The Parwezi Propaganda
davidbradly
From the mouths from the munafiqeen such as yourself, we shall know you,
SUBHANALLAH.
Look at what you just quoted below :
Your writer refuses to even analyse the possibility of these kafireen being
kafirs BY VIRTUE of thier names alone. This is of course, thier
idol-worship as well as yours. Alhamdulillah, for showing us your kufr yet
again.
These Parwezis are still 'BARKING' aimlessly in their campaign to
label all followers of the Hanafee, Maliki, Shafe'i and Hanbali
Schools of Thought as MUSHRIKS (i.e. one who associates
partners with Allah). According to their belief, all great scholars and
saints in Islam are MUSHRIKS. Na'oozubillah! The Saint of all
saints Sayyiduna Abdul Qadir Jeelani (RA), great scholars
like Allamah ibn Taimiyyah, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab and his
son Shaikh Abdullah were all followers of the Hanbali School of
Thought. Does this mean that they were MUSHRIKS?
Na'oozubillah. By this principle, even they themselves are
MUSHRIKS as they are blind followers of Parwez's un-Islamic
theories. Let these Parwezis get their facts right as their own
logical thinking process is also failing to support them.
ibn Misael wrote:
> ------------------------------------
> http://www.jamiat.org.za/isinfo/parwezi.html
> ------------------------------------
>
> PARWEZI PROPAGANDA
> Recently, many Muslims are propagating the western-orientated
> ANTI-HADITH Parwezi School of Thought. Let us look at a brief
> history of the origin of such a sect. Professor Habibul Haq Nadvi in
> his book ISLAMIC RESURGENT MOVEMENTS IN THE INDO-
> PAK SUBCONTINENT (page 105) says:
>
> 'They initiated public denial of the Hadith as a legal Islamic Law
> and led the ANTI-HADITH movement in the Sub-continent. They
> formulated their own theories from the Quran and reinterpreted
> Quranic terminology according to their own understanding, which
> changed the meaning of the Quran explained by classical exegists
> (Mufassiroon) to a great extent.'
>
> Writing about Al-Mashriqui in the same book, he says:
>
> 'Al-Mashriqui, a graduate of Cambridge and a rationalist, started
> his movement through free interpretation of the Holy Quran. In his
> AT-TAZKIRAH (1924) and HADITH-AL-QURAN (1951), he
> explained his views on religion and politics. He abridged the
> teachings of the Quran to ten points that replaced the five accepted
> pillars of Islam. He was acclaimed by western scholars for
> his courage and reconstruction of Islamic Faith (AQAA'ID).' (Note:
> This is in line with the conspiracy of the West against Islam).
>
> Professor C W Smith in his book MODERN ISLAM IN INDIA
> (pages 264-276) and Professor Kramer in his article in the THE
> MUSLIM WORLD, an American Journal, VOL 21, No.2 April 1930,
> have praised Al-Mashriqui for his ANTI-HADITH views and took
> special interest in his AT-TAZKIRAH, which is almost non-existent
> for the last 40 years.
>
> Ghulam Ahmad Parwez not only continued and carried on the
> message of Al-Mashriqui, but he went further and expounded his
> own theories. Professor Habibul Haq Nadvi in his book ISLAMIC
> RESURGENT MOVEMENTS on page 107 says:
>
> 'He (Ghulam Ahmad Parwez) disowned the corpus of Hadith as
> well as classical Tafaaseer (commentaries of the Quran), which
> according to him cannot be trusted as a source for understanding
> the Quran by a modern man. Like Al-Mashriqui, he had to redefine
> and recoin Quranic terminology. Moreover, his translation of the
> Quran had been mingled and fused with his personal views and
> reviews. The four volumes of his LUGHAAT-UL-QURAN were
> prepared in order to support their new messages and
> interpretations. They were jointly compiled and written by various
> authors with similar persuasions but were published under his
> name.'
