Jump to content


- - - -


Photo
- - - - -

Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani was not SYED


131 replies to this topic

#26 Taair-al-Quds

Taair-al-Quds

    Ahl al Wilayah

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 320 posts

Posted 31 July 2004 - 03:57 AM

Salaam

So it's your site? :) I am member of it. As you can see, The Venerator of Ali, has been banned :rolleyes:

And yeah, Abdul Qadir sahab was not a sayyid.

No my dear brother that is not my site, i also happenned to go in there to challenge those qadiris who claim this falsehood that sheikh abdul qadir was a syed. I am a shia, alhamdolillah not sufi and you are most welcome to join my site as well [http://groups.msn.com/shiaofahlulbayt]

Coming back to the tall boasting claims of brother Sufi [please dont mind but thats all]


1- It is false that all Sunnis/Sufis consider Sheikh Abdul Qadir to be Syed. This is another one of these typical unlearned comments you hear from those who go out of the way in their reverence.

2- The word Sheikh means "Old" in arabic and is not only referred to "Scholars".

3- The Shajrah provided by Sufi has no academic references/backing to prove it

4- Hilariously a NUMBER of SHAJRAS of sheikh abdul qadir are floated in various books/texts/website to support the claim that he is Syed. Quite funnily, they contradict and OPPOSE each other! So if someone claims sunnis/sufis have consensus over this matter is a lie as well. I will provide proofs if someone is really upto the challenge to take up this post. Inshallah.

5- Sheikh Abdul Qadir never claimed to be Syed or from descendants/itrah of the holy prophet pbuh from any of his writings.

6- Sheikh Abdul Qadir was not even an arab let alone a descendant of the holy prophet pbuh

7- Ayatollah Murtada Muttahari quoted the Sheikh and also controversy about him and so one of the controversies is his lineage itself!

8- Ayatollah Muttahari is not a Nassab / authority in ansaab al alavioon. Infact at a given time only few scholars are expert in this field, eg: late syed al mar'ashi, syed al bazanti al hussaini etc...

9- Scholars quote brief autobiographies of other people and sometimes they refer to the books of the school of thought the person belongs to, in order to briefly tell about the person. That so, is the case when Ayatollah al Muttahari quoted about Sheikh Abdul Qadir. This by no means is a study in his nasb.

10- The leading Ayatollah al Udhamas [who are higher in status and knowledge in Hawzahs] reject the claim that Sheikh Abdul Qadir was Syed. I have personally communicated with their offices on this matter and they include:

1- Ayatollah al Udhama Syed Nasir Makarem al Shirazi
2- Ayatollah al Udhama Syed Kazim Haeri
3- Ayatollah al Udhama Syed Hashmi al Shahroudi
4- Ayatollah Sistani's office [who provided the reference from the book Rowdat al Jinan by Sheikh Baqir al Khownsari to refute this claim and to apprise of other anomalities associated with this man]
5- Dr Mohammad Tejani Semawi [an ex sunni and member of the sunni tejaniyeh sufi tariqat]
6- Syed Kararvi al Rizvi, the author of the book "14 stars"

etc...

The list of proofs goes on. One more important thing to point:

The people who specialize in the books of Ansaab in Ahl ul Sunnah, their books are available online on www.alwaraq.com .... the most infamous titles...NONE OF THEM mentions Sheikh abdul qadir as a desendant of the holy prophet pbuh or imam hassan a.s although they mention numerous other sayyeds! This is inline with the information we have.

7- Ayatollah al Udhama Sheikh Jafar al Subhani, one of the most amazing writers of contemporary times, also DOES NOT record Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani or his son, grandson as a descendant of holy prophet pbuh or imam hassan a.s even though he mentions them in his book: Tabaqat al Fuqaha...an eleven volume collossal and amazing work. A sunni brother tried to argue that since he is shia and thus did it by purpose. This is a stupid lie because in the same book sheikh jafar mentions other sunnis who were in bukhara etc and were sayyeds and sunni/hanafi. This vindicates that the sheikh didnt conceal any truth!

8- Late Ayatollah Al Sheikh Ameeni al Najafi, the memorable name and the author of the definitive work on Al Ghadeer [in eleven volumes in arabic] also mentions about sheikh abdul qadir and does not admit anywhere and infact shows sunni reference of qadri followers who claim this.

9- The sufi Risala of Mandi Bahauddin run by Hassan Nizami [if i remember correctly / i will check it if someone needs] explicitly STATES that sheikh abdul qadir was NOT SYED!....it claims he had family links with ABU BAKR AND OMAR! instead.

10- There are some other weird sunni sources that claim sheikh abdul qadir to have geneological links with abu bakr and omar rather then prophet of islam [can be also provided if required] . However, they seem to be cooked up as well. The man was a persian and not an arab!

11- The shajra provided by brother Sufi in this thread is faulty like other shajras also advanced [i have got them all] in advance of this sufi sheikh. Once the discussion advances, i will actually also pinpoint how and where this shajra is wrong with individual commentary on each person in it!

12- No books of authentic ansaab al alavioon record any sheikh abdul qadir jilani as a syed or descendant of prophet of islam.

13- A lot of lies have also been attributed in form of writings, teachings and nonsense to the sheikh and their is also not consensus as to whether he was shafi'i or hanbali of madhab. Similarly it is also lot of miracles and qaseedas have been attributed in his name...all written centuries later! even he must laugh at all this!

14- Neither he nor his son claimed this lie, it was his grandson Nasr bin Abu Bakr bin Abdul Qadir al Jilani who made this false claim that they were descendants of prophet pbuh and when they were asked to provide a daleel for this, he failed...this is recorded in books of shajra nasab of alavioon...if anyone needs reference, we can provide.

15- When Late Ayatollah Syed Mohammad Baqir al Hakeem's office was contacted, they asked us to contact the experts in shajra ansaab to verify this matter and after consulting those books and scholars [mentioned above], the facts are simple and clear!

19- It should be noted that Dr Syed Mohammad Tijani, the ex sufi/sunni scholar also changed his opinion about the nasb of sheikh abdul qadir after his meeting in Najaf with late Ayatollah Syed Mohammad Baqir al Sadr r.a and people from hawzeh of Najaf and Baghdad University.


20- Abdul Qadir's father's name was Jang Dost or Jangi Dost, a persian name, which had nothing to do with the lineage of imam hassan a.s nor will you find it any authentic book of shajras....and there are around three to four dozen or more of those.


Ma'salameh

#27 Changed

Changed

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,297 posts

Posted 31 July 2004 - 05:16 AM

Sheikh bhi aur Syed bhi
have you seen Syed bhi and Khan bhi like Sir Syed Ahmad Khan

have you ever heard the name of present ismaili imam:

prince karim aga khan .

ismailis say he is decendant of imams and yet he is khan .

thats so simple :D

#28 Changed

Changed

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,297 posts

Posted 31 July 2004 - 05:27 AM

if you open up the local supplimant part of the standard oxford dictionary and look at the word: sayyid, it says decendants of the prophet through Husain. what so they mean to say those born from Hasan (as) are non sayyid, i was confused and then untill i came to the word sharifs, it says decendants of the prophet through Hasan.

and now those who say that because Shaikh Abdul Qader Jilani's actual lineage miss some link uptill Ali (as) , then let me ask all the sayyids of the world to bring up the lineage without missing any link.

its that presently you cant exactly know who is decendants of Prophet pbuh , they can be from Sayyid (in arabic which means leader) or from sharifs or from zaydi, jafari, baqiri, rizvi, kazmi, naqvi, quraishi or in khan (which means the leader) or the Shaikh (which means the leader).

the only people who lack the lineage from logical points are Ansaris.


one of the Greatest saint in subcontinent who is revered both by shias and sunnis is shaikh khwaja moinuddin chisti of Ajmer, he is rightly known as Sultan Al Hind or the king of India. he too is decendant of Maula Ali (as) and sayyeda Fatima (as).

so its better that we dont indulge ourselves in this type of discussions any more.
Moreover Islam prohibits Racism

Edited by mazhers, 31 July 2004 - 05:29 AM.


#29 Guest_Sufi_*

Guest_Sufi_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 July 2004 - 05:30 PM

Well done with all ur Shia references to claim that they were not Sayid. And is this true that u guys accept that Khwaja Moinudding Chisti was a Syed? And funny a lot of Shias live in Iran and this means the Shia majority in Iran cannot be Sayid at all. :D

#30 AL JAWAB

AL JAWAB

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • Pip
  • 124 posts
  • Location:SOME WHERE, HERE THERE
  • Interests:WELL READING BOOKS ON TAFARQA BAZI ( kidding )<br>Yeah so my interests .......... . 'kidding' to make people happy+ reading books + playing games on computer + surfing + watching TV.<br>Hey i cant tell you about my entire LIFE !!! ???

