I dont like this guy - ghamidi
bhai yahan like aur dislike ki baat nahin , aap ki dislike ki waja sirf tasub hay ya ? lekon kisi ko sunnay ka matlab ye nahin hota kay aap us ko follow kerna shuru ker daen . ager kisi ko sunain gay tou aap kay ilm main izafa hi hota hay ,aur tab hi aap kisi kay baaray main koi raaye dey saktay hain.
who is ghulam ahmed pervaiz??
True. we may don't agree with some of the beliefs of Ghamdi.
But the posted videos are really good, to expose the fitna e parvezi.
Pervaiz & pervaizi people naoozibillah don't believe on the power of ALLAH
So try to insert materialistic & logical stuff according to current era in Quranic verses.
Allah hum sub ko aisay fitno say bachayey.
I dont like ghamdi too
Listen to him and when he says somthing wrong talk about it
It was very well and knowledge full speech good job ghamdi very good job
The cult & followers are known as Pervazis ..
Jaisay maulana Israr na kya khoob kaha.
Punjab ki zameen bari zarkhez hay jahan baray baray ulema ikraam paida kiyay, waheen daur e hazir kay 2 baray fitnay bhee paida kiyay. Dono ka naam Ghulam Admed tha.
Ghulam Ahmed qadiani.
Ghulam Ahmed parvez.
ALLAH hum sub ko aisay fitno say bachayey.
bhai fitna tab peda hota hay jab log kisi scholar ko hi deen samjh bethtay hain,aur us ko quran aur hadith kay brabar athentic man letay hain.
perwez sahib bhi insaan hain,aur inssan ghalti ker sakta hay, lekon ye zaruri nahin kay unhon nay jaan bhuj ker kia ho.her insaan ki soch mukhtlaif hoti hay. behrhal Ho sakta hay kay future main koi esa scholar peda ho jo ghamdi sahib kay khiyalat say itfaqq na kerta ho.
behrhaal hamin sub ko apnay ilm kay sekkhnay kay liye hi sunna chahiye, kisi ko mazhab nahin manna chahiye.
A snake in sheep clothing , " Munkar-i- Hadiths".........His views about ghullam qadiyani ** ( aka ghullu , "ghull" in pushtoo means poo, ghullu means the one who always poo ,)) are also very interesting.
He thinks "Dajal" was a " Mujadid" but not a prophet....
Modern Day Fitna --> Gamdi ---> Munkar -e- Hadith
"Khalifa ".........hahaha he call himself "Khalifa" and they call him "Huzoor"..... ( my ******)
You know why they used this world a lot , " Mullah " & " Mulvi " because that 'S O B' "huzoor" used it always.
These videos are good for raising the points ghamdi sb has raised however let us take the 2nd video and the work of allaama parwez sb marhoom.
ghamdi bhai has not realised the insightfulness of the work by parwez sb . It is mainly because at that stage of his life he kept religion and state separate as well as religion and science. He is therefore trying to tell us that to understand the quran we must keep in mind the meanings of the words used in the quran as they were used in the time the quran was revealed.
There is another nation also that the quran is written in classicial arabic style and not in the modern arabic style. What is wrong with all these concepts?
If the quran is written in ancient arabic then why hadith content are in modren arabic style? All we need to do is open up any hadith book and look at the way words supposedly spoken by the prophet are so different than words used in the quranic text. Was prophet not present when the quran was revealed? Why the question of ancient and modern arabic arose? It arose because people could not explain why the quran is written in interactive style. What do I mean by that? I mean that when we read the quran it looks like a baby talk ie some words that interconnect words and concepts and contexts seem missing from the text. Does this mean arabic was not yet a developed language when the quran was revealed or was there some other reason due to which the quran was deliberately rendered this way? My theory is that it was rendered deliberately in this style because arabic was very sophisticated language when the quran was revealed. This is obvious when we read hadith books because in there we do not se this kind of broken style. Why is it that prophet speaks proper arabic when he talks yet the quran talks in improper style? The reason is simple because the writer of the quran wants people to spend time on trying to figure out meanings of the text by filling in blanks as if it were. That is because the quran wants people to go and do some research and exploration on what the quran might be talking about. This means that each person is left to find the meanings of the quranic text for himself as per one's own level of understanding about things the quran is talking about.
The other advantage of this style is that it proves the quranic text was faithfully preserved, how? Because if people narrated it as a story then they would have done what they did with ahadith texts ie they reported many ahadith in mafoom style ie as understood messages rather than actual texts. The quran was preserved as actual text. The other proof for that is written text style of the quran that proves it was preserved in writing as copied of other written texts. This is why any copy of the quran is written the very same way because if people had been copying text from dictations then they could have ended up with so many differences in actual written copies. Let me give you an easy example. Let us take bnismillah. Look into actual text. You will see baa is joined with seen and meem. The letter alif is dropped. Look at iqra bismi rabbi 96/1. The very same combination of baa and ism is written very differently from each other. In one place same combination of baa alif, seem and meem is written properly but not in the other place. If people did not copy the quran from written copies then such like things will make each copy of the quran different from the others. In some copies we will find bismillah written one way and in other another way. This means the quran has been preserved independently in hifz and in writing. We here have three independent proofs of quranic preservations a) hifz, b)written and c) testing writing against hifz and we find them in harmony.
