Our Beacon Forum Index Back to Homepage
Our Beacon
Salamun alaikum!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

See the 'Imams' bitterly fighting with one another!

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Our Beacon Forum Index -> Islamic History
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Dr. Shabbir
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 1328
Location: Florida, USA

PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:51 pm    Post subject: See the 'Imams' bitterly fighting with one another! Reply with quote

IMAMS: THE STALWARTS OF ISLAM IN MUTUAL COMBAT

It will be impossible to find a single book about the ‘Imams’ without lofty prefaces or introductions by the publishers, editors and compilers. These are filled with fabricated accounts of the Imams’ miraculous memories, marathon worship sessions, superhuman qualities, incredible extent of self-denial, and angelic character. The idea is to portray the ‘Imams’ as infallible beings and give the Criminals some credibility.

It is often claimed and vehemently propagated by our clergy that the highly regarded Muhaddithin, jurists, commentators and historians (the ‘Imams’) of Islam were very respectful to one another and they had a very cordial mutual relationship. Let us examine the truth:

There were grave disputes between Imams Shafi’i, Abu Hanifa, Malik, Hanbal and Sufiyan Sauri. Whoever uttered much nonsense was called a Faqih (enlightened jurist). (Shah Waliullah, Hujjatullah Al Baligha Pg 254)

The so-called Imams were all children of bondwomen. They destroyed Islam just as the children of bondwomen had destroyed the Israelites. (Safyan Sauri, Khateeb 13:394)

Out of the scores of mutual indictments of the ‘Imams’ , the following few are worthy of a glance in Tareekh Khateeb Baghdadi, Vol 13 pp 390 to 396, Pg 498 on, and Vol 14 Pg 257 on.

The mischief of Imam Abu Hanifa for the Ummah is no less than that of Dajjal. According to Imam Abdur Rahman Mehdi, his Fitna is greater then that of Dajjal, the anti-Christ.

Safyan Thauri and Imam Auzaa’i said, "No one as reprehensible as Abu Hanifa has been born in Islam."

Abu Hanifa called Imam Ja’far Sadiq and Imam Malik as the worst of creations.

Imam Shafi’i called Abu Hanifa the worst of creation.

Imam Abu Yousuf declared Imam Abdullah bin Mubarak a great sinner. Abdullah replied, “Abu Yousuf is a greater sinner and a greater liar.”

Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal said, "I agree with what you are telling me, but if Abu Hanifa supported it, then I reject it as nonsense."


Abu Hanifa and Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal were "Munkireen" (deniers) of Hadith.

A person told a Hadith on behalf of Imam Malik to Abu Hanifa that wudhu (ablution) is half of faith. Imam Abu Hanifa responded, “You should perform two ablutions so that your faith can become whole. (Khateeb Baghdadi 13:387). This one makes sense.

Abu Hanifa should have been flogged since he accepted only 17 Ahadith. (Khateeb 13:387)

Note: The complete name of the oft-quoted book below, Tahqiq-il-Mazahib, is Gharaib fil Tahqiq-il-Mazahib Wa Tafhimul Masaail.

Abu Hanifa declared that Imam Malik was a man without any sense. (Tahqiq-il-Mazahib)

Imam Ja’afar Sadiq was an ugly blot on Islam according to Ahmad bin Hanbal. (Tahqiq-il-Mazahib)

Imam Naafe’ said, “Imam Shafi’i committed the most grievous crime, calling Hadith as another form of revelation. He equated Hadith with Wahi. (Tahqiq-il-Mazahib). This one is quite right.

Imam Shafi’i and Imam Malik were sodomites and catamites.” (Tahqiq-il-Mazahib). A Mullah at large from Deoband (“Maulana” Yousuf Islahi), these days begins his address by declaring Imam Shafi’i as his hero.

Imam Shafi’I, being a great forger, is totally unreliable. (Imam Yahya Bin Moin in Jama’ Bayanul ‘Ilm)

Abu Hanifa had no trace of the knowledge of Deen. (Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal, Khateeb Baghdadi 13:396)

Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal was apparently a vanguard of Islam, but in truth, he was a dangerous hypocrite. Mujahid-al-Munafiq Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, by Abdul Muhsin bin Mullah Ali Al-Qari, Pg 67)

Abu Hanifa is no less than Iblees and Dajjal. (Imam Malik, Khateeb Baghdadi 13:396)

The worst of all people in Islam is Abu Hanifa. He is Dajjal. (Abdur Rahman Bin Mahdi, Imam Ozaa’i, Khateeb Baghdadi 13:498)

Imam Yahya bin Moin said that Iman Hanbal was a hidden Sabai (a bitter, hateful Shi’a). (Tahqiq-il-Mazahib)

The Sacred Tank of water, Intercession, Angels questioning in the grave, Doom of the grave, Returning of souls in the grave, are truths beyond doubt. But Imam Bukhari said, “If Hanbal says that, it is all nonsense.” (Tahqiq-il-Mazahib)

Abu Hanifa says, “Be the curse of Allah on those who call themselves Imams… Imam Malik, Shafi’i and Ja’far Sadiq were deceitful liars and sodomites. (Tahqiq-il-Mazahib)

Abu Hanifa said that the ‘Imams’ of Islam are worse than the crawling creatures. (Durre-Mukhtar)

Imam Ja’far Sadiq himself was a master forger, but he called all Imams of Figh and the hadith narrators as the worst creatures under the heavens. (Tahqiq-il-Mazahib)

Imam Abu Yusuf said that other Imams were insects compared to Imam Abu Hanifa. (Fatawa Alamgiri)

Jalaluddin Rumi narrated in his Mathnavi, “These four (Abu Hanifa, Malik, Hanbal, and Shafi’i) have carved four religions out of one Islam. They have created irreconcilable divisions in the Deen of Nabi (S).”