>
> On page 108 of the same book, Professor Habibul Haq Nadvi also says:
>
> 'These theories, expounded by Parwez, sparked opposition
> among the orthodox Ulama as well as among the modernists. He
> was taken by many as a closer ally to Western economic thought
> and philosophy rather than to the Quranic system. Dr. Aziz Ahmad,
> himself a modernist and a great admirer of Parwez, was very
> unhappy with his NIZAAM-E-RUBUBIYYAH concepts. In his book
> ISLAMIC MODERNISM IN INDIA AND PAKISTAN (pages 224-
> 225), Dr Aziz Ahmad concludes that no modernist, right from the
> time of Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan to the present, was so close to
> Western thought as was Parwez.'
>
> It is therefore not surprising that those who follow his 'mazhab' are
> causing so much confusion in explaining Quranic concepts.
> Recently, a special article had to be written by a Parwezi DR.
> SAYED ABDUL WADUD trying laboriously to explain away the
> confusions created by the articles RELIGION AND LAW and
> RELIGION AND SCIENCE. These are the results of formulating
> one's own theories in the Quran and reinterpreting Quranic
> ideologies according to one's own understanding.
>
> These Parwezis are still 'BARKING' aimlessly in their campaign to
> label all followers of the Hanafee, Maliki, Shafe'i and Hanbali
> Schools of Thought as MUSHRIKS (i.e. one who associates
> partners with Allah). According to their belief, all great scholars and
> saints in Islam are MUSHRIKS. Na'oozubillah! The Saint of all
> saints Sayyiduna Abdul Qadir Jeelani (RA), great scholars
> like Allamah ibn Taimiyyah, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab and his
> son Shaikh Abdullah were all followers of the Hanbali School of
> Thought. Does this mean that they were MUSHRIKS?
> Na'oozubillah. By this principle, even they themselves are
> MUSHRIKS as they are blind followers of Parwez's un-Islamic
> theories. Let these Parwezis get their facts right as their own
> logical thinking process is also failing to support them.
>
> These Parwezis believe that the Ulama in the Quran refers to the
> Scientists. Let us ask them one question: Does the Quran refer to
> westernized GODLESS scientists as Ulama or those who are
> firmly grounded in Faith? Every Muslim knows that the Quran does
> contain many scientific facts, which the Ulama are aware of. But
> this does not mean that the Ulama must study BOTANY,
> GEOLOGY, BIOLOGY, ANTHROPOLOGY, COSMOLOGY,
> ASTRONOMY, METEOROLOGY and NEPHOLOGY as we
> have them today. Such completely constructed sciences were not
> in existence in the time of Rasoolullah (SAW). And who can be a
> greater ALIM (sing. of ULAMA) than Rasoolullah (SAW)? O Allah!
> Help them to keep their big mouth shut until they KNOW what they
> are talking about. Ameen!
>
> The Parwezis also openly reject the miraculous birth of Hazrath
> Isaa (AS), his miraculous ascension to heaven and his second
> coming into this world. The Holy Quran is very clear without any
> ambiguity on the miraculous birth and ascension of Hazrath Isaa
> (AS). But the Parwezis have played verbal gymnastics with these
> verses of the Quran as well. Articles such as SAVIOURS
> AND VIRGINS etc. are now appearing in many magazines and
> newsletters specifically to mock the following clear and
> unambiguous verses of the Quran:
>
> SHE (MARYAM) SAID: '0 MY LORD! HOW SHALL I HAVE A SON
> WHEN NO MAN HATH TOUCHED ME?' HE (THE ANGEL) SAID:
> 'EVEN SO: ALLAH CREATETH WHAT HE WILLETH; WHEN HE
> HAD DECREED A PLAN, HE BUT SAITH TO IT, 'BE', AND IT
> IS!' (Surah Ah Imraan: 47)
>
> HE (THE ANGEL) SAID: 'NAY I AM ONLY A MESSENGER FROM
> THY LORD (TO ANNOUNCE) TO THEE THE GIFT OF A HOLY
> SON.' SHE (MARYAM) SAID: 'HOW SHALL I HAVE A SON,
> SEEING THAT NO MAN HAS TOUCHED ME AND I AM NOT
> UNCHASTE?' (Surah Maryam:19-20)
>
> How then can we have any confidence on such Parwezis who
> make changes (TAHREEF) of the Kalaam of Allah? It definitely
> seem that they have a completely WESTERNISED version of the
> Quran as well.
