Abdul Qadir Jilani Books Bangla Pdf Download
Manric Hock
of course, it is our topic. both are shia geneologists as vouched for by rijaal work on imamreza shia website, written by ulema, who surely are more qualified then you! i gave you 21 books both predating in time and after, great imams of their fields that declared the geneology of shaykh syed abdul qadir jilnai to be from imam hasan mujaba(a) and you are just blinded by animosity. sibt ibn jawzi (654AH) work is on geneology, which is specialised treatise and is much earlier then both your shia authors!
you do not understand tasawwuf and how 'ijaza' is given for vird and waszaif hence cannot understand the issue. the shaykh gives permission to read such and such wazeefa to his disciples and from shaykh through his tens of diciples, there is ijaza of qasida khamariyya as vird. so if you go africa, find qadri silsila and ask if they ijaaza for such and such wazifa then they will tell yes, and here is the chain. however, this is just to explain irfaan methodology to you who deos not know how it works.
ibn inanba (828AH) and ibn taqtaqi(709AH), one who is ealrier says he had 'ONE' son and the latter says 'THREE SONS'.... they have discrepancy about how many sons of the SAME person from whom he had descendents, who was more than two hundred years before taqtaqi and more than three hundred years before ibn inaba!!!. this relevent to everything our discussion and you are saying it not! cant you see that they are making 'MISTAKES' ? ibn taqtaqi who wrote aseeli after a shia minister is saying that 'ONE' son, the other is saying THREE sons. If the first one was MISINFORMED and he was a GENEOLOGIST too then Ibn Inaba was also mistaken when he said ONLY three sons.
you are saying that what i presented from 21 books from all ages and from geneologists, historians and biographers of the highest repute is UNRELIABLE, and iam saying to you that your ONLY two scholars by you are EXTRA-UNRELIABlE becuase of both being shia and biased towards the shaykh and as proof for their being shia has been provided from Imamreza link, which is giving you rijaal work. now, as you said, best people to tell us about 'rijaal' are the 'rijaal' works. not your own personal cut/paste because then it justifies your own homemade fatawaz. ibn taqtaqi mentions nikah of umm kulsum(s) with son zaid! i dont believe in it but just to let you know.
however, here below are three SHIA geneologists also that say he was syed and i have done itmaam e hujjat from all aspects. from geneolists, biographers and historians yet you are giving ONLY two refrences who even dont agree between themselves as to the number of sons. this proves they are PRONE to error in their geneology details hence proving our point that you cannot take them as absolute evidence.
not because what i have presented does not have geneogists but i will give you shia geneologist that have said he was syed. i have nothing else to say to you anymore, because it is clear that you are motivated by jealousy and hate.
First of all they not more qualifed than me, because these people also consider al-Masoodi as Shia although the Sunni scholars declared that he is a Sunni such as Imam Subki, Hassan al-Saqqaf and Mahmooad Saeed Mamdouh
These names (of lineage) which been attributed by Qazi Abu Saleh to Muhammad bin Yahya do not exist in genealogy books, and those who claim its correct (lineage) they are a group of ignorant followers of Sheikh Abdulqader
The author died in year 709 AH, and its true he believed that Um Kulthom was married to Umar, but he notified the reader in his book that he rely on the traditions (hadith) which been narrated in hadith books
2- the author himself declared the source of his statement, so we can evaluate his opinion because we already know his proof (as long his proof is from hadith book so here we have to refer to hadith scholar, if the tradition is true so the statement of the author is reliable, if the tradition is weak so the statement of the author is unacceptable)
3. there is ijma of renowned imams of ahl as-sunna that shaykh was syed and that those 'sunni' references you are providing are incorrect and according to your own demand i will provide evidence that 'mujam muallifeen' have said that they are fabricated attribution.
now, quickly, the point you seem to ignore is that ibn inaba says that there were THREE sons and ibn tataqi says that there was ONLY ONE son. my point is that it is most RELEVENT to the issue because this discrepancy alone shows that their knowledge was good but had FLAWS. not whether they agree to one son but ahmed and ali are EXTRA names. so even logically it demonstrates that existence of DISCREPANCY means that they were not impeccable in their information hence just like ibn taqtaqi(709AH) MISSED two SONS so it is possible that Ibn inaba also missed one son or was doing it out of shia bias because (828AH) was the time that for almost 300 years shaykh's fame and popularity was amongst far and wide and his writings against shia were known.
in contrast we have EARLIER and LATER and CONTEMPORARY to ibn Inaba sources and they were IMAMS who affirmed and confirmed in tens of their books that shaykh was syed. see 21 book refrences previously in post no. 57.
