Jump to content

Ghulam e Azhari

Translating Team (M)
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Ghulam e Azhari last won the day on August 6 2016

Ghulam e Azhari had the most liked content!

About Ghulam e Azhari

  • Birthday 07/22/1989

Previous Fields

  • Akhtar Raza Khan

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Karachi

Ghulam e Azhari's Achievements

Rising Star

Rising Star (9/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In

Recent Badges



  1. Religion of the Universe in Languages of the Universe: A platform to gather all the potential translators (mainly) and writers of the religious material. This group has been created solely for the purpose of translation/proofreading/editing/management of bilingual (or multilingual) Islamic literature (softcopies only). We Aim to gather the devoted religious workers from all around the world, the translators (Arabic, English, Urdu, Persian etc) writers and anybody who can work for it. We do this for the benefit of none but the whole Muslim Ummah. A list of members, newcomers and upcoming members has been placed in the documents you may have a look. This page has just be started and trying to gather and make a powerful team for this purpose. I you can or suggest any of your friend for this service please do so. An initial list of published softcopies on the page: 1. Introduction of Mufti Faiz Ahmed Owaisi 2. Destruction of Valentines Day 3. Qurbaani of chicken is permissible for Ghair Muqallid Wahabis 4. The belief of Wahabis regarding the Shrine of Holy Prophet 5. Panjtan Paak by Allama Ahmad Saeed Kazmi sahib 6. The Wind did not obey Allah? Answer to an objection on Malfoozat-e-Ala Hazrat 7. Belief of Muhadditheen 8. Imam Ahmad Raza and Hadaaiq e Bakhshish part 3 9. Imam Bukhari al-Shafi'i 10. Deoband Vs Deoband -suggestions welcomed! -Regards, The team Devoted and Determined. Join on Facebook, Religion of the Universe in Languages of the Universe
  2. The link appears to be of Wahabi Khawarij, since it is a rule of the forum to remove all non-sunni links therefore one must act here too.
  3. The link appears to be of Wahabi Khawarij, since it is a rule of the forum to remove all non-sunni links therefore one must act here too.
  4. Here is PDF document of this book so you can download and share with friends and websites easily. Remember me in your prayers. Imam Bukhari al-Shafi'i.pdf
  5. Belief of Muhadditheen. To seek help from Prophet of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) after his apparent departure from this world: Allama Abu Abdullah Sams-ud-Din Muhammad Dhahabi, a Muhaddith and a renowned expert in textual criticism, was a disciple of Allama Ibn-e-Katheer Damishqi. An Arabic book of him “Tadhkira tul Huffaaz” is very famous. In this, remembrance of many Huffaaz ul Hadith (memorizers of the Prophetic traditions) is present. Some years ago, Ghair al-Muqallid (Wahabi) Molvi Sheikh ul Hadith Hafiz Muhammad Ishaaq translated this book into Urdu, and presentation and revision was done by Muneer Ahmad Salafi Ghair al-Muqallid. In 1981, Islamic Publishing House published this translation in Lahore. Allama Dhahabi writes on its volume 3 about the condition of Muhaddith al-Kabeer Imam Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Ibrahim bin Ali al-Muqarra Isbahaani (died on 381 Hijri, Allah’s mercy be upon him): It is narrated from Abu Bakr Abi Ali that Ibn Al-Muqarra used to say ‘I myself, Muhaddith Imam Hafiz Abil Qasim Sulaiman bin Ahmad Tabarani (died in 360 Hijri) and Abul Sheikh used to live in Madeena tul Munawwara. Our wealth got exhausted and we were experiencing poverty. We kept a fast (that day) without having “Sahri” (eating before dawn).’ Imam Muqarra says ‘On Isha time, I visited the sacred shrine of Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and requested “O Allah’s Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)! We have totally exhausted due to hunger”. After saying this, I came to my house. Imam Tabarani started saying “Sit down, we will either get food or will die.” Shortly afterward, Abul Sheikh and I stood up to the door and found a wealthy 'Alawi at the door. We opened the door; there were two slaves with him, standing and holding two baskets which contained many things. The 'Alawi said “you implored the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), I saw him (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in my dream and he ordered me to give you something”.’ All of the three are noble Muhadditheen, Imam Tabarani and Imam Abul Sheikh did not say to Imam Muhaddith Muqarra “You committed Shirk (polytheism) by seeking assistance about your wish or difficulty from the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).” This confirms that it is the belief of Muhadditheen that seeking help from the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) after his apparent passing away is permissible and not Shirk. Allama Shams-ud-Din Dhahabi too quoted this incident without any alteration or explanation. But now, the generation of the Westerners, which is a new innovating sect of Wahabia, says that doing so is Shirk. La Haula wala kuwwata Illa Billah.
  6. Original Article In Urdu Can be Found Here: http://www.islamimehfil.com/topic/1179-aehl-e-bidat-kon/ Who are the Ahlul Bid'ah? Mufti Iqbal Saeedi ( Educator of Hadis, Jamia Anwar ul Uloom ) Multan Translator: Saif ul Islam Due to the excessive propaganda against Ahlus Sunnah regarding the issue of Bid'ah (innovation), those who do not have enough religious education and understanding began to suppose that Ahlus Sunnah are Ahlul Bid'ah. This is a famous saying among politically polluted propagandists "utter the lie time and again until it is accepted as a truth". Same idea was adopted when deviants started calling themselves as Ahlus Sunnah and labeling (actual) Ahlus Sunnah as Ahlul Bid'ah, although the reality is exactly opposite. Usually they express many things but when they are inquired to describe Bid'ah then they are not at all able to define it such a complete and precise manner which is verified by the Prophet (Peace and blessing be upon him of Allah). Now if they can not prove that definition from the Prophet then according to their own standard their self-forged definition is also considered Bid'ah (being a new thing ), because one of the definition they often put forward is: ''Bid'ah is any such thing which Prophet has not performed''. Nevertheless, the above mentioned definition for Bid'ah is itself a Bid'ah because defining Bid'ah with those words is also an action while Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) never defined Bid'ah with those words, or did Prophet (Peace be upon him) do so? If He (Peace be upon him) did, then any approved quotation from any Sahih Hadith is a must requirement to verify this claim, and that they had never been able to present. In fact the actual definition of Bid'ah which is evident by the words of Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon Him) is: "Every Muhdath (new thing) is Bid'ah" (Mishkhat, Page 30) Now the question rises that, what is Muhdath? Indeed The Holy Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) himself explained this: "Whoever adds (invents) anything in our order (Islamic Law) which was not in the Law then this new thing is rejected" (Bukhari, Muslim, Vol 2, page 77) This definition clearly depicts that Bid'ah actually means to alter the Islamic Law or Shari'ah i.e when the ruling has already given as Shari'ah for any worldy or relgious matter but now to force or believe in a different ruling than given by Shari'ah or anyone opposing this ruling from their own will or to consider this wrong ruling as the rightful decision or to agree with it, is Muhdath (new thing) and every Muhdath is Bid'ah. In this regard there exists no difference between worldly or religious matter (like to deceive some people say that worldly affairs are not Bid'ah but only religious affairs like celeberating Mawlid etc are Bid'ah) despite the fact that Allah 'Azzawajallah already gave ruling about every matter of world or religion and the Shari'ah Rulings (Classification) about various religious or worldly actions are: Fard (Compulsory) Wajib (Essential) Sunnatul Mu-akkida (and Sunnat Ghair Mu'akkida and Mustahab) Aula (Preferred) Haram (Forbidden) Makro'ah Tahreemi (near to Haram) Asa'at (Makrooh Tanzeehi and Khilaf e Aula) Mubah (permissible) Any of the above Shari'ah order is sufficient enough for all the things in universe, their usage or rejection; and all the beliefs, their approval or disapproval; and all religious matters, their allowance or disallowance; and for all such matters any Shari'ah Ruling is already present which be evident and proved by four Shari'ah sources, in their general or special terms. This statement is proven by Qur'an, Hadith and various great books of Islamic Jurisprudence (Fiqah). There is a Hadith which states: Hazrat Salman Farsi (May Allah be pleased with him) narrates