Zahid Shah - Kufar Has Come Within Sayiduna Adam AS

Can we change the name of this thread because for a split second I thought it was referring to the honorable Mufti Zahid Husain Qadiri sahab of Preston, England.

 

Noticed the mans idiocy in the Ghumārī thread.

 

Lol that rafzi brat hasnain goes by "shaykh" now? Yup, smoke 'em while you got 'em, like that "mufassir" nouman ali khan.

The 4 hr video on some supposed "analysis" of Matlaul Qamarayn caught my eye. At least he's developed one streak of honesty by not hiding his bughz against Ahlus Sunnah scholars, notably Ala Hazrat. Not easy to show taqiyyah to Imam Ahmad Raza, he dosn't let crooks escape from the back door!

Do these people still shamelessly read Salame Raza, or have they come up with their own "Mustafa jaane rehmat"?

 

Hasnain is the son of Zahid Hussain. He has been on this forum some time ago with the name Nawazuddin trying to promote his shia beliefs and running away each time Shaykh Abu Hasan stepped in to debate. Both father and son are in the same group as that Rafizi Abdul Qadir of Walthamstow.

The main objective of this group is to try and blend in the Sunni masses by posing as core Sunnis and misguide them into rafziyat. They are therefore much more dangerous than open shias.

 

Hasnain is the son of Zahid Hussain. He has been on this forum some time ago with the name Nawazuddin trying to promote his shia beliefs and running away each time when Shaykh Abu Hasan stepped in to debate. Both father and son are in the same group as that Rafizi Abdul Qadir of Walthamstow.

 

Are these people sunnis, they more i hear and look into their writings, they sound like shiah

https://www.facebook.com/ShaykhHasnain/

Zahid Hussain Rizvi or Razvi ? (shiah)

 

do you also believe in this? this is saba sanabil.

 

so, don't you believe in this sahih hadith of muslim sharif, kitab al qadr?


No baby is born but upon Fitra. It is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Polytheist.

and this hadith of bukhari in kitab al janaiz # 1358?



Every child is born with a true faith of Islam (i.e. to worship none but Allah Alone) but his parents convert him to Judaism, Christianity or Magainism, as an animal delivers a perfect baby animal. Do you find it mutilated?" Then Abu Huraira recited the holy verses: "The pure Allah's Islamic nature (true faith of Islam) (i.e. worshiping none but Allah) with which He has created human beings. No change let there be in the religion of Allah (i.e. joining none in worship with Allah). That is the straight religion (Islam) but most of men know, not." (30.30)

do you think that hazrat meer abdul wahid balgrami (or bilgrami?) rahimahulla did not know these ahadith? what he says is quite apparent, only a primary school kid would need this to be explained to him, though my 4th grader kid knows it well, wal hamdulillah.

 

so what's wrong in it?

1. All humans - including disbelievers - are children of Sayyiduna Adam (alayhe asSalaam)
2. With the exception of some prophets - chiefly the Holy Prophet Mohammed (Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) - the ahle Sunnah do not debate about the lineage of other prophets. In fact we do not even know the names of all.

 

I will just leave this here from saba` Sanaabil

 

Thank you for clearing it up, Brother Barry

 

Nope it was Molvi Zahid Shah

 

the video is down. this wasn't mufti zahid of sunniway, was it?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7QDRZUJufk

What is this daft old man going on about?

 

It is the Tafdili's who have always backed down from debating, not the Ahl alSunna.

 

I've just seen the video and it's apparent there's a lack of clarity and so Syed Zafarullah Shah said that further questions need to be asked from the person who said this. The motives of the questioner are very clear I abhor this and in my opinion it's clear that those adding fuel to the fire are not worth giving time to.

I'm getting tired of this tit-for-tat which hunt. Name a date, place and time and have the debate live on TV over and done with. It's very clear certain people have pure hatred for others and will analyse every word and sentence to find a defect.

 

Excellent Post Brother Abu Hasan and Jazak Allah.

The problem we have nowadays is that if a Syed even attacks Sahaba or Insults Ambiyah, his followers say you are Nasibis or Khawarij.

