Qadir

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234959713-abdul-qadir-jilani-syed-or-no/?
page=5
abdul Qadir Jilani / Syed or No?
Started by smrr110, February 21, 2009
Rate this topic
122 posts in this topic
1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 1 of 5
smrr110
smrr110
Basic Members
0
14 posts
Posted February 21, 2009 Report post
As Salam 'Alaikum!
Hope all of you are with the best of health by the grace of Allah. Just would like to have your
opinions about the above mentioned topic. Although, It has been discussed several times in other
threads but I could not find any conclusion in those threads.
My question is specifically about the opinions of knows Shia Mujtahids or Scholars about Sheikh
Abdul Qadir Jilani(ra). We know Ayatullah Murtaza Mutahari has confimed him a Sayed in one of
his book. While in of the discussion threads of shiachat, I found references of other Mujtahids
which deny this fact. Ayatullah Jafar Al-subhani was mentioned along with few other names.
However, I could not find that what are the opinions of these scholars, neither the person who
quoted this information has mentioned this. He just mentioned that these scholars rejects his
lineage as a Syed.
I will be grateful if we can share our views on this issue. Moreover, If somebody can provide me a
useful online source to few clear verdicts of some shia scholars about this subject. I look forward
for your contribution.
Ma'salama
Quote
s@jaad
Member
s@jaad
Advanced Members
0
540 posts
I dont get it ?
You want Shia Ulama to tell us if A Sunni Sufi Hanbali Saint was a Sayyid or not ?
Quote
smrr110
smrr110
Basic Members
0
14 posts
s@jaad said:
I dont get it ?
You want Shia Ulama to tell us if A Sunni Sufi Hanbali Saint was a Sayyid or not ?
Yes, Just like Murtaza Mutahari and Dr. Tijani Samawi.
Quote
Taair-al-Quds
Ahl al Wilayah
Taair-al-Quds
Advanced Members
0
317 posts
He was a syed as authenticated by all Urafa including the Shia and Sunni. Only the mullah styled
(dry fiqh) ayatollahs and maybe a few anti sufi (or jealous) sunnis (who might not be more then a
handful) have rejected his lineage. Wsalam
Quote
Maula Dha Mallang
Resident Wahabbi Vermin Slayer At Your Service

Maula Dha Mallang
Banned
1,491
11,859 posts
Location:The Depths of Usoolis Worst Nightmares and Insecurities
Religion:my religion is nothing but love and hate in equal measure
actually, there was mention right here on this board that he never claimed to be syed during his
own life, hence the title SHEIKH abdul qadir jilani (not sayed), and it was his son who first said
that he was a hassani sayed.
also, im not sure dr tijani says he was a sayed, he mentions in "then i was guided" that his
followers believe on the mehraaj abdul qadir jilani carried rasool Allah up to the closest part of
heaven on his shoulders because hazrat jibrail was too scared or something lol. mind u its been
years since ive read that book.
hold up ill do a search
Quote
scbanner1.jpg
I Hate, Because I Love.
Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from his father from Hammad from Hariz from Fudayl ibn Yasar who
has said the following:
"I asked abu 'Abd Allah, recipient of divine supreme covenant, 'Are love and hate part of belief?'
The Imam asked, 'Is belief anything but love and hate?'
Source: Al Kafi Volume 2 Page 125
UNITY WITH SUNNI IS AGAINST ISLAM
Taair-al-Quds
Ahl al Wilayah
Taair-al-Quds
Advanced Members
0
317 posts
it is untrue that he did not make such a claim. the qaseedah al ghawsiyah by him clearly mentions
that he is a descendant of al-hassan (a.s) in the last verses of it.
by not claiming something like lineage openly or in writings, one is not automatically removed
from a lineage. majority of the mystics have not said a word about their lineage but that does not
make any difference on whatever the facts maybe about them.
Quote
Maula Dha Mallang

Maula Dha Mallang
Banned
1,491
11,859 posts
hmm i didnt know about him claiming it himself. first time i heard it actually, can you show me an
online version so i can read it?
i think the "hes not a sayed" stance is based on the idea people added laqabs and honours to him
after his death in order to elevate his status in the eyes of the world.
Quote
scbanner1.jpg
smrr110
smrr110
Basic Members
0
14 posts
Taair-al-Quds said:
He was a syed as authenticated by all Urafa including the Shia and Sunni. Only the mullah
styled (dry fiqh) ayatollahs and maybe a few anti sufi (or jealous) sunnis (who might not be more
then a handful) have rejected his lineage. Wsalam
Brother, If I am not mistaken then I have seen your views in a 5 years old thread of shiachat.com
in which you are rejecting the claim that he was a hasnai Sayed. Can you kindly clarify?
thanx
Quote
wahashimi
Member
wahashimi
Advanced Members
5
1,799 posts
Location:London
Quote
hmm i didnt know about him claiming it himself. first time i heard it actually, can you show me
an online version so i can read it?
i think the "hes not a sayed" stance is based on the idea people added laqabs and honours to
him after his death in order to elevate his status in the eyes of the world.
Salaam,
Maybe, but I think a more pressing point of finding out is because he exists in certain Shajarah's
of Sayed families in Indo-Pak (and maybe others but not sure)
Wasalaam
Quote
Maula Dha Mallang

Maula Dha Mallang
Banned
1,491
11,859 posts
thats true, however all the shajras i personally have seen him crop up, are sunni, never shia
ones. be interesting to see what gets proven one way or another no?
Quote
scbanner1.jpg
smrr110
smrr110
Basic Members
0
14 posts
maula dha mallang said:

thats true, however all the shajras i personally have seen him crop up, are sunni, never shia
ones. be interesting to see what gets proven one way or another no?
true or sometimes they have sunnis and shias both in their families, like PM of Pakistan :lol:
Quote
Tayyeb_Jaan
Member
Tayyeb_Jaan
Advanced Members
6
1,422 posts
Location:Toronto, Canada
Religion:Islam
who cares, like it actually matters
Quote
Anti-salafi
Member
Anti-salafi
Advanced Members
1
159 posts
Quote
My question is specifically about the opinions of knows Shia Mujtahids or Scholars about
Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani(ra).
Shia scholars has nothing to do with genealogy
if you want to know such things you have to ask the genealogists, just as if you want to know
some thing about cosmology you have to ask the cosmologgists.
anyhow if we looked at the lineage of Abdulqader al-Gelani we will find it false & fabricated
the (fabricated) lineage of Abdulqader al-Gelani is as following
Abdulqader son of Musa son of Abdullah son of Yahya son of Muhammad son of Dawoud son of
Musa son of Abdullah son of Musa son of Abdullah son of Hassan son of Hassan son of Ali son of
Abi Talib
Noor al-Absar, by Sheblenji, page 320
the famous genealogist Ibn Enba declared that this lineage is false and Abdulqader doesnt
belong to Bani Hashim tribe.
Umdat al-Talib, page 129
if you search in genealogy books, you will never find a person with this name (Musa son of
Abdullah son of Yahya) because its fabricated character.
our friend Nabil al-Karkhi (may Allah's mercy be upon him) proved the falsehood of Gelani's
lineage (Arabic website)
http://tanzeeh.shiaunion.com/trips/iraq_trips/gylanyun.htm
Actually I wrote a book titled as "al-Sahifa al-Khadra" proving in it the falsehood of all the famous
Sunni and Sufi scholars lineages.
But I couldnt publish it because the book contain some famous Shia scholars as well.
Quote

That He may manifest the truth of what was true and show the falsehood of what was false,
though the guilty disliked
Anti-Salafi
Maula Dha Mallang

Maula Dha Mallang
Banned
1,491
11,859 posts
interesting, which scholars did you mention, and what did you say about them? are they
descendants of abdul qadir jilani?
although i am inclined to believe that he was not a sayed, if Musa son of Abdullah son of Yahya
didnt exist, then who was sheikh abdul qadir jilanis fathers name? and why isnt it mentioned in
the chain?
Quote
scbanner1.jpg
Anti-salafi
Member
Anti-salafi
Advanced Members
1
159 posts
well brother i dont like to be questioned cause my time is short, but I will answer your questions
this time
Quote
which scholars did you mention
if you asking about Suni scholars so they are many such as Ahmad al-Refai, Ali al-Shazeli,
Ahmad al-Badawy, Ahmad al-Tijani etc.
Quote
and what did you say about them?
I quote the genealogists statements about them, and proved that their lineages is fabricated
Quote
if Musa son of Abdullah son of Yahya didnt exist, then who was sheikh abdul qadir jilanis
fathers name?
Some genealogists said that his real name is Abdulqadir son of Muhammad son of Jangidost son
of Abdullah
well its not important to know who is his real father, the important is that we know he is not the
progeny of Imam Ali
Quote
and why isnt it mentioned in the chain?
the whole chain is fabricated, he is not from Imam Ali's progeny
every one can make a lineage chain to Imam Ali, and they can fool the common people, but they
cant fool the genealogists.
in Egypt you can buy for your self a lineage document to Imam Ali along with the stamp of
genealogy center for 5000$
in Iraq you can buy for your self a lineage document to Imam Ali along with the stamp of some
Shiite scholars for 3000$
but all these documents are useless cause the genealogists can unearth it and prove its forgery
Quote

Anti-Salafi
Maula Dha Mallang

Maula Dha Mallang
Banned
1,491
11,859 posts
thanks for taking the time to answer my questions yaar, when you have more time let me know so
i can ask you some more questions? i find the whole topic pretty interesting and u seem to know
a fair amount
Quote
scbanner1.jpg
smrr110
smrr110
Basic Members
0
14 posts
Anti-salafi said:
well brother i dont like to be questioned cause my time is short, but I will answer your questions
this time
Thanx brother! If you can kindly spare sometime to discuss this topic then it will be a great favor. I
was badly criticized by many followers of Sheikh when I questioned about his lineage. they used
to quote lot of references from the ghunya al talebeen by Sheikh which are seriously controversial
or anti shia. While few people claim that this book is fabricated by salafis / wahabis and orginal
book is preserved in Iraq in some library. It looks quite strange to me.
Shaheed Murtada Mutahari in a book Light within Me has mentioned him as Sayed while in
umdat al talib he has been declared non sayed as you mentioned. It will be nice if we can keenly
examine this issue. your provided information is really helpful and we look forward to have more
discussion with you. Please share more points with us, specially from you book, if you feel better!
Thanks!
Quote
Maula Dha Mallang

Maula Dha Mallang
Banned
1,491
11,859 posts
if the brother is going to answer further questions then the most important one i can think of
immediately is, which SHIA scholars descend from him and claim to be sayyed. i find that to be of
pretty bloody majorly important.
Quote
scbanner1.jpg
smrr110
smrr110
Basic Members
0
14 posts
Anti-salafi said:
I visited the website and managed to have some english translation of it, thoug not sure if it is
correct or no. Anyway just putting it here:
Kilaon: descent back to the Sheikh Abdul Qadir Gilani, a Persian origin, and necklaces of gems
Tadwi Hanbali Husniyya proportions that it is: (Sheikh Abdul Qadir Bin Musa Cengi Douste bin
Abdullah bin Mohammed bin Yahya Zahid bin Daud bin Musa bin Abdullah bin Musa Ergun
Abdullah bin Hassan bin purely Muthanna Al-Imam Al-Hassan fine, peace be upon him) this ratio
can not be bought because Yahya did not have a son named Abdullah pursuer, and Sheikh Abdul
Qadir Gilani had not been invited, but this ratio has claimed one of his grandsons
According to Dr. Abdel-Gawad Al Tamah Alchledar in writing (Studies Atalibien parameters to
explain the book "the secret of the top genealogy" of Abu Nasr al-Bukhaari) a lot of evidence on
the Abolition of the alleged descent of the upper Sheikh Abdul Qadir Gilani, said in a page (81):
[Abu Sharif said, system in favor of religion Obaidullah captain Wasit Alastrae Husseini in his
bibliography protected by tree-Sharif Ahmad bin Mohammad al-Amidi Alnsabp Husseini and he
called the "Almcjr KASHAF supervision of the assets of Gentlemen," the entire text: Having
attributed to Abdullah bin Mohammed bin Yahya said Sheikh Abdul Qadir Gilani ( generated in the
year 470 AH) said: Abdul Qadir bin Muhammad bin Cengi Douste bin Abdullah said, and did not
call that Sheikh Abdul Qadir is one of his children, but started this case, the judge in his son was
born Abu Saleh Nasr bin Abi Bakr bin Sheikh Abdul Qadir. That Abdullah Hijazi said a man did not
come out of the Hijaz, and I mean this Cengi Douste Oagami frank as you see. The age of the
Mcjrath: They quoted the Sheikh Mohiuddin Abdul Qader Al to Abdullah bin Mohammed bin
turkeys are said to his son Roman Empire, as they say Muhammad said, did not call, Sheikh
Abdul Qadir is not one of the descent, but his children and his son began to Abu Salih bin Abi
Nasr Bakr ibn Abd al-Qadir was not the evidence is not known to him that one of Abdullah bin
Mohammed bin Ali Hijazi, a man did not come out of the Hijaz a strong name I mean Cengi
Douste Oagami frank as you see it through to prove this descent, but the evidence just has
crippled the judge in favor of the father and was accompanied by by the lack of consent of his
grandfather, Sheikh Abdel-Kader and his sons, and God Almighty knows best. Sharif ended the
transfer of the deceased Serageddin Rifai in Baghdad in 885 e].
In page (82), we read: [transfer Taj Din Ibn Al-Sharif Al-Husseini, the flower of the deceased
captain Alnsabp Aleppo in 700, one of the contemporary immigration judge in favor of Abu Nasr
ibn Abi Bakr ibn Abd al-Qadir and the claim of descent from the Mongol era Aharifvi after the
extinction of the Abbasid Caliphate furry story of this claim in his book (a very brief news in the
upper houses saved from the dust), p. 29, said: (and to claim descent Ergun built house of Sheikh
Abdul Qadir Gilani of Baghdad Alazj buried the door may God have mercy on him, claiming
descent to Muhammad ibn Musa bin Daud bin Abdullah bin Musa Ergun. A sons of Sheikh
Wonderland and tell him the news is not true belief can not be transferred, and some after the
extinction of the Abbasid Caliphate and the possibility of a claim of all claims ratios of good and
peace be upon him Sbt Fasht Dawahmoahl ratios do not say and say they are vigilantes. and
Sheikh Abdul Qadir may God have mercy on him was a man of great good not let this rate, the
alleged grandchildren, one of the stomachs Bchtbr bin Faris, God and the world].
Said page (83): [Al-Sharif in the Rifa `i in his book" Sahah News "p. 17-27, said: It is known that
the father of Saleh Bakr bin Abi Nasr Abdul Razak bin Sheikh Abdul Qadir Al-Jaili what started
this case, opposed by the descent of the scientists did not not aware of the legitimacy of the case
remained under the folded Sajaf denial of reasons, including: the proportion of alleged bin Abd al-
Razzaq al-Nasr writes that his father Sheikh Abdul Razak bin Abdul Kadir bin Abi Salih
(Mohammed) Cengi Douste-bin bin Musa bin Abdullah bin Mohammed bin Yahya which is true
when the issue of all scientists that Abdullah, who they accused of Cengi Douste is the son of
Mohammed bin Abdullah Al Yahya, the son of Mohammad is known as the son of Greek did not
comment, but his brother, which was followed by Yahya bin Muhammad bin Yahya, it is the
different names and placement Balaqim denied the rate.
One of the reasons of denial, Abdullah bin Mohammed bin attributed to the Greek Cengi Douste
died in the city at night in four hundred and sixty to be exact and was buried in the old Bakie day
of his death, without the twenty-one did not comment as saheeh by al-Sharif and Alavtts Amidi
and Gelihama. It is also understood that the birth of Shaikh Abdul Qadir in four hundred and
seventy-migration.
Continue Sahah the news, saying in response rates: (and then the transfer of any system in favor
of Abu-Sharif, religion Obaidullah captain Wasit Alastrae Husseini in his book in the genealogy
above what the son of Sharif Memon Alnsabp book in answer to a book written by Judge Abi-
Saleh, who asked him to Entered in the wooded Beni Hassan al. This is the text of the book
Sharif Memon, Ibn Abi Alnsabp to the benefit of grandchildren of Sheikh Abdul Qadir and in this
regard: (Peace be upon you and the mercy of God be upon you, or you are a judge or Frvannak
Cuba Abdul Razzaq al-Faqih, who is in favor of your grandfather and the Sheikh Abdul Qadir
Sheikh is Sophie Itbrk evaluated and the benefit of prayer requests and proportions Bchtbri as
you fired in some of your books to the end of the abdomen Bchtbr Heramsp Pfars Vatq
Hashimiyah to God and let the people).]
In page (84), we read: [and then to say in his book Al-Sharif Refa'ee "Sahah News:" Mr. Ahmed
said the Dean of the debt-Najafi Alnsabp: The names of these caused the judge Abu Saleh
Mohammad Bin Yahya had no impact upon the health Alnsabin Sayers and a group of adherents
Aljhal Sheikh Abdul Qadir way and some of the pea or Sufi scholars who can not stand them
aware of descent).]
The Tqtki son, who died in 709 H, in his book Alasili, p. 95: (I know that House of Abdul-Qader Al-
buried Alazj door claiming to be Mohammed bin Musa bin Daoud Abu Omar II ibn Abd-Allah ibn
Musa Ergun, and my father tells about a victory in favor of him to judge the judges felt : (We are
one of the best sons of Hasan) means Hassan bin Ali peace be upon them, and to this date and
the month of Ramadan the year ninety-eight hundred and did not substantiate the legitimate
health, why not to).
Quote
Anti-salafi
Member
Anti-salafi
Advanced Members
1
159 posts
Posted March 4, 2009 Report post
bro i think i can be free today and tomorrow
so plz post your questions
Quote

Anti-Salafi
Maula Dha Mallang

Maula Dha Mallang
Banned
1,491
11,859 posts

salams bro
(1) which shia scholars say he is a sayyed, and what does this mean if they are wrong? are there
sayed scholars who descend from him?
(2) what is the actual shia view of him, was he a good man?
(3) what question would you like me to ask, that hasnt been asked, which you would have wanted
to answer?
many thanks
Quote
scbanner1.jpg
smrr110
smrr110
Basic Members
0
14 posts
Thanks brother!
My question is the same as brother malang has asked. I would only like to add :
1- Some sunnis claims that his book Ghunya Al Talebeen is fabricated by wahabis and actual
book is preserved in some library in Iraq. What are your views about this book and which book is
currently used by his followers?
2- Can you tell about the scholar who is mentioned by Dr. tijani in his book "thumma ahdayto" ?
The scholar who did research on Abdul Qadir?
3- I am very keen to know the view of our top 'ulema about him.
4- As brother malang has said, please share with us anything which you feel important about this
subject.
Regards,
Quote
Anti-salafi
Member
Anti-salafi
Advanced Members
1
159 posts
I'm really sorry brothers for responding late to your questions, actually I got busy so I couldnt log
in
Quote
(1) which shia scholars say he is a sayyed, and what does this mean if they are wrong? are
there sayed scholars who descend from him?
Actually I never heard from a reliable Shiite scholar that he is sayed
Yes there is some low educated Shia students/inexpert junior scholars who said that he is sayed,
but their claims is proofless
I never saw a Shia scholar who is a descend of Abdulqader Gilani, I only saw some Shia junior
scholars who are a descend of Ahmad Rifai (actually they were revert Shia)
Those who claim that Gilani is sayed while they are mistaken, actually its a big problem cause
Allah said { When you received it with your tongues and spoke with your mouths what you had no
knowledge of, and you deemed it an easy matter while with Allah it was grievous.}024.015 { Not a
word does he utter but there is a sentinel by him, ready (to note it).} 050.018
While those who claim that they are from Imam Ali's progeny, they are in bigger problem, cause
there is a hadith in al-Kafi and other books even Sunni books, that who ever attributed him self to
a lineage other than his true lineage, then he is kafir
Quote
(2) what is the actual shia view of him, was he a good man?
There is no actual Shia view about him, cause he wasnt born yet during the 12 Imams era
Therefore each Shiite scholar got different view about him, and its a relatively matter, cause no
one is 100% bad.
Quote
1- Some sunnis claims that his book Ghunya Al Talebeen is fabricated by wahabis and actual
book is preserved in some library in Iraq. What are your views about this book and which book is
currently used by his followers?
I never heard from a reliable source that the book is fabricated by the Wahabis, and I dont got
any evident supporting that.
However the Hanafi sunnis are not pleased with this book, because Gilani declared in his book
that the Hanafis and Abu Hanifa will go to hell because the Hanafi sect is a false sect.
Quote
2- Can you tell about the scholar who is mentioned by Dr. tijani in his book "thumma ahdayto" ?
The scholar who did research on Abdul Qadir?
I dont know him, but there is many scholars who made researches about Abdulqadir Gilani
Quote
3- I am very keen to know the view of our top 'ulema about him.
The best way is to send your question to them through their websites
Quote
4- As brother malang has said, please share with us anything which you feel important about
this subject.
According to the official statistics of some foundations in Egypt, there is 50 million man and
woman nowadays around the world who claims that they are the progeny of Imam Ali (a).
While according to our rough statistics that the actual progeny of Imam Ali (a) in our time is
between 120 000 150 000.
Which means only 0.003% are true Alavis, while the rest 99.997% are fake Alavis.
If we want to have an accurate statistic so the number of Imam Ali's progeny might be less than
100 000, due to the brutal extermination which been committed by Umayyad and Abbasid regime
against the progeny of Imam Ali.
Right now some of honest Shia scholars and I trying to identify the true & fake Alavis, and I found
some Shiite scholars who are true Alavis and their lineages is 100% correct, such as
Muhammad Hussain Fadhlulah (Imam Hassan's progeny)
Muhammad Shirazi (Imam Hussain's progeny)
Muhammad Sadeq al-Sader (Imam Hussain's progeny)
Quote

Anti-Salafi
Sijistani
Member
Sijistani
Unregistered
2
450 posts
Posted March 13, 2009 (edited) Report post
Anti-salafi said:
However the Hanafi sunnis are not pleased with this book, because Gilani declared in his book
that the Hanafis and Abu Hanifa will go to hell because the Hanafi sect is a false sect.
Funny because half the world's hanafis are Qadiris, followers of Sayidna Shaykh 'Abdal Qadir
Jaylani radiallahu 'anhu
He is both Hasany and Husayni, mashallah

Edited March 13, 2009 by Sijistani
Quote
preaching is zakah and its eligibility is practice. how can one pay zakah, without being eligible
first?
Imam al-Ghazali declining an invitation for a speech

Anti-salafi
Member
Anti-salafi
Advanced Members
1
159 posts
Quote
Funny because half the world's hanafis are Qadiris, followers of Sayidna Shaykh 'Abdal Qadir
Jaylani radiallahu 'anhu
Yes very funny, actually the contradictions in Sunni school never ends
Quote
He is both Hasany and Husayni, mashallah
Can you prove this ? or any one in this world can attribute himself to any tribe he likes !
Quote

Anti-Salafi
1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 1 of 5
Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Hayder Ali Kazmi
Reply to this topic...
Go To Topic Listing Shia/Sunni Dialogue
Next unread topic This verse reminds me of Karbala
Recently Browsing 1 member

Hayder Ali Kazmi
advertisement_alt
advertisement_alt
advertisement_alt
Recent Topics
AfricanShia
0
Shia Islamic Monotheism
By AfricanShia
Started 1 hour ago
Guest Ward
0
difference between dua and ruqyah
By Guest Ward
Started 2 hours ago
Anonymous99
0
Djinn And Dream Interpretation
By Anonymous99
Started 2 hours ago
Guest kali
1
I feel bad for living well (I need an opinion)
By Guest kali
Started 2 hours ago
Guest Ali
0
Imam Ali(AS) 40day Mojza
By Guest Ali
Started 4 hours ago
Jason Howard
1
Question on the origin of matter
By Jason Howard
Started 4 hours ago
myouvial
0
How to destroy the Earth
By myouvial
Started 4 hours ago
Recent Blog Entries
Haji 2003
Churches and synagogues in the middle east
By Haji 2003 in Contemporania
2
hameedeh
Minimalism
By hameedeh in Think Positive
9
Haji 2003
Mujitude
By Haji 2003 in Contemporania
0
Mansur Bakhtiari
Muslim opinion on "Egoistic Suicide."
By Mansur Bakhtiari in A Bakhtiari Shia
8
Islamic Salvation
Abdaal
Member
Abdaal
Banned
2
4,007 posts
Anti-salafi said:
What's the point of posting proof. You have already made up your mind. Also, you claim that
sunnis dismiss the book Ghunya because it says that Hanafi will go to jannahnam. If you read the
context of that it doesn't say all hanafis will go to hell. It says majority will go to hell because of
their sins. As for dismissal this is not the reason. I have stated the reason before. Since you don't
know it i wonder if its even worth debating any issue with you.
Quote
My blog
/>http://proahlulbayt1.blogspot.com/
Anti-salafi
Member
Anti-salafi
Advanced Members
1
159 posts
Quote
What's the point of posting proof.
Allah said {Say: Bring your proof if you are truthful.}
Quote
You have already made up your mind.
No I didnt, I just accept the statement of the genealogists (Sunnites and Shiites)
If the geographers stated that Asia is the largest continent, while some low educated senior
Islamic scholars stated that Oceania is the largest continent
Who you gonna believe ?
Quote
Also, you claim that sunnis dismiss the book Ghunya because it says that Hanafi will go to
jannahnam. If you read the context of that it doesn't say all hanafis will go to hell. It says majority
will go to hell because of their sins. As for dismissal this is not the reason. I have stated the
reason before. Since you don't know it i wonder if its even worth debating any issue with you.
Why the Sunnis never hesitate of telling lies ?
Abdulqader Gilani was talking about the 72 false sects which will go to hell, and he mentioned the
Hanafi sect among them.
so dont try to mess with me, cause i know every tiny issue in Sunni school and Sunni books
Quote

Anti-Salafi
Abdaal
Member
Abdaal
Banned
2
4,007 posts
Anti-salafi said:
Allah said {Say: Bring your proof if you are truthful.}
The first one to deny the genealogy is a shia scholar himself. This scholar came 300 years after.
Can you give me any proof that existed before that ?
Quote
Abdulqader Gilani was talking about the 72 false sects which will go to hell, and he mentioned
the Hanafi sect among them.
Abdul Qader was talking ? Shows how much you know about the book. What is your proof that
even wrote this book ? Also if you know so much about the book then why would you assume that
this is the reason we are against this book ? Can't you give me the main reason ?
Quote
Don't try to intimidate me with your lip service. These tactics were used by brother Taair-al-Quds
too. Today he is longer a shia and his latest post agrees to the syed linage of Ghous Al Azam (ra).
Edited March 14, 2009 by Abdaal
Quote
My blog
Anti-salafi
Member
Anti-salafi
Advanced Members
1
159 posts
Quote
The first one to deny the genealogy is a shia scholar himself.
Ibn Enba is not a Shiite geneaolgest, beside that there is many other genealogists who denied
the lineage of Abdulqader Gilani, such as Hussain Zurbatti, Ibn al-Taqtaqi, Abu Nasr al-Bukhari,
Ahmad Amiduldeen etc.
Ibn Enba said:
There is no any evident would support it nor any one (genealogists) recognized his lineage.
Ibn al-Taqtaqi said:
There is no any legal evident which could support it, therefore its not acceptable
Ahmad Amiduldeen said:
Its not recorded by the genealogists, and those who claim that his lineage is correct actually they
are some ignorant followers of Sheikh Abdulqader
Quote
This scholar came 300 years after. Can you give me any proof that existed before that ?
Can you mention a name of one genealogist who existed before that and claimed that
Abdulqader's lineage is correct ?
I believe reaching the stars is much easier for you than proving the lineage of Abdulqader Gilani
Quote
What is your proof that even wrote this book ?
The Sunni scholars such as Zarkali attributed the book to Abdulqader Gilani, and no one stabbed
in the chain of narration of the book, and no one had doubt about the book.
So I think this is a sufficient proof, because this is the method of scholars

Quote
Also if you know so much about the book then why would you assume that this is the reason
we are against this book ? Can't you give me the main reason ?
I'm not assuming
The Hanafi scholar Sheikh Ali al-Qari in his book "Sharh al-Feqh al-Akbar" criticized the
statement of Abdulqader Gilani
The Hanafi scholar Sheikh Zahid al-Kawthari wrote a book titled as "Taneeb al-Khatib" criticizing
all the Sunni scholars who assaulted Abu Hanifa
Quote
Don't try to intimidate me with your lip service. These tactics were used by brother Taair-al-
Quds too. Today he is longer a shia and his latest post agrees to the syed linage of Ghous Al
Azam .
Dont compare me with the others
Try me and you will see a horrible bolides over your head
Quote

Anti-Salafi
Sijistani
Member
Sijistani
Unregistered
2
450 posts
Anti-salafi said:
scholar Sheikh Ali al-Qari i
Sheikh Zahid al-Kawthari
All these names flying around without anyone of the internet scholars here knowing who these
'sunni scholars were' or what their books were. Seems nothing but copy paste by teenagers
Imam Zahid al-Kawthari and Sheikh Ali al-Qari are both infact Qadiris from deeply Qadiri areas
with their teachers being Qadiri too as well as their students
It is pretty much unanimous among sunni scholars, and concensus among sunni spiritual
scholars that Sayidna Abdal Qadir Jaylani is both Hasani and Husayni. So so many chains from
Mauritania to Indonesia in the Sunni universe filled with spiritual masters who take knowledge
from the Qadiris. This thread makes it clear there is no difference between you know who
Quote
first?

Sijistani
Member
Sijistani
Unregistered
2
450 posts
Anti-salafi said:
I believe reaching the stars is much easier for you than proving the lineage
No reaching the taken-for-granted internet database is
Quote
The Sunni scholars such as Zarkali attributed the book to Abdulqader Gilani, and no one
stabbed in the chain of narration of the book, and no one had doubt about the book.
Who is this 'zarkali' 'the sunni scholar', did he disagree with the genealogy too?
no one had doubt at all, really no one?
Quote
which method?
Quote
I'm not assuming
yes yes for sure you are not doing that but something else
Quote
Dont compare me with the others
Try me and you will see a horrible bolides over your head
because I am the invincible anti-salafi, the internet master, unbeatable, unbreakable internet
scholar par excellence. such a nincompoop
Quote
first?