that Non-Muslims asked him "Does your Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) guide you about everything, even tells you how to answer call of nature?" He replied "Yes" (Muslim, V1, Page 130) i.e. Hazrat Salman Farsi replied "He teaches us everything including how to answer call of nature." Thus it is proven that all the matters of this universe are included in that statement by companion of Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), it doesn't matter whether they were already apparent in that time or not; and even if these matters have appeared now or some time before, the Shari'ah Rulings (classification) about all matters (new or old) is already present in anycase whatsoever. If a matter is Fard then anyone declaring it Haram or Makrooh will is indeed a Bid'ah according to the definition of Muhdath and If, for example, that matter is Haram then anyone declaring it Fard or Wajib will be a Bid'ah himself. Similarly, if something is Mubah then anyone doing it will not be Bid'ah, but anyone considering this Mubah act as Fard will be a Bid'ati, doesn't matter if he himself actually perform it or not. Similarly anyone who declares this Mubah act as Haram then that person calling a Mubah thing haram will be a Bida'ti. Those usual activities of Ahlus Sunnat Wal Jama'ah which are labeled as Bid'ah (by hypocrites), some of them are proven from Sunnah itself yet those (hypocrites) have no knowledge at all. Some of them are Mustahab and Some are Mubah, the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah do not alter the Shari'ah Rulings (Classification) about such activities and clearly state that this matter is Mubah or Mustahand not Fard or Wajib; that is why the decree of those who oppose such activities as Bid'atis is not valid. Talking about general public so public action is not a proof for any group of sect, when scholars are explaining something in a different way and if the public is having a different procedure than what explained by scholars then it is the mistake from the public not from the whole school of thought, on the contrary if someone is declaring a Mubah or Mustahab action as Haram or Makrooh Tahreemi then definitely he is making a Muhdath (new thing) in Islam and would be classified as a Bid'ati. The above explanation clearly explains that Ahlul Bid'ah are indeed such scholars who declare such actions that were permissible or Mustahab or Taarikul Aula or even in Makrooh Tanzeehi in their real essence, as Haram or Makrooh Tahrimi. We are not talking about the that public of other sects who are against us, rather we are talking about the (hypocrite) scholars who always declare such matters as Haram or Makrooh Tahrimi, thus it is proved that they are real Bid'ati. The tragedy of this era is that those Bid'atis are, with their shameless mouths, declaring us - the Ahlus Sunnah- as 'Bid'atis' and they create confusions by using the statements of one or two companions that probably they declared everything which Prophet did not do is a Bid'ah. On the contrary to such claims, Syedina Abu Bakr Siddiq, Syedina Umar and Syedina Zaid bin Thabit (May Allah be well pleased with them) and all the companions in their time collectively denied that idea that everything which Prophet (peace be upon him) did not peform himself must not be practiced doesn't matter be it good or bad. When Syedina Umar (may Allah be well pleased with him) requested Syedina Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah be well pleased with him) that the Huffaaz companions (those who memorized Qur'an) are being martyred which is why Qur'an should be organized in written form. Syedina Abu Bakr Siddiq answered ''how can I do something which Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon Him) did not do?'' Syedina Umar Farooq (may Allah be well pleased with him) kept on insisting until Syedina Abubakr Siddiq (may Allah be well pleased with him) approved it. Then they called Syedina Zaid bin Thabit (RadiAllahu 'anh) and he was told to organize Qur'an in the written form, he also said precisely as Syedina Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah be well pleased with him) that how could I do something which Prophet ('AlaihisSalam) did not do, afterwards he also understood and he agreed for this duty. (Bukhari, V2, Page 745) Anyhow , all three of them rejected the idea that everything which Prophet ('Alaihis Salam) did not perform should not be done, now if there is a statement of any companion then it is their personal opinion and is contrary to the unanimous decision of the first two rightly guided caliphs and other Companions and would not be accepted as a valid point. Edit: Jazak Allah Saif ul Islam Bhai and Mumtaz Bhai, Added on IslamiEducation as well. http://www.islamieducation.com/who-are-the-ahlul-bidah/