Posted 01 August 2004 - 02:23 AM

Sallam
Well it is not much logical, if sunni and sufi scholars do confirm that he was syed then okey for them and if shia scholars (if not all) reject this claim on their research then okay for them, what is the point of fight each other ?
Secondly these are two different things one is Sheikh and second is Shaikh.
Sheikh is a title of the family just like Syed, Memon. Whereas Shaikh is title given to man because of his abilities.
Shaikh means a respected cleric now a days. And Sheikh means a respected cleric (non-syed). That’s the main difference in it.
I don’t debate on it if he was syed or not. But many shia scholars consider him radical.
And in his book “ Ghuniyat tul Talebeen” he discussed shia doctrine and came up with conclusion that shia are totally misguided etc.

@)

#31 Guest_Sufi_*

Guest_Sufi_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 August 2004 - 02:33 AM

I don’t debate on it if he was syed or not. @)

Yah there is no point. I guess its part of my believe. To the Shias believing he is a Syed or a non Syed will not increase their faith. My question now is do u guys believe that Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti was a Syed? One of Shia friends said that he was a hidden Shia because he loved Imam Hussien(r.a). I did not find that to be a strong agrument in order to proove he was Shia. Do u guys think u can do better then that?

#32 AL JAWAB

AL JAWAB

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • Pip
  • 124 posts
  • Location:SOME WHERE, HERE THERE
  • Interests:WELL READING BOOKS ON TAFARQA BAZI ( kidding )<br>Yeah so my interests .......... . 'kidding' to make people happy+ reading books + playing games on computer + surfing + watching TV.<br>Hey i cant tell you about my entire LIFE !!! ???

Posted 01 August 2004 - 02:51 AM

Sallam
Well it is not necessary that every syed should be shia. So I don’t know family tree of Hazrat Khajah Moinuddin Chisti. But I like is poetry. “Shah Ast Hussain …… “
And as far this is concerned that he was shia. Well what I do think that it is very difficult to confirm it. Because if he were then he would be in Taqiyaa. As it is said about Jalalu dein Surikh Bukarhi. In Pakistan there are many Naqvi-Bukhari Syed. Because he migrated from iraq, bukhar then to Kabul and came here in sub-continent.
Although it is said that he lived according to sunni doctrine but he was considered shia. And a sufi Hazrat Raju did confirm it too etc. But it is said ( by shia ) that he was shia.
But in Sufism there is nothing like shia or sunni. Sufism teaches love for all. Therefore we see shia+barlwi+wahabi+deobandi even non-muslims just on one place. So in Sufism there is nothing like shia or sunni ( as far my understanding is concerned).
Nice work bro SyedFarid i found it much knowledgeble.
@)

Edited by AL JAWAB, 01 August 2004 - 03:05 AM.


#33 Taair-al-Quds

Taair-al-Quds

    Ahl al Wilayah

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 320 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 03:04 AM

Dear brother Sufi,

Salam Alaykom.

With all due respect, Your reply is illogical and non academic. Whenever you dont have an answer you come back bickering to your old favorite topic of "you shia", "you this and you that". Therefore, my reply will not be to any of your comments that reveal your anti shia or sectarian sentiments.

I referred you to shia, sufi and sunni references in my reply but your blindness and bias against shia is so much that you cannot see anything besides the word "shia" in my replies!

Let me also reply to brother mazher who has got somethings wrong in his reply:

1- The word Khawaja, Mir, Khan, Mian, Sheikh, Shareef, Shah do not ORIGINALLY denote any particular race. If you see their meaning in their original [persian/arabic] lexicons you will find that they all refer in general to any people who are respectable or noble.

This is why you will find people who are both descendants or non descendants of the holy prophet pbuh with names attached like Shah, Mian, Mir, Khan etc....to mix these names with shajra nasabs is an entirely unwise and uneducated move!

We have studied the lineages of quite a many famous names in history and the research is extensive and give me the opportunity to let you know that:

1- Khawaja Moinuddin Chishti was NOT A descendant of the holy prophet pbuh.

2- The Agha Khan family are not descendants of the holy prophet pbuh as they claim. Their family tree is flawed and they have a fictitious claim of being desendants of the Fatmid dynasty [the sons of ismael bin jafar al sadiq a.s] which is uncovered once you read their history and the names they give in that lineage....one of the Dai's [i will get to this if someone wants specific information, you just have to request] is a fictitious planted person to connect to that lineage.

3- Saddam Hussain was another false claimant of being descendant of prophet mohammad pbuh but the organization in Najaf al Ashraf responsible for keeping historical records of descendants of holy prophet pbuh refuted and rejected this claim after he lost power. Obviously you can imagine what would have happenned to them had they refuted this in his rule....*certain assasination!*

4- The lineage provided to advance sheikh abdul qadir jilani as descendant of prophet mohammad pbuh is ridiculous because they claim him to be descendant of imam hussain a.s from his mother and of imam hassan a.s from father [a wonderful forgery]. Now if you have even basic knowledge of imams and understanding study of ilm ul nasab you will immediately try to first verify the names in the given shajra! This is precisely the reason why majority of the websites on sheikh abdul qadir do not mention these shajras and briefly state that he was al hassani wal hussaini [a claim which was later on misused by followers of other sufis as well!...as in case of khawaja moinuddin chishti, sultan bahoo, farid ganjshakkar, mian mir, ali hajvery data ganj baksh etc, etc.... we will explore and refute all these claims academically at a later stage inshallah. At this moment i choose to concenterate on sheikh abdul qadir]

Analyzing the forgery made in his nasb from his mother's side:

The Qadris allege that sheikh abdul qadir jilani was a descendant of imam hussain a.s from his mothers' side. However, when you ask them for proof, they provide you shajras that are:

1- firstly not consistent with each other
2- not consistent with the records of both shi'a and sunni history regarding the progeny of imams of ahlulbayt a.s

Here, i shall present to you the forged shajrah that is present in the infamous book "Qassas ul Awliya" by "Khalifa Malik Mohammad Ashraf Naqshbandi al Qadiri.

On page 22 of the book we read the following Shajra, word by word, attributed to him from his mother's side. [please keep in mind the names, their numbering
and sequence as we will use this in our discussion]:


1- Hadhrat Hussain r.a
2- Syedna Zain al Abidin r.a
3- Syedna Mohammad Baqir r.a
4- Syedna Jafar Sadiq r.a

5- Syedna Ali Areez r.a
6- Syedna Mohammad r.a
7- Syedna Abu Ala-ud-Din r.a
8- Syedna Abu Kamal r.a
9- Syedna Abdullah r.a
10- Syedna Abu Tahir r.a
11- Syedna Mohammad r.a
12- Syedna Abu Jamal r.a
13- Abu Abdullah Som'ai
14- Syedah Umm ul Khayr Ummatul Jabbar
15- Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani


How many links does that make? from Imam Hassan a.s?
Answer: 15

On the same page of the same book, his forged shajrah towards Imam Hassan a.s is given below:

1- Hadhrat Hassan r.a
2- Syedna Hassan r.a
3- Syedna Abdullah al Mahaz r.a
4- Syedna Musa r.a.
5- Syedna Abdullah r.a
6- Syedna Musa Thaani r.a
7- Syedna Dawood r.a
8- Syedna Mohammad r.a
9- Syedna Yahya Zahid r.a
10- Syedna Abu Abdullah r.a
11- Syedna Abu Salih r.a
12- Hadhrath Sheikh Mohiyyuddin Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani r.a


If this is accepted to be true, the number of chains from imam hassan a.s is?
Answer: 12

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So if we see the chains from both sides we are being told to accept that the 14th generation of imam hussain a.s married the 11th generation of imam hassan a.s!!!!!!

Subhan Allah! what a forgery. We must also keep in mind while analyzing this information, that imam hassan and hussain a.s were contemporaries and not seperated by generations!!!!

If you as a human move two generations up it takes you to your grand father! and 3 generations up takes you to your GREAT GRAND FATHER!.....The authors of these fabricated family trees have basically made a fool out of themselves....because if we accept these forgeries, the mother of Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani becomes the GREAT GRAND DAUGHTER to his FATHER, age wise!

Even a smal child with little logic can understand this!

To give a simpler real life example, ask around from people about their great grandfather, their birth date, death date and compare with yours and see if you could even possibly marry a person of such attributes!?

In my case, for example, my great grandfather and great grandmother were dead around 1916 [if i remember correctly] while i was born in 1976!!!!!! could some insane person allege a marriage of a person of that period who died in beginning of 1900s with a person alive in 2004!!???????

This was just one of the many forgeries we will inshallah reveal and study in detail in order to academically AND logically disprove these claims which originate from non others but the sufis who are in following of the sheikh.

