excerpts from a work on spiritualism

Blue Color font is by Jaahil with Capital J
Jaahil's Comments is on Post No 7 of this thread

Who are Jahmites ? What are their Aqaids ? is this sect is exists today ? Pls Reply Here

 

the tazkiratu'l awliya'a we have today, has a number of problems. it is not to be trusted except where it is compliant with shariah.

Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

on page 92:

Are these words from the tadhkira, as claimed?

('Shaykh ul Islam' uses A.J Arberry's translation.)

 

as i said, i fail to understand your method; nor can i fathom your comprehension; you grab anything and throw wildly without analysis or deliberation. is the british education system that broken?

---
first, you have to prove that it is HIS kalam. second, you have to prove that he intended what you claim - that you don't understand poetry is obvious. third, you are comparing apples and oranges.

assuming the lines (and your translation) are accurately reported, where does mian sahib talk about the Sifat of Allah? (sift is WRONG; it is sifat or sifah) all we said was that comparing anything in the creation to the Sifaat of Allah is shirk.

where did anyone do takfir for saying that non-prophets can have sifat of prophets? in fact, if you bothered to read alahazrat's lines i have quoted earlier, you would not fail to notice that he says similar. "because, the Seal of Prophets has arrived, you cannot be a prophet." ke khatm is raah meiN Haayil hai yaa ghaws.

this is also from hadith as RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam himself said about sayyiduna `umar raDiyallahu anhu that he would be a prophet if there would be a prophet after him sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

---
anyway, you cannot argue with established aqidah on the basis of poetry. the basic fact you don't seem to understand is that aqidah is established from qur'an and sunnah. indeed, some pious and religious people have said things which may be right in the appropriate context but invalid when stated absolutely. whenever such conflicts arise, there is no question as to what defines faith.

 

Sir AQ I agree with every line you've written above but it was a reference to your earlier post in which you said that , and I paraphrase, 'poetic metaphor is no excuse and the ruling of kufr is given on the literal meaning of the words' etc.

Of course Mian Sahib is not ma'sum. But my point was subtler than that. I wage that if say a scholar or Sufi X that you don't like had written the same words you'd have been up in arms about it!!



I'm not trying to be controversial here, honestly (!), though I do disagree with how on this forum some people, including you, brother quite easily say of XYZ Sunni Sufi Shaykh, 'this is kufr', 'that is kufr' etc. (And I'm not talking of the Dr. here)

 

NJ bro, you are a bizarre piece. I really say this very sincerely to you for your own good.

I don't know Punjabi enough, much less metaphor used in poetry, but I would hazard a guess that he is saying in metaphor that Ghawthe-e-A3zdham inherited from the Prophet, 3alaihis salam, what ever sift and wasf that could be obtained by a non-Prophet, through the prophets granting.

This is the 3aqidah of the entire Ahlus Sunnah including as stated by Ghawth-e-A3azdham himself afaik - to state that ANY non-prophet is equal to a prophet or to state that prophethood can be acquired or obtained is pure apostasy!

This is why even for the greatest mumin Seyyidina Abu Bakr, radi Allahu 3anhu, we use the phrase "afdal al-bashr ba3d al-ambiyaa" (the greatest, most virtuous human after prophets).

Ghawth-e-A3zdham is indeed the apple of our eyes and the Sultan Al-Awliyaa and Qutb Al-Aqtab until Imam Mehdi arrives, but leave alone prophets, his rank is not even equal to sahaba.

This is an 3aqidah of Ahlus Sunnah that -

NO creation of Allah - not even ANY prophet of His - is like Him, be it in His Names, Attributes, Action (not believing in this is kufr)

NO non-prophet - even the greatest of sahaba - are equal to the status of prophets. (not believing in this is kufr)

NO non-sahaba - even the greatest most magnificent of awliyaa - are EVER equal to even the status of the most nominal status sahabi (not believing in this is a severely reprehensible bid3ah)

You should know that people have even fabricated ahadith in history. (TQ is a prime example in these times for attributing to the Prophet, 3alaihis salam, things that he did not do/say)

ONLY the Quran is divinely protected.

