Sulh kulli Noor ud Deen Rashid

does nooruddin have comments on chinese and japanese statements as well?
if you don't know urdu, just shut up. not your responsibility.

this is what RasulAllah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam warned about: "people bearing witness without having witnessed".

 

Call him H*R*MI n say to him usage H*R*MI is in context of Haram as in Masjid al-Haram. Ask him is ok to call you this with this context?

Typically n rule is, Taweel of any statement of abuse, insult is not accepted nor legitimate. Noora is just talking rubbish.

Call someone, SOB, n o i meant son of loyal woman. Cause dogs are deemed loyal animal in Pakistan india context. N in context of uk at least, dog is mans best friend. Hence SOB is son of best friend. No one will buy this. Why cause we have better sense than this but when messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم is insulted we look for jawaz that sounds compelling to avoid conflict.

Don't give this idiot your ears. Don't give any maulvi speaking English, on youtube, educated by Arabs, born, fed n raised in Europe. If you want to learn religion than go back to Akabir Ulamah.

To make Taweel of sarri kufr in order to reconcile it with islam is Kufr. Hence Taweel makers like Manzoor Nomani, Hussain Ahmad Madani, khalil ahmad saharapuri n people like author of mutalia e barelwiat are Kafirs.

 

salam
I also found this. Ulta chor kotwaal ko dante. He made so many allegations against the barelvis but himself doesn't have the correct creed.
May Allah guide him
https://islamanswers.co.uk/question/is-it-kufr-to-say-allah-most-high-has-a-hand/

 

salam.
I wanted to ask that the kufr statement of deobandis about the donkey is kufr sareeh but here noor ud deen Rasheed says the following "those who want to explain this statement. You must start by saying in its current form it is abhorrant and then the explanation needs to be reasonable. Personally I would not advise anyone to go down that route". Is this statement of his kufr since is he saying that there if you explain this statement correctly and with the correct context, it can be justified? Is this what he is saying or am I misunderstanding him?
1:00
1:00

 

Salam Alaykum.

Mufti Shahid dealt with the subject n did justice to it. Noor fella embarrassed himself.

 

salam everyone.
i just want to let everyone know that when transcribing noor ud deen's charges, I did not in any means shape or form mean to sound, be like or act as a proxy, ambassador or chamcha or noor ud deen when i used phrases such as "you must". I do sincerely apologise for this. This was meant as a quotation but if that was wrong of me to do please do provide guidance and I apologise in advance.

 

https://www.youtube.com/live/f2tI12DZYmo

didn't see it yet, but there are comments that brother Shahid Ali hung him out to dry!

 

but honestly, perhaps noor ud deen doesn't understand what the barelvis mean by this since he himself claims this to be the position of imam al dhahabi in one of his recent videos:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/lnDquL_uD5I

 

Noor ud deen's allegations against the barelvis:
This is a picture and a video from the spreadingtruthhood guy which are a summary of the allegations.


Here are each one of his allegations in detail:
1) You must condemn the statement that "my flag will be greater than the flag of Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wasallam)" with the harshest of terms: using words such as insult, vile, disgusting, abhorrant...?
2) You must condemn that Allah most high was speaking through the mouth of hazrat abu yazid because i) the statement above (1st point) is an insult against the messenger sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wasallam and you are defending and justifying it with a karamah (he also says that no other wali has had a karamah greater than this) which negates finality of prophethood (claim of wahy) because Allah's kalam is wahy ii) saying he was in a spiritual state is a praise for an insult against the messenger sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wasallam.
3) You must condemn
i) this statement form tazkirat ul awliya following passage (he gives a translation for it):




ii) Imam Ahmed Rida khan's following passage (he gives a translation for it):




iii) this passage from kashf ul mahjoob (he gives a translation)




4) He says that Hazrat abu yazid is not unanimously recognised as a wali. Those who say that he uttured such statements but because he is a wali therefore we must try to defend him are wrong since we don't decide who a wali is: only Allah and his messenger do. I have no problem in saying that Hazrat abu bakr was a wali since the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wasallam told us.

 

I would like to ask, if you don't mind hazrat, that should we (the lay people) consider mirza a kafir. I have heard from ulama that for the general awam, it is sufficient to consider the kalima to be kufr and takfir should be left to the ulama. If we, the general public, believe all his phrases (the "peshab" phrase, his views about qadianis, the phrase which you mentioned) to be kufr sareeh and the worst of kufr beliefs and do takfir aam of anyone who says it but refrain from doing takfir shakhsi of mirza, is that enough for us or should we consider him kafri as well since I read you called him a "murtad"?