Sijistani
Member
Sijistani
Unregistered
2
450 posts
Anti-salafi said:
telling lies ?
Hanafi sect among them.
i know their back and front, their top and bottom, what passed them and what not passed them, I
am the jin inside Aladdin's lamp, you don't know me
Quote
first?

Sijistani
Member
Sijistani
Unregistered
2
450 posts
Abdaal said:
What's the point of posting proof. You have already made up your mind. Also, you claim that
sunnis dismiss the book Ghunya because it says that Hanafi will go to jannahnam. If you read the
context of that it doesn't say all hanafis will go to hell. It says majority will go to hell because of
their sins. As for dismissal this is not the reason. I have stated the reason before. Since you don't
know it i wonder if its even worth debating any issue with you.
let me cut the debate, or as someone else said in another thread, cut the [Edited Out]
'Ghunya' , mentions the Hanafiyya sect
does anyone of the teenagers know what that is? :!!!:
did any teenager get the idea? :!!!:
Quote
first?

Anti-salafi
Member
Anti-salafi
Advanced Members
1
159 posts
Quote
All these names flying around without anyone of the internet scholars here knowing who these
'sunni scholars were' or what their books were. Seems nothing but copy paste by teenagers
aha, so you are the brilliant scholar here ?
ok Mr. scholar, we will see now who is the teenager here
Quote
Imam Zahid al-Kawthari and Sheikh Ali al-Qari are both infact Qadiris from deeply Qadiri areas
with their teachers being Qadiri too as well as their students
This is the first lie from Mr. scholar, and he been caught red-handed
Sheikh Zahid al-Kawthri is a Naqshibandi, and he declared that in his poem "al-Nuzm al-Atid le
Tawasul al-Murid" and in his commentary on the poem which is titled as "Edgham al-Murid"
While Ali al-Qari is a Jeshti, as Sheikh Muhammad Abdulhalim al-Jeshti stated in "al-Bed'a al-
Muzjat" volume 1, page 28
Next time please provide references, cause the scholars never talk from their pockets
Ok Mr. scholar !
Quote
It is pretty much unanimous among sunni scholars, and concensus among sunni spiritual
scholars that Sayidna Abdal Qadir Jaylani is both Hasani and Husayni. So so many chains from
Mauritania to Indonesia in the Sunni universe filled with spiritual masters who take knowledge
from the Qadiris. This thread makes it clear there is no difference between you know who
We are talking about lineage, not about a hadith or feqhi issue to tell me about the Sunni scholars
opinion.
If you want to prove his lineage, you have to provide me a name of one genealogist who
confirmed his lineage.
Quote
No reaching the taken-for-granted internet database is
So why you dont mention a name of a genealogist who confirmed his lineage ?
What's wrong Mr. scholar ?
Is it that much difficult to end the debate by providing a single reference ?
The lineage of the Shiite scholar al-Sharif al-Murtadha was mentioned by many Sunni
genealogists
So why Abdulqader's lineage is not mentioned by the Sunni genealogists ? or even the Shia ?
Quote
Who is this 'zarkali' 'the sunni scholar', did he disagree with the genealogy too?
He is not a genealogist to talk about the lineages
He is specialized in other majors, logic, history etc.
Quote
no one had doubt at all, really no one?
This is the second lie by Mr. scholar
How you dare to say that no one doubt, while already the genealogists declared that his lineage
is false, such as Ibn Enba, Ibn al-Taqtaqi and the others ?
Quote
which method?
as long you are Mr.scholar so you should know
Quote
because I am the invincible anti-salafi, the internet master, unbeatable, unbreakable internet
scholar par excellence. such a nincompoop
Do you know why I'm invincible ?
Because I never tell lies..
Keep telling the truth, and you will be invincible
So let us see if these pathetic people can prove the lineage of Abdulqader Gilani, or they will keep
barking just like the Christians who cannot prove the lineage of Jesus either
I dont want some one to waste my time by pathetic comments
If there is some one serious, he should post reference, otherwise silence is gold
Quote

Anti-Salafi
Abdaal
Member
Abdaal
Banned
2
4,007 posts
Anti-salafi said:
Can you mention a name of one genealogist who existed before that and claimed that
Abdulqader's lineage is correct ?
I believe reaching the stars is much easier for you than proving the lineage of Abdulqader
Gilani
I will have to look into it.
Quote
The Sunni scholars such as Zarkali attributed the book to Abdulqader Gilani, and no one
stabbed in the chain of narration of the book, and no one had doubt about the book.
Here is a bunch of scholar who don't believe its his book.
1. imam ibn hajar makki in 'fatawa hadeesiya'
2. Allama hamza shanwari in 'wajood o shahood'
3. hazrat faqir noor mohammed kalachwi in 'makzan ul asrar'
4. Allama mohammed abul aziz parharwi in 'al-nibras sharh aqaid'
5. Allama multani in his 'haashiya nibras'
6. shaykh abdul haq dehlawi quoted in persian translation of ghunya tul talibeen
7. Allam ghulam rasool saidee in 'tauzeul bayan'
8. Allama abdul hai lakhnawi (deoband alim) in 'al-rafah wal takmeel fi jarah wa taideel'
9. Allama nizam ul deen multani in 'fatawa nizamia'
10. Dr. tahirul Qadiri in 'falsafa shahadat imam hossain'
For the last reference dr. tahir qadiri sahib writes in the book mentioned on page 272 that
Ghunyat-e-Talibeen:
1. it conflicts with fundamental beliefs
2. Hanafis are considered as murjiya.
3. it endorses and advocates mutazila beliefs.
4. it is a bunch of lies attributed to ghaus paak, his aqeeda was not like it presents.
Quote
I'm not assuming
The Hanafi scholar Sheikh Ali al-Qari in his book "Sharh al-Feqh al-Akbar" criticized the
statement of Abdulqader Gilani
The Hanafi scholar Sheikh Zahid al-Kawthari wrote a book titled as "Taneeb al-Khatib"
criticizing all the Sunni scholars who assaulted Abu Hanifa
Thanks for the references.
Anyway, I will ask another brother to help me out with the genealogy. I know Mufti Ghulaam
Rasool wrote about on this issue. However, the book is in urdu.
Quote
My blog
Sijistani
Member
Sijistani
Unregistered
2
450 posts
Anti-salafi said:
Sheikh Zahid al-Kawthri is a Naqshibandi
Of course he is a Naqshbandi, not 'Naqshibandi', prove that he is not a Qadiri too, but I guess you
would not know that
Quote
While Ali al-Qari is a Jeshti, as Sheikh Muhammad Abdulhalim al-Jeshti stated in "al-Bed'a al-
Muzjat" volume 1, page 28
Do you know what a 'jeshti' is? I don't think so.
Quote
So why you dont mention a name of a genealogist who confirmed his lineage ?
There are so many. But how come you do not know that? I thought you were invincible.
Quote
Is it that much difficult to end the debate by providing a single reference ?
You have no references my child. You call your copy paste of names references
Quote
How you dare to say that no one doubt, while already the genealogists declared that his
lineage is false, such as Ibn Enba, Ibn al-Taqtaqi and the others ?
once again, copy paste (from a salafi site? I thought you were anti-salafi)
Let me repost something I posted earlier. The answer to this thread is here. If someone
understands this post, he/she will know that this thread is nothing but a moron's thread
Anti-salafi said:
Abdulqader Gilani was talking about the 72 false sects which will go to hell, and he mentioned
the Hanafi sect among them.
does anyone of the teenagers know what that is? :!!!:
did any teenager get the idea? :!!!:
If not, then the moron debate can continue with the supposed 'references'
Quote
first?

Sijistani
Member
Sijistani
Unregistered
2
450 posts
These are the 'only' names that this thread will see to disprove the lineage of Sayidna Abdal
Qadir Jaylani. You might be wondering where I got them from, ask anti-salafi
dr abdal-jawad al-kulaidar
abu nasr bukhari
abu nidham muayyaduddeen ashtari
muhammad bin ahmad ameedi
Umari
Sirajuddeen rifai
Tajuddeen ibn Zuhra
Sharif rifai
ibn maimoon
amiddudeen najafi
ibn taqtaqi
you could add

ibn Enba
Now, who of the above is a genealogist? How many? Who are they? What is known about them?
Who has heard of them? Where?
mind you, below is what anti-salafi cut and pasted without any context or meaning, as if they
disprove the genealogy, as if people know these names on their tips, who are these
'genealogists'? are they all 'genealogists'?
Ibn Enba said:
There is no any evident would support it nor any one (genealogists) recognized his lineage.
Ibn al-Taqtaqi said:
There is no any legal evident which could support it, therefore its not acceptable
Ahmad Amiduldeen said:
Its not recorded by the genealogists, and those who claim that his lineage is correct actually they
are some ignorant followers of Sheikh Abdulqader
Quote
first?

Skeptic
Skeptic
Basic Members
0
24 posts
Location:uk
It hurts me when I see shia brothers so vehemently deny the nasab of syed Abdul qadir jilani? ,
similarly some sunnis and some shia also deny that imam Khomeini was a syed, his family whilst
in Kashmir never called themselves syed but only when they got to iran they declared themselves
syed etc but I am not going to argue for that at all.
bear in mind that shaykh wrote against shias of his locality and refused to accept sultan sanjar's
pay. howevr, amongst those who came couple of centuries after the shaykh and were shia
authors, one who person to deny the siyadat of shaykh syed Abdul qadir jilani was a shia
geneologist ibn inaba who died in 825 AH. His argument is that his father's name was persiian
'jangi dost' and that he never called himself a syed etc. these are lame excuses and definitely not
according to nassabeen. Jangi dost was a title and his name was abu salih musa. the shaykh
himself declared in his 'mutawatir' qasdia ghausia that 'annul hasani' I am hasani. The third thing
people say that his grandson was the first to call himself syed that is also not true.
It is ijama of all ahl e sunna ulema that he was syed. All the awliya in every age considered him a
syed such as the person who wrote 'shah ast husain baadshah ast hussain' and turned 9 millions
hindus into muslims his name is syed moin uddeen chishti ajmeri...all the awliya believed him to
be syed and allama mulla ali qari hanafi writes that there is tawatur/mass transmission that he
was a syed in his book nuzhatul khatir.
After this preliminary discussion let me tell you that ibn inaba when writing the aqab of imams of
ahl al-bayt(a) has missed out some -great-great grandsons and added some extra great-great-
grandsons sons that are not in earlier books of nasab so does that mean that those claiming
nasab from such sons are not syed. There is more on this but I will withold for now.
It is strange that how a small number amongst shia brothers accuse us about sheikhs nasab yet
those who follow the shaykh do not marry their syed daughters other than to those who are fatimi
and consider that only a fatimi is kuff of a fatimi but that does not matter to you because Khomeini
sahib and khoei sahib and many other syed ayatollahs have given their daughters to non-syeds.
So much for the preservation of the nasal of syeda Fatima Zahra(S).
One of the biographies called bahjtul asrar whose author died in 713 AH gives the shaykh's
lineage from Imam Hasan al-mujtaba(A). this alone predates ibn inaba by 112 years!
Also shaykh syed Abdul qadir jilani's son syed abdur razaq in 'fatihat futuhul ghayb' gives his
shajra from Imam Hasan al-mujtaba(A). this is his son. This also refutes the claim that it was his
grandson who was the first. And his grandson shaykh abu salih nasr, about whose authenticity
imam ibn hajar asqalani prides himself that I report with three links from him whose sanad is most
high and declares him trustworthy and authentic in his book 'ghibta'. those who calim that it was
his grandson, should also note that he was a very reliable and superior and honest reporter
according to asma ar-rijaal imams.
Furthermore, it is also claimed that none of his contemporaries called him a syed is also a blatant
lie. Sheikh's companion and disciple mufti of Iraq, imam abullah bin nasr bin hamza bakri
Baghdadi in his book 'anwaarul naazir' details the lineage of shaykh syed Abdul qadir jilani from
Imam Hasan al-mujtaba
Also the maliki jurist and geneologist ahmed ibn jawzy in his book of geneology called 'albayaan fi
nasabul adnan' details the lineage of the shaykh from Imam Hasan yet he was not fan of the
shaykh as is evident from his book 'talbis'. Also sibt ibn jawzy in his book on geneology called
'ansaabul qirtaas' details the lineage of the shaykh from imam hasan al-mujtaba(A) as well as the
renowned historian al-jabarti details the lineage of imam hasan al-mujtaba and gives the shaykh
as his descendent.
These are just a few refrences and you pick up any book on asma ar-rijaal after 561AH and you
will see that all are unanimous in the siyadat of the shaykh. There is an absolute ijma from ahl as-
sunna from every century on the lineage of hazrat shaykh syed Abdul qadir jilani. As a matter of
fact you can read a book by qadhi mohammed makki bin azouz, the Tunisian jurist and traditionist
where he gives the list and books of sixty ulema of the past that have written on the hasani
lineage of the shaykh. The book is called 'as-saif ar-rabbanI fi unuq almutarid alghauth aljilani'.
This much should be sufficient for any learned person. We consider shia as our brothers and we
only have a major problem with salafi wahabis. As for shia intellectuals and researchers, none is
as famous and as authentic as ayatollah murtaza mutahari who writes in his introduction to
Islamic sciences that shaykh was a hasani syed. So here is an objective renowned shia scholar
who also has declared it objectively. ayatollah murtaza muthari is respected by the western
academia for his objective aspect in research.
ibn inaba (825 AH) denied nasab in his book. And all those before him as mentioned above
consider him syed. The shyakh died in 561AH. So someone who comes 264 years after declares
him a non-syed whereas nassabeen and biographers and contemporaries and his son are telling
you he was a syed.
As for ibn inaba having extra number of great-great grandsons and less number of g-g-grandsons
sons of imams in his book when compared to the nassabeen before him and how some shajras
printed in iran and najaf do not tally with those sons and hence by default making some known
syeds as non-syeds is another issue but one should realise that collection of nassabeen is how
genoelogists operate and not just a single person's baseless word. there are various shades of
opinions. He wrote it out of bias of being a shia or ignorance. as for the article in arabic, let me tell
you that the dossier is sexed up and i will deal with it when you deal with evidence further back in
time than presented by arguments against. actually, ta'assub is everywhere for instance imam
suyuti argued through books of nasab that fatimeen of misr were not syed but rather majusis. if
that was the case then fatimeen had ancestors that were fireworshippers. we may have our
differences but lets not steep so low that deny each others' nasab. some sunnis say that shias
are not syeds because they give their daughters to non-syeds. guess what?? amongst other
evidences for such matters there is also a story in ibn inaba's umdatut talib, where he reports
from imam zaid as-shaheeds grandson that such marrigages are not allowed in Islam where
syeda fatimia is married to non-syeds. therefore, do you think sunni syeds are right when they
say that shias are not syed becuase they say that syeda fatimia can marry a non-fatimi? if yes
then they would say no genuine syed would do such thing, and guess what..they have ibn inaba
for their justification too! so ibn inaba may be used to criticise just one chain of nasab but he is
also used by sunnis to consider all shias as non-syeds. take your pick!
121.
Edited March 16, 2009 by Skeptic
Quote
Sijistani
Member
Sijistani
Unregistered
2
450 posts
Skeptic said:
consider him syed. The shyakh died in 561AH. So someone who comes 264 years after declares
him a non-syed whereas nassabeen and biographers and contemporaries and his son are telling
you he was a syed.
As for ibn inaba
121.
If ibn inaba is the same as 'ibn Enba', whose name is copy pasted repeatedly, then I suppose he
goes out of the window after reading the above. Remember I asked anti-salafi who zarkali was;
who is he? Is he khayr al-din Zargali?
Quote
first?

Skeptic
Skeptic
Basic Members
0
24 posts
Location:uk
Sijistani said:
If ibn inaba is the same as 'ibn Enba', whose name is copy pasted repeatedly, then he goes out
of the window I suppose after reading the above. I remember I asked anti-salafi who zarkali was,
who is he? Is he khayr al-din Zargali?
zarkali wrote al-aalaam and he uses genuine photos of some authors to tell about their life history
so you can imagine how classical he is. and yes ibn inaba (phonetically) ibn enba are the same.
the book is umdat at-talib.
Quote
Anti-salafi
Member
Anti-salafi
Advanced Members
1
159 posts
Quote
Here is a bunch of scholar who don't believe its his book.
1. imam ibn hajar makki in 'fatawa hadeesiya'
2. Allama hamza shanwari in 'wajood o shahood'
3. hazrat faqir noor mohammed kalachwi in 'makzan ul asrar'
4. Allama mohammed abul aziz parharwi in 'al-nibras sharh aqaid'
5. Allama multani in his 'haashiya nibras'
6. shaykh abdul haq dehlawi quoted in persian translation of ghunya tul talibeen
7. Allam ghulam rasool saidee in 'tauzeul bayan'
8. Allama abdul hai lakhnawi (deoband alim) in 'al-rafah wal takmeel fi jarah wa taideel'
9. Allama nizam ul deen multani in 'fatawa nizamia'
10. Dr. tahirul Qadiri in 'falsafa shahadat imam hossain'
For the last reference dr. tahir qadiri sahib writes in the book mentioned on page 272 that
Ghunyat-e-Talibeen:
1. it conflicts with fundamental beliefs
2. Hanafis are considered as murjiya.
3. it endorses and advocates mutazila beliefs.
4. it is a bunch of lies attributed to ghaus paak, his aqeeda was not like it presents.
Thank you brother
If you like I can add more names to the list :)
I know about these scholars opinion, but the method of accepting and rejecting the books is the
chain of narration of the book
Not the content of the book
Non of these scholars could talk about the chain of narration of the book
Therefore their rejection is almost baseless according to the method of the scholars
Thats why many Sunni scholars accepting the book although they are not pleased by what is
written in it.
Until now I didnt see any Sunni scholar who doubt about the book's chain of narration.
So if you know a scholar who found defects in the book's chain of narration, please let me know
Quote

Anti-Salafi
Anti-salafi
Member
Anti-salafi
Advanced Members
1
159 posts
Quote
Of course he is a Naqshbandi, not 'Naqshibandi',
First of all Mr.scholar, the both pronunciations are correct, because it has to do with the different
Persian accents
The word Naqshibandi is a Persian word which means sketching
Quote
prove that he is not a Qadiri too, but I guess you would not know that
You the one who claimed that he is Qaderi, so you the one who have to prove that he is Qaderi
according to the Islamic laws and the rules of debate
Mention reference please
Quote
Do you know what a 'jeshti' is? I don't think so.
Its a Sufi school (Taryiqa) founded by Sheikh Ahmad Jeshti, and there is some Arabs who follow
this school
Quote
There are so many. But how come you do not know that? I thought you were invincible.
Again you tell lie
Cause the genealogists themselves admitted that no one mentioned Abdulqader Gilani
so can you give me a reference of those many ? or reaching the stars is easier :!!!:
Quote
You have no references my child. You call your copy paste of names references
How do you know its a copy paste, and not personal investigation ?
Do you have the knowledge of unseen ?
Or do you think all the people just like you, live in forum through copy/paste :lol:
Quote
once again, copy paste (from a salafi site? I thought you were anti-salafi)
I own these books, I dont need to use Salafi websites
My library might be bigger than your bed room
So dont talk rubbish
Quote

does anyone of the teenagers know what that is?
did any teenager get the idea?
If not, then the moron debate can continue with the supposed 'references'
Have you ever read Ghunyat al-Talbin book ?
They way which you act shows that you even never saw the book's cover
Quote
Now, who of the above is a genealogist? How many? Who are they? What is known about
them? Who has heard of them? Where?
Ibn Enba, Ibn al-Taqtaqi, Abu Nasr al-Bukhari are very famous genealogists, just as Einstein is a
famous physical, Plato is a famous philosopher, Alfred Wenger is a famous geophysical, Sheikh
Tusi is a famous jurist etc.
If you dont know them so you are an ignorant and low educated
Quote
If ibn inaba is the same as 'ibn Enba', whose name is copy pasted repeatedly, then I suppose
he goes out of the window after reading the above.
Again you telling lies ;)
Can you tell me according to which legal rule his denial is rejected ?
Its easy to throw words from your pocket and say "how" & "can't"
But you have to mention the legal rule which you used to reject the statement of Ibn Enba
Because in Sunni feqh the statement of Ibn Enba and the genealogists who are 300 years late is
acceptable
The Sunni scholars always using the statements of Ibn Enba to prove and disprove some
lineages
For example:
Sheikh Hassan Saqqaf in his book "Majmo Rasael al-Saqqaf" used Ibn Enba's statement to prove
the lineage of some Sufi scholars.
Sheikh Murad Shukri in his book "al-Etehaf" used ibn Enba's statements to disprove the lineage
of some Sufi scholars.
Quote
Remember I asked anti-salafi who zarkali was; who is he? Is he khayr al-din Zargali?
Yes he is Kahyr al-deen, he mentioned that in his book "Al-alaam" volume 4, page 47
Also Haji Khalifa in his book "Kashf al-Zunoon' volume 2, page 1211
And also some Sunni hadith scholars such as
Al-Mubarakfuri in his book "Tuhfat al-Ahwazy" volume 7, page 430

Al-Azim Abaadi in his book "Auon al-Mabood" volume 3, page 300
Quote

Anti-Salafi
Anti-salafi
Member
Anti-salafi
Advanced Members
1
159 posts
Quote
similarly some sunnis and some shia also deny that imam Khomeini was a syed
I dont hesitate to declare that Khomini's lineage is false
cause Allah said in Quran {And do not mix up the truth with the falsehood, nor hide the truth while
you know (it). }
Quote
one who person to deny the siyadat of shaykh syed Abdul qadir jilani was a shia geneologist
ibn inaba who died in 825 AH.
Your statement proving that you have never read the book of Ibn Enba, who ever reads his book,
clearly he can see that he is not a Shia, cause he criticize the Shia in his book.
Quote
His argument is that his father's name was persiian 'jangi dost' and that he never called himself
a syed etc.
This is the second proof which proving you have never read the book, and you just copy/paste
from some where
Quote
the shaykh himself declared in his 'mutawatir' qasdia ghausia that 'annul hasani' I am hasani.
This poem is not mu[Edited Out]ir, beside that it doesn't got a single correct chain of narration
Therefore many scholars believes that its been written by some one else
Quote
It is ijama of all ahl e sunna ulema that he was syed.
First of all, there is no ijma about his lineage, some of Sunni scholars rejected his lineage
Second thing genealogy has nothing to do with Sunni nor Shia scholars
If you want to know the lineage of some one, you have to refer to genealogists, not to
jurisprudence scholars
There is an ijma of all Ahlul Sunnah scholars that the woman can be pregnant for three years
While the physicians says that its impossible for the woman to be pregnant for 10 months rather
than 3 years
So in such physician issue who you should refer to ? the physicians or the sunni scholars ?
So the statement of Sunni and Shia scholars is worthless in every issue except the Islamic
issues.
Quote
It is ijama of all ahl e sunna ulema that he was syed. All the awliya in every age considered him
a syed such as the person who wrote 'shah ast husain baadshah ast hussain' and turned 9
millions hindus into muslims his name is syed moin uddeen chishti ajmeri...all the awliya believed
him to be syed
This is a wrong argument
1- I'm a Shia, so I dont believe in these Sufis to be Awlyia, as I dont believe in the Christians to
be saints.
2- We are in scientific dialogue, so the belief of some persons was never considered as evident in
proving the lineages, otherwise you have to accept the genealogy of Jesus as the Christians
saints believes.
Quote
and allama mulla ali qari hanafi writes that there is tawatur/mass transmission that he was a
syed in his book nuzhatul khatir.
He is not a genealogist, so his statement is unacceptable
Quote
After this preliminary discussion let me tell you that ibn inaba when writing the aqab of imams
of ahl al-bayt(a) has missed out some -great-great grandsons and added some extra great-great-
grandsons sons that are not in earlier books of nasab so does that mean that those claiming
nasab from such sons are not syed. There is more on this but I will withold for now.
I hope you can mention some names of those greats who were missed by Ibn Enba
Beside that your argument is false
1-Ibn Enba didnt missed Abdulqader Gilani, he declared that his lineage is false, and this is
totally different case
2-If Ibn Enba missed some one, the other genealogists will mention him, so there is no any
problem
Quote
yet those who follow the shaykh do not marry their syed daughters other than to those who are
fatimi and consider that only a fatimi is kuff of a fatimi
This is non Islamic rule, who said that only the fatimi is kufu to the fatimi ?
Seems the followers of the Sheikh Abdulqader are from Jewish background, only the progeny of
Judah is kuff to the progeny of Judah
Quote
One of the biographies called bahjtul asrar whose author died in 713 AH gives the shaykh's
lineage from Imam Hasan al-mujtaba(A). this alone predates ibn inaba by 112 years!
The author of this book is Ali al-Shatnoofi, and he is not a genealogist, he just wrote what the
followers of Sheikh Abdulqader says
And the lineage of Abdulqader does not exist in any genealogy book, not necessary ibn Enba's
book, even the other genealogists, non of them mentioned the forefathers of Abdulqader Gilani
So the statement of Shantoofi is useless, cause every one can write a fake lineage in his book
Here I will make this fake lineage for you
Skeptic son of Muhammad son of Abdulrahman son of Ali son of Muhammad son Ali son of
Hassan son of Ali son of Muhammad son of Ibrahim son of Ali son of Muhammad son of Salim
son of Abdullah son of Yusuf son of Muhammad son of Ali son of Ismail son of Ibrahim son of
Abdullah son of Ahmad son of Abdulraouf son of Aqil son of Hashim son of Musa son of
Muhammad son of Ahmad son Musa son of Abdullah son of Abdulqudus son of Mahmood son of
Hashim son of Yahya son of Ali son of Abbas son of Dawoud son of Muhammad son of Ibrahim
son of Imam Musa son of Imam Jaffar son of Imam Muhammad son of Imam Ali son of Imam
Hussain son of Imam Ali bin Abi Talib
So what is the way to know if its fake or true
Is to refer to genealogy books, there is no any other way
Quote
Also shaykh syed Abdul qadir jilani's son syed abdur razaq in 'fatihat futuhul ghayb' gives his
shajra from Imam Hasan al-mujtaba(A). this is his son.
This is not Abdulqader's son book, please make sure of it and confirm me
hope you can mention a reference
Quote
This also refutes the claim that it was his grandson who was the first. And his grandson shaykh
abu salih nasr, about whose authenticity imam ibn hajar asqalani prides himself that I report with
three links from him whose sanad is most high and declares him trustworthy and authentic in his
book 'ghibta'. those who calim that it was his grandson, should also note that he was a very
reliable and superior and honest reporter according to asma ar-rijaal imams.
in Sunnis elm rijal the liar can be authentic, the killer can be authentic, the Nasibi can be
authentic, the Khariji can be authentic etc.
Quote
Furthermore, it is also claimed that none of his contemporaries called him a syed is also a
blatant lie. Sheikh's companion and disciple mufti of Iraq, imam abullah bin nasr bin hamza bakri
Baghdadi in his book 'anwaarul naazir' details the lineage of shaykh syed Abdul qadir jilani from
Imam Hasan al-mujtaba
I'm afraid that there is no such book

Can you please mention a reference for this book, such as from al-alaam, mujam al-moalifin etc.
Quote
Also the maliki jurist and geneologist ahmed ibn jawzy in his book of geneology called
'albayaan fi nasabul adnan' details the lineage of the shaykh from Imam Hasan yet he was not
fan of the shaykh as is evident from his book 'talbis'.Also sibt ibn jawzy in his book on geneology
called 'ansaabul qirtaas' details the lineage of the shaykh from imam hasan al-mujtaba(A) as well
as the renowned historian al-jabarti details the lineage of imam hasan al-mujtaba and gives the
shaykh as his descendent.
Ibn al-Jawzy is not a genealogist, and his book is not accepted by the genealogists cause he was
copy pasting from unknown books and references.
The book of ibn al-Jawzy is just posing the lineages, whither its true or false.
so we can't count this as proof
Quote
as well as the renowned historian al-jabarti details the lineage of imam hasan al-mujtaba and
gives the shaykh as his descendent.
He is not genealogist, he just copied the lineage of Abdulqader from Qaderis books
If I wrote a book about any thing and in my book I mentioned the lineage of Abdulqader is that
mean this is giving an authentication to his lineage ?
Quote
This much should be sufficient for any learned person.
Unfortunately you didnt post any reference from genealogy book
All these books are biography books which cite the biography of the character as the followers of
this character narrates
I'm still waiting for a genealogy reference
Quote
none is as famous and as authentic as ayatollah murtaza mutahari who writes in his
introduction to Islamic sciences that shaykh was a hasani syed. So here is an objective renowned
shia scholar who also has declared it objectively. ayatollah murtaza muthari is respected by the
western academia for his objective aspect in research.
Mutahari may Allah's mercy be upon him is a philosopher, not a genealogist
He also called some Shiite scholars as sayed, while the lineage of those Shia scholars is false
So the testimony of Mutahari in genealogy, biology, chemistry etc. is useless
Quote
consider him syed.
Ibn Enba is not the only one, there is many others who denied his lineage such as ibn al-Taqtaqi
who died in 709 AH, Taj al-deen al-hussaini who died in 700 AH.
And there is genealogists who denied the forefathers of Abdulqader such as Aziz al-deen al-
Marouzi who died in 614 AH, and Abu Nasr al-Bukhari who died in 341 AH
Quote
some sunnis say that shias are not syeds because they give their daughters to non-syeds.
Well that is a stupid argument
Arent the Sunnis believes that Imam Ali gave his daughter to Umar ibn al-Khatab ?
Arent the Sunnis believes that sayda Nafisa was married to Marwan bin Abdulmalik ? (Tabaqat
ibn Saad, volume 5, page 234)
Arent the Sunnis believes that sayda Sakina was married to Zaid bin Amro al-Umawy ? (Tabaqat
Arent the Sunnis believes that Sayda Um al-Qasim was married to Marwan bin Aban ? (al-
Ma'aref by ibn Qutayba, page 93)
Why the sunnis believes that the Fatimi girls should not get married to a non Fatimi man but later
they contradict themselves ?
Arent the Sunnis believes that Imam Ali zain al-abideen was born from Persian mother ? (syar
alam al-nubala, volume 4, page 386)
Arent the Sunnis believes that Imam Jaffar al-Sadeq's mother was Um Farwa ? (syar alam al-
nubala volume 6, p255)
Isnt the Sunnis believes that Zaid bin Ali's mother is a slave woman ? (syar alam al-nubala, v5,
p389)
Why the Sunnis believes that the Fatimi man should not get married to a non Fatimi woman but
later they contradict themselves ?
Arent the Sunnis believes that Imam Ahmad Rifai's mother was non Fatimi ? (syar alam al-
nubala, volume 21, page 77)
Arent ths Sunnis believes that Imam Ahmad al-Badawy's mother was non Fatimi ? (Noor al-
Absar page 320)
Why the Sunnis believes that their awlyia should not born from non Fatimi woman but later they
contradict them selves ?
I think the arrow returned back to the sunnis heart
Quote
guess what?? amongst other evidences for such matters there is also a story in ibn inaba's
umdatut talib, where he reports from imam zaid as-shaheeds grandson that such marrigages are
not allowed in Islam where syeda fatimia is married to non-syeds. if yes then they would say no
genuine syed would do such thing, and guess what..they have ibn inaba for their justification too!
so ibn inaba may be used to criticise just one chain of nasab but he is also used by sunnis to
consider all shias as non-syeds. take your pick!
I couldnt find this text in Ibn Enba's book, therefore I will be thankful if you paste the Arabic text
Well Zayd's grandson opinion is obviously contradicting Islam (Sunni & Shia), so this statement is
innovation (Bed'a) cause he just brought a legal rule from his own pocket.
In Wasail al-Shia book, volume 20, page 70, there is some traditions from Imam Jaffar al-Sadeq
allowing in it the marriage of the Fatimi girl from the non Fatimi man.
So the statement of Zayd's grand son worth nothing.
According to Sunni feqih, such statement is unacceptable, also its contradicting the hadiths in
sunni books.
Beside that the Sunnis already believes that the Fatimi girl is just a regular girl, Ibn al-Najar
recorded in his book "Zail Tarikh Baghdad, volume 4, page 137" that they caught a Fatimi girl
performing adultery with a Christian man.
so there is nothing to pick, you mixed up in this issue between genealogy and legal opinions
So I believe its a failure attempt ;)
Quote

