examining the christmas speech of prof.tahir, leader of minhaj

[these are on the fly translations, so please forgive any errors]

in sirah ibn hisham, it is slightly different; but in stark contrast to the picture dawud's translation (his own or by quote) presents

-------------
in a lengthy hadith narrated by umm salamah (one of the migrants and eyewitnesses to the event); in sirat ibn hisham, vol.1/pg.363 (in a copy i am reading from)

and she [umm salamah] said:
najashi asked: 'do you have anything from what has come to him (RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam) from Allah?'

she said: ja'afar told him: "yes"

najashi said: "the recite it to me"

she said: [ja'afar] recited the first part of kaaf-haa-yaa-ayn-saad (surah maryam).

she said: by Allah, najashi wept until his beard was wet. and the priests [or bishops*] near him also wept until their books were wet - when they heard what [ja'afar] recited.

najashi, then said: 'verily, this and what yisa (alayhi's salam) brought emanate from the same niche; go forth! by Allah! i will never hand you over to the two emissaries.'


she said: when they [the party of arabs - migrants and the two agents of quraysh] went out of najashi's court, amr ibn al-aas said:"by Allah, i will do something tomorrow, by presenting from them something, such that i will attain their influence'

she said: abdullah ibn rabi'ah said to amr and among the two, he feared more for us (cared for us): "don't do it, because they are our relatives, even if they oppose us."

[amr said]: "by Allah, i will inform them that these people claim that yisa ibn maryam is a slave (of Allah)"

she said: on the following morning, [amr said to najashi]: 'o king. they say a grave thing about yisa ibn maryam; send for them and ask them what they say about him'

she said: [najashi] sent for them to ask them about this.

she said: and nothing like this had befallen us prior to this. [such a precarious situation] so the group of refugees gathered and huddled together. and began asking each other: 'what will you say about yisa ibn maryam if najashi asks you about him?'

and they all said: 'by Allah! we shall say, what Allah ta'ala has said about him. and that which was brought to us by our prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. WHATEVER HAPPENS HAPPENS."

and when they entered, he asked: 'what do you say about yisa ibn maryam?'

she said: ja'afar ibn abi Talib said: 'we say that which was brought to us by our prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam: he is the slave of Allah ta'ala, His messenger, His spirit, and His word - that he put in the virgin and chaste mariam.'


she said: najashi slapped the ground and picked up a cane and said: "by Allah, yisa ibn maryam does not exceed more than this cane's length from what you have described."
​

-----
notice that muslims should say what has been taught to us by our nabiy and speak the Haqq. notice the reluctance of the sahabah and their pointed refusal to compromise: WHATEVER HAPPENS, HAPPENS.

this is the lesson taught to us, by a besieged, harassed and cornered group of saHabah- in front of a king who could as well have executed them. but they did not waver from their islam.

so where was the group of christians who are tahir's brothers and sisters holding a gun to his head?

----
but what is more interesting is that the first part that mentions sayyiduna yisa, in the surah maryam: [it is obvious from the narration that imam ja'afar reached up until the mention of sayyiduna yisa].

 

zad al-ma'ad:

saith/quoth dawud below:

here is a translation:

the muhajirs (migrants) then proceeded to the kingdom of aS'Hamah an-najashi in safety. when the quraysh (kafirs) came to know about this, they sent on their heels, abdullah ibn abi rabi'ah and `amr ibn al-aaS with gifts and presents from their country (arabia) to al-najashi so that he may return these refugees.

[al-najashee] refused to return them. so the (representatives of quraysh) sought the influence of the senior priests of his church; but najashi did not accept their request. so the began to insinuate and say: "these (muslims) say a very grave thing about yisa (alayhi's salam)," "they say, that yisa (alayhi's salam) is a slave of Allah"

so al-najashi summoned the migrants (muhajirin) to his court, and ja'afar ibn abi Talib was at their head. when they wanted to enter, ja'afar said: "the group of Allah seeks your permission to enter."

