Anwaar e Shariat on Nabiy Isa عليه السلام

Discussion in 'Aqidah/Kalam' started by faizanattari786, Jan 6, 2019.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. rabid wahhabis & anthropo salafis keep quoting ghunya against us
    + ghunya anti hanafi passages
    + ghunya raf yadain passage
    + ghunya fatiha passage
    + ghunya tampered anthropo creed

    the last point was clarified by imam e ibn hajar makki (r)

    but these anthropo salafi wahhabis have come up with something new.

    did imam sultan ulama izz ibn abdul salam really affirm this or is this another salafi game?

    this is their latest twist

    قال شيخنا الحافظ أبو الحسين علي بن محمد سمعت الشيخ عبد العزيز بن عبد السلام الفقيه الشافعي يقول ما نقلت إلينا كرامات أحد بالتواتر إلا الشيخ عبد القادر فقيل له هذا مع اعتقاده فكيف هذا فقال لازم المذهب ليس بمذهب . قلت يشير إلى إثباته صفة العلو ونحو ذلك ومذهب الحنابلة في ذلك معلوم يمشون خلف ما ثبت عن إمامهم رحمه الله إلا من يشذ منهم وتوسع في العبارة

    [​IMG]Our Shaykh, the Haafidh, Abul-Husain Alee bin Muhammad: I heard the Shaykh, Abdul-Azeez bin Abdus-Salaam, the Shaafi'ee Jurist, saying: "The karaamaat of anyone have not been narrated to us through successive large-scale transmission (tawaatur) except (those of) Shaykh Abdul-Qadir." It was said to him: "This alongside his belief?" He replied, "The binding implication of a madhhab is not considered to be the madhhab".
    I [adh-Dhahabi] say: He is referring to his [Abdul-Qadir's] affirmation of the attribute of al-uluww and what is similar to that. And the madhhab of the Hanbalis regarding that is known, they traverse behind what has been established from their Imaam [Ahmad bin Hanbal] may Allaah have mercy upon him, except [whoever] separated from them and took liberties in expression.
  2. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    no it does. ghunya is the book of ghaws e aazam. but tampered? yes.
  3. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    i came across this page on another Sunni forum from way back in december 2012 (6 years ago) ---

    (all interested Urdu readers, please have a look, and maybe you can copy paste those page scans onto this forum as well)

    the devbhakt is a jahil mutlaq not only in deen, but also in duniya - he can't even search the internet properly. on the one hand we Sunnis spare no efforts to strenuously google even our own selves, and on the other hand there are these devbhakts who can't even bing their opponents properly!!

    i wanted to say a lot more but decided it's a resounding waste of time to allocate towards a dumb devbandi who is only after some youtube likes and a dopamine rush.

    will only highlight a concept in quick bullet points for the sake of Sunni brothers and sisters

    1- only the Quran is uncorruptible

    2- in history even ahadith have been fabricated or tampered with, much less the works of great scholars

    3- devbandis (and mubtadi3is in general) are buffoons who have a penchant for latching on to obscure and bizarre pieces of texts in books of certain well known Sunni scholars in order to justify their claims, bypassing explicit Quranic statements and the almost by tawatur well known opinions of the author in question himself, as well as the jumhur of scholars

    4- in such cases (imho) it is a waste of time for most people to both a) get involved in the forsensics pertaining to the text in question (ie., is it really traceable to the author or not), especially the older an issue gets and b) latching onto the text and passing judgment (for/against) on the author trying either to indict or exonerate him. we just go by what is well known by the expressly manifest knowledge about the author as well as the Sunni 3aqidah and leave the text alone. it is for this reason that it is said knowledge is in the chests of learned men, not in the printed lines

    5- here we have enough brothers who have mentioned that mufti Nizamuddin Multani was giving an ilzami jawab. on that Islamimehfil forum, another such ilzami comment from Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlvi (rahimahumullah) is also given.