Anti-Salafi
Abdaal
Member
Abdaal
Banned
2
4,007 posts
Anti-salafi said:
Well that is a stupid argument
You are mistaken. He said a syeda (female) cannot marry a non- syed. He didn't say a male Syed
cannot marry a non syed.
Quote
Arent the Sunnis believes that Imam Ali gave his daughter to Umar ibn al-Khatab ?
Not every sunni believes that. Answering ansaar quotes the Sunni scholar Mufti Ghulaam Rasool
to refute the sunnis who have this belief.
Quote
Arent the Sunnis believes that sayda Nafisa was married to Marwan bin Abdulmalik ? (Tabaqat
No she married Ishaq al-Mu'taman (as), a direct descendant of Imam al-Husayn (as).
Quote
Arent the Sunnis believes that sayda Sakina was married to Zaid bin Amro al-Umawy ?
(Tabaqat ibn Saad, volume 6, page 349)
No we don't believe that.
Quote
Why the sunnis believes that the Fatimi girls should not get married to a non Fatimi man but
Arent the Sunnis believes that Imam Ali zain al-abideen was born from Persian mother ? (syar
alam al-nubala, volume 4, page 386)
Arent the Sunnis believes that Imam Jaffar al-Sadeq's mother was Um Farwa ? (syar alam al-
nubala volume 6, p255)
Isnt the Sunnis believes that Zaid bin Ali's mother is a slave woman ? (syar alam al-nubala, v5,
p389)
You are one who is contradicting yourself. These examples are of male syed marrying women
who are non syeds. Its not the other way around.
Quote
Why the Sunnis believes that the Fatimi man should not get married to a non Fatimi woman but
Where ?
Quote
In Wasail al-Shia book, volume 20, page 70, there is some traditions from Imam Jaffar al-
Sadeq allowing in it the marriage of the Fatimi girl from the non Fatimi man.
Can you give some example where this occurred during the period of 11 imams. Imam Musa Al
Kazim's (as) daughters all died without getting married.
Quote
My blog
Anti-salafi
Member
Anti-salafi
Advanced Members
1
159 posts
Quote
You are mistaken. He said a syeda (female) cannot marry a non- syed. He didn't say a male
Syed cannot marry a non syed.
From where you get this rule ?
Is there a hadith about this topic ? or the Sunnis innovating ?
Quote
Not every sunni believes that. Answering ansaar quotes the Sunni scholar Mufti Ghulaam
Rasool to refute the sunnis who have this belief.
Glad to hear that
Quote
No she married Ishaq al-Mu'taman , a direct descendant of Imam al-Husayn
Glad to hear that but give me the reference
Quote
No we don't believe that.
Glad to hear that but give me the reference
Quote
You are one who is contradicting yourself. These examples are of male syed marrying women
who are non syeds. Its not the other way around.
Ok I already mentioned some examples from Sunni reference, so you have to respond with Sunni
reference, not with baseless claims
Quote
Can you give some example where this occurred during the period of 11 imams. Imam Musa Al
Kazim's daughters all died without getting married.
I already mentioned examples from Sunni reference
And the statement of prophet Muhammad (s) & Imam Jaffar al-Sadiq (a) is ending the debate
( ) : ( ):

Imam Muhammad Baqer narrated that Allah's messenger (s) said: I'm not more than a human just
like you, I marry from your progeny and you marry from my progeny.
( ) : ( )

( ) .
Imam Jaffar said: Allah's messenger (s) married al-Meqdad bin al-Aswad to Dhub'a bint al-Zubair
bin Abdulmutalib, verily he married him to her to make the mixed marriage lawful and to make
himself an excellent pattern for the people, and to let them know that the most honoured of them
in the sight of Allah is he who is the most righteous.
:
: : :
: : : :
Ali bin Bilal narrated that Hisham bin al-Hakam met some Kharijis, thus they said: O Hisham!
What do you say about he non Arabs, is it allowed for them to marry an Arab woman ?
He replied: yes
They said: is allowed for the Arabs to marry a woman from Quraish ?
He replied: yes
They said: is it allowed for the Quraihsi to marry from Bani Hashim ?
He replied: yes
They said: who said that ?
He replied: Jaffar bin Muhammad.
Actually the genealogists and historians didnt record a lot about the females, because they didnt
had an important role, except few females such as Fatima al-Zahra, Zainab etc.
While the regular daughters and grand daughters of the Imams usually the genealogists only
mentioned their names as daughters cause the lineage is from the male not the female, so they
wasnt concerned about the details of the females lives
while the historians didnt mention them cause they had no any role in the historical incidents.
If you need from Shia reference, a Fatimi girl who was married to a non Fatimi man so Sheikh
Shahroodi in his book "Mustadrak Safinat al-Behar, volume 8, page 261" mentioned that Fatima
the daughter of Imam Jaffar al-Sadeq was married to Muhammad bin Ibrahim who is non Fatimi
man.
So return back to the sunnah of the prophet and leave the nonsense of the innovators
Quote

Anti-Salafi
Skeptic
Skeptic
Basic Members
0
24 posts
Location:uk
Quote
I dont hesitate to declare that Khomini's lineage is false
cause Allah said in Quran {And do not mix up the truth with the falsehood, nor hide the truth
while you know (it). }
please shia brothers and sisters note! here is a proof of madness of anti-salafi. i leave shias to
reply to him whether imam khomeini was syed or not. it is so easy for those behind the monitor to
declare people non-syed and kafir etc. you seem like salafi then anti-salafi. atleast both twins
have the same methodology. on one side you are talking about syed this and syed that yet you
are arguing for syeda to get married to non-syeds. when mentioning imam zaid as-shaheed's
name you are just saying zaid etc there is no doubt about his siyaadat at all or nauzobillah, is
there? given your full of hate attitude. i am right and everyone else is wrong! hah hahh...ibn
inanaba does mention a miraculous story from ahl al-bayt to prove that syeda cannot be married
to non-syeds. but exactly the same reference is not sufficient for you now. double standards.
actually, the syeda dies in by dua. my point is that why gives the right to accept what you like from
the same book and reject what you do not. whatever is your reply is also my reply.
however, i do not accept you to be objective but i have proven all allegations wrong from books
as my last post.
Quote
Ibn Enba is not the only one, there is many others who denied his lineage such as ibn al-
Taqtaqi who died in 709 AH, Taj al-deen al-hussaini who died in 700 AH.
And there is genealogists who denied the forefathers of Abdulqader such as Aziz al-deen al-
Marouzi who died in 614 AH, and Abu Nasr al-Bukhari who died in 341 AH
as i said there is ijma of ahl as-sunna that shaykh abdul qadir jilani was a syed as mentioned
by mulla ali qari hanafi. some amongst shia have said that he was not syed out of bias and
popularity of the shaykh from africa to asia amongst muslims.
ibn inaba (828 AH) was a shia author. check this shia link saying he was a shia. it is numer 21:
http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=690
also ibn taqtaqi was also a shia. please check this shia link:
http://www.imamreza.net/arb/imamreza.php?id=1881
the others a a bunch of lies, for instance, prove to me taj al-aldeen died in 700 AH?....no, he was
still alive even in 753 AH! and where is the chain you demand from us? min al-malum is not
sufficient my friend, i am giving you refrences from his son's commentry on futuh al-ghayb, his
companions detailing his shaykhs nasab and sibt ibn jawzi's work on geneology that he was syed.
all PREDATE by hundreds of years to your later biased sources.
abu nasr bukhari died in 357 AH and not as you are saying 341Ah. syed mohammed sadiq baher
al-uloom wrote a taqdeem of it in 1382 AH. he was 200 hundred years before the shaykh and al-
marouzi's reference is another lie as well even dr. addul jawad kalaydar, whose link is presented
above does not mention him too. more on him later but this much, briefly, is to explain that you
are blinded by hate and jealousy and there is no cure for it. even the prophets could not convince
the inaadi ignorant.
finally, i say to you that, i ahve given you calssical references earlier and other books of the past
that prove shaykh was a syed and also shaykhs own book f qasida, which has twelve qasaid in it.
in one of them which is known as qasida khamariyya, he himself says 'annul hasani wa mikhda
maqami. i am a hasani syed. next you will say that his diwaan is not reliable then one can say
then what about diwaan abu talib, diwaan imam ali(A) etc....be consistent and do not request from
others something else and have your own standard of proving.
YOU ARE A LIAR ON TWO ACCOUNTS.
1. YOU ARE A LIAR WHEN YOU SAY IMAM KHOMIEIN WAS NOT SYED.
2. YOU ARE ALSO A LIAR WHEN YOU SAY SHAYKH SYED ABDUL QADIR JILANI WAS NOT
SYED.
YOU ARE HURTING US BOTH, MILLIONS OF SHIA AND MILLIONS OF SUNNI.

Quote
Amalek
Member
Amalek
Unregistered
0
116 posts
Location:your mom
I'm curious why a skeptic is debating religious matters, especially between sects of islam
Isn't all religion nonsense to you?

Edited March 16, 2009 by Amalek
Quote
The Changing Canons of the Bible
The Bible that leads people to Islam
Christianity: An Overview
Why the Most Learned Scholars in Christianity come to Islam
Abdaal
Member
Abdaal
Banned
2
4,007 posts
^^ He is a Hanafi sunni.
Quote
My blog
Anti-salafi
Member
Anti-salafi
Advanced Members
1
159 posts
Quote
please shia brothers and sisters note! here is a proof of madness of anti-salafi. i leave shias to
reply to him whether imam khomeini was syed or not. it is so easy for those behind the monitor to
declare people non-syed and kafir etc. you seem like salafi then anti-salafi. atleast both twins
have the same methodology.
No need to use Mu'awyia's technique in propaganda
Quote
when mentioning imam zaid as-shaheed's name you are just saying zaid etc there is no doubt
about his siyaadat at all or nauzobillah, is there? given your full of hate attitude. i am right and
everyone else is wrong! hah hahh
Its not necessary to say sayed when ever I mention his name, and that not means I dont respect
him or I dont love him may Allah be pleased with him
Dont you see that Bukhari mentioning Imam Ali without using sayed or imam
Dont you see Ahmad ibn Hanbal mentioning Imam Ali without using sayed or imam
Don't you see Abu Hanifa mentioning Imam Ali without using sayed or imam
So are these Sunni scholars full of hate attitude ??
Quote
ibn inanaba does mention a miraculous story from ahl al-bayt to prove that syeda cannot be
married to non-syeds. but exactly the same reference is not sufficient for you now. double
standards.
There is no any double standards
I accept the statements of ibn Enaba if its related to genealogy
While his statements in jurisprudence or other issues I dont accept it because he is genealogist
not jurist.
The Sunnis do the same thing too, for example Saeed al-Tajibi, the sunnis accept his statements
in hadith, but they dont accept his statements in feqh
by the way, post for me the Arabic text from Ibn Enba's book, i want to see it
Quote
my point is that why gives the right to accept what you like from the same book and reject what
you do not. whatever is your reply is also my reply.
Ibn Enba is a genealogist, so what ever he mentioned in his book (as his own statement) about
the lineages I believe in it and accept it.
If ibn Enba talked about hadith, feqh etc I will not accept it because this is not his job
In hadith & feqh I refer to Shia scholars
Dont you agree with me if a Christian chemist said Oxygen + Hydrogen = water , all the Muslims
will believe him and accept his statement
While if the same person said Father + Son + Holy Spirit = God, the Muslims will reject his
statement
Is that double standers ? no its not
Because he is a Chemist so we accept his statements in Chemistry, while in other issues

theology, cosmology, genealogy, biology etc we refer to the right persons.
Quote
however, i do not accept you to be objective but i have proven all allegations wrong from books
as my last post
You proved nothing
I provided evidence from famous genealogy books, so you have to refute my evidence by
providing evidence more powerful than mine
Dont you see in elm-usool they say the ahad never abrogate the mu[Edited Out]ir
So you have to get more powerful evidence to abrogate my evidence
Quote
as i said there is ijma of ahl as-sunna that shaykh abdul qadir jilani was a syed as
mentioned by mulla ali qari hanafi.
The ijma of AhlulSunnah jurists in genealogy is useless, just as the ijma of Ahlulsunnah that the
woman can be pregnant for four years
Quote
ibn inaba (828 AH) was a shia author. check this shia link saying he was a shia. it is numer 21:
http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=690
I know that some Shiites considered ibn Enba as Shia, but they are mistaken and have no any
proof
Who ever reads the book of ibn Enba he can see clearly that he is not a Shia
For example
Ibn Enba in page 199 said :
The twelfth Imam according to the Imamis, and he is the promised one according to them.
In Arabic language when you say "them" that means you not counting your self as one of them
Beside that if he was a Shia, he would should respect to our Imam and would mention him in a
manner which shows that he believe in him, just like any other Shiites.
Ibn Enba in page 256 said:
Who ever stood with him, he is attributed to the Zaidis, and who ever abandoned him, he is
attributed to the Rafidah.
Do you think that can be a statement of a Shiite genealogist ?

Lets say he is Shia in sake of argument, so what then ?
If you want to reject his statement because he is Shia so you Sunnis are using double standards,
cause all the Sunni scholars rely on Ibn Enba's book, so to use & reject Ibn Enba's statements
which is related to genealogy when ever you feel like to, this is the double standard
So you the one who use double standards
Quote
also ibn taqtaqi was also a shia. please check this shia link:
The same thing about ibn al-Taqtqi, there is no proof that he is Shia
The anti-shia Sunni scholars mentioned him without mentioning any thing about him being a Shia
such as al-Dahabi in syar alam al-nubala volume 50 page 101, al-Safady in al-Wafy bel Wafyat,
al-Katabi in Fawat al-Wafyat.
Quote
the others a a bunch of lies, for instance, prove to me taj al-aldeen died in 700 AH?....no, he
was still alive even in 753 AH!
The year of his death is recorded in "Maalem ansab al-Talbeen fi sharh kitab ser ansab al-
Alaveen"
so its your turn now to prove for me that he was alive until 753 AH
by the way, the year of his death is not a big deal, cause in both cases we agree that he was alive
during the ends of 600's and beginning of 700's
and this is the period which we want to prove, not the exact date
You reminded me by an idiot Egyptian Salafi scholar
When my revert friend said to him the hadith exist in Sahih Muslim page 151
The Salafi scholars said: liaaaaar, the hadith is in page 158 :!!!:
So what is the different if the hadith in page 151 or 158 ? the purpose is to prove that the hadith
exist in Sahih Muslim, not the page number :lol:
Quote
and where is the chain you demand from us? min al-malum is not sufficient my friend, i am
giving you refrences from his son's commentry on futuh al-ghayb,
I want the chain of narration of the book, its very important
You cant attribute a book to some one as long the book's chain of narration is weak or
disconnected
There is many books the Sunnis & Sufis not attributing it to Ahmad bin Hanbal because the chain
of narration of the book is weak
So you should not use double standards in Gilani's case
Quote
his companions detailing his shaykhs nasab and sibt ibn jawzi's work on geneology that he was
syed. all PREDATE by hundreds of years to your later biased sources.
By the way, ibn al-Jawzy he only copy/paste the lineage of Abdulqader Gilani, and this is useless,
cause he didnt examine the lineage as the genealogists do
So he is not genealogist
Quote
abu nasr bukhari died in 357 AH and not as you are saying 341Ah.
On the cover of his book is written that he died in 341
Any how it doesnt matter if he died in 341 or 357, in both cases he was alive during 300's and
that sufficient
Quote
is to explain that you are blinded by hate and jealousy and there is no cure for it. even the
prophets could not convince the inaadi ignorant.
You have no proofs so you starts to assault my character
And this is the method of the weak people
I'm not jealous nor any thing, I admit that Muhammad Shirazi, Fadhlullah, Muhammad Sadeq al-
Sader has true and correct lineage.
While I admit that some others such as Khomini his lineage is false.
So if I was jealous I would deny all the lineages, not only the lineage of some people.
I'm a Muslims and I follow Islam, so according to Islam I should not tell lies nor cheat, if some one
his lineage is false so I have to declare the truth, while if some one his lineage is true so I have to
accept it and admit.
Quote
finally, i say to you that, i ahve given you calssical references earlier and other books of the
past that prove shaykh was a syed
This books not examine the lineage of Gilani
Its just copy/paste the lineage
And this is not a proof
even i can copy/paste (or create) a fake lineage
Quote
also shaykhs own book f qasida, which has twelve qasaid in it. in one of them which is known
as qasida khamariyya, he himself says 'annul hasani wa mikhda maqami. i am a hasani syed.
Why you using double standers ?
The poem of al-Darqutni (which says Allah sit on throne) the Sufis rejecting it because the chain
of narration is weak
While the Sufis accept the poem of Gilani !!
Post the chain of the poem, otherwise it will be considered as useless statement
Quote
next you will say that his diwaan is not reliable then one can say then what about diwaan abu
talib, diwaan imam ali(A) etc
Any poem of Imam Ali's diwan been cited from a hadith book with correct chain, so its reliable
poem
While the poems which dont got reliable chain of narration, so its unreliable
Actually the diwan of Imam Ali is a collection of some poems from hadith and history books, just
like Nahjul Balagha, al-Sharif al-Radhi collected the sermons of Imam Ali from hadith and history
books
Quote
be consistent and do not request from others something else and have your own standard of
proving
I dont have my own standards
I follow the standards which is written in usool books (Sunni & Shia) and in genealogy books
While you the one who not following the standards, and maybe that because you lack knowledge
and need to read more books
Quote
YOU ARE A LIAR ON TWO ACCOUNTS
Ok we will see now who is the big liar and cunning
Quote
1. YOU ARE A LIAR WHEN YOU SAY IMAM KHOMIEIN WAS NOT SYED.
I demand you to post the lineage of Khomini, otherwise you will be the liar
Just to make it clear for the readers, personally I respect Khomini as a scholars and I appreciate
all his deeds for Islam, but I dont mix up the truth with falsehood
If Khomini's lineage is false, so I say the truth about that.
And that wont belittle the Khomini, cause Allah said { O mankind! We created you from a single
(pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other
(not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he
who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all
things).} 049.013
Quote
2. YOU ARE ALSO A LIAR WHEN YOU SAY SHAYKH SYED ABDUL QADIR JILANI WAS
NOT SYED.
Ok its the time now to prove the falsehood of his lineage which is been copied by some Sufis
The linage of Gilani as Sheikh Sheblanji recorded in his book "Noor al-Absar" page 315 is as
following
Abdulqader son of Musa son of Abdullah son of Yahya son of Muhammad son of Dawoud son of
Musa son of Abdullah son of Musa son of Abdullah son of Hassan son of Hassan son of Ali bin
Abi Talib
The defect in that lineage is that Yahya didnt had a son named Abdullah
Ibn Enba in his book "Umdat al-Talib" page 129 said:
The progeny of Yahya bin Muhammad ibn al-Romya is from three men : Muhammad, Ahmad, and
Ali.
Ibn al-Taqtqi in his book "al-Asili" page 96
And Yahya bin Muhammad bin Dawod his progeny is from his son Muhammad
And thats the reason which made the genealogists rejecting the lineage of Abdulqader Gilani, no
any genealogist mentioned a son named Abdullah for Yahya
So those who claim that the lineage of Gilani is true, they have to provide the legal evident, hey
have to post a paragraph from any genealogy book which is mentioning the following points
1- Yahya's progeny, which the genealogist mentioning Abdullah among Yahya's sons
2- Abdullah's progeny, which the genealogist mentioning the progeny of Abdullah and mentioning
Musa among them.
If any one brought such thing, then Abdulqader Gilani lineage will be considered as authentic
And I'm sure its impossible to prove it, cause already Ibn Enba, Ibn al-Taqtaqi and others tried a
lot to find one genealogist, but they couldnt.
Ibn Enba who was born in 748 AH and died in 828 AH, said in his book page 130
There is no way to prove the authenticity of this lineage except through a clear evident and that
what Qazi Abu Saleh failed to do.
Abu Saleh is the grand son of Abdulqader Gilani, who failed to prove the authenticity of his
lineage when he beed questioned by some genealogists
Ibn al-Taqtaqi who was born in 660AH and died in 709AH in his book "al-Asili" said:
There is no legal evidence proving its (lineage) authenticity, therefore its not accepted.
Ibn Zuhra al-Rifaei (a Sufi) in his book "Ghayat al-Ekhtysar" page 29
The genealogists dont believe in it and declare that they are fake progeny, Sheikh Abdulqader
may Allah's mercy be upon him was a pious man, honored and righteous, he never attributed this
lineage to himself, but his grandsons attributed the lineage to them seleves, and he (Gilani)
belongs to Bateshbar tribe.
Quote

Anti-Salafi
Abdaal
Member
Abdaal
Banned
2
4,007 posts
Anti-salafi said:
No need to use Mu'awyia's technique in propaganda
Its not necessary to say sayed when ever I mention his name, and that not means I dont
respect him or I dont love him may Allah be pleased with him
Dont you see that Bukhari mentioning Imam Ali without using sayed or imam
Dont you see Ahmad ibn Hanbal mentioning Imam Ali without using sayed or imam
Don't you see Abu Hanifa mentioning Imam Ali without using sayed or imam
So are these Sunni scholars full of hate attitude ??
There is no double standards here. The traditional hadith compilers did show respect towards the
Ahlul bayt. Its the later printouts of the hadiths that removed the respect.
Aishah, may Allah be pleased with her, used alayhas salam for Fatimah, may Allah be pleased
with her, in the following hadith:

There may be many more, but I found several others.
In musnad Ahmad:
This uses alayhimas salam (peace be on them both) for Ali and Abbas, who were both from the
Ahlul Bayt (in the Sunni view).
In Sunan Abi Dawud,
Here it is only for Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, and alayhis salam is used.
Another one in Sunan Abi Dawud, for Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, also,http://hadith.al-
islam.com/dis...=3927&doc=4:
Also, in Sunan Abi Dawud, of Imam Ali:
In Sahih Al-Bukhari, for Imams Ali and Al-Hassan,
Of Imam Ali, in Sunan Abi Dawud,
Imam Bukhari, on the authority of Aishah, may Allah be pleased with her, http://hadith.al-
islam.com/dis...=3435&doc=0:
In addition, Imam Bukhari, in his book of Manaqib (merits) titles all the other Sahabah (including
Ali, Hassan and Hussayn etc) with radiyallahu anhu, but exclusively uses alayhas salam for
Fatimah, may Allah be pleased with her.
Another similar hadith in Bukhari,
Also, Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, used alayhas salam for his wife in Sahih Bukhari,
In musnad Ahmad,
On the authority of Anas, in Sahih Al-Bukhari,
In addition, Imam Bukhari, in his book of Manaqib (merits) as well as Imam Muslim in his Fadailus
Sahabah (merits of Sahabah) chapter, title all the other Sahabah (including Ali, Hassan and
Hussayn etc) with radiyallahu anhu, but exclusively use alayhas salam for Fatimah, may Allah be
pleased with her.
Edited March 17, 2009 by Abdaal
Quote
Sijistani
Member
Sijistani
Unregistered
2
450 posts
Anti-salafi said:
I accept the statements of ibn Enaba if its related to genealogy
Ibn Enba is a genealogist
He is your only way out, how many times will you repeat his name? Who else is there besides
him? Is Taqtaqi a genealogist?
Quote
Dont you agree with me if a Christian chemist said Oxygen + Hydrogen = water , all the
Muslims will believe him and accept his statement
While if the same person said Father + Son + Holy Spirit = God, the Muslims will reject his
statement
Is that double standers ? no its not
Because he is a Chemist so we accept his statements in Chemistry, while in other issues

theology, cosmology, genealogy, biology etc we refer to the right persons.
irrelevant chat
Quote
proved nothing
indeed you proved nothing
Quote
I provided evidence from famous genealogy books
Which famous ones? Is ibn Enba famous? Who is taqtaqi?
Quote
You reminded me by an idiot Egyptian Salafi scholar
When my revert friend said to him the hadith exist in Sahih Muslim page 151
The Salafi scholars said: liaaaaar, the hadith is in page 158 :!!!:
chit-chat
Quote
By the way, ibn al-Jawzy he only copy/paste the lineage of Abdulqader Gilani, and this is
useless, cause he didnt examine the lineage as the genealogists do
Yes ibn al-Jawzy copy pasted long time ago :lol:
Quote
You have no proofs
Indeed you have no proof, except chit-chat, favourite ibn Enba, and Taqtaqi, whoever they are
Quote
Its just copy/paste the lineage
Like you have been copy pasting from a (certain salafi website?) until now
Quote
even i can copy/paste (or create) a fake lineage
No you do not copy fake stuff, because you tell the truth, but you do copy ibn Enba and Taqtaqi
Quote
The poem of al-Darqutni (which says Allah sit on throne) the Sufis rejecting it because the
chain of narration is weak
While the Sufis accept the poem of Gilani !!
Can any sane person tell me, do the above two statements make any sense at all? I call the
above paranoia
Quote
Post the chain of the poem, otherwise it will be considered as useless statement
oh oh
Quote
Ok its the time now to prove the falsehood of his lineage
Sheblanji "Noor al-Absar" page 315
Ibn Enba "Umdat al-Talib" page 129 said:
Ibn al-Taqtqi "al-Asili" page 96
Ibn Enba who was born in 748 AH and died in 828 AH, said in his book page 130
Ibn al-Taqtaqi who was born in 660AH and died in 709AH in his book "al-Asili" said:
Ibn Zuhra al-Rifaei (a Sufi) in his book "Ghayat al-Ekhtysar" page 29
the above is just copy paste from that website. this guy is just repetitively copy pasting from the
same website again and again.
Quote
Ibn Enba, Ibn al-Taqtaqi and others
Who is 'others'?
I told everybody on this site, that you will not see any other names to disprove Sayidna Shaykh
Abdal Qadir Jaylani's lineage besides those I pointed out from that particular site, ask anti-salafi
why?
dr abdal-jawad al-kulaidar
abu nasr bukhari
abu nidham muayyaduddeen ashtari
muhammad bin ahmad ameedi
Umari
Sirajuddeen rifai
Tajuddeen ibn Zuhra
Sharif rifai
ibn maimoon
amiddudeen najafi
ibn taqtaqi
you could add
ibn Enba
Quote
first?

Sijistani
Member
Sijistani
Unregistered
2
450 posts
Anti-salafi said:
You the one who claimed that he is Qaderi, so you the one who have to prove that he is Qaderi
according to the Islamic laws and the rules of debate
Mention reference please
???
Quote
Its a Sufi school (Taryiqa) founded by Sheikh Ahmad Jeshti, and there is some Arabs who
follow this school
Let me make it simpler, do you know anything else about the Jeshtis? Do you know who they
are? You said Ali al-Qari is not a Qadiri, right?
Quote
so can you give me a reference of those many ? or reaching the stars is easier :!!!:
no reaching the ground, and submitting, spitting out all shameless pride is much harder
Quote
How do you know its a copy paste, and not personal investigation ?
Do you have the knowledge of unseen ?
Or do you think all the people just like you, live in forum through copy/paste :lol:
you just copy paste the names above, look over your posts
Quote
My library might be bigger than your bed room
So dont talk rubbish
Why not my house? Your library could be bigger than my house
Quote
They way which you act shows that you even never saw the book's cover
So clearly you do not know a thing about Ghunya even after reading it. Its like an orientalist, he
reads an Islamic work coming out believing the opposite. Blind people.
Quote
Ibn Enba, Ibn al-Taqtaqi, Abu Nasr al-Bukhari
Even I copy pasted these names above
Quote
The Sunni scholars always using the statements of Ibn Enba to prove and disprove some
lineages
really? always?
Quote
For example:
Sheikh Hassan Saqqaf in his book "Majmo Rasael al-Saqqaf" used Ibn Enba's statement to
prove the lineage of some Sufi scholars.
Sheikh Murad Shukri in his book "al-Etehaf" used ibn Enba's statements to disprove the
lineage of some Sufi scholars.
When did hasan saqqaf become a scholar for the Sunnis? :lol:
When did murad shukri become a scholar for the Sunnis? ..excuse me but ????? Murad shukri is
a salafi..so i guess everyone can come now and start bashing the salafis
Quote
Al-Mubarakfuri in his book "Tuhfat al-Ahwazy" volume 7, page 430
Al-Azim Abaadi in his book "Auon al-Mabood" volume 3, page 300
mubarakfuri is a salafi wahabi (extreme anti-shia)
azim abaadi is another one
I told everybody on this site, this guy copies from salafi websites
Quote
first?

