ali0009
Senior Member
100%
Ali (alayhis 'salam) Ka Faqeer
Posts: 1,343
|
Post by ali0009 on Sept 6, 2009 4:23:08 GMT
Mawlana Syed Ninowy exposes the Nisabis that are found among the Sunnis. The Nawasib are so corrupt that they try to inject their blasphemous views toward the Sunni Madhab. How do they do this? They do this by giving us shaytaini inspirations. They tell the average Sunni to: Prevent naming their children Ali, Hassan or Hussain Not name their mosques after Imam Ali alayhis 'salam Not talk about Imam Ali alayhis 'salam seerah or gives his examples Not wear black cause that is a color which is restricted to the people of the shia sect Not mention the merits of Imam Ali alayhis 'salam ETC ETC! On top of that the Nisabis deny the merits of Imam Ali alayhis 'salam which are graded as sahih. Watch this and learn how to recoganize them :www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8EmN8gNNCU
|
|
hal786
Senior Member
TREAT EVERY DAY AS YOUR LAST DAY ON EARTH.
Posts: 3,127
|
Post by hal786 on Sept 6, 2009 17:22:34 GMT
Asslmau Alaykum an excellent post indeed well done.
|
|
|
Post by abuabbasmaliki on Nov 13, 2009 1:38:27 GMT
Edited to remove a nonsense which is against the forum rules i.e No Slandering of Sunni Scholars especially a rightly guided one like Shaykh Ninowy Damat Barkatuhumul AliyaSlandering of Rightly Guided Sunni Scholars is not allowed on this forum and as per the forum rules please modify your PROFILE and mention your location.[/b]
|
|
ali0009
Senior Member
100%
Ali (alayhis 'salam) Ka Faqeer
Posts: 1,343
|
Post by ali0009 on Nov 13, 2009 3:40:38 GMT
Oh man, do i smell something burning? Why dont you wash your face instead of labeling pure sunnis alims. Infact, this thread is targeted to people like you'r kinds, and sheikh Ninowy is warning us about human beings like you Repent before you loose. Heads up people, we've just spotted a (inappropriate comments removed)
|
|
|
Post by abuabbasmaliki on Nov 14, 2009 2:05:24 GMT
Making strawman arguments and saying "I smell a khawarij" is also not acceptable. For your information, I follow alaHazrat (radhi Allahu `anhu)'s maslak.
You're talking to a Sunni. If you don't know me, don't make comments like "I smell a khawarij."
---
I may have come out strong but I have done it for a valid reason. But I shall now keep my mouth shut.
|
|
|
Post by abuabbasmaliki on Nov 14, 2009 2:45:07 GMT
DELETED
|
|
Areff
Full Member
Posts: 469
|
Post by Areff on Nov 14, 2009 6:39:44 GMT
Making strawman arguments and saying "I smell a khawarij" is also not acceptable. For your information, I follow alaHazrat (radhi Allahu `anhu)'s maslak. You're talking to a Sunni. If you don't know me, don't make comments like "I smell a khawarij." --- I may have come out strong but I have done it for a valid reason. But I shall now keep my mouth shut. if callin' oneself sunni was enough, the kharijis wahabis would then be sunni coz they call themselves sunni too and same like you they talk ill of true sunni shaykhs based on their poor & sick opinion only. feed yourself with the correct food to grow up properly & learn how to respect them.
|
|
|
Post by Shiraz Ashrafi on Nov 14, 2009 12:50:41 GMT
Assalamu 'Alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu
if they have that mentality, they are only harming themselves
|
|
|
Post by ahlesunnah on Nov 15, 2009 7:02:38 GMT
It seems you people have no other response than to slander and attack
-- Shiraz, you should be ashamed of even calling yourself a murid of Hadrat Shaykh ul-Islam. Neither do you represent Hadrat Shaykh ul-Islam nor do you represent Hadrat Ghazi al-Millah, both are defenders of Ahl`us Sunnah aqa`id and you, for one, are defending tafdili shi`as.
If you don't believe me, then just go read the words of Ninowy himself.
Or better yet.... read Ninowy defending a gustakh-e-saHaba.
here. his own words.
|
|
|
Post by Saalik on Nov 15, 2009 7:50:20 GMT
Assalamu 'Alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu
As per the forum rules you must mention your location in your profile without forgetting that it is also against the rules to slander Sunni Scholars on this forum.