>
> These Parwezis have replaced Salaah and Zikrullah with Music as
> the food for their soul. Nowhere in their books is there any mention
> of the significance of Salaah and Zikrullah as food for the soul. A
> true follower of Quran should NEVER forget this great pillar of
> Islam. This also confirms that Salaah is no longer considered an
> important pillar of Islam by the Parwezis. The reason being that
> they don’t accept the Hadith as a source of Islamic Law, so how will
> they read their Salaah, because the details of salaah are
> described only in the books of Hadith.
>
> Let us not be misled by the stupid jokes and criticism of the
> Parwezis against our sincere and righteous ULAMA. Those who
> follow the Righteous Path of Allah are never afraid of being
> mocked. This mocking behaviour has always been the pre-
> occupation of the hypocrites and wicked ones. Allah says:
>
> O YOU WHO BELIEVE! IF ANY FROM AMONG YOU TURN
> BACK FROM HIS FAITH, SOON WILL ALLAH PRODUCE A
> PEOPLE WHOM HE WILL LOVE AS THEY WILL LOVE HIM -
> LOWLY WITH THE BELIEVERS AND MIGHTY AGAINST THE
> REJECTERS, FIGHTING IN THE WAY OF ALLAH, AND NEVER
> AFRAID OF THE REPROACHES OF THOSE WHO FIND
> FAULTS. THAT IS THE GRACE OF ALLAH WHICH HE WILL
> BESTOW ON WHOM HE PLEASETH, AND ALLAH
> ENCOMPASSETH ALL, AND KNOWETH ALL THINGS. (Surah
> Al-Maa'idah: 57)
>
> May Allah guide us all on the Straight Path, the path of those upon
> whom He has bestowed His favours, not of those upon whom His
> wrath descends nor those who are astray. Ameen.
>
> Abdul Haq Abdul Kadir
> ------------------------------------
> http://www.jamiat.org.za/isinfo/parwezi.html
> ------------------------------------
> ______________________________________________
> http://www.jamiat.org.za
>
> Council of Muslim Theologians
> P.O. Box 62564
> Bishopsgate 4008
> (South Africa)
>
> Tel: 0027 31 3067786
> Fax: 0027 31 3064786
> ______________________________________________
ibn Misael wrote:
> ------------------------------------
> http://www.jamiat.org.za/isinfo/parwezi.html
> ------------------------------------
>
> PARWEZI PROPAGANDA
> Recently, many Muslims are propagating the western-orientated
> ANTI-HADITH Parwezi School of Thought. Let us look at a brief
> history of the origin of such a sect. Professor Habibul Haq Nadvi in
> his book ISLAMIC RESURGENT MOVEMENTS IN THE INDO-
> PAK SUBCONTINENT (page 105) says:
>
> 'They initiated public denial of the Hadith as a legal Islamic Law
> and led the ANTI-HADITH movement in the Sub-continent. They
> formulated their own theories from the Quran and reinterpreted
> Quranic terminology according to their own understanding, which
> changed the meaning of the Quran explained by classical exegists
> (Mufassiroon) to a great extent.'
>
> Writing about Al-Mashriqui in the same book, he says:
>
> 'Al-Mashriqui, a graduate of Cambridge and a rationalist, started
> his movement through free interpretation of the Holy Quran. In his
> AT-TAZKIRAH (1924) and HADITH-AL-QURAN (1951), he
> explained his views on religion and politics. He abridged the
> teachings of the Quran to ten points that replaced the five accepted
> pillars of Islam. He was acclaimed by western scholars for
> his courage and reconstruction of Islamic Faith (AQAA'ID).' (Note:
> This is in line with the conspiracy of the West against Islam).
>
> Professor C W Smith in his book MODERN ISLAM IN INDIA
> (pages 264-276) and Professor Kramer in his article in the THE
> MUSLIM WORLD, an American Journal, VOL 21, No.2 April 1930,
> have praised Al-Mashriqui for his ANTI-HADITH views and took
> special interest in his AT-TAZKIRAH, which is almost non-existent
> for the last 40 years.