LoveImamAli
Member
LoveImamAli
Unregistered
0
1,013 posts
Location:GOLD MINES
Who is Abdul Qadir Jilani, we do not have any shia text praising him. Nor has the Prophet (pbuh)
nor Imams (as) told us anything about this figure.
Can anyone tell us in which Imam (as) period this person lived.
I am sure none of us Shia go to his grave in Baghdad.
Quote
Imam Ali (as) said: World is a place of acquiring knowledge and wisdom
Imam Al Jaffer Sadiq (as) said:
1. Certainly, knowledge is a lock and its key is the question.
2. There are three kinds of people. The scholars, the seekers of knowledge and all the others are
a waste of humanity.
According to Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 24, Number 555:

Of the three things hated by Allah in Sahi Bukhari, one of them is
Allah has hated for you: asking too many questions (in disputed religious matters)
Sahi Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, Number 92: Narrated Abu Musa: The Prophet was asked about
things which he did not like, but when the questioners insisted, the Prophet got angry.
Abdaal
Member
Abdaal
Banned
2
4,007 posts
He was born in the 5th century of the Islamic calendar. As for shia praises he is mentioned in the
text that deal with Irfan. Ibn Arabi (ra) not openly mentioned by the imams or Prophet (sawas), but
many shias still consider him to be a significant figure.
Quote
My blog
Sijistani
Member
Sijistani
Unregistered
2
450 posts
LoveImamAli said:
Who is Abdul Qadir Jilani, we do not have any shia text praising him. Nor has the Prophet
(pbuh) nor Imams (as) told us anything about this figure.
Can anyone tell us in which Imam (as) period this person lived.
I am sure none of us Shia go to his grave in Baghdad.
Only the poor Baghdadi shi'a around Bab al-Shaikh and Nidhal and Fadhl areas go to his grave,
because free food is given there (every Thursday?) not sure about now, as there were serious
bomb blasts in the market nearby killing hundreds of poor shias.
However, LoveImamAli has reminded me about what am I doing on this site? nothing .. sorry for
the disturbance
Shaykh al-Akbar radiallahu anhu is a mujtahid, master of Tasawwuf. He is the master of masters.
During his visit to Damascus (where he is resting today) he had numerous students that spread
all over the Sunni world.
Just recently, Shaykh Muhammad Sukkar, an immense Hanafi Sunni Scholar, the Imam of
Shaykh al-Akbar's Masjid in Damascus passed away. One of his students, Shaykh Samir al-Nass
is quite active in the UK, for those of you who are British, can go and meet him. He is open to
everybody. He has a direct ijaza in recitation in the different ways of recitation of the Qur'an from
Imam 'Ali karamallahu wajhhu
Quote
first?

LoveImamAli
Member
LoveImamAli
Unregistered
0
1,013 posts
Location:GOLD MINES
Thanks for the info.
I do not want to comment on what I do not know.
but have read something about him today from Dr. Tejani Al-Samawi.
Abdul Qadir al Jilani and Musa al Kazim
from his book
Then I Was Guided
Jazakallah
Quote
Imam Ali (as) said: World is a place of acquiring knowledge and wisdom
Imam Al Jaffer Sadiq (as) said:
1. Certainly, knowledge is a lock and its key is the question.
2. There are three kinds of people. The scholars, the seekers of knowledge and all the others are
a waste of humanity.
According to Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 24, Number 555:
Of the three things hated by Allah in Sahi Bukhari, one of them is
Allah has hated for you: asking too many questions (in disputed religious matters)
Sahi Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, Number 92: Narrated Abu Musa: The Prophet was asked about
things which he did not like, but when the questioners insisted, the Prophet got angry.
Skeptic
Skeptic
Basic Members
0
24 posts
Location:uk
I am not going to chit-chat over trivial things otherwise it is sufficient to say that your mentioning
of Imam Zaid ash-shaheed ordinarily is no problem to you yet you present the same name
mentioning by ibn inaba as evidence. For those interested can have a look at previous posts.
However, your entire argument rests primarily on ibn inaba and ibn taqtaqi. And I have said and
proved from our shia brethrens' intellectual website imamreza that ulema there consider both ibn
inaba and taqtaqi to be shia scholars. Hence, our argument that only some amongst shia have
denied the lineage of shaykh Abdul qadir jilani and ahl as-sunna have ijma on the authenticity of
the lineage of the noble shaykh from the second Imam(A).
Bias and prejudice are the motivation in denial of the lineage as well as weak arguments such as
the shaykh never claimed it and it was his grandson who claimed it and that his contemporaries
did not consider him to be a syed. All these charges have been disproved. The shaykh himself
said I am hasani syed in his famous qasida khamariyya which also in his book of twelve qasaid.
Secondly, qadiriyya silsila has that qaseeda as wazeefa and its chain/sanad is muttasil mutawtir
from the shaykh to this day and its chain is the shajra tariqat of qadiriyya itself and there is
unanimous agreement on it. Thirdly, shaykhs elder son syed adur razaqs commentary on futuh
al-ghayb known as fatihat futuh alghayb clearly mentions his lineage from imam hasan al-
mujtaba(A). this also disproves the thesis that his grandson was the first one. Fourthly, Sheikh's
companion and disciple mufti of Iraq, imam abullah bin nasr bin hamza bakri Baghdadi in his
book 'anwaarul naazir' details the lineage of shaykh syed Abdul qadir jilani from Imam Hasan al-
mujtaba(A). so himself, his son and his companion are all saying he was a syed.
Furthermore, as above both ibn inaba and ibn taqtaqi are both shia authors as proven from shia
sources. Also ibn taqtaqi wrote al-aseeli for the shia minister and named it after aseel ad-deen
hasan bin muhaqiq tusi but that is another matter. Also note that you mention (although irrelevent)
abu nasr bukhari (341 AH) as sleight of hand yet did you know that amongst many other shia
nassabeen abu nasr bukhari in sirr silsila al-alawiyya and ibn taqtaqi in his al-aseeli fi ansaab at-
talibeen both also argue for the marriage of syeda umm kulsum(S) with Umar bin Khattab and
kids from it??? So why cant you also argue that these nassabeen know better about these
matters??? Why the double standards? Let me tell you we absolutely deny this nikah but on your
own principles you cannot? Why pick and choose? Also ibn inaba relates a story from grandson
of Imam zaid shaheed and great grandson of imam zain al-abideen(A) that syeda fatmiyya cannot
get married to non syed, miraculously she dies. These three main books that you argue from
have also reports just like lineage that nikah of umm kulsum bint Hayder e Karrar(S) with Umer
bin khattab etcwhy the double standards?
I am not going to reply about your denial of imam Khomeini's siyaadat although the whole ummah
believes him to be a syed and one of the greatest personalities in recent Islamic history. Only
salafi kahbees does that yet you call yourself anti-salafi. What a joke!
Anyway, the one and only sunni source you mention is by makhzumi riafaee(885AH) which has a
big question hanging over it that it is a fabrication and that there is no such person! Internally it
argues for the shaykh being syed and some reports which suggest otherwise. It has both sides
which I will discuss later in detail, for now, you need to understand that in sihah al-akhbaar by
makhzumi rafaee (885AH) reports from shaykh ahmed az-zaburdajdis book ad-dur as-saaqit
how strange that he is reporting from someone that died in 1084AH, two hundred years after
him!!!! More on this and other things about this fictitious book later but for now take off your
glasses of prejudice and think!! This fact alone disproves the book a fabrication. Not to mention
that in it there are reports also that ascertain the siyadat of the shaykh Abdul qadir jilani which
you and those who wrote tanzeeh covered it up! more details on this point inshAllah soon.
Back to the point that there is ijma of ahl as-sunna on hasani nasab of shaykh. I have given you
three refrences from immediate proximity. From the shaykh himself, his son and his companion.
Now, let me detail some more evidences from others in this regard. There are numerous
refrences but in the interest of brevity I will select only a few who have given family tree from the
second Imam(A): remember the shaykh passed away in 561AH.
1. Sibt ibn jawzi (654AH) in two books, ansaab al-qirtaas and mirat az-zamaan both give his
family tree from the second Imam(A). note he is almost two hundred years before the deniar ibn
inaba!
2. Bahjatul asraar by shatnufi (713AH) gives chain and family tree from the second Imam(A). 115
years before ibn inaba.
3. Adhahabi (748AH) famous biographer, in his al-jami lil aayaan
4. Ibn al-wardi (749 AH) in tarikh ibn alwardi.
5. As-safadi (764AH) in his famous 30 volume book of biographies alwafi bil wafyaat
6. Imam ibn hajar asqalani in his al-ghibta
7. Imam ibn rajab hambali in his tabqaat al-hanabila
8. Jamal ad-deen Al-atabakii(874AH) in his an-nujum az-zahira
9. Imam Yafa'ee in his tarikh
10. Imam sakhawi in natijat at-tehqeeq
11. Mulla ali qari hanafi in nuzhat al-khatir
12. Ibn ahdal al-hussaini in his tarikh on the footnotes of al-muntazam by ibn jawzi.
13. Kamal ad-deen al-fauti in his talkhees muajamtul alqaab as well as ibn najjar in his tarikh.
14. Mohammed bin yahay tadufi in his biography of shaykh qalaidul jawahir.
15. Allama annassaba mohammed bin kazim bin futuh in his 9th century book annafkhatul
anmbariya fi ansaab al-kharul bariya
16. Allama anasaba syed mohammed bin ahmed bin ameedudden al-hussaini an-najafi in his 9th
century book bahrul ansaab and alkashaf li usooli sadaat al-ashraaf
17 . Allama ibn emaad hambali (1089ah) in his famous book shadhraatul zahb
18. Shaykh mohammed alhalabi ad-dimashqi (1098AH) in his shamul Mafakhir
19. Mohammed tabari hussaini makki in kashfun niqaab an ansaabil araba
20. Naqib alashraf abul huda rifaee al-hussaini in ashar albatoon al-qarshiya fishshaam
21. Allama anasaba syed jafar al-araji najafi alhussaini (1382AH) in his book manahiludharab fi
ansabul al-arab
I could go on and on from both sunni and shia scholars as above but finally I will give you a link
from shia website which has an online encyclopedia on lineage of saadat and banu hashim in
iraq. Check the last name chausiya where it is clearly stated that shaykh was hasani syed.
This should leave no room for an objective person. We have our sectarian differences but
argument should be with that not with lineage.
Quote
Anti-salafi
Member
Anti-salafi
Advanced Members
1
159 posts
As every one can see
These Sunni guys unable to prove the linage of Abdulqader Gilani and they just repeating the
same statements again
Listen
By answering my questions the debate will be ended.
This is my questions again, give a direct answer, I dont want rubbish talks
post a paragraph from any genealogy book which is mentioning the following points
1- Yahya's progeny, which the genealogist mentioning Abdullah among Yahya's sons
2- Abdullah's progeny, which the genealogist mentioning the progeny of Abdullah and mentioning
Musa among them.
i will add extra questions
Quote
The shaykh himself said I am hasani syed in his famous qasida khamariyya which also in his
book of twelve qasaid. Secondly, qadiriyya silsila has that qaseeda as wazeefa and its
chain/sanad is muttasil mutawtir from the shaykh to this day and its chain is the shajra tariqat of
qadiriyya itself and there is unanimous agreement on it.
post the chain of narration of the poem
Quote
Thirdly, shaykhs elder son syed adur razaqs commentary on futuh al-ghayb known as fatihat
futuh alghayb clearly mentions his lineage from imam hasan al-mujtaba(A). this also disproves
the thesis that his grandson was the first one
post the book's chain of narration
I would like to notify the reader to that he will not give direct answer, because answering these
questions means disproving the lineage of Abdulqader by himself, and we will see that he will
keep running away from these questions
I would like to notify the readers to the cunning way which he use in dialogue, he rejecting Ibn
Enba and Ibn al-Taqtaqi in excuse of being Shia
While all the Sunnis & Sufi rely on Ibn Enba
So look at the double standards
Quote

Anti-Salafi
Sijistani
Member
Sijistani
Unregistered
2
450 posts
Anti-salafi said:
While all the Sunnis & Sufi rely on Ibn Enba
*All* Sunnis?
& *All* Sufis?
Who? Hasan Saqqaf? Shukri?
Quote
first?

Anti-salafi
Member
Anti-salafi
Advanced Members
1
159 posts

Quote
Who? Hasan Saqqaf? Shukri?
First of all, these two names were only examples, cause its not logical to mention hundred of
names
But if you need to know more, so the Ba Alwys Sufis in Yemen rely on Ibn Enba
The Hasanis in Morocco rely on Ibn Enba
Please Sunnis, dont waste my time by asking childish questions
I posted 4 questions which will end the debate
So answer the 4 questions to prove the lineage of Abdulqader Gilani
Quote

Anti-Salafi
Sijistani
Member
Sijistani
Unregistered
2
450 posts
Anti-salafi said:
First of all, these two names were only examples, cause its not logical to mention hundred of
names
But if you need to know more, so the Ba Alwys Sufis in Yemen rely on Ibn Enba
The Hasanis in Morocco rely on Ibn Enba
Please Sunnis, dont waste my time by asking childish questions
I posted 4 questions which will end the debate
So answer the 4 questions to prove the lineage of Abdulqader Gilani
You mean, the Ba Alawis in Yemen rely on ibn enba to reject the lineage of Sidna Abdal Qadir
Jaylani? How come all of a sudden you went from salafi/wahabis to *all* sunnis and sufis. And
how come especially the Ba Alawis and the *Hassanis* in Morocco?
Quote
first?

Skeptic
Skeptic
Basic Members
0
24 posts
Location:uk
brother anti-salafi, it is quite obvious that you are stuck with ibn inaba and taqtaqi, the latter
arguing from science of ansaab that umm kulsum bint Ali(S) was married to Hazrat umer bin
khattab, which we dont believe in but what is wrong here? isnt nassaba now the final word? you
are just wasting everyone's time. if all the nassabeen and historians are repeating the same
nasab-chain for the shaykh then it just shows that how conclusive the nasab is rather then people
giving different names? do you understand? as for your request then just look at shia nassabeen
amongst the list who have also confirmed the links in the nasab. please go through all of them , if
not then just see the link from shia website 'imamreza' link and read all of it at the end, it is not
sunni but shia. brethren that produced the encyclopedia....however, there are much greater
evidences in the list which you ignore and just continue with the monologue! the the world does
not end with ibn inanba and taqtaqi whilst those BEFORE them are bearing witness to the nasab
such book on geneologist and jurist sibt ibn jawzi's work on geneology. he is before both of your
champions!
i leave for others to make their minds up. i have given more books and more authentic scholars's
then you could ever muster in this regard. please read my posts again and all shia-sunni brethren
can ascertain....what happened to all the issues we raised regarding your evidences and books.
where did your single sunni stalwart ficticious makhzumi rifaae go? what about questions on ibn
inaba's other factual stories that you reject? what about taqtaqi's nikah of syeda umm kulsum.
what if kahbees salafis put the same argument to you that since it is reported by a geneologist
who is also shia so we reject anyother evidence because he is a nassaba and he has the final
word about nikah and so called children from the nikah? what happens now? on what basis would
you reject your geneologist? not to forget abu nasr bukhari (341AH), who has nothing to do with
our matter but he also says the same about nikah and you take his wrod for being a geneologist!
come on brother come out of the well and see there is a world beyond it. Imam khomeini was
also not syed according to you. yeah, you know better and the thousands of ayatollahs and ulema
from Qum sharif dont? wake up mate and smell the coffee.
Ya ALI bin Musa ar-Reza al-madad(alayhisalaam)!

Quote
Anti-salafi
Member
Anti-salafi
Advanced Members
1
159 posts

Quote
You mean, the Ba Alawis in Yemen rely on ibn enba to reject the lineage of Sidna Abdal Qadir
Jaylani?
No, I mean the Ba Alwis rely on Ibn Enba to prove that the Ba Alwi lineage is correct
---
As the readers can see by their own eyes
The Sufis are unable to prove the lineage of Abdulqader Gilani and they run away from my
question by twisting the dialogue from Abdulqader Gilani to other topics
I will not waste my time by answering questions which has nothing to do with the topic which is
(abdul Qadir Jilani / Syed or No?)
Waiting for some one to answer my questions about Gilani's lineage
I'm pretty sure that no one can and no one could since hundred years ago
Quote

Anti-Salafi
Skeptic
Skeptic
Basic Members
0
24 posts
Location:uk
dear brother anti-salafi, i was having a dialogue and you were having a monologue!
Quote
Anti-salafi
Member
Anti-salafi
Advanced Members
1
159 posts
Dear brother Skeptic, its my pleaser to have a dialogue with a polity person like you, but my time
is very very short particularly this month and next month, therefore I hade to cut down the
dialogue and make it a short debate focusing on the main points only to reach to a final
conclusion as soon as possible.
So if you like to have a dialogue and discuss every tiny issue, I will be ready for it when I get free
in the end of April.
Quote

Anti-Salafi
Skeptic
Skeptic
Basic Members
0
24 posts
Location:uk
although we have presented authentic references from all ages from reliable renowned sources
belonging to historians, biographers and geneologists, from both sunni and shia scholars of the
past. some sources predate by hundereds of years the ones presented by our brother. yet our
brother would still some personal reason refuses to accpet that shaykh syed abdul qadir jilani
was a syed and not only that but along the way says that Imam Khomieni was not syed either
as if he knows more than mujtahids, ayatollahs and ulema in Qum sharif. anyway, what i am
saying that there is overwhelming evidence on the matter from both sunni and shia ulema in this
regard, for those interested can view previous posts such as post no. 57.
there is nothing else that can be said in this regard. the whole argument by the brother is based
on two shia scholars, people who came much later such as ibn inaba, who was 264 years later
and the other ibn taqtaqi was 148 years later although sources before them vouch for the
siyaadat of the shaykh. i asked him a question, for instance, that the same person argues that
umer bin khattab married to syeda umm kulsum bint Ali(s) etc but yet he is not ready to accpet
the same person for the same matter on geneology (which we also vehemntly deny) but is
adamant that he does not mention shaykhs forefather therefore shaykh is not syed. all i am
saying is that overwhelming majority of sunnis and also shias accept that he was syed. the
differences are of sectarian nature and not on nasab.
the dear brother, ignores all other geneologists, historians and biographers and just because
these two agree with his point of view he argues from them and that too only for things that go in
his favour and not the things that go against him yet it is also matter of geneology and is in the
same books. what can you say to that but that he has some personal agenda of declaring shaykh
abdul qadir jilani and imam khomeini as non-syed.
when you look at what he presents meticulously then what do you, you find that even what he
presents, there is discrepancy between the two in number of sons:
Quote

The progeny of Yahya bin Muhammad ibn al-Romya is from three men : Muhammad, Ahmad,
and Ali.
Ibn al-Taqtqi in his book "al-Asili" page 96
And Yahya bin Muhammad bin Dawod his progeny is from his son Muhammad
first one, ibn inanba(828AH) says that Yahya az-zahid's progeny is from three sons, mohammed,
ahmed and ali.
but other one, ibn taqtaqi who was earlier in time by 119 years says that his progeny is from ONE
son Mohammed.
there is discrepancy between the two. three sons and only son....who is right? both are
geneologists. if we were to argue from this we can say that why didnt ibn taqtaqi earlier in time
not mention three sons but only one? why????
whatever is your answer is also my answer. note that other geneologists and historians and
biographers as in post 57 have confirmed both before in time to these two and after in time.
wassalaam. i have nothing else to say but remind us that objectivity is of the essence. i had
cynical opinion of shia before but after meetin with shia brothers and reading their books in terms
of evidence i have changed many of my opinions because " a wise man proportions his belief
according to the evidence"
Ya Ghareeb al-ghuraba(a)
Quote
Anti-salafi
Member
Anti-salafi
Advanced Members
1
159 posts
Quote
although we have presented authentic references from all ages from reliable renowned
sources belonging to historians, biographers and geneologists, from both sunni and shia scholars
of the past. some sources predate by hundereds of years the ones presented by our brother. yet
our brother would still some personal reason refuses to accpet that shaykh syed abdul qadir
jilani was a syed and not
Brother please try to understand
In genealogy there is particular standards for considering the reference as evident
The references which you provided is not acceptable by the genealogists because those book
copy/paste the lineage of Abdulqader Gilani only
Its not examine the lineage of Abdulqader as genealogy book.

To make it easy for you, if there is a chainless hadith, so this hadith is unacceptable even if it was
recorded in hundreds of reliable book.
I hope you get the point
Quote
there is nothing else that can be said in this regard. the whole argument by the brother is
based on two shia scholars,
I posted some texts from their books shows that they are not Shia
So can you post from their books some thing proves that they are shia ?
Quote
who came much later such as ibn inaba, who was 264 years later and the other ibn taqtaqi was
148 years later
This is not a defect
History books been written hundreds of years after prophet Muhammad
Hadith books been written hundreds of years after prophet Muhammad
So what is the problem in that ?
Quote
i asked him a question, for instance, that the same person argues that umer bin khattab
married to syeda umm kulsum bint Ali(s) etc but yet he is not ready to accpet the same person for
the same matter on geneology
I checked Ibn Enba's book but I couldnt find that !!
On the contrary in page 32 it was written that Um Kulthum was married to Muslim bin Aqeel
Quote
the dear brother, ignores all other geneologists, historians and biographers and just because
these two agree with his point of view
You have to provide me a genealogist who said that Yahya had a son named Abdullah, and I will
accept the lineage of Abdulqader
Its so simple
Quote
first one, ibn inanba(828AH) says that Yahya az-zahid's progeny is from three sons,
mohammed, ahmed and ali.
but other one, ibn taqtaqi who was earlier in time by 119 years says that his progeny is from
ONE son Mohammed.
there is discrepancy between the two. three sons and only son....who is right?
Both of them agreed that there is no son named Abdullah, and this is our point :D
but running away from this point to other points which is not our topic i dont think its helping you
Because both of them agreed that Muhammad is the son of Yahya
While they disagreed about Ahmad and Ali.
According to genealogy method and usool method, we will look at other genealogists statements,
if they mentioned Ahmad and Ali so we will consider them as progeny of Yahya.
If they doesnt mention them so we will not consider them as progeny of Yahya.
If the other genealogists disagreed (some says as the statement of Ibn Enba, while others says
as the statement of Ibn Taqtqi) Ahmad and Ali will be considered "Nasab Mawquf"
Quote

Anti-Salafi
Skeptic
Skeptic
Basic Members
0
24 posts
Location:uk
Quote
While they disagreed about Ahmad and Ali.
on what basis? one says three sons and the other says one son...who is right?
you cannot just ignore all those tens of scholars who came before and after, who all agree that he
was syed. your arguments rely on the two shia scholars as referenced earlier from shia sources
that they are shia. on your part it is animosity and there is no other explanation. the mere fact that
the two ibn inaba and ibn taqtaqi disagree between themselves in the number of sons proves the
point that they do not have 'absolute' knowledge. if one was to rely on the one that was earlier
and claim that ibn inaba got it wrong then what? another one like you, can argue that ibn inanba
got it wrong and taqtaqi was right because he was 148 years earlier? i think, you have some sort
of personal vendetta and after seeing tens of evidences you still singing from the same hym book.
however, shaykh himself said he was syed and and the evidence for it is his qaseeda
khamariyya, which is mutawatir transmission and the chain for it is the shajra tariqat of qadri
silsila which spread around the world and i can give you my own shajra of tariqat for that. the
qaseeda is a wazifa which is part of qadri mamulaat and everyone who is qadri does vird of it,
whether in africa or asia. his son said in his commentry of futuh that he was syed. his comapnion
said that he was syed, check previous references. the shia brothers agree that he was syed in the
encyclopeadia as referenced above, the list goes on and on...
those higlighted below are the 'shia' geneologists:
Quote
inaba!
2. Bahjatul asraar by shatnufi (713AH) gives chain and family tree from the second Imam(A).
115 years before ibn inaba.
anmbariya fi ansaab al-kharul bariya16. Allama anasaba syed mohammed bin ahmed bin
ameedudden al-hussaini an-najafi in his 9th century book bahrul ansaab and alkashaf li usooli
sadaat al-ashraaf
19. Mohammed tabari hussaini makki in kashfun niqaab an ansaabil araba20. Naqib alashraf
abul huda rifaee al-hussaini in ashar albatoon al-qarshiya fishshaam
21. Allama anasaba syed jafar al-araji najafi alhussaini (1382AH) in his book manahiludharab
fi ansabul al-arabI could go on and on from both sunni and shia scholars as above but finally I
will give you a link from shia website which has an online encyclopedia on lineage of saadat and
banu hashim in iraq. Check the last name chausiya where it is clearly stated that shaykh was
hasani syed.
http://www.imamreza.net/arb/imamreza.php?id=1781This should leave no room for an

objective person. We have our sectarian differences but argument should be with that not with
lineage
and as for your chain claim, the if i was to ask you about the chain of ibn taqtaqi, then can you
provide it? go on lets see! and prove through the chain all those things that you ask from me?
what about nikah fo umm kulsum bint ali(S) in abu nasr bukhari and ibn taqtaqi...on what basis do
you deny those? you cannot prove from the same basis that you ask from me. i leave for others
to judge whether both shaykh syed abdul qadir jilani and Imam Khomieni were syed. my point is
that who between ibn taqtaqi and ibn inaba is right about three sons and one only? this proves
that they were not know all and be all but others had knolwledge of what they out of bias in our
case didnt state and out of lack of knwoledge didnt know about the number of sons three or one.
this means that other geneologists and historians were aware that there were other sons hence
they stated. 121.
Quote
Sunni786YaAli
Member
Sunni786YaAli
Advanced Members
0
231 posts
Location:London
not true he had many titles,
and he was also known as hazrat "sayyed" aqbdul qadir jilani aswell and ghaus-al-azam. his
lineage connected with both hazrat imam hassan and hussain after 10 generations therefore he
was known as hassni and hussaini his parents belonged to both decendants, he was a great sufi
because of this great connection from hazrat imam hassan and hussains side.
waslam
Quote
Anti-salafi
Member
Anti-salafi
Advanced Members
1
159 posts
Unfortuantly brother Skeptic is running away from my questions by asking some questions which
is not related to Abdulqader Gilani lineage
Quote
on what basis? one says three sons and the other says one son...who is right?
Ibn Enba and Ibn al-Taqtaqi relied on some ancient books to prove the lineages, cause in every
century the genealogists completing the works of the previous genealogists because in every
century a new progeny born so its needed to be recorded and attached to their forefathers
Some lineages there is disagreement about it, just like some hadiths of prophet (s) there is
disagreement about it.
In general the disagreements about the lineages is few and limited.
So as I mentioned before, if we found a disagreement we will look at the other genealogists

statements, and via that we can know who is right and who is wrong.
Ali and Ahmad arent our topic, so no need to waste time by quoting other genealogists
statements to see who is right
Quote
you cannot just ignore all those tens of scholars who came before and after, who all agree that
he was syed.
We have to ignore them
Because those scholars are specialized in jurisprudence, Quran etc.
While genealogy is totally a different science, and they never studied the science of genealogy, so
how you want us to accept their statements ?
Beside that they only posted the lineage of Abdulqader as the Qaderis claimed
They didnt examined the lineage, nor they quoted the lineage from a genealogy book
So we have to ignore them as you ignoring the marriage of Um kulthom although tens of Sunni
scholars confirmed it
Quote
your arguments rely on the two shia scholars
Can you post a statement from their own books admitting that they are Shia ?
I already posted some texts from his book shows clearly that he is not Shia
Quote
i think, you have some sort of personal vendetta and after seeing tens of evidences you still
singing from the same hym book.
So post a statement from any genealogists saying that Yahya had some named Abdullah, and
that will end the conflict
Quote
however, shaykh himself said he was syed and and the evidence for it is his qaseeda
khamariyya, which is mutawatir transmission and the chain for it is the shajra tariqat of qadri
silsila which spread around the world and i can give you my own shajra of tariqat for that.
This is not acceptable, because every book and poem has its own chain of narration, and usually
the chain is written on the manuscripts
So we need the chain of the poem, not the chain of the Tariqah
The chain of the Tariqah is some thing different
Beside that its not mu[Edited Out]ir as you claim, because the mu[Edited Out]ir needs to be
narrated by ten students at least from Abdulqader Gilani himself
You have to learn the rules of Mu[Edited Out]ir
Quote
and as for your chain claim, the if i was to ask you about the chain of ibn taqtaqi, then can you
provide it? go on lets see! and prove through the chain all those things that you ask from me?
you the one who claim that Abdulqader is Alavi, so you the one who needed to provide proof not
me
what's wrong to you ? dont you know the rules of debate ?
the first rule, proof is required from the claimer
Quote
what about nikah fo umm kulsum bint ali(S) in abu nasr bukhari and ibn taqtaqi...on what basis
do you deny those?
I checked Abu Nasr al-Bukhari book, he even didnt mention Um Kulthom at all, he only
mentioned the male progeny
Seems you arguing without knowledge
First you said Ibn Enba sayd that Um Kulthom was married to Umar, and when I checked the
book, it was written that she was married to Muslim bin Aqeel
Please bro next time post the texts and dont throw words blindly, because I dont like to discuss
some one who has no knowledge
Quote
my point is that who between ibn taqtaqi and ibn inaba is right about three sons and one only?
Our topic is Abdullah
So dont run away to another topic
Ali and Ahmad can be considered as "Nasab Mawquf" at least they were mentioned some where
But Abdullah is not mentioned at all
which means both are right in Abdullah's issue
Quote
this means that other geneologists and historians were aware that there were other sons hence
they stated. 121.
Ok post for me the statement of one genealogist which says Yahya had some named Abdullah
No need to waste time by running to other topics
Quote