(al-najashi) told the usherer: "tell him to repeat his asking the permission".

so (ja'afar) asked his permission again (in the same words).

when they entered, he (al-najashi) asked: 'what do you say about yisa?'(alayhi's salam)

so ja'afar recited the first part of the surah kaf-ha-yaa-ayn-saad (surah maryam).

so najashi picked up his cane (on the ground) and said: 'yisa (alayhi's salam) was not more than this (the description of the qur'an) and does not exceed (from the description of the qur'an) even the length of this cane.

the priests grunted (their disapproval)

najashi said: 'even if you grunt (the truth is as has been said)'

and then said: 'go, you are given sanctuary in my lands; whosoever insults you will be penalized.' (he used the word sayum and sayum in the language of the eithiopians means 'given sanctuary')

and he told the two emissaries (of the quraysh): 'even if you gave me a mountain of gold, i would not return (the muslim refugees) to you.

and then he ordered their gifts be returned, which were returned and both of them came back humiliated.
​

------------------------
notice that the priests got angry, and it was because muslims daringly told the truth. they did not try to be diplomatic and tell half truths.

and even if they did, this was a difficult time for muslims; in a strange land, oppressed, pursued and in a precarious position. is the minhaji telling us that tahir qadri is in such a situation?

plus, imam ja'afar recited the qur'an and told them: this is our religion. he didn't say - al-iyadhubillah - what the enlightened professor does. laa Hawla wa laa quwwata illa billah.

 

the latest post - obviously by a tahiri/minhaji - attempts to exonerate tahir and his unislamic actions. unfortunately, the cure he proposes is worse than the original malady.

i clicked the link for the video and apparently, it is from some movie. i didn't even watch it - this is the minhaji tradition and the level of proofs. you should die of embarrassment.

come fair, is this your own audacity or egged by your minhaji cult leaders? i wouldn't be surprised if such a rakeek proof came from their leader himself.

----
in other words, whatever the nabiy sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam permitted - is deemed fit for tahir/minhajis to do without any qualification; which would include:

- not praying five times
- permitting drinking wine when not going to pray
- allowing mushrikin to go inside haram (because it wasn't prohibited in the sadr al-awwal)

----
i will not elaborate on that but rather examine the quotes you have produced.

in zad al-ma'ad, the narration is not like what has been quoted. this translation is skewed to show as if the muslims tried to act diplomatically, whereas the opposite is the case.

in fact, the translation is from ibn hisham's sirah (which i will translate inShaAllah) and nowhere is the mention of 'son of god'. this is the translators own comments interspersed.

just wait for both translations and you will see how people throw names expecting nobody to check.

wa billahi't tawfiq.

 

The Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) instructs his followers to migrate to the Ethiopian Aksumite Empire under the just rule of the Christian Ethiopian emperor Aṣḥama ibn Abjar?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pSxBvUle-A

According to Ibn Hisham,
[...]
al-Najashi and the priests in his court were greatly affected by the touching verses that they began to shed tears. And so, al-Najashi firmly denied Amr's request to be handed the Muslim refugees. The very next day, Amr tried to play a trick, in order to sow dissension between al-Najashi and the Muslim refugees. Amr was greatly distressed, and promised Ja`far and other Muslims that he's going to cause a great schism between them and King Ashama. Amr arrived the next day at the court of Ashama, and demanded in his presence that the Muslims make known their creed about Jesus.

This was a difficult situation because Jesus is not considered as the son of God in the Qur'an, and that was expected to greatly enrage a devout Christian like King Ashama. To this, he explained that Jesus is considered in Islam to be a messenger of God, the word of God, and the miraculously born son of the Virgin Mary.

In reply to this statement, King Ashama made a line on the sand with his mace and said,

"By God, Jesus is not more than what you have described him. By God, I will never give you up to anyone."
He then declared that Muslims could live in Abyssinia for as long as they wished for. According to Muslim tradition, it is during this situation that King Ashama converted to Islam.

In a letter from the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) to Negus, king of Abyssinia (Ethiopia), Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) invites Negus and his men to follow his message and believe in Allah.
See (Ibn al-Qayyim - Zad al-Ma'ad 3/60).


When this letter was presented to Negus, he took the parchment and placed it on his eye, descended to the floor, confessed his faith in Islam. He then responded to the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) acknowledging him as the Messenger of Allâh and surrendering himself "through him to the Lord of the worlds."
See: (Ibn al-Qayyim - Zad al-Ma'ad 3/61)


I wonder How do the Muslims of this Forum, plan to invite the Christians for a dialogue?

 

This is a excellent refutation and needs to be spread everywhere, if you can brother Abu Hasan please get it on the main page as a article. The video has been downloaded, if we highlight it they will claim copyrights and get rid of it. Also INSHALLAH will tell some Brothers to get this on Youtube as a video, only the text will do but it is important to get it on youtube as a video.