>
> Ghulam Ahmad Parwez not only continued and carried on the
> message of Al-Mashriqui, but he went further and expounded his
> own theories. Professor Habibul Haq Nadvi in his book ISLAMIC
> RESURGENT MOVEMENTS on page 107 says:
>
> 'He (Ghulam Ahmad Parwez) disowned the corpus of Hadith as
> well as classical Tafaaseer (commentaries of the Quran), which
> according to him cannot be trusted as a source for understanding
> the Quran by a modern man. Like Al-Mashriqui, he had to redefine
> and recoin Quranic terminology. Moreover, his translation of the
> Quran had been mingled and fused with his personal views and
> reviews. The four volumes of his LUGHAAT-UL-QURAN were
> prepared in order to support their new messages and
> interpretations. They were jointly compiled and written by various
> authors with similar persuasions but were published under his
> name.'
>
> On page 108 of the same book, Professor Habibul Haq Nadvi also says:
>
> 'These theories, expounded by Parwez, sparked opposition
> among the orthodox Ulama as well as among the modernists. He
> was taken by many as a closer ally to Western economic thought
> and philosophy rather than to the Quranic system. Dr. Aziz Ahmad,
> himself a modernist and a great admirer of Parwez, was very
> unhappy with his NIZAAM-E-RUBUBIYYAH concepts. In his book
> ISLAMIC MODERNISM IN INDIA AND PAKISTAN (pages 224-
> 225), Dr Aziz Ahmad concludes that no modernist, right from the
> time of Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan to the present, was so close to
> Western thought as was Parwez.'
>
> It is therefore not surprising that those who follow his 'mazhab' are
> causing so much confusion in explaining Quranic concepts.
> Recently, a special article had to be written by a Parwezi DR.
> SAYED ABDUL WADUD trying laboriously to explain away the
> confusions created by the articles RELIGION AND LAW and
> RELIGION AND SCIENCE. These are the results of formulating
> one's own theories in the Quran and reinterpreting Quranic
> ideologies according to one's own understanding.
>
> These Parwezis are still 'BARKING' aimlessly in their campaign to
> label all followers of the Hanafee, Maliki, Shafe'i and Hanbali
> Schools of Thought as MUSHRIKS (i.e. one who associates
> partners with Allah). According to their belief, all great scholars and
> saints in Islam are MUSHRIKS. Na'oozubillah! The Saint of all
> saints Sayyiduna Abdul Qadir Jeelani (RA), great scholars
> like Allamah ibn Taimiyyah, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab and his
> son Shaikh Abdullah were all followers of the Hanbali School of
> Thought. Does this mean that they were MUSHRIKS?
> Na'oozubillah. By this principle, even they themselves are
> MUSHRIKS as they are blind followers of Parwez's un-Islamic
> theories. Let these Parwezis get their facts right as their own
> logical thinking process is also failing to support them.
>
> These Parwezis believe that the Ulama in the Quran refers to the
> Scientists. Let us ask them one question: Does the Quran refer to
> westernized GODLESS scientists as Ulama or those who are
> firmly grounded in Faith? Every Muslim knows that the Quran does
> contain many scientific facts, which the Ulama are aware of. But
> this does not mean that the Ulama must study BOTANY,
> GEOLOGY, BIOLOGY, ANTHROPOLOGY, COSMOLOGY,
> ASTRONOMY, METEOROLOGY and NEPHOLOGY as we
> have them today. Such completely constructed sciences were not
> in existence in the time of Rasoolullah (SAW). And who can be a
> greater ALIM (sing. of ULAMA) than Rasoolullah (SAW)? O Allah!
> Help them to keep their big mouth shut until they KNOW what they
> are talking about. Ameen!