Brother Sufi, you tried to allege that i was quoting you only shi'te material but you are doing injustice to truth because anybody who can read above will see my commentary is based on both shi'a and sunni scholars/books. If it still does not satisfy you then let me quote you from a historical source of high authenticity from the Ahl ul Sunnah wal Jamat:

Sunni Scholar Allama Dorran Syed Ahmed bin Mohammad Al Husseini writes in the family tree book 'Shajrat ul Awlia' that: "All ulama-e-ansaab have clearly and openly rejected the Syedship of Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani, i.e, he was not a hassani or hussaini syed as claimed by some people. Also, no ulema of ansaab of his time or his sons time have recorded him as SYED or descendant of prophet and nor did he claim this himself. Nobody in his life time called or thought of him as a SYED either [i.e no ulema]. they only referred to him as sheikh or respectable guide but not descendant of prophet pbuh. The first such false claim [ana awwal min azhar haazahi id da'waa al baatila hooa nasar ibn abi bakar bin sheikh abdul qadir] was made by his grandson nasar bin abi bakar bin sheikh abdul qadir. He failed to prove this claim to any ulema of ansab.

Due to finding this embarassing truth, some sufi scholars have tried to at leastprotect the forgery and ancestral rank of their in another form i.e, when they realised he cant be linked to the prophet...they tried to link him to other caliphs. To this effect let me quote you another source from your beloved SUNNI SUFI academic circles:

Risala e Sufi which is published from 'Basar Parasti Khwaja Hassan Nizami Mandi Bahawuddin, Zila Gujrat' writes in its ISSUE no 3. and page no 6: "Sayyom Peer e Tareeqat is Hadrat Khwaja Mohiyuddin Abdul Qadir Jilani. His Silsila e Nasab [family tree] is from the second caliph OMAR ibn Al Khattab al Farooq and thus he is a descendant of Hadrat Omar Farooq"


Now my brother will you claim to me that im speaking from shiite sources? Why do you have problem in accepting truth? and why should you take it out all on "shia" when you are unable to answer the challenges?

My dear friend, i have just scratched the surface of proofs here. As i said i will engage you post by post to see what you have. If you dont have anything to begin with, then i wonder if its any use for you to debate?


Continuing above from the information i provided regarding the chains/generations from imams, we also know that Imam Al Mahdi a.s is the 11th descendant of imam hussain a.s! What is the date of his period of birth? It is 265AH!

On the contrary sheikh abdul qadir's father who is alleged to be descendant of imam hassan a.s, what is his date of birth or period of life?
Ofcourse he was alive when sheikh abdul qadir was born! That was 460AH [time of birth of sheikh abdul qadir jilani].

So this brings another disturbing fact:

The eleventh descendant of imam hussain a.s was born in 265AH
The alleged eleventh descendant of imam hassan a.s [father of sheikh abdul qadir as claimed by qadiris/sufis] was alive in 470AH.....which brings a difference of almost 200 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We also know for a fact from books of history that other descendants of imam hassan a.s who are no.11 in chain passed long time before this period and some were contemporaries of imams of ahlulbayt a.s perhaps!

Now after analyzing the information above lets see what other qadiris say about the nasb of sheikh abdul qadir jilani and their differences within themsleves will immediately tell any truth seeker that a group which cannot decide within itself the lineage of its sheikh, will certainly gain no support in making others beleive this forgery which has been proven already by both academic and logical resources:


Now we refer to the authoritative book, Qalaid al Jawahir [Necklaces of Gems] , one of the oldest most refered and an infamous work written about Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani and from it we try to locate the information about his shajra from his mother but we find nothing except:

"He is the grandson [on his mother's side] of our master, the famous 'Abdu'llah as-Sawma'i az-Zahid [the Ascetic Hermit], who was one of the Shaikhs of Jilan and one of their leading ascetics."

Sunni Reference: Qalaid al Jawahir, Part 1 in section of The Sheikh's Geneology.

There is no where to be seen the false claim or its evidence, that he was descendant of imam hussain a.s from his mother's side or if his mother was!


As for his father's side the book mentions on the same page:

"He is the Lordly Cardinal Pole [al-Qutb ar-Rabbani], the incomparable, the universal, the everlasting, the pure foundation, Muhyi 'd-din Abu Muhammad 'Abd al-Qadir, the son of Abu Salih Jangi Dost (some say Janga Dost) Musa, the son of Abu 'Abdi'llah, the son of Yahya az-Zahid, the son of Muhammad, the son of Dawud, the son of Musa, the son of 'Abdu'llah, the son of Musa al-Jawn, the son of 'Abdu'llah al-Mahd (also known by the epithet al-Mujall [the Venerable], derived from the term ijlal [veneration]), the son of al-Hasan al-Muthanna, the son of the Commander of the Believers [Amir al-Mu'minin], Abu Muhammad al-Hasan, the son of the Commander of the Believers, 'Ali (may Allah be well pleased with him), the son of Abu Talib, the son of 'Abd al-Muttalib, the son of Hashim, the son of 'abd Manaf, the son of Qusayy, the son of Kilab, the son of Murra, the son of Ka'b, the son of Lu'ayy, the son of Ghalib, the son of Qahr, the son of Malik, the son of an-Nadr. the son of Kinana, the son of Khuzaima, the son of Mudrika, the son of Ilyas, the son of Mudar, the son of Nadhdhar, the son of Ma'd, the son of 'Adnan. [His surnames are] al-Qurashi al-Hashimi al-'Alawi al-Hasani al-Jili al-Hanbali." [there is NO hussaini as mentioned vehemently by sufis and their books today]

Shaikh Mohammad ibn Yahya At-Tadifi Al-Halabi (Died 963 AH) from Syria was the author of the work “Qalaid al Jawahir”. Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani died in 561AH and this claim of his lineage by Qalaid Al Jawahir comes 4 hundred years later without any reference!

This proof is line with our statement that these claims were all made later on to give a genetic boost to the Qadiri Silsila in Sufi Tariqats whose founders/runners were the grandsons of the Sheikh. It should be noted this was a big affair as you can imagine because in some books it is written sheikh abdul qadir have 4 wives and nearly 100 kids!!! while others mention at least 55 or near around that! Some extremists have gone to so much exaggeration in their writings and praises that they have also counted sheikh abdul qadir's 4 wives as syeddahs....again ofcourse without a speck of evidence or proof!

We can clearly see that his father's name was JANGI DOST or JANG DOST as mentioned above. ABU SALIH was NOT his name. ABU SALIH is a title in arabic meaning "Father of Salih". There is not a single other persian name in any of the forged shajras! This topic will be touched in further discussion with proofs from books when i see a proper reply/challenge to this post.

Similarly the shajra presented earlier about his mother, which i extracted from another book is erroneous and incomplete on another count that it DOES NOT give correct names rather gives kunniyat for many names which makes the shajra impossible to verify and validate [what a clever technique]. I refer specifically to the following names in the earlier mentioned maternal shajrah:


7- Syedna Abu Ala-ud-Din r.a
8- Syedna Abu Kamal r.a
9- Syedna Abdullah r.a
10- Syedna Abu Tahir r.a
12- Syedna Abu Jamal r.a
13- Abu Abdullah Som'ai
14- Syedah Umm ul Khayr Ummatul Jabbar

Another interesting thing to note in all these shajras is that no one else except sheikh abdul qadir is called JILANI!!!!! hmm that hints towards a lot as well.

However, what is most shocking is that the Qadiris cannot decide how he is descendant of Imam Hussain a.s from both his mother's side and father's side. To demonstrate this for father's side lets see what shajrah is presented for Sheikh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani by one of his most infamous descendants in the subcontinent/Pakistan, the Mehr Ali Shah {Of Gholra] family:


1- Syed Imam Hasan Al Mujtaba
2- Syed Hasan Muthanna
3- Syed Abdullah Mahd
4- Syed Musa Al-Jawn
5- Syed Abdullah Saleh
6- Syed Musi Thani
7- Syed Abubakar Daud
8- Syed Shams-ud-din Zakariya
9- Syed Yahya Zahid
10- Syed Abdullah Jili
11- Syed Abu Saleh
12- Syedna Ghaus-e-Azam Muhyuddin Abdul Qadir Jilani

Online reference: http://www.thelighto...f/main_page.htm

As you will very clearly see that the names highlighted here firstly do not occur in the shajrah presented by the other Qadiris as mentioned earlier!!

No.8 in previous shajrah is NOT shamsuddin Zakariyah! its Syedna Mohammad!

Also in previous shajrah, Abu Abdullah is on number 11 [meaning father of Abdullah] while in the other Abdullah himself is on 11th number! Contradiction!

There is an interesting quote in the website of these descendants of Mehr Ali Shah:

"However, the veneration accorded to this newly arrived family aroused feelings of jealousy among the “Syeds” already living in the area, who were mostly of Shi’ah denomination and felt their own position and influence threatened by the new-comers. One of the ploys used by these people to undermine the popularity of Hazrat’s family was to refuse to accept their prophetic lineage"

So it also goes a lot to prove that when their family came to the area of their permanent residence [Golra in Pakistan], the SYEDS of that area REJECTED their false claim that they were syeds!

On the whole website they have failed to provide any academic references which are mutually acceptable to establish their claim. This is the biggest claim of their forgery and just like the brother Sufi on this forum, the Mehr Ali descendants also have chosen to take their ANTI SHIA sentiment out on a matter which has nothing to do with shia or sunni religion as its a matter of geneology and not aqaid!


