What's new

Islamic Eschatology - Strategic importance!

.
The only fool here is you the hadith is saying the verse is abrogated but still holds authority the hadith is clearly go against the quran so this particular hadith is false.

Discusion isn't about if Rajam (i.e. stonning) is valid punishment. Brother believes no verse of Quran is abrogated by another of Quran. Nor any verse of Quran was forgotten which is completely against Quran. Topic of verses being forgotten and the injunction/hukum being valid or invalid is another discussion regarding which there is difference of opinion amongst scholars. Some say Prophet said, follow my Sunnah and Sunnah of righteous Khulafah, therefore Rajam is valid because the Khulafah implimented the Rajam even after knowing verse are forgotten. Others say no every verse forgotten is abrogated and was replaced. I personally favour the understanding that Rajam verse was forgotten and abrogated and its injunction was also abrogated.

 
.
Do you believe in Allah and His Messenger or not? Why would you even want evidence for something when Allah and His Messenger have given decision on a topic? I don't have time for someone whom Allah and Messenger aren't enough to be convinced about something. I have very busy life I cannot spend hours researching a matter for one man and trying to convince him to believe in what Allah revealed in the Quran. And I don't have any referrences or video speeches. I had referred to Jamia Aleemia, the Madrassa which Mawlana al-Ansari setup and they responded that we adhere to teaching of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah and out Nisaab is in accordance with it. And we follow the Nisaab which founder of Madrassa has setup and our view about abrogation are same as the views of Ahlus Sunnah. They told me some of the students of Mawlana Ansari teach in Jamia Aleemia and none of them have ever attributed the rubbish which Mawlana Imran Hussain is attributing to his teacher. I unfortunately deleted the email.
You have accused Sheikh Imran Hosein of LYING. And you don't have the time to post evidence that would support your accusation because we are to accept your interpretation as the only and correct one just because you say so, right? You are so busy that you don't have time to support your accusation but you have the time to come onto PDF and write lengthy posts, right? Just because others do not hold his view does not mean he is wrong. Bring the evidence where his contemporaries say plain and clear that he is wrong on this matter and that he has lied against their teacher Maulana Al Ansari.
Did the Last Prophet (PBUH) tell us which verses are abrogated? Did he say that this verse abrogates that verse so don't follow this but follow that?
 
.
You have accused Sheikh Imran Hosein of LYING. And you don't have the time to post evidence that would support your accusation because we are to accept your interpretation as the only and correct one just because you say so, right? You are so busy that you don't have time to support your accusation but you have the time to come onto PDF and write lengthy posts, right? Just because others do not hold his view does not mean he is wrong. Bring the evidence where his contemporaries say plain and clear that he is wrong on this matter and that he has lied against their teacher Maulana Al Ansari.
Did the Last Prophet (PBUH) tell us which verses are abrogated? Did he say that this verse abrogates that verse so don't follow this but follow that?


Whatever a AYAAT do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?
2:106

There are two interpretations of the verse which I quoted. One it refers to Taurat, Zaboor, Injeel, and is saying these are abrogated. The second is, it refers to verses of Quran. Taurat Zaboor Injeel abrogation is accepted teaching of Islam but the verse of Quran - 2:106 - I quoted is not evidence for it. Evidence for that is, no religion will be accepted from people other then religion of Islam. In other words, Christianity, Judaism, are abrogated and the verse which stated they will get forgiveness -2:62- is also abrogated: And whoever desires other than Islam as religion - never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers. [Ref: 3:85] Coming back to topic, Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) no where reffered to earlier revealed books as Ayaat. In fact Allah referred to them as books in following verses 2:185, 4:136. Therefore that interpretation is invalid. If books were abrogated or former religions were abrogated in this verse then Allah would say, Kutub or use word Deen, like Allah used it in the following verse 4:171. The only true and valid interpretation is that it refers to Quranic verses because no where earlier books were referred as Ayaat. I can say with pretty much confidence that in every ten verses of Quran verses of Quran have been referred as Ayaat/Ayat. Yet you want to follow flight of your fantasy. You go and follow you flight of fantasy.