>
> The Parwezis also openly reject the miraculous birth of Hazrath
> Isaa (AS), his miraculous ascension to heaven and his second
> coming into this world. The Holy Quran is very clear without any
> ambiguity on the miraculous birth and ascension of Hazrath Isaa
> (AS). But the Parwezis have played verbal gymnastics with these
> verses of the Quran as well. Articles such as SAVIOURS
> AND VIRGINS etc. are now appearing in many magazines and
> newsletters specifically to mock the following clear and
> unambiguous verses of the Quran:
>
> SHE (MARYAM) SAID: '0 MY LORD! HOW SHALL I HAVE A SON
> WHEN NO MAN HATH TOUCHED ME?' HE (THE ANGEL) SAID:
> 'EVEN SO: ALLAH CREATETH WHAT HE WILLETH; WHEN HE
> HAD DECREED A PLAN, HE BUT SAITH TO IT, 'BE', AND IT
> IS!' (Surah Ah Imraan: 47)
>
> HE (THE ANGEL) SAID: 'NAY I AM ONLY A MESSENGER FROM
> THY LORD (TO ANNOUNCE) TO THEE THE GIFT OF A HOLY
> SON.' SHE (MARYAM) SAID: 'HOW SHALL I HAVE A SON,
> SEEING THAT NO MAN HAS TOUCHED ME AND I AM NOT
> UNCHASTE?' (Surah Maryam:19-20)
>
> How then can we have any confidence on such Parwezis who
> make changes (TAHREEF) of the Kalaam of Allah? It definitely
> seem that they have a completely WESTERNISED version of the
> Quran as well.
>
> These Parwezis have replaced Salaah and Zikrullah with Music as
> the food for their soul. Nowhere in their books is there any mention
> of the significance of Salaah and Zikrullah as food for the soul. A
> true follower of Quran should NEVER forget this great pillar of
> Islam. This also confirms that Salaah is no longer considered an
> important pillar of Islam by the Parwezis. The reason being that
> they don’t accept the Hadith as a source of Islamic Law, so how will
> they read their Salaah, because the details of salaah are
> described only in the books of Hadith.
>
> Let us not be misled by the stupid jokes and criticism of the
> Parwezis against our sincere and righteous ULAMA. Those who
> follow the Righteous Path of Allah are never afraid of being
> mocked. This mocking behaviour has always been the pre-
> occupation of the hypocrites and wicked ones. Allah says:
>
> O YOU WHO BELIEVE! IF ANY FROM AMONG YOU TURN
> BACK FROM HIS FAITH, SOON WILL ALLAH PRODUCE A
> PEOPLE WHOM HE WILL LOVE AS THEY WILL LOVE HIM -
> LOWLY WITH THE BELIEVERS AND MIGHTY AGAINST THE
> REJECTERS, FIGHTING IN THE WAY OF ALLAH, AND NEVER
> AFRAID OF THE REPROACHES OF THOSE WHO FIND
> FAULTS. THAT IS THE GRACE OF ALLAH WHICH HE WILL
> BESTOW ON WHOM HE PLEASETH, AND ALLAH
> ENCOMPASSETH ALL, AND KNOWETH ALL THINGS. (Surah
> Al-Maa'idah: 57)
>
> May Allah guide us all on the Straight Path, the path of those upon
> whom He has bestowed His favours, not of those upon whom His
> wrath descends nor those who are astray. Ameen.
>
> Abdul Haq Abdul Kadir
> ------------------------------------
> http://www.jamiat.org.za/isinfo/parwezi.html
> ------------------------------------
> ______________________________________________
> http://www.jamiat.org.za
>
> Council of Muslim Theologians
> P.O. Box 62564
> Bishopsgate 4008
> (South Africa)
>
> Tel: 0027 31 3067786
> Fax: 0027 31 3064786
> ______________________________________________
ibn Misael
"davidbradly" <david...@netscapeonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:394CC3F7...@netscapeonline.co.uk...
> Salam ibn Misael,
Wa 'alaykum,
> Your writer refuses to even analyse the possibility of these kafireen
> being kafirs BY VIRTUE of thier names alone. This is of course, thier
> idol-worship as well as yours. Alhamdulillah, for showing us your kufr
> yet again.
This again shows your ignorance and lack of understanding. The
writer in this article is addressing Muslims. Muslims who know the
names of these scholars.
These scholars are well known throughout the Muslim world and their
works have been read by many. In only addressing these known
scholars of the past by name, he is also referring to what is known
about them -- their aqeedah, how they practiced Islaam, and their
contributions to the propagation of Islaam. It is something equivalent
to a writer saying, "these people claim that Bill Clinton, Sadam
Hussein, and King Fahd are not the figure heads of their respective
countries." Their names are known, and so are their positions.
