Qasim Nanotavi Deobandi wrote in his book:
- "Agir bilfarz bad zamana Nabvi [saw] is'see zameen meh kohi Nabi peda ho toh phir Khatamiyat e Muhammedi meh farq nah ahay ga. Cha'h jahay kay aap kay ma'sir kissi aur zameen meh aur Nabi tajweez keeya jahay toh phir bee aap kee KHATAMIAT BADASTOOR QAHIM RAHAY GEE"
- Suppose if, after the time of Prophet Muhammed sallalahu alayhi was'salam in this world some Prophet was born, even then khatamiat e Muhammedi will not be effected. Even so if like aap {i.e. Prophet Muhammed} in an other world another Prophet is apointed, even then aap {Prophet Muhammed's} khatamiat will remain as traditionally understood.
* If another Prophet is born in this world or in another world is Prophet Muhammed salalahu alayhi was'salam still the Last {Khatam} prophets?
- Deobandi's Verdict: Ofcourse it will not be effected he will remain last Prophet.
- Barelwi's Verdict: Ofcourse it will be effected he will not be last Prophet anymore.
I write, You Decide - Series.
Can I be on both sides?
I've never understood the deobandi/berelwi split but the bit i've highlighted - that makes no sense. :/
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
Can a colour be Black and White simultanously?
no...
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
It does make sense, just try little harder, think little harder, read it few times it will fall into its place.
It makes sense as a sentence. But the concept doesn't make sense
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
Then you cant be both. On this point difference between the two, you are either Deobandi, or either Barelwi, not both at same time.
Just like a man cant be Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, all at once you cant be the two at once in this post. Only one side represents Islam, and other side represents Qadiyani'ism.
Note, you are judging Deobandis and Barelwi's on individual points, and not collectively are two groups. When this question is asked most people say, well Barelwis read lovely naat how can they be wrong, well deobandis are fighting the americans and fought jihaad against british how can they be wrong, Everyone praises barelwis/deobandis for their acheivements so and so seikh said this about barelwis/deobandis surely he cant be wrong.
YOU ARE NOT JUDGING COLLECTIVELY, but INDIVIDUALLY.
It can be grey so its abit of both.
what? :/ why do you even have to be either?! There is NOT going to be a new Prophet coming so why even think about that/argue about that point?!
Why do people create such stupid divisions between each other
May Allah(swt)put us and keep us all on the straight path. Ameen.
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
pLEASE explain what you mean, the way you write, i can take ten different meanings out of it, be explicit, so i cant really pinpoint what you are thinking, its all clear in your head cause ur writting it, but as a reader am left to assume what you mean.
On this link:
http://www.ahlalhdeeth.org/showthread.php?t=18720
scroll down to:
Email Two : Response Two
Read that part, the above heading is in blue. It will make sense, Qasim Nanotavi gave Khatam Un Nabiyeen a new meaning.
what is the point of this topic?
If a person has got wrong aqeedah in this point that person becomes kaffir, every muslim must have aqeedah on this point, if someone doesnt have aqeedah, and is neutral person is not Muslim.
This is not deviding the Ummah this is protecting the Ummah from Kuffr of Qadiyani religion, and protecting the Muslims, educating the Muslims who dont know aqeedah, otherwise wrong aqedah on this issue is proof of Qadiyani religion, wrong aqeedah supports Qadiyanis.
Muslims need to know the wrong aqeedahs in sects to be on guard against them, and you cant be on guard when you dont know who is comming to hit you, and how, and with what, so i am only pointing out who is going to hit you with what so your guard is up, unfortunately people take this as deviding the Ummah. Have you no fear of Allah to accuse me of deviding the Ummah, the shaytaan devided the Ummah, and that Shaytaans name is QASIM NANOTAVI FOUNDER OF DEOBANDI'ISM, AND FOUNDATION LAYER OF QADIYANI RELIGION. Mirza Qadiyani claimed prophethood, because the THEORY WAS OF QASIM NANOTAVI THAT FINALITY WILL NOT BE EFFECTED IF ANOTHER PROPHET IS BORN, SO I GHULAM AHMED QADIYANI AM A PROPHET.