    6- assuming we didn't have this info, there is no harm to just issue a statement on the text itself and say that it's a kufri statement.

    are we passing judgement on the deceased Mufti Nizamuddin Multani? no

    we will save this devbandi some time and effort and state that people higher and mightier than Ala Hazrat or Mufti Nizamuddin Multani have problematic statements in their books that we Sunnis have called kufr. the authors are known by near tawatur for their Sunni-ness and steadfastness. it would be nothing short of certified stupidity to attribute such kufr to them, statements that go contrary to well established and basic Ash3ari and Sunni doctrines and principles as well as basic common sense.

    - the purported ruling in Ibn Abidin's (rahimahullah) work that it is permitted to write the Fatiha with urine if it can cure someone (wal 3eyadhu billah) that deobandi taqi usmani just blindly copied once and defended (afaik). we say the statement is kufr. do we say Ibn Abidin is a kafir? hasha lillah. see the points above

    - the many anthropomorphic passages in Syedina Ghawthe Azam's (rahimahullah) Ghuniyatut Talibeen (the book can't trace its roots to the blessed Ghawth) and the wahabis routinely using those passages to try and convert us into anthropomorphists (they run when you tell them to also accept the Sunni-compliant passages in the earlier parts of the book)

    - the saying attributed to Shaykhe Akbar Ibn Arabi that hellfire shall cool down and stop burning that the jahil mutlaq mark hanson cites so gleefully. the statement is absolute kufr and absolutely dumb. do we say Ibn Arabi is a dumb kafir? hasha lillah. he is a mighty wali and Shaykh Al-Akbar, may Allah sanctify his secret. the comment is a tahreef in his works

    the point is that we can easily call the statement as kufr while at the same time maintaining that the author is free of it, especially if it is a celebrated author like the ones mentioned above

    i'm sure in probably another 2 generations something similar might even happen with Ala Hazrat's or other prominent Sunni scholars' works given the hard work these heretics are doing to spread misinformation.

    WAllahu musta3an.
  4. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    JazakAllahu khayran brothers @abu Hasan and @AbdalQadir

    nice work putting the jumpy clown's wild assertions in context.
  5. Mohamed Shah Qadri

    Mohamed Shah Qadri Active Member

    Maybe someone here can contact Jamia Ridawiya in model town Lahore .... Mufti Ghulam Sarwar Qadri Sahibs sons might be able to give us more details.. 20190103_221153.jpg
  6. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    i said:

    my bad. cognitive dissonance.

    the hashiya (Tahqiqate Aslamiyah) in Fatawa Nizamiyya is by Dr. Mufti Ghulam Sarwar Qadri, probably added in 1995


    in the preface:


    as he gives a date on pg 455 of pdf


    just preceding that faida, probably the author himself Mufti Nizamuddin Multani, says he debated some mardoods in 1924 in a very sweet footnote:




    so to summarize

    original work of Mufti Nizamuddin Multani - Fatawa Nizamiyya (circa 1924) ---> with hashiya by Ghulam Sarwar Qadri (circa 1995)

    Anwar e Shariat ---> compilation of selected fatawa from Ala Hazrat, Hamid Raza Khan Sahab, Sadrul Afazil Naeemuddin Sahab, and Mufti Nizamuddin Multani, rahimahumullah ---> compiled by Mufti Aslam Qadri (first published 1970)

    PS. i'm just quickly running pages up and down so if i made any errors, please correct them.
  7. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    one thing is now certain. mufti nizamuddin multani is not among alahazrat's students (the tone and careless choice of words is a clear marker. one of the common benefits of being in the company of alahazrat's books and students, is that one speaks about elder ulama, saHabah, prophets and especially, sayyiduna RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam with deference and respect due to them - and being careful in the words and idoms used.

    fayz e raza jari rahega, in sha'Allah.
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2019
    Unbeknown likes this.
  8. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i also started doing that, and you beat me to it. anyway, i will complete my post as a short review of the book and appraisal.

    in one of the excerpts you have shown, mufti nizam sahib (still don't know much about him) a date, 1919 is mentioned. which means he was a contemporary of alahazrat.

    mawlana abdul hakim sharaf in his work, tazkirah akabir e ahl e sunnat, p.549 mentions mufti nizam multani as a prominent debater. mawlana sharaf mentions that he could not get details of his life in spite of a laborious search. in the same notice, mawlana sharaf mentions that his books were not published because his sons were busy in tilling the lands (were farmers); thus, his books remained unpublished.