It is also interesting they didnt dare to claim they descend from imam hussain a.s from sheikh's mother's side! Well other sunni/sufi scholars have done so, though, in their books and one of them gives the shajrah of Sheikh through his mother as follows:


Sunni Scholar Al-shaikh Younus Alshaikh Ibrahim Al-Saamarai in his book “Shaikh Abdul Qadir al-Keelani” conveys that the family tree from his mother side
is:


1- Imam Hussain
2- Imam Ali Zainul aabideen
3- Imam Mohammad al baqir
4- Imam Jafar Sadiq
5- Imam Musa al Kazim
6- Imam Ali al Ridha
7- Imam Mohammad al Jawwad

8- Imam Al-Syed Abi Alauddin
9- Imam Kamaluddin Isa
10- Imam Abdullah
11- Imam Al-Syed Mahmood
12- Imam Abi Jamaluddin alSyed Mohammad
13- Abdullah Al-Somai Alzahid
14- Ummul Khair Amatul Jabbar Fatima
15- Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani


[as in previous citations, i have highlighted the names of imams of ahlulbayt a.s in bold].

Alhamdolillah the great lie and contradiction of the sufis/ahlul sunnah who beleive sheikh abdul qadir to be descendant of imam hussain a.s is revealed! In the earlier shajra they claim him to be descendant of Imam Jafar al Sadiq a.s [in other words Jafari Syed]....while in this Shajra they claim him to be a descendant of Imam Mohammad al Jawwad al Taqi a.s [in other words Rizvi or Taqvi Syed...both are same as rizvis all have imam jawad a.s in their lineage...the only son of Imam Ali Al Ridha a.s].

Imam Mohammad al Jawwad a.s and his progeny continues through Syedna Musa al Mubaraqa, the jadd of of all rizvi saadat and many references from both sunni and shia books can be seen for that. These shajras presented for sheikh abdul qadir jilani are those so erroneous and faulty and in contradiction to themselves that their own scholars are themselves confused as to who he was!

I will give the other side now the opportunity to reply in a brotherly manner and will bring the other proofs in time as the discussion progresses. I shall also bring strong evidence to prove Khawaja Moinuddin Chishti was not a Syed. We will study his personality later.

Brother mazher please keep in mind this is only an academic debate and has nothing to do with racism. Ilm al Rijal and Ilm al Ansaab is a branch of religious sciences. Do not give us labels if you dont understand the purpose of this discussion. Inshallah i hope my sunni brothers will understand this.

May Allah bless you all and guide you with the light of Ahlulbayt a.s

Edited by SyedFarid, 01 August 2004 - 03:19 AM.


#34 Taair-al-Quds

Taair-al-Quds

    Ahl al Wilayah

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 320 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 03:28 AM

I would like you all to join my site on http://groups.msn.com/shiaofahlulbayt

On this site, there are answers and discussions on many such controversial issues ...including the refutation on "allegation that khawaja naseer ud din tusi, the noble shia scholar was responsible for the fall of baghdad by calling mongols" and other interesting topics...which include but are not limited to : exposing false hadiths in merits of certain personalities, doing analysis of controversial historical events, personalities etc....we also happen to have a pictures section with pictures of sufis for people who have interest in sufism. Thank you and may Allah guide us all.

#35 Guest_Sufi_*

Guest_Sufi_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 August 2004 - 04:15 AM

Dear brother Sufi,

Salam Alaykom.

With all due respect, Your reply is illogical and non academic. Whenever you dont have an answer you come back bickering to your old favorite topic of "you shia", "you this and you that". Therefore, my reply will not be to any of your comments that reveal your anti shia or sectarian sentiments

well u r only bringing Shia prooves. What can i do? any Sufi who says Shiekh Abdul Qadir Al Jillani is not a syed is liar and a fraud. Its part of the Sufi believes to accept him as a Syed.

1- Khawaja Moinuddin Chishti was NOT A descendant of the holy prophet pbuh.

Well just say it clearly buddy Sunni's can't be Syeds.

4- The lineage provided to advance sheikh abdul qadir jilani as descendant of prophet mohammad pbuh is ridiculous because they claim him to be descendant of imam hussain a.s from his mother and of imam hassan a.s from father [a wonderful forgery]. Now if you have even basic knowledge of imams and understanding study of ilm ul nasab you will immediately try to first verify the names in the given shajra! This is precisely the reason why majority of the websites on sheikh abdul qadir do not mention these shajras and briefly state that he was al hassani wal hussaini [a claim which was later on misused by followers of other sufis as well!...as in case of khawaja moinuddin chishti, sultan bahoo, farid ganjshakkar, mian mir, ali hajvery data ganj baksh etc, etc.... we will explore and refute all these claims academically at a later stage inshallah. At this moment i choose to concenterate on sheikh abdul qadir

Just save time and say it clearly that only Shia's can be Sayids and Sunnis cannot be Sayids.

Analyzing the forgery made in his nasb from his mother's side:

The Qadris allege that sheikh abdul qadir jilani was a descendant of imam hussain a.s from his mothers' side. However, when you ask them for proof, they provide you shajras that are:

1- firstly not consistent with each other
2- not consistent with the records of both shi'a and sunni history regarding the progeny of imams of ahlulbayt a.s

Here, i shall present to you the forged shajrah that is present in the infamous book "Qassas ul Awliya" by "Khalifa Malik Mohammad Ashraf Naqshbandi al Qadiri.

On page 22 of the book we read the following Shajra, word by word, attributed to him from his mother's side. [please keep in mind the names, their numbering
and sequence as we will use this in our discussion]:


1- Hadhrat Hussain r.a
2- Syedna Zain al Abidin r.a
3- Syedna Mohammad Baqir r.a
4- Syedna Jafar Sadiq r.a

5- Syedna Ali Areez r.a
6- Syedna Mohammad r.a
7- Syedna Abu Ala-ud-Din r.a
8- Syedna Abu Kamal r.a
9- Syedna Abdullah r.a
10- Syedna Abu Tahir r.a
11- Syedna Mohammad r.a
12- Syedna Abu Jamal r.a
13- Abu Abdullah Som'ai
14- Syedah Umm ul Khayr Ummatul Jabbar
15- Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani


How many links does that make? from Imam Hassan a.s?
Answer: 15

On the same page of the same book, his forged shajrah towards Imam Hassan a.s is given below:

1- Hadhrat Hassan r.a
2- Syedna Hassan r.a
3- Syedna Abdullah al Mahaz r.a
4- Syedna Musa r.a.
5- Syedna Abdullah r.a
6- Syedna Musa Thaani r.a
7- Syedna Dawood r.a
8- Syedna Mohammad r.a
9- Syedna Yahya Zahid r.a
10- Syedna Abu Abdullah r.a
11- Syedna Abu Salih r.a
12- Hadhrath Sheikh Mohiyyuddin Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani r.a


If this is accepted to be true, the number of chains from imam hassan a.s is?
Answer: 12

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well done but are u trying to say that everyone decides to have kids during the same geneartion. Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jillani's family was part of the Qurash and according to our believe a women from the Qurash can have a child at a late age.
015.051
YUSUFALI: Tell them about the guests of Abraham.
PICKTHAL: And tell them of Abraham's guests,
SHAKIR: And inform them of the guests of Ibrahim:

015.052
YUSUFALI: When they entered his presence and said, "Peace!" He said, "We feel afraid of you!"
PICKTHAL: (How) when they came in unto him, and said: Peace. He said: Lo! we are afraid of you.
SHAKIR: When they entered upon him, they said, Peace. He said: Surely we are afraid of you.

015.053
YUSUFALI: They said: "Fear not! We give thee glad tidings of a son endowed with wisdom."
PICKTHAL: They said: Be not afraid! Lo! we bring thee good tidings of a boy possessing wisdom.
SHAKIR: They said: Be not afraid, surely we give you the good news of a boy, possessing knowledge.

015.054
YUSUFALI: He said: "Do ye give me glad tidings that old age has seized me? Of what, then, is your good news?"
PICKTHAL: He said: Bring ye me good tidings (of a son) when old age hath overtaken me? Of what then can ye bring good tidings?
SHAKIR: He said: Do you give me good news (of a son) when old age has come upon me?-- Of what then do you give me good news!

015.055
YUSUFALI: They said: "We give thee glad tidings in truth: be not then in despair!"
PICKTHAL: They said: We bring thee good tidings in truth. So be not thou of the despairing.
SHAKIR: They said: We give you good news with truth, therefore be not of the despairing.

015.056
YUSUFALI: He said: "And who despairs of the mercy of his Lord, but such as go astray?"
PICKTHAL: He said: And who despaireth of the mercy of his Lord save those who are astray?
SHAKIR: He said: And who despairs of the mercy of his Lord but the erring ones?
011.069
YUSUFALI: There came Our messengers to Abraham with glad tidings. They said, "Peace!" He answered, "Peace!" and hastened to entertain them with a roasted calf.
PICKTHAL: And Our messengers cam unto Abraham with good news. They said: Peace! He answered: Peace! and delayed not to bring a roasted calf.
SHAKIR: And certainly Our messengers came to Ibrahim with good news. They said: Peace. Peace, said he, and he made no delay in bringing a roasted calf.