The people you suppose to be accusing of splitting the uMmah and destroying the Ummah, going against Quran and Sunnah, comming with beleife that Khatam un Nabiyeen means that all qualities of praise of of Prophet mUhammed, and EVERY prophet gets prophethood from prophet muhammmed, therefore even if a prophet is born after him he is still KHATAM.
this is the meaning which he assinged to khatam un nabiyeen, no sahabi, tabi, tabitabi, imam mujtahid, muhaddith, aalim, maulvi, peer, faqir, sufi, every assinged this meaning to it, Prophet said i am last prophet, i am khatam un nabiyeen and went further to explicitly say there is no prophet after me he even explained what that means.
You accuse me of deviding the Ummah, have you no fear of Allah, my fault is that i am helping you all to identify THE POTENTIAL ENEMY, AND HIS POTENTIAL WEAPON, and its potential damage, my fault is that i want you to have correct aqeedah, and have perserve your imaan. You really need to recognise who your enemies are and who are deviding the Ummah. its not your fault that you have lost sense of friend and enemy its era of dajjal children take their parents as their enemies now days, am just random guy doing something for sake of Allahs deen, not that its going to make a difference, atleast I can stand on day of judgement and say O Allah I stood in way of flood of heretical believes as firmly as I could, and did the best to prevent them from damaging your deen.
Education!
Grey is neither black nor white, question indicates the answer as to be one of the two mentioned, not the comprimise of two.
lets leave that to the scholars.
Dude! I didn't accuse you of anything.
As far as i know Berelwi's are Muslims, Qadiani's aren't so how you putting them together?
it's OBVIOUS if someone believes that there will be another Prophet after Prophet Muhammad saw then they are NOT muslim. No need for all these groups to be mentioned :/
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
And why shouldnt the kaffirs be identified, didnt Allah point out kaffirs, Mushrikeen, Yahood, Nasara, Munafiqeen, didnt the Prophet expose the Khawarij, didnt the Sahabah label the Khawarij witht he name Khawarij, and expose their believies with mentioning their name?
Would you not want to know what Qadiyani's believe, would you also say, you dont have to mention their name when you write about their believes?
The difference between the Deobandis and Qadiyanis of this on aqeedah of Khatam Un Nabiyeen:
Deobandi's:
- If a Prophet is born, finality will not be effected.
Qadiyani's:
- If a Prophet is born, finality will not be effected.
- Mirza Ghulam Qadiyani is Prophet,
6:68 When thou seest men engaged in vain discourse about Our signs, turn away from them unless they turn to a different theme. If Satan ever makes thee FORGET, then after recollection, sit not thou in the company of those who do wrong.
Those who engage in vain,, pointless discourse about ayaat of Quran, turn away from them, in this case the Deobandi's unless they turn to differnt theme, if shaytaan makes you forget this then when you remember then get up and leave the deobandis because of their teachings are against Quran and Sunnah.
The POINTING OUT OF NAMES OF SECTS IS IMPORTANT otherwise you wouldnt know who to stay away from, like sahabah and RasoolAllah have in hadith, and Allah did in the Quran, Allah could have reffuted trinity without metnioning Jesus, Maryam alayhis salam, etc ... but he didnt he mentioned the specific people involved in the beleife, and specific group of people who beleive in it, so we know abot whom Allah was talking about. Allah could have said: he is not father of any man among you he is the allahs rasool and last prophet, but instead he said: "MUHAHAMMED IS NOT FATHER OF ANY MAN ..." because then we know who Allah was on about, names believes are high lighted so people can recognise who they are. This is the way of Allah, RAsoolAllah, Sahabah ... and they were holier, pious, righteous, god fearing, card about unity of Ummah, more then you and me would ever be, so for you to say dont mention names, is only lack of knowledge.
If i wnted to identify you, do i have to describe how you look and how you dont look, or can i just mention your name and your fathers name, with it to pinpoint which person i am talking about? Please do justice to common sense ... names, labels are there so easily identified.