  7. Imam Ahmad Raza and Hadaaiq e Bakhshish Part 3 This objection is also raised against Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi (Allah’s mercy be upon him) that he made himself appear like a great lover of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) but at the same time said some disrespectful and shameless stanzas about the Ummul Mumineen Hazrat Aayisha Siddeeqah (May Allah be pleased with her). This is a grave false accusation. Some other person’s mistake in the order (of stanzas) is unjustly related towards Imam Ahmad Raza Khan, while this (Hadaaiq e Bakhshish part 3) was published after his passing away. The one who did mistake in the order (of those stanzas) has repented from his mistake, the correct order was then printed later on, but those ignorant who are free from the fear of Allah they only have to produce disturbance and mischief. Book of Naatia Poetry (Poems in the praise of Holy Prophet Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) written by Imam Ahmad Raza Barelvi i.e Hadaaiq e Bakhshish consists of two parts, these were compiled and published on year 1325 Hijri (1907 AD), Imam Ahmad Raza passed away on Safr 1340 Hijri (1921 AD). After two year of death Maulana Mahboob Ali Qadri Lakhnowi collected some of his (other) poems from different sources and published this compilation by the name of Hadaaiq e Bakhshish, for the publication he gave his compilation to Masooda Naabhah Steam Press, Naabha (State Patiala, India), the press then composed his compilation and published it. The composer was a Bad-Mazhab (hypocrite), he intentionally or unintentionally interchanged some of those stanzas towards Hazrat Aayisha Siddeeqa (May Allah be please with her) which were actually written about Mushrikah (polytheists woman) like Umm e Zaraa’ etc. The detail about those women can be seen in the books of Ahadith like Muslim, Tirmidhi, Nasaai etc. 32 years after the publication of this book, on 1374 Hijri (1955 AD) full propaganda by Deobandis was launched that since Maulana Mahboob Ali Khan disrespected Hazrat Ummul Mumineen (may Allah be pleased with her) which was why he should be expelled from Sunni Jama’ Masjid in Mumbai. Mufti e Azam e Hind Shah Mustafa Raza Khan Noori (May Allah be please with him) writes: “As far as I know, probably Kazim Ali Deobandi mentioned this matter in his speech in Kaanpur and tried to up bring mischief, later (he spread this mischief) in different places and other Wahabis too repeated it (the mischief-making)” (Book: Faisla Muqaddasa Shara’ia Qur’aania, Page no.81, Muhammad Azeez ur Rahmaan Bahaaupuri, Publication: Markazi Majlis e Raza, Lahore 1984) In this concern, Roznama Inqilab Mumbai played a big role in spreading this Deobandi mischief and unrest amongst people. Disclaimer of Repentance: In Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmizi, Nisai and in other books of Ahadith, it is narrated by Hazrat Aayisha Siddeeqah (May Allah be pleased with her) that 11 polytheist women agreed together to disclose the qualities of their husbands and would not hide anything, amongst them one was Umm e Zaraa’, who praised her husband wholeheartedly and, she said while talking about her daughter that “she is obedient to her parents, wearing sufficient flesh. (Muslim, Vol 2, Page 288, Publication: Noor Muhammad Karachi) In the end of this narration, the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said Hazrat Aayisha (May Allah be pleased with her) “I am as merciful to you as Abu Zaraa’ was with Umme Zaraa’”. The source from where Maulana Mahboob Ali Khan compiled that Qasida in the praise of Hazrat Aayisha Siddeeqa (May Allah be pleased with her), from the same source he compiled 7 stanzas which were about the 11 polytheist women. Over those particular 7 stanzas the word Alehda (separate) was written, but the composer intentionally or unintentionally mixed those 7 stanzas into the Qasida of Hazrat Aayisha Siddeeqa (May Allah be please with her) and published as tempered. When Maulana Mahboob Raza Khan Sahib got to know this, he was thinking to make the corrections in the next edition of publication and thought that the readers would also feel that these stanzas are