The claimant says: “Here you are sending la'n upon scholars but in your last post you have completely changed your tone. What is the foundation of your cursing Shaykh Faisal (and yes your words inferred la’n upon him also)? If you follow the way of Sayyidi Imam Ahmad Rida Khan then read Fatawa Ridawiyyaa, Volume 10, Pages 193-194 and you will learn that it is not permissible in the Shari'ah to attribute even fisq let alone bid'ah and kufr to a Muslim without investigation. So what investigation have you conducted into Shaykh Faisal's affairs with these people? Is merely praising a deviant a sign of misguidance and deviancy? Could it not be that the Shaykh is unaware of their deviancy?” Response: It seems you are unaware that after investigation, fisq and bida` has been attributed to Faisal Abd al-Razzaq who openly declared his dislike for the followers of the Manhaj of Imam Ahmad Rida. Faisal is fully aware of the deviations of the Deobandiyya and yet continues to openly associate with them and their followers. He has sat numerous times with Faraz Rabbani and the others. How is it that one could sit for so long with such people and yet not be aware? His teacher, Muhammad al-Yaq`ubi, has been informed numerous times yet continues to sit with them. Faisal was informed of Faraz’s deviations otherwise he would not have expressed his hatred towards the followers of al Imam Ahmad Rida rahimahullah The claimant says: “Whatever your manhaj is (and it doesn't seem to be the Noble Manhaj of Imam Ahmad Rida Khan) you should be consistent in it: Shaykh 'Alawi al-Maliki makes tarahhum upon ibn Abd al Wahhab in his famous work Mafahimu Yajibu an Tusahhaha. “ Response: Are you that desperate that you will use the words of Shaykh Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki who was under duress as an attempt to defend your Shaykh who sits with Deobandis and Kellerites and calls for unity with them? W The claimant states: “In addition, Shaykh Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari, in his work Maqalat al-Kawthari, refers to Ashraf Ali al-Tahanwi as )titles removed). He also calls him the author of numerous works, which reach about 500 in number. Imam al-Kawthari then goes onto praise al-Tahanwi’s works ‘Ihya al-Sunan’ and ‘Jami’ al-Athar, ’(pg. 68 of the Cairo edition). He also praises Shabir Ahmad 'Uthmani (one of the main students of al-Tahanwi) and refers to Dar al-Ulum Deoband as the (name removed), (pgs. 74, 75).” Response: Shaykh Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari was neither aware of Urdu nor was he aware of any of the deviations of the Deobandiyya nor did he sit with them long enough to know of any of this. The claimant states: “Furthermore, Peer Mahr Ali Shah says regarding Ismail Ali Dehlawi: ‘Shakkar Allahu sa’yahu’ ‘May Allah Reward his efforts.’ (Malfoozat Mahria).” Response: Subhan Allah, hadha buhtan al-adhim! Sayyidi Pir Mehr Ali Shah did not praise Isma`il Dihlawi’s beliefs in any way but this quote is taken out of context as are most of these other quotes. The original quote is not a praise of any sort and the original quote is as follows: ا س مقام پر امكان يا امتناع نظير آنحضرت صلى اللّه عليه وسلم كے متعلق مافى الضمير ظاهر كرنا مقصود هےنه تصويب يا تظليظ كسى كى فرقتين اسماعيليه وخيرآباديه سےـ شكراللّه تعالى سعيهم ـ راقم سطور دونوں كوماجور ومثاب جانتا هے ـ Note, it is not sa`yahu but sa`yihim, thus this claimant has misquoted. Note the other `ibarah in I`yla Kalimatullah clarifies that Pir Sayyid Mehr Ali Shah Sahib saw Isma`il Dihlawi as nothing other than someone who does tahrif in the din as Sayyidi Pir Mehr Ali Shah writes about Isma`il Dehlwi: الحاصل مابین اصنام وارواح کمل فرقیست بین وامتیاز یست باہر پس آیات واردہ فی حق الصنام رابر انبیاء واولیاء صلوات الله وسلامہ علیہم اجمعین حمل نمودن کما فی تقویتہ الایمان تحریفی است قبیح وتخریبی است شنیع Concludingly, the difference between idols and the souls of the ‘kamilīn’ (the perfected ones) is clear and the distinction between them is overwhelming. So the Ayāt that are regarding the idols, to fit those on the Anbiyaa and Awliya {blessings of Allah and salutations on all of them}, like in Taqwiyyat-ul-Imān, is an ugly distortion (falsification) and a very evil destruction (of the Dīn) (I`yla Kalimatullah pg. 113) The claimant says “There are many more quotes which can be presented but I’m sure you will understand the purpose of this brief post; Sunni ‘Ulama have praised innovators but for many reasons such as political reasons which determine their safety, and this is allowed in the Shari’a. Others have praised them due to being unaware of the deviancy of those whom they praise: this appears to be the case of al-Kawthari. Nonetheless, we have a good opinion of these scholars and justify their words so why have a double standard when it comes to other scholars such as Shaykh Faisal? If you intend on maligning Shaykh Faisal then consistency would be that you curse al-Kawthari and al-Maliki also” Response: We have already given response to your claims! Imam al-Kawthari was unaware of Deobandi deviations and never sat with them for a long period and Shaykh Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki was under duress. The claimant says “It is clearer than the morning sun that you intend on causing fitnah amongst Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah.” Response: The claim of the claimant goes back on him/her