Group A:
- Allah is one.
Group B:
- Allah is three in one, Allah, Muhammed, Gibraeel.
Your choice:Lets leave that to the scholars to decide who is right.
Somethings can be left to scholars, others cant, and this one issue of Qasim Nanotavi's statement is one such issue that you have to rightly judge, otherwise condition of being Muslim is negated.
Some beleives about Prophet Muhammmed are must, i.e. he is was human, Messenger, Nabi, Final Prophet and Final RAsool, Died, ... any Muslim who doesnt know these technically is heretic, and after explained and still rejects anyone of these, person is kaffir. sAME AS TAWHEED, to beleive in Allah is Rab, Malik, Khaliq, etc evertying, but to say he is three in one, is kuffr, so affirming few or all and negating his oneness is kuffr, ... LEARN AQEEDAH.
WTF
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
I think I MIGHT understand what your saying here...but don't you think the wording is incorrect?
Allah is Allah. But Prophet
has his Noor and Gibrael being the Senior of Angels...
I don't see how though it makes Allah three in one?
Maybe if you expand upon this point.
Your own soul is nourished when you are kind; it is destroyed when you are cruel.
Ask a zebra.
The question is a stupid one as there will be no new prophets after the prophet (saw).
RadiatingAli - is your mission to radiate stupidity?
Welcome to our humble abode.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
He came here for a fight, so it does not matter if you never accused him of anything.
(is it worth reading this thread? what is his angle?)
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
It seems to be to try and compare Muslims with Qadiyani's and do it badly.
I remember being told that there is a hadith that if a Muslim calls another Muslim a kaafir, then one of them two are out of the fold of Islam - either that person was correct and the other person was not Muslim, or that person was wrong and this accusation has taken him out of the fold of Islam.
I wonder where people like radiatingali stand on this scale of things... throw a thousand accusations at other Muslims and then stikk think they are on the right path...
... there wsa a time when people thought they were better Muslims than Hadhrat Ali (ra) ... they would pray loads, act on loads of the physical aspects of Islam, but now they are unanimously known as khawaarij - the people who left the fold of Islam.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
From this topic, the author is either comparing the Deobandi's or the brelvis (that is how good the teaching is, I have no idea which he means) to either qadiyani's or christians (once again due to superior teaching skills).
Now, since neither of the two groups believe in either the trinity or another prophet after the prophet(saw), I think he is standing on slippery ground.
Now, calling either non Muslim or even close when the person himself has no idea what he is chatting about and his examples showing one of the groups flaws (someone help me out here?) calling everyone from it outside the fold of Islam... considering the hadith about calling others not Muslim, the slippery ground turns into quick sand.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Ah funnily enough yesterday I was watching a YouTube clip on this.....
">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IFOzBRTWiw]
Allahu Akhbar, you havnt understood the intent why i wrote trinity part, let me explain. In the beginning i had written:
On the topic one person asked:
So i answered:
he replied back:
so in reply to his that I wrote:
In other words I was saying to Noor that would you not decide for your self on what is right and wrong between one group which says Allah is one and the other says Allah is three in one. Not that its true, it was hypothetical scenario, like hypothetically speaking: if i was on moon i would bla bla bla ... Point was yes Noor you would decide between the two groups which you agree with, and you wouldnt say lets leave it to the scholars to decide,so why are you saying that we leave it to scholars to decide who is right and wrong between deobandi and barelwis.
!!
Next time could you point out that it's an hypothetical example!!
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
A zebra can be black and white simultanously without doubt, but A COLOUR can not be both, if you cant think your self you might read what someone else wrote:
My mission was to see how may STUPID PEOPLE ARE IN THIS FORUM, so far you are the only confirmed one
, since you failed to answer a simple question.
Seems like you achieved that title before anyone else. Posting a stupid question up.
Your own soul is nourished when you are kind; it is destroyed when you are cruel.
AAah which rules of logic, theology, comon sense, have i negated to earn that title?
Pages