I suppose one meaning which could be taken is that humans have always existed and will always exist in the All-Encompassing and Complete Knowledge of Allah. When there was none except Allah, you and I (and the rest of mankind) existed in the Knowledge of Allah. I have no love for Mawlana Nazim (due to his antics) but I personally feel his words could be stretched to fit this meaning.
on the same page, he commits another atrocity: "When people come to this world, they have the appearance of beginning, but in reality they were with Allah always, without beginning."
i was reading nazim qubrusi's book, here. on p.13, he says about Allah ta'ala: He is king. And yet you cannot find a king without a kingdom. Without subjects his kingship has no meaning. Just as there can be no meaning for a prophet without an ummah (nation). Therefore, Allah was ready without beginning, and his servants also were ready without beginning. If there were no people, to whom was He Allah? Was it to Himself? No! A hadith relates: "I was a secret treasure and wanted to be known." His people were part of this treasure." --- why's he saying people are qadeem?
'spiritual' states can be manufactured too by the way - something somewhat related - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21479399 if that's not enough, shaytan too can help in changing many states to his advantage. that is why shias too claim such, as do jewish 'mystics', as do hindu jogis and so forth every one can have a spiritual state or induce it into someone else too. it means nothing. dajjal will induce such "states" into people that men will have to lock their women up so that they do not leave home to follow him any state not accompanied by the right manhaj of the Ahlus Sunnah, is simply destruction
for the brothers who don't know this man, their maximum effort for husn az-zdhann is respectable, but we can't unknowingly let sloppiness or stupidity pass for husn az-zdhann again - this guy consciously traveled from the Turkish part of cyprus to the UN marked buffer zone to see the pope. you need to plan, coordinate and execute something like that including all sorts of government permissions and paperworks. such a meeting requires planning from both sides. the pope's visit to cyprus was planned. in order for this so-called wali to be able to meet him, he and his people would have first had to take an appointment or at least just contact their brothers from the vatican's troupe (in case they didn't do these arrangements even before his arrival); and then they'd also have to deal with the legal hassles of dealing with government paperwork and getting through the UN checkpoints. please don't take my word for it. do some research on the island of cyprus, what is the Turkish controlled part (unrecognized by the world other than Turkey & Pakistan); what is the greek controlled part; and what is the UN green line or buffer zone; and what are the legal and official requirements for someone from one side to travel to the other side or to the UN-controlled buffer zone! a majzub won't be able to fulfill all those legal requirements what's further astonishing is that if he's a majzub, he remembers duniyawi legalities, but not Islamic ones!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ------ it's not about proving a point or winning an argument. it's about a planned effort by these enemies of Allah to try and hurt Islam also note that the only people who visit him or take a khilafah from him, are other die hard christian-lovers themselves, like cardinul tahir and that brother of copts and so on. it is nothing but an organized crime squad. how many respectable shuyukh who maintain wala and bara, hold him in high esteem? i'm not even talking about the "Barelwi" or subcontinental ones. so many Arab, and his own Turkish shuyukh, and other ethnicities too, whose names you won't see popping up on google or youtube, or pretentiously intellectual forums run by "sidis", know this man for what he is and speak against him in their circles. even if someone withholds commenting on him due to lack of information, the minute you mention an episode like this, they lash out in a fury and say this is pure zandaqa
so anyone can do anything and then claim to be a majzoob! ever seen a majzoob respecting a fasiq, leave alone a leader of disbelievers? a real majzoob would very well know the 'spiritual status' of the guy is meeting. and yet if someone thinks Nazim is a majzoob, he should be dumped - not made a peer. which reminds me of a certain majzoob in India who would go about cursing everyone in sight, and remaining semi naked all the time: but when he once saw Huzoor Mufti e Azam Hind (Maulana Mustafa Raza Khan - RAA), he scuttled to hide himself, trying to find anything to cover his body and then stood totally silent, stupefied in awe, unable to lift his gaze!
Honestly, I believe that sheikh Nazim is majdhub and not accountable of what he says and does. I believe this because of the fact that much of what he does is problematic, yet otherwise he seems to manifest genuine spiritual states. I would certainly not take my knowledge from a majdhub in most matters, but I do feel many people who write here don't seem to have considered this.
Perhaps Nazim will refer the questions to the pope, to provide the "right" answers. We have enough "saints" sans brains rollicking in the folly of their brain-washed followers. When will sunni Muslims realize the difference between saints and actors? When will they refer to the Qur'an & Hadeeth to see the proper definition of a "saint"? Wake up - even all previous dajjals were considered saints by their wretched followers - and the final dajjal will be revered as GOD.