These people call Syed Irfan Shah Sahib Mashadi a Nasbi MAZALLAH and on Youtube they call him Marwan Shah, even though Shah Sahib themselves are Syeds and from the Family of Imam Moosa Kazim RA.

 

it is the rafidi who thinks that the sons of ali are ma'sum. we respect the children of ali raDiyallahu anhu but we don't believe they are ma'sum. moreover, criticism of spoilt and wayward children should not be equated with hate of their noble father.

this is one of the many fallacies contemporary fools indulge in. they quickly label any criticism of strange and stupid ideas as hate of mawla ali - and in a very rafidi like fashion try to browbeat sincere muslims.

---------------------
i have not read the whole thread, and i quickly glanced through a few posts. one technique of the salafidis do (modern day sunni-by-birth, rafidized in later age and using wahabi methodology) is to throw a quote and on the basis of this, try to justify their own idiosyncratic aberrations.

----------
let us take this quote:

ok. let us begin with the basic aqidah - as explained by thousands of ulama for more than thousand years: non-prophets are not equal to prophets.

if a senior scholar we respect, has said, or something is attributed to him that is contrary to the above aqidah, what should we do?

should we discard and discount the well-established aqidah for a spurious and suspicious statement?

-----
there are two possibilities here:

A) either the senior scholar said it;

B) or the scholar did not say it, but was introduced by those who came after and attributed to him.

in the latter case, it is easy to summarily dismiss it.

the former (if it is sufficiently proved that he has certainly said it) has two possibilities:

p) either it was said deliberately

q) or it was said by mistake
​

the former has two possibilities:
​

i) it was said deliberately and intended the very meaning (that is attributed to him - and in contradiction to the aqidah of the overwhelming majority)

ii) it was said consciously, but did not intend that meaning (attributed to him, in contradiction of the well established aqidah).

the former is problematic (which we will deal later) and the latter is easy to dismiss. he said something which was not what he really intended.*

​

the latter has two possibilities:

i) the mistake was made in a state of wakefulness and full consciousness

ii) the mistake was made in a state of absent mindedness or in a state of semi-consciousness. or in a state of ecstasy, like certain kalam of sufiyah.

the latter can be dismissed easily, because the shariah does not hold responsible someone not in a conscious state of mind. and such statements of awliya are not to be admitted when they contradict established aqidah.

the former has two possibilities:

1) the mistake was because of confusion of a concept

2) or because of an improper choice of words (similar to another possibility above)
the latter is easy to dismiss, but the former has two possibilities:

1.1) the confusion of the concept was due to ignorance of the aqidah of ahlu's sunnah

1.2) or the confusion was because of a misunderstanding of the speech of awliya and taking figurative speech on face value.

the latter can be dismissed as a misunderstanding, and the former is similar to deliberate speech. -
​

we do not believe that our scholars are ma'sum; and one should not follow a scholar in his mistake, when it stands starkly opposed to the generally accepted aqidah of the jam'hur. it is easier for us to reject the aberration of one scholar than reject the whole jam'ah.

-----
uluhiyyat hi ahmad ne na payi
nubuwwat hi se tu aaTil hai ya ghaws

saHabiyyat huwi phir taba'yiyyat
bas aagey qaadri manzil hai ya ghaws

hazaroN tabiyi se tu fuzun hai
woh Tabqah mujmilan faazil hai ya ghaws

even ahmed (sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam) was not God
and o ghaws, you are not a prophet;

and then, were the companions, and their successors -
and next to that is your station.

even though you are superior to thousands of tabiyis,
the group [of tabiyis] is in general superior


in the lines above, alahazrat explains that we do not consider anyone equal or partner to Allah ta'ala; not even ahmed sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. and the rank of ghaws e a'azam is only after sahabi and tabiyis; the last line means, though many tabiyis in taqwa and ma'rifah or worship did not reach the level of ghaws e a'azam, yet, the mere company of a saHabi granted them that rank.

this is the aqidah of ahlu's sunnah - and my ears are deaf to anything contrary to this.


wAllahu a'alam wa ilmuhu atam.


*there is an issue here as well, in matters of explicit statements concerning essentials - daruriyat, zaruriyat e din; like insulting Mustafa sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam - where this excuse won't be accepted.