Prove that people here have NO other response than to slander and attack and also also prove that you didn't do it yourself in the first place.
What did you really understood from what Brother Shiraz said and in what way you may be thinking you are defending the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jama'ah especially in the typical way you are doing it.
What have you understood from what Shaykh Ninowy Damat Barkatuhumul Aliya said. We need to know how you understand.
If you think you are mature enough and have much knowledge and understanding on the subject you want to discuss then the door is open to you for that.
Before you go further it would make more sense if you could mention and describe the characteristics of "tafdili shi`as".
By "gustakh-e-sahaba" whom do you directly mean and based on what you have come to that conclusion.
|
|
ali0009
Senior Member
100%
Ali (alayhis 'salam) Ka Faqeer
Posts: 1,343
|
Post by ali0009 on Nov 15, 2009 11:07:01 GMT
@ Mr sahi ul aqeedha sunni, your ways to defame a sunni scholar are simply pathetic. You are using same wahabi cut/paste style to defame a lion of sunnism.
This is what Shaykh Ninowy has said about Ahmad Sidi :
He said in his book ( the Sunni Comet) : " While I am not in agreement with Syed Hafith-ul-Hadith Ahmad bin Assiddiqq Al-Ghumari about Mu'awiyah, but I feel the obligation to defend him against those trying to paint him as Shia, as he was a pure Sunni in all sense of the word. His opinion on Mu'awiyah Radi Allahu anhu is extreme, but he did not reach it out of personal agenda, rather narrations and ahadith that are found in Ahlus Sunnah books, along with statements attributed to Sahaba, Tabin, and others. Hence, one is excused in such ijtihad when its erroneous. "
He said further in the same book: " It is an established fact that Mu'awiyah bin Abi Sufyan Radi Allahu anhu transgressed on Amirul-Muminin Ali alayhis 'salam, and wronged him, pulled the sword to fight him, killed the companions in the battle, and ordered the cursing of Sayyidina Ali alayhis 'salam in the mosques (as in Sahih Muslim), yet despite all that, we consider him a Sahabi, who had the honor of seeing the best of the Creation, sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam, and transmit his hadith. Hence, we must respect that, and not induldge in talks about him except in a session of knowledge where scholars and students are learning hadiths and history. Also, it is not permissible to belittle him, cuss him, or use any foul language or profanity against him, and anyone who does that, is going against the Sunnah and against the Qu'ran. Infact, cussing, insulting, and belittling him is the way of the misguided and deviants".
==========
- قال الإمام الحافظ أحمد بن حجر العسقلاني في كتابه تلخيص الحبير ج4\44:
"ثبت أن أهل الجمل وصفين والنهروان بغاة". اهـ.
-Imam Ibn Haj’ar Al-Asqalani in his book “Talkhis AlHabir”, Vol.4 page 44:
“It is established that the people of Jamal, Siffin, and Nahrawan, are transgressors”.
The battel of Siffin was between Ali alayhis 'salam and Mu’awiya Radi Allahu anhu.
- قال الإمام الحافظ أحمد بن حجر العسقلاني في شرح صحيح البخاري ج13ص67:
" وقد ثبت أن من قاتل علياً كانوا بغاة". اهـ.
- Imam Ibn Haj’ar Al-Asqalani in his book : Shar’h Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 13, page 67, said: “It is an established fact that all those who fought against Ali alayhis 'salam were Transgressors”.
- قال ابن خزيمة فيما روي في" الإعتقاد والهداية" ص248:
" وكل من نازع أميرالمؤمنين علي بن أبي طالب في إمارته فهو باغ , على هذا عهدت مشايخنا وبه قال ابن ادريس-يعني الشافعي-رحمه الله". اهـ.
- Hafeth Ibn Khuzaymah said in his Book “ Al-I’tiqaad”, page 248:
“Everyone who fought Amirul’Muminin Ali bin Abi Taleb alayhis 'salam during his Khalafah, is a transgressor. On this belief were all our Mashayekh, and this is what ibn Idris (Imam Shafi’iy) said”.
- قال الإمام الحافظ البيهقي رحمه الله تعالى في كتاب مناقب الشافعي ج1ص451:
" قال يحيى: إني نظرت في كتابه –يعني الشافعي- في قتال أهل البغي فإذا به قد احتج من أوله إلى آخره بعلي بن ابي طالب". اهـ. أي بقتال عليّ لأهل البغي.
