what about metaphors? Do they tantamount to disrespect if the outward meaning if the literal meaning is disrespectful but the intended and implied meaning isnt
1) Do you mean it is the kind of disrespect which is kufr if someone says "don't miss your salah or Allah and his rasool sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wasallam will be really mad at you" meaning anger and displeasure? 2) I love the level of adab you have ma sha Allah. Do you know of any institutions in england which you can in sha Allah guarantee take care this or even more care when talking about the deen. The thing is that some imams might try to use street language in order to be more appealing to the lay audience at the case of respect. May Allah protect us.
yes as it is a direct translation of the word "ghaDab" or "karahah". even angry is acceptable. Allah ta'ala knows best.
Asalam Alaikum Shaykh, Would displeasure/displease be a better alternative or do you have one that could be used in said case.
it is disrespect. no excuses. also disrespect. the morons need to learn basic aqidah. hiding behind idioms and "usage" won't cut. please consult the translation of the section from shifaa; see tkm appendix.
What is the ruling on someone who uses the word "mad", to mean anger, for the prophet( example: he was mad at him)? Or someone who uses the word "pagal" to indicate great love(example: wo is ummat ke mohabbat me pagal hain)? I tried to correct a wahabi for using the word "mad", but from what I could understand he defended its use by alluding to the other meaning.
besides it is factually incorrect. the kuffar DID NOT SEE - this idiot is saying that "they can't see him" no. the miracle was not that the the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam and hazrat abu bakr had become invisible; the miracle here was that the disbelievers were turned away and their minds couldn't perceive and they didn't look. so also, today - if kuffar look at things and declare that a certain thing does not exist, it is because Allah ta'ala has put a veil on their sights and minds.
this is indeed a bad expression, but not a blasphemy. he is simply restating a hadith, which he could have done properly, but unfortunately due to the crass bringing up of wahabi preachers, he doesn't have adab. in the hadith of bukhari: قُلتُ للنَّبيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عليه وسلَّمَ وأَنَا في الغَارِ: لو أنَّ أحَدَهُمْ نَظَرَ تَحْتَ قَدَمَيْهِ لَأَبْصَرَنَا، فَقَالَ: ما ظَنُّكَ يا أبَا بَكْرٍ باثْنَيْنِ اللَّهُ ثَالِثُهُمَا؟! i said to RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam, and i was in the cave: 'if one of them looked down, below his feet, he would see us'. and he replied: "O abu bakr, what do you think of the two, with whom (to aid the two the third is Allah. ---- so he restated it as: 'underneath at the feet of.." which is an ugly expression indeed. he should have said: RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam can be in the cave, and the kuffar if they looked underneath their own feet, they could have seen him; but they can't see him. didn't that happen. these are niceties, one cannot expect from churlish louts. when speaking of the Messengers of Allah, alayhimu's salam, one should slow down, think properly and use the right words, and be mindful of the respect due to them. when these people are in front of worldly rulers or presidents and kings - they would forget everything else and be on their best behaviour. but they let their filthy tongues loose when speaking of the Messengers of Allah. laa Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah.