Similarly, these scholars are known, and so are their positions. No
one is taking these scholars as gods besides Allaah. These scholars
are human, and they are the most knowledgeable amongst the
people. Although I don't agree with the writer's use of the term "saint", I
feel that what he had to say about you and your sect is correct.
Now, do you not have anything to say regarding what the writer
actually had to say about you Parwezis? Or is this ignorant comment
of yours all you can come up with regarding this article?
davidbradly
I have emailed Omar about those threads. He has access to deja.com and
should find them soon. Hope that's all right with you.
This is what your fellow kafir wrote :
These Parwezis are still 'BARKING' aimlessly in their campaign to
label all followers of the Hanafee, Maliki, Shafe'i and Hanbali
Schools of Thought as MUSHRIKS (i.e. one who associates
partners with Allah). According to their belief, all great scholars and
saints in Islam are MUSHRIKS. Na'oozubillah! The Saint of all
saints Sayyiduna Abdul Qadir Jeelani (RA), great scholars
like Allamah ibn Taimiyyah, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab and his
son Shaikh Abdullah were all followers of the Hanbali School of
Thought. Does this mean that they were MUSHRIKS?
Na'oozubillah. By this principle, even they themselves are
MUSHRIKS as they are blind followers of Parwez's un-Islamic
theories. Let these Parwezis get their facts right as their own
logical thinking process is also failing to support them.
Muslims KNOW the names of these scholars ? THIS IS YOUR PROOF ? You met
these people ? If you didn't then your 'how they practised islam'
rubbish is as good as the Christians talking about the good saint paul.
You see, you are simply a kafir who reads names worshipped by your
ancestors and you follow suit. As soon as the knowledge of these satanic
sunnis are brought into question, you say 'but they were great men, of
course they can't be wrong'. How reasonable !
Also, I'm not a Parwezi. But can you please point out to me where the
article is from ? Omar is looking for anti-parwezi articles to refute.
ibn Misael wrote:
>
> "davidbradly" <david...@netscapeonline.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:394CC3F7...@netscapeonline.co.uk...
> > Salam ibn Misael,
>
> Wa 'alaykum,
>
> > Your writer refuses to even analyse the possibility of these kafireen
> > being kafirs BY VIRTUE of thier names alone. This is of course, thier
> > idol-worship as well as yours. Alhamdulillah, for showing us your kufr
> > yet again.
>
Mr AbcX
I think it is important to point out that Parwez
did not start a new "ideology" at all. Although Parwez
has had a lot to say in spreading the message of the
Quran he was not the first one in his attempts.
In fact one can go and read the works of al-Shafi where
even he comes up with arguments against groups called
"ahl-e-kitab". From al-Shafi's work it is quite obvious
that Quran-only movement were already in existent
in that time, although sadly they "lost" the battle
against the sunnies.
I can recommend a book
"Rethinking tradition in modern Islamic thought"
by Daniel W. Brown which gives an excellent insight into
the history of Quran-only movements.
David, please check it out. I'm sure you'll find it
very interesting.
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
ibn Misael
"davidbradly" <david...@netscapeonline.co.uk> wrote in
message news:394EA1EA...@netscapeonline.co.uk...
> Salam,
Wa 'alaykum,
> I have emailed Omar about those threads. He has access to
> deja.com and should find them soon. Hope that's all right with you.
Anyone with a web browser pretty much has access to deja.com. All
you have to do is visit their site and click on the usenet discussion
link. You can browse the message boards freely without having to
subscribe. But you can use whatever other methods you wish. I
mean, if you like relying on others to do the work for you, that's fine
with me...
> This is what your fellow kafir wrote :
I know what he wrote, I was the one who posted his article on here, or don't
you remember?
> Muslims KNOW the names of these scholars ? THIS IS YOUR
> PROOF ? You met these people ? If you didn't then your 'how they
> practised islam' rubbish is as good as the Christians talking about
> the good saint paul.
Considering the fact that you're a new "Muslim" and know very little
about this religion, not knowing these names isn't that big of a
surprise to me. But I'm sure that your buddy Omar knows who they
are, or at least has heard about them... after all, he has slandered a
few of them already.
