimer - using the title or not using the title does not make a difference to my islam and love of and for the imam.