those who are not well acquainted with history, literature and books may not immediately understand the above statement. hence a small explanation. the history of the printed word is merely 500+ years, and prior to that was the age of scribes and oral transmission of knowledge. gutenberg (1400-1468) invented the movable type, and revolutionised printing, which made it easy for mass-production of books. arabic printing has its own history, but printing of sacred books like the qur'an and hadith came much, much later. FTA linked: Far from opposing the innovation, then, the religious authorities welcomed it. But as they naturally stipulated that every effort should be made to avoid misprints, the government appointed four eminent qadis as proof-readers – the first in Islam to undertake this laborious and thankless task. The authorities also ruled that only secular works might be printed – to protect the more than 4,000 professional copyists of Constantinople, whose work consisted almost entirely in copying the Koran, the collections of canonical traditions, and legal texts. ==== until suyuti's time, hadith texts were copied by hand - and not every text was mass-produced. uncommon books like abdu'r razzaq san'ani's were available in universities such as al-az'har and were mostly accessed by specialists. imams like suyuti had elphantine memories. suyuti himself says that he had memorised 200,000 hadith with sanads and if he had found more, he would have memorised them as well. imam ahmad ibn hanbal has said that the musnad was compiled from 750,000 hadith he had memorised. and abu zur'ah al-razi has said: imam ahmad had memorised 1,000,000 hadith. yahya ibn ma'yin said: i have written with this hand of mine 1,000,000 hadith. imam bukhari has said: i have memorised 100,000 sahih hadith and 200,000 hadith that are not the grade of sahih (meaning hasan and da'if). imam muslim said: i have compiled this musnad 300,000 hadith that i have heard. imam abu dawud said: i have inscribed 500,000 hadith and from that i have selected a few for my sunan. hakim in al-madkhal has said that: the huffaz would commonly memorise 500,000 hadith; and hakim narrating from abu ja'afar al-razi with his sanad until imam ahmad, quotes imam ahmad as having said: "there are 750,000 plus authentic reports known to us and this young man (abu zur'ah razi) has memorised 700,000." look at the pattern; the number of hadith known begin to go down with passage of time. and how many of such hadith were recorded and written down in books? imam bukhari had memorised 100,000 saHiH hadith of which only about 4400+ (ignoring duplicates) are recorded in his al-jamiy. but we are talking of specific books: 'al musannaf' or 'tafsir' or 'al-jamiy'. abdu'l razzaq al-san'ani is imam bukhari's shaykh; he was born in 126 AH and passed away in 211 AH. and his musannaf in which this hadith is claimed to exist - is not found intact. the published edition of musannaf, edited by habibur rahman azmi carries the following notice summarised as: "all the manuscripts that we had access to are incomplete, except the manuscript in astana" and he mentioned places where pages are missing. yet, abdullah ghumari says: "Allah t'aala knows that all of it is baseless" wAllahu a'alam how. ==================================================================== links: https://muslimheritage.com/muslim-printing-before-gutenberg/ https://muslimheritage.com/arabic-and-the-art-of-printing/ https://printinghistory.org/challenges-of-early-arabic-printing/ https://www.encyclopedie-humanisme.com/?Arabic-printing https://onlineexhibits.library.yale.edu/s/arabic-printing/page/printing_history_arabic_world
the common factor among all these heretical groups is delusions of grandeur. take this abdullah ghumari* and the passage below is absurd: it is surprising that suyuti raised this (attributed it) to abdu'r Razzaq, even though it is not found in his "al-muSannaf" or in his "tafsir" or in his "al-jamiy". and even more surprising is that some shanqiti scholar validated this erroneous attribution! and he fabricated a chain of authority (isnad) from abdu'l razzaq to jabir and Allah ta'ala knows that all of this has no basis. === between suyuti and this ghumari there is a gap of about 400 years. the basic adab of hadith sciences is that if one does not have proof or isnad, they should say: 'i do not have knowledge of its sanad' unless there is a blatant fabrication censured by hadith masters. you will find numerous examples of such statements in books of ibn Hajar and nawawi and suyuti and others. suyuti: d.911 AH / 1505 CE ghumari: 1328-1414 AH / 1910-1993 CE ghumari was born 417 years after suyuti's passing. how can abdullah ghumari say it with such conviction that it is NOT FOUND in al-musannaf? the most he could say is: it is not found in the musannaf we have access to in our time. because such a statement can be made only if: 1. does abdullah ghumari have a list of all the musannaf that were written down? 2. he had a copy of the original musannaf handed down from the author's time and complete without any pages lost. 3. abdullah ghumari knew all the hadith that suyuti himself had memorised. that is 200K hadith. 