Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Aqidah/Kalam' started by Aqdas, Dec 9, 2010.
i have undeleted.
Sultaan Al Asaatiza,
Khayr Al Azkiya,
Mumtaaz Al Fuqaha,
Khaatam Al Fuqaha,
Sayyid Al Mufassireen,
Naa'ib Wa Farzand-e-Sadr Al Shari'ah,
Khaleefa-e-Mufti Azam-e-Hind Wa Haafiz-e-Millat,
Allama Zia Al Mustafa Al Qaadri,
Saabiq Sheikh Al Hadeeth Wa Al Tafseer Wa Sadr Mufti Wa Sheikh Al Jaami'ah, Al Jaami'ah Al Ashrafiah, Mubarakpur!
Daamat Barkaatuh wa Zeeda Majduh Wa Hafizahu Allah Ta'aala!!! Aameen!!
What a brilliant speech on this topic by Muhadith e Kabeer Allama Zia Ul Mustafa
[Damat Barakatuhum Aaliya Al Qudsia]
Imkan Nazir of Prophet [ sal allahu alayhi wa sallam] is muhal bil-dhat.
Please download this seven page pdf ( 3.14 MB) in Urdu to prove the above claim .
Please note: I was unable to upload this file on forum data base, so I uploaded it on mediafire.
Insha Allah if I get time I will translate some points from Imtinaun Nazeer ( persian)written by Imam Fazle Haq Khairabadi al- Chishti [ Rh].
But the 7 pages uploaded will be insha Allah sufficient.
how apposite! they are still at the frontiers of knowledge and yet to enter its space.
sub'HanAllah. in our languages, we call them as people harping at the hawashi, without getting to the main stuff.
It comes out of Duke Islamic Studies Center.
As the university's home page says:
This is pretty much the same service that keller and all the other modern day perennialists provide. More proof that anyone who has a "PhD" from the "Institute of Islamic Studies & Research" or anything that sounds similarly exquisite, at a western university, is simply not to be trusted.
whoever the writer(s) is/are - if this was a high school essay, i would give it an F for factual errors and an F-- for a thorough misunderstanding of everything.
starting with the fact that alahazrat was born in bareilly and NOT rae bareilly and these are two different cities approximately 300 kms apart. like someone not being able to differentiate between california and los angeles.
the paper might look scholarly, (and apparently draws from usha sanyal's paper which is equally ignorant of everything that it attempts to write on: history, language, islam...) but frankly, it is sub-standard, lacks direction and fills gaps in knowledge by figments of a feeble imagination.
my only advice to the author(s) is to learn to use google to check some easily verifiable facts. and of course, read something inside the book than making profound judgements by looking at the cover.
this is similar to a yahoo who sees a child playing with an abacus and then goes to a bookstore and sees the picture of abacus on a book on cryptography and then comes back and writes an elaborate paper on how cryptography is child's play.
Dear Sidi abu Hasan. The link is this.
I am not aware of the mistakes of the authors.Thanking you for your clarifications and kindly excuse me if anything wrong with me.
of what book or article is this extract from?
at the outset, this looks like another elaborate scheme to justify the deobandis. one technique is to replace the well-known name with a lesser or probably unused one. if this be a sunni writer, he ought to learn the ground rules first, before he attempts a defence, if that is what he is trying to do.
the first point is that fallacy of joining bits and pieces to come up with their own conclusions and attributing it to alahazrat. keller did it in his screed and this seems to be another.
even though the author tries to pass off, as if he has read sub'Han as-subbuH (the translation indicates the ignorance of the author) it is plainly obvious that he has not, and if he has, he has not understood it. because his 'conclusions' betray his ignorance of the text.
sub'Han as-subbuH is: glorified is Sub'Han from the ugly flaw of falsehood. not Glorifying the Glorified One Against the Sin of Repulsive Lying. so is sin jaayiz on Allah ta'ala? astaghfirullah wa'l iyadhu billah. so repulsive lying is bad and praiseworthy lying is good and not a flaw?
the other point is the author tries to project this rather insidiously, as if it is an alahazrat vs. deobandis issue and conveniently ignores the fact that it was a mutazili aqidah, long before ismayil dug it out from its forgotten grave (and embellished a rotted corpse that deobandis parade to this day even after ismayil has died and rotted away - mar kar matti mein milgaya) whereas all our sunni imams up until imam abu'l Hasan al-ash'ari himself refuted this odious belief.
simply put, alahazrat is a representative of imam abu'l hasan al-ash'ari and thus the sunni faith; all those who claim falsehood in divine power are representatives of mutazili elders like abu musa al-mardar, al-iskafi and bishr ibn al-mutamir.
you choose who to follow.
yet another point is that of people with only superficial knowledge of the issue (sunni-deobandi differences) and those who cannot even pronounce the names of alahazrat's classy works nor have the depth to recognize his class and meticulousness even in naming his books - acting oh-so-holier-than-thou and criticising him.
here is a question about the book sub'han as-subbuH; the name includes a subtle aqidah point. which is it?
wa billahi't tawfiq.