- Imam Bayhaqi said in his book “manaqeb Al-Shafi’iy”, Vol. 1, page 451:
“ I looked in his book ( Imam Shafi’iy’s book) about fighting Transgressors, and found that he substantiated it all the rules based on Ali bin Abi Taleb alayhis 'salam”. i.e. Based on his dealings with them.
- قال الإمام الحافظ ابن حجر الهيتمي المكي في فتح الجواد بشرح الإرشاد , باب البغاة وأحكامهم 2\295:
" وقد قال الشافعي رضي الله عنه: أخذت أحكام البغاة من قتال علي لمعاوية". اهـ.
- Imam Ibn Haj’ar Al-Haytami in his book “Fat’h Al-Jawad” Vol.2/295:
“ –Imam- Shafi’iy radiya’Allahu anhu said: I took all the rules of transgressors from Ali alayhis 'salam fighting Mu’awiyah Radi Allahu anhu”.
- قال الامام الحافظ ابن حجر في "الاصابة في تمييز الصحابة" ج3ص508:
"وظهر بقتل عمّار أن الصواب كان مع عليّ واتفق على ذلك أهل السنة". اهـ.
-Imam Ibn Haj’ar in his book “Al-Isabah”, vol.3, page 508, said:
“By killing Ammar Radi Allahu anhu, it appeared clearly that the truth was with Ali alayhis 'salam, and Ahlus Sunnah consent on that”.
- قال الامام العلامة شيخ أهل السنة أبومنصور عبد القاهر البغدادي (تـ429) رحمه الله تعالى وهو من أعلام السلف الصالح في كتابه القيم " الفرق بين الفِرَق" ص302 ناقلاً اجماع أهل السنة والجماعة:
" وقالوا –أي علماء أهل السنة في ذلك الوقت- في صفين: ان الصواب كان مع عليّ رضي الله عنه؛ وان معاوية وأصحابه بغوا عليه" ثم أردف قائلاً: "ولم يكفروا بخطئهم". اهـ.
- Imam Of Ahlus Sunnah, Abu Mansur Abdul Qaher Al-Baghdadi (429 H.) said in his infamous book “Al-Farq baynal Firaq” stating the CONSENSUS ( IJMA) of the Scholars of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’a:
“They declared in Siffin: that Ali radiya’Allahu anhu, was right, and Mua’wiya and his people transgressed upon him” “ but did not commit Kufr by this mistake”.
- قال شيخنا الحافظ العارف بالله سيدي أبا الفضل عبد الله بن الصدّيق الغماري الحسني –أعلى الله في الفردوس الأعلى درجته- في كتابه خواطر دينية ج 2\17:
" أجمع العلماء على أن معاوية كان باغياً".
- Shaykh Al-Hafeth Abdullah bin Assiddiqq Al-Ghumari, said in his book “ Khawater Diniya”, vol.2 page 17:
“The scholars have a consensus that Mu’awiyah Radi Allahu anhu was a transgressor”.
- قال الامام ابن حزم الأندلسي (تـ456) في كتابه "الفِصَل في الملل والأهواء والنِحَل" ج3ص87:
" فإذا قد بطل هذا الأمر وصح أن علياً هو صاحب الحق فالأحاديث التي فيها التزام البيوت وترك القتال إنما هي بلا شك فيمن لم يلح له يقين الحق أين هو؛ وهكذا نقول فإذا تبين الحق فقتال الفئة الباغية فرض بنص القرآن". اهـ. (أي على جميع المسلمين ومن تخلف فهو مخالف لأوامر الله ورسوله).
- Imam Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi (456H.) in his infamous book “Al-Fisal” Vol.3, page 87:
“Once it became clear that Ali alayhis 'salam is the one with the truth, then the Ahadith that orders to avoid fighting are for him who has not yet found truth. Hence, once the truth is apparent –to any person- then fighting the Transgressor group is obligatory as commanded by the Qu’ran”.
- قال الامام لسان أهل السنة الناطق العلامة السعد التفتازاني (793هـ) رحمه الله تعالى في كتابه المقاصد –في شرح عقائد أهل السنة والجماعة- الجزء 3\534:
"وأما في حرب الجمل وحرب صفين وحرب الخوارج، فالمصيب عليّ، لما ثبت له من الامامة وظهر من التفاوت، لا كلتا الطائفتين على ماهو رأي المصوبة ولا احداهما من غير تعيين".