 

can someone transcribe - unless of course nooruddin gathers the courage to write down.
we will have to manage with transcribed allegations.

 

great. we are making progress.

it is clear that nooruddin is incapable of reading the fatawa, and if he has read it he has not understood it.
rather, he is plagiarising from the ingrate mirza and trying to act as if he is some scholar.

but he still did not make a list of charges. what an incompetent fool.

blindly following mirza is a path to hell - because that ingrate murtadd is already on his way [unless he repents]. the ingrate - namak haram - said that he has no favour [ihsan] of the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam upon him.

instead of "rushing" to defend the Prophet sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam
this imbecile nooruddin is acting like a sidekick of that ingrate and licking the spittle of mirza engineer.

in sha'Allah, we will see how dishonest and lying these fellows are.

 

السلام علیکم hazrat.
look at these hypocrites. They literally highlighted the passage but didn't even mention ala hazrat's reference of masnawi sharif in the conversation. What are they going to do now: do takfir of mawlana rumi as well naudhubillah.

this video




this is there translation and no mention of masnawi here as well

 

salam hazrat. I have commented this (or a summary on the ones which have a character limit) on most of noor ud deen's social media. If there is anything wrong with what I wrote, please do let me know and I will try to change it in sha Allah.

Noor ud deen please do the following. This is from Shaykh abu hasan sahib (from sunniport). "Can somebody get a statement from Nooruddin? The way he speaks with a posh accent, one would think he could write the allegations as a sonnet in an iambic pentameter. Instead of copying peirs "do you condemn hamas" morgan - why doesn't he write a few lines of his charges? vague descriptions and comments don't count. if one is brave enough to take names - one should have the courage to put it in writing and reference the specific fatwa etc that he seeks to be "condemned". ambition, should be made of sterner stuff.
.
.
.
unfortunately, poor nooruddin does not understand the issue nor what he quotes. i am willing to explain it to him if he can write down his allegations - because i do not want him to slither away as "oh i did not mean this or that". wa billahi't tawfiq. "
Don't leave it upto your opposition to look for, and compile all your charges and demands against he sunni barelwis together. Do it yourself in one piece of writing and post it on your social media: not videos or separate writings, but everything in one written post.
Remember: NO VAGUENESS OR AMBIGUITY.

 

salam hazrat.

But just one question though hazrat. Of course the general stance of our ulama is that of course we consider the statement to be disrespectful and kufr sareeh but we say that due to being in a halat, he was not taken into account for that".
But can we say that "the statement is vile, abhorrant, dispicable... (followed by many other condemnations) but he is not taken into account due to being in a halat"? Of course every single one of those words is true for the statement but can we say it or would it be wrong since clearly imam abu yazid didn't mean it and by doing so would we be insulting him by stressing on it or is it okay and rather necessary? Would this fall into "not every true thing is worth saying"?

 

a brother shared this:

https://islamanswers.co.uk/question/false-miracle-to-justify/

he does not name who the "shaykh" was, nor who "rushed to the defence" of the shaykh instead of "rushing" to the defence of the Prophet. sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

---
another answer where he mentions shaykh abu yazid:

https://islamanswers.co.uk/question...used-to-justify-insults-against-the-religion/

----
unfortunately, poor nooruddin does not understand the issue nor what he quotes. i am willing to explain it to him if he can write down his allegations - because i do not want him to slither away as "oh i did not mean this or that".

wa billahi't tawfiq.

 

Can somebody get a statement from Nooruddin? The way he speaks with a posh accent, one would think he could write the allegations as a sonnet in an iambic pentameter.

Instead of copying peirs "do you condemn hamas" morgan - why doesn't he write a few lines of his charges?

vague descriptions and comments don't count. if one is brave enough to take names - one should have the courage to put it in writing and reference the specific fatwa etc that he seeks to be "condemned".

ambition, should be made of sterner stuff.

 

No worries hazrat. I understand. Jazak Allah for your time

 

i can understand. but i don't want to refute something whcih nooruddin can come back and claim that he did not say it.

let nooruddin put on paper all his allegations, proofs for his allegations (references etc.) and his demands. we will in sha'Allah answer him.