(a):ibn taqtaqi (709AH) was a shia author and i am sure you would agree to this atleast, however, he wrote the book for the sons of shia minister khawaja nasierudeen tusi, whose name was aseeludeen hence the book is called 'aseeli'. the book is printed from 'maktba al-mar'ashi an-najafi' and researched by the student of shihab ad-deen al-mar'ashi called seyyed mehdi rajai. but you agree to this that he was shia anyway so let us move to the one you do not.
(B): ibn inaba(828AH) was one of the GREAT shia imamia. who said this? as you would say it is a matter best dealt by people of 'rijaal' so here is from the renowned shia scholar shaykh abbas qummi in his world famous books 'al-kuna wa al-qaab'.
he is saying that he was not only ordinary but from GREAT Imamia scholars. since you did not believe imamreza website here is from a well known source and the book is available online. therefore he was a GREAT shia scholars. who is greater you or SHAYKH abbas Qummi????
now your second argument that since geneologists have the final word in matters of nasab therefore they should be trusted and all others should be rejected. i will not mention from tabrasi, kulaini, majlasi or ali bin ahmed al-kufi(253AH) in this regard but stick to according to your requirement to 'geneologists' only. i refrenced this one earlier but you didnt undertsand it.
also the shia 'geneologist' ibn kalbi(641AH) also reports the same text and other geneologists report from him. you may also read his tarjuma in rijaal books and then tally his name with those reports that are mentioned books of geneology and it will become clear that he was not historian but a geneologist. just check al-kuna wa al-qaab'
so now, amongst tens i ahve given you three shia geneologists that said that from nikha there was a son called zaid. we absolutely and categorically deny such non-sense but it is just to open your eyes. and the funny thing is that you accept other 'sons' of other people without question and take it as final word yet when 'zaid' is also a son but you deny his existence from geneologists!! two different scales, one for your self and one for shaykh syed abdul qadir jilani and imam khomeini.
he rejects those opinions and concludes that he was a syed. also there were two other shia geneologists that confirmed he was a syed but you do not mention them. however, that was just extra information and i advised you not to rely too much on the selected one sided research of abdul jawadd kulaider!
first of all according to your own principles why are you mentioning a historian? double standards again but nevermind, let me tell you that both books are a FABRICATION, who said that these books are a fabrication. i do not say things from my own pocket like yourself.
shaykh mohammed raghib at-tabbagh (1339AH) in his famous index of books/writers called' ' in it he says clearly that BOTH books ghayatul ihktisaar and ibn sa'ee are FABRICATIONS attributed to those authors!
now, as you say that we will go to a chemist for chemistry then here is a person who is writing a volumous book on books and declares that both books of tajudeen and ibn sa'ee are falsely attributed to them and are fabrication!
whilst the writer ahmed zaburdaji died in (1084AH) TWO HUNDRED years AFTER seraj deen rifa'ee makhzumi who died in 885AH. therefore, instead saying anymore about it, it stands to reason and logic that this book is a FABRICATION also. you may check the dates of death in tanweer al-absaar and so on.
now, for anyone with a little academic sense it is obvious that GREAT IMAMS of ahl as-sunna such as Imam IBn hajar asqalani, sibt ibn jawzi, the shaykh himself, his son and his companion are saying that He was syed and on the other side we TWO biased shia scholars that he was not although great majority of shia scholars also consider him syed, for example in modrn time ayatollah murtaza mutahari etc. i am going to provide the list of imams and ulema below again and say to you that for any reasonable person these evidences are enough.
And I want the readers to notice that our brother Skeptic will not answer the question, verily he will keep running away by discussing and arguing in sub-side issues which is not related to Abdulqader's lineage
well, we have made some progress. so far you have been claiming ibn inaba(828AH) the deniar was NOT a shia but now after shaykh abbas qummi's confirmation you are all quite about that atleast. as for nikha umm e kulsum(S) and having a son 'zaid' are from shia GENEOLOGISTS including the ones you are presenting to deny the lineage of the shaykh but when it comes to something that challenges your own home-made principles then you reject that testimony of geneologists. this is exactly my point. the basis you have to reject that are also our basis. as for ibn rajab hambali and dhahabi, they did not deny but rather expressed their lack of knowledge about it and stated that others state the lineage. see these with two earliest works, one by sibt ibn jawzi(654AH) treatise on GENEOLOGY and Shatnufi's(713AH) biographical work which goes with chains called 'bahjatul asraar'. these two one a book on geneology and other a biography, both are before those biased shia ibn inaba and one contemoprary of ibn taqtaqi, the latter also says nikah and son zaid!
b37509886e