Anti-Salafi
Skeptic
Skeptic
Basic Members
0
24 posts
Location:uk
Quote
Ibn Enba and Ibn al-Taqtaqi relied on some ancient books to prove the lineages, cause in every
century the genealogists completing the works of the previous genealogists because in every
century a new progeny born so its needed to be recorded and attached to their forefathers
Some lineages there is disagreement about it, just like some hadiths of prophet (s) there is
disagreement about it.
In general the disagreements about the lineages is few and limited.
So as I mentioned before, if we found a disagreement we will look at the other genealogists

statements, and via that we can know who is right and who is wrong.
Ali and Ahmad arent our topic, so no need to waste time by quoting other genealogists
statements to see who is right
of course, it is our topic. both are shia geneologists as vouched for by rijaal work on imamreza
shia website, written by ulema, who surely are more qualified then you! i gave you 21 books both
predating in time and after, great imams of their fields that declared the geneology of shaykh syed
abdul qadir jilnai to be from imam hasan mujaba(a) and you are just blinded by animosity. sibt ibn
jawzi (654AH) work is on geneology, which is specialised treatise and is much earlier then both
your shia authors!
you do not understand tasawwuf and how 'ijaza' is given for vird and waszaif hence cannot
understand the issue. the shaykh gives permission to read such and such wazeefa to his
disciples and from shaykh through his tens of diciples, there is ijaza of qasida khamariyya as vird.
so if you go africa, find qadri silsila and ask if they ijaaza for such and such wazifa then they will
tell yes, and here is the chain. however, this is just to explain irfaan methodology to you who deos
not know how it works.
ibn inanba (828AH) and ibn taqtaqi(709AH), one who is ealrier says he had 'ONE' son and the
latter says 'THREE SONS'.... they have discrepancy about how many sons of the SAME person
from whom he had descendents, who was more than two hundred years before taqtaqi and more
than three hundred years before ibn inaba!!!. this relevent to everything our discussion and you
are saying it not! cant you see that they are making 'MISTAKES' ? ibn taqtaqi who wrote aseeli
after a shia minister is saying that 'ONE' son, the other is saying THREE sons. If the first one was
MISINFORMED and he was a GENEOLOGIST too then Ibn Inaba was also mistaken when he
said ONLY three sons.
you are saying that what i presented from 21 books from all ages and from geneologists,
historians and biographers of the highest repute is UNRELIABLE, and iam saying to you that your
ONLY two scholars by you are EXTRA-UNRELIABlE becuase of both being shia and biased
towards the shaykh and as proof for their being shia has been provided from Imamreza link,
which is giving you rijaal work. now, as you said, best people to tell us about 'rijaal' are the 'rijaal'
works. not your own personal cut/paste because then it justifies your own homemade fatawaz.
ibn taqtaqi mentions nikah of umm kulsum(s) with son zaid! i dont believe in it but just to let you
know.
however, here below are three SHIA geneologists also that say he was syed and i have done
itmaam e hujjat from all aspects. from geneolists, biographers and historians yet you are giving
ONLY two refrences who even dont agree between themselves as to the number of sons. this
proves they are PRONE to error in their geneology details hence proving our point that you
cannot take them as absolute evidence.
Quote
if we found a disagreement we will look at the other genealogists statements, and via that we
can know who is right and who is wrong.
not because what i have presented does not have geneogists but i will give you shia geneologist
that have said he was syed. i have nothing else to say to you anymore, because it is clear that
you are motivated by jealousy and hate.
1.geneologist:Alllama mohammed bin kazim bin futuh in his 9th century book annafkhatul
2.geneologist:Allama syed mohammed bin ahmed bin ameedudden al-hussaini an-najafi in his
9th century book bahrul ansaab and alkashaf li usooli sadaat al-ashraaf
3.geneologist:Allama syed jafar al-araji najafi alhussaini (1382AH) in his book manahiludharab fi
ansabul al-arab
shia encyclopedia of geneology:http://www.imamreza.net/arb/imamreza.php?id=1781
121.
Quote
Skeptic
Skeptic
Basic Members
0
24 posts
Location:uk
finally, here is another shia 'geneologist' from 5th century AH, even earlier the ibn taqtaqi! no
need to translate now but for your eyes only:
authors name and book name and researcher:

nikah statement:

Quote
Anti-salafi
Member
Anti-salafi
Advanced Members
1
159 posts
Quote
of course, it is our topic. both are shia geneologists as vouched for by rijaal work on imamreza
shia website, written by ulema, who surely are more qualified then you!
First of all they not more qualifed than me, because these people also consider al-Masoodi as
Shia although the Sunni scholars declared that he is a Sunni such as Imam Subki, Hassan al-
Saqqaf and Mahmooad Saeed Mamdouh
in addition Masoodi's books shows that he is Sunni
the same case we have here, Ibn Enaba in his book showed that he is not Shia
so do you reject the statement of Ibn Enaba himself and follow a website written by unknown ?
you are really strange and running against the rules
Quote
i gave you 21 books both predating in time and after, great imams of their fields that declared
the geneology of shaykh syed abdul qadir jilnai to be from imam hasan mujaba(a) and you are
just blinded by animosity. sibt ibn jawzi (654AH) work is on geneology, which is specialised
treatise and is much earlier then both your shia authors!
Seems I'm talking to a wall not to a human
I tolled you many times ago, that there is some standards for using a book as reference to prove
the lineage of some
A- the book must be genealogy book
B- the lineage in the book must be examined not just copy/paste
So can you post a text from any of these books which you repeating it every time
Quote
you do not understand tasawwuf and how 'ijaza' is given for vird and waszaif hence cannot
understand the issue. the shaykh gives permission to read such and such wazeefa to his
disciples and from shaykh through his tens of diciples, there is ijaza of qasida khamariyya as vird.
so if you go africa, find qadri silsila and ask if they ijaaza for such and such wazifa then they will
tell yes, and here is the chain. however, this is just to explain irfaan methodology to you who deos
not know how it works.
Dont lie to your self
Each book, each letter, each poem got a particular chain of narration
You cant mix it up with the chain of Taryiqqa
Quote
ibn inanba (828AH) and ibn taqtaqi(709AH), one who is ealrier says he had 'ONE' son and the
latter says 'THREE SONS'.... they have discrepancy about how many sons of the SAME person
from whom he had descendents, who was more than two hundred years before taqtaqi and more
than three hundred years before ibn inaba!!!.
There is no any problem in their disagreement about Ali and Ahmad, because we not discussing
the progeny of Ali and Ahmad
We discussing Abdullah, is he real character or fabricated character
Ibn Enaba and Ibn al-Taqtaqi didnt mention him at all, the other genealogists also didnt
mentioned him either
So we conclude that Abdullah is fabricated character and do not exist.
Quote
you are saying that what i presented from 21 books from all ages and from geneologists,
historians and biographers of the highest repute is UNRELIABLE, and iam saying to you that your
ONLY two scholars by you are EXTRA-UNRELIABlE becuase of both being shia and biased
towards the shaykh and as proof for their being shia has been provided from Imamreza link,
which is giving you rijaal work. now, as you said, best people to tell us about 'rijaal' are the 'rijaal'
works. not your own personal cut/paste because then it justifies your own homemade fatawaz.
ibn taqtaqi mentions nikah of umm kulsum(s) with son zaid! i dont believe in it but just to let you
know.
Not only these two
Ibn Zuhra al-Refaei, who is Sunni Sufi died in 753 H, he declared that the lineage of Abdulqader
is false
Umar bin Muhammad al-Ashtari who is a Sunni Sufi died in 787 AH, he declared in his book (al-
Thabt al-Musan) that the lineage of Abdulqader is false.
Seraj al-Deen al-Refai who is Sunni Sufi died in 885 AH he also denied the lineage of Abdulqader
These are three Sufi genealogists who denied the lineage of Abdulqader
Also the famous Sunni historian Ibn al-Saee who died in 674 AH in his book "Mukhtasar Akhbar
al-Khulafa" he denied the linage of Abdulqader
Quote
i have nothing else to say to you anymore, because it is clear that you are motivated by
jealousy and hate.
Instead of accusing me by such things
Prove for the people the lineage of Abudlqader
Answer my simple question
WHICH GENEALOGSIST MENTIONED ABDULLAH AMONG THE PROGNY OF YAHYA
If you answered this question, the debate will be over

As long you running away from this question but talking about the beliefs of Ibn Enba and Um
Kulthom so that shows Abdulqader's lineage is false
Quote
1.geneologist:Alllama mohammed bin kazim bin futuh in his 9th century book annafkhatul
2.geneologist:Allama syed mohammed bin ahmed bin ameedudden al-hussaini an-najafi in his
3.geneologist:Allama syed jafar al-araji najafi alhussaini (1382AH) in his book manahiludharab
fi ansabul al-arab
These people denying the lineage of Abdulqader, so how you claim that they said he is sayed !!
For example Allama syed mohammed bin ahmed bin ameedudden al-hussaini an-najafi said:
These names (of lineage) which been attributed by Qazi Abu Saleh to Muhammad bin Yahya do
not exist in genealogy books, and those who claim its correct (lineage) they are a group of
ignorant followers of Sheikh Abdulqader
I dont want to say you telling lies, but as I said before, next time dont post any thing without
reference
Quote
nikah statement:

The author died in year 709 AH, and its true he believed that Um Kulthom was married to Umar,
but he notified the reader in his book that he rely on the traditions (hadith) which been narrated in
hadith books
Which means he not 100% sure, because he even mentioned some other possibilities that the
marriage didnt take a place.
Anyhow there is a Shiite genealogist who named al-Hassan bin al-Amdi al-Alavi who died in 400's
AH and he denied in his book the marriage of Um Kulthom to Umar.
Ibn Enaba declared that Um Kulthom was married to Muslim ibn Aqil
Many Shiite genealogists declared that the marriage didnt take a place.
So according to the rules of genealogy and also usool al-Feqh (because both are similar in this
case) the statement of the author above is unacceptable because
1- its odd statement contradicting the majority of genealogists statements
2- the author himself declared the source of his statement, so we can evaluate his opinion
because we already know his proof (as long his proof is from hadith book so here we have to
refer to hadith scholar, if the tradition is true so the statement of the author is reliable, if the
tradition is weak so the statement of the author is unacceptable)
so can you now stick to our topic and mention a name of a genealogist who mentioned Abdullah
as son of Yahya ?
Quote

Anti-Salafi
Skeptic
Skeptic
Basic Members
0
24 posts
Location:uk
dear brother, i will deal with three things here:
1. only two shia authors denied the noble lineage and that they were shia.
2. classical shia geneologists and scholars stated that nikah of syeda umm kulusm bint Ali(S) took
place and a SON called zaid was born from it although i vehemently deny that it took place at all.
3. there is ijma of renowned imams of ahl as-sunna that shaykh was syed and that those 'sunni'
references you are providing are incorrect and according to your own demand i will provide
evidence that 'mujam muallifeen' have said that they are fabricated attribution.
all your arguments are around these things.
now, quickly, the point you seem to ignore is that ibn inaba says that there were THREE sons and
ibn tataqi says that there was ONLY ONE son. my point is that it is most RELEVENT to the issue
because this discrepancy alone shows that their knowledge was good but had FLAWS. not
whether they agree to one son but ahmed and ali are EXTRA names. so even logically it
demonstrates that existence of DISCREPANCY means that they were not impeccable in their
information hence just like ibn taqtaqi(709AH) MISSED two SONS so it is possible that Ibn inaba
also missed one son or was doing it out of shia bias because (828AH) was the time that for
almost 300 years shaykh's fame and popularity was amongst far and wide and his writings
against shia were known.
in contrast we have EARLIER and LATER and CONTEMPORARY to ibn Inaba sources and they
were IMAMS who affirmed and confirmed in tens of their books that shaykh was syed. see 21
book refrences previously in post no. 57.
-------
1.
(a):ibn taqtaqi (709AH) was a shia author and i am sure you would agree to this atleast, however,
he wrote the book for the sons of shia minister khawaja nasierudeen tusi, whose name was
aseeludeen hence the book is called 'aseeli'. the book is printed from 'maktba al-mar'ashi an-
najafi' and researched by the student of shihab ad-deen al-mar'ashi called seyyed mehdi rajai.
but you agree to this that he was shia anyway so let us move to the one you do not.
(B): ibn inaba(828AH) was one of the GREAT shia imamia. who said this? as you would say it is a
matter best dealt by people of 'rijaal' so here is from the renowned shia scholar shaykh abbas
qummi in his world famous books 'al-kuna wa al-qaab'.
: ( ...

he is saying that he was not only ordinary but from GREAT Imamia scholars. since you did not
believe imamreza website here is from a well known source and the book is available online.
therefore he was a GREAT shia scholars. who is greater you or SHAYKH abbas Qummi????
this proves that your only two sources as well as discrepancy between them about number of
sons, they were also shia!
------
2.
now your second argument that since geneologists have the final word in matters of nasab
therefore they should be trusted and all others should be rejected. i will not mention from tabrasi,
kulaini, majlasi or ali bin ahmed al-kufi(253AH) in this regard but stick to according to your
requirement to 'geneologists' only. i refrenced this one earlier but you didnt undertsand it.
(a) read carefully, it is from 'almjdi fi ansaabil talibeen' :

he says that umer bin kahttab married her and had a son called 'zaid'
(B) Ibn Taqtaqi, your champion, says under the heading 'daughters of amir al-muminen(A) that
umer bin khattab married umm kulsum daughter of syeda fatima aza-zahra(s) and had a SON
called 'zaid'
also the shia 'geneologist' ibn kalbi(641AH) also reports the same text and other geneologists
report from him. you may also read his tarjuma in rijaal books and then tally his name with those
reports that are mentioned books of geneology and it will become clear that he was not historian
but a geneologist. just check al-kuna wa al-qaab'
so now, amongst tens i ahve given you three shia geneologists that said that from nikha there
was a son called zaid. we absolutely and categorically deny such non-sense but it is just to open
your eyes. and the funny thing is that you accept other 'sons' of other people without question and
take it as final word yet when 'zaid' is also a son but you deny his existence from geneologists!!
two different scales, one for your self and one for shaykh syed abdul qadir jilani and imam
khomeini.
------
ahl as-sunna have ijma on siyaadat of shaykh as in references from IMAMS of ahl as-sunnat
provided earlier. i also gave you three shia geneologists that confirm it. and for your information,
ameedudeen al-hussaini najafi, one out of three that you mention, presents arguments from
others and that is the part you quote but after mentioning this in his two books 'bahrul ansaab
and alkashaf li usooli sadaat al-ashraaf
he rejects those opinions and concludes that he was a syed. also there were two other shia
geneologists that confirmed he was a syed but you do not mention them. however, that was just
extra information and i advised you not to rely too much on the selected one sided research of
abdul jawadd kulaider!
back to the issue,
3.
Quote
Ibn Zuhra al-Refaei, who is Sunni Sufi died in 753 H, he declared that the lineage of
Abdulqader is false
Sunni historian Ibn al-Saee who died in 674 AH in his book "Mukhtasar Akhbar al-Khulafa" he
denied the linage of Abdulqader
first of all according to your own principles why are you mentioning a historian? double standards
again but nevermind, let me tell you that both books are a FABRICATION, who said that these
books are a fabrication. i do not say things from my own pocket like yourself.
shaykh mohammed raghib at-tabbagh (1339AH) in his famous index

of books/writers called' ' in it he says clearly that BOTH books
ghayatul ihktisaar and ibn sa'ee are FABRICATIONS attributed to those authors!
( )
and also of ibn sa'ee are both
fabrication
now, as you say that we will go to a chemist for chemistry then here is a person who is writing a
volumous book on books and declares that both books of tajudeen and ibn sa'ee are falsely
attributed to them and are fabrication!
(B)
Quote
Seraj al-Deen al-Refai who is Sunni Sufi died in 885 AH he also denied the lineage of
Abdulqader
now, as for this book, well it is also a fabrication as our ulema have argued. one of the reason
behind this book 'sihah al-akhbar' attributed to rifa'ee makhzumi
is that as you also say he was died in 885AH and yet he is quoting in many places in his book
from from his book ad-durr as-saaqit
whilst the writer ahmed zaburdaji died in (1084AH) TWO HUNDRED years AFTER seraj deen
rifa'ee makhzumi who died in 885AH. therefore, instead saying anymore about it, it stands to
reason and logic that this book is a FABRICATION also. you may check the dates of death in
tanweer al-absaar and so on.
now, for anyone with a little academic sense it is obvious that GREAT IMAMS of ahl as-sunna
such as Imam IBn hajar asqalani, sibt ibn jawzi, the shaykh himself, his son and his companion
are saying that He was syed and on the other side we TWO biased shia scholars that he was not
although great majority of shia scholars also consider him syed, for example in modrn time
ayatollah murtaza mutahari etc. i am going to provide the list of imams and ulema below again
and say to you that for any reasonable person these evidences are enough.
inaba!
2. Bahjatul asraar by shatnufi (713AH) gives chain and family tree from the second Imam(A). 115
years before ibn inaba.
anmbariya fi ansaab al-kharul bariya16. Allama anasaba syed mohammed bin ahmed bin
ameedudden al-hussaini an-najafi in his 9th century book bahrul ansaab and alkashaf li usooli
sadaat al-ashraaf
19. Mohammed tabari hussaini makki in kashfun niqaab an ansaabil araba20. Naqib alashraf
abul huda rifaee al-hussaini in ashar albatoon al-qarshiya fishshaam
21. Allama anasaba syed jafar al-araji najafi alhussaini (1382AH) in his book manahiludharab fi
ansabul al-arabI could go on and on from both sunni and shia scholars as above but finally I
will give you a link from shia website which has an online encyclopedia on lineage of saadat and
banu hashim in iraq. Check the last name chausiya where it is clearly stated that shaykh was
hasani syed.
http://www.imamreza.net/arb/imamreza.php?id=1781This should leave no room for an objective

person. We have our sectarian differences but argument should be with that not with lineage.
YA GHAREEB AL-GHURABA(A)
Quote
Sijistani
Member
Sijistani
Unregistered
2
450 posts
Anti-salafi said:
Hasan Saqqaf
The illiterate pedlar outside my residential area is a better 'Sunni scholar' than Hasan Saqqaf.
:wacko:
Quote
first?
Anti-salafi
Member
Anti-salafi
Advanced Members
1
159 posts
Dear brother
As you know my time is short so I cant keep discussing some issues which has nothing to do with
Abdulqader's lineage
Our topic is Abdulqader's lineage
so try to focus on it
Quote
1. only two shia authors denied the noble lineage and that they were shia
If you reject Ibn enaba's book so you the ONLY Sunni in this world who rejects Ibn enba's book.
Any how
I will accept your rejection, but provide me a solid proof
Post for me from any genealogy book which says that Yahya had a son named Abdullah
Its very simple question, why you avoiding it by discussing Um Kulthom and other topics which
has nothing to do with this thread
Quote
2. classical shia geneologists and scholars stated that nikah of syeda umm kulusm bint Ali(S)
took place and a SON called zaid was born from it although i vehemently deny that it took place
at all.
As I said, according to the rules of genealogy (and Usool too) when there is variant statements,
they accept the most popular and abandon the odd ones.
So the majority of genealogists says that Um Kulthom was married to Muslim ibn Aqil
Only three Shia genealogists says that um Kulthom was married to Umar and two of them based
their statements on hadith books
The hadith of Um Kulthom marriage is weak so their statements is unacceptable.
This is a solid proof for rejecting this part of their statement
Quote
3. there is ijma of renowned imams of ahl as-sunna that shaykh was syed and that those
'sunni' references you are providing are incorrect and according to your own demand i will provide
evidence that 'mujam muallifeen' have said that they are fabricated attribution.
First of all there is no ijma
Second the scholars statements is unacceptable in genealogy
Third, non of these scholars examined the lineage of Abdulqader, and I asked you to post a text
from those books which you mention it, but you didnt
So I will post some as example to let the readers be aware of your I dont want to sat cheating,
but these books is only mentioning Abdulqader as the Qaderis introduced him, because these
books recording the biography of many scholars without examining their lineages.
For example you said
Quote
In the same book volume 39 page 87 Dahabi said
Some people added to his lineage and attributed him to Hassan bin Ali
So Dahabi after quoting the lineage which is provided by Qaderis, he declared his rejection for
this lineage because its a fake lineage
Quote
16. Allama anasaba syed mohammed bin ahmed bin ameedudden al-hussaini an-najafi in his
in the same book he said
These names (of lineage) which been attributed by Qazi Abu Saleh to Muhammad bin Yahya do
not exist in genealogy books, and those who claim its correct (lineage) they are a group of
ignorant followers of Sheikh Abdulqader
Quote
in the same book he says
And some people attribute him to Ali bin Abi Talib
SOME not all, which means there is many who rejects his fake lineage, and Ibn Rajab himself
rejecting Abdulqader's lineage because he recorded his full name without attributing him to Imam
Ali
These is few examples from the references which you copy/paste it every time without knowing
what it is about, and avoid posting it in the thread
Quote
first of all according to your own principles why are you mentioning a historian? double
standards again but nevermind, let me tell you that both books are a FABRICATION, who said
that these books are a fabrication. i do not say things from my own pocket like yourself.
There is disagreement about these two books, if its fabricated or not
But the double standers comes from you
Do you know why ?
Because those who claimed that the book is fabricated, they accused Abu al-Huda al-Rifai
While you citing Abu al-Huda Rifai reference, here
Quote
20. Naqib alashraf abul huda rifaee al-hussaini in ashar albatoon al-qarshiya fishshaam
so how you rejecting the book which is published by abu Huda al-Rifai because he fabricated it,
and then you used Abu Huda Rifai as reference !!
By the way Abu Huda Rifai rejects the lineage of Abdulqader, so quoting his book as reference is
kind of lie or let say you dont know what is in these books
Quote
on the other side we TWO biased shia scholars that he was not although great majority of shia
scholars also consider him syed
still we have an authentic sunni reference
Umar bin Muhammad al-Ashtari who is a Sunni Sufi died in 787 AH, he declared in his book (al-
Thabt al-Musan) that the lineage of Abdulqader is false.
Quote
and for your information, ameedudeen al-hussaini najafi, one out of three that you mention,
presents arguments from others and that is the part you quote but after mentioning this in his two
books 'bahrul ansaab and alkashaf li usooli sadaat al-ashraaf
please post the full Arabic text
so now
Dont use escaping forward technique
You are demanded to prove the lineage of Abdulqader by posting a text from any genealogy book
which says that Yahya had son named Abdullah
As long you cant provide us this, so according to genealogy standards Abdulqader's lineage is
false
And I want the readers to notice that our brother Skeptic will not answer the question, verily he
will keep running away by discussing and arguing in sub-side issues which is not related to
Abdulqader's lineage
So I will not reply his posts anymore as long he running away and not providing the proof
Cause my time is very short and I dont want to waste it with some one running away from the
questions.
The inability of answering my question is a clear proof that Abdulqader's lineage is false and
fabricated
Quote

Anti-Salafi
2099
Member
2099
Advanced Members
0
203 posts
Whats so special about this guy A Q "Gillani" anyway? He was just another sunni.
Quote
Zen
Member
Zen
Advanced Members
0
140 posts
Qadir Al Jilani was neither :D
Quote
What?
jamiroquaibuffaloman02l.jpg
Skeptic
Skeptic
Basic Members
0
24 posts
Location:uk
well, we have made some progress. so far you have been claiming ibn inaba(828AH) the deniar
was NOT a shia but now after shaykh abbas qummi's confirmation you are all quite about that
atleast. as for nikha umm e kulsum(S) and having a son 'zaid' are from shia GENEOLOGISTS
including the ones you are presenting to deny the lineage of the shaykh but when it comes to
something that challenges your own home-made principles then you reject that testimony of
geneologists. this is exactly my point. the basis you have to reject that are also our basis. as for
ibn rajab hambali and dhahabi, they did not deny but rather expressed their lack of knowledge
about it and stated that others state the lineage. see these with two earliest works, one by sibt ibn
jawzi(654AH) treatise on GENEOLOGY and Shatnufi's(713AH) biographical work which goes
with chains called 'bahjatul asraar'. these two one a book on geneology and other a biography,
both are before those biased shia ibn inaba and one contemoprary of ibn taqtaqi, the latter also
says nikah and son zaid!
all other references you may see, all confirm that shaykh was syed. and you may include another
hambali scholar ibn rajab hambali(1089AH) who also gives geneology in shazrat al-zahib. and the
only one person amongst sunnis who supposedly denies it in al-Thabt al-Musan is referencedin
the FABRICATED work sihah al-akhbar! so that goes out of the window too. you will agree with
me that atleast majority of sunni imams confirm shaykh's lineage. and that there is ijma on it by
ahl as-sunna. i know there is no point in trying to convince you Imam yusuf an-nabhani has said
in this regard that:

,
.
jelousy and rivalry!

however, you have been injudicious in your claim and evidence. although i do not need to say
anything further and we have ijma amongst us whether hanafi, maliki, shafi or hamabali, all agree
and confirm that he was a hasani syed, and amongst them are shia scholars of highest repute. for
those interested see my prvious posts. your argument is a fallacy, which cannot sustain 'counter-
examples' from the same criteria that you demand from me yet when it goes against you from
books on geneology then you do the twist. given all the evidence before from renowned imams,
which is sufficient for us but i will also give you below staements from some geneologists that
have confirmed it amongst them shia geneologists. and note brother that your reference about
ameedudeen hussaini najafi is not correct because what you are saying is before he gives his
verdict. he is merely quoting others on it then finally gives his own verdict.
from geneologists who say he was syed:
1. book: an-nafkha al-anbariyya fi ansabil khayr al-bariyya..
author: geneologist, mohammed kazim bin abil futuh from 9th century AH
2. book:bahrul ansaab
author: geneologist ameedudeen hussaini nafjafi
3.book: kashfun niqaab an nisaab al-araba
author: geneologist abdul qadir bin muhammed tabari al-hussaini makki
4. book: manahil ad-darab fi ansabil arab
author: geneologist syed jafar al-araji an-najafi
these are geneologists, writing on geneology, all confirm that shaykh was a hasani syed. this and
tens of imams and ulmea through out the centuries that have said the same apart from those two
who out of biased denied it. those who did not know did not deny it but said that others have said
he was syed.
i do not want to waste anymore time with someone who has been refuted through out this thread
as is obvious and once your claims are refuted, you leave that point and move on to the other. i
have provided evidence from geneologists, historians, biogrpahers who ahve confirmed that
shaykh was ahasni syed.
you wasted my time, for instance, that ibn inaba was not a shia for so long but i proved it that he
was you move on to the next point and do not even have the decency to admit that you were
wrong all along. imam yusuf nabhani clearly has said that the deniars do it out of bias and
jealousy.
i think, your objectivity is clear from the fact that you say you wrote a book where you declred
many shia scholars as non-syed such as IMAM KHOMEINI but you did not print it. my advise is
that stick to shia scholars and print the book and send it to Qum sharif and Najaf ashraf.
Quote
Anti-salafi
Member
Anti-salafi
Advanced Members
1
159 posts
As the readers can see, he still running away and unable to prove the lineage of Abdulqader
I just will comment to clarify the misunderstood of brother Skeptic, and then I will leave the thread
until he answer my question
Quote
well, we have made some progress. so far you have been claiming ibn inaba(828AH) the
deniar was NOT a shia but now after shaykh abbas qummi's confirmation you are all quite about
that atleast
No, I reject the statement of Abbas al-Qumi
Even if one hundred Shiite scholar said that Ibn Enaba is a Shiite, I will reject their statement
because Ibn Enaba's book is showing clearly that he is not Shia
So shall I reject a solid proof from Ibn Enaba's book himself and believe some baseless claims
from some Shiite scholars ?
Ibn Enaba for several times in his book he said
Our Sheikh Abu al-Hassan al-Umari
Sheikh Abu al-Hassan al-Umari is a Sufi scholar, so Ibn Enaba clearly attribute himself to Sufism
I already quoted in the previous posts from Ibn Enba's book what proves that Ibn Enba is not a
Shiite
Quote
as for nikha umm e kulsum(S) and having a son 'zaid' are from shia GENEOLOGISTS
including the ones you are presenting to deny the lineage of the shaykh but when it comes to
something that challenges your own home-made principles then you reject that testimony of
geneologists. this is exactly my point. the basis you have to reject that are also our basis.
No brother its not the same basis
I reject these 3 Shiites genealogists testimony for two main reason
1- they declared that their testimony is derived from hadith books, so when I checked the hadith
books, I realized that all the narrations are weak.
So I rejected their testimony because I know the source which they relied on.
2- their testimony contradicts the majority's testimony who declared that Um Kulthom wasnt
married to Umar such as al-Hassan bin al-Amdi al-Alavi who died in 400's, and Ibn Shadqam al-
Hussainy.
So I rejected their testimony because I have other genealogists testimonies
So my basis is different than yours

