Imran Hosein denying quran

the imbecile is a zindiq.

problem with most preachers and speakers - one gram of reading and ten tonnes of blurting.

 

none possible as far as i'm concerned. he's a pathological jahil and a psychotic megalomaniac who can't foray out of his rubbish theories. no excuse for his riddah unless a Ottoman era qadhi qualified in diagnosing mental illnesses can declare him majnoon! too bad we don't live in those times.

 

https://imranhosein.org/o/the-turki...with-enough-love-to-last-until-the-great-war/

An old article where Imran Hosein says:

I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the martyrs (shuhada) in that battle of 1452 were not those misguided Muslims who died while conquering Constantinople. Rather, the martyrs (Shuhada) were those brave Orthodox Christians who died while defending Constantinople.

What kind of ta'weel will people give for this statement?

 

Not only did Imran Hussain refuse to call orthodox Christians as disbelievers, he compounded his kufr by calling it 'foolishness'. As for the baatil ta'weel from AR, that's something I would have expected from hamza yusuf instead. The same hamza yusuf who can't make takfeer of the perennialists because of their 'ta'weel ba'eed' as he calls it.

I think Asrar Rasheed needs to reconsider this video he's made where he seems unable to make takfeer based on clear cut issues of those matters necessarily known from the religion. When you can't make takfeer of someone who claims what Imran Hussain has claimed, who can you make takfeer of exactly?

 

https://x.com/ridawipress/status/1791890769298497614

 

It doesn't make sense to say there is a doubt re IH on the matter of the qiraa'ah for the following reasons:

1. IH has studied and his study is proven by the fact that he found the shaadh recitation in the first place.

2. He mocks those who believe in the mutawaatir recitations contained in the mushafs and memorised by the huffaaz throughout history

3. If zayd who has grown up reciting warsh all his life, doesn't know anything about the 10 recitations... And he sees a mushaf which says 'Maalik' instead of 'Malik' in Al Faatiha and he believes this to be a mistake. He has grown up with a mutawaatir recitation so he has firm belief in using the word 'Malik'. If he believes the Hafs mushaf to have a mistake because he hasn't been taught this and doesn't know about the Ahruf etc, then of course you wouldn't make takfeer of such a person.

But when all mutawaatir recitations contain a certain wording and IH rejects all of them in their entirety, even the one he grew up reciting and all of them being known around the world... And in his old age, he settles for a shaadh recitation instead and claim the other mutawaatir recitations are all incorrect... Zayd and IH are not doing the same thing.

Of course IH has committed disbelief for rejection of every single mass transmitted recitation of the Quran, claiming that all mushafs that exist in the world today are wrong and all huffaaz in the world today are wrong and all ulema in the world today are wrong. You can't apply a type of uzhr bil jahl principle to IH here because he's not only believing in one mutawaatir qiraa'ah over another whilst not understanding the concept of Ahruf. He's rejecting them all outright.

 

no sir.

however, i have husn az-zann for Asrar Rashid. the problems with these zanadiqa and murtads is that their ideas are buried under verbosity and pot stirring.

so Shaykh Asrar could have easily missed it. the murtad himself left no room for that kind of tawil you allude to

Dilly @ 40:25: Do you consider eastern orthodox christians kuffar?

Imran @ 40:30: Do I consider eastern orthodox christians... [probably didn't hear well]

Dilly @ 40:33: kuffar - nonmuslims.

Imran @ 40:35: at fault?

Dilly @ 40:36: no, nonMuslims - disbelievers - kuffar!

Imran @ 40:39: [emphatically] i'm not a fool! no, i'm not a fool! how could i consider the orthodox christians to be non ... to be kuffar?

Dilly @ 40:50: Because of the trinity, because of the divinity they apply to 3isa 3alaihis salam.

Imran @ 40:54: Well we have to spend a lot of time...

Dilly @ 40:56 [interjecting imran]: ... for rejecting the Prophet sal Allahu 3alaihi wa sallam

Imran @ 40:57: we don't have that time... we don't have that time. i've devoted quite some time on wednesday night and that lecture is going to be on the internet soon, in which i spent some time which Surat Ar-Rum to refute this falsehood... [emphatically] to refute this total falsehood that these are all kuffar... all the christians are kuffar. I AM. NOT. A FOOL. if fools want to believe in that, let them go with their foolishness... no, Suratur-Rum.....

to anyone who has passed state board level english in india, let alone people raised in UK, that conversation and context leaves zero room for tawil.

 

https://www.youtube.com/live/gufppMEIglI

At 1 hrs 1 min Shaykh Asrar says to imran hosein he's not making takfir. his comment casting aspersion on the protection of the Quran warrants nothing other than takfeer. Notwithstanding that according to fuqahaa, he'd have been takfeered ages ago for outright denial of matters of ijma3.

What about his denial of orthodox christians as being kuffar?

 

imran hosein is a murtad and a zindiq and a colossal jahil.

 

the zindiq-jahil-ghabi-khabeeth cannot pronounce the qur'an properly but he seeks to 'correct' mistakes.