011.070
YUSUFALI: But when he saw their hands went not towards the (meal), he felt some mistrust of them, and conceived a fear of them. They said: "Fear not: We have been sent against the people of Lut."
PICKTHAL: And when he saw their hands reached not to it, he mistrusted them and conceived a fear of them. They said: Fear not! Lo! we are sent unto the folk of Lot.
SHAKIR: But when he saw that their hands were not extended towards it, he deemed them strange and conceived fear of them. . They said: Fear not, surely we are sent to Lut's people.

011.071
YUSUFALI: And his wife was standing (there), and she laughed: But we gave her glad tidings of Isaac, and after him, of Jacob.
PICKTHAL: And his wife, standing by laughed when We gave her good tidings (of the birth) of Isaac, and, after Isaac, of Jacob.
SHAKIR: And his wife was standing (by), so she laughed, then We gave her the good news of Ishaq and after Ishaq of (a son's son) Yaqoub.

011.072
YUSUFALI: She said: "Alas for me! shall I bear a child, seeing I am an old woman, and my husband here is an old man? That would indeed be a wonderful thing!"
PICKTHAL: She said: Oh woe is me! Shall I bear a child when I am an old woman, and this my husband is an old man? Lo! this is a strange thing!
SHAKIR: She said: O wonder! shall I bear a son when I am an extremely old woman and this my husband an extremely old man? Most surely this is a wonderful thing.

011.073
YUSUFALI: They said: "Dost thou wonder at Allah's decree? The grace of Allah and His blessings on you, o ye people of the house! for He is indeed worthy of all praise, full of all glory!"
PICKTHAL: They said: Wonderest thou at the commandment of Allah? The mercy of Allah and His blessings be upon you, O people of the house! Lo! He is Owner of Praise, Owner of Glory!
SHAKIR: They said: Do you wonder at Allah's bidding? The mercy of Allah and His blessings are on you, O people of the house, surely He is Praised, Glorious.

Also like to make a comment that we do not believe in the Mahdi that the Shia's believe in. To us he doesn't even exist.

However, what is most shocking is that the Qadiris cannot decide how he is descendant of Imam Hussain a.s from both his mother's side and  father's side. To demonstrate this for father's side lets see what shajrah is presented for Sheikh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani by one of his most infamous descendants in the subcontinent/Pakistan, the Mehr Ali Shah {Of Gholra] family:

Lol now u are crusiing Pir Mehr Ali Shah Sahaab too. I can clearly see ur rasicm towards the Sufis.

Another interesting thing to note in all these shajras is that no one else except sheikh abdul qadir is called JILANI!!!!! hmm that hints towards a lot as well.

hmm.. Maybe he moved to Baghdad later :rolleyes:

On the whole website they have failed to provide any academic references which are mutually acceptable to establish their claim. This is the biggest claim of their forgery and just like the brother Sufi on this forum, the Mehr Ali descendants also have chosen to take their ANTI SHIA sentiment out on a matter which has nothing to do with shia or sunni religion as its a matter of geneology and not aqaid!

i can say the same about u and ur anti Sufi claims. The Imam Mahdi u believe in is nothing but a forge. He means nothing to us. We don't believe he was a syed.

Let me just put a conclusion for this. If u don't believe that Shiekh Abdul Qadir al Jillani or Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti are not Syeds then just say it clearly that Sufis cannot be Syeds. Let me just ask u to find me a Sunni that is a Syed and also provide his family tree.

#36 AL JAWAB

AL JAWAB

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • Pip
  • 124 posts
  • Location:SOME WHERE, HERE THERE
  • Interests:WELL READING BOOKS ON TAFARQA BAZI ( kidding )<br>Yeah so my interests .......... . 'kidding' to make people happy+ reading books + playing games on computer + surfing + watching TV.<br>Hey i cant tell you about my entire LIFE !!! ???

Posted 01 August 2004 - 07:43 AM

Sallam
Well i do agree with this statment that Sufis ,sunni etc can be syed, and i personaly know some sufi syed. Like one in Pakistan he is in Qalandari system and his name is "Peer Sibtain Naqvi Qalandari", i read his book of Q/A and found it much informative.
And once again it is merely a request to you people ( Sufi and Syed Farid) to debate not to fight. as your statments are gonna aggresive, and at the end there will be no result of this beautiful discussion.
@)

#37 Guest_Sufi_*

Guest_Sufi_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 August 2004 - 08:33 AM

Sallam
Well it is not necessary that every syed should be shia. So I don’t know family tree of Hazrat Khajah Moinuddin Chisti. But I like is poetry. “Shah Ast Hussain …… “
And as far this is concerned that he was shia. Well what I do think that it is very difficult to confirm it. Because if he were then he would be in Taqiyaa. As it is said about Jalalu dein Surikh Bukarhi. In Pakistan there are many Naqvi-Bukhari Syed. Because he migrated from iraq, bukhar then to Kabul and came here in sub-continent.
Although it is said that he lived according to sunni doctrine but he was considered shia. And a sufi Hazrat Raju did confirm it too etc. But it is said ( by shia ) that he was shia.
But in Sufism there is nothing like shia or sunni. Sufism teaches love for all. Therefore we see shia+barlwi+wahabi+deobandi even non-muslims just on one place. So in Sufism there is nothing like shia or sunni ( as far my understanding is concerned).
Nice work bro SyedFarid i found it much knowledgeble.
@)

Baba Bullhai Shah used to say "I am not Sunni or Shia". There is even a qawwali by Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan on what he said.

#38 Guest_Sufi_*

Guest_Sufi_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 August 2004 - 08:34 AM

Sallam
Well i do agree with this statment that Sufis ,sunni etc can be syed, and i personaly know some sufi syed. Like one in Pakistan he is in Qalandari system and his name is "Peer Sibtain Naqvi Qalandari", i read his book of Q/A and found it much informative.
And once again it is merely a request to you people ( Sufi and Syed Farid) to debate not to fight. as your statments are gonna aggresive, and at the end there will be no result of this beautiful discussion.
@)

I wouldn't call this topic beautiful. It is an insult to me. I think we will only argue instead of debating.

#39 Powell Roland

Powell Roland
  • Banned
  • 17 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 04:26 PM

(salam)

Will somebody tell me what the hell has this Gillani dude got to with caliphate ? :rolleyes:

#40 Ersin110

Ersin110

    I Know What You Did Last Ramadan

  • Banned
  • 48 posts

Posted 01 August 2004 - 04:28 PM

Sallam
Well i do agree with this statment that Sufis ,sunni etc can be syed, and i personaly know some sufi syed. Like one in Pakistan he is in Qalandari system and his name is "Peer Sibtain Naqvi Qalandari", i read his book of Q/A and found it much informative.
And once again it is merely a request to you people ( Sufi and Syed Farid) to debate not to fight. as your statments are gonna aggresive, and at the end there will be no result of this beautiful discussion.
@)

I wouldn't call this topic beautiful. It is an insult to me. I think we will only argue instead of debating.

We are not here to entertain you my dear :shaytan:

#41 Guest_Sufi_*

Guest_Sufi_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 August 2004 - 10:47 PM

(salam)

Will somebody tell me what the hell has this Gillani dude got to with caliphate ? :rolleyes:

He was a Calipah for the spritual world. Also his family ruled Baghdad till the 1920's.

#42 Guest_Sufi_*

Guest_Sufi_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 August 2004 - 10:49 PM

Sallam
Well i do agree with this statment that Sufis ,sunni etc can be syed, and i personaly know some sufi syed. Like one in Pakistan he is in Qalandari system and his name is "Peer Sibtain Naqvi Qalandari", i read his book of Q/A and found it much informative.
And once again it is merely a request to you people ( Sufi and Syed Farid) to debate not to fight. as your statments are gonna aggresive, and at the end there will be no result of this beautiful discussion.
@)

I wouldn't call this topic beautiful. It is an insult to me. I think we will only argue instead of debating.

We are not here to entertain you my dear :shaytan:

no its not what i wanted. It just that it seems u guys are claimed u know Ghous-al Azam better then me. It just me telling u that i know ur Imam Mahdi better then u. :shaytan:

#43 Taair-al-Quds

Taair-al-Quds

    Ahl al Wilayah

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 320 posts

Posted 02 August 2004 - 07:58 PM

Salam Alaykom wa Rahmatollahi wa Barakatuhu,

Mr Sufi, your reply to my message [which was filled with academic references] was once again, incomplete, non-academic and filled with statements and lies like:


1- "maybe"

comment: YOU DONT ANSWER or prove things with a "MAYBE" you answer with ACADEMIC REFERENCES AND RESEARCH! Your maybe will remain a Maybe in your head for as long as you wish but it is not worth any value when you are debating with FACTS, references and hardcore evidence.


2- "Just save time and say it clearly that only Shia's can be Sayids and Sunnis cannot be Sayids."

