View of Pir Karam Shah Saheb?

have you read it from here http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?67509-Some-issues-with-Husaam-al-haramayn-and-Original-Texts-of-Deobandi-Kutubs/page6

onwards?, and what he confirmed for someone called mansur? and what do you think of the new additional interpretation that nanotwi gave?

if there is a tawil and a context to excuse nanotwi, how can we argue otherwise with deobandis?

 

I don't know about anyone else but I have the same view as Mufti Abid Jalali Sahib. If one person praises Qasim Nanotvi's book knowing he insulted the Holy Prophet Sallalaho Alaihi Wa Sallam and does not do ruju, yes that person will be a non muslim.

Now as for Pir Karam Shah Sahib, don't know if he did Ruju or not.

 

He can speak for himself, but I think what chishti-raza was trying to ask was:

Will you call someone a Muslim even if he calls the mirza of the qadianis a Muslim?

Additionally:

'heretic' could imply both mubtadi3 OR murtad, at least from my meager knowledge of English.

The mirza was definitely not a mubtadi3. He was in fact not even an 'ordinary' murtad but of the absolute lowest kind of murtads, for he claimed prophethood.

I don't know which meaning you implied and with what intention.

Such a person like the mirza who deliberately and knowingly waged war against Islam and the Prophet, 3alaihis salam, by claiming prophethood - is from the absolute worst kinds of brazenly open kafirs, even worse than a 'kafir asli' (see a fiqh dictionary for a definition of kafir asli) - on whose being a kafir, there is not a shadow of doubt or a difference of opinion.

On such people on whose being a kafir there is an ijma3, refraining from calling them kafirs makes one a kafir himself.

 

Very good question, what does that make him?

I don't understand ... most people reading the above would infer that Mufti Abid Jalali has done takfir of Pir Karam Shah Saheb in all but name. I am struggling to understand what point Mufti Abid Jalali and Syed Irfan Shah are trying to make.

 

This does apply to Qadiani ...
his beliefs were totally wrong, not in accordance with Islamic beleifs.

His opinion of some other scholar has go nothing to do with him being labelled a heretic.

 

post #50 on that thread, abuhajirah says:

i invite him to examine quotes in al-muhannad and hold it against such high ideals.

 

i did not read the whole thread yet, but the first post by abuhajirah [#6] advertises 'al-muhannad.' al-muhannad is a pack of lies which deobandis proudly show as an 'answer' to husam.

khalil denied even those things that were written by himself - and i fail to understand how these so called 'pious, ahl-e-haqq, etc,' devbandis can live with these lies. so also the lies in other books of safdar and khalid.

i have read - and am reading - so many devbandi books, and i am astonished at the ease with which these authors lie; as if they do not have to face questioning on judgement day. al-iyadhu billah.

they will all be refuted in due course, inShaAllah wa bi tawfiqih.

---
ek din aawaz badleNge ye saaz
chah-chaha kuhraam ho hi jaayega

 

edit:i have seen this before, but my query remains. ustad asrar, i think just touches upon this. doesnt mention anything about the tawil. the brother debating on that deobandi link could not respond to abu hajra's tawil of nanotwi.

 

i hav'nt read this yet.
but what about the tawil of abu hajra of nanotwis statements, that add another perspective that excuse him?

 

Does this apply to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani as well?

 

These points have been refuted here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/MubeenSunniSoldier?blend=1&ob=5#p/u/0/_XQfmG5XQ2E

 

brother abu hasan(or others) what to say to the following explanation of nanotwi in the following thread?
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?67509-Some-issues-with-Husaam-al-haramayn-and-Original-Texts-of-Deobandi-Kutubs

please explain if he has excused nanotwi of takfir and of apparently ala hazrat misquoting nanotwi and of bringing together sentences from different parts of nanatwis infamous work and making it look like he was doing kufr. please read the thread especially mulwi abu hajra.