mistakenly mixed with the Qasida. Khateeb e Mashriq Allama Mushtaq Ahmad Nizami (Allah mercy be upon him), the author of book Khoon Kay Aansu, published a passage in a weekly newspaper of Mumbai to get Maulana Mahboob Ali Khan’s attention over this mistake. Maulana Mahboob Ali Khan Sahib didn’t have any such thoughts, so he published his repentance in monthly “Sunni” of Lakhnow on Zil Hajj 1374 Hijri (1955 AD), following is the summary of the disclaimer of repentance by the words of Mufti e Azam e Delhi Maulana Mufti Mazharullah Dehlvi: “He writes while addressing an editor of monthly Pasbaan (of Ilaahabad) that today on 9th of Zeeqa’ada 1374 Hijri (I) saw your statement about Hadaaiq e Bakhshish part 3 in a weekly newspapers of Mumbai, answer to that first of all this is confession the humble self regarding the mistakes and tardiness, therefore (I) ask Allah for forgiveness of these mistakes and errors, and I do Istighfaar, may Allah grant forgiveness”. After that he mentioned the reason of happening of this error, this is its summary: “Qasida in the praise of Hazrat Syedah Aayisha Siddeeqa (May Allah be pleased with her) and the other Qasida which was about Umm e Zaraa’, written by Hazrat Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi (Allah’s mercy be upon him), were taken and copied from an old decayed written content (source) with great caution. But since the complete Qasida of Umm e Zaraa’ was not available (from the source), so three different parts were made of those 7 stanzas of that Qasida (of Umm e Zaraa’) and over each part the word ‘Alehda’ (separate) was clearly written with a bold pen so that each part’s subject should look distinct. When (I) intended to publish Hadaaiq e Bakhshish part 3, due to some issues I could not do this work at my place (in Patiaala), so had to contact Chaar Naabha Steam Press” (to this point, he presents the detail of his issues, after that he continue explaining the matter). “The person at that press put this term (for publication) that composition (of the book) would also be done here (in this press), this humble self accepted that term and handed over the matter to the press, accidentally both the composer and the owner of that press were hypocrites, intentionally or unintentionally fabrication and alteration happened from them (in this work). After many days when I got to know the errors in this book, I intended to publish the second edition (of this book) with corrections (of the errors), but Hafiz Wali Khan published (the old edition) again without letting me know (about it). I ask forgiveness from Allah Ta’ala for my mistakes, carelessness and tardiness in this matter, may He, Ghafoor and Raheem, forgive me.” (Monthly Sunni, Page 17, Lakhnow) (Fatawa e Mazhari, Vol 2, Page 393, Madina Publication, Karachi) Then the following proclamation was also published: Important announcement: “The stanzas in page 37 and page 38 of Hadaaiq e Bakhshish part 3 were published with incorrect order, for which this humble self had published the repentance many times; May Allah and His Messenger (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) accept my repentance, Aammeen Thumma Aammeen, and Sunni Muslims! Please forgive me for the sake of Allah and His Messenger (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)” “This humble self has published those pages (37 and 38) with correct order. People who have the (old edition of) Hadaaiq e Bakhshish part 3, please take out the pages 37 and 38 and send to this humble and take the pages with correction from me and put it on your book. Those who want to return the book please send it to me and take the money back, Wassalam ‘Alal Ahlal Islam. Faqeer Abul Zafar Muhib ur Raza Muhammad Mahboob Ali Khan Qaadiri Barakaati Rizawi Mujaddidi Lakhnowi, Address: Jamia Masjid Madanpura, Mumbai no. 8.” (Faisla Muqaddasa Shara’ia Qur’ania, Page 31-32, Muhammad Azeez ur Rahman Bahaaupuri) Maulana Mahboob Ali Khan had proclaimed repentance about this matter many times through speeches as well as written statements. Therefore on 10th of July 1955 his repentance was published, then it was also printed in Risala Sunni Lakhnow and daily Inqalab Mumbai. (Raza e Mustafa, Mumbai, page 17, August 1955) Those who State Maulana Mahboob Ali Khan, the compiler of Hadaaiq e Bakhshish part 3, to be responsible for the disrespect and incapable of leading prayer, they should give the same verdict on the books and their authors like Siraat e Mustaqeem, Hifz ul Iman, Al-Khatoobul