anthropomorphic speech/dua of tablighi/devbandi tariq jameel

Shaitan in disguise of Tariq Jameel

 

Question: What if a layman says "TJ's words are not an issue as Qur'an and Hadith have similar descriptions, for example the hadith qudsi of Allah (SWT) descending to the earth's sky during the final third of the night." What would a short, simple response be to such an individual (without getting too complex so that the individual understands: i. we do not deny such ayahs / hadith; ii. we do not interpret such ayahs / hadith to imply that Allah swt has human attributes; and iii. it is wrong to make such implications in speeches, du'aas, etc.)?

 

Question: If TJ had clarified in his speech that as Muslims we do not actually believe Allah (SWT) descends on the earth and that he is using the description as a metaphor, would that result in his speech not being termed kufriyat?

 

His eyebrow gesture (around 1:12 mark of video # 2 in post # 63) left me completely disgusted.

 

What would Tariq Jameel's supporters say to this (with respect to TJ's anthropomorphic du`aa's and speeches)? I'm sure the gutless cowards would lie, manipulate and try to squirm out of this as well.

 

Shaykh Abu Adam of Sunni Answers also has an excellent translation and commentary here. Points 40 and 41 are reproduced below.

---

{Whoever attributed to Allāh an attribute that has a meaning among the meanings that apply to humans has committed blasphemy.}

The fact that Al-Tahāwī mentions this verdict of blasphemy as a part of the belief of Sunnis, is something that should be pondered carefully by those who think that such verdicts are fringe issues of Islamic Law, not required knowledge, or of concern for judges only. They base this on spurious quotes found in various scholarly books and letters, without solid authentication or any viable proof other than appeals to emotion.

Note the categorical sense of “a meaning,” which tells us that this is true for any meaning that applies to humans, not just some. For example, sequential speech, having a direction, a body, changing or the like.

Note also that he states “meaning”, and not “word,” because the important thing is the meaning of the word, not the word itself. Because of this, scholars may differ in their verdict of blasphemy based on what a person literally says or writes, but not in terms of what he means by the words. After all, the meanings and connotations of a word differ from time to time and from place to place. That is also why if a person says something about Allāh that has only one meaning in his language, he is made accountable for that meaning, as what the meaning meant will be clear. If the meaning is that of a human attribute, then the one who says it will be judged as a blasphemer. It will not make a difference if the one who said it claimed that he did not mean that meaning, or was not serious, because he has in this case shown scorn towards Allāh. Al-Bazdawī, the leading scholar of belief and foundations of jurisprudence, said in Usūl Al-Bazdawī: “Not being serious in <saying what is> blasphemy is blasphemy. Not because of believing the words he said while not serious, but by the act of not being serious… because it is disrespectful of the religion.”

{Whoever senses this will ponder carefully,} to know the difference between the Creator and the created {and will stay clear of sayings like those of the blasphemers.} Such as those who blatantly say that His attribute of Speech is created, or necessarily imply it by saying that it consists of letters, sounds or sequence. The first sect is the Mu’tazilah and the second the Hashawīyah (anthropomorphists - those who liken Allāh to His creation.) It is hard to decide which of them is more deeply in blasphemy. Is it the Mu’tazilah for denying that Allāh has eternal Speech, and only has created speech? Or is it the Hashawīyah for denying (implicitly or explicitly) that anything with a beginning must be a creation, and claiming that Allāh’s eternal Speech is like that of creation, with sounds and letters?

{He will also know that His attributes is not like those of humans.} The simplest way to understanding this is to understand that anything that has a beginning, even if it is an event in something that already exists, must be created. This is clear, because the fact that this thing or event became existent, tells us that it must have been brought into existence, and bringing into existence is to create. Consequently, anything that has a beginning is a creation. It is therefore absurd to say that something has a beginning, but is not a creation.
Since Allāh’s attributes are not created, and are therefore eternal,we know that His attributes do not have any beginning of any kind, such as changes or sequences. After all, change is nothing but a series of events with beginnings.
Created attributes, on the other hand, have a beginning in every sense and every aspect, because there is nothing eternal about them. Therefore, anything that resembles a creation must be a creation itself, because resemblance between two things can only be in some sense or some aspect.
Accordingly, it is not possible for a creation to know the full reality of any of Allāh’s attributes, because a creation’s knowledge is limited by having a beginning, while Allāh’s attributes are not.