Just wanted to re-iterate that as I had said it three years ago, and still say it. What is wrong is wrong. https://twitter.com/FarazRabbani/status/181911431887863809
Ustad abu Hasan is right. If you look at the complete video, which is also on youtube, you will find that Shaykh Nazim calls the pope his holiness, and gives him more respect in front of the reporters, which wasn't really necessary. He was waiting for the pope on a chair outside the place where this meeting took place for a while. i think that was the most humiliating part of this event. It would have been better if the pope had made the effort to visit him instead. He being the mufti of Cyprus.
the folly was that of 'shaykh' nazim, by debasing himself in front of the pope. if he has an explanation, the onus is upon him to clarify his stand. we are not 'sultan al-awliya' or that sort or have clairvoyance to know his intention. but what he did was patently wrong. whether there was a hidden meaning to this or not, Allah knows best, but we can talk only about the zahir. and we will warn others of this. if people dispute video as evidence, then all shaykh nazim or his murids have to proclaim that the meeting did not happen and the speech (request for prayer) did not take place. let them say it themselves and we will have good opinion of muslims and consider those videos to be fake. ---- blame my ignorance, but i have not seen any ruling or opinion that allows the following: a) asking a pope who has insulted the nabiy to pray for him b) and saying that he will pray for the pope without any semblance of demonstrating the stark difference of islam and falsehood or impressing the superiority of our religion. if anybody has any convincing proof from shariah for the above, we invite them to post it here. -------------- i can understand that many sincere and good people have fond feelings towards the 'shaykh' because according to them, he was the reason for their becoming muslims. but he is not immune from error and such a grave error should not be condoned. past performance is no indicator of future success. that is why it is said: 'deeds depend on ends.' i don't understand this 'adab' which has no consideration for the shariah or RasulAllah's esteem sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. it is not a matter of proving a point or winning an argument. anything that we do, we shall be held accountable. imagine yourself on judgement day, and if RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam asks you why did you speak against this man? or why did you side with this man? my answer would be, in sha Allah: ya RasulAllah, i did not like an elderly muslim humiliate himself and by extension humiliate islam by showing deference to your enemy. your deputies (scholars of your blessed shariah) taught us that it is haram to ask or do dua for a kafir. in a time when muslims were oppressed and denigrated, ridiculed everywhere, and particularly in the christian world, we expected famous muslims to stand up for islam without any compromise and to show our enemies that at least our pride was intact, but instead the message they gave common muslims was that it was acceptable for muslims to subservient with kafir leaders. i used to think that the raml in the pilgrimage was a reminder of how a muslim should be proud and show the kafirs that he may be meek but he is not a doormat; a muslim may be timid with fellow-muslims, but harsh with kuffar. ya RasulAllah! i had read biographies of sufis and ulama - and i read that most of them were wary of visiting even MUSLIM rulers. because, they considered it an insult to the knowledge imparted by you, in showing respect to people with worldly glory. they shunned the company of wealthy and rich; rulers and powerful - because they did not want to abase the knowledge they received from you. if this man went to the pope to refute him, i would have been his follower, but he went there to grovel for a prayer. what would a swine-eater pray for an elderly muslim? ya RasulAllah! i was less in knowledge and worship; but not in fervour. your deputies taught us to love you, and to hate those who insult you - even as meagerly as insulting your blessed shoes. so anyone being cordial with this pope was automatically washed away from my heart. i remembered a hadith that a sahabiyah turned out an old hag and termed her perfume revolting stench, because the hag was disrespectful to you. ya RasulAllah! i did not have feeling for someone who was cordial to those who were disrespectful to you. wa billahi't tawfiq. wa la Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah.
Open invitation to directly question Shaykh Nazim To all brothers and sisters here, Take this as an open invitation to visit Shaykh Nazim and pose your direct questions to the Shaykh in person. You are welcome and will be able to speak your mind without causing any offence. If you stand by what you say then please reply accordingly.
I think that you Should watch this ! On The Life Of Mawlana Sheik Nazim Al Haqqani - Part One : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54QjFGNq5sY On The Life Of Mawlana Sheik Nazim Al Haqqani - Part Two : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G06sJNJ3zw On The Life Of Mawlana Sheik Nazim Al Haqqani - Part Three : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj_wbgt0x7g On The Life Of Mawlana Sheik Nazim Al Haqqani - Part Four : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJxeW2WUngQ On The Life Of Mawlana Sheik Nazim Al Haqqani - Part Five : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO3BN8ur07w On The Life Of Mawlana Sheik Nazim Al Haqqani - Part Six : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdHQO0YIj9c About Sheik Nazim : http://seekerofthesacredknowledge.wordpress.com/biographies-of-awliya-allah/shaykh-nazim-al-haqqani/
Brother Wadood. I know Syed Sheik Nazim from long time ago. He is not deviant. He is a sunni Alim and saint. He has ilm e deen. He is not a bazari sheik.
U are totally misunderstanding "Typical of his idiot admirers. Islam is based on the shari3ah. Shari3ah defines who is right and wrong. Some idiot like this old fool do not define what the shari3ah is." Your are totally lost buddy. Lost sense. If it is a big crime to respect someone than you should ask direct Sheik Nazim. So please dont use foolish language. Maybe you know nothing about Sheik Nazim. But i know him from long ago, And he know what he do. He don't need my or your advices. You are not Allah or his master. You should ask a mufti about the kufr he did instead of yelling and writing propaganda against Sheik Nazim.