bro, in my location - the video shows him say this between 11:21 and 11:31 (min:sec) i'm assuming he's talking about the hijrah event. he's trying to be a modern day "Islamic" intellectual like mark hanson and sound exotic and saying 'i don't have a scientific or historicity issue with it despite being a super educated ummahpreneur who has collected 27 different tafsir books and also raked in the american dream right out of plano, tx and that makes me judge and jury over all Quranic scholarship... my issue is Allah does not describe such and such in such and such manner' ... much like tahir on diyat or that zindiq javed ghamdi on n number of issues
this period he speaks of sayyiduna musa alayhis salam lightly - as one would speak about anybody, nobody. astaghfirullah. and he makes light of it. this is istikhfaf and tanqiS. "let me go detox". la Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah. this is blasphemy. nas'alu Allah al aafiyah. what about upper and lower levels of the cave? i didn't get it. but his rationalisation is extremely stupid - only in this age of ignorance can such an imbecile be a celebrity speaker. the moron speaks as if everything was recorded and written down and widely available as social media of today! because this joker is a product of a generation that has very limited understanding of historical contexts. even if the whole world saw it, there were no newspapers to report. and even if they reported, they could have been lost to ravages of time. the basic premise that "nobody saw it" is stupid. you need to first prove that NOBODY saw it on that night - assuming NAK has the date and time of the event. the rest of the rationalisation is meaningless. if someone objects: "why did nobody else see it...?" the correct response would be "on what basis do you claim that nobody else saw it?" do you have an almanac that is published worldwide and preserved that says: "in the year so and so - or between the years so and so - the sky was being observed and no unnatural event has been reported from any of the observatories for 13 years. mind you, nobody has seen the moon split." come on. --- at 8.41 he says: "all kinds of unscientific stuff happening all the time" the fallacy in this statement is that he assumes that everything that 'science' says is to be believed without any doubt. because take one of the examples he posits: at 9.37 he says: "3 hours to take a direct flight from texas to here" - assuming 900 kmph as average speed, this would be about 2700 km distance. this is 'scientific' in our time. but if you said the same thing in 1875, you would be laughed off as someone unrealistic. in fact, the qur'an explicitly talks of only the journey from masjidu'l haram to masjidu'l aqSa - and hence denying this is kufr. thus when you see kuffar disbelieving, they would posit these distances: road distance from makkah to jerusalem is ~1300 km. back and forth is 2600 km. how can you do that in a night - let alone 'part of a night'? it is unscientific. the erudite scientist of 1875 would not believe in air travel and would accept that you could cover 2700 km in 3 hours. so you must not retrofit our contexts to the biblical times. "detox" is your disease. regardless, the journey on earth could still be understood - but the miraculous journey beyond the seven skies (and even the seven skies) are beyond our understanding. that is why it is known as a miracle. the human mind cannot comprehend it. ----- what do we learn from this? there are things which we do not understand. and we should not put our faith in the principles of "cause-effect" "i don't believe if i don't see" or "i don't believe if i don't understand". wAllahu a'alam.
brother, please see between 11:25 and 11:35 and advise if that's blasphemy or close to it - what he says is not per narration, as there were no upper and lower levels of the cave/mountain involved in the narrations afaik, nor is it even idiomatic usage in english or urdu or arabic.
the idiot thinks he is some authority on the qur'an. just learning sarf and nahw does not make you a mufassir par excellence. besharam was humiliated, and he is looking for more disgrace. didn't learn. perhaps he must ponder on the meaning of the verse: "while you don't realise" --- the imbecile thinks he knows more arabic and balaghah than zamakhshari and abu Hayyan. the way he speaks of "Allah never uses it this way" is so stupid and ignorant - as if noman gets waHy! [i scrubbed around 8:00 and i think this is where he begins to belch]. how much were you paid, you shameless ingrate to sow doubts among believers? unless Allah ta'ala Himself says: "I use it this way, I don't use it this way..." OR His Messengers tell us, there is no way of saying it definitively. in all other cases, we can only speculate and extrapolate and finally say: "Allah ta'ala knows best". looks like his word dropping needs to be called out. la Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah. --- like all charlatans, he knows how to pick a few terms, names and appear knowledgeable. akram nadwi is a fasiq, zindiq, shameless scoundrel. and that is 1/100th of the rascal's accurate description. and personally, i think he must even have left faith. al-iyadhu billah.
I looked for the original talk/argument nouman presented, and found this: the guy's an idiot and a half. he admits he "doesn't have the brain cells" for hadith research, so he relies on "experts". he mentions 2 names of "experts" - akram nadwi and some husein (i hope it's not Imran husein). Akram nadwi is as much "hadith researcher" as nouman is "mufassir" he doesnt realize what an astounding fool he's making of himself and how much of his ignorance he's putting up on public display even if he might escape takfir on this particular point.
Any references with regard to the ruling on the one who denies this mutawatir and qati' miracle? As for an objection some opponents make and was indicated in NAK's initial video, that other civilisations didn't see this: 1. When the splitting of the moon occurred, it doesn't mean the moon was visible to every corner of the world 2. In the areas of the world where it was visible, it doesn't mean every person in that location was looking at the moon at that exact time 3. For the ones who happened to look at the moon at that exact time, it doesn't mean they were literate enough to record it (look at pre modern literacy rates) 4. For the ones who were literate enough to record it, it doesn't mean their records survive as the vast majority of records from that time are destroyed or lost (historical fact which can be easily assessed) 5. For the ones that were recorded and survived, it doesn't mean they've been catalogued, digitised or otherwise read and analysed And finally, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, a fundamental principle of historical analysis