Comment: You are a liar and im ashamed to deface this lie of yours because i already mentioned in my earlier posts by giving reference of Ayatollah Sheikh Jafar al Subhani that he has mentioned the authentic SUNNI SYEDS [eg of bukhara etc]in his TABAQAT AL FUQAHA...but there is no mention of ABDUL QADIR JILANI or his sons/grandsons as SYED. So for you to bring it back again into a SHIA SUNNI fight/debate is useless because this is your attitude each time you fail to answer something!

3- "Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jillani's family was part of the Qurash and according to our believe a women from the Qurash can have a child at a late age."

Comment: Oh My God Is that pathetic attempt even an excuse to the information i gave you? Surely it shows, you do not know mathematics to save your life let alone answer the historical and geneological data i submitted to readers as proof. What has sheikh abdul qadir's mother's age got to do with the age of sheikh's father or sheikh himself! And you ASSUMED that his mother is from QURAISH in the first place!!!! and that ALL WOMEN FROM QURAISH give birth to children at LATE AGE! FALSE! did syeda fatima al zahra a.s gave birth at late age? did syeda zainab a.s gave birth at late age? Infact when we read histories of women of the ahlulbayt a.s of prophet mohammad pbuh most of them gave birth to children at young age!!!! you are at loss at total loss because either u have not read hitory at all or you are deliberately lying to cover up for your sheikh.... and u are doing a silly excercise quoting verses from quran which are unrelated to this debate. Stop getting emotional and yes if im challenging u directly and if u find a challenge insulting, then there is no need to answer or come to forums as forums are for debate. i want proofs from you and answers in refutation in the same way as i refuted you. I GAVE U REFERENCES FROM SUNNI and SHIA AND SUFI books. You have nothing in return to tell other then telling me stories of women of QURAISH and pathetically generalizing them.

Sheikh abdul Qadir Jilani was not a WOMAN from QURAISH and you have failed to prove or show why the ages of other 12th descendants of prophet pbuh are not like this...why they were all existant hundreds of years before the birth of your sheikh and you have also failed to prove that either sheikh's father or his mother was descendant of prophet of Islam. I have proved with references, with logic and with the geneological tables that neither your sheikhs' father nor his mother was a descendant of holy prophet pbubh. They were ordinary persian people! This is why you read in your VERY OWN books that your SHEIKH did NOT EVEN know arabic till he moved to baghdad and had to learn there [which was around age 17 or 18]. On the other hand the qadiris fabricate so much. They claim sheikh's grandfather migrated from ARABIA!!!! So his grandfather migrates from arabia and he dont even know arabic!??? My god apalling lies! and sheikh's father is JANG DOST a persian man...a man who migrates freshly from ARABIA? with his dad?...his son should have been born in arabia and even if not ...he is arab owing to his father being immediately migrant arab...and ARABS DONT NAME THEIR KIDS JANG DOST!!!!as proven by your own sunni/sufi references in my previous post.


You are at a loss to answer all those refrences i gave which REFUTE the lies you people make in order to promote this man as descendant of prophet of Islam. You do more disservice to him, his reputation and his teachings then any shia, because he is against lying and he is against self-elevation himself! [read fath ul ghayb]. He didnt claim what you claim of him!

You people write forged shajras without any academic proofs from any shajra ansaab scholars of either shia or sunni! this is the very reason why u cant decide whether his mother is rizvi syedah or jafari syeda! You failed to reply to any of the substantial proofs i give and u reply with your emotional "maybes" and "Stories of quraishi women!" and totally unrelated quranic verses!

You say the women of Quraish give birth in late age. If i accept that then IT WORKS AGAINST YOU rather then me!...because u didnt realise while making this silly claim that if a woman from quraish gives birth in late age then she should have children late as well! ... if that remains the case then the number of generations between sheikh's mother and him and his father and him should be far lesser! because lesser children should be produced in that lineage as well....and if that is the case, even then a difference of 200 or more years in two lineages is totally ridiculous in a period of merely 12th generation..specially when we know from historical facts that upto Syed Yahya al Zahid r.a [who was from hijaz] THERE WAS NO ISSUE OF A WOMAN GIVING LATE BIRTH!.....we also know that that upto the 11 imams, the descendants of imam hassan a.s who were there contemporaries were also in the 10th or 11th generation. Therefore there is no historical evidence of such assumptions which you make out of the air and you are required to bring academic proofs for what you say!. You have duped yourself! and for these claims you have, as usual no such evidence either. Furthermore, the descendants of Syed Yahya al Mukanna [quoted wrong as Yahya Al Zahid or maybe its another person] in the shajrah of Sheikh Abdul Qadir NEVER EVER MOVED FROM HIJAZ to IRAN!. they are buried in HIJAZ! So for your absolutely outlandish claims and stories about old quraishi women and their late childgivings are no proof for anything. Even if you think they are proof enough, YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT your evidence with REFERENCES of academic quality. You are not having a tea party chat here where u can boast in front of people and get away with it. We will verify each and every statement you make and we give you the opportunity to do the same, so act with reason, not with blindness!

You have no evidence to answer anything and once against to my last reply you answer with ur typical anti-shia rhetoric. It shows your lack of knowledge about the person you have come to defend and your bitterness towards others who have the nerve to challenge you and shake the truth out.

Sufi when i told you that only sheikh abdul qadir is called jilani no one else we read in his shajra to be JILANI you come up with this absolutely unrelated excuse:

Maybe he moved to baghdad later

Only sheikh Abdul Qadir moved to baghdad !!! his father was not from baghdad he died in IRAN! he had no connection with baghdad and even if he did he wouldnt change his surname for merely moving to another city! IT is concrete from books of Qadiris that his father was from IRAN! and so was his mother...from the place called Naif..to be particular.


I presented to you the statements and shajra from YOUR BELOVED MEHRI ALI SHAH website to refute and expose your shajrah claims...not to demand anything else nor to speak personally against MEHR ALI SHAH! that is not the topic of my discussion...it is them who speak against shia. As for us we dont need to do that because knowledge is more powerful then making dirty comments against others.
Your shajras are false that is why they dont even match up within the descendants of sheikh abdul qadir jilani! what a joke really! and you want other people to accept him as syed!? oh yeah right!? And stop bickering around giving excuses in favor of Mehr Ali Shah website as i told you already that our debate is related to topic of FAMILY TREE OF SHEIKH ABDUL QADIR JILANI!....i have given you references upon references from MEHR ALI SHAH WEBSITE, from SUNNI BOOKS, FROM SUFI BOOKS and you have categorically turned a blind eye on EACH ONE OF THEM and claimed that like MEHR ALI SHAH website i have not provided anything either. CHARMING. IF you dont take your words back in light of th references provided above i will have no shame nor regret in calling you a SPOOF/LIAR. A Liar is not an abuse, mind you. Liar is from the word Lie which means to CONCEAL TRUTH. You lied [i.e concealed truth] when you said i didnt provide any references! Anyone reading this will bear witness to this that you have LIED deliberately on two counts by now and are determined to do so in future.

You are again liar when you say that the IMAM MAHDI a.s [you sufis beleive in] is not the same MAHDI a.s as we shia beleive in. I anwsered and demolished your lies in another post about "12 imams of sufis" in which i gave references from dozen of sufi scholars who totally beleive in the same al mahdi a.s as the shia. If you people today follow a deviant branch of sufism today then it means u dont even represent your own sufis who taught u to beleive in the same al mahdi a.s in which shia beleive. If anyone wants to see these proofs they are welcome to the see the post "Who are the 12 imams of the sufis" in which Mr Sufi is not only at a loss to describe the 12 imams name by name but also is refuted by solid references from works of sufism. Mr Sufi quit assuming that people who dont chose to be sufis dont know sufism or dont interact with them or dont read their books!

You have pathetically called some of your great sufi masters [including ibn al arabi, syed momin shablanji, al qundoozi al hanafi, sha'rani, imam shafi'i, fudayl bin iyaad the companion sufi of imam jafar al sadiq a.s] as corrupt or liars by implying that they beleieved in false mahdi a.s of shia!!!! May Allah protect you for saying such a rotten thing. For your information Fudayl bin Iyaad is not only the teacher of Imam Shafii of sunnis but also the companion of imam jafar al sadiq a.s and one of the sufis in silsila of tariqat of some qadri tariqats. So shame on you really for making such rash arguments without having any knowledge of sufism or its people.

For your kind information, the infamous sufi saint, Sheikh Farid ud Din Attar [born in 531AH and a contemporary of Sheikh Adbul Qadir Jilani] wrote a book called "Tazkiratul Awliyah" regarding the history of Awliyah mentioning names from the time of Hadrat Ovais e Qarni r.a upto his age". Subhan Allah the book starts with the chapter on Imam Jafar al Sadiq a.s. He puts his name even above Ovais e Qarni r.a and second chapter is on Ovais e Qarni r.a. Sheikh Fariduddin Attar mentions the lives of 96 sheikhs in this book which is lying in front of me right now. There is no mention of your sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani! So are you going to claim he is naoodobillah corrupt sufi too because he doesnt mention Sheikh Abdul Qadir as syed or awliyah? Your total theory is flawed and self centric! Quite interestingly the father, grandfather from either mother or father's side of sheikh abdul qadir are also not mentioned in either this or any other book of awliyah in sufism! You will only find a few lines here and there in qadiri literature...in which they claim them as such top notch high ranked sufis ...while the whole history failed to write as such either in sunnis or sufis...so if we go by mr SUFI's fatwa then every sufi sunni shia...all must be corrupt. we can know in light of this information, who really is corrupt now!