A lot of times misprints, tamperings, corruptions, etc have entered into books of Sufis. At other times, common people are just not qualified to understand what they're talking about. At other times, they could have a lapse of the pen. Reading Sufism books or Sufi poetry by oneself, is harmful and dangerous for common folk like us, or useless at best, and that is assuming everything said therein is rightly attributed to some respectable Sunni Sufis!

I tell you again - give up reading poetry and tasawwuf - for it is a nafsanic addiction and very misleading for you - until you go through a basic 3aqidah text with a proper Sunni teacher. And even after that, learn tasawwuf and Sufi poetry under the tutelage of a qualified teacher.

Remember your priorities:

3aqidah

then essential fiqh

THEN tasawwuf and Sufi poetry from PROPER Sunni Sufis like Ala Hazrat.

If you jumble up the priorities, you will ALWAYS find yourself in this confused state that you are in, unsure of what you are talking about, groping in the dark and fumbling on the very basic of 3aqidah points. Not to mention emotionally blackmailing yourself the same way tahiris do to other people, only you don't realise it!

---

Last but not the least, your dare is nonsense! I am in no way stating something against the Sufi saint you mentioned, but Islam is NOT defined by non-prophet big names. People are defined by Islam!

So it is nonsense to say:

Mian Sahib, for all his greatness, does not define Islam and its beliefs.

Islam is commanded by Allah and taught to us by His Prophet.

Furthermore, it is our 3aqidah that -

ANY non-prophet is prone to error, even sahaba.

So it's more nonsense to say or suggest that there could be no error in his works.

After all, the entire ummah agrees that one of Seyyidina Ali and Mu3awiya were upon error in their ijtihad!

 

okay now i am going to hit you with a bouncer! hazrat mian muhammad bakhsh or khaRi Sharif, near Dina, Pakistan is one of the most famous saints in the Punjab and he is respected by both ulema and commoner alike. His masterpiece, Sayf al Malook is considered equal to the Masnavi of Rumi in the Punjabi language and since it was written no Sunni scholar has has ever criticised it.

Here is what Hazrat Mian Sahib Sarkar says in his manqabat (praise) of Ghawth al Azam:

Nanak dadak wallooN uccha, succha hasbooN nasabooN
Nabiya naalooN ghaT na riha, has siftooN, har wasfooN


For those who don't know Punjabi of my region here is the
literal translation:

He is elevated from both his maternal and paternal sides,
his lineage is pure.
He was not less than the Prophets in every attribute (sift)
and quality (wasf)

--

I would dare anyone to make takfir of Mian Sahib or find fault in his kalam
when no scholar has dared in over a century.

 

maybe, maybe not. tahir is not that original anyway. many people in our generation have only heard of sir syed ahmed khan. i happened to read a number of his works recently and was struck by how he sounds (the lofty slogan of 'reform' of a 'squalid and stagnated nation') eeriely similar to sir syed.

i won't be surprised if tahir is knighted in the coming years - particularly if he has become a canadian citizen if the rumours are to be believed.

Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

Those 'titles' were from the american biographical institute whose website says anyone can get any of their certificates or titles on payment of the correct fee!!
It was also used on his book 'Tahir se Qaid e Inqilab tak'

He really is a clown.

 

I'll bet anything that this book is ghost-written too.

Isn't this like what Afghani did? All the miracles in the Quran are really just physical phenomenon whose underlying causes we may find out in due course!

 

there is no conflict at all.

immediately following that section, qaDi iyaD explains what he means. you cannot suffice with mere titles. you will have to read the whole chapter and a few prior and after for the context.

wa billahi't tawfiq.


from the same document you linked.