I know how Quran is to be interpreted and that nature of Quran is Jawami Al Kalim (i.e. short expression with widest meaning possible) but there are limits to interpretation of Quran which one cannot ignore. My understanding of Quran, just a example:

https:// World Wide Web Dot islamimehfil dot com /topic/20936-waseem-mughal-ki-awliyahallah-per-chispan-kee-janay-wali-ayaat-ki-qurani-tafsir/#comment-90320

In the above link I presented six interpretations of verse 7:194 and said all of them are valid. I am not fond of holding to one Tafsir. I rountinely interpret verses of Quran with Quran and let me illustrate to you my understanding of Quran. Allah says: "Guide us to the straight path. The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not of those who have evoked [Your] anger or of those who are astray." [Surah 1:6/7] What is this straight path? Islam! Or Quran and Sunnah! Read all the Tafasir its either one or the other. In my understanding straight path is all the mentioned. Allah tells us what straight path is: "Truly! Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him (Alone). This is the Straight Path." [Ref: 3:51] To believe Allah is Lord of all and to worship Him alone without associating partner with Him is straight Path. And those who believed and worshiped Allah as such we say to him O Allah make us follow the footsteps of those who worshiped you and believed you to be Lord of all. Thats my Tafsir.

With regards me writing here. I learnt to touch type. I can write between 55 to 65 words a minute. I am writing top of my head. I don't need to research anything. If you had ever carried out research on a subject you would know how long it takes to find, check, refferences. It will take me week to two weeks to actually read all the relevent works of Maulana al-Ansari and his teacher Maulana Abdul Aleem Siddiqi ... and I am not going to do that especially for one who disbelieves in Allah and the Messenger. And who has no ability to differentiate between true Islam and false 'Islam'. To be able to differentiate and understand what I am on about you have to be at minimum level of Talib ul Ilm of Islam. I know my religion and I am a Muslim.

I don't need to prove Shaykh Imran Hussain is liar or not. He is claiming that Shaykh Al-Ansari rahimullah said this and he should establish his claim and you're his supporter therefore the onus is upon you from legal perspective because Prophet said: “’On the authority of Ibn Abbas; the Messenger of Allah said: [If] Were people to be given everything that they claimed, men would (unjustly) claim the wealth and lives of (other) people. But, the onus of proof is upon the claimant, and the taking of an oath is upon him who denies.’A hasan hadeeth narrated by al-Baihaqee and others in this form, and part of it is in the two Saheehs.” [Ref: Forty Ahadith – Nawavi, Hadith 33] Now if you want me to take oath that Imran Hussain is a Liar and Shaykh al-Ansari never taught this, let me know. Otherwise this was my last response. Note once oath is taken Qadhi would rule in favour of oath taker and judgment becomes legally binding upon both parties. With regards to your peddling the rubbish and you being a liar: "Abu Hurairah said: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "It is enough for a man to prove himself a liar when he goes on narrating whatever he hears." [Ref: Riyadh al-Saliheen, B18, H1547] "Yahyā bin Yahyā narrated to us, Hushaym informed us, on authority of Sulaymān at-Taymī, on authority of Abī Uthmān an-Nahdī, he said, Umar bin ul-Khattāb, may Allah be pleased with him, said: ‘It is enough of a lie for a man that he narrates everything he hears." [Ref: Muslim, Sahih Muslim Introduction 9] So stop spreading lies about Maulana al-Ansari rahimullah.
 
Last edited:
. .
No interest in the Shiekh nor do I agree with his ever changing flip flop ideas and analysis which he passes mistakes off as “learning process”(don’t make a prophecy until you are sure ya shiekh) -
Although he is a much bigger man than many of these scholars in Pakistan who can’t even admit mistakes due to their ego while (as a comparison) dont seem to possess even an iota of knowledge versus Shiekh Hosien.