Muzeebah etc, and asked them all for repentance, then their sincerity would be free of doubts and suspicion. But since Maulana Mahboob Ali Khan was not a person amongst their group, hence all the verdicts are put on him only, rest of the people (i.e. authors of the above books) were since the elders of their own group so neither their pens stated anything against them nor any verdict is published on them. Therefore it is proofed that this distress produced by the foes was not sincere. Is the Gate of Repentance closed already? Public announcement of repentance by Maulana Mahboob Ali Khan is much appreciative. He didn’t write any disrespectful stanza about Hazrat Ummul Mumineen nor related any towards her. Only he, due to some issues, could not offer his full concentration on the publication of the book and the stanzas were published with wrong order, still he openly made repentance and published in many pamphlets and newspapers. Instead of accepting the repentance by him and announcing their (the foes’) repentance from the scholars of Deoband and their statements in books like Hifz ul Imaan, Tehzeer un Naas, Barahin e Qati’a etc so that Muslims would have got protected from confusion and separation, these enemies of Islam didn’t even announce their repentance (from the Deobandi scholars and books) and also didn’t accept the simple and clear-cut repentance of Maulana Mahboob Ali Khan and published huge sized notices of “repentance not accepted”, and this was done to bring up confusion in Muslim society. If they are asked as to what they are doing, they will reply saying they are doing correction of Ummah. Monthly Raza e Mustafa Mumbai wrote: “(Daily) Inqilaab (Mumbai) should have appreciated Maulana (Mahboob Ali), that really Maulana (Mahboob Ali) have made a history by not persisting to his mistakes, unlike Deobandis, rather he openly showed his apology and washed all his mistakes with water of repentance and entirely freed himself from lawful allegations.” (Monthly Raza e Mustafa Mumbai, page 17, August 1955) Faisla Muqaddasa Shara’ia Qur’ania: Those who want more detail about this issue, they should read this pamphlet “Faisla Muqaddasa Shara’ia Qur’ania” which consists of 78 pages of Istiftaa (Shara’i questions) and their answers about this matter. In the beginning (of this pamphlet) is a fatwa by Muhaddith Azam e Hind Maulana Syedi Muhammad Ashrafi Kachochwi, after that are attestations and signatures of Ulama (scholars) followed. Research is done in this fatwa concerning the act of repentance by Maulana Mahboob Ali, that it is faithfully accepted and hence all Muslims should also accept it wholeheartedly. Fatwa of Mufti e Azam e Delhi Maulana MazharUllah Dehlvi is on page 8 to 11 of this pamphlet, page 12 to 18 contains the fatwa of Mufti e Azam e Hind Maulana Muhammad Mustafa Raza Khan Noori, page 22 to 26 consists of second fatwa of Mufti e Azam e Delhi Maulana Mazharullah Dehlvi, page 30 to 34 are the two fatawa of Malik ul Ulama Maulana Zafar ud Din Bihari, fatwa of Maulana Abdul Baqi Burhan ul Haq Qaadiri Jabalpuri is on page 39 to 42, Mufti e Azam e Hind was given Istiftaa once again and its answer can be found on page 47 to 54. In “Faisla Muqassada Shara’ia Qur’ania”, 119 fatawa and attestations of scholars collected. On page 53 to 54 (of the pamphlet) a Hadith is quoted from Muslim Shareef in Arabic text as well as its translation which is about the 11 polytheist disbeliever women, and finally from page 56 to 58 the stanzas of Qasida with correct order are quoted. It is a fact that Hadaaiq e Bakhshish part 3 was compiled and published after the death of Imam Ahmad Raza Barelvi, because he passed away on 1340 Hijri (1921 AD) and this part 3 was compiled on Zil Hajj 1342 (1923 AD). Also, on the title of the same book, the following is clearly written: “Ash-Shah Abdul Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad Raza Khan Sahib Fazil e Barelvi Radi Allahu Anh wa Rahmatullah Alaih” (meaning, May Allah be pleased with him and may Allah’s mercy be upon him) If we look at this whole matter, while putting the bias thoughts and hatred away, the allegation of disrespect of Ummul Mumineen Hazrat Aayisha Siddeeqah (May Allah be pleased with her) cannot be, in any way, applied to be done by Imam Ahmad Raza Barelvi.
  8. salam bhai aapki dua se youtube par MUNAZIR E AHLESUNNAT KI ZORDAR TAQRIR almukhtasar DARHI WALI DULHAN qasim nanotvi baani e darul uloom deoband ki ###### story khud unhi ki kitab ki zubani sun neke liye visit karein