him/herself The claimant says: “I would suggest you read al-Fatawa al-Ridawiyya al-Sharif, Vol. 10, page 729 (Risala Anwar al-Bisharah fi Masa’il al-Hajj wa al-Ziyarah), where Sayyidi Imam Ahmad Rida Khan states regarding the etiquettes of visiting scholars: If you find anything he [the scholar] says to be against the Shari’a, in your opinion, then do no object to it but maintain a good opinion. However, this is only for Sunni scholars. As for the innovators, run away from them.” Response: I suggest you stop misusing the Imam’s fatawa in order to benefit yourself. The Imam in Fatawa al-Haramayn was very clear on the hukm on sitting with people of deviation and wanting to unite with them The claimant says: “By attacking the scholars you are transgressing the boundaries of the Shari’a. As the previous posts have explained, you and I cannot comment on the doings of the scholars. According to your logic, you are helping these naive Sunnis by transgressing the boundaries of Islam yourself. O Ye who believe! Be concerned with yourselves. He who is misguided will not harm you when you are upon guidance. (al-Qur'an al-Karim 5:105) Sayyidi Imam Ahmad Rida Khan says: Indulging in haram in order to save another from haram, whilst placing him [the other] in haram is hardly the doing of intellectual and wise people (al-Fatawa al-Ridawiyya al-Sharif, Vol. 25, page 208)” Response: Since Faisal knows of Faraz’s deviations and yet he still associates and praises him, how would it be haram to warn others of Faisal’s deviations? The claimant says: “Control the filth which exits your mouth for you are tarnishing the image of Sayyidi Imam Ahmad Rida Khan. Hows Sharh Mia Amil going?” Response: Control what nonsense you utter lest the sky falls on you. Faqat. And Allah knows best
I know the meaning of the name it's just that I don't think it's a female. I think it's either adnaan raja or Yaseen. Cowards
Amatullah means "female-slave of Allah" أَمَة : مَمْلُوكَة Amah = female-slave (without diacritics, 'amah' and 'ummah' look the same) It is female of Abdullah It is a popular name for girls, along with AmaturRahman - as Abdullah and AbdurRahman are popular for men. See usage in this dua for example اللهم إني عبدك ابن عبدك ابن أمتك ناصيتي بيدك
Amatullah seems to be a very cunning and well-trained deobandi female, going by her posts on this thread. that's plentiful reason to stay away from mark hanson and yaqoubi, and the person who narrated the dream. people who are failing in terms of substance and truth, can only hang on dreams to gain a foothold with the masses. the kafir and dajjal, tahir too started his "career" by narrating dreams. i feel that yaqoubi and hanson together are aspirants to be leaders of a new cult of western Muslims
In time we see who was right all along and who was in the cunning wrong. Khadimu 786 and Amatullah (both names senseless and without proper context at least) were bullying Wadood quite badly some 3 years ago (refer to previous posts). However when I grabbed this Khadimu some 8 months ago on the Sh Yaqoubi Ris thread he seems to have been crippled since. It's ironic to see how they claim wadoods being emotional when it's them themselves who are applying Imam Ahmad Rida Khans views on insulting scholars, or not having a pir among other notions. Which is all baseless because the context is not right. At one point Amatullah even mentioned how wadood referred to Sh Faisal without prefixing shaykh to his name when in that very post, and elsewhere, he himself refers to imam zahid kawthari as "zahid al kawthari"!!! Now if that's not a fine example of condescending behaviour then I don't know what is. Having directly met and spoken to someone who I suspect of being Khadimu or Amatullah recently, he mentioned to me: "don't talk about these points in an obsessive manner". I replied to him if you provide me with simple answers like a man then I'd rest assured. I also added, to make sure he understands my stance, that I'm more concerned about the level of maturity of ulama upon disagreeing with one another, rather than the disagreement itself. Because when adab is not maintained then that's a cause for bigger fitna than the initial crime. Now the problem we face as Sunnis is that that true claim of adab is coming from the oposition- the innovators-which leaves us lurking in the dark at times. In a time in which unqualified young English born Pakistanis are offering out each other over moon sighting and eid, when neither can form a sentence properly, then the gate is still open for guys like Khadimu and his teacher Amatullah to maintain cunning behaviour against the Sunni backbone. Because debating is productive and fruitful and more than needed. But not when people begin to take things personally. And this is a fine example of how it's being taken as such Amatullah/Khadimu I still await your response. Challenge me like men. If not at least private message me your true name and identity. And we may meet and discuss over tea inshaAllah
I would like to apologise to Wadood. In time Faisal has shown his true colour. When he came to UK and did a speech on Isra and Mir'raj he related Hamza Yusef's dream. Hamza Yusef saw that Shaykh Yaqoubi was leading the entire Muslim nations Ulama in prayer. Faisal did this after there was a big controversy over HY and it was controversial for him to do so. Now he has told people to stay away from 'Bareilawis'.