I give you yet another chance to come up with academic level proofs and references and proper geneological data. As i said i have still more proofs but if you have nothing to give and nothing to disprove other then merely talking big then you have accepted your defeat in this debate yourself and the readers will be witness to it.

More proofs are waiting in the wings from your beloved sunni books! I am waiting to see what more you have to say or give as factual evidence with references.

This debate is not about SUNNI, SHIA or SUFI. This topic is also not about IMAM MAHDI a.s. Quit deviating from the topic in order to prove something which has been addressed already in other posts. This topic is strictly about a man about whom a certain thing is beng claimed..regarding his geneology. You can go and take out your anti-shia sentiment elsewhere in some other post and ill meet you on that there and then as i met you in the "12 imams of sufism" section. However as i said, as for now our debate must remain to the topic we are discussing instead of making silly excuses to run away by hiding behind anti this or anti that sentiment.

Qul Haatoo Burhanukum Inkuntum Sadiqeen
"Tell them to bring their proofs, if they are truthful" [Holy Quran]


You have failed to prove anything from any academic source and you have failed to refute anything from the many academic sources provided along with the geneological tables provided. The burder of refutation and proofs now lies on you. Until then you remain defeated on this topic, whether you like shia, hate shia or whatever!

Edited by SyedFarid, 02 August 2004 - 08:53 PM.


#44 Taair-al-Quds

Taair-al-Quds

    Ahl al Wilayah

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 320 posts

Posted 02 August 2004 - 08:22 PM

More lies of Brother Sufi exposed:

Mr Sufi writes in reply to my response regarding Khawaja Moinuddin Chishsti:

Well just say it clearly buddy Sunni's can't be Syeds.

Comment: ARE KHAWAJA MOINUDDIN CHISHTI AND ABDUL QADIR JILANI THE ONLY SUNNIS out of the MILLIONS ON THIS PLANET EVEN AT THAT TIME?! You fail to see because u are blind. I already told you there are a number of syeds in Sunnis as well and i gave u refernece of Book of not a SUNNI but shia scholar, Ayatollah Sheikh Jafar al Subhani r.a to verify that!!! This will proof that your anti shia sentiment is proven wrong from an academic source!


Mr Sufi then writes:

Baba Bullhai Shah used to say "I am not Sunni or Shia". There is even a qawwali by Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan on what he said.


Comment: This topic is not about Baba Bulleh Shah [whose real name was ABDULLAH] and it doesnt make a penny of a difference as to whether he was Shia or Sunni. He was a descendant of SHEIKH ABDUL QADIR JILANI who according to you and your books/scholars was a DIE HARD SUNNI!...so now you will also claim using the same logic that BULLEH SHAH WAS FRAUD? because he didnt follow or admit the ideology of his ancestor ABDUL QADIR JILANI!??? your conjectures are disturbing i must say!


Mr Sufi then makes a laughingstock of a comment by saying:

"no its not what i wanted. It just that it seems u guys are claimed u know Ghous-al Azam better then me. It just me telling u that i know ur Imam Mahdi better then u."

comments: firstly your english is incorrect but anyhow thatsbesides the topic so ill spare you on that. Secondly, is knowledge about Imam Mahdi a.s or Abdul Qadir Jilani some inherited treasure that no one else can gain? Can you claim that you know PHYSICS or MATHS more then a person who has PHD just because your ancestor was a physicist or mathematician? Your logic is another failed attempt based on PRIDE AND ARROGANCE! WHy cant you learn more about imam mahdi a.s? Why cant we learn more about your sheikh? ANYONE CAN! if you are a research oriented person GO AND BUY SOME BOOKS, Sit with people of those following and u will find out more then an ordinary person who claims this or that! I have your books of sufism, i know many people in your circles and for your information i also attend your GHIYARWEEN SHAREEF ceremony in the house of the sheikh's descendant peer in LAHORE that represents your sheikh [on lawrence road lahore, for your information]. We know their family and for this reason unlike you they dont have a problem with inviting a shi'a! I have books of your sheikh and other sheikhs too...so what level are you on in terms of knowledge? to claim that you know more? Without proving that, you remain nothing! Similarly a shia who claims he knows all or best about imam mahdi a.s makes a useless claim unless he cannot demonstrate through knowledge and debate.

Knowledge is not inherited by BLOOD in ordinary mortals! it is gained by seeking! The sufi books or circles are not only for sunni..even non muslims can read them! there is no ban on them for others!


Mr Sufi makes another tactical lie then by claiming:

I wouldn't call this topic beautiful. It is an insult to me. I think we will only argue instead of debating.

Comment: Oh How sweet of you learned PROFESSOR [NOT!]. Who is arguing here? do u know what a debate and what an argument are and how they differ?

Debate: A Discussion in which you bring proofs, references and academic quality arguments.

Argument: Mere slurs and talk which is empty of proofs and just shows disagreement for sake of disagreement.

Anyone can see above that i was doing a debate, while Mr Sufi is busy arguing and has nothing to refute and no reference of academic calibre to discuss with!


The classic statement of Mr Sufi with which id like to end this post is as follows:

"well u r only bringing Shia prooves. What can i do? any Sufi who says Shiekh Abdul Qadir Al Jillani is not a syed is liar and a fraud. Its part of the Sufi believes to accept him as a Syed."

You are a liar and SUFI i am saying this to you because you are shamelessly making this lie for the SECOND TIME!

I gave you both sunni and sufi references....in my first and second post as well. I am now thinking that u DONT EVEN bother to read what im typing and are wasting everyone's time including your own! I request everyone reading this message to scroll up and read the proofs i gave from sunni books with the names of books, authors and they are all well known/acknowledged within sufi circles and nobody has till today written against them or refuted them either!

but Mr Sufi is indeed a new brand of sufism who goes as far as insulting his very own sufi people by calling them corrupt for not accepting Siyadat of Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani. Lol thats a joke. NO SUFI, NO SHEIKH nor MR ABDUL QADIR JILANI himself made this claim that anyone who disagrees with this will become CORRUPT SUFI. This is another cooked up corruption made by MR SUFI here in order to deceive those who dont have a clue about sufism. Ofcourse again without any academic reference of merit!

Edited by SyedFarid, 02 August 2004 - 09:01 PM.


#45 Inzamam ul Haq

Inzamam ul Haq

    Member

  • Banned
  • 92 posts

Posted 02 August 2004 - 08:51 PM

He was a Calipah for the spritual world. Also his family ruled Baghdad till the 1920's.


They only caliph he was of was the Fantasy world of 'Sufis' which never existed in the first place :)

#46 Guest_Sufi_*

Guest_Sufi_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 August 2004 - 09:08 PM

Lol Syed Farid Ur claims make me laugh.... Every true Sufi believes that Shiekh Abdul Qadir al Jillani is a Syed. However disagrees with this is only a false Sufi.
[quote]Comment: You are a liar and im ashamed to deface this lie of yours because i already mentioned in my earlier posts by giving reference of Ayatollah Sheikh Jafar al Subhani that he has mentioned the authentic SUNNI SYEDS [eg of bukhara etc]in his TABAQAT AL FUQAHA...but there is no mention of ABDUL QADIR JILANI or his sons/grandsons as SYED. So for you to bring it back again into a SHIA SUNNI fight/debate is useless because this is your attitude each time you fail to answer something![/quote]
Ayatollah Subhani is a Shia i don't accept his works to be authentic. He does not mean anything to me.
[quote]Comment: Oh My God Is that pathetic attempt even an excuse to the information i gave you? Surely it shows, you do not know mathematics to save your life let alone answer the historical and geneological data i submitted to readers as proof. What has sheikh abdul qadir's mother's age got to do with the age of sheikh's father or sheikh himself! And you ASSUMED that his mother is from QURAISH in the first place!!!! and that ALL WOMEN FROM QURAISH give birth to children at LATE AGE!  FALSE! did syeda fatima al zahra a.s gave birth at late age? did syeda zainab a.s gave birth at late age? Infact when we read histories of women of the ahlulbayt a.s of prophet mohammad pbuh most of them gave birth to children at young age!!!! you are at loss at total loss because either u have not read hitory at all or you are deliberately lying to cover up for your sheikh.... and u are doing a silly excercise quoting verses from quran which are unrelated to this debate. Stop getting emotional and yes if im challenging u directly and if u find a challenge insulting, then there is no need to answer or come to forums as forums are for debate. i want proofs from you and answers in refutation in the same way as i refuted you. I GAVE U REFERENCES FROM SUNNI and SHIA AND SUFI books. You have nothing in return to tell other then telling me stories of women of QURAISH and pathetically generalizing them. [/quote]
what a idiots. Do u even have logic to ur saying. I said that his father side had a slower generation compare to his mother side. Are u telling me all the ppl here that claim there are syes have the same number when it comes to generation. If u believe this then i would say u have problems understanding how generations work.
[quote]This is why you read in your VERY OWN books that your SHEIKH did NOT EVEN know arabic till he moved to baghdad and had to learn there [which was around age 17 or 18]. On the other hand the qadiris fabricate so much. They claim sheikh's grandfather migrated from ARABIA!!!! So his grandfather migrates from arabia and he dont even know arabic!??? My god apalling lies! and sheikh's father is JANG DOST a persian man...a man who migrates freshly from ARABIA? with his dad?...his son should have been born in arabia and even if not ...he is arab owing to his father being immediately migrant arab...and ARABS DONT NAME THEIR KIDS JANG DOST!!!!as proven by your own sunni/sufi references in my previous post.[/quote]
Actually what u r saying here is true. Shiekh Abdul Qadir al Jillani arabic was very weak in the begining. But later he became a expert in it. He is persion this is true. but in ur previous post u r trying to say that only Arabs can be Syeds.