Did you see what the “great” scholars and Imams thought of each other? Where is their mutual harmony? We believe it was necessary to expose the truth. It is important to break the ‘Idol of Unassailable Scholarship’ that exists even today among the Ummah. That is the only way to free our minds from blind reverence and following. Let us not be dazzled by this extravaganza, rather examine their “greatness” with a critical mind in the Light of the Quran.
_________________
Wassalam,
SA
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
zahida
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 7:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AoA!!!
hmmm one thing more to add confusion, i read somewhere shias claim imam jaffer was teacher of imam hanifa...they ve their evidences for this as well like every one has for their believes....lol,,,,
point that i wanted to ask,,,is there any proof that all these imams really existed ?
a disturbing point is why saudians and muslims in far parts of world could not manage to keep the original islam ?
how is it possible that they didnt have a single person who could raise and inform crowds whats happening?
how come they are also following number 2 islam,,,,did persians rule them all?
were our ancestors so ignorant that they couldnot figure out whats happening ?
i have read your book,,,,it tells about some uncommon books,,,where are those books available ? we dont have any persian rulers now,,,whom are we scared of ?
Back to top
Arnold Yasin Mol
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 7:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aleikum Salaam dear Zahida,

This indeed are very difficult questions. Did Bukhari ever exist? Did he write everything in the Sahih collection? Did all of these famous Imams exist?

I do believe so, and I also believe their names were used for the wrong things.

When you study history of Islam, it is very clear to see that between 800 and 1400, 4 major empires ruled the WHOLE of the Islamic people:

-The Abbasids
-The Mongols
-The Seljuks
-The Fatimids

These 4 all were kingdoms and all had their own way of ruling that completely rejected the Quranic system.

-The Abbasids:


Were ruling like Persian kings and thus had taken in the old Persian elite to rule the empire with them. This is why they used Persian scholars to bury the Poltiical, Social and Economic side of the Quran beneath a ton of nonsense.

They were as much Shia as Sunni as both sides they could use to control the people. The real distance between the Divine System and the people was created by them.

-The Mongols:

Came from Mongolia and used the old soldiers-ruling code in the empire. They had conquered the whole of the Abbasids empire, plus India and large parts of the Arabian empire.

They did not tolerate anything that could tamper with their rule. But more importantly, when they arrived in Muslim lands, they only saw the religious version of Islam and not the Divine Social System of the Prophet. Thus they understood Islam to be as any religion and used the Islam that the Abbasids had created in their empire.

In this way, the distance between the Divine System approach and the people became larger and larger that it was completely forgotten by most. Only a few intellectuals understood the Quran in its correct message.

-The Seljuks:

The Seljuks were Christian soldiers from Turkey that were hired by the Abbasids. They had much influence on the Abbasids and partially were also responsible for the large Christian influence on the Islamic view on the Quran and life.

After the fall of the Abbasids they conquered their own pieces of land, including parts of Turkey and were the forerunners of the Ottomans. They were inclined more to the Sunni ruling.

Large parts of the Muslim world was under Shia ruling or doctrine. This was changed when the Ottomans choose Sunnism and thus made most of the Islamic world follow Sunnism after they had conquered it.

It is the same as with the Mongols. They never had known the true Divine Social System and just approached Islam as a superior religion. Although the Ottomans had harems and slavetrade. They were fair and just rulers and very tolerant.

The Islamic people did achieve new hights of science, peace, trade and wellfare under the Ottoman rule.

But it was more because of good kings and the large area of trade that created this and not really through the Quranic Ruling System. Of course they were influenced by some Quranic Laws, but they still used monarchy as their own ruling system.

-The Fatimids:

These ruled large parts of North Africa and were Shia. These of course followed the Shia doctrine of ruling and thus also did not know (and probably did not care) about Islam as a Divine Social System.

Then you also have Muslim Spain ruled by the princes of the Ummayads, who acted partially more as governors then as real kings. They were just, fair and tolerant rulers that, as the Ottomans, created a beautifull and prosperes empire. But as any nation ruled by monarchs and not by the Quranic System, this empire also fell because of Berber kings fighting each other over parts of lands in Spain and North Africa.

You can see how the whole of the Muslim world were removed from the Divine System step by step.

And indeed, there are no Persians left, only a people that are as alien to the Quranic Divine Social System as Christians are.

We need to start all over again, step by step teaching the people.
Back to top
Dr. Shabbir
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 1328
Location: Florida, USA

PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Zahida,

Please study ISLAM: THE TRUE HISTORY AND FALSE BELIEFS online to get all your questions answered and learn even more.

And now you have the QXP CDs which you love. The Glorious Quran clears all confusions and keeps you focussed on the Truth.
_________________
Wassalam,
SA
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Our Beacon Forum Index -> Islamic History All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group