As for that stupid question of yours "You met these people ?"... I'll
leave it at that... stupid question. Actually, wait... lets reverse things a
bit shall we? You've asked me this question already -- only in
regards to the Sahaabah and the narrators of ahaadeeth. And I've
turned the question back to you... So, again,
Have you met the Prophet (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam)? Using your
logic here, if you didn't meet him (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) then
your belief is also as good as the Christians belief about Paul.
> You see, you are simply a kafir who reads names worshipped by
> your ancestors and you follow suit. As soon as the knowledge of
> these satanic sunnis are brought into question, you say 'but they
> were great men, of course they can't be wrong'. How reasonable !
And where have I said that "they can't be wrong"? I have said on
numerous occasions already that *no man is flawless*. By that very
fact, I admit that even scholars are prone to make mistakes.
However, the number of mistakes they made in comparision to the
one's you've already made and are still making in your short tenure
as a "Muslim" is minute.
As for your comment that I'm "simply a kafir who reads names
worshipped by your ancestors and you follow suit",
I do more than just look at the names, I read their works and that is
how I know what they believed and what they preached. I read their
biographies, and that is how I discover how they practiced Islaam. I
read the history books and see if these people really existed.
Regarding your comment, I could even say the same thing about
you. You're simply an ignorant lost soul who listens and gobbles up
every word your 54 year old uneducated friend Omar has to say. I
seem to remember one of your very first posts... You mentioned that
you weren't quite sure which way to turn... pro-hadeeth? anti-
hadeeth? Then after a little leave of absence, you come back as a
virtual "Mini Me" of Omar spewing forth the same crap that he threw
up everywhere during his tenure here.
> Also, I'm not a Parwezi. But can you please point out to me where
> the article is from ? Omar is looking for anti-parwezi articles to
> refute.
Oh, I think you are a Parwezi, and if you're not a Parwezi, then why
would your bosom buddy Omar need to find anti-Parwezi articles to refute?
You see, you only refute that which is said about you or your beliefs...
Refuting something writen about something which you don't adhere
to or even believe in would make no sense whatsoever now would it?.
As for the origin of that article, use your brain... or lack of one. Here's
a hint... get the original post I posted containing that article... and
read it over. Examine the post carefully... but don't get a migraine
trying too hard... I'm sure you'll find out where it came from and
where you can find it.
davidbradly
Alhamdulillah, Omar has lent me Parwez's Islam: A challenge to religion
and nizam-e-rabubiyah. Parwez has used only Quranic arguments in his
teachings. Obviously the kafireen and the musyrikeen will object, since
Parwez only relies on the Book of Allah.
Thank you also for recommending Daniel Brown's book. I have read them
and Omar has shown me the the Urdu books which represent the position of
the believers. We need to keep writing and publishing book which expose
the religion of the sunnis. There are plenty of things to write about
like :
1-How sunnis disobey the messenger
2-How the sectarians cannot agree on the most broad issues of aqeedah.
3-How hadeeth and sunnah are exacty like the old and new testaments.
davidbradly
ibn Misael wrote:
> "davidbradly" <david...@netscapeonline.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:394EA1EA...@netscapeonline.co.uk...
> > Salam,
>
> Wa 'alaykum,
>
> > I have emailed Omar about those threads. He has access to
> > deja.com and should find them soon. Hope that's all right with you.
>
> Anyone with a web browser pretty much has access to deja.com. All
> you have to do is visit their site and click on the usenet discussion
> link. You can browse the message boards freely without having to
> subscribe. But you can use whatever other methods you wish. I
> mean, if you like relying on others to do the work for you, that's fine
> with me...
>
Actually, I have to. I have been diverted from my research no thanks to my
obligation to finish what I started. My timing was deplorable. I should have
stayed away. But it is ok. These are all materials.
>
> > This is what your fellow kafir wrote :
>
> I know what he wrote, I was the one who posted his article on here, or don't
> you remember?
>
just to refresh your memory. Tazkir, tazkir.
>
> > Muslims KNOW the names of these scholars ? THIS IS YOUR
> > PROOF ? You met these people ? If you didn't then your 'how they
> > practised islam' rubbish is as good as the Christians talking about
> > the good saint paul.