Competing Conjunctures Of Debates:
COMPETING CONJUNCTURES OF DEBATES: MAWLANA AHMAD RAZA KHAN AND HIS ANTAGONISTS
Mawlana Manzar ul-Islam
The link has already been posted by brother chisti -raza. It is page by page, a total of 337 pages
It would be good to have further information on the categorisation referred to.
Is sh. khayrabadi's book available in Urdu on line? Please post a link.
This is what faqir quoted as a translation of Imam Ahmad Rida's text sidi Sulaiman, which exactly conforms to what you're saying above:
What we need to understand is the second part that faqir is talking about and I have a feeling that it is only going into advanced semantics, as the main point is that which is quoted above, and the same is confirmed by Shaykh Abu Adam.
I think we just need to understand the exact meanings of Imam Ahmad Rida's words in the other part of faqir's translation as below:
As sunnistudent has expounded, muhal shar3iy is further classed into 2 categories:
1) Muhaal bil dhat
2) Muhaal bil ghayr
This is how I see it, Allahu a3lam.
Dear sunnistudent, I highly doubt that is the type of reasoning used by the great scholars mentioned so far in the thread, like Imam Ahmad Rida . . .
The qur'an says that al-Habib sallaLlahu `alayhi wa alihi wa sallam was khatam an-nabiyyiin, and otherwise would be impossible. No one disputes this. What is disputed is whether this is dhati or `aradi. Since it is revelation which informed us of Allah's will regarding this matter, and it could not have been known otherwise for certain, then it is a true case of mustahil `aradi, no? Please do share with me the mistakes in my reasoning, as I can't read the Urdu works.
By the way, I firmly believe imkan al-kadhib is mustahil dhati, in agreement with Sh. Abu Adam's stance, so we won't discuss that in sha Allah.
Equality ( Nazeer) would also imply the position of khatim al nabiyeen and not only the "greatest".
Allah's Kalam is true. Quran says that prophet ( sal allahu alayhi wa sallam) is the khatim al nabyeen.
There can not be any possibility against this.
Imtina-e-Nazir by the great Allamah Fadl-e-Haq Khairabadi - radiAllahu anhu
it is comprehensive and answers all questions on this issue.
as-salamu `alaikum sidi
I had some email correspondence with him after I first heard of this issue. His view is that intrinsically impossible is something that the mind does not accept the existence of, without the need for repeated experiences, or revealed information. It pertains to propositions that are somehow self contradictory in themselves, not something external, like if someone said, "there is a perfectly square circle."
The fact that the Prophet Muhammad is the greatest creation, and that he is the last prophet, is known only by revealed information, otherwise how could we possibly reach such a conclusion? However, once it is known by revelation from Allah, then we know that it is impossible, not intrinsically, but because we have been informed of Allah's decree by Allah Himself, and it is impossible that He should lie, or that His decree should change.
Allaah COULD have decreed for other prophets to exist, and He COULD have made another prophet the greatest. Who or what would have prevented Him? It is just that He has not willed that to be, so it will not be.
He believes that to claim that it is intrinsically impossible is dangerous... You can confirm this with him directly as well, insha'Allah. Whether that corresponds with what sunnistudent is saying I don't know as personally I found his post above confusing.
After seeing shaykh Abu Adam's answer, I think what he said, is the same thing what sunnistudent was trying to say. Allahu a3lam.
This is expounded by the simple aqidah in many Barelwi texts (like all other Sunnis) that nothing is obligatory on Allah. He has sent us prophets purely out of His Mercy. This is mentioned right in the first chapter of Bahar-e-Shari3at on the chapter of aqaid.
a reply I got from shaykh Abu Adam of sunnianswers...
The fact that The Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is the greatest prophet and the last prophet is by Allaah's decree. It is not intrinsically necessary, but dependent upon Allaah's decree. Allaah could have left creating any prophet at all, let alone a best one or a specific one. However, once we know that Allaah has decreed this, by Him telling us, then we know that this is necessary, not intrinsically, but because Allaah's decree does not change, and because Allaah does not lie. I think the issue is straight forward.
If it was intrinsic, then it would either be intrinsic to the Prophet or to Allaah. This would lead to saying that the Prophet is eternal, or that Allaah had no choice but to create him and make him the greatest and last. No Muslim says that. What is intrinsically impossible is that Allaah's will could change or that He could tell a lie.
(i did also get a reply from sh munawwar but don't have permission to post it)
[Nida-e-Haqq (The Voice of Truth)
Maryam Dastagir Qadri
19th Ramadan 1431/30th August 2010
Also why not Allah produce a son so that Christian belief is justified?