Polygamy : The Genius of Sheikh Ahmed Deedat

Can you please provide a proof/reference for this statement of his?

 

Izhar ul Haq is an Arabic book written as a response to the accusations (in a book Meezan ul Haq) made by the Christians. It was written in the late 1800s by Hazrat Rahmatullah Kairanwi who was a Matrudi Hanafi Chishti scholar. He was also a part of the Indian Rebellion against the Britishers. Later he migrated to Makkah (where he also founded a Sunni Madrasah - Madrasah as Sawlatiyah - in the Ottoman Empire) and passed away in Makkah - buried in Jannat ul Mu3llah.

 

Ahmed Deedat exposes lies of Shia scholar:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF_ERLIOjH4

any idea about this book 'izharul haqq'? and it's author 'al-kairanwi'?

 

Shia-Sunni Unity: Ahmed Deedat

----------------------------------------------------------------
Imam Husain And His Martyrdom By Abdullah Yusuf Ali

 

ok, point taken unbeknown

 

http://www.jamiaturraza.com/session/18Apr10.mp3

right click on that link and on the options, click save.

 

How do we download this brother?

 

here is the link Hassan Raza, btw it's a Q&A session so you'll have to listen to it all until that part comes.

 

Brother i could see that its a shia website. i only posted the link to show that there may be other possibilities. i wasn't encouraging anyone to take anything at face value.

 

the link you gave here takes me to a Shia website! Please becareful of wildly googling things. Its a jungle out there!

 

on a tangent

 

if it interests anyone:

Searching For Solace A Biography Of Abdullah Yusuf Ali Interpreter Of The Quran M.A. Sherif

 

see this wiki.

Bohras are shia.

i've also heard other people say that he was one(although i don't trust them anymore).

That he was from india is a fact but i doubt that the alvi silsila is much active here.

yet, according to his prefaces he has'nt used a single shia source for his translation and commentary of the Quran and i could'nt spot such leanings either.

maybe he was a sunni and some people don't want this to be known.

but the translation i own has been published by Muhammad Ashraf whom Yusuf Ali praises in his preface.(if it is unaltered)


on the flipside

but this is more shocking if true.

wallahua'lam.

 

From what I know, Ahmed Deedat had a cocktail of beliefs. Celebrating Mawlid is not a proof of Sunnism. In one of his videos, he denies the Taqlid of the four Imams. We have clear texts of the `Ulama saying that a person who denies Taqlid is not a Sunni.

Moreover, he was not a scholar and we have been prohibited from listening to speeches of non-Alims. Ala Hadrat rahimahullah said that it is haram to listen to the lecture of a non-Alim and the lecturer and the listener both will be sinners.(Malfuz Sharif).

Even the Turkish Scholar Hussain Hilmi calls Deedat a non-Sunni in his book “The Endless Bliss”:
“Ahmad Deedat, who attracted Christians to Islam in 1980 by debating with them, is not of the Ahl as-sunnat either. Such people prevent new converts to Islam from attaining the true path of the Ahl as-sunnat and eternal happiness.”
http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Islam_and_Christianity/16.htm

In short, we can say, Deedat is the first step towards individuals like Zakir Naik.

 

Are you sure about Yusuf Ali? I thought he was from Ba 'Alawi sufi silsila?

 

Ahmed Deedat was not a scholar, did not know arabic, was busy refuting christians. He admits in one of his lectures:

" I am not a scholar. Don't ask me questions about Islam. If you want to know regarding islam ask Shaykh Bin Baz or any other scholar of your choice. I specialize on the bible..... I do not know arabic. You think all these verses i am translating .... I am just bluffing my way..."

In this debate he make a very enormous statement( and receives applause for it):

" If pastor can show me a single verse in all of the books of the bible, any version, where Jesus(peace be upon him) says 'i am GOD' or where he says 'worship me', i am ready to be baptized tonight, no, no wasting time i'm ready to get baptized ....."

( following in his footsteps Zakir Naik is also heard making such statements
" I am ready to accept Christianity today " )

He has also made many other dubious statements.

Being an orator without being a scholar does not suite anyone.

according to Deedat he was provoked into this field by the students of a missionary school close to where he worked who, he says, would often come and 'practise' at the behest of the local Muslim shop owners.

All his translations are from Yusuf ALi's (who was a shia himself, perhaps this explains his good opinion of them).

He knew Shaykh Aleem Siddiqi.

I don't know what all of this makes him. But afaik no one has charged him with disbelief. Regardless, he was a bane for the missionaries. May Allah forgive him.

Wallahua'lam.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Alahadhrat (alayhirrahmah) on the rafidis. please see attachment.

wassalaam.

 

I was and am unaware of this fact. Did Huzoor Taajush Shariah say this? Please can you provide any proof, that would be great!