- The speaking power of Ahlus Sunnah, Imam Sadduddin At-Taftazani ( 793H.) in his infamous book “ Al-Maqased” in elucidation of the Aqidah of Ahlus Sunnah, Vol. 3, page 534, said:
“ as for the battles of Jam’al, Siffin, and Khawarej, the one on the truth is Ali alayhis 'salam, as the khilafah was already established for him, and the difference between –him and the other side- appeared. It is not that both are right, and not that neither is right”. i.e. the Sahaba with the leadership of Ali are the ones who are right.
ثم قال شارحاً لحديث النبي عليه وآله السلام لسيدنا عليّ :"إنك تقاتل الناكثين والمارقين والقاسطين".، قال رحمه الله:
"والقاسطون –أي البغاة الظالمون- معاوية وأتباعه الذين اجتمعوا عليه، وعدلوا عن طريق الحق الذي هو بيعة عليّ رضي الله عنه والدخول تحت طاعته".
- In the same book, same page, Allama Sa’d Taftazani said:
“ The Transgressors are Mua’wiyah Radi Allahu anhu and his followers who gathered with him, and deviated from the true path which is giving Bay’ah to Ali radiya’Allahu anhu, and obeying him”.
ثم قال رحمه الله عرضاً لما أجمع عليه أهل الحق واستحسنوه 3\534:
"والذي اتفق عليه أهل الحق أن المصيب في جميع ذلك عليّ رضي الله عنه لما ثبت من امامته ببيعة أهل الحل والعقد وظهر من تفاوت إما بينه وبين المخالفين سيما معاوية وأحزابه، وتكاثر الأخبار في كون الحق معه، وما وقع عليه الاتفاق حتى من الأعداء إلى أنه أفضل أهل زمانه، وأنه لا أحق بالامامة منه، والمخالفون له بغاة لخروجهم على الامام الحق".
- Then he concluded Vol. 3, page 534:
“ That what the people of Truth (Ahlul Haqq) have agreed upon that Ali radiya Allahu anhu was righteous in all these events, as is established by his superiority, and differences between him and his opponents, especially Mu’awiyah Radi Allahu anhu and his parties. Also due to the large number of narrations pointing that Ali is righteous, so that even his enemies gave in that he is the best of his time, and no one is worthy of Khilafat more than him. And that his opponents are Transgressors, as they opposed the righteous Khalifah”.
ثم انتهى الى القول 3\535: ما نصه:
"ولهذا ذهب الأكثرون إلى أن أول من بغى في الإسلام معاوية".
- Then he finalized the chapter by saying:
“ Therefore most people went to the belief that the first Transgressor in Islam is Mu’awiyah” Radi Allahu anhu.
- قال العلامة الفاخوري رحمه الله في كتابه تحفة الأنام في تاريخ الاسلام ص67:
"على أن معشر اهل الحق من اهل السنة والجماعة يعتقدون أن معاوية كان مخطئاً، بغى على الإمام الحق علي بن أبي طالب لسبق البيعة والخلافة له رضي الله عنه، وهو مصيب بمحاربة معاوية وأصحابه بحكم قتال أهل البغي من المسلمين، ولذا لم يعاملهم معاملة المرتدين ولاالكافرين، وأن عائشة وطلحة والزبير رضي الله عنهم قد رجعوا عن خطئهم بخروجهم في وقعة الجمل على أمير المؤمنين، وقد ندموا على خروجهم متأسفين، والندم توبة من الخطيئة، فاتبع الحق ولاتتبع الهوى فيضلك عن سبيل الله والله أعلم". اهـ.
- Allama Al-Fakhouri, the grand Shafi’iy Mufti of Beirut ( rahmatullahi alayhi) said in his book “ Tarikh al-islam” ( History of Islam), page 67:
“ The people of righteousness ( Ahlul Haqq) of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jam’a believe that Mu’awiyah was mistaken, transgressed on the righteous Khalifah Ali bin Abi Taleb. As he had the Bay’ah and Khilafah, radiya’Allahu anhu. And that he –Ali alayhis 'salam - is righteous in fighting Mu’awiyah Radi Allahu anhu and his companions based on the rules of Transgressors of Muslims, hence, he did not treat them as Kuffar (blasphemers) nor rejectors. And that Aisha, Talha and Zubair, radiya’Allahu anhum, all repented for their mistake to go to the battle of Jamal, and they regretted it sorrowfully. Regret is a sign of –sincere- repentance, so follow the truth not your desires, otherwise you will deviate from the path of Allah, and Allah knows best”.