 

Excellent post Brother Abu Hasan and Jazak Allah for this detailed refutation. Dr Sahib was even listening to the Christmas song. I have heard one mufti sahib has given a fatwah of kufar on him regarding this video, minhaj ul quran complained to the police and the mufti sahib has been arrested. Pir Abdul Qadir has joined up with him now, so both of them are in the same boat. Pir Abdul Qadir was lacking support from Sunni Ulema so he joined with Minhaj ul Quran.

 

I will try to locate the DVD and upload its contents somewhere. There was also another DVD which is in English by some scholar in South Africa but I do think that Mufti Ghulam Sarwar's one was very detailed.

 

no .

 

The late Mufti Ghulam Sarwar compiled an excellent DVD resource some years ago on the professor wherein his statements were shown in their original publications and analysed in detail. Brother abu Hasan, have you watched it?

 

apologies for the unfinished sentence.

-----
b) by claiming that the nature of both programmes is the same, he trivializes the difference between us and christians. this, he also does when he insists on our 'common ideas'. be it known that a fundamental principle of christianity is:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. [John 3:16]
​

i have cited this from the KJV - even though modern versions omit the word 'begotten'. sub'Hanahu `an yakuna lahu walad.

----
Allah ta'ala says:

 

well, this is very dangerous territory. there are kufriyat in plenty. and i do not know how tahir will escape the hukm of kufr even if he tries the lexical card.

i suppose, a proper petition should be made to ulama around the world putting things in context and then get their legal opinion before calling him a kafir/murtadd. this, i hesitate not because i have any doubt in the kufr of what he has uttered,* but rather fearing that if there is a possibility of interpreting things in a way he could escape takfir, we do not want to be in a spot ourselves. ismayil and co., devbandi4, and many others were not ruled kafir overnight (let alone in a matter of hours); ulama deliberated upon it and only when they found no plausible excuse, they ruled them kafir.

we should forward the clip (either the video or the sound clip) to prominent ulama - who should make their ruling and then translate it in arabic for attestations by arab ulama.

the query - or the fatwa - should have adequate background of the event, of the speech of tahir and what follows after (and tahir's own permission for such things).

----
points of objection:
- inviting christians for christmas under the banner of qur'an;

- praising them and sayyiduna yisa in a way that pleases christians;
not saying the whole truth and carefully limiting to: 'one is not a muslim if he doesn't believe in sayyiduna yisa alayhi's salam;' and that he becomes a kafir if he doesn't believe in him even if he prays and does everything else. this will have bearing further down when he talks about christians not being kafir.

- calling them brothers and sisters;
though intensely disliked if it was merely political 'bros&sis' , another point below drags this to perilious grounds

- claiming that all are believers - muslims, christians and jews
that are all believers and emphasises that they are not KAFIRS! in other words, tahir is conscious of the sharayi meaning of kafir (that those who go to hell) when he says about one rejecting sayyiduna masiH alayhi's salam. and following up with jews, christians are NOT kafirs makes both statements uglier than if they were totally independent statements:

a) when he says believers, he is not talking about the tame literal meaning of 'believer' as opposed to atheists who are 'disbelievers';

b) because, in context, he is talking about those who are kafirs in the sharayi sense: because one who disbelieves in only sayyiduna masiH alayhi's salam is a KAFIR, even though he believes in everything else. so atheists are ruled out.
​

- to be pleased with the worship of christians /
kuffar ki ibadat se raazi hona;

- with happiness congratulating christians on celebration of their religious holiday.
the lame excuse that will be touted here is: celebration of sayyiduna yisa's birthday is of import to us muslims too. yet, christians do not celebrate this birth as the day a messenger was born who invited towards tawhid - but rather, the day - according to them - the son of god was born; al-iyadhu billah. so this is congratulating them on their shirk. given that it is their most important holiday, it is showing respect to the symbols (shi'ar) of kuffar.