But, it is interesting that many of those who had doubts how a battle of Hind could come to pass with India having almost an equal number of muslims & being a “secular”- “united” society may have a possible answer in the current climate with their Hindu extremism running amok; perhaps the spark for such a battle will erupt as this increasingly barbaric mentality of Hindutva goes full genocidal like the Nazis they worship.. and provide an increasing insurgent fuel within India and create impetus within the surrounding muslim population to force their government to act; however it is still a far fetched possibility considering the ethical & moral corruptability of the South Asian muslim.
 
.
http://www.imranhosein.org/articles/islam-and-politics/570-the-road-ahead-for-pakistan.html

THE ROAD AHEAD FOR PAKISTAN
Articles - Islam and Politics
Tuesday, 13 Muharram 1439
This is an excellent essay written by talented former Pakistani diplomat, Munir Akram. I once met Munir, many years ago, at the Foreign Ministry in Islamabad. INH

US President Donald Trump spoke harshly about Pakistan; but he has not yet imposed sanctions, as has been the case with Iran, nor threatened to "totally destroy" it, like North Korea.
Pakistani diplomats believe there is room to maintain a working if not a cosy relationship with Washington. That remains to be seen. Islamabad disagrees with the 'new' US strategy concerning Afghanistan. It will not fight Afghanistan's war on its soil.
It will continue to oppose an expanded Indian role in Afghanistan. It wants a political settlement between Kabul and the Afghan Taliban, rather than continued conflict, and coordinated action to eliminate the militant Islamic State group and Al Qaeda, as well as the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, the Jamaatul Ahrar and the Balochistan Liberation Army, that operate from safe havens in Afghanistan.
Even if Pakistan and the US are able to reconcile their divergent positions on Afghanistan, the emerging strategic alignments that will shape policies in Asia are unlikely to change. The US has chosen India as its major strategic partner in Asia to counter the rising power of China. The resulting escalation in the Indian threat to Pakistan's security is either irrelevant for the US or part of its strategic plan to weaken Pakistan's opposition to Indo-US regional domination.
The recent visit of the US defence secretary to India has confirmed and reinforced their strategic alliance and intention to collaborate in Afghanistan. Pakistan's ability to resist Indian diktat and to disagree with America's strategic design flows from one principal source: its nuclear and missile capabilities.
Without this, Pakistan would have been attacked like Iraq or sanctioned like Iran. On the other hand, North Korea, despite its isolation, has been able to thumb its nose at America because of its demonstrated nuclear and missile prowess.
An Islamic nuclear power was always anathema for America and much of the Western world.
The US worked ceaselessly - even when Pakistan was a close ally - to retard and reverse its nuclear and missile programmes.
This endeavour has intensified since the emergence of the American alliance with India. Apart from the discriminatory technological and political restrictions it has long imposed against Pakistan's strategic programmes, the US now demands that Pakistan unilaterally halt fissile material production and the development and deployment of short and long-range nuclear-capable missiles.
Meanwhile, it is actively assisting India in enlarging and modernising its nuclear arsenal, its missile and anti-ballistic missile capabilities, its air and naval forces, as well as satellite and space capabilities. There are credible and not-so-secret reports that the US has formulated plans to seize or destroy Pakistan's nuclear weapons in a crisis.
American think tanks have concocted scenarios of Pakistan's nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists or, even more absurdly, of the Pakistan Army turning into an 'extremist' or 'jihadi' force. Indeed, such scary scenarios could be engineered as an excuse to execute the 'seize or destroy' plans. Matters are more likely to come to a head in the event of another war between Pakistan and India. Kashmir is an ongoing dispute and a nuclear flashpoint.
Every India-Pakistan war game confirms the likelihood of a rapid escalation of a conflict to the nuclear level due to the asymmetry in conventional forces.
A war should thus be unthinkable. Yet, India's political and military leaders continue to speak of 'surgical strikes' and a 'limited' war against Pakistan.
If India does ever decide to go to war with Pakistan, it would have to first conduct a pre-emptive strike to eliminate Pakistan's nuclear deterrence capabilities.
Or, would the US be prepared to do so on India's behalf?
Pakistan must be prepared for both contingencies. Islamabad must presume that in the course of its past (ill-considered) 'cooperation' with the US to enhance the 'safety and security' of Pakistan's nuclear assets, the US has gained considerable intelligence about Pakistan's strategic assets.
However, Pakistani officials correctly discount America's ability to seize Pakistan's nuclear weapons.
These are too many, and too widely dispersed and well protected, thus not amenable to any seizure or strike. But nuclear delivery systems are more difficult to hide and protect. In a crisis, it is the delivery systems that will be the prime target of a preemptive strike.
These are most likely to be detected when, in a crisis, they are being 'mated' with the separately stored warheads. Furthermore, as revealed during the current Korean drama, missile launches can be sabotaged by cyberattacks and other technical means.
In the emerging strategic scenario, nuclear deterrence is Pakistan's ultimate assurance against external aggression and coercion. Pakistan needs to take several measures so that the credibility of its nuclear deterrence is assured.
One, the massive deployment of artillery and short-range missiles (à la North Korea) as the first line of conventional deterrence and defence against an Indian Cold Start attack. This would deter Indian attack and also raise the nuclear threshold.
Two, the multiplication of long, medium and short-range nuclear-capable missiles to ensure the penetration of any ballistic missile defence systems that India deploys.
Three, the continued production of fissile materials to provide warheads for the enlarged missile force. Then, there is the need to 'mate' at least some warheads with delivery vehicles, their dispersal and disguise, or protection in hardened silos, to respond to a pre-emptive strike. Eventually, submarine-launched ballistic missiles could provide an assured second-strike capability.
Five, the deployment of effective air defence systems plus a limited number of advanced (and expensive) antiballistic missile systems to protect command and control centres.
Six, the development of offensive and defensive cyber-warfare capabilities.
Following this, Pakistan needs the acquisition and deployment of early warning capabilities - satellites, surveillance aircraft and drones. In the meantime, Pakistan should utilise Chinese early warning capabilities.
Lastly, greater integration and inter-operability with Chinese land, air and naval forces to enhance conventional and strategic deterrence, quickly and cheaply.
Once Pakistan can demonstrate the complete credibility of its nuclear deterrence posture, its offers to negotiate peace and security in South Asia and to resolve the Kashmir dispute may evoke a more positive response from both India and the US.
Pakistan will then also be able to pursue its socioeconomic objectives free from the threats of external coercion, intervention and aggression.
________________________________________
The writer is a former Pakistan ambassador to the UN.