For example, I know that Allāh sees everything. I can understand this in the sense that everything that knowledge applies to is known to Allāh. I am not able to know more about the reality of this attribute. What I can know, however, is more about what Allāh’s knowledge is not. All I have to do is look at the knowledge of creation, and say “Allāh’s knowledge is not like that.” For example, my knowledge is in a body, it increases and decreases, it is incomplete, it is sometimes inaccurate, it is gained through the senses or reasoning, etc. I know that Allāh’s knowledge is not like any of that.

From this we can better understand the statement of Ibn ‘Abbās: “Do not ponder about the self of Allāh, but ponder instead about creation.” One wisdom in this advice is that by observing created things, you can learn about what Allāh is not, since He does not resemble any of them in any sense. This is clear, because there is nothing about them that does not have a beginning.

 

Astaghfirullah, just watched this one. This jahil is a murtadd. This is even worse than that dua from earlier this year!
[MOD:] the poster means tariq jameel, not farooq sahib who is criticising him.

 

there was some issue with my system sounds and hence the video appeared to be muted. I just heard the idiot mufti. He says that though the narration is mawdu, it was nevertheless quoted by ibn qayyim in his book and hence salafis should not call out the tareek o zaleel on this.

I have attached a screenshot of the reference provided in the video. The actual wording of the narration is "yuSalli".



I wonder how the devbandits translate the verse 33:56 of surah Al-Ahzab!

and this person is supposed to be a mufti.....

 

he's a filthy kafir and a dajjal - a very calculating and deliberate enemy of Islam and Muslims, just another ibn salool like mark hanson.

i REFUSE to accept in any way, shape, or form that ANY Muslim (including mubtadis who are not kafir) can utter the kinds of things he utters - just out of callousness and blunderous outbursts

if you observe closely, it shows that he says what he says very deliberately to misguide and mislead and he takes pleasure in speaking blasphemies

no desi MUSLIM who knows Urdu will say things like "Allah ke Nabi ki jholi mein woh 300 dinar padey they... yun" (and even acts it out like the kafir and shaytan he is)... (last video linked in post #63, in the beginning one minute and half)

as for, those who don't use Urdu as a first language (Mallus, Tamils etc.,, which taarik e deen isn't anyways), they simply wouldn't use the word "jholi" if they attempt to say something in Urdu. (i mean to say that taarik e deen can't plead ignorance of language here) in fact, they'd do their best to try and be respectful and courteous in speaking whatever Urdu/Hindi they do actually know

observe carefully and think about his usage of this word "jholi" - it's a very calculated and deliberate usage. and that acting it out only shows his dedication to shaytan

it simply can't be spontaneously said by an Urdu speaking MUSLIM (because he knows the language), as well as a NON-Urdu-speaking Muslim (because he DOESN'T know the language)

 

Another blasphemous 'dua' by the zaleel:

 

Some refutations:

 

In this video, the idiot says that the first to pray the salat-ul-janaza of rasulAllah (sallallahu'alayhissalaam) was Allah ta'ala himself!



Here's one devbandi defending him on that. Seems the scumbags have muted the entire reply.



-------------
Mufti Ziauddin Naqshbandi:

 

Some more samples:





dog talking about the shaykhayn (raDiyAllahu'anhuma):

 

'motivational' speaker tareekh zaleel, notorious for cheating sheeple out of their imaan using a mix of crass story-telling and crocodile tears cleverly punctuated with mephistophelian blasphemies. Yes sir, he embezzles imaan, en masse and in broad daylight.

 

when their elders didn't have proper adab with Sayyidina Rasool Allah sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam, what can we expect from the latter day scholars?

-
the funniest thing was that when JJ made his silly comments about Bibi Ayesha (radii Allahu anHa) his so-called Ustad, Tariq Jamil sahib, dropped him quicker than you could say, "Devband!" I don't blame JJ tbh - he is only repeating parrot fashion what TJ and others have taught him...