=========
Now go back to you'r air-less room and find another way to defame Shaykh Ninoway. The opinions of Sidi Ahmad and Skhyakh Ninoway and this disputed matter are based NOT on personal grudge against any shahabi but based on the authentic recorded sunni literature. This is a very sensitive topic and it’s nothing for the public domain, esp for kharji like you, since you'r brain cells are not capable of understanding simple wirtings of muslim scholars.
Kindly stop this guy to spread hate and discontentment amongst muslims.
Regards Wasalam
|
|
shamshuddin
Senior Member
Unki paaki ka Khudae Paak karta heh bayaan
Posts: 1,441
|
Post by shamshuddin on Nov 15, 2009 11:29:00 GMT
It seems you people have no other response than to slander and attack -- Shiraz, you should be ashamed of even calling yourself a murid of Hadrat Shaykh ul-Islam. Neither do you represent Hadrat Shaykh ul-Islam nor do you represent Hadrat Ghazi al-Millah, both are defenders of Ahl`us Sunnah aqa`id and you, for one, are defending tafdili shi`as. If you don't believe me, then just go read the words of Ninowy himself. Or better yet.... read Ninowy defending a gustakh-e-saHaba. here. his own words. Assalamu 'Alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhuit seems emotions are running wild here. People should not assume what the position of Huzur Sayedi Shaykh-ul-Islam and Huzur Gazi-e-Millet are regarding this issue. It is as clear as the midday sun. It is a grave sin for people to label others as khariji monsters. moderators please take note. What i find quite astonishing if that quote is correct is that a respected scholar like Allama Syed Ninowy not respecting Hazrat Muawiya with radi allahu tala anho after his name?
|
|
iaa
Half Member
Posts: 180
|
Post by iaa on Nov 15, 2009 11:59:15 GMT
There are accusations against Shaykh Ninowy relating to his views on the afzaliyat of Hazrat Abu Bakkar SiddiqueRadi Allahu anhu and some of the comments he has allegedly made relating to Hazrat Amir e Muawiya Radi Allahu anhu which has led to many people querying his position.
Also, just because someone raises these objections he doesn't automatically become a kharji. The better way is to ask Shaykh Ninowy on record what his position is i.e as a video recording or a signed document in relation to his views.
And as far as Shaykh ul Islam and Gazi e Millat are concerned, their views are on record regarding the undisputed afzaliyat of Hazrat Abu Bakkar SiddiqueRadi Allahu anhu which is the same as the established Ahle Sunnah position which has been espoused by many of our scholars such as A'la Hazrat Imam Ahmed Raza Rahmatullahi 'alayh
|
|
|
Post by Saalik on Nov 15, 2009 12:54:34 GMT
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem Assalamu 'Alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa BarakatuhuMore than once it has been repeated that when we copy articles from other websites to paste here we must take care to properly edit them by adding the corresponding Islamic Phrases of respects where needed. Apart from being a rewardful action it also prevents a misunderstanding and another topic of discussion within a discussion. A same narration has different versions on the net typed or copied and posted by all categories of people. In our haste to reply if we see that it's too time consuming to properly edit what we leisurely copy to paste here in our posts, it's preferable to abstain from doing so. This was a reply of Respected Brother Faizan when there was a discussion about Sayyidinah Muawiyya Radi Allahu anhu and it still makes a lot of sense.Jul 21, 2007, 20:38, Faizan wrote:No one in this day and age has the right to discuss who and who was not right during any of the disputes between the Noble Companions of Huzur Sayyidul 'Alimeen Sallallaha ho alay hi wa 'alihi wa ashaabihi wa sallam. We must maintain silence during these matters and not dwelve into such events. The Ulema e Ahl as Sunnah do not generally speak on these events since they do not want to show prejudice or take sides in order to maintain respect and honour for all the Sahaba e Kiram Ridwanullahi ta ala ajmaeen. When the 'juhala' ignorant and illiterate began to take sides then we had the two extreme groups of Shia and Wahabi who by showing respect to one party were totally disrespectful for the other.