Quote
they did not deny but rather expressed their lack of knowledge about it and stated that others
state the lineage.
You claimed there is ijma
While these scholars testimony is clear that only some people (the minority) attribute him to Ali
bin Abi Talib
If you know Arabic language you can figure it out
Quote
see these with two earliest works, one by sibt ibn jawzi(654AH) treatise on GENEOLOGY and
Shatnufi's(713AH) biographical work which goes with chains called 'bahjatul asraar'. these two
one a book on geneology and other a biography, both are before those biased shia ibn inaba and
one contemoprary of ibn taqtaqi, the latter also says nikah and son zaid!
Brother
Why you dont post for us what is written in these two books ?
Do you know why you dont post
Because these two scholars only recorded the lineage of Abdulqader as the Qaderis introduced it,
without confirming the lineage nor examine it
Therefore these two books are out of standards in proving the lineages
Quote
all other references you may see, all confirm that shaykh was syed.
Non of it confirms, because non of it concerned in genealogy or proving the lineages
Quote
and you may include another hambali scholar ibn rajab hambali(1089AH) who also gives
geneology in shazrat al-zahib.
I will quote what he said in shazrat al-zahib
Sheikh Abdulqader son of Abu Saleh son of Abdullah son of Jangi doust son of Abo Abdullah
Abdullah son of Yahya son of Muhammad son of Dawoud son of Musa al-Jon son of Abdullah al-
Mahdh son of al-Hassan al-Muthana son of al-Hassan son of Ali bin Abi Talib
Thats all what he said, he didnt confirmed the lineage nor examined it
He just quote it as the Qaderis introduce it
But we notice that in each book of which you referred to, they got different lineage of Abdulqader.
Ibn Emad al-Hanbali in his book shazrat al-zahib considered Jangi doust as a name not a
nickname, therefore he said
Abdullah son of Jangi doust son of Abo Abdullah Abdullah
While in another reference from those which you referred to
Quote
they gave different lineage
al-Safadi said
Abdulqader son of Abdullah Abi Saleh son of Jangi Doust son of Abi Abdullah
We see here that Safadi also considered Jangi Doust as name not nickname, but he contradicted
Ibn Emad al-Hanbali in his father name
Safadi considerd Abu Saleh as nickname, while Ibn Emad considered it as a name and different
person
While Sheikh Yusuf al-Nabhani in his book "Jame Karamat al-Awlyia" volume 2, page 204 he
gave different lineage
Abdulqader al-Gilani son of Musa son of Abdullah son of Yahya son of Muhammad son of
Dawoud son of Musa son of al-Hassan son of al-Hassan son of Ali
So we notice here that Nabhani didnt mention Jangi Doust at all, and he also considered Musa
as the father of Abdulqader
So this is also a different lineage
while al-Katabi (who died in 764 AH) gave different lineage in his book Fawat al-Wafyat
Abdulqader son of Abi Saleh son of Jangi Doust, his lineage eands to Hussain bin Ali may Allah
be pleased with them
Here al-Katabi attributed Abdulqader to Imam Hussain, while the others arrtibuted him to Imam
Hassan
Therefore there is disagreement about the lineage of Adbulqader, and according to the standards
of genealogy and Usool al-Feqh, that who ever his lineage is contradictive, consequently his
lineage is false
As we can see clearly, those scholars who brother Skeptic consider them as references, each of
them provided different lineage
According to what I cited so far we noticed that there is disagreement about Abdulqader's father
identity, is he Musa, or Abdullah or Abu Saleh ?
There is disagreement about Abdulqader's grandfather, is he Jangi Doust or Abdullah ?
There is disagreement about his great grand father, is he Jangi Doust or Abi Abdullah or Yahya ?
There is disagreement about which Imam he belongs to, Imam Hassan or Imam Hussain ?
Quote
and the only one person amongst sunnis who supposedly denies it in al-Thabt al-Musan is
referencedin the FABRICATED work sihah al-akhbar! so that goes out of the window too.
Thabt al-Masoon book is an authentic book, its re-published recently in UAE, and the book is
acceptable and authentic in all Sunnis sight.
this book has nothing to do with Sihah al-Akhbar and Abu al-Huda al-Rifai
Quote
you will agree with me that atleast majority of sunni imams confirm shaykh's lineage.
No I dont, cause mentioning the lineage is not a confirmation
Beside that, every one quotes a different lineage
Quote
and that there is ijma on it by ahl as-sunna.
There is no Ejma, many Sunni scholars wrote a biography about him without mentioning that he
is Hassani or Hussaini
Such as Ibn al-Mulaqan in his book Tabaqat al-Awlyia
Quote
i know there is no point in trying to convince you Imam yusuf an-nabhani has said in this regard
that:
Sheikh Yusuf al-Nabhani he is just a normal Sufi Sheikh, he is not genealogist
Quote
and note brother that your reference about ameedudeen hussaini najafi is not correct because
what you are saying is before he gives his verdict. he is merely quoting others on it then finally
gives his own verdict.
Post the Arabic text
Quote

post their texts
Quote
i have provided evidence from geneologists, historians, biogrpahers who ahve confirmed that
shaykh was ahasni syed.
You provided nothing
I asked you from the beginning to prove the lineage of Abdulqader by posting a statement from
any genealogist testifying that Yahya had a son named Abdullah
Until now you running away by posting some book names only, and when we check the books we
find things against your belief
Dahabi and Ibn Rajab rejected the lineage
The other scholars who didnt comment, each one provides different lineage
So you proved nothing !
You even cannot prove the name of Abdulqader's father rather than his lineage !
Quote
you wasted my time, for instance, that ibn inaba was not a shia for so long but i proved it that
he was you move on to the next point and do not even have the decency to admit that you were
wrong all along.
Subhan Allah !!
Who is the person who wasting the time and dodge around the topic
I said from the beginning if some one proved that Yahya had son named Abdullah, then
Abdulqader's lineage will be accepted, as long no one can prove that so his lineage will be
considered as false
So instead of answering this simple question, you brought up Ibn Enba's doctrine, Um Kulthom
marriage etc.
While these things has nothing to do with the lineage of Abdulqader
Any how seems we both dont have time to waste
So if you got an answer for this question, post it and end the debate
If you dont got, then take a break a search for an answer
Quote

Anti-Salafi
Skeptic
Skeptic
Basic Members
0
24 posts
Location:uk
just a smattering of arabic does not make you a muhaqiq. your methodology is 'rejection' of
anything that goes against your emotional state. you reject shaykh abbas qummi and many other
shia scholars of the past and present that consider ibn inaba(828AH) the deniar as one of the
great shia personalities. for anyone, it would be sufficient to accept the word of masters in the
field as your own requirement but then you do the twist as is your way of shifting the goal post but
i am going to let you off that easily. although all shia scholars consider him to great shia except
you because of some local issue that you have! however, below is what you said and then i will
give a refutation, from the words of shia scholars and not from myself. {rememeber shaykh abbas
qummi and also it says in al-bihar that ibn inaba(828AH) was a shia and accorsding to us a
biased one against the noble shaykh}
Quote
No, I reject the statement of Abbas al-Qumi
Even if one hundred Shiite scholar said that Ibn Enaba is a Shiite, I will reject their statement
because Ibn Enaba's book is showing clearly that he is not Shia
Sheikh Abu al-Hassan al-Umari is a Sufi scholar, so Ibn Enaba clearly attribute himself to
Sufism
in yet again another twist in your claim now is that you do not care what a 100 shia scholars say
but will reject them...wow...
anyway, you are saying that ibn inaba(828AH) says OUR shaykh to abul hasan al-umari and that
he was a sunni.
it is true that ibn inaba calls the author of al-majdi fi ansaab al-talibeen, namely,
, his name umari is
because of umar al-atraf...son of imam ali(a). secondly, if you read that book of shaykh abul
hasan umari then you will see that he says we are 'isna ashariyya'...here is what the shia scholar
in the introduction to the book says to confirm that the person who ibn inaba(828AH) is calling
OUR shaykh is actually a SHIA also!
-
230 1 :

" . " "
157
: .
" " : " ".
shia scholar allama dujaili najafi in his book 'al'aam al-arab fi uloom wa funun says that there is
absolutely no doubt that he was shia by his own admission in his book that we are twelvers, this
is also vouched by imam ibn ta'uoos in his book 'al-iqbal'
therefore, Shaykh abbas qummi and many others say that he was shia and in his book he himself
says he was shia as declared by two notable shia scholars above. now, you are once again
proven wrong from your own books. the only reason that explains your attitude is inaad. amy
Allah(S) guide you.
-------
Quote
I reject these 3 Shiites genealogists testimony for two main reason
1- they declared that their testimony is derived from hadith books, so when I checked the
hadith books, I realized that all the narrations are weak.
So I rejected their testimony because I know the source which they relied on.
2- their testimony contradicts the majority's testimony who declared that Um Kulthom wasnt
married to Umar such as al-Hassan bin al-Amdi al-Alavi who died in 400's, and Ibn Shadqam al-
Hussainy.
So I rejected their testimony because I have other genealogists testimonies
once again, we have you rejecting... atleast you agree that these three shia and two very early
such as ali bin ahmed al-kufi(253AH) and al-umari as well as ibn taqtaqi(709AH) all are sayin
there was a SON called 'zaid' from umer bin khattab! they are not writing a book of history are
they? they are writing on 'nasab' so why use historical reports? this also disproves your own
ideas about the matter. and no they do not report from histroians but from principles of
geneologists. your problem is that you are rejecting them and accepting them at the same time.
you PICK AND CHOOSE as it suits you mate! ibn taqtaqi(709AH) is reliable when he says
shaykh is not syed out of bias and when he says son zaid and nikah with umer then you reject the
same person. what is more fro the nikah there are CLASSICAL geneologists that confrim it and
the son. the evidence according to your own demand from me is stronger yet you reject it. and all
that others is rejected in the face of proximity in time, can be said!!! ibn inaba's shaykh is
confirming yet!!! also ibn inaba says married with muslim bin aqeel yet he does not deny that she
was NOT married earlier. as a matter of fact the researchers on the book give manty other details
in the footneote.
what i am saying that you are mr. double-standards, thats all. emotions has got you not evidence.
----
as for name jangi dost, it is laqab, his name is musa and kuniya is abu salih. most people have
written on it and specially the 'geneologists' that i gave you previously and for your information,
read the commentry on umdah of ibn inanba called allama muhaqiq geneologist sharif hussaini in
his commentry known as 'tuhafat talib' where he REJECTS ibn inabas claim of rejection and
proves that shaykh was a hasani syed.
i dont really care what you believe but again here are FIVE shia GENEOLOGISTS who have
confirmed in their conclusions that shaykh was a HASANI syed.
5.book: tuhfatut talib hashiya ala umadat talib
author: allama muhaqiq sharif al-hussaini
all geneologists say that he was hasani syed and add to the list tens of books earlier also IMAM
shurani(974AH) in his tabqat al-kubra and many more. only a few have missed or added a link
but there is ijma that he is syed. funnilly enough ibn inaba (828AH) says that shaykh abdul qadir
is attributed to 'abdullah bin mohammed bin yahya bin mohaamed bin ar-rumiyya....check....then
he says that shaykh never claimed himself that he was a syed.
now, let me GIVE you a CHAIN, which you cannot provide, what is the chain of ibn inaba for
denying??? remember you have been asking about this chain and that chain yet you cannot
provide what you ask me. below is from the book 'bahjtul asraar' by imam abul hasan shatnufi
shafi(713AH) writing who died 115 years before ibn inaba(828AH), the imam says from authentic
chain:
1. the jusrist and scholar abul ma'aali ahmed bin shaykh muhaqiq abul hasan ali bin ahmed bin
abdurazaq bin eesa hilaali baghdadi REPORTS from
2. Qadhi al-quzaat(chief justice) abu salih nasr REPORTS from his father
3. imam syed adur razaq who REPORTS from his father
4. muhideen shaykh syed abdul qadir jilani that my descendency is from imam hasan mujtaba
and then he gives the whole family tree thorugh musa al-jawn to imam hasan mujtab.
here is an authentic chain and cancels any of your FABRICATED BOOKS claims and BIASED
claims, which have no basis according to the principles of reporting.
i have nothing more to say but will finish from a quote from IMAM mulla Ali qari hanafi(1014AH)
where he says we have ijma and the report of nasab is mutawatir. and as for you jealous and
emotional rejector of not only sunni but shia scholars also as well imam khomeini's siyaadat.
below is my final words from IMAM mulla Ali qari(1014AH) in this regard. best wishes from me.
YA ALi MADAd.
book: nuzaht al-khtir by mulla ali qari hanafi(1014AH):
"It is mass-transmitted (mutawatir), sound (sahih), firmly established (thaabit), and as clear as the
sun when it shines in the middle of the day. We reject mumblings and quarrels and interpretation
and objections just as there is consensus/ijma about it [among the people of true learning], as
opposed to the innovating rejectionists - people of deviation and hidden disbelief, envy and
dissension. May Allah protect us and the Muslims from the plotting of the misguided and
misguiding enviers! They envy people over what Allah gave them of His favor - and He is the
Most Merciful of the merciful."
Quote
Anti-salafi
Member
Anti-salafi
Advanced Members
1
159 posts
Quote
just a smattering of arabic does not make you a muhaqiq.
It makes me understand what I'm reading
Quote
your methodology is 'rejection' of anything that goes against your emotional state. you reject
shaykh abbas qummi and many other shia scholars of the past and present that consider ibn
inaba(828AH) the deniar as one of the great shia personalities.for anyone, it would be sufficient to
accept the word of masters in the field as your own requirement but then you do the twist as is
your way of shifting the goal post but i am going to let you off that easily. although all shia
scholars consider him to great shia except you because of some local issue that you have!
however, below is what you said and then i will give a refutation, from the words of shia scholars
and not from myself. {rememeber shaykh abbas qummi and also it says in al-bihar that ibn
inaba(828AH) was a shia and accorsding to us a biased one against the noble shaykh}
I believe my eyes
Do you know that some Shiite scholars claimed that Imam Suyuti was a Shia !!
So shall we believe them and rejects what our eyes seeing
If we supposed in sake of argument that these genealogists are Shia
So what then ?
The author of Thabt al-Masun is Sunni Sufi
The Sunni scholars accepted these (Shiite) genealogists statements

So I dont know why you wasting your time in this topic, as long in the end the statement of Ibn
Enba and Ibn Taqtaqi is acceptable according to the all Sunnis!
any how Ibn Enba is 100% Sunni Sufi
in his book page 214 he said
The glorified Sheikh sedy Ahmad ibn al-Rifai
the word "sedy" means my master
No one using such word except for his own scholars
I dont think a Sufi would say sedy Ibn Taymia, nor a Shia would say sedy Abu Hanifa
So I believe this is a solid proof which refutes the statements of all those who claim that ibn Enba
is a Shia
Quote
if you read that book of shaykh abul hasan umari then you will see that he says we are 'isna
ashariyya'...here is what the shia scholar in the introduction to the book says to confirm that the
person who ibn inaba(828AH) is calling OUR shaykh is actually a SHIA also!
-
230 1 :

" . " "
157
: .
" " : " ".
shia scholar allama dujaili najafi in his book 'al'aam al-arab fi uloom wa funun says that there is
absolutely no doubt that he was shia by his own admission in his book that we are twelvers, this
is also vouched by imam ibn ta'uoos in his book 'al-iqbal'
therefore, Shaykh abbas qummi and many others say that he was shia and in his book he
himself says he was shia as declared by two notable shia scholars above. now, you are once
again proven wrong from your own books. the only reason that explains your attitude is inaad.
amy Allah(S) guide you.
Seems you just copy/paste the other's mistakes
The statement " we are isna ashariyya" its not Abu al-Hassan's statement.
Its al-Qatee's statement, which is quoted by Abu al-Hassan al-Umari
Abu al-Hassan is a Sunni Sufi
He said in his book page 94
Abu Hanifa may Allah be pleased with

So is this a Shiite man statement ?
Quote
atleast you agree that these three shia and two very early such as ali bin ahmed al-kufi(253AH)
and al-umari as well as ibn taqtaqi(709AH) all are sayin there was a SON called 'zaid' from umer
bin khattab!are not writing a book of history are they? they are writing on 'nasab' so why use
historical reports? this also disproves your own ideas about the matter
First of all al-Kufi is not a genealogist, he is just a historian
second thing i dont got problem with that issue
third, these three scholars declared in their own books at the same paragraph that they derived
their statement from hadith books.
So as long we know the exclusive source which they relied on, we can evaluate their statement.
If the hadith is true, so their statement is acceptable
If the hadith is false, so their statement is unacceptable
I'm following the rules of genealogy, until now I didnt contradicted the rules of genealogy.
Quote
the evidence according to your own demand from me is stronger yet you reject it.
Seems you dreaming
You provided nothing
Which evident you provided so far which says Yahya had son named Abdullah ?
Quote
also ibn inaba says married with muslim bin aqeel yet he does not deny that she was NOT
married earlier. as a matter of fact the researchers on the book give manty other details in the
footneote.
Post the Arabic text please
I looked at Ibn Enba's book and I couldnt find such thing
Quote
what i am saying that you are mr. double-standards, thats all. emotions has got you not
evidence.
I proved for you that I'm not double standards
The statements of genealogists which is based on hadith, I can reject it because such thing we
have to refer it to hadith scholars.
While the statement of the genealogist which is based on genealogy methods, I will accept it,
unless if its contradicts other genealogists statements
So where is the double standard in this ???
Quote
as for name jangi dost, it is laqab, his name is musa and kuniya is abu salih.
How did you know this ?
Each scholars says different thing, each one gives different lineages
Even Abdulqader's father name is different, some says his father name is Musa, while other says
he is Abdullah, while other says he is Abu Saleh
Quote
read the commentry on umdah of ibn inanba called allama muhaqiq geneologist sharif hussaini
in his commentry known as 'tuhafat talib' where he REJECTS ibn inabas claim of rejection and
proves that shaykh was a hasani syed.
Please post the Arabic text, we dont need words from your pocket
Quote
i dont really care what you believe but again here are FIVE shia GENEOLOGISTS who have
confirmed in their conclusions that shaykh was a HASANI syed.
Please post the Arabic text, we dont need words from your pocket
Quote
all geneologists say that he was hasani syed and add to the list tens of books earlier also
IMAM shurani(974AH) in his tabqat al-kubra and many more.
Imam Sharani is not genealogist
second Katani said he is Hussaini, so shall i use same your twisted technique and say that you
choose and pick !!
Quote
now, let me GIVE you a CHAIN, which you cannot provide, what is the chain of ibn inaba for
denying??? remember you have been asking about this chain and that chain yet you cannot
provide what you ask me. below is from the book 'bahjtul asraar' by imam abul hasan shatnufi
shafi(713AH) writing who died 115 years before ibn inaba(828AH), the imam says from authentic
chain:
4. muhideen shaykh syed abdul qadir jilani that my descendency is from imam hasan
mujtaba and then he gives the whole family tree thorugh musa al-jawn to imam hasan mujtab.
here is an authentic chain and cancels any of your FABRICATED BOOKS claims and BIASED
claims, which have no basis according to the principles of reporting.
Ok very good
Now one of these people are liar
If you couldnt prove that Yahya had son named Abdullah, so one of these people are liar
Just as the weak hadith, when the content of the hadith is unreal, so one of the narrators are liar
I will check the biography of each person later, so maybe I find out the liar by my self
Quote
i have nothing more to say but will finish from a quote from IMAM mulla Ali qari hanafi(1014AH)
where he says we have ijma and the report of nasab is mutawatir. and as for you jealous and
emotional rejector of not only sunni but shia scholars also as well imam khomeini's siyaadat.
below is my final words from IMAM mulla Ali qari(1014AH) in this regard. best wishes from me.
YA ALi MADAd.
How there is ijma while the author of thabt al-Masun who is an authetic Sufi genealogist denies
the lineage
How there is Ijma while Dahabi and Ibn Rajab rejects the lineage
brother
please prove for us that Yahya had son named Abdullah
that will ends the debate

Edited March 27, 2009 by Anti-salafi
Quote

Anti-Salafi
Skeptic
Skeptic
Basic Members
0
24 posts
Location:uk
jealousy and rivalry are the deseases of the heart and even the Prophets(A) could not convince
those with such affliction. there is ijma of ahl as-sunna about the issue and i have informed you of
many sources from shia geneologists that have confirmed shaykh was syed and it is only
enemies who are jealous of his popularity.
as for your standards, it is all REJECTION, perhaps the only evidence one has is of his father is
just his mother. just one person's testimony!! it is much easier to deny someone's nasab by
saying that your mother is a liar. what proof do you have that your father is your father? are there
any witnesses?
the point is that no geneologist, historian or biographer has an absolute knowledge, all have
information according to what is available and there are things that are obsecure such as three
classical shia geneoligists with authentic information are saying that umm e kulsum had a son
from umer bin khattab yet you deny it although i deny it too but your own home-made rules do not
work here but are fairy-tales which are only geared towards your animosity!
you have in this thread DENIED that Imam Khomeini was a syed, you have rejected the
testimony and word of great shia ulema such shaykh abbas qummi who said ibn inaba was a
great shia. you rejected the testimony of other shia ulama in this regard too. this just goes to
prove that you are not even willing to accept any testimony against your self even from other shia
scolars then what can convince you of???
by God the following FIVE shia geneologists have accepted the shaykh as syed and regarded all
crticism as feeble even ibn inaba denies abdullah son of mohammed son of yahya...so any
problem should be directed towards him.
below are five geneologists and then final word by a sunni imam:

from IMAM MULLA ALI QARI(1014AH):
book: nuzaht al-khtir by mulla ali qari hanafi(1014AH):
Quote
Anti-salafi
Member
Anti-salafi
Advanced Members
1
159 posts
Brother
Every time you just repeat the same words which I already refuted before
I dont like to repeat the refutations again & again, the readers can read the previous posts and
find the answer.
Any how this is the question which you are required to answer
Which genealogist said that Yahya had son named Abdullah ?
I dont got any problem with Abdulqader Gilani, if you answered the above question, I will accept
Abdulqader's lineage.
Just as I'm accepting the lineage of many Shiite and Sunnite scholars.
Quote

Anti-Salafi
Skeptic
Skeptic
Basic Members
0
24 posts
Location:uk
my final post:
there are hundreds of sunni ulema through out the centuries that have confirmed that shaykh
syed abdul qadir jilani was a hasani syed as well as great number of shia geneologists and others
that have confirmed the same. below are SEVEN geneologists that have confirmed shaykh was a
syed.
6. book: al-muntaqa fi a'aqaab al-hasan al-mujtaba
author: seyyed eehaab bin yaqub al-kutabi al-hasani
7. book: al-usool fi zariyat al-badhatil al-batul
author: seyyed anas al-kutabi
these SEVEN geneologists and many others have confirmed that shaykh was a hasani syed.
also...imam mulla ali qari al-hanafi(1014AH) says in his book 'nuzhat al-khatir' that there is ijma
and mass transmission that shaykh was a syed and the deniars are misguided:
and finally, you do not have a single muttsasil chain, neither from those who deny shaykh's
siyadat. all ibn inaba(828AH) does is make a baseless claim. no chain just a bogus claim and he
says that shaykh never claimed he was a syed. this also other's claim too that shaykh never
claimed it. this false and below is a muttasil SANAD going to shaykh himself that he said he was
syed and gave his family tree.
Imam Ibn hajar asqalani (852AH), the famous writer on hadith and on rijaal. i am sure your are
aware of his many books on science of reporters. he also in his book 'al-ghibta' gives the chain
and family tree as provided by shatnufi(713AH) and AUTHENTICATES its REPORTERS as thiqa
and sahih. therefore we have the word of people of the field of hadith reporters confirming the
CHAIN to be correct and trustworthy. we have a muttassil chain from the shaykh himself, written
more than a hundred and fifteen years before ibn inaba(828AH). this says in 'bahjatul asraar' by
imam shatnufi(713AH) that shaykh said he was a syed from imam hasan mujtaba's
lineage....below is the chain as authenticated by imam ibn hajar asqalani:
4. muhideen shaykh syed abdul qadir jilani that my descendency is from imam hasan mujtaba
and then he gives the whole family tree thorugh musa al-jawn to imam hasan mujtab.
i challenge you to produce a CHAIN that is authentic which says that he was not a syed. not just
someone's word like ibn inaba(828AH). we have earlier sources with a muttasil chain of authentic
reporters saying from shaykh himself that he was syed. as well geneologists saying he was a
syed and historians and biographers.
PROVIDE AN AUTHENTIC CHAIN IF YOU ARE TRUTHFUL> YOU WILL NOT THEREFORE
YOU ARE WRONG> SIMPLE> our source is from 713AH with a chain!! made authentic by imam
ibn hajar asqalani who is a man of rijaal also.
i have nothing more to say to you. above three refernces from imams prove that:
1. there is ijma of ahl as-sunnat as imam mulla ali qari has said.
2. there are many many geneologists that have confirmed he was a syed and they said those
who deny are motivated by jealousy and rivalry.
3. we have an authentic CHAIN from the shaykh himself where he said i am a hasani syed as in
imam shatnufi(713AH) bahjatul asraar and imam ibn hajar asqalani declaring the sand to be
authentic and thiqa in book 'ghibta al-naazir'.
----------
best wishes
Quote
Anti-salafi
Member
Anti-salafi
Advanced Members
1
159 posts
Posted April 7, 2009 Report post
This is brief comments

Quote
there are hundreds of sunni ulema through out the centuries that have confirmed that shaykh
syed abdul qadir jilani was a hasani syed
Thoughts are useless as long there is no eviedent
They also thought for centuries that the woman can be pregnant for 5 years
Quote
below are SEVEN geneologists that have confirmed shaykh was a syed.
I asked you for several times to post their text in Arabic as a proof
Still you ignoring and repeating the same thing
Quote
also...imam mulla ali qari al-hanafi(1014AH) says in his book 'nuzhat al-khatir' that there is ijma
and mass transmission that shaykh was a syed and the deniars are misguided:
Mullah Qari is not genealogist thus his statement is worthless
Beside that I proved that there is no any ijma nor mass transmission from the Sunni scholars
themselves
So Mullah Qari is the misguided person, as he also misguided in women pregnancy period as
well
Quote
and finally, you do not have a single muttsasil chain, neither from those who deny shaykh's
siyadat. all ibn inaba(828AH) does is make a baseless claim. no chain just a bogus claim and he
says that shaykh never claimed he was a syed.
You are going against the rules, that maks clear you never read a single book in usool or
genealogy or deraya
You the one who claimed that Gilani is Alavi, so you the one who has to provide the chain
Unless if you want me to provide a chain for each Brazilian citizen that he is not Alavi !!
What a funny illogical argument you brought up :!!!:
Can you back up your argument by quoting from any book ???
Quote
no chain just a bogus claim and he says that shaykh never claimed he was a syed. this also
other's claim too that shaykh never claimed it. this false and below is a muttasil SANAD going to
shaykh himself that he said he was syed and gave his family tree.
This argument is false
Because the testimony of the person himself is unacceptable
There must be some neutral references or genealogists who confirm his lineage
Do you think in the Islamic court if the thief said I'm innocent they will accept his testimony and let
him go home ? or they will ask for witnesses ?
if you died and some one from the street came and said that you are his father and he need his
share of inheritance
do you think the judge will let him inherit you, or he will ask for witnesses ?
Quote
Imam Ibn hajar asqalani (852AH), the famous writer on hadith and on rijaal. i am sure your are
aware of his many books on science of reporters. he also in his book 'al-ghibta' gives the chain
and family tree as provided by shatnufi(713AH) and AUTHENTICATES its REPORTERS as thiqa
and sahih. therefore we have the word of people of the field of hadith reporters confirming the
CHAIN to be correct and trustworthy. we have a muttassil chain from the shaykh himself, written
more than a hundred and fifteen years before ibn inaba(828AH). this says in 'bahjatul asraar' by
imam shatnufi(713AH) that shaykh said he was a syed from imam hasan mujtaba's lineage....
this is useless
because Yahaya didnt had a son named Abdullah
Abdullah is just a mythical character
I can make now a tree family ends like this:
Muhammad son of Yazid son of Muhammad al-Baqer
Imam Baqer never had a son named Yazid, beside that his progeny is only from Imam Jaffar
So your case in Abdulqader Gilani is similar to the case above
Even if hundreds of scholars lied and said this is an authentic lineage that will not make it a true
lineage, because all the genealogists said the progeny of Imam Baqer is from Imam Sadeq, and
no any genealogist mentioned Yazid among the children of Imam Baqer
If you have a stone in your hand, and all the people lied to you and said its a jewel, their lies will
not turn the stone into a jewel !!
So you have to prove the lineage of Abdulqader by mentioning names of genealogists who said
that Yehya had a son named Abdullah
Or to post from us from any biography book, the biography of Abdullah son of Yehya
( where he lived, which year he died, how many child he had etc)
Quote
i challenge you to produce a CHAIN that is authentic which says that he was not a syed. not
just someone's word like ibn inaba(828AH). we have earlier sources with a muttasil chain of
authentic reporters saying from shaykh himself that he was syed. as well geneologists saying he
was a syed and historians and biographers.
PROVIDE AN AUTHENTIC CHAIN IF YOU ARE TRUTHFUL> YOU WILL NOT THEREFORE
YOU ARE WRONG> SIMPLE> our
Can you back up your requirement by a text from any usool or genealogy book says that to deny
a lineage you need a chain ?
You just threw this word from your pocket
We here to discuss according to the standards
Quote
1. there is ijma of ahl as-sunnat as imam mulla ali qari has said.
We proved that Mullah Qari is a liear and there is no ijma
Such as the famous sunni scholar Dahabi said
Some people added to his lineage and attributed him to Hassan bin Ali
Quote
2. there are many many geneologists that have confirmed he was a syed and they said those
who deny are motivated by jealousy and rivalry.
You couldnt provide texts from genealogists
Still we demand you to post the Arabic text
Quote
3. we have an authentic CHAIN from the shaykh himself where he said i am a hasani syed as
in imam shatnufi(713AH) bahjatul asraar and imam ibn hajar asqalani declaring the sand to be
authentic and thiqa in book 'ghibta al-naazir'.
According to logic
To usool
To genealogy
The testimony of the person himself is unacceptable, because every one can claim that he is
Alavi, so in the end the all 6 billion men on the earth can be Alavis
Note: I dont need you to repeat the same words again
You are required to answer the following questions
1-mention a reference for genealogy book which says Yehya had son named Abdullah
2-post the Arabic text of the Shiite genealogist who you claimed that they authenticated the
lineage of Abdulqader
3-post a text from any genealogist which says to deny the lineage you have to provide the chain
of denial
4-post a text from any sources says that testimony or claim of the man himself is sufficient to
prove his linage (nasab)
So you can leave this topic if you want, cause you said that it was your last post
If you want to post again so just answer the 4 questions without repeating your pervious posts
Quote