>
> Considering the fact that you're a new "Muslim" and know very little
> about this religion, not knowing these names isn't that big of a
> surprise to me. But I'm sure that your buddy Omar knows who they
> are, or at least has heard about them... after all, he has slandered a
> few of them already.
>
I'm a new muslim, but I'm not new to islam. I have researched your scholars back
and forth in order to try to find the truth. However, i never met these people.
And with their writings, they seem nothing less than satans to me.
>
> As for that stupid question of yours "You met these people ?"... I'll
> leave it at that... stupid question. Actually, wait... lets reverse things a
> bit shall we? You've asked me this question already -- only in
> regards to the Sahaabah and the narrators of ahaadeeth. And I've
> turned the question back to you... So, again,
>
> Have you met the Prophet (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam)? Using your
> logic here, if you didn't meet him (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) then
> your belief is also as good as the Christians belief about Paul.
>
Firstly, we have your admission that your beliefs are as good as pauline
christianity. Very good.
Yes. I didn't meet the messenger. I do however, have the message. The message
has authentication procedures which i duly followed. I have checked the Quran
against many ideologies and philosophies which is why I'm of firm belief that
the Quran is the word of Allah. Who delivered it to me is immaterial. I check
the text in itself.
>
> > You see, you are simply a kafir who reads names worshipped by
> > your ancestors and you follow suit. As soon as the knowledge of
> > these satanic sunnis are brought into question, you say 'but they
> > were great men, of course they can't be wrong'. How reasonable !
>
> And where have I said that "they can't be wrong"? I have said on
> numerous occasions already that *no man is flawless*. By that very
> fact, I admit that even scholars are prone to make mistakes.
> However, the number of mistakes they made in comparision to the
> one's you've already made and are still making in your short tenure
> as a "Muslim" is minute.
>
They made mistakes, yet you uses THIER WORKS to interpret the book of Allah.
Very good. Debate my mistakes with me and i'm prepared to admit it if im wrong.
>
> As for your comment that I'm "simply a kafir who reads names
> worshipped by your ancestors and you follow suit",
>
> I do more than just look at the names, I read their works and that is
> how I know what they believed and what they preached. I read their
> biographies, and that is how I discover how they practiced Islaam. I
> read the history books and see if these people really existed.
>
Thier biographies ? Very good yet again ? Ibn misael, are you sure you're not a
christian ? Christians' basis of belief is exactly like yours !
>
> Regarding your comment, I could even say the same thing about
> you. You're simply an ignorant lost soul who listens and gobbles up
> every word your 54 year old uneducated friend Omar has to say. I
> seem to remember one of your very first posts... You mentioned that
> you weren't quite sure which way to turn... pro-hadeeth? anti-
> hadeeth? Then after a little leave of absence, you come back as a
> virtual "Mini Me" of Omar spewing forth the same crap that he threw
> up everywhere during his tenure here.
mini me ? i thought watching tv was haram !
I was absent for a while, to take my exams after which Omar , some Muslims and
myself spent days on end discussing al-quran. I am not without conviction ibn
misael. I'm no blind fanatic. I've listened to all sides. I interrogated Omar
thoroughly. I presented all the arguments and the Quran always answers me.
>
>
> > Also, I'm not a Parwezi. But can you please point out to me where
> > the article is from ? Omar is looking for anti-parwezi articles to
> > refute.
>
> Oh, I think you are a Parwezi, and if you're not a Parwezi, then why
> would your bosom buddy Omar need to find anti-Parwezi articles to refute?
>
> You see, you only refute that which is said about you or your beliefs...
> Refuting something writen about something which you don't adhere
> to or even believe in would make no sense whatsoever now would it?.
>
> As for the origin of that article, use your brain... or lack of one. Here's
> a hint... get the original post I posted containing that article... and
> read it over. Examine the post carefully... but don't get a migraine
> trying too hard... I'm sure you'll find out where it came from and
> where you can find it.
Refutation of parwez usually means refutation of the Quran only position.
However, I have found Omar refuting PARWEZ HIMSELF. You see, Omar is a
worshipper of Allah. He could not care less who says what, as long as the
Quranic position stands forth. This is why he can come to the truth but you
idol-worshippers cannot.