  9. salam bhai aapki dua se youtube par MUNAZIR E AHLESUNNAT KI ZORDAR TAQRIR almukhtasar DARHI WALI DULHAN qasim nanotvi baani e darul uloom deoband ki ###### story khud unhi ki kitab ki zubani sun neke liye visit karein

  10. Alteejani sahb apki tawil ko mene parha. Ap ne kaha k aik munafiq Madina par qabza karna chahta tha to "Musalmanon Madeena mushrikon se ne cheen lia" kehna durust hai. Bhai, chheena us cheez ko jata hai jis par pehle qabza na ho. Musalman ka to pehle se hi hold tha Madina sharif par, phir akhir ye bat kese samajh men aati hai k Musalmanon ne Madina mushrikon se cheena tha? Aik baat aur, Zaid Hamid ki puri baat ye hai "Musalmano ne Madina bi mushrikon se cheena tha, ham bhi Delhi cheenen ge". Yani jis tarha Madina cheena gaya ussi tarha Delhi cheenen ge. Ab sawal ye uthta hai Madeena par hold hone k bawajood agar us munafiq badshah ko Madina par qabza na karne dena Madeena cheena hai to phir Delhi men to pehle hi India raaj qaaim hai wahan Pakistanion ka koi hold nahi chalta phir is ko kese keh denge k ye cheenna us cheenne k muwafiq hai? Kiunke wo keh to raha hai Madina cheena tha ab Delhi bhi cheenen ge...??? Baat yunh samjhiye, k Madina sharif men Musalman Mahajir invite kiye gae, wahan Ansaar ne unki imdad ki. Wahin par Islami State qaaim hui. Us invitation aur help ka qiaas yahan Delhi men kese ho sakta hai jab k yahan to government India ki, Hindu majority, Pakistanion ko wo bardasht nahi karte, Pakistanion par beshumar pabandian... Agar Delhi fatah kia gaya to isko keh sakte hen k Delhi par attack kar k ham ne Delhi cheen lia to ye theek hai. Par jahan aman o sukoon se Musalman rahhe jisko hasil karne men Musalmanon ne jang hi nahi larhi balke khud hi Madina Sharif invite kiye gae, wo akhir kese kaha ja sakta hai k is Shehr e Madeena ko Musalmanon ne mushrikon se cheena? Ye tawil bilkul ghalat hai is par k Musalmanon ne Madina mushrikon se chheena tha...!
  11. Is topic par bohot ziada out of topic baaten horahi hen. To plz ye rule hai k topic k mutabik hi baat karni hai, Zaid Hamid k liye alag topic jab open hai to phir yahan is par baat karne ki kia hajat hai? Yahan Sheikh Amin Idreesi par baat karni hai kiunke topic ussi k liye open hua hai. Akhir bila waja out of topic baat karne men hikmat hi kia hai? Moderators jald is topic se tamam ghair mutalliqa posts delete karden, Anwar sahb aur Alteejani sahb aap apne posts copy paste kar k record karlen kiunke apke posts delete hone wale hen. JazakAllah!
  12. Assalamualaikum. Is topic men post no. 7 men jo links diye gae hen wo kaam nahi karrahe..... aur islamieducation men download section k undar Kutub aur Mazamin k links bhi kaam nahi karrahe... Plz fix them ASAP.
  13. Shabeer Usmani was the only Deobandi molvi who in his last stage favoured formation of Pakistan. Anyhow he was, with respect to belief, a Deobandi prominent scholar. It was Deobandi's Sheikh ul Islam Hussain Ahmad Tandvi congressy Gandhwi (who was mohtamim of Dar ul Uloom Deoband) who said Quaid e Azam as Kafir e Azam. SHABEER AHMED USMANI VS ATAULLAH BUKHARI CONDITION OF MOULVI SHABEER AHMED USMANI: His fault was that he joined ‘Muslim League’ and voted for the foundation of Pakistan in last stages. FATWA OF ATAULLAH BUKHARI: “People who vote ‘Muslim League’ for Pakistan are pigs and pig-eaters!” (Chamanistan, page 165, compiled by Moulvi Zafar Ali) SHABEER USMANI VS HUSSAIN AHMED TANDVI OF CONGRESS QUAID-E-A’ZAM FOUNDER OF PAKISTAN MUHAMMAD ALI JINNAH: His fault was that he worked hard for achievement of a magnificent Islamic country for the innocent people of Indo-Pak! This struggle made ‘Shaykh ul Islam’ of Congress Hussain Ahmed Tandvi Annoyed. Hussain Ahmed Tandvi labeled joining ‘Muslim League’ as forbidden, and gave “Quaid-e-A’zam” the title of “Kaafir-e-A’zam” (the greatest infidel). (Majmoo’a-e-Khutba, page 48) When Moulvi Shabeer Usmani Deobandi said it is the reckless disgrace and foolishness to call “Quaid-e-A’zam” as “Kaafir-e-A’zam”. (Majmoo’a-e-Khutba, page 32) Then he (Hussain Ahmed) suddenly demolished the label of ‘Shaykh ul Islam’ of the helpless Shabeer Usmani and granted him the splendid label of “Abu Jahal” (father of illiterate). (Mukaalimatus Sidreen, page 33)
  14. Assalamualaikum, Please download attachement articles. Ismail Dehlvi ka Jihaad.pdf Lal-Qila-Se-Lal-Masjid-Tak.pdf Dehshatgardon ke Aqaaid.pdf Dushman e Awliya se Ailaan e Jang.pdf Swat aur Malakand ke Buzurgaan e Deen.pdf Mojuda Dehshatgardi aur Wahabi Deobandi Dharam.pdf Jihad aur Dehshatgardi men Farq.pdf
  • Create New...