It is true to say that when there is no clear injunction from the Qur'an or Hadith then those who are qualified induce Qiyaas or Ijitihaad. Two different opinions on furuwi/fiqhi issues are Rehmah. The Blessed Companions as Brother Musaafir points out were all qualified to do ijtihad and according to their understanding they were doing what they deemed as correct at the time, inspite of the khwarji's being upto no good to cause divisions.
I have heard from Hadrat Shaykh al Islam and many other Ulema e Kiraam that when there was a dispute between Hadrat Musa and Hadrat Haroon Alayhimus Salaam or when Hadrat Musa Alayhis Salaam slapped Hadrat Israeel Alayhis Salaam (Angel of Death) we have no right to discuss or take sides since both those groups of people are 'masum' free from transgressions. We are on a far lower platform to them we have no authority nor understanding to talk and take sides. Likewise all the blessed Companions of Rasoolai Kareem Salla Allahu ta'ala 'alayhi wa Sallam there honour, respect, status is something we can never reach. If The King and Master of all the Awliya Hadrat Gawth al 'Azam Radi Allahu anhu can not reach the makaam of a Sahabi who may only have been a Sahabi for one day and then passed away then who are we to talk and question those great 'Nufus e Qudsiya' chosen by Almighty Allah to be the Noble Companions of His greatest creation.
When Shaykh al Islam were asked regarding their opinion in regards to the dispute of the Noble companions in question they replied that they were both on Haqq. Then the questioner asked them 'Well if you were alive at the time whose side would you have taken?' Hadrat replied 'If I was alive at the time, what would I have been?' The questioner said either A Sahabi or a ta'bi'. Hadrat said 'Correct so i would have been with my father Hadrat 'Ali Radi Allahu anhu and as a Companion or their companion I would have been within my rights to take sides as I would have been of the same level of status as them, but today I have no authority nor rights to question their integrity for they are far superior to any one in the present age'.
May Allah instill in our hearts true love for all the Blessed Companions and real adoration and respect for our Noble Messengers Ahle Bayt e Kiraam Ridwanullahi ajmaeen. |
|
|
ali0009
Senior Member
100%
Ali (alayhis 'salam) Ka Faqeer
Posts: 1,343
|
Post by ali0009 on Nov 15, 2009 15:29:20 GMT
It seems you people have no other response than to slander and attack -- Shiraz, you should be ashamed of even calling yourself a murid of Hadrat Shaykh ul-Islam. Neither do you represent Hadrat Shaykh ul-Islam nor do you represent Hadrat Ghazi al-Millah, both are defenders of Ahl`us Sunnah aqa`id and you, for one, are defending tafdili shi`as. If you don't believe me, then just go read the words of Ninowy himself. Or better yet.... read Ninowy defending a gustakh-e-saHaba. here. his own words. Assalamu 'Alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhuit is a grave sin for people to label others as khariji monsters. moderators please take note. And its not a grave sin to call sunni alim a Shia? (inappropriate comments removed)The position of Shaykh Ninoway is clear in what ive posted above, only if you can open your eyes and READ more and SPEAK less then you can deduce his position (if you'r fair ofcrse). People who love to create fitna (kharji) have made many sunni ulema controversial. Just try to read whats written above, throwing arrows in the air wont do you any good. Ps : Scholars in the past and present have always discussed this issue, but with respect and fairness. As fitna loving people always love to talk about this particular matter and esp in this age, when this matter is only talked upon to label someone else. Let me tell you whats the way of of Ahl al Sunnah - it is to respect all the opinions of sunni ulema and - NOT to thrust only ONE opinion over others, like these kharjis of today are doing. Why Imam Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani didnt maintain a silence including many other, i wonder. Regards Wasalam
|
|
|
Post by Saalik on Nov 15, 2009 17:04:05 GMT
Assalamu 'Alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu
Please leave aside the personal remarks and as for the brother who started to slander Shaykh Ninowi, he should have though well before doing it and should have also sticked to his very own words: "But I shall now keep my mouth shut".