Since the text of the quran is preserved, the question is how about meanings of words the quran uses? This is where work of allaama parwez sb is very helpful.
Last edited by Mughal1; 03-May-2012 at 10:46 PM.
In zaleel fitnoun ka liay itni ba adab zuban istimal kurna . . . . Pervaiz sahib, Qadiyani Sahib . . . . Ya hota hai adub or fulsafa ziada parhnay ka nuqsan . . . .
_pakistan seems to another munkir-e-hadith. he was yesterday saying that azaan should be in urdu and that clicked about his mindset....Anyhow budgumani budzubani se paida hoti hay aut yeh baat tumaam munkireen-e-hadith main common hay keh ummat ko salaf saliheen se hataa kar apnay damaagh key peechay laga lo....agar dictionery parh kar Quran samajhna hay tau phir tau tum dictionary walon ko authority samajh rahay ho........afsos!!!
I have not had the time (and I almost have no interest) in watching this video link. I will try to see them as I get time.
I am just surprised that you have SO much to say EVERY time based on real hollow understanding. Frankly, man, is it too much to ask you to keep quiet when you don't know about a particular subject? Do you HAVE to embarrass yourself? Or do you really think that you can get away with saying anything you want?
You make some serious errors in your assumption of religion. You are clearly unaware of the methodology of preservation of texts in the Arabic language. The Qur'an does not talk in "improper" Arabic; it actually talks in poetic and prosaic styles. Its "properness" is so unique that the Qur'an became the Arabic language's highest form of speech - this is a fact attested by historians who were linguistic geniuses themselves such as Ibn Khaldun and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah. The fact that the Quran in its Speech sounds "imperfect" or "improper" to the untrained person is because linguistically the Qur'an is way above their level. For example, when the Qur'an omits something and an untrained person reads it they think "Wow, this sentence is so incoherent!" However, those who are well-versed with linguistics and the Arabic grammar and language know EXACTLY what the omitted text is. This is something that even Arabic poems and Arabic proverbs (originated by humans) employ.
When you talk about the alphabets and the kitabat of the Qur'an, you are clearly not distinguishing between the qir'at and the kitabat. The Qur'an is quite literally "a recitation". So it doesn't matter how one writes 'bismi', but it's reading remains the same. Even in it's recitation the Qur'an is authentically narrated in 7 dialects. These 7 dialects are ALL mutawaatir lafzi and so all these versions are accepted and correct. This method of verifying the textual integrity (which is primarily done by NARRATION/READING and not the script) of the Qur'an is the same as that of the ahadith. Now this may come as news to you and some other people who have problems with ahadith, but the hard facts are that the verses of the Qur'an are preserved in the same manner as the ahadith of Rasulullah (SAW). So anyone who disbelieves in the ahadith of Rasulullah (SAW) is actually disbeliving in the verses of the Qur'an.
Mutawaatir texts can be of 4 kinds: (1) Mutawaatir lafzi a.k.a. Mutawaatir bil-matn; (2) Mutawaatir ma'ani; (3) Mutawaatir Tabaqati; (4) Mutawaatir Tawarus. This is not the time nor place to explain all this in detail, but the reading (what you are referring to as 'the text') of the Qur'an is mutawaatir bil-matn. Not just the 6000-odd verses of the Qur'an, but some of the ahadith of Rasulullah (SAW) are ALSO mutawaatir bil-matn (meaning they are preserved WORD for WORD just like the text/reading of the Qur'an). For example, the famous hadith of Rasulullah (SAW):
من كذب علي متعمدا فليتبوأ مقعده من النار
“Whoever lies against me intentionally then let him take his seat in the Fire”
The above Hadith is preserved VERBATIM the words of Rasulullah (SAW) just like any verse of the Qur'an is. So your assertion that ahadith were only preserved in meaning and not in wording is at best a half-truth (which is actually worse than a lie). I can quote you many other ahadith that have been preserved verbatim.
So some of the assumptions you have based in your "theory" (and thank you for admitting it as such) are clearly inaccurate to a great extent.
Last edited by Aleph; 04-May-2012 at 12:02 AM.
Aur jahan tak is Ghamdi ko sunne ki baat hai to aise insan ko kuin sunna jai jo already Expose ho chuka hai
So mere bhai ... Is Fitnay ko sun kar aap khud hi apne Ilm main izzafa karain ..
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)