 

when a person is asked whether he has sight or blind, the person answers: 'i have a face and i have two sockets in which i have two whites and and on those two whites, i have two blacks and in those blacks, i have lights.'

only an idiot will explain that he has eyes first and eyesight second.*
i haven't heard of a christian wahabi or a hindu shia in my life.

----
let us get some straight answers now:

if you are a native urdu speaker and if you have seen tahziru'n naas and you do not consider qasim nanotvi a kafir, then certainly you are a kafir.

----
in fact, when you say muslim1st, sunni2nd - you are labeling yourself as a sulah kulli and as if you think you are smarter or more pious than imam abu hanifah and the rest who considered it a matter of pride - and prayed to stay in the ahlu's sunnati wa'l jama'ah. i could cite any number of examples of outstanding ulama who simply said: 'sunni' but then, it may not cure you of your ignorance.

go and read sharh taftazani and tamhid e eeman before opening your mouth.

 

m1s2 I think either you can't read or you don't want to read. I have said it very clearly that the issue is Pir Karam Shah Sahibs view on Qasim Nanotvi. I don't need to provide references for anyone. These Scholars believe he has not done Ruju. Now everyone is aware that Pir Sahib praised Tehzeer in Naas, if he has not done Ruju from that then only Scholars know better. Even Mufti Abid Jalali Sahib don't consider him a Kafir. I have also spoke to him, his view is though that if one person praises Qasim Nanotvis book and doesn't do Ruju then what does it make him. He has never said by name that Pir Karam Shah Sahib is a Kafir. I could even get the fatwa book online on Pir Karam Shah Sahib if I want but I won't. You need to look for the answers yourself, we are not your slaves, neither do we work under your orders!

 

I do fully know that whatever I stated will have no impact on you. For a person who takes the kalma to imply that its emphasis is first on the "common ground" that Allah's beloved has with the "rest of folk" can never see the true path.

 

Apparently he has said it a few times publicly in Pakistan. Here is one video with both Abid Jallai and Mashaddi Sb: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttea3a6-1xU

 

That's all dandy m1s2. (you remind me of faqeerkhan)

Can you please just answer Aqdas' question in post 21. You're confusing people here.

What exactly are you alleging?

Who made takfir of who?

Why?

Any evidence to such claims?

 

You can me all the names you want, I respect your viewpoint however, I have a different viewpoint.

I prefer to be Muslim first within my own circle as well as outside my own circle. Changing a priority of identity depending on the audience doesn't sit well with me (traits of a chameleon changing colours to suit the audience). On the one hand you choose to say to Non-Muslims we are brothers in hand where one's hardship in the East is a cause of distress to another in the West. But when it comes to converging and praying in congregration you shudder to even rub shoulders with your so-called fellow Muslim.

Being Muslim first serves to create a unified sense and image of brotherhood to Non-mulsims. Practicing on the principles of our beloved Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam whose preachings had at the heart of them a service to community.

When you say you are Sunni 1st you automatically distance yourself and take yourself out of the circles of many others. For me personally, this indicates a focus on dividing lines rather than uniting ones.

If you read the 2nd Kalimah you won't forget that our beloved Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam is referred to as a 'Slave' first, then Messenger. Even though our beloved Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam is unique, matchless and the best of all creations.

This significant article of faith prefers to place our beloved Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam in an all-inclusive group where every man born from this world's existence till the day of judgement. This is stated before placing the prophet in an exclusive category of Messengers.

So the message I read from the Kalimah-e-Shahadat which I bear witness to is that our initial emphasis should be on our common attributes everything else follows.

 

Please spell it out in clear simple English what exaclty is the problem that Shah Saheb has with Pir Karam Shah Saheb.

How can we go by ad-hoc comments. Please provide concrete references along with a detailed explanation as to what is the cause of contention. If you want people to pay attention to your claims then you must provide a fit and proper argument.

If I do, does it make me a kaafir?