- to equate miladu'n nabiy with a holiday of the kuffar;
how different is this from gangohi's 'similar to kanhayya's birthday'? the difference is, that the former claims the similarity to reject milad - and the latter claims similarity to attest christmas

indeed, it may be of importance to christians, but why should you - who claim to be a muslim - insist and elucidate on this being similar? by doing so, he makes two mistakes:

a) indirectly disrespecting the birth of the habib sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam - and its maqasid (which may be uninintentional, but a grave blunder nevertheless): the objective of milad is to remember the Rasul alayhi's salatu wa's salam and to encourage following him and strive to establish tawHid - the single most important lesson taught by all messengers. alayhimu's salatu wa't taslim. so the celebration of milad of habib sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is a call for tawHid - tahir's claim opposes this view, albeit indirectly.

b) claiming that the nature of both programmes is the same, he
​

- respecting and honoring religious leaders of kuffar and thereby showing respect to their religion. [respect as in revering it; not as in tolerance]. it is written in various places in al-iylam that 'reverence to other religions is kufr.' note that this is not related to tolerance of christians; considering them kafir, but still living together with them in peace, as we should in this world giving their due rights as humans etc.

- according to tahir, then, qadiyanis are 'believers'. this is again an implied meaning (but tahir's reasoning will be questioned) because, they neither reject heavenly books, nor yisa alayhi's salam (except that the murtadd insults the nabiy ma'Sum alayhi salam; may Allah ta'ala humiliate and obliterate the enemies of prophets.) in addition to adding another nabiy after the seal of nabiyyin ala nabiyyina wa ala aalihi afdalu's salatu wa atamm at-taslim.

- clubbing muslims, jews and christians in one group:
it is said in al-iylam of al-haytami: in some fatawa it is said: if a person says: "christian woman is better than a magian woman," he is ruled a kafir; but if he says: "magian woman worse than the christian woman," he won't be ruled kafir. nawawi said: the correct position is: a person's saying "christian woman is better than the magian woman" won't be ruled kafir unless he means to say that 'she is on the right path'.

tahir bends over backwards with wordplay and statements open to interpretation - yet, puts muslims in the same bracket as christians and jews and calls them 'believers' as opposed to 'kafirs'.


- the blatant lie - attributed to the qur'an - in classification of believers and non-believers.
tahir says that, according to the qur'an (by his emphasis that in the qur'an ahl e kitab have different ahkam and kuffar have different ahkam):

a) believers are of two kind,(ahl e iman are of two kind): ahl e islam and ahl e kitab.

b) and emphasising that believers (i.e, muslims, jews and christians) are separate from kuffar.
​

whereas, the well-known aqidah and ijma'a is:

a) there are muslims (ahl e iman) and kuffar.

b) kuffar are divided in two kinds: ahl-e-kitab, and those without kitab (like hindus, majus, atheists et al.)
​

the sleight of tongue is, tahir imagines that by using 'believers' in one sentence and 'ahl e iman' in another, or by saying it in third-person "it is thus classified," he can dodge ahkam by claiming 'after i don't say this'.

he will still have to confront with 'urf and the context of what was said - even if it is done by actions and not words. just as takfir is not given on mere words - nor does hiding behind lexical eccentricities save one from takfir. the whole speech will be taken in context: of appeasing christians and trivializing the differences between islam and christianity.

- allowing them to pray in masjids without any condition or restraint, to please them
this carte blanche is not out of political necessity; or because of duress due to living in a non-muslim country. but rather, tahir insists that it is with full pleasure and not borne out of any other reason (and his iman he says) - which is a major kufr: indicating he has no objection for someone to remain in a state of kufr by allowing them to pray in our masjids alongside muslims praying. and he says: 'forever - abadu'l abaad' and foolishly so, because forever after, is only in heaven or hell, but it is silly to quibble at such small things in big picture.

- and to repeatedly say that the masjid is the very own house of christians:
though an excuse for this could be found that he is saying minhaji house is a christian house and not referring to the baytu'llah which is only for muslims.

aqulu qawli haadha wa astaghfirullah li wa li'l muslimin.

*actually, urdu has a more strong word for it: jo us ne baka hai.

 

Brother Abu Hasan watch this video of Dr Tahir ul Qadri Sahib, I don't think you have saw this. He classes Christians and Jews believers like Muslims, if I am not wrong. I would be really happy to see your reply on this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M8ZksY4JuU

 

minhaju'l qur'an should not be considered a sunni organization, nor its leader a sunni leader. obviously he is a politician who is happy with any color.

among all things, under the banner of qur'an, inviting christian priests and standing in prayer with them when he invokes the trinity - sub'HanAllah. is this what the qur'an taught us?