Anyway, that's a great rebuttal by Abu Hasan.
--
btw, how do you add a signature on here?

 

see these videos:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=824152004317997

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=821660124567185

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=812295698836961

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=796723513727513

https://www.facebook.com/xpose.com.pk/posts/785688678164330 (gustakhi against the honor of Sayyidina Musa 3alaihis salam + blatant idol-worshiping tashbeeh)

https://www.facebook.com/xpose.com.pk/posts/742780412455157

https://www.facebook.com/xpose.com.pk/posts/734819646584567 (spoke to amir khan for half an hour about bollywood)

https://www.facebook.com/xpose.com.pk/videos (some more videos here)

in one video he praises the najdis and says that the Green Dome of Masjide Nabawi must be demolished. let the tablighis say that in the presence of Arab and Turkish Sunnis if they have any decency or integrity or courage.

 

as for the author of that webpage, i suspect it is faqeer khan. his cut-n-paste skill appears to have improved a little bit over 15 years. other than that, he remains a low-life vermin abusing alahazrat. if it is indeed him, here is my message to him: you will see more and more, in sha'Allah in the coming years that will make you squirm and die a thousand deaths.



i didn't read the urdu text as i find it difficult to read it thus (and prefer nast'aliq), and therefore haven't mentioned anything.

wAllahu a'alam wa `ilmuhu atam

 

just for the record:

https://barelwipress.wordpress.com/...-barelwi-turns-out-to-be-a-jahmi-or-mutazili/

---
we believe in Divine Attributes without modality. but due to constraints of language, we cannot use words that may suggest anthropomorphism. so the use of words like 'Power' in this case are to convey the meaning which results in the same. ignorance of the science apart, these Hamqaa don't even know basic logic.

attesting to something does not mean denial of everything else, unless there is an explicit denial.

for example, if one says that he reads bukhari, it does not mean that he rejects muslim and tirmidhi and muwatta malik. if one says 'laa ilaaha illa Allah' it does not mean that he denies 'Muhammadun RasulAllah' SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam; unless, he explicitly denies it or refuses it.

so also, if i use the description of 'Power' in lieu of 'Hand' it does not mean that i say ONLY 'Power' and NOTHING ELSE. the madh'hab of ta'wil is of latter scholars, and the reason was to stem anthropomorphic ideas arising due to juhala and jahil speakers such as tarik jameel who do not know the basics of tawHid and Sifat. so they would use mutashabihat in qur'an and hadith and give literal meanings. knowledge among common folk was rapidly dwindling, and untrained or uneducated minds cannot comprehend abstract ideas, so ulama made ta'wil to steer them away from anthropomorphism.

the accuser should now show us where have i ever denied Divine Attributes or insisted that 'Hand' means something else as explained by mu'tazilah. actually, i believe in 'yad' as mentioned in arabic, without modality.

my challenge to the zindiq who wrote on that blogpost, prove that يد mentioned in arabic is INDEED and CERTAINLY and WITHOUT ANY DOUBT translates to "HAND". let him swear on the pain of divorce (if he is married) or even swear an oath in these words: "WAllahi'l Azeem يد mentioned in the hadith and qur'an is CERTAINLY, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT the meaning of "HAND" in the english language. this is my belief, and may Allah ta'ala damn me if i have lied in this matter."

and if he cannot do it, let him too wear a placard around his neck that he is a jahmi and mutazili.

---

i don't have time to show the idiocy or jahalat of people who cannot read a page properly. actually in the same sharh of fiqh al-akbar, that he 'quotes' it is mentioned: [minah ar-rawd, old ed. p.36; ghawuji's edition, p.123 onwards; old ed used as it is compact]



that "some later scholars did contrary to the [stand of] earlier scholars".

in the next page, he mentions ibn humam's opinion that ta'wil was a compulsion arising due to the need of times:



----
so how else will you explain these mutashabihat (of course, the followers of tarik jameel will have no problem with tajsimi descriptions, because let alone mutashabihat, tarik jameel has given them ideas of a god descending on earth, holding people by their shoulders shaking them. i still don't know which mutashabih ayat/hadith he used as a basis and extrapolate this.)

how else will you explain this to common people who have no introduction nor can understand the arabic?



----
what happens to donkeys with blinders, who cannot see further than the blinders can permit? i am sure, the idiot on that blog does not have the ability to understand my analogy, so i will simplify it for him: if you had read fiqh al-akbar yourself, you would not come up with such an idiotic objection, because, imam azam specifically forbade translation of 'yad' EVEN in persian. [matn fiqh al-akbar, p.187; ghawuji, p.300 onward; shaykh ghawuji has important footnotes here that explain my viewpoint better than i can do myself.]



now, one should NOT translate 'yad' in farsi or other languages (by extrapolation) due to the obvious pitfall. [actually, later ulama permitted it so long as it explained within the context and explanation].

----
the rule is simple. our belief is tafwiD, that we believe in Divine Attributes as mentioned in arabic aayat and hadith; we accept that these words mean something incomprehensible to us and certainly do not denote any bodily part - as is commonly understood. however, to simplify it for the commonfolk and prevent them for falling into anthropomorphism, we use such descriptions without insisting that it is THE ONLY meaning. the other reason being constraints of foreign languages. Allah ta'ala knows best.

for example see qurtubi, in the tafsir of "yadullahi fawqa aydihim":



here it is not rejecting or refusing that 'yad' bilaa modality is a Divine Attribute; the explanation is to ward off tajsim. if not, we invite our critic to explain what it means. wa billahi't Tawfiq.

----
from ta'wilat ahl al-sunnah of imam maturidi:



----
from shawkani's tafsir, fat'h al-qadir:


----
the point is, that such ta'wil is made to avoid anthropomorphic descriptions. and as long as one does not explicitly deny Divine Attributes - like the jahmiyyah or mu'tazila do and insist, it is permissible to use words that avoid anthropomorphic descriptions.

Allah ta'ala knows best.
wa billahi't tawfiq.

 

i dunno if the admins can see who's visiting the site, but it seems our fan base is growing! there's some guy known as gulam padri

https://barelwipress.wordpress.com/

lol, i like it how they call the anthropomorphist kafir mardood taarik [e deen] wa zaleel as "motivational speaker"

https://barelwipress.wordpress.com/...-barelwi-turns-out-to-be-a-jahmi-or-mutazili/

if he's not a scholar, why address him as "maulana"?

and what exactly is a "motivational speaker" in a "religious" context?

so when john jamshed calls taarik o zaleel as his "ustad", what exactly is he referring to?

these shameless "people" can't directly talk about the various kufriyat of their "motivational speaker" and offer suitable tawilat and shuruh for his blasphemies so they have to attack others for it. la3natullahi 3alaihim ajma3een.

i wonder what's next!

thanvi was a "wealth coach" not a scholar?!

gangohi was a "therapist" not a scholar?!

ambethvi was a "counselor" not a scholar?!

nanotvi was a "consultant" not a scholar?!

---

the other shaytan here tries a hand at his deobandi fathers' old tricks of false accusations

https://barelwism.wordpress.com/

God forbid should any integrity, honesty or decency even whiff by these people!

https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2014/12/02/ahmad-rida-khans-insulting-remarks-about-sayyida-aisha/

(if the author of the blog was an honest and unbiased individual like he pretends to be, he would have known that what he has pasted is a fabrication against the imam)

shamelessness at its best again. if he's so honest, let him bring forward the urdu of what thanwi said, and then lets talk translations!

https://barelwism.wordpress.com/201...s-argument-and-ahmad-ridas-misinterpretation/

 

@1.50: tu kab ayega? aa ja na. tu aa jaaaa. tu aa jaaa mere Allah. aa jaa naa. hum miT gaye haiN. ay tu aa jaaa. bacha bhi dukhi ho ke abba ko ammaN ko bulata hai. ghareeb bhi ho to taDap ke aatey haiN. ya Allah hum dukhi ho kar tujhe bulate haiN. tu aa na ya Allah.

when will you come? come now please. you come now. you come my Allah. come now. we are destroyed. come now. a child will call his father and mother when he is sad; a poor man will suffer and come. o Allah, we are sad and in pain, and come to call you. come now, O Allah.