|
|
|
Post by ahlesunnah on Nov 15, 2009 18:44:08 GMT
-------------
|
|
|
Post by Saalik on Nov 15, 2009 19:25:22 GMT
Ok, I think I went overboard --- I apologize to anyone if they have been offended by my comments. It is not out of a personal grudge against Dr. Ninowy but rather out of wanting to defend our aqa`id. Considering that, I should have done it with more adab. I'll re-do what I said --- Our dear respected brother, Ibn Yahya al-Ninowy, has errors and has been accused of tafdili shi`a leanings. As such, the proofs are above. May Allah guide us all. Assalamu 'Alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa BarakatuhuBrother, whatever be your conviction about Shaykh Ninowy ( Damat Barkatuhumul Aliya) , this forum is not the platform to discuss about it. There are other more important factors affecting the Ummah in general which need highlight, fell free to discuss about the other aqeedah issues in related threads in the Islamic Discussion forum. We are all prone to get carried away by stuffs we find on the net and faithful to our motive we give free way to our desire to express it but it's not always the right thing.
|
|
|
Post by Shiraz Ashrafi on Nov 15, 2009 20:24:27 GMT
Jul 21, 2007, 20:38, Faizan wrote:
No one in this day and age has the right to discuss who and who was not right during any of the disputes between the Noble Companions of Huzur Sayyidul 'Alimeen Sallallaha ho alay hi wa 'alihi wa ashaabihi wa sallam. We must maintain silence during these matters and not dwelve into such events. The Ulema e Ahl as Sunnah do not generally speak on these events since they do not want to show prejudice or take sides in order to maintain respect and honour for all the Sahaba e Kiram Ridwanullahi ta ala ajmaeen. When the 'juhala' ignorant and illiterate began to take sides then we had the two extreme groups of Shia and Wahabi who by showing respect to one party were totally disrespectful for the other.
It is true to say that when there is no clear injunction from the Qur'an or Hadith then those who are qualified induce Qiyaas or Ijitihaad. Two different opinions on furuwi/fiqhi issues are Rehmah. The Blessed Companions as Brother Musaafir points out were all qualified to do ijtihad and according to their understanding they were doing what they deemed as correct at the time, inspite of the khwarji's being upto no good to cause divisions.
I have heard from Hadrat Shaykh al Islam and many other Ulema e Kiraam that when there was a dispute between Hadrat Musa and Hadrat Haroon Alayhimus Salaam or when Hadrat Musa Alayhis Salaam slapped Hadrat Israeel Alayhis Salaam (Angel of Death) we have no right to discuss or take sides since both those groups of people are 'masum' free from transgressions. We are on a far lower platform to them we have no authority nor understanding to talk and take sides. Likewise all the blessed Companions of Rasoolai Kareem Salla Allahu ta'ala 'alayhi wa Sallam there honour, respect, status is something we can never reach. If The King and Master of all the Awliya Hadrat Gawth al 'Azam Radi Allahu anhu can not reach the makaam of a Sahabi who may only have been a Sahabi for one day and then passed away then who are we to talk and question those great 'Nufus e Qudsiya' chosen by Almighty Allah to be the Noble Companions of His greatest creation.
When Shaykh al Islam were asked regarding their opinion in regards to the dispute of the Noble companions in question they replied that they were both on Haqq. Then the questioner asked them 'Well if you were alive at the time whose side would you have taken?' Hadrat replied 'If I was alive at the time, what would I have been?' The questioner said either A Sahabi or a ta'bi'. Hadrat said 'Correct so i would have been with my father Hadrat 'Ali Radi Allahu anhu and as a Companion or their companion I would have been within my rights to take sides as I would have been of the same level of status as them, but today I have no authority nor rights to question their integrity for they are far superior to any one in the present age'.
May Allah instill in our hearts true love for all the Blessed Companions and real adoration and respect for our Noble Messengers Ahle Bayt e Kiraam Ridwanullahi ajmaeen. |
Assalamu 'Alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa BarakatuhuSubhanallah, that answer is beyond criticism, Hazoor Shaykh Ul Islam, Zindabad!
|
|
ali0009
Senior Member
100%
Ali (alayhis 'salam) Ka Faqeer
Posts: 1,343
|
Post by ali0009 on Nov 15, 2009 20:27:53 GMT
As such, the proofs are above. May Allah guide us all. You are still dead wrong, totally deaf and blind. There are absolutely no proofs of any kind above, they are only in your mind which is certainly and acutely deficit of neurons. And indeed, like brother Salik has said, if you and your beloved teachers had little common sense, they wouldn't be wasting time defaming world class sunni alims, instead, you all would be focusing on the real threat to the muslims. May Allah guide you. Have fun spreading hate. Regards
|
|