Anti-Salafi
wasil-ibn-ata
lover of ahlbait(as)
wasil-ibn-ata
Advanced Members
2
162 posts
Location:sheffield/England
smrr110 said:
As Salam 'Alaikum!
Hope all of you are with the best of health by the grace of Allah. Just would like to have your
opinions about the above mentioned topic. Although, It has been discussed several times in other
threads but I could not find any conclusion in those threads.
Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani(ra). We know Ayatullah Murtaza Mutahari has confimed him a Sayed in
one of his book. While in of the discussion threads of shiachat, I found references of other
Mujtahids which deny this fact. Ayatullah Jafar Al-subhani was mentioned along with few other
names. However, I could not find that what are the opinions of these scholars, neither the person
who quoted this information has mentioned this. He just mentioned that these scholars rejects his
lineage as a Syed.
I will be grateful if we can share our views on this issue. Moreover, If somebody can provide
me a useful online source to few clear verdicts of some shia scholars about this subject. I look
forward for your contribution.
Ma'salama
yes he was a sayed but the imams warned us not to follow anyone who doesn't follow the true
teachings of rasool Allah and the imams EVEN IF HE WAS A ALAWI-FATIMI .
THE BROTHER OF IMAM HASAN AL-ASKARI WAS SAYED BUT A DEVIANT
Also jilani is just a pious man that we respect but we dont follow
Quote

Abdaal
Member
Abdaal
Banned
2
4,007 posts
There is so much b.s written about Jafar bin Ali (as). Brother Wasil can you tell me how many
children the uncle of the 12th imam had ?
Quote
My blog
syyed33
syyed33
Basic Members
0
2 posts
assalam o alikum
what differenece does it make, wheather Abdul Qadir Gilani was a syed Hassani / Hussaini. Do
we really following the word of God. R V following QURAAN. R V FOLLOWING the guidlines of
God and prophets and IMAMS. I do not think so but yes we are waising our time on these
debates and our ememies are taking full advantage of that. All over the world MUSLIMS are
being humiliated, muslim mothers, sisters, daughter, sons fathers and brothers are being
humiliated. Muslims have lost al the respect in their own eyes. Because we are not one, but we
will fight with each other for some thing which can not be helpful to us by any means. Is this the
guide lines we have been addressed in QURAAN to live in this world.
Any way may God give us the strength to come over to our minor stupid differences and be ONE
to answer those who want to destroy ISLAM .
SYED SHAKIL
Quote
syyed33
syyed33
Basic Members
0
2 posts
Posted April 7, 2009 (edited) Report post
[in any book, or any saying of IMAMS it never come across that my NISTBAT is some thing which
should make me proud of it but yes all of them said that what you do that will be judged on the
DAY
Edited April 7, 2009 by syyed33
Quote
GhulamNabi
Member
GhulamNabi
Advanced Members
0
74 posts
Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani is is Hasani Husaini Syed. To quote the Turkish author, Shaikh Muzaffer
Ozak Efendi (may Allaah bestow His mercy upon him): "The lineage of Shaikh 'Abd al-Qaadir is
known as the Chain of Gold, since both his parents were descendants of the Messenger (Allaah
bless him and give him peace). His noble father, 'Abdullaah, traced his descent by way of Imaam
Hasan, while his revered mother, Umm al-Khair, traced hers through Imaam Husain."
Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani was matchless in a very special way. He is great awliya Allah (friends of
Allah). In Quran Allah says:
Surely, on the friends of Allah, there is no fear, nor do they grieve. Those who believed and
guarded (against evil). For them are glad tidings in this worlds life and in the Hereafter; there is
no changing the words of Allah; that is the Supreme Triumph. (10:62-64)
Both the Imam Mehdi (as) and Sheikh Abdul Qadir Al-Jilani were consumed with the love of the
Holy Prophet (saw) and it is the great blessing of Allah (swt) that both of these great champions of
humanity shared both a spiritual and blood affinity. For they are related to each other through the
line of the Holy Prophets (saw) beloved daughter, Sayyeda of the women of the worlds, Hadhrat
Fatima Az-Zahra (ra)3.
Quote
Skeptic
Skeptic
Basic Members
0
24 posts
Location:uk
brother anti salafi:
what can you say to someone who argues from homemade rules and goes on making up things
as he goes along to suit his hate. there is no consistency in your arguments. i have given you a
sahih chain of reporters ealier than your biased sources that say that shaykh claimed that he was
a syed and gave his family tree. as well as seven independent mostly shia geneologists and
many historians and biographers who confirm that shaykh was a syed. the evidence from shia
and sunni books and scholars is overwhelming for anyone with objectivity. both sunni and shia
agree that he was a syed except for biased few. but as you know 'al-qaleelo kal
ma'dum'....however, you have constantly changed your position from begining and i have
provided enough evidence for all to see. and i agree with wasil bin ata that differences in aqeeda
are where we should disagree and not at others geneology especially when there is mountains of
evidence. as for your homemade requirements and principles just one following example would
be sufficient to demonstrate.
whilst arguing that ghunya was shaykhs book you said:
Quote
but the method of accepting and rejecting the books is the chain of narration of the book
Not the content of the book
but whilst proving a point about ibn inaba which we proved from renowned shia ulema that he
was a shia you present the following argument:
Quote
I already quoted in the previous posts from Ibn Enba's book what proves that Ibn Enba is not a
Shiite
although all your claims have been proven to be false and i do not have to post anymore.
you asked for geneologists...i gave you references of SEVEN geneologists.
and many biographers, historians etc.
now, your lates blunder is the following:
Quote
This argument is false
Because the testimony of the person himself is unacceptable
YET, the first basis of both shia deniars ibn inaba(828AH) and Ibn taqtaqi(709AH) are that
SHAYKH never claimed himself to be a syed! check out kulaiders work on fiction from
fabrications, all are saying 'lam yad'a' he did not claim to be a syed...
you are in direct contradiction to the other biased shia deniars. why would they say he did not
claim himself to syed?? who is right you or them?
i gave you historians, biographers then you wanted geneologists then i gave you seven
geneologists then you wanted a chain then i gave you a sahih chain....there is so much difference
amongst geneologists themselves such as the SON called ZAID from ume kulsum(S) from umer
bin khattab....yet the same rules that you yourself formulated from books on geneology(calssic
shia ones in this case) but inaad is a desease which does not let you see clearly...
no more from me. for those want to see evidence can see who is offerring more quality evidence
and who is doing homemade baking!!!
Quote
Anti-salafi
Member
Anti-salafi
Advanced Members
1
159 posts
dear brother Skeptic
Quote
what can you say to someone who argues from homemade rules and goes on making up
things as he goes along to suit his hate.
You should say that to your self
Cause you the one who came up with homemade rules
Quote
i have given you a sahih chain of reporters ealier than your biased sources that say that
shaykh claimed that he was a syed and gave his family tree.
Where is it ?
Seems you dreaming my dear brother
Quote
i gave you references of SEVEN geneologists.
I asked you to post their testimony to see if they really confirmed his lineage, or just as usual, you
claim that they confirmed, while when we check the reference we find totally some thing else
Quote
why would they say he did not claim himself to syed?? who is right you or them?
I will tell you
The basis of Ibn Enba and the others to deny the linage is that Yahya didnt had a son named
Abdullah
Do you know that Ibn Enba is from the progeny of Muhammad son of Yahya, who the Qaderis
claim that he had a brother named Abdullah !
So Ibn Enba knows very well his forefathers and cousins, and his denial based on solid proof
from previous genealogists books who never mentioned Abdullah among the sons of Yahya
Ibn Enba loves Abdulqader Gilani, thats why he used nice words in describing him.
Therefore he dont want for Abdulqader to be a liar, thus he said that Abdulqader he never
claimed to be an Alvi, but his grandsons claimed to be Alavis
Shatnoofi who supposed to be the first one who recorded the linage of Abdulqader, the Sunni
scholar Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali called him a liar (Zail Tabaqat al-Hanabila, page 119)
While Ibn Hajar called the grand son of Abdulqader Gilani as immoral & evil-liver (Lisan al-Mizan,
volume 13, page 55)
These two scholar who you used as reference they weakened your proofs
Any how I think the discussion between me & you are useless, cause you not answering the
questions which I post in order to prove the lineage of Abdulqader
You just want me to accept the statements of some liars such as Shatnoofi & Mullah Ali Qaree
without asking for the proof
Quote

Anti-Salafi
Skeptic
Skeptic
Basic Members
0
24 posts
Location:uk
Quote
While Ibn Hajar called the grand son of Abdulqader Gilani as immoral & evil-liver (Lisan al-
Mizan, volume 13, page 55)
you are a man of contradcitions. the imam ibn hajar asqalani in his book 'al-ghibta' clearly says
shaykh is syed and also authenticates the chain of shatnufi. as well as authentication of sixty one
ulema and many geneologists amongst them in the book 'as-saif ar-rabani' by a maghrabi scholar
imam mohammed bin mustafa idreesi (1324AH). you are just homemade jealousy driven. settling
a local score!
Quote
kgmowla
kgmowla
Basic Members
0
1 post
Posted May 24, 2009 Report post
Anti-salafi said:
Yes very funny, actually the contradictions in Sunni school never ends
TABLE I
Sedan Hazard Muhammad (The Holy prophet)

Seed Hazard Fattier Az-zahra =(m) (1) Syedana Hazrat Ali bin Abi Talib
-------------------------------
(2) Syedana Hazrat Imam Hasan Syedana Hazrat Imam Husain
(3) Syedana Hazrat Imam Hasan Al-Musanna
(4) Syedana Hazrat Abdullah Mahaz
(5) Syedana Hazrat Musa Jon
(6) Syedana Abdullah Sani
(7) Syedana Hazrat Musa Sani
(8) Syedana Hazrat DaUd
(9) Syedana Hazrat Muhammad
(10) Syedana Hazrat Ehyya Zahad
(11) Syedana Hazrat Abdullah Al-Jili
(12) Syedana Hazrat Abi Saleh Musa =(m) Syeda Hazrat Ummal Khair Fatima Sanni (a
descendant of Syedana Hazrat Imam Husain)
(13) Syedana Hazrat Ghous-ul-Azam Shaikh Abi Muhammad Abdul Qader Mohi-Uddin Jilani
(14) Syedana Hazrat Abi Bakr Abdur Razzaque Al-Qaderi
(15) Syedana Hazrat Shamsuddin Abi Saleh Nasr Al-Qaderi
(16) Syedana Hazrat Ahmed Al-qaderi
(17) Syedana Hazrat Shahabuddin Al-Qaderi
(18) Syedana Hazrat Badruddin Al-Qaderi
(19) Syedana Hazrat Alauddin Al-Qaderi
(20) Syedana Hazrat Qasem-uddin Al-Qaderi
(21) Syedana Hazrat Ahmed As-Sani Al-Qaderi
(22) Syedana Hazrat Sharfuddin Al-Qaderi
(23) Syedana Hazrat Ebrahim Al-Qaderi
(24) Syedana Hazrat Abdul Jalil Al-Qaderi
(25) Syedana Hazrat Ahmed As Sales Al-Qaderi

(26) Syedana Hazrat Hedayt -Ullah Al-qaderi
(27) Syedana Hazrat Mashuq-Ullah Al-Qaderi
(28) Syedana Hazrat Abdul Qader Shah Abdullah Al-Qaderi
(29) Syedana Hazrat Zaker Ali Al-Qaderi Syedana Hazrat Raushan Ali Al-Qaderi (Nephew) (Son)
||
(30) Syedana Hazrat Tufail Ali Al-Qaderi
(31) Syedana Hazrat Meher Ali Al-Qaderi
(32) Syedana Hazrat Ali Abdul Qader Shamsul Qaderi Murshed Ali Al-Qaderi
(33) Syedana Hazrat Ershad Ali Al-Qaderi
(34) Syedana Hazrat Rushaid Ali Al-Qaderi
TABLE II
A genealogical table showing the descendent of Syedana Hazrat Ghous-Ul-Azam (The saint of
saints from the holy Prophet on the maternal side.
Syedana Hazrat Muhammad (The Holy prophet)
Syeda Hazrat Fatima Az-zahra =(m) (1) Syedana Hazrat Ali bin Abi Talib
-------------------------------
(2) Syedana Hazrat Imam Husain
(3) Syedana Hazrat Imam Ali Zain-Ul-Abedin
(4) Syedana Hazrat Imam Muhammad Al-Baqer
(5) Syedana Hazrat Imam Jaafer As-Sadeque
(6) Syedana Hazrat Imam Musa Al-Kazem
(7) Syedana Hazrat Imam Ali-Ar-Raza
(8) Syedana Hazrat Imam Abi Alauddin Muhammad Al-Jauwad (9) Syedana Hazrat Kamaluddin
Esa
(10) Syedana Hazrat Abul Ata Abdullah
(11) Syedana Hazrat Mahmood
(12) Syedana Hazrat Jamaluddin
(13) Syedana Hazrat Abdullah Sowmaye

(14) Syeda Hazrat Ummal Khair Fatima Sanni=Syedana Hazrat Abi Saleh Musa
(15) Syedana Hazrat Ghous-ul-Azam Shaikh Abi Muhammad Abdul Qader Mohi-Uddin Jilani
Out of 12 Great Imam (leader) up to Sl. no. 7 The [Edited Out]e sect Islam accept them as great
Imam who are also highly respectable to Sunnis without any doubt for their purity. nobleness and
greatness.
Another reference is given below:
Another reference is given below:
FUTUH AL-GHAIB
[THE REVELATION OF THE UNSEEN]
BY
HAZRAT SHAIKH MUHYUDDIN ABDUL QADIR GILANI
Translated by
Maulvi AFTAB-UD-DIN AHMAD
Formerly Imam, The Mosque, Waking Associate Editor, Islamic Review published by KITAB
BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110002
Introduction-pg-xix-xx
A word more to the non-Muslim readers of this book. It has been suggested by outsiders that
Sufism is a borrowed plume and not of the soul of Islam. This is based on cross ignorance. All the
affairs that led to the formation of the Islamic society and civilization were based on the verbal
revelation coming to the Holy Prophet in moments of spiritual trance and minor revelation coming
to his companions every now and then are indisputable facts of history. Exclusive devotional
practices of a whole band of disciples called Ashab Suffa are also among the outstanding facts of
the Prophets time. To say in face of this that Islam was a dogmatic and ritualistic faith in its origin
and that tasawwuf is the soul of Islam and political Islam its physical manifestation. Of course,
much of what posses for Sufism is not. Ideas and practices foreign to Islam and even antagonistic
to it have undoubtedly entered the body politic even of this living faith, particularly for the last few
centuries, because of the general decadence in the Islamic socio-intellectual order. But disease
does not prove the non-existence of health altogether nor decay the non-existence of body.
PARENTAGE
PG -1 Sayyid Abu Muhammad Abdul Qadir was born in Naif in the District of Gilan in Persia(Iran)
in the month of Ramadan in the year 470 A.H. corresponding to 1077 of the Christian era or
thereabout. His fathers name was Abu Salih, a God-fearing man and a direct descendant of
Hazrat Imam Hasan, the eldest son of Ali, the Holy Prophets first cousin, and of Fatima his
beloved daughter. His mother was the daughter of a saintly person- Abdullah Sawmai who was a
direct descendant of Imam Husain, the younger son of Ali and Fatima. Thus Sayyid Abdul Qadir
was both Hasani and Hussaini.
EARLY LIFE
From his early childhood he was quiet and sober, given to contemplation and used to what, for
want of a better expression, is called `mystic experiences in English. When he was about
eighteen years old his thirst for knowledge and eagerness for the company of holy men took him
to the distant city of Baghdad, at that time the center of learning of all kinds. Later in life he was
given the title of `Ghauth al-Azam, i.e. the greatest of all saints called Ghauth.
In the Sufi terminology a Ghauth is next to a Nabi in spiritual rank and in the dispensation of
Divine mercy and favor to mankind. A great authority of our times, however, has ranked him with
the Siddiqun, as the Quran would call such people. During his journey to Baghdad for his
truthfulness of eighty gold pieces sewn into his garment by his widowed mother, leader of a gang
of robbers burst into tears, fell down on his feet and repented for all past sins. It is reported that
he was his first disciple.
Truthful and charitable to the extreme, he had to endure great hardship during the period of his
study at Baghdad. By dint of his natural talents and devotion he became very soon the master of
all the different subjects that could be learnt by a scholar in those days. He proves to be the
greatest jurist of his time. But his deeper spiritual yearnings were restless to manifest themselves.
Even in his adolescence when he was engaged in his studies he was fond of mujahida or ascetic
life to rise above his animal self.
The descendant of Peeran Peer Hazrat Ghous-ul-Azam Syedana O Maulana Mohiuddin Shaikh
Abdul Kader Jilani al-Baghdadi Al-Hasani-wl-Hasani i.e. the Saint of Saints went to various parts
of the world including Africa and Asia and enlightened Islam up to present day. Some instance is
as follows:
Away, on the borders of Bengal and Orissa, in the town of Midnapore, famous in the legends of
old, was born on Friday, the twenty-seventh of Ramadan, A. H. 1268, July the sixteenth, A. D.
1852, a Mighty Child of a Mighty Father. He came of the Illustrious Family of the Greatest Saint of
the World, Hazrat Sultan-ul-Aulia, Peeran Peer Hazrat Ghous-ul-Azam Syedana O Maulana
Mohiuddin Shaikh Abdul Kader Jilani al-Baghdadi Al-Hasani-wl-Hasani and His Birth was
welcomed by a flood of celestial light. It was the Shabe-Kadr. Fifteenth in descent from Hazrat
Ghous-ul-Azam and twenty seventh from Hazrat Resalat Panahi (Peace be on Their Souls),
Hazrat Syed Shah Abdul Kader Abdulla Al-Jili Al-Baghdadi Al-Hasani-wl-Hosaini (Peace be on his
Soul) was the first of this most Noble and Sacred Family to set His foot in India. This was in the
year 1111 A. H. and He moved on to Delhi which was yet the capital of India but from there,
shortly after, returned to His native place, Baghdad, leaving behind His sons, Hazrat Syed Shah
Zaker Ali Al-Kaderi Al-Jili Al-Baghdadi Al-Hasani-wl-Hossaini and Hazrat Syed Shah Raushan Ali
Al-Kaderi Al-Jili Al-Baghdadi Al-Hasani-wl-Hossaini and a number of disciples of whom the
famous Moulana Abdul Haque, Mohaddas-e-Delhi was one. Hazrat Syed Shah Zaker Ali Al-
Kaderi came to Bengal and Hazrat Syed Shah Raushan Ali Al-Kaderi wended His way to Tirhoot.
Thirty miles away from Murshidabad, in Mangalkote, Hazrat Syed Shah Zaker Ali Al-Kaderi
settled at last. It was then a flourishing town; a seat of great learning; a center of commerce and
industry; a residence of Amirs and Omaras; the head-quarters of the Quazi-ul-Quzzat; and a
resting place o notable saints where pilgrims flocked from far and near. And 32 generation and
Sajjadanashin i.e. successor of Peeran Peer Hazrat Ghous-ul-Azam (Saint of Saints) Syedana O
Maulana Mohiuddin Shaikh Abdul Kader Jilani al-Baghdadi Al-Hasani-wl-Hasani as mentioned in
Table I, Hazrat Ali Abdul Kader Shamsul Kader Hazrat Syed Shah Murshed Ali Al-Kaderi Al_Jili Al-
Baghdadi Al-Hasani-wl-Hosaini sat on the Sajjada (A prayer mat or carpet). Like His Ancestor
Hazrat Ghouspak (The Saint of Saints or the greatest Saint at Baghdad), He could, at one and
the same time, be seen at many a place. Few of his miracles are as follows:
Moulvi Zeaur Rahman, Zamindar, Shahkulipur, Birbhum (West Bengal, India), says, Once I
wanted to come to Huzur and wrote to Him for permission to do so. But in reply, Huzur wrote to
me a strange letter `You should never think of coming to me now, said He You have still to live
long. Had your last days been approaching I would, surely, have told you of it. For, a Peer
(Spiritual guide), is but an imperfect Peer, who doesnt know when His murid will die. On the
receipt of this mysterious and unexpected letter I was exceedingly surprised. I couldnt make out
what it meant. But all the same, I gave up the idea of going to Calcutta. A few days after, I fell so
ill that even my attendant physician gave me up for lost. I was down for over a month and, at last,
when I recovered I could then realize what the letter of Huzur did really mean.
Moulana Syed Shah Abdul Hafiz Saheb of Margram, Subdivision Ramporehat, District Birbhum
(India), says, When young, I was very fond of riding and my father purchased for me a horse
which, had a few months before, been bought at Chatar for rupees two hundred and fifty. But on
the death of my father, which took place soon after, my brothers sold the horse and divided the
money among themselves. I appealed to Huzur and He graciously observed Dont you fret, you
would get a better one.
Time rolled on. I learnt, one day, that Mr. J. D. Sifton, (later, Sir James David Sifton, K.C.I.E.
Governor of Bihar and Orissa) who was then our Sub divisional Officer, was under orders of
transfer and going to Hazaribagh as an Assistant Settlement Officer. I went to him to pay my
respects and bid him farewell. We had a long talk and among other things he asked me if I would
keep his horse. `But I have no money Sir, said I, `But why bother about any money at all, said
he, `Its a present to you and so saying he at once sent for his syce and asked him to take the
horse to my house. The horse was nice and valuable and had been purchased by him for rupees
six hundred from a notable firm in Calcutta and the gift of it to me was beyond my dream. But
Huzurs prophecy was fulfilled and I bowed down my head in gratitude to Him.
The Late Mr. Khondkar Yusuf Ali, Barrister-at-law, related, Once, my mother-in-law, a European
lady, who had been living with me, left my house without any notice and took away with her my
son who was then child. It was late at night when I came to know of it and so upset was I for my
son that I could hardly sleep.
The next morning, Huzur sent for me and as I presented myself before Him he cheered me up,
saying (although I had spoken to none about the incident) `Dont you worry about your son
Counsili Saheb, tomorrow will he be back with his granny. And to our great delight they did come
back the next morning.
Two very close relations of Mrs. Khondkar, a highly educated European lady, died while she was
in England but so intense was her grief that she had no peace and yearned to see them even
after their death. For it, she went to many religious heads in Europe and in India and also to
reputed theosophists but to no effect. At last, her husband after he had become a disciple of
Huzur, asked her to apply to Huzur for it, but as she had no faith in Islam she did it most
reluctantly in writing. On receipt of her letter, through Mr. Khondkar, Huzur enquired id she would
go through some prayer. `By no means, she sent a reply. For, no prayer can do it but the strong
spiritual power of some mighty saint.
After that, she took Mr. Khondkar to Beneras where she went to the famous Sannyyasi,
Vaskarananda Swami and told him of her mission.
But Maiji, said he It was possible only during Satyug, but this is Kaliyug and none but my
Guruji-the Peer Saheb of your Saheb- can do it now. Go back to Him in Calcutta.
She came back to Calcutta with Mr. Khondkar and solicited Huzur to fulfil her object. Huzur gave
her a very short and ordinary prayer to say. But to her great delight, within only a very few days,
there suddenly appeared before her those very dead persons whom she wanted to see. It is on
these very chairs, in front of me, she told Maulana Abu Taher Saheb, That they sat and talked to
me as if they were alive-. A thousand thanks to His Holiness- Huzur for this. Give Him my
innumerable salams. But I must still say that its not
From my own book, The Election of Caliph/Khalifah and World Peace
http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.p...book=1581128770
Quote
_kaneezFATIMAH_
_kaneezFATIMAH_
Basic Members
0
2 posts
Posted June 25, 2009 (edited) Report post
Anti-salafi said:
(bismillah)
Assalam o Alaikum wa Rahmatullah wa Barakatuhu All
I would start with a prayer: "O Sweet Allah Jan (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala)! Guide Anti-salafi to the
Right Path or humiliate and destroy him. (Aamin)"
I was just shocked to see his posts. This much hatred inside? A mind full of garbage! Littered with
prejudice! Such are the people our earth wants to get rid of. Because of such people Muslims all
over the world are divided into so many groups. We've lost all our power due to never-ending
conflicts amongst us. People like these never want to see Muslims standing one on a single
platform.
Why is your name Anti-salafi? Can you just tell me why you opted for Anti-salafi? Why you never
tried to bring the salafis on the right path? Your screen-name speaks your mentality loud. It is
because of people like you that America and Britain are one but Al-Qaeda and Iran are two! We
simply need to get rid of damned people like you. Did Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaho Ta'ala
Alehe wa Aalehi wa Sallam) became Anti-Quraish or chose to strive hard in bringing them to
Islam in a friendly and polite way? Today we already are Sunnis, Shiahs, Barelvi, Deobandi, Ahl e
Hadith etc etc etc. Now please don't try launching another "I don't believe your Pir being Sayyid"
debate.
Let me tell you what should have been your response had you been a human being. You should
have cared for the hearts of millions of Sunnis who consider Sayyid Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jilani
(Aleh Salam) everything. I can see your face getting red over Aleh Salam. Also you should have
cared for the hearts of millions of Shiah brothers and sisters who love Imam Khomini (Aleh
Salam). You should have said: "Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala knows the best if he is a Sayyid or
not. I believe exactly what Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala has made him."
As for myself, I feel to clear my beliefs before moving any further. I am a Sunni because I love to
follow Sunnah of my Sweet Nana Jan (Sallallaho Alehe wa Aalehi wa Sallam). I am a Shiah of my
Sweetheart, my Papa Jan (Aleh Salam). I am a daughter, sis, friend, slave and [Edited Out] of my
Sweet Mama Jan (Aleh Salam) and all my Grandmas Jan (Aleh Salam). Who am I to discuss
what had been going on amongst my elders? Those things are gone days now... Am I really
worthy of discussing the fight between my Papa (Aleh Salam) and my Grandma Jan (Aleh
Salam)? One is the son-in-law of my Nana Papa (Sallallaho Alehe wa Aalehi wa Sallam) while the
other a wife... The fight between my Papa (Aleh Salam) and his Sahabi fellow Hadhrat Muawiyah
(Aleh Salam) has long been over. They are both in Jannah now... rejoicing. What image do I
create of my Sweet Papa (Aleh Salam) in my mind? A man full of love; or a man full of hatred just
like you? Listen! His rank is too much high. Higher than you can ever imagine. He (Aleh Salam)
has forgiven his lost and gone astray fellow so it's my sincere advice that you also refrain from
making comments like "Muawiyah like propaganda". All we need is just to thank our Allah Jan
Subhanahu wa Ta'ala that his propaganda is over and our Imam was victorious. They both were
Sahabah. If you do not want to love Hadhrat Muawiyah (Aleh Salam) because of the fight... don't
love... just respect him as a Sahabi and brother of an Ummul Momineen (Aleh Salam).
Listen Anti-salafi! I laughed when you said that Hadhrat Sayyid Abdul Qadir Jilani (Aleh Salam)
was a fake Sayyid. I just laughed "who" is talking about "WHOM"? Who said that your father Ibn
Enba can not make a mistake. Is he God? Or a prophet? When a lot of genologists and historians
mentioned that he is a Sayyid, I don't know why you want to keep sticking to that Ibn Enba the
stupid ass. Genologists work on lineages mostly 2 or 3 centuries after a figure has passed.
Historians, scholars and jurists start saving a person's life right when he's in front of their eyes.
How perfect are genologists is clear enough when Sahabah Karam tried to read Shajrah of my
Nana Abu (Sallallaho Alehe wa Aalehi wa Sallam) beyond Hadhrat Adnan (Aleh Salam). The
Prophet (Sallallaho Alehe wa Aalehi wa Sallam) stopped them saying that genologists have erred
above Hadhrat Adnan (Aleh Salam).
You said that reaching for the stars is easier and proving him a Sayyid is harder! Let me tell you...
Stars are just dust of my Papa Jani's (Aleh Salam) Na'alain Pak Sharif. His lineage is the most
noble of all Sayyid linages. He is from my Papa Hassan Al-Mujtaba (Aleh Salam) on parental side
and from my Papa Hussain Gulgoon Qaba (Aleh Salam) from maternal side... The Chain of Gold!
My Papa Jan (Aleh Salam) has in him blood of 9 Imams! Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala has
promised him that if a Waliullah visits Baghdad ash-Sharif and does not visit his grave first, his
"Haal" would be lost. He (Aleh Salam) has given life to the dead ones through powers blessed on
him by Allah Almighty (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala). And there are a lot of books that tell "Qaseedah e
Ghousiah Sharif" is by him; why don't you believe those books. Some say that it's from him, a
very little number of asses say it's not from him; then why you only follow the ones who deny it?
Why don't you remain unbiased and say Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) knows the best? Time first
appears before him and then through his permission passes on this universe. His foot is above
the necks of all Awliya except the Sahabah Karam and Aiymah Karam of Ahlul Bayt. One never
becomes a Wali if he doesn't place his blessed foot over one's neck. He never fed and fasted the
whole month of Ramadan ul Mubarak right since his birth. His flags are on the top of mountains.
When an ordinary person says that he is a Sayyid, pay respect to what he says. Don't run after
your stupid thoughts and start going through the rubbish books of Ibn Enba the ass. There is an
incident when a man like you refused to accept the Siyyadat of a poor Sayyidah widow and
demanded "proof" instead of helping her and her needy daughters. Later in his dream, our
Beloved Prophet (Sallallaho Alehe wa Aalehi wa Sallam) refused to accept him a Muslim and
demanded proof!
All dear readers! I am not the invincible like the Anti-salafi! I am neither an Imam of all the Shiah,
Sunni, Barelvi, Wahabi, Salafi, Deobandi, Ahle Hadith texts like Anti-salafi is nor do I own a library
bigger than Sijistani's bedroom like Anti-salafi does... I am a sinner. I am the most lowly in this
Ummah. I am a [Edited Out] of each and every single ummatti of my Nana Abu (Sallallaho Alehi
wa Aalehi wa Sallam). But my Lord is All Graceful and He gives abundantly. He does not lock His
doors upon sinners. I'm only sharing it for the sake of my Papa Jani (Aleh Salam)... let me tell you
the names of THOSE who have confirmed me my "Sayyid Jilani" lineage:
01. My Allah Jan (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala)
02. My Nana Abu (Sallallaho Alehe wa Aalehi wa Sallam)
03. My Mummy Jan (Aleh Salam)
04. My Papa Jani (Aleh Salam)
05. My Papa Jan Hassan (Aleh Salam)