I do sympathise with some of Wadood's points. At the same time I agree with many of the points made by the other brothers. It is very confusing when we have Sunni Ulama praising deviants. But at the same time we should make sure of those circumstances surrounding those Ulama and why they have done so. Also to make sure they have full info regarding those deviants. This is the general position. In many cases Ulama clearly do know X is a deviant and still associate or praise them. In many cases they do not. In either case, the one claiming they have full knowledge must prove it. Sh X has praised and promoted a deviant. Does Shaykh X know he is a deviant? If yes then the claimant must prove so.
Well that's the whole point. Wadood has consistently failed in backing up his statements in this thread and in others. He makes post after post which lack evidence and is only evidence against him. Dear brother, time and time again you appear to show a soft spot for Wadood like you know him. Can't you see yourself his contradictions and sweeping generalisations?
Sayyid Hashmi Mia would definitely not praise Faraz or have a conference with him. The context of Sayyid Hashmi Mia's statement is regarding issues of furu and not usul, where some Sunni's made furu' issues a bone of contention. Four years ago some people thought Keller was a wali. Times have changed. I don't blame some people checking the credibility of people. Having said that no accusations should be made. If a claim is made it should be supported with solid legally responsible evidence.
A common facet of the Madkhali sect is to categorise everyone, and failure in applying their categorisation causes issues for them. This is echoed in your point as quoted above. You agreed that Shaykh Faisal is a Sunni and now you say that ‘they claim to be Sunni?’ Is it only me or is anyone else picking up these clear contradictions which reflect a confused manhaj? This is not the manhaj of our luminaries such as Sayyidi Imam Ahmad Rida and Sayyidi Imam Yusuf al-Nabahani. Your approach has been corrected yet you fail to acknowledge it. After so many days, is this the best response you could come up with? Frankly, your reply is completely opinionated, subjective and lacking any supporting evidence. It is utterly disgusting that you have the courage to attack Sunni scholars in such a manner. Fear Allah! Insulting even the shoes of a scholar can lead to kufr, (Malfuzat e Mehariyya). You have not answered anything that I mentioned and have ignored it all. You are embarrassing yourself. Who are these sullah kullis? Is Shaykh Alawi Makki a Sullah kulli? What about Imam Zahid al-Kawthari? It seems that anyone who agrees with YOU is a Sunni and whoever disagrees with YOU is out of the fold of Ahl al-Sunnah. In the words of our Shaykh al-Sayyid Hashmi Miah: Hashmi bhi Sunni nahi, Madani bhi Sunni nahi, to kya tera baap Sunni hein?