 

this is the objectionable part from the zindiq's deranged rambling in october 2021:

@ 1:04:32
and it is in suratu'z zukhraf [sic]. and remember when Allah sent down the quran, he sent it down as...qur'an meaning a recitation. the original qur'an which is sent down was a recitation... ya'ni ya'ni kaan ki baat... something that was located in the world of sound. that is the qur'an. located in the world of sound. and subsequently, nabi muhammad alayhi's salatu was salam ordered that it should be inscribed. and the scribes will recite for him and he will listen. he would not read to confirm. because he couldn't read. he would listen to confirm what they had written is correct. and when they wrote, they didn't write with fat'hah and kasrah and dammah. no. the arab doesn't need that. these are called diacritical marks. fat'hah and kasrah and dammah. and this was inserted into the written text of the qur'an years and years and years afterwards. there was no qur'an. none with fat'hah and kasrah and Dammah.

@1:06:07
it is only when non-arabs entered into islam in large numbers and they did not have arabic as their language, that you had to insert - human beings..not angels [aH note: the zindiq grimaces like a devil here]. woh farishtay nahin kiya..[translation:"angels did not do this"]. human beings and these human beings put in the fat'Hah and kasrah and Dammah. and sometimes the same one can be written different ways. heh.. heh.. and here is one example: Allah says in the qur'an: in the qur'an in surat al-zukhraf [sic] about nabi yisa alayhis salam: "wa innahu la-álamu'n li's sāáh" and he is the sign of the last Hour. this makes perfect sense. he is the sign of the last Hour. and this is what nabi muHammad alayhi's salatu wa's salam said.

but someone putting the diacritical marks, instead of álamun, ayn-alif, laam-alif...nun..er...Dammah - "álamun" - put "ílmun" instead of alam. ayn kasra [the zindiq gestures with his hand]. peysh. zeyr-zabar-peysh. in urdu... zabar-zeyr-peysh...haan...zeyr. instead of Dammah...sorry..instead of kasrah..i don't know the urdu terms...so they make it: 'wa innahu la-ílmu'n li's sāáh"...and he is the knowledge of the Hour...

excuse me. even a schoolboy would know. that if he is the knowledge of the Hour...then we hav..are excused...from coming to the conclusion that the knowledge of the Hour is with him. how can he be the knowledge of the hour - he doesn't have the knowledge of the hour. did you understand?

@1:08:47
you say: he is the knowledge of the hour and he doesn't have the knowledge of the hour. yeh kyaa bewakoofi hai..heh..heh..heh [translation: what stupidity is this?] so if you insist that he is the knowledge of the hour, then you have to concede that he has the knowledge of the hour. otherwise we should all go back to school... we can't think. but Allah says: no one has the knowledge of the Hour...none except Him.

@1:09:21
and in the gospel..up to this day, the gospel says..only the father has the knowledge of the hour, even the son does not...heh heh heh...[cackling]. so someone...did some... you know...daal mein kuch kaala hai [translation: something fishy here]...someone did that with these diacritical marks. and this is wrong. the qur'an does not have any mistake. all of these critics will come shouting from the... look at imran hossein saying the qur'an has mistakes in it...tell these schoolboys go and... get some rest...

i am not saying there is a mistake in the qur'an. so don't be..don't..tell lies against me. i am saying human beings when they put in the diacritical marks, made a mistake here. maybe it was done deliberately, maybe it was done accidentally. and the verse says: wa innahu la alamun li's sa'ah. and he is the sign of the Hour. and NOT that he is the knowledge of the Hour.

[transliterated until @1:10:33]


​

 

In this video, he has arrogantly confirmed his riddah

1. he has denied orthodox christians as being kuffar

2. he has doubled down on his jahalah and riddah regarding the verse of Surah Zukhruf

 

yes. see the verse below.

it is kufr to believe that hell fire will be extinguished.

wa la yafna'l jahimu wa la'l jinanu
wa la ahluhuma ahlu'ntiqali

from badyi'l amali:





imam subki's book: al-iytibar bi-baqa al-jannati wa'n naar.

 

Regarding this topic, is it kufr to believe that Hazrat Isa Alayhis Salam was crucified?

Recently, Shaykh Hasan Spiker was on with Dr. Shadee, and he states that it is not kufr to believe that Hazrat Isa Alayhis Salam was crucified but it is a mistake or wrong position to believe it since there can be evidence to interpret it differently. See 1:37:36



Additionally, Spiker echoes similar sentiments regarding the hell fire in which he states Ibn Arabi held the position that the hellfire would be cooled, although Spiker does not hold this position. Is this kufr or is it a mistaken belief to hold this position, if as Spiker states, is proven by evidence which prevents the accusation of heresy? See 1:43:14

 

https://hijrahpress.com/library/history-of-tashkil/

 

I'm not saying he himself believed it - but he did argue that the Bible can be read to state he was crucified but not killed. There are numerous videos of his to that effect and I skipped through one not so long ago.

As mentioned in my previous post- I believe it was a ridiculous strategy in the first place. And zakir and Co have taken the baton and run with it. Indeed, zakir and shabir also refer to the same verse to say he was not crucified- but they change the meaning of the term 'crucified' to mean death on the cross. Therefore, they say he alayhissalaam did not die on the cross but he alayhissalaam lost consciousness there.

 

No, that's wrong.

Ahmed Deedat did not believe or preach that. Many places and lectures he recited 4:157 and asserted that Sayyiduna 3isa 3alaihis salam was neither crucified nor killed by another method.