[FONT=&quot]في بيان أن الله تعالى لا يشبه شيئاً من مخلوقاته[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]قال القاضي أبو الفضل : وفقه الله ، و هأنا أذكرنكتةً أذيل بها هذا الفصل ، و أختم بها هذا القسم ، و أزيح الإشكال بها فيما تقدم عن كل ضعيف الوهم ، سقيم الفهم ، تخلصه من مهاوي التشبيه ، و تزحزحه عن شبه التمويه ، و هو أن يعتقد أن الله تعالى جل اسمه في عظمته و كبريائه و ملكوته ، و حسنى أسمائه ، و علي صفاته ، لا يشبه شيئاً من مخلوقاته ، و لا يشبه به ، و أن ما جاء مما أطلقه الشرع على الخالق و على المخلوق ، فلا تشابه بينهما في المعنى الحقيقي ، إذ صفات القديم بخلاف صفات المخلوق ، فكما أن ذاته لا تشبه الذوات كذلك صفاته لا تشبه صفات المخلوقين ، إذ صفاتهم لا تنفك عن الأعراض و الأغراض ، و هو تعالى ـ منزه عن ذلك ، بل لم يزل بصفاته و أسمائه ، و كفى في هذا قوله : ليس كمثله شيء [ سورة الشورى / 42 ، الآية : 11 ] .
و لله در من قال من العلماء العارفين المحققين : التوحيد إثبات ذات غير مشبهة للذوات و لا معطة عن الصفات .
و زاد هذه النكتة الواسطي ـ رحمه الله ـ بياناً ، و هي مقصودنا ، فقال : ليس كذاته ذات ، و لا كأسمه اسم ، و لا كفعله فعل ، و لا كصفته صفة ، إلا من جهة موافقة اللفظ اللفظ ، و جلت الذات القديمة أن تكون لها صفة حديثة ، كما استحال أن تكون للذات المحدثة صفة قديمة .
و هذا كله مذهب أهل الحق و السنة و الجماعة رضي الله عنهم .
و قد فسر الإمام أبو القاسم القشيري رحمه الله ـ قوله هذا ، ليزيد بياناً ، فقال : هذه الحكاية تشتمل على جوامع مسائل التوحيد ، و كيف تشبه ذاته ذات المحدثات ، و هي بوجودها مستغنية ، و كيف يشبه فعله فعل الخلق ، و هو لغير جلب أنس ، أو دفع نقص حصل ، و لا لخواطر و أغراض وجد ، و لا بمباشرة و معالجة ظهر ، و فعل الخلق لا يخرج عن هذه الوجوه .
و قال آخر ـ من مشايخنا : ما توهمتموه بأوهامكم ، أو أدركتموه بعقولكم فهو محدث مثلكم .
و قال الإمام أبو المعالي الجويني : من اطمأن إلى موجود انتهى إليه فكره ، فهو مشبه ، و من اطمأن إلى النفي المحض فهو معطل و إن قطع بموجود اعتراف بالعجز عن درك حقيقته فهو موحد .

[/FONT]​

 

The actual arabic word used is Sifat in Arabic by Qadi Iyad in his Shifa
http://privat.bahnhof.se/wb449823/00_DATA/Kutub/Arabic/QadiIyad_Shifa-ar.doc

فصل
في تشريف الله تعالى له بما سماه من أسمائه الحسنى و وصفه به من صفاتة العلا
​

how can we compromise between the saying of Qadi Iyad and Ala-Hazrat ?

 

knowledgable members can tell you better; but this deduction is patently flawed. Some attributes are EXCLUSIVE only to Allah (azza wajal); hence it's incorrect to say that except for divinity all attributes are found in the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Rahman, for example, is a name exclusive to Allah (azza wajal) (despite a very common error committed by many in the subcontinent to assume the name of Rahman). Some names like Rauf, Raheem etc. are attributed to the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) but in a sense different from that for Allah (azza wajal). See article for details.

 

also, this is from Qadi Iyad's book Shifa

http://www.dar-sirr.com/Habib/Shifa/shifa_ch3.html

 

I think what NaqshbandiJamaati is saying could be found in books of early sufis, such as Imam Ghazali, Imam Najm uddin Kubra...........

Naqshbandi Jamaati said " that the Prophet attained all of Allah's attributes except divinity ... "

for example Imam Ghazali said "Thus on the one hand the work of the teacher is a (form of] praise to Allah and on the other hand a (form of] stewardship. It is in fact the highest form of stewardship because Allah has bestowed upon the heart of the learned man knowledge, which is His most intimate attribute. Hence the learned man is like the keeper of Allah’s most valuable treasures and has permission to give from them to all who need. What rank is, therefore, higher than that in which the servant is an intermediary between his Lord and his fellowmen, to draw them closer unto Allah and to lead them to Paradise to which the pious repair. May we, through the Grace of Allah, become one of them, and may He bless every chosen servant." http://www.ghazali.org/works/bk1-sec-1.htm


what about Names ? if someone keeps like al-Ali or Al-Malik or al-Mumin what is the ruling on him ? does it also fall under sharing the names & attributes ? if No, why not ?