I am very sorry that I raised such a chaos! I am sincerely sorry for this. I was unaware that Deedat spoke in the support of Shias and in support of Christmas. Because I heard Shaykh Asrar Rashid say that this person was a Sunni!

I request my brothers here to stop relating to Tahir Jhanghvi on every post! Come on, brothers. Is he such an important person to be debated upon.? Do not we know this guy's background? How many of you would celebrate Christmas, Love offering Salah behind a Rafidi or Deobandi? This guy is not correct. We on Sunniport do not follow him, rather we refrain from listening him, and so we suggest the Sunni masses not to listen to him for his ideas are deviant CASE CLOSED!! I see that every thread contains something or the other that is involved in discussing about this guy! Stop It!

I request Janaab Abu Hasan to kindly delete this post, if required, and accept my apologies to raise such a Fight amongst the brothers (for I had not even dreamt that my post may cause this)

PS- Everyone missed the point that the Christian evangelists have suffered a humiliation which the Entire World has seen!

ALLAH HAAFIZ

 

Please read the following books on Shi'iism (Shiaism)Khomeini Some Facts by Hazrat Allamah Dr. Kaukab Noorani Okarvi: http://www.nooremadinah.net/EnglishBooks/KHOMEINI/KHOMEINI.asp

also the book at: http://www.raza.org.za/deviant_sects_and_scholars.html

Regarding Hazrat Tajush Shariah Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan, please read the document by Shaykh Monawwar Ateeq: "Taaj al-Shariah: A Man Among the Men of Allah: Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan": http://www.almukhtarbooks.com/?page_id=10

I have my doubts about Deedat due to other reasons.

 

the precious irony is that the fatwa you choose to ignore is that of a mufti graduated from al-az'har.

would you ignore a fatwa of an azhari?

 

nobody accused you of doing otherwise. tahir's example is not to accuse you of being his sympathiser.

nobody disputes this. it is like saying just because you have a beard, don't think you are a mujaddid. true, but who is claiming that? this is a straw-man argument.

as poets are, he was confused and wandered in every valley. surely, his poetry is profound and in matters that he knew - and matters that he did not comprehend as well - he wrote forceful poetry. he was erudite but his knowledge of islam was weak and patchy; of course, he had a fertile mind and he filled those gaps skilfully with his own observations or opinions.

summary: iqbal is a good poet but not a religious thinker or scholar.

iqbal baDa updeyshak hai
man batoN meiN moh leta hai
guftar ka ye ghazi to bana
kirdar ka ghaazi ban na saka

------

you don't know perhaps but those who are merely heretics are referred as shiah and the fanatical, apostates are called as rawafiD.

are you aware of what the Daruriyat are? and are you aware of the beliefs of rawafiD that contradict Daruriyat?

same tahiri fallacy. (acknowledging that you do not follow him; but it is the same thing he says). give a few proofs. (we will skip tahir issue here, as it is discussed in half a dozen threads already)

fallacies again. hasty generalisation.

the point is, you choose to ignore on what basis? just because you don't want to follow someone because he is the scion of a great family? just because it is unfashionable to follow sons of great men? nobody will call you ignorant if you point out the flaws of the argument. but certainly if you dismiss it because it is not agreeable to your world-view, without even understanding the bases and principles - howsoever flawed - upon which the fatwa is given.

who is being rash here?

there is a framework - and we call it ahlu's sunnah. and this is defined by the agreement of ulama down the ages; formalised catechisms which have been documented for more than a millenium. it is not an institute or a community or a building or one person that defines ahlu's sunnah.

if a person or an institute complies with the framework, we call them sunni. and if they defy it or renege from key or fundamental issues, we call them non-sunni. of course, some persons become outstanding representatives of this framework - such that in their words or deed, you will never find a thing that contradicts this framework; or if you do, it is very very rare and a minor adjustment. such people become the face of the framework and by induction following them becomes following the framework.

we cannot consider contemporaries because, people change and we don't know - al-iyadhu billah - who will or can renege. but for people who have passed, and until their final breath, they are proven to have stayed and preached ahlu's sunnah, it is safe to say that they are ahlu's sunnah. this is why we measure people in our times to the sunni scholars who have passed away.

you were wailing about appeal to authority but still you cannot get out of it yourself. is everything that comes out of az'har to be accepted JUST BECAUSE it has come from al-az'har?

translation: it is better to commit suicide than blind-following.

but still, you demand allegiance for the brick and mortar building even if fussaq and sell-outs were to live in it.

naah! we wouldn't say that because we don't accept iqbal as an authority at all. you need to get your fallacies right first. proof by authority would mean that he was an authority, and we accept everything he says.

-----------

proof?