Please dont personally attack brother sunnimuslim, as he is our senior sunni brother here. He did not call you an idiot, nor told you to shut your mouth. Keep it civil. We are all sunni brothers here.
it is kufr. (i'm talking about the act on its own) where have i "ruled" anything on the person? where is your (and wadood's) scrupulousness in "establishing a ruling" when you guys post videos on qardinul tahir, pir abdul qadir of uk, hamza yusuf, tim winters, nuh keller, and others - and in wadood's case the habibs 3umar and ali jifry? as far as i have seen, you guys work off websites and videos on those topics too, and to your credit, you too don't "establish rulings" on them just as i didn't read his post again. he accused me of propaganda and called my posting a video and questioning the idiot nazim's acts as depicted, as "discusting". sorry but i have zero respect for anyone who thinks celebrity status accords diplomatic immunity to a 'shaykh'. i have seen enough 'shaykhs' abuse the name of Islam and the trust of Muslims to fall for this whole 'but he's a shaykh' vibe if i am to pride myself on being from the Ahlus Sunnah, then we should have the kind of luxury where an ordinary woman could criticize and/or correct Ameerul Mumineen 3umar radi Allahu 3anhu. it is annoying when people like you and ks have a different set of standards for one person and different for another. as i stated earlier, i did not ask for a group hug or for anyone to subscribe to my hatred for this butler of the kuffar. so there's nothing to see here folks. move right along. the problems with people like him and qardinul tahir is that they change colors like chameleons, and say anything that makes any audience happy. this person is known for espousing the exact kinds of beliefs that are held by some other people who believe that people of all religions shall go to heaven. his right hand, hisham kabbani is an even bigger menace than him. i know from senior scholars who have attended their (hisham kabbani to be specific) gatherings and they have said things like "in Islam a Muslim and christian is the same", and when the scholar corrected hisham kabbani, he said it clearly that he cannot upset his christian friends, to which the scholar just said "then don't say that this is a part of Islam, just say that is your and your shaykh's stand" and left. please don't assume that people are just shooting from the behind. just as you opt to think nicely of him, maybe you can think nicely of others too that perhaps some people do know that these people have been tried to be corrected. i can speak much more, but suffice it to say, just like qardinul tahir, this cult too has goons and thugs hired for the purpose of threatening people with physical violence if at all their 'shaykh' or his senior cohorts are criticized. some of us know well how this cult works. fact of the matter is these people and others like them are all butlers of the kuffar and/or money spinners who wear plastic piety, and load up the awam on adab talk, very calculatingly to pre-emptively shield any criticism and questioning coming their way as bad adab. and yes, i too have little to no respect for gibril haddad for defending this homosapien blindly. so far, since the net has appeared in our midst, i have YET to see any of these butlers ever talk about ghayrah or wala or bara or focus on the rulings of the Quran, be it faraz rabbani or ibn adam al-kawthari or nuh keller, or hamza yusuf, or tim winters or any other internet celebrity. their "preaching" is only centered around group hugs and false adab in the name of "sufism", a camouflaged way of saying "no matter what you do, NEVER criticize us" and the odd crowd-pleasing fiqh rulings or two on "your rights as a Muslim wife" and "the differences between Hanafi and Shafi3i prayers". other than that, these people have a very clearly set agenda - to make other Muslims butlers of saab and mem saab, just like they are. and now the new menace is this "a common word" - an epistle of humility before the kuffar and pretentiousness of the highest order. it has set a new benchmark for humility towards the kuffar and giving up on the ghayrah of Islam. i think we will all see the "sunnah" of letting christians pray with the name of trinity in OUR mosques, being revived in our very lifetimes, thanks to the great efforts of the fine scholars behind the wonderful royal aal al-bayt institute, who are all on the top 500 most influential muslims list and qardinul tahir. i have seen gibril's political ways long time back, when his only defence against this person was pretty much "but he's a shaykh" and "how can they criticize him" as opposed to refuting the points that were laid out by others against him and his cult. you can tell a scholar's true worth the very second he is posed with a question. does he reply directly and attack the heart of the question or does he employ evasive tactics, like a true politician. back in the cold war days, i had read a one line - saying 'my country - right or wrong' is like saying 'my mother - drunk or sober' - sadly now, the pretentious adab crowd works on the same mantra in regards to celebrity shaykhs as abu hasan as rightly pointed out. anyway, peace out bros! it's every man for himself, God for all.
Firstly, if you follow shariah then bring evidence which is reliable in shariah. Video is not evidence in a shariah court. Bring your witnesses of anything you claim regarding Shaykh Nazim. Video is not legal evidence. And even if you bring witnesses, then who has cross questioned the Shaykh or has written to him? Yes, respecting the pope and asking for him to pray for you is wrong. But in order to establish a legal ruling on a Muslim has a procedure. Have you followed that procedure?