@messiach
@war&peace
@AZADPAKISTAN2009
@PAKISTANFOREVER
@Oscar
 
.
Hey guys I'm back. My ban was lifted recently (of course don't know why I was banned in the first place?)
 
.

Latest video on the Bolshevik revolution and the Saudi effort to stoke Sunni-Shia civil war.
 
.
Pakistan and Russia moving closer together is a positive development according to the Sheikh.




 
. . .


My critics are now becoming hysterical in their relentless efforts to try to invalidate my explanation and interpretation of the blessed Qur'an on the subject relations between the true followers of Nabi 'Isaعليه السلام), and the true followers of Nabi Muhammad (صلي الله عليه و سلم). Those critics will not allow people the freedom to think for themselves, and will not respect their right to choose for themselves that explanation and interpretation of the Qur'an with which they are convinced. This is so sad. INH.
 
.

A very hard hitting interview!
Explains the Hadith about Rum betraying the Muslims after the Malhama...and much more...
@war&peace
@Luffy 500
@Dalit
@AZADPAKISTAN2009
@Azadkashmir

Sheik refuses to answer some questions fully as he does not want NATO to know (yet) what is in store for them...mind blowing stuff...
 
Last edited:
.

Sheikh states it is more comforting to face a Pakistani audience in Britain than in Pakistan...
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom