he is just fooling the host and common people. it is a simple and generic slogan that applies to all who were among the companions, nobody can deny that every sahabi is jannati. he should point out who is not a sahabi, and bring his proof, as long as we consider someone a sahabi then we will also apply the ruling that he is a jannati because every companion is a jannati. what makes him squirm when there is no mention of any specific sahabi? just because in their rotten hearts they believe that some well-known sahaba were not among the companions, and because of this disease they reject sahih ahadith and cast doubt in the meaning of Quran based on their own fancy? May Allah guide these juhala.
the jahil has drawn circles around himself by bringing in munafiqeen, just as the rawafid like him always do mentions people whose janazah Prophet 3alaihis salam prayed, they're confirmed as believers. so what's his ruling on ibn ubay?
Hāfiz ibn Hajar Ásqalānī writes: 'According to my research, the most correct opinion is: whoever met RasulAllah ﷺ in the state of īmān, and died as a Muslim, such a person is a companion. Whether he acquired companionship for a long time or a short while, narrated any hadith or not, went with him ﷺ on any expedition or not, saw RasulAllah ﷺ just once and did not sit near him and even if he did not see RasulAllah ﷺ due to blindness - all such persons are companions.' - al-Isābah, 1:4-5
This guy is just trying to wind you all up for the sake of it. Basir has it got boring in Bradford? Go campaign for siti naz shah if you need a new hobby
sharh al kabir of shaykh sayid foudeh, p.1268-1273: ================================================================================= ================================================================================= ================================================================================= ================================================================================= =================================================================================
where is amidi, and what about ibn hajar and khiDr? all i asked you was in which book and which subki. i was only trying to get you to cite it properly.there is no need to get upset. ----- trivia: incidentally, al-ibhaj fi sharh al-minhaj is a composition of both father and son. mawlana taqiyuddin subki wrote a sharh until section3-article3 of minhaj; and his son qadi al-qudat tajuddin subki continued from there onward. another interesting tidbit about this is that most manuscripts, where tajuddin al-subki starts where his father left off says referring to his father: "may Allah ta'ala give benefit to muslims by giving him a long life and aid him and extend it by His Divine Aid, and make his benefit everlasting. aameen.." further he says: 'my father, may Allah ta'ala give him a long life'. indicating that he completed the commentary in the lifetime of his father. tajuddin subki himself has said that he completed the commentary in 752 AH; and his father taqiyuddin subki passed away in 756 AH.
so what is the cambridge version of allamah and imam and muhaddith among other alqab? it is mulla ali al-qari, not the anglicised word mullah, which is anyway corrupted form of mulla even if it is accepted in english lexicon. so khawarizmi should be algorithm and makkah should be mecca when writing in english.
imam nawawi said that it was a weak narration coming from sayid ibn al-musayyib. he even doubts whether it can be attributed to sayid ibn al-musayyib; if it is indeed so, then the route of narration is weak as explained by suyuti. ----- in its commentary, suyuti in tadrib al-rawi says: 2/123
as aqib sahib has clarified, passing away is not equal to dead. because, we believe that RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is alive; and we also believe that it is possible to see him SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam in a wakeful state. so do those who see him in a wakeful state become Sahabah? this is what it means (see awn al-murid below) when we say "during his life in this world". ----
hey! you are back again without any improvement. did you provide translation of your quote in that thread? the mouse has gone to the hole but the monkey is out.
the way you talk shows that you are a slippery fish (chikni machhli); a guy who takes off to another tangent, and the debate to another topic. "have passed" is NOT equal to "dead" for the anbiyaa. you don't seem to understand even basic English. where did abu Hasan even hint that the anbiyaa are not alive after having tasted death? or is it that you believe that the Prophets have not even tasted death?
Are we back again to street talk bhai, you did this with Mullah Ali Qari ; oh yes, it is Mullah with H in english just like Caliph; As for Subki, you seem to never had any systematic education but good at random cut and paste without even understanding what you are posting as you demonstrated in previous thread on language of jannah and yet you have the audacity to make ad hominen attacks on me, quite nefarious bhaiyyah. Abu Hasan, you have a very similar logic and reasoning or I should say way like waHHabis. astagfirullah, precisely wahhabi and devbandi line of reasoning. al-anbiyâ'u aHyâ'un fi qubûrihim yuSallûn =The Prophets are alive in their graves, praying to their Lord and this proven from Quran