06. My Papa Jan Hussain (Aleh Salam)
07. My Jilani Papa (Aleh Salam)
08. My Master Hadhrat Sayyid Ali bin Usman Hajveri alma'aroof Data Ganj Baksh (Aleh Salam)
09. My Master Hadhrat Sayyid Abdul Latif Kazmi Qadri alma'aroof Bari Imam Sarkar (Aleh
Salam)
10. My Master Hadhrat Jhoole Lal Gee (Aleh Salam)
11. My Master Hadhrat Khawajah Fazal ud Din Chishti Sabri Kalyami alma'aroof Baba Gee
Kalyami (Aleh Salam)
A Muslim can not attribute any lie towards any single one of the above mentioned names. I know
most of you would have no trouble in accepting what I wrote above but people like Anti-salafi will
ask for "proof". I promise I will provide him with proof on Roz e Qiyamah along with my Papa
(Aleh Salam) in case you don't repent. I know your extreme hatred for Sunnis is speaking and is
making you deny the lineage of a famous Sunni saint. Remember Sunnis are not a thing to be
hated by Shiahs and vice verca. Both are Muslim and differ in interpreting things. These
differences in interpretations are a source of blessings in Ummah. Don't make these differences a
cause of hatred. If someone says, their Pir tells he's a Sayyid, accept it and do something
worthwhile on internet instead of wasting your time in collecting fire for yourself. Write for
Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Chechnya, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Sudan, East
Timur, Jammu & Kashmir, Gujrat. Burn your full of hatred books in your bigger than Sijistani's
bedroom library and convert it into an office for an organization that spreads love. Let's call that
organization "Shunni".
People take pride in themselves when they call themselves Sayyids. Seeing them, I always pray
from Allah Jan (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) O Allah everyone who knows he's a Sayyid, turns out an
actual Sayyid on the Day of Judgement. O Allah many adopted false name of Sayyids and now
their children don't know they are fake Sayyids but are truly happy. O Allah Jan (Subhanahu wa
Ta'ala) the One Who never breaks hearts, pls make them Sayyids on the Day of Judgement. O
Allah time passes for us and You are not bound by time. O Allah Jan (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) don't
give them the bad news of they being fake Sayyids, make them one. You know how to do it just
like you could have done it on their first creation. A creation is pending. So I suggest you for start
spreading prayers for all your brothers and sisters. Also when a thing is doubtful, just get aside. If
there are some good books as well in your bigger than Sijistani's bedroom library, find in them
ways to send more and more gifts of Sawab to Masoomeen (Aleh Salam) and spend your time in
that. Find some Jilani close to you and try discussing with him his father Sayyid Shaikh Abdul
Qader Jilani (Aleh Salam). Notice on his face a shine when he takes his father's name. Make a
prayer for hime for that shine to turn out true on the Final Day and who knows SOMETHING good
awaits you on that day. We all never know who is who. What cast or what final status has Allah
(Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) decreed for us in the Book lying with Him. The day when this earth would
be changed with an earth we don't know, the sky would be changed with a sky we don't know;
who knows what else would be changed! So if your genology books tell you that you're a Sayyid,
pray from Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala for this being true. Just don't stop making duas and blindly
trust it. If you're not, He (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) has taken the responsibility of accepting duas.
Trust in Him!! Leave Jananb Abdul Qadir Jilani (Aleh Salam) alone. He can well take care of
himself. Try washing your heart. Try loving people and specially saints. Don't be Anti-salafi.
Salafis think they're Muslims. Love them. Discuss with them your ideas. Listen to theirs. When
you'll change, hope there would be surely an Anti-shiah changing as well. In the end you both will
be happy of being from ONE UMMAH.
Some people might ask why I used "Aleh Salam" with every name I mentioned. It's just like I
started this post by sending Salam on all of you. Same way I sent Salam on all these noble
figures. Some would still be uneasy with this so to make "MY" belief clear:
- Can I use Aleh Salam for all Sahabah Karam? Yes
- Can I use Radhi Allah Ta'ala Anho for all Sahabah Karam? NO
Because using Radhi Allah Ta'ala Anho for Panjtan Pak and Aymah Karam is HARAM. Radhi
Allah Ta'ala Anho/Anha means that Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala "became" happy with them "at a
certain time" in their life but there is not even a single second Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala was not
happy with Panjtan Pak and Aiymah Karam (Aleh Salam). They were His beloved when dust and
water did not existed for creating the body of their Jadee Adam (Aleh Salam).
Anti-salafi! I hope you will end your war with Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala and can save your Iman
other wise I can foresee you dying in a state without Iman. Because a war with a Waliullah is a
war against Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala Himself and in war combatants try to sieze the most
valuable of the enemy. I think your Iman is the most valuable thing with you. Save it!
Best Regards
~~~~~~~~~~~
Allah | Muhammad | Ali | Fatimah | Hassan | Hussain
Zaynul Abidin | al Baqir | as Sadiq | al Kadhim | ar Ridha | at Taqi | al Hadi | al Askari | al Mahdi |
al-Jilani
Edited June 25, 2009 by _kaneezFATIMAH_
Quote
haideriam
Ya Qaim Ali Muhammad(AS) Adrikni

haideriam
Advanced Members
546
3,922 posts
Religion:Islam - Muhhib
Posted June 25, 2009 Report post
_kaneezFATIMAH_ said:
(bismillah)
Those things are gone days now... Am I really worthy of discussing the fight between my Papa
(Aleh Salam) and my Grandma Jan (Aleh Salam)? One is the son-in-law of my Nana Papa
(Sallallaho Alehe wa Aalehi wa Sallam) while the other a wife... The fight between my Papa (Aleh
Salam) and his Sahabi fellow Hadhrat Muawiyah (Aleh Salam) has long been over. They are both
in Jannah now... rejoicing.
(bismillah)
(salam)
ya ali madad(as)
shocked and surprised, this is not zee TV or star plus or whatever soap drama.
consult a proper alim or pm me, or send me an email, better still pm brother toocoool66 and
discuss these fundamentals with him.
peer maula ali madad(as)
hub e ali(as) rahmatullah, bugz e ali(as) lanatullah
(wasalam)
Quote
O! rabb of muhammad(sawws) and ali muhammad(as) make me a slave of the slaves of the
ahlulbayt (as)
Haideriam Qalandarum Mastum
Man bandae Ali(as) Murtaza hastam
Peshwahe tamam rindanam
ke man saghe kuhe Yazdanam
Sis BintAlHoda,
"this is my point, you can't stick to hadith thaqalayn if u do not have a comprehensive knowledge
of quran and ahlul bayt (A) and this is where scholarship comes in.
unless u have a direct link to imam mahdi who can instruct u that we do not know about or
perhaps have videorecordings of what happened in history with ahlul bayt (A)."
Abdaal
Member
Abdaal
Banned
2
4,007 posts
Everything else was fine except that part.
Quote
My blog
toocoool66
SYED ALI RAZA

toocoool66
Advanced Members
3
1,036 posts
Location:pakistan

(bismillah)
(salam)
Quote
Those things are gone days now... Am I really worthy of discussing the fight between my Papa
(Aleh Salam) and my Grandma Jan (Aleh Salam)? One is the son-in-law of my Nana Papa
(Sallallaho Alehe wa Aalehi wa Sallam) while the other a wife... The fight between my Papa (Aleh
Salam) and his Sahabi fellow Hadhrat Muawiyah (Aleh Salam) has long been over. They are both
in Jannah now... rejoicing.
no one is telling you to discuss or not discuss anything
but in your life, you are bound to follow atleast religion
and there are two main concepts
one is that you take religion from ahlubait.
other is you take it from salaf.
and you do need to see which one you are going to follow. the reason is simple
if you are following the wrong group, you will damage none, except yourself.....
you see even prophet told you that
Volume 8, Book 76, Number 585:
Narrated Abu Hazim from Sahl bin Sa'd:
The Prophet said, "I am your predecessor (forerunner) at the Lake-Fount, and whoever will pass
by there, he will drink from it and whoever will drink from it, he will never be thirsty. There will
come to me some people whom I will recognize, and they will recognize me, but a barrier will be
placed between me and them." Abu Hazim added: An-Nu'man bin Abi 'Aiyash, on hearing me,
said. "Did you hear this from Sahl?" I said, "Yes." He said, " I bear witness that I heard Abu Said
Al-Khudri saying the same, adding that the Prophet said: 'I will say: They are of me (i.e. my
followers). It will be said, 'You do not know what they innovated (new things) in the religion after
you left'. I will say, 'Far removed, far removed (from mercy), those who changed (their religion)
after me." Abu Huraira narrated that the Prophet said, "On the Day of Resurrection a group of
companions will come to me, but will be driven away from the Lake-Fount, and I will say, 'O Lord
(those are) my companions!' It will be said, 'You have no knowledge as to what they innovated
after you left; they turned apostate as renegades (reverted from Islam)."
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/en...tml#008.076.585
now if you say that i ll follow whatever, and i am not pushed to see who did what,
well sister
you may well be cursing your self on that day.....
as regard to the fight that was long over. let me gift you a chapter from sahih muslim
i ll just give you the name and link

you read it for yourself.
Chapter 30: DON'T BECOME UNBELIEVERS AFTER ME BY STRIKING THE NECKS OF ONE
ANOTHER
you can read this chapter here
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/en...im/001.smt.html
you are free to think whatever you wish for, and i m least pushed what you think
but whatever you think, think of that day.
i am not interested in this thread, and will not be posting in it, as this has nothing to do with the
main topic
if mods wish, they can remove this post.
Quote
SURAT AL MAIDA VERSE 55

Guest Zahrah
Guest Zahrah
Guests
smrr110 said:
Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani(ra). We know Ayatullah Murtaza Mutahari has confimed him a Sayed in
one of his book. While in of the discussion threads of shiachat, I found references of other
Mujtahids which deny this fact.
Ma'salama
once there was a thread here about the Tahrifaaat of Aashura by Mutahhari, when we searched
we got to this point that what he had claimed to be tahrif and deviation was in fact verified
documents by even some non_shias, and he had just made a fuss.
he had a name for nothing.
martikke sarkhosh.
Taair-al-Quds said:
it is untrue that he did not make such a claim. the qaseedah al ghawsiyah by him clearly
mentions that he is a descendant of al-hassan (a.s) in the last verses of it.
by not claiming something like lineage openly or in writings, one is not automatically removed
from a lineage. majority of the mystics have not said a word about their lineage but that does not
make any difference on whatever the facts maybe about them.
some Paki guy over here told me there are many Jafari saadaat in Pakistan who are sunni. Also
there are many Hassani saadaat in Iraq who ar sunni
Anti-salafi said:
Shia scholars has nothing to do with genealogy
if you want to know such things you have to ask the genealogists, just as if you want to know
some thing about cosmology you have to ask the cosmologgists.
the (fabricated) lineage of Abdulqader al-Gelani is as following
Abdulqader son of Musa son of Abdullah son of Yahya son of Muhammad son of Dawoud son
of Musa son of Abdullah son of Musa son of Abdullah son of Hassan son of Hassan son of Ali son
of Abi Talib
Noor al-Absar, by Sheblenji, page 320
the famous genealogist Ibn Enba declared that this lineage is false and Abdulqader doesnt
belong to Bani Hashim tribe.
Umdat al-Talib, page 129
if you search in genealogy books, you will never find a person with this name (Musa son of
Abdullah son of Yahya) because its fabricated character.
Actually I wrote a book titled as "al-Sahifa al-Khadra" proving in it the falsehood of all the
famous Sunni and Sufi scholars lineages.
But I couldnt publish it because the book contain some famous Shia scholars as well.
Abdolghade Jilani son of no one (lol)
Quote
Aboo Fatimah
I am
Aboo Fatimah
Unregistered
2
2,497 posts
Location:In the Sky.
He was my master.
Quote
Ideas are just ideas.

_kaneezFATIMAH_
_kaneezFATIMAH_
Basic Members
0
2 posts
Posted July 21, 2009 (edited) Report post
(bismillah)
Assalam o Alaikum wa Rahmatullah wa Barakatuhu
_kaneezFATIMAH_ said:
As for myself, I feel to clear my beliefs before moving any further. I am a Sunni because I love
to follow Sunnah of my Sweet Nana Jan (Sallallaho Alehe wa Aalehi wa Sallam). I am a Shiah of
my Sweetheart, my Papa Jan (Aleh Salam). I am a daughter, sis, friend, slave and [Edited Out] of
my Sweet Mama Jan (Aleh Salam) and all my Grandmas Jan (Aleh Salam).
...
I am a [Edited Out] of each and every single ummatti of my Nana Abu (Sallallaho Alehi wa
Aalehi wa Sallam).
Intended to write b i t c h on both the occasions.
----------------
haideriam said:
shocked and surprised, this is not zee TV or star plus or whatever soap drama.
Where was all that drama in my post? Avoid spicing up the talk. Don't watch Indian channels for a
few days and they'll get off your mind and you won't see that much action/drama in a religious
discussion. Personally I seldom watch TV; mostly when there's something quite important being
aired because of fear and shame of watching Na-mehrams. Similarly I don't watch the channels
you mentioned because Kafir lady is the same as a Kafir male. So I guarantee you that whatever
I wrote was in noway inspired by any soap serial.
haideriam said:
consult a proper alim or pm me, or send me an email, better still pm brother toocoool66 and
discuss these fundamentals with him.
What I wrote might also be the beliefs of millions of other people; so discuss publicly. Correct me,
a million others and earn Thawab. Emailing and pming not only beats the setup of whole bulletin
board system but also our soul purpose of participating in a "dialogue" forum.
haideriam said:
...better still pm brother toocoool66 and discuss these fundamentals with him.
toocoool66 said:
i am not interested in this thread, and will not be posting in it, as this has nothing to do with the
main topic
if mods wish, they can remove this post.
Your ace you invited lost his interest.

----------------
toocoool66 said:
but in your life, you are bound to follow atleast religion
and there are two main concepts
one is that you take religion from ahlubait.
other is you take it from salaf.
In my life I am bound to follow only the religion
and there's only one thing
I take it from where it emerged from
and that is the People of the House
----------------
Zahrah said:
Abdolghade Jilani son of no one (lol)
Zahrah might belong to any one, two or all of the following three categories:
1: Zahrah is ignorant of proper use of internet shortcuts and emoticons
Even the people opposing the status of Hadhrat Shaikh Sayyid Abudl Qadir Jilani (Aleh Salam) as
Sayyid will not be able to find anything in the quoted sentence which makes them laugh out loud
over it. Above 70% of the people that are not native English, make wrong use of internet shortcuts
in an attempt to put over other people an impression of having command over modern English.
Plus this makes them psychologically satisfied by deluding them to a world where they have a
command over modern English and internet when in actual they don't have. Zahrah tried to win
the post the same way. A "normal" (i.e., with normal healthy brain conditions) native speaker of
English who understands internet shortcuts better will never use lol after this sentence unless it's
case no. 2 with him as well.
2: Zahrah is a psycho
Or I might be wrong in my opinion that Zahrah is ignorant of proper i-net shortcut usage. She is
totally aware of where to use lol and was really laughing out loud when she was writing the above
quoted sentence. Now imagine Zahrah sitting in front of her computer and hysterically bursting
into loud laughter while writing the sentence "Abdolghade Jilani son of no one". My sympathies
with her. What category does she fall in? How many of the readers are laughing out loud on the
subject sentence?
3: Zahrah is a prevaricator
Zahrah might come now and tell that she nither is ignorant of proper use of internet shortcuts nor
was laughing out loud because of psychoneurotic hysteria while writing such a simple sentence
like "Abdolghade Jilani son of no one" but in fact was serious or simply smiling. In this case
Zahrah is a liar.
To sum up:
1. I would advise kids to learn languages first instead of stepping into the difficult field of Ilm-ul-
Ansab and speaking on the nasab of famous saints and Jafari saadaat in Pakistan who are
Sunni.
2. Getting into debate with psychotics aint any worthwhile. I pray for them to heal up quickly and
advise them not to indulge in tough mental activities and lead a simple harmonious life.
3. Everyone of us hates liars. Lies take you the ticket to hell. Liars only worsen up the things.
They don't have any knowledge and try to meddle in each and every thing they come across. Spit
on liars!
4. Is this really a place for dialogue?
Are these forums meant for dialogue? Any (unbiased) mods around? Or is it a piss off Sunnis
drama? Had this debate been about an Ayatollah with same lols from an ignorant, a psycho or a
liar; moderators would have surely kicked in at the spot.
Zahrah might have read all the posts before posting her laughter... including my post, a Jilani's
post trying to tell truth about her father (as)... but she continued to write her mocking statement. Is
this is what's called a typical Shiah girl? Is this what Shiahism all about? Are all Shiahs like that?
Any decent Shiahs around? Any Shiah that could digest Sunnis can be Sayyids? Any moderator
or admin that could highlight the policy guidelines necessary to create a true dialogue place? A
debate is in progress about the lineage of a saint but an ignorant, or a psycho, or a liar made fun
of him and no moderator is yet here to guide her to New Guidelines and enforcement of Shiachat
rules, EVERYONE MUST READ by Noor Fatimah at http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?
showtopic=73802. Why? Because he is Sunni?
Luckily we Sunnis, have a very different attitude by the grace of the Almighty Allah (Subhanahu
wa Ta'ala). Most of us pray for the victory of Iran and destruction of US and Israel when they talk
about attacking Iran. I'm citing Iran specifically because it's a country with most Shiah population
(around 90%). I still remember Iran vs. USA in FIFA World Cup (France'98) and how tears of
thanks trickled down my eyes and millions of other Sunnis as well when Iran butted USA out of
the way... I know Sunnis (including me) who always dream of going to Iran and joining the Jihad
in case Kafirs dare to attack... but imagine a Sunni amongst lot of Anti-salafis and Zahrahs, trying
to prove his lineage legitimate amidst shower of bullets and bombs...
----------------
For those of you who have interest in exploring Sunnism and/or Sufism without bias, there is a lot
lot lot of work on The Shaikh, The Imam, The (15th) Ma'soom, The pious abstainer, The dutiful
worshipper, The knower by direct experience, The avoider of excess, The Shaikh of Shaikhs, The
proof of Islam (Hujja tul Islam), The axis of the human race, The upholder of The Sunnah, The
suppressor of heretical innovation, The crown of those who know by direct experience, The love
of those who tread the spiritual path, The knower of the Haqiqah (The Reality), The Chief of the
saints, The leader of the pure, The lantern of those who travel the spiritual way, The guide of
those who are devoted to their duty, The lamp of the people of devotion and purity, His higher
Exellency Nur-e-Panjtan Pak, Ghos-ul-Waqt, Siraj-ul-Awliya, Burhan-ul-Awliya, Shams-ul-
Fuqaha, Sultan-ul-Arifeen, Sultan-ul-Awliya, Qutb-e-Rabbani, Mehboob-e-Subhani, Piran-e-Pir,
Muhiyuddin (Reviver of the Religion), Hadrat Ghauth-ul-Azam Dastgir Sayyid Muhiyuddin Abu
Muhammad Abdul Qadir Jilani Baghdadi al-Hasani wal-Husayni (Aleh Salam).
His paternal lineage is as follows:
Sayyid Abu Saleh Musa Jangidost

S/o Sayyid Abdullah
S/o Sayyid Yahya Zahid
S/o Sayyid Muhammad
S/o Sayyid Daud
S/o Sayyid Musa Sani
S/o Sayyid Abdullah Sani
S/o Sayyid Musa al Jaun (aka Syed Musa Salas)
S/o Sayyid Abdullah al Mehaz al Kamil
S/o Sayyid Hassan Muthanna
S/o Sayyid Imam Hassan (Aleh Salam)
S/o Imam Ali bin abi Talib Karamullah Wajho (Aleh Salam)
And maternal lineage as follows:
Sayyidah Fatimah Ummul Khair
D/o Sayyid Abu Abdullah Soumai
S/o Sayyid Abu Jamaluddin Muhammad
S/o Sayyid Abu Mehmood Tahir
S/o Sayyid Abu al Atta Abdullah
S/o Sayyid Abu al kamal Issa Roomi Akbar
S/o Imam Muhammad al Jawwad (Aleh Salam)
S/o Imam Ali Raza (Aleh Salam)
S/o Imam Musa Kazim (Aleh Salam)
S/o Imam Jaffar Sadiq (Aleh Salam)
S/o Imam Muhammad Baqar (Aleh Salam)
S/o Imam Zain ul Abideen Ali (Aleh Salam)
S/o Imam Hussain (Aleh Salam)
And I... a daughter... conclude my discussion on the topic with one line for my Papa:
A diamond is forever.
Thanks to all of you, the neutral and prejudice-free Shiah sisters and brothers for reading. With
best regards,
Allah Hafiz
_KF_Q
~~~~~~~~~~~
Allah | Muhammad | Fatimah | Ali | Hassan | Hussain | Khadijah | Aishah
Zayn ul Abidin | al Baqir | as Sadiq | al Kadhim | ar Ridha | at Taqi | al Hadi | al Askari | al Mahdi |
al Jilani
Edited July 21, 2009 by _kaneezFATIMAH_
Quote
zaigham abbas
Member
zaigham abbas
Advanced Members
0
309 posts
Posted July 27, 2009 Report post
why is it important that he was a syed or not?
Quote
LODHI WARLORD
Be Prepared For Ultimate Annihilation!!

LODHI WARLORD
Advanced Members
2
873 posts
Posted July 29, 2009 Report post
yes, he was a Sayyid
some other famous Sunni Sayyids listed below....
Hazrat Shah Bahauddin Naqshband
Hazrat Sayyid Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti
Hazrat Syed Jalaluddin Surkh-Posh Bukhari (Naqvi Sayyid)
Hazrat Syed Usman Marwandi (Sindhi ) Lal Shahbaz Qalandar
Mir Sayyid Ali Hamadani
Bulleh Shah
Sayed Waris Shah
Hazrat Sayyid Khwaja Nizamuddin Auliya
Quote
rabbaniqadri
rabbaniqadri
Basic Members
0
1 post
Posted October 31, 2009 (edited) Report post
Asalamlaikam Brothers and sisters to all my Muslim brothers here.
I like your topic which made me register with Shiachat.com. we are sunnie of Prophet Muhammad
SAW and we are Shia of Imam AlI Bin Talib RA.
First of all im from Qadri Sufi Tariah which goes back to Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani RA and his
Lineage goes back to Prophet Muhammad RasoolALLAH SAW. BELOW IS HIS FAMILY TREE
THANK YOU
HIS FAMILY TREE: His family tree reaches the Caliph, Sayyiduna Ali Bin Talib al-Murtadha r.a.
from his father through fourteen generations and through his mother by twelve generations.
Shaikh Sayyiduna Abdur Rahman Jaami r.a. said the following concerning the geneology of al-
Ghawth al-Azam r.a. : He is an exalted King, who is known as al-Ghwath al-Azam. He is Sayyid
from both his parents. Hasani from his father and Husaini from his mother. His family tree is as
follows: SAYYIDUNA RASOOLULLAH, s.a.w.s.
A. SAYYIDATUN NISA FATHIMATU ZAHRA
B. SAYYIDUNA ALI-E-MURTAZA r.a.
A1. SHAHEED-E-KARBALA IMAM HUSAIN r.a.
B1. SAYYIDUNA IMAM HASSAN
A2. SAYYIDUNA IMAM ZAINUL ABEDEEN r.a.
B2. SAYYID HASSAN MATHNI
A3. IMAM MUHAMMAD BAAQIR r.a.
B3. SAYYID ABDUL MAHDH
A4. SAYYIDUNA IMAM JAAFAR SAADIQ r.a.
B4. SAYYID MOOSA AL JAWN
A5. SAYYIDUNA IMAM MOOSA KAAZIM r.a.
A5. SAYYID ABDULLAH THAANI

A6. SAYYIDUNA SHAIKH ALI RAZA r.a.
B6. SAYYID MOOSA THAANI
A7. SAYYID ABOO ALAUDDEEN r.a.
B7. SAYYID DAWOOD
A8. SAYYID KAMAALUDDEEN ESA r.a.
B8. SAYYID MUHAMMAD
A9. SAYYID ABUL ATAA ABDULLAH r.a.
B9. SAYYID YAHYA AZ ZAAHID
A10. SHAIKH SAYYID MAHMOOD r.a.
B10. SAYYID ABI ABDILLAI
A11. SAYYID MUHAMMAD
B11. SAYYID ABU SAMEH MOOSA (father)
SAYYID ABOO JAMAAL
SAYYID ABDULLAH SOOMEE
SAYYIDAH UMMUL KHAIR FAATIMA (Mother)
SAYYIDUNA MUHIYYUDDEEN ABU MUHAMMAD ABDUL QAADIR JILANI RAH

Edited October 31, 2009 by rabbaniqadri
Quote
chocki
chocki
Basic Members
0
3 posts
Religion:sunni islam
Posted January 16, 2010 Report post
I can see the problem the people who doubt the family Abdul Qadir Jilani.He is not here to tell you
in person.The historians are not to your liking and are dead .o why not.I'VE AN ANSWER TO
THOSE WHO DOUBT.ASK YOUR MAMMA IS THE MAN WHOM I CALL DAD REALLY MY
FATHER?OR SHOULD I CALL THE MILKMAN POPS.TRUST ME YOU WILL BE SUPRISED AT
THE ANSWER.THE QUSTIONS YOU SHOULD BE ASKING IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE
TEACHING OF ABDUL QADRI JILANI WHICH IS AGAINST THE KORAN OR HADITHS.AND
WHAT WAS HIS CREED .IF HE READ LAILLAHA ILLALA MUHAMMADUR RASUL ILA.THIS IS
WHAT THE PROPHET READ AND THE SAHABA READ INCLUDING ALI AL MURTAZA AND
FATIYMA AND THE SHAHEED KARBALA READ .WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR AZAN FROM
AND YOUR CREED FROM .HE'S YOUR DADDY.FLAWS ARE THERE WHERE IS YOUR
PROOF THAT ALI READ ANYTHING YOU READ?WHAT ARE YOUR ORGINS?CAN YOU
PROVE YOUR RELIGION OR YOUR FAMILY TREE THEN PLEASE PROVE WITH A BLOOD
TEST AND A DNA TEST EVEN THEN I DOUBT I'LL BELIEVE YOU [Edited Out].BUT PLEASE
ASK MAMMA ABOUT PAPPA.!
Quote
Abdul Qaim
Muhibb
Abdul Qaim
Advanced Members
761
1,424 posts
Location:Sydney, Australia
Religion:Rfid
On 1/16/2010 at 0:36 PM, chocki said:
I can see the problem the people who doubt the family Abdul Qadir Jilani.He is not here to tell
you in person.The historians are not to your liking and are dead .o why not.I'VE AN ANSWER TO
THOSE WHO DOUBT.ASK YOUR MAMMA IS THE MAN WHOM I CALL DAD REALLY MY
FATHER?OR SHOULD I CALL THE MILKMAN POPS.TRUST ME YOU WILL BE SUPRISED AT
THE ANSWER.THE QUSTIONS YOU SHOULD BE ASKING IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE
TEACHING OF ABDUL QADRI JILANI WHICH IS AGAINST THE KORAN OR HADITHS.AND
WHAT WAS HIS CREED .IF HE READ LAILLAHA ILLALA MUHAMMADUR RASUL ILA.THIS IS
WHAT THE PROPHET READ AND THE SAHABA READ INCLUDING ALI AL MURTAZA AND
FATIYMA AND THE SHAHEED KARBALA READ .WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR AZAN FROM
AND YOUR CREED FROM .HE'S YOUR DADDY.FLAWS ARE THERE WHERE IS YOUR
PROOF THAT ALI READ ANYTHING YOU READ?WHAT ARE YOUR ORGINS?CAN YOU
PROVE YOUR RELIGION OR YOUR FAMILY TREE THEN PLEASE PROVE WITH A BLOOD
TEST AND A DNA TEST EVEN THEN I DOUBT I'LL BELIEVE YOU [Edited Out].BUT PLEASE
ASK MAMMA ABOUT PAPPA.!
Hey Abdaal ! One of your buddies from the Sufi forums is here ! I guess all that dancing, gyrating,
and chanting has softened your brain, chocki, old man. Postulating that Abdul Qadir Jilani was not
a sayyed is not heresy. He may or may not have been. Frankly, who cares anyway? If his
teachings are as great as his muhibbeen believe them to be, then it shouldn't matter whether he
was descended from the Prophet (pbuh) or not.
Suggesting that those who doubt his lineage are themselves the product of zina says more about
you than them. Have a good day, and you may recommence your gyrations w00t.gif ...
Quote
Proud to be a RaafiDi ...
QUOTE (Omar Khayyam @ Jul 16 2009, 06:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

btw ,yazid had been a succesful warrior during the battle of cyprus ,if you restrict him to the sad
events of kerballa in which he played an indirect role and especially his attack against the holy
sites in his end ,his rule was not only dark,he was a reformer,a man of letter,and was a true
muslim.
Bani Ummayya defeated bigger than the small zionists of today,they are the builder of the Islamic
nation.
chocki
chocki
Basic Members
0
3 posts
recap when you say some ones forefathers are or are not this person or that person.then are you
not insinuating tha that person is illigitemat.hence when i say ask your mama only she can say
what the truth is, your dad cannot even swear to it.so my saying leave out where he came from
arab or ajam blood of hassan or not should not be your problem .What he taught is
important.There are many non syeds who are saints are they ment to be checked out who they
are.or if they claim to be who they are.Wata is a manta sh wata zill amanta sh.only god not sunni
not shia not jew or christian can say otherwise.dont seek things which my lead no real diffrence in
yourself.Abu jahl didn't believe in his nephews miracles, and disendencey or lineage was'nt the
question he just refused,all im saying when someone has a bugaz against someone he aint
gonna except the truth even if the holy prophet stood infront of them.
Quote
chocki
chocki
Basic Members
0
3 posts
don't mean to hurt anyone .those who didn/t believe in the prophet included memers of his own
family .it wasn/t about lineage but they had bugaz against prophet Muhammed (p.b.u.h).so is
someone bugaz against Abdul Qadir Jilani so be it Ali in Abu Talib isn't gonna come to clearify the
family tree. Don/t forget Yazid new who Hussain was but did the deed regardless BUGAZ no
diffrence.Don/