@2.12: saara baaTil hamara mazaq uData hai. "tumhara Allah kidhar hai, bulaO apne Allah ko" hum tujhe bulane aaye haiN, ya Allah; hum tujhe bulaane aaye haiN, mere Allah, tuu aa [@2.25:] tuu aa hamare saath chal , hamare saath chal, hum lut gaye piT gaye.

evil makes fun of us: "where is your Allah, call your Allah". we have come to call you, O Allah. we have come to call you, O my Allah. come..
come and walk with us, walk with us. we are looted and beaten.

@2.30: tuu ne hameN kin darindon ke hawale kiya huwa hai. hum tere aagey apna shakwa karte haiN. apne dukhDey tere aagey sunate haiN. tu mehrbani kar na ya Allah. is mulk par jo bhi [..inaudible] teri taraf se paKaD aayi huwi hai, ab bas kar dey, bas kar dey, bas kar dey...

you have entrusted us to these beasts; we complain to you. we describe our troubles to you. be merciful o Allah; your Wrath has now gripped this country - now desist, enough, enough, enough...

----
@3.34: aaj tera nabi hota, to pakistan meiN kitne aansu baha-ta, idhar to dekh, kitney janazey uT'htey haiN..

if your prophet were here today in pakistan, how many tears he would let flow. look here [O Allah] how many biers rise.

----
@4.05: charoN SuuboN mein aag lagi huwi hai, tu kab bujhaye ga? tu kab bujhaye ga, tere siwa koyi nahiN bujha sakta

fire rages in all the four states; when will you douse it? when will you douse it? no one can extinguish this fire except you..

----
@4.30: tu karde ya Allah, kar de na, kar de na ya Allah. kardeyyyyyy..nahin karna [inaudible] phir bhi kar dey ya Allah. kar denaa, tu kah dena main ne kar diya. tu kah de main ne kardiya. tu kah de maiN aa raha hooN. aaja. tu aaajaaa...[farsi lines of amir khusru: ba-labam raseedah janam, tu baya ke zindeh maanam; pas az aaN ke man na maanam, bah cheh kaar khwaahi aamad*] tu aa na ya Allah. aa jaa naa. is des pe karam kar de.

do it O Allah. do it. o please do it, o Allah. dooo it. we don't deserve, still do it o Allah. do it. just say that you have done it. say that you have done it. proclaim that i am coming. come. please come.

my life has come to my lips (i am going to die/jaaN ba lab as we say in urdu)
come, and make me live
and if you come after i am gone
what use is your coming?​

O Allah, come please. come. have mercy on this country.

----
@6:56: maydan e mahshar meiN jab tu uThayega, jab teri dozakh aayegi, teri jannat aayegi, tuu aayega, tera arsh aayega.

when you raise us on the Plains of Assembly [on judgement day], when your hell will come, when your paradise will come, when you will come, your Throne will come.

-----
@8.53: sab se raazi ho ja. ho jaana ya Allah. aaj kahdey maiN ho gaya huN. kah dena ya Allah. kah de ya Allah. kah de maiN raazi ho gaya huN. kah dena ya Allah. jaise bacha maN ka daman pakaD leta hai kahta hai "nahin choRun ga, nahin choRun ga" hum bhi tera dar nahiN choReN ge, nahin choRen ge. tu kah dena maiN razi ho gaya huN. kah dena ya Allah. kah diya hoga tu ne; kah diya hoga; kah diya hoga.

be pleased with every one. be please O Allah. today, say that you are pleased. say so O Allah. say O Allah. say that i am pleased. say so O Allah. just like a child grabs the mantle of his mother and says: 'won't let go, won't let go,' we too will not let go of your door, won't let go of your door. say that you are pleased. say so O Allah. you might have already said it. already said so...


------------------------------------------------------------
*farsi (knowing) brothers forgive my poor translation:
ba-labam raseedah jaanam
tu baya ke zindah maanam
pas az aN ke man na maanam
bah cheh kaar khwaahi aamad

my life has come to my lips (i am going to die/jaaN ba lab as we say in urdu)
come, and make me live
and if you come after i am gone
what use is your coming?