    Last edited: Jan 3, 2019
  9. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    as can be seen from the marginalia regarding the passage the deobandi cites, Qadri sahib too seems to have an issue with Mufti Multani's passage.


    in fact, in another fatwa's marginalia on the marriage of Syeda's, he says outright that Nizamuddin Multani sahib's tahqiq is not right!

    pg 387 and 388 of book



    this Qadri sahib should have added more extensive and comprehensive footnotes on the passage that the deobandi cites regarding Hazrat Masih 3alaihis salam as the respect and honor of Anbiya is a more serious topic than validity of nikah

    will come back to the thread later with some more thoughts, in sha Allah.
    Unbeknown likes this.
  10. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    went back to Fatawa Nizamiyya and looked for the passage in question and got this

    Fatawa Nizamiyya -

    it is supposed to be in response to 15 questions from a qadiani, that were mentioned in volume 2

    pg 267 of the book


    pages 268 & 269 of book


    pg 270, 271 of book wherein Mufti Nizamuddin Multani promised to answer the remaining questions in subsequent volumes


    and he did answer them, starting from pg 471 onwards



    the problematic passage being on pages 477 and 478



    as you can see there are hashiyas mentioned by Qadri sahib. i'm guessing it probably is Aslam Qadri.

    i didn't read the preface and intro section of this Fatawa Nizamiyya to get more info on who Mufti Nizamuddin Multani is and who is author of the hashiyas of this uploaded Fatawa Nizamiyya (published 1997). will do it later probably, but that's a moot point. will come back to this thread.

    Attached Files:

    Unbeknown likes this.
  11. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    the passage that the deobandi is talking about is referenced in volume 2 of Anware Shariat, pg 38 of the book (we are looking at older editions, while the devbhakt flashes newer editions wherein he mentions the same content being linked on pg 55)

  12. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    brother @abu Hasan

    1. until i saw this mumkin budzaat's videos, i too was unaware of this Mufti Nizamuddin Multani.

    2. had a nasty time googling with no fruit. finally, i did what i forgot to do - read the preface of the volume 1 of this Anware Shariat that i linked to you (pg 5 of the pdf)

    it introduces the 4 luminaries whose fatawa are compiled in the book, and introduces Nizamuddin Multani sahib as below:



    it seems Nizamuddin Multani sahib is also deceased because a 1970 published book mentions him with Rahmatullahi 3alaih. Allahu a3lam if the compiler of the selected fatawa in Anware Shariat (Mufti Aslam Qadri) is alive or not.

    3. googled some more in Urdu with Nizamuddin Multani + Sultan Bahu and came across these works from him

    Fatawa Nizamiyya - (this is the book that Anware Shariat references from)

    Zilul Ghamam Fi Adem Jawaz Fateha Khalful Imam
  13. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i was talking about ydays post about imam bukhari.

    you are mentioning the vid #2 where usman quoting nizamuddin multani from anwar e shariat.

    if nizamuddin multani wrote something, how does that become the aqidah of alahazrat? while it is certainly badly worded (as a friend says), it still is not blasphemy. i certainly do not like the manner in which the answer is worded, but this man usman devbandi is unfairly attributing aqidah to him, which the author of the fatwa has not claimed. all this drama to conceal the aqidah about khatm al-nubuwwah held by nanotvi and his defenders!