[quote]
You say the women of Quraish give birth in late age. If i accept that IT WORKS AGAINST YOU rather then me!...because u didnt realise while making this silly claim that if a woman from quraish gives birth in late age then she should have children late as well! ... if that remains the case then the number of generations between sheikh's mother and him and his father and him should be far lesser! because lesser children should be produced in that lineage....and if that is the case, even then a difference of 200 or more years in two lineages is totally ridiculous in a period of merely 12th generation..specially when we know from historical facts that upto Syed Yahya al Zahid r.a [who was from hijaz] THERE WAS NO ISSUE OF A WOMAN GIVING LATE BIRTH!...there is no historical evidence of such assumptions. You have duped yourself! and for these claims you have, as usual no such evidence either. Furthermore, the descendants of Syed Yahya al Mukanna [quoted wrong as Yahya Al Zahid or maybe its another person] in the shajrah of Sheikh Abdul Qadir NEVER EVER MOVED FROM HIJAZ to IRAN!. they are buried in HIJAZ! So for your absolutely outlandish claims and stories about old quraishi women and their late childgivings are no proof for anything. Even if you think they are proof enough, YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT your evidence with REFERENCES of academic quality. You are not having a tea party chat here where u can boast in front of people and get away with it. We will verify each and every statement you make and we give you the opportunity to do the same, so act with reason, not with blindness![/quote]
it does not work against me. Where did i say that both his father and mother had a late generation. I said his father had a late generation. And as i said a women from the Qurash can have a late generation. This was the case with his father side. Not his mother's side
[quote]Sufi when i told you that only sheikh abdul qadir is called jilani no one else we read in his shajra to be JILANI you come up with this absolutely unrelated excuse:[/quote]
And i told u the reason he was called Jilani was because he was born in Jilan.
[quote]Only sheikh Abdul Qadir moved to baghdad !!! his father was not from baghdad he died in IRAN! he had no connection with baghdad and even if he did he wouldnt change his surname for merely moving to another city! IT is concrete from books of Qadiris that his father was from IRAN! and so was his mother...from the place called Naif..to be particular.[/quote]
where did i say that his father moved to Baghdad? And plz don't mix ur Shia knowledge with our Sunni knowledge. There is nothing wrong with changing ur last name.
[quote]You are again liar when you say that the IMAM MAHDI a.s [you sufis beleive in] is not the same MAHDI a.s as we shia beleive in. I anwsered and demolished your lies in another post about "12 imams of sufis" in which i gave references from dozen of sufi scholars who totally beleive in the same al mahdi a.s as the shia. If you people today follow a deviant branch of sufism today then it means u dont even represent your own sufis who taught u to beleive in the same al mahdi a.s in which shia beleive. If anyone wants to see these proofs they are welcome to the see the post "Who are the 12 imams of the sufis" in which Mr Sufi is not only at a loss to describe the 12 imams name by name but also is refuted by solid references from works of sufism. Mr Sufi quit assuming that people who dont chose to be sufis dont know sufism or dont interact with them or dont read their books![/quote]
THis is the biggest Lie ever presented on this forum. NOONE HERE LET HIM Be SUFI OR SUNNI ACCEPTS THE SHIA MAHDI TO BE THEIR MAHDI. U R proofs are hersay. I told u to give me proofs from Hadith not opinons of other scholar. Imam Mahdi is from Imam Hussan not Imam Hussien.

[quote]You have pathetically called some of your great sufi masters [including ibn al arabi, syed momin shablanji, al qundoozi al hanafi, sha'rani, imam shafi'i, fudayl bin iyaad the companion sufi of imam jafar al sadiq a.s] as corrupt or liars by implying that they beleieved in false mahdi a.s of shia!!!! May Allah protect you for saying such a rotten thing. For your information Fudayl bin Iyaad is not only the teacher of Imam Shafii of sunnis but also the companion of imam jafar al sadiq a.s and one of the sufis in silsila of tariqat of some qadri tariqats. So shame on you really for making such rash arguments without having any knowledge of sufism or its people.[/quote]
what are u talking bout buddy?

#47 Taair-al-Quds

Taair-al-Quds

    Ahl al Wilayah

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 320 posts

Posted 02 August 2004 - 09:09 PM

Mr Sufi wrote:

"He was a Calipah for the spritual world. Also his family ruled Baghdad till the 1920's"

Whats the big deal about ruling till 1920s? One of his descendants, Rashid Ali Gailani, was prime minister in 1930z/40z too and i personally knew his grand daughter in london. They failed to bring any evidence either when i asked them about their lineage. You people seem to have all facts...right? but all in the air! nothing in paper..how sad!

MR Sufi also has to prove from authentic sufi master's writings that IT IS NECESSARY for a SUFI To accept that sheikh abdul qadir jilani was syed. This is the most deploreable lie i have ever heard from a person who claims to be "Sufi" and its a lie against the sufi school of thought which will only make people more negative to it rather then understanding some of the positive things in it! There is not a SINGLE sufi from the history of SUFISM who has been a scholar and who has made this claim that one has to accept sheikh abdul qadir as syed in order to be eligible to be sufi. Thats utter nonsense! The sufi school has many tariqats which DONT EVEN take sheikh abdul qadir as their SHEIKH in the spiritual lineage let alone acknowledge him as descendant of prophet of islam pbuh. Naqshbandi tariqat for example does not have sheikh abdul qadir in their silsila nor does bektashi, nor does mevlavi, nor do malamatia, ovaysia qarnia, junaidia,batiniya, suharwardia etc...the long list goes on...so now they are all corrupt too ? shame on you! even the chishtia sisila does not have sheikh abdul qadir jilani in their silsila of tariqat. Khawaja moinuddin chishti never claimed in any writing that he was descendant of holy prophet pbuh. Same was the case with Sheikh Abdul Qadir. The burden of proof lies on the one who makes these claims!

Edited by SyedFarid, 02 August 2004 - 09:12 PM.


#48 Guest_Sufi_*

Guest_Sufi_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 August 2004 - 09:09 PM

He was a Calipah for the spritual world. Also his family ruled Baghdad till the 1920's.


They only caliph he was of was the Fantasy world of 'Sufis' which never existed in the first place :)

and i can say the same about the Mahdi u believe in. He doesn't exist at all.

#49 Inzamam ul Haq

Inzamam ul Haq

    Member

  • Banned
  • 92 posts

Posted 02 August 2004 - 09:11 PM

Ayatollah Subhani is a Shia i don't accept his works to be authentic. He does not mean anything to me.


Sufis are NOTHING :)

#50 Guest_Sufi_*

Guest_Sufi_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 August 2004 - 09:14 PM

Comment: ARE KHAWAJA MOINUDDIN CHISHTI AND ABDUL QADIR JILANI THE ONLY SUNNIS out of the MILLIONS ON THIS PLANET EVEN AT THAT TIME?! You fail to see because u are blind. I already told you there are a number of syeds in Sunnis as well and i gave u refernece of Book of not a SUNNI but shia scholar, Ayatollah Sheikh Jafar al Subhani r.a to verify that!!! This will proof that your anti shia sentiment is proven wrong from an academic source!

give me their family tree. Just don't say that they are Syeds.

Mr Sufi then writes:

Baba Bullhai Shah used to say "I am not Sunni or Shia". There is even a qawwali by Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan on what he said.


Comment: This topic is not about Baba Bulleh Shah [whose real name was ABDULLAH] and it doesnt make a penny of a difference as to whether he was Shia or Sunni. He was a descendant of SHEIKH ABDUL QADIR JILANI who according to you and your books/scholars was a DIE HARD SUNNI!...so now you will also claim using the same logic that BULLEH SHAH WAS FRAUD? because he didnt follow or admit the ideology of his ancestor ABDUL QADIR JILANI!??? your conjectures are disturbing i must say!

that was a response to another member not u.



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users