4. abdullah ghumari had access to all the libraries in the world and ensured that no copy of al-muSannaf ever had that narration. 5. the same goes for his other books al-tafsir and al-jamiy. this is even more ridiculous and none but a deluded individual will be so sure of it. 1. how does abdullah ghumari know that Allah ta'ala knows that the hadith/isnad of hadith jabir is not true? 2. there are very few conditions when someone can say: "ALlah knows that it is not true". most of the time, it is a personal situation or one's own heart that no one else has access to; or a case one has witnessed it himself. how did abdullah know it with such certainty when suyuti and ibn Hajar al-haytami have mentioned it? things like these. opinions are marketed as facts and fallacies sold as 'solid reasoning'. ---- * yes i know of the ghumaris and they were regarded by ulama as scholars etc. but my personal opinion of scholars in our time is that they do not like criticising each other - the foundations of religious knowledge is critical examination of all scholars irrespective of their lineage or popularity. in our time, people have an adab syndrome - you are not supposed to criticise scholars even if they make himalayan blunders. nas'alu Allah al-aafiyah.
ghumaris have already faded into obscurity. besides what are they compared to giants like ibn hajar al-haytami, ali al-qari and others? even a student like myself has pointed out the utterly pathetic reasoning of the ghumaris. these people are paper tigers and simply bigged up by murids. and confused (mainly because of lack of knowledge of absence of barakah and mere rote learning) individuals who are shi'yi on the inside and khawarij on the outside. if a ghumari can diss al-haytami, so also we can throw away ghumaris in a dustbin of history without much regret. if you hold these folk in the fire of critical analysis, they will turn to ashes in no time. as you are witnessing the habashi minion's case...
they can do all they can. but their ignorance is on full display. and in sha'Allah, more exposes to come.
Just about all that's wrong with habashis +/- a few idiocies. As for the devbandis, let them declare on oath that they consider the ahbash as proper Ahlus Sunnah Or let them admit that they're on their side only inasmuch as they're against Barelvis!
Someone posted on Facebook, that even the Ghumaris had the same opinion like Ahbash Deobandies and Habashis are going nuts. Why are they attacking Qasida Burdah Sharif ? what's wrong with these people. What's wrong with Ghumaris?
==== first, because he has no leg to stand on, the kazzab-muftari distorted the meaning of words and attributed lies to ahl al-sunnah that they claim RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam to be "all-powerful" and "all-knowing". Allah's la'anat upon the liar. ----- zameel the zaleel says: what a dope! just because his own knowledge is lesser than a rodent, he thinks that Allah's knowledge is only limited to the lawH and qalam! obviously cannot imagine the extent of the knowledge of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam, much less the idea of infinite knowledge of Allah ta'ala cannot be explained to an insect-brain. here is a small list of ulama - barelvi? - who wrote the same as alahazrat. in fact, alahazrat follows them not vice versa. 1. mulla ali al-qari 2. ibn Hajar al-haytami 3. kharputi 4. shaykh zadah 5. simlali 6. shaykh zakariyyah al-ansari 7. shaykh khalid al-az'hari 8. shaykh bajuri 9. dusuqi 10. allamah saawi 11. imam abu shamah [d. 965 AH / this is not imam nawawi's shaykh] ==== i posted snippets to refute two stray mongrels from the same kennel as this zameel the zaleel: http://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/devbandi-duo-on-ilm-al-ghayb.14551/#post-69396 ==== go ahead and reject them. spend your pathetic life trying to distort their words and invent novel meanings for commonly understood words. when muslims go to bed, they think about how to explain the greatness of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. when zaleel goes to bed he thinks how to deny the greatness of RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. phir kahe mardak ke hun ummat RasulAllah ki!