 

i am just relaying but i swear i have heard Sunni scholars say that the Prophet attained all of Allah's attributes except divinity and that Huzoor Ghawth al Azam attained all the attributes (the word used was 'sift' in both cases) of the Prophet except nabuwwat and risalat.

I doubt that very much - either it was explained incorrectly or you must have misunderstood eg Allah Almighty 'sees' and we also 'see' - that wouldn't constitute shirk as our seeing and Allah Almighty's seeing are two different things even if the same word is technically used and neither the speaker nor the listener would (or should) take it to mean that it is the same thing. Limitation of language is the problem.

 

why then do some of our scholars preach such stuff?! it suggests anyone with a good voice is allowed to preach stuff!!

 

which is shirk.

Allah ek hai; koyi us ka sharik nahiN; na dhat meiN, na Sifat meiN, na af'aal meiN, na aHkam meiN,na asmaa meiN.

Allah is One; He absolutely hath no partner - neither in His Person, nor in His Attributes, nor in His Actions, nor in His Commands, nor in His Names.

----
these are the first lines of bahar e shariat.

wa billahi't tawfiq.

 

please don't consider this as jumping on you. but it is difficult to argue or explain about concepts or issues somewhere midway. my sincere advice to you is to read a book of aqidah like the first part of bahar e shariat or fiqh al akbar or sharh al-aqayid or bad'a al-amali with a teacher.

-----

it is shirk and anybody who believes in this is a mushrik. whether consciously or mistakenly.

alahazrat has said:

uluhiyat nubuwat ke siwa tu
tamam afzal ka qabil hai ya ghaws

nabiy ke qadmoN par hai juz nubuwwat
ke khatm is raah meiN Hayil hai ya ghaws

uluhiyyat hi aHmed ne na paayi
nubuwwat hi sey tu `aaTil hai ya ghaws

SaHabiyyat huwi phir tabayiyyat
bas aagey qadri manzil hai ya ghaws

hazaroN tabiyi se tuu fuzuN hai
woh Tabqah mujmilan faazil hai ya ghaws

----
what alahazrat is saying is that uluhiyyat - meaning every thing related to Divine Names and Attributes - Allah sub'Hanahu wa ta'ala is alone and has no partner. if even a speck from that is attributed to anyone else is shirk.

the first line 'hi' [even] is to compare with RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. the emphasis is on ahmed; that is: "even Ahmed did not get uluhiyyat" meaning, if anyone could get that, he was worthy of it. this is based on the muHal, like the verse says: "if RaHman had a son, i would be the first to worship him."

---
khuda karna hota jo taHtey mashiyyat
khuda ban kar aata yeh bandah khuda ka

if making god was governed by Divine Will
this slave of God would have come as a god.

[in a masterful stroke alahazrat explains the principle that such things are precluded from Divine Will and Divine Power]

----
it should not be read as uluhiyyat hi; meaning, he has everything except uluhiyyat - which is incorrect. for example, take the issue of knowledge of unseen: alahazrat said [paraphrased]: the comparison of the knowledge of the entire creation (including the most knowledgeable in creation sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam) is lesser than that of a billionth part of a drop of water to that of billion oceans - and even here, the comparison is to illustrate the point. because even a billionth part from the knowledge of Allah is infinite, and the knowledge of the entire creation is finite.

so, there is no comparison at all.

---
as for ghaws e a'azam, alahazrat says that he has all admirable qualities except that of a prophet.

and as for his fazilat or superiority, following the ahlu's sunnah, he clearly says that the rank of tabiyin is higher than that of ghaws e a'azam.

---------------------------
thus Allah ta'ala is Alone and hath no partner in anything - whether His Names or His Attributes or His Actions; anyone who attests to the contrary is a polytheist.

laa ilaaha illa Allah, waHdahu la sharika lah.

Allah ta'ala knows best.