    this man's (usman devbandi) extrapolations are outrageous and certainly a slander. if he is really serious, he should himself issue a fatwa with a seal or get a fatwa issued from one of the many devbandi institutions that attest to his interpretations, in the charges he makes.

    as i said, i am not defending nizamuddin multani sahib's statement. frankly, i don't even know who he is. i have never come across this name. i quickly scanned a few biographical compendiums of recent ulama, but i couldn't find this name. i even checked with a few friends from pakistan, but they did not know of any famous personality with this name and demonym.

    in context, the statement is ostensibly a rebuttal of a qadiani-mirzayi objection. the statement is inappropriate, but still it is comparing maseeh alayhi's salam with RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.(i reiterate that i don't agree with this passage). [update: it has been pointed out a while ago by br.aqdas that the words are those of qadianis which mufti nizam sahib has thrown back on the mirzayi to rebut his objection].

    mahmud al hasan devbandi compared his blinded shaykh, gangohi, to sayyiduna yisa's miracles (alayhi's salam) in a challenging tone: 'come see my shaykh's ability, o son of maryam'.

    ولا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله

    usman sahib; we know that you belong to a group known for shamelessness. yet, why are you labeling your videos as 'sh. asrar blasphemy'? did sh. asrar say these things?

    sharm tum ko magar nahin aati.

    what bothers me now, is this book. who has compiled it? who has endorsed it? what else is there in it attributed to alahazrat and others?

    UPDATE: i have been informed that the words are not of nizamuddin multani sahib himself but an ilzami jawab. so i have slightly edited the above passage.
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2019
    Ghulam Ali and Aqdas like this.
  14. Waqar786

    Waqar786 Veteran

    @abu Hasan- In that passage there is disrespect shown to a noble prophet of Allah most High and reeks of something a ignorant and shameless Wahabi would prove the superiority of one by debasing another. E.g. Ismail Dehlwi trying to show the majesty of Allah most High by referring to the rest of creation as less than Cobblers. Astagfirullah.
    Is it possible that you can check the reference he has given and see what is the reality behind it.
  15. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    search me.
  16. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    same here.

    in spite of this, the passage is not such that can make one hysterical.

    usman is only being a drama queen and attempting to make people forget that pathetic performance and venting his anger after getting a drubbing by shaykh asrar.
  17. Waqar786

    Waqar786 Veteran

    @Juwayni- you need to ask the brother if he still holds Uthsman to be sincere after posting these videos. The last one is a disgrace because although I have not come across this work, I cant fathom any sunni scholar speaking like that about a prophet (peace be upon him) and if he did, I got no doubt he would have been taken to task for. I am never even heard of Nizamudin Multani before.
    Uthsman needs to stop jumping up and down because I did not see him this irate when Abu Layth was casting his opinion on the second coming of Hazrat Isa (peace be upon him) nor did I see bat an eyelid when the marsiya of Rashid Ahmad Ganghoi was being discussed where Rashid's powers were discussed in relation to the gifts bestowed on Hazrat Isa (peace and blessings be upon him)-
    I dont understand how he can be so brazen when he failed miserably to defend the questionable parts of Tahzeer un naas against Mufti Aslam. Put the fires out at home before you coming running to us and mouthing off. If Shaykh Asrar does not want to refer to himself as Brelwi then that is his seem to care more about that then us. If he does not refer to himself as Brelwi then why are you insistent that he must defend our books. It is just pure hatred and even your own guys must be shaking their heads.
    We will see how far your 'series" runs when your lies and misquoting comes out. You wont be able to show your face in your Madrassa let alone Hyde park.
    I again ask we need to put an end to sideshows and get objective learned senior scholars from both sides to discuss the points of contention. Where ever things have gone wrong, we need to put right. What is clear is that the likes of Uthsman are just there to cause fitna and will allow their hatred to get in the way of seeing anything objectively
  18. Mohamed Shah Qadri

    Mohamed Shah Qadri Active Member

Share This Page