sulah kullis in this thread must know that there are many many brothers who know the truth and whats going on with those who support deobandis as faraz rabbani and yet claim to be Sunni
You have simply avoided answering anything that I mentioned in the earlier posts. The principles of Islam are set and not susceptible to change. Therefore, regardless of your social situation, you cannot attack Sunni scholars and continue with your current methodology. By doing so you are turning away the lay man from Sunni scholars; how would this help your cause? By attacking the scholars you are transgressing the boundaries of the Shari’a. As the previous posts have explained, you and I cannot comment on the doings of the scholars. According to your logic, you are helping these naive Sunnis by transgressing the boundaries of Islam yourself. O Ye who believe! Be concerned with yourselves. He who is misguided will not harm you when you are upon guidance. (al-Qur'an al-Karim 5:105) Sayyidi Imam Ahmad Rida Khan says: Indulging in haram in order to save another from haram, whilst placing him [the other] in haram is hardly the doing of intellectual and wise people (al-Fatawa al-Ridawiyya al-Sharif, Vol. 25, page 208) Your justification is not rooted in the principles of the Shari’a but merely your emotions and our religion is not based on emotion, akhi. So you think the way to bring these people the Sunni Islam is to condemn and malign Sunni scholars rather than make these people turn to them for guidance? These are just some advices which I thought I would bring to your attention. If you want a healthy discussion then please reply to my initial posts. This is a great Sunni forum, yet it is painful to see that such antics are brushed under the carpet by our learned brothers and/or are justified. Wadood is old enough to criticise Sunni scholars yet too young to be rectified? Also, his points don’t need clarification but correction; there is a huge difference.
In the past 3 years, beginning 2009, some brothers now believe that it is acceptable belief that Allah ta'ala has contingent impossibility of lying. Some of these brothers visit here, and are aware of what is going on over the internet. They know about nuh keller's article. They know about "Truth About a lie". But they did not answer back. Instead, they reasoned when real life Sunni scholars as Faisal abdarrazzak and Habib 'Umar can support faraz rabbani and not condemn him, then why should we not? They did not have politics in mind, nor seeking of benefit of any sort, nor any mihna etc or any other reason. They did not believe the aforementioned Sunni scholars had these reasons in mind either. They actually started believing that the 'aqida, Allah ta'ala has contingent impossibility of lying is acceptable Sunni opinion, after mingling with deobandis, who they now call sunnis after being with faraz rabbani. I reasoned with one of them, telling him, in general terms, that they are being fans in a celebrity culture. That most like Shaykh faisal and habib umar do not know about imkan al kadhib. At least, based on good english in "Truth about a lie", they should think twice. If they are reading this post, then please why dont you ask questions here?
He has been cornered too many times. He won't reply to your points, which quite frankly have destroyed his agenda. Judging by some of the posts on this forum, it would appear that some of you know Wadood personally. Please, for his own benefit (not ours), advise him.
Your initial addresses to Shaykh Faisal were without ‘Shaykh’ but it seems you have changed your take on this issue or appear to do as such. Yes, Shaykh Faisal does know Sunni scholars; Shaykh Muhammad al-Ya’qoubi (Hafidhahullah), for example. Ahl al-Sunnah is not restricted to the Indian Sub-continent, believe it or not! Zahid al-Kawthari also knew Sunni scholars as did Shaykh Alawi, a mujaazi of Sayyidi Qutb al-Madina Zia al-Din al-Madani (Khalifa of Ala Hazrat), RadiAllah anhu. Islamic celebrities? Is this not tanqid of a Sunni scholar? Should we discuss the ruling of those who malign Ulama? I would suggest you read al-Fatawa al-Ridawiyya al-Sharif, Vol. 10, page 729 (Risala Anwar al-Bisharah fi Masa’il al-Hajj wa al-Ziyarah), where Sayyidi Imam Ahmad Rida Khan states regarding the etiquettes of visiting scholars: If you find anything he [the scholar] says to be against the Shari’a, in your opinion, then do no object to it but maintain a good opinion. However, this is only for Sunni scholars. As for the innovators, run away from them. You have agreed that Shaykh Faisal is a Sunni (Alhamdulilah, we have your confirmation, so we can all rest assured). Hence, shouldn’t you be maintaining a good opinion of him or is he an exception? Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal stopped speaking to Yahya bin Ma’in for not participating in the mihna. This is appropriate for the noble Imam but can anyone imagine you teaching Yahya ibn Ma’in? You are full of inconsistencies; your thread is called ‘Shaykh Yaqoubi’s khalifa supports Khadhabiyya,’ then you refer infer that he does not adhere to the strict rules of the Shari’a and then there is a change: Shaykh Faisal is a Sunni. He is our scholar. Side note: You inferred that his followers are leaning towards deobandism, in the following thread: http://www.sunniport.com/masabih/showthread.php?t=9444 Also in the above thread, you state that Shaykh Faisal is unknown in Canada. How would you know when you are based in Iran?? And the detail you mentioned is not second hand but so subtle that it has to be first hand knowledge. What are you up to eh? A response to both of my posts is awaited.
There are too many inconsistencies. Wadood is noticing that. Being young he speaks his mind. Why not clarify his points and not attack him personally? And why mention "sharh miat"?