these two lines were written for low-life wretches, who claim to be muslims and spend their pitiful lives trying to diminish the grand stations of RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam. except that these so-called muslims are not smart; just morons. be not surprised at the jealous wretch, who goes about denying feigning ignorance, even though he knows it fully well. the sore eye cannot stand the light of the sun when it is afflicted with disease (conjuctivitis) and the sick man's mouth rejects the taste of sweet water. ali al-qari says that those who deny the grand stations of RasulALlah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam like the jews christians and polytheists denied those signs purposely acting ignorant - even though they know the greatness of our master. zameel is worse than those yahud, nasara and mushrikin. what a pitiful existence! ==== imam busiri raHimahullah says: la ta'ajaban li Hasudin raaHa yunkiruha tajaahulan wa huwa aynu'l Hadhiqi'l fahimi qad tunkiru'l aynu Daw al-shamsi min ramadin wa yunkiru'l famu Ta'ma'l maa'i min saqami
sounds like our friend faqirkhan this guy really needs some lessons on dealing with his anger-rage issues. i understand he hates us, but why make such a doofus of your own self in that process? why didn't anyone tell me we Barelwis were on the Forbes list of the richest people in the world? and we're somehow bankrolling Arab scholars for espousing Barelwism?
https://barelwism.wordpress.com/202...of-mukhtar-kull-omnipotence-of-the-prophet-ﷺ/ Request for comment on this also
These individuals like "Zamil al-Rahman" do not have anything better to do. Shaykh Salek hafizahullah is not "Barelwi" as they claim since he is not from the Indo-Pak subcontinent. He is Shinqiti. I had the sharaf of mulaqat and ziyarah of the Shaykh twice - once in the U.S. and once in Turkey. Furthermore, what is greatly amusing is their quotation style. They quote: والمعنى لن يضيق جاهك بجودك بواحد من أمتك لأن من جملة جودك وإحسانك إلى الخلق جميعا خير الدنيا بالهداية وخير العقبى بالشفاعة “The meaning is that your honour will not fall short of your generosity with any one individual of your Ummah because from the totality of your generosity and favour to all creation is: the best of this world by (calling to) guidance, and the best of the next world by interceding.” (manuscript, p75) I have a simple question for these people- do you know nothing about the fact that`Allamah Ibn Abidin says by one meaning being stipulated, it doesn't negate other meanings? التنصيص أي تخصيص الشيء بال بيان لا يدل على التخصيص. So by Mulla Ali Qari رحمة الله تعلى عليه mentioning one meaning of the verse, it doesn't negate other meanings as being possible. Check Radd al-muhtar and other books if you know not. And you definitely know not.
employing zaleel's logic: zameel means: companion, comrade, colleague, associate. [in modern parlance it is commonly used as mates, classmates; zumala'a] thus: zameelu'r raHman means "associate of rahman" "associate of raHman" means "shareek of raHman" [al-iyadhu billah; laa ilaaha illa'Allah; waHdahu laa sharika lahu] so zameelu'r raHman means "partner of raHman" [al-iyadhu billah] the scoundrel claims to be a sharik/partner of raHman [ma'azAllah; la hawla wa la quwwata illa billah]; agar hayaa hoti to, at the least he should change his name and renew his faith.
https://barelwism.wordpress.com/202...elwi-beliefs-explaining-some-lines-of-burdah/ ----- there are shameless people. there are the extra shameless and then there are people like zameel the zaleel of the devbandi extraction. he used to lie and present partial quotes and when exposed, he would slither away and rear his head after some time. but in this particular post he plunges deeper in the abyss of shamelessness. now he has resorted to translating words in a manner which he can attack. much like a mangy cur that cannot attack a lion but upon finding a small kitten 'lets on' that it is a lion and barks its heart out. "the kitten after all is from the family of cats. so is the lion. we have heard humans refer to the lion as a big cat. so we can call this kitten as a small lion. hence i have scared away the lion!" that is zaleel for you: ==================================================== ==================================================== mukhtar is related to ikhtiyar = given the authority; qadir-e-muTlaq or al-Qaadir or al-Qadeer = "all powerful". where did any sunni say that RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is "qadir e muTlaq" or "al-Qadir"? may Allah's la'anat be upon liars. ==== this is not new though. devbandis are past masters of doublespeak. they claim that "khatm" does not mean chronologically last, but still cry hoarse that they are the 'defenders of khatm e nubuwwat'! ==== but even more brazen is zameel's dishonest quoting of mulla ali al-qari from his sharh of burdah. if you peer inside zameel's soul, you can only see a deep cavern of emptiness - except that a powerful disgusting stench of lies and slander rises from its depths, that can cause revulsion in the most resilient of humans. ---- as for the lies on burdah, and sh. salek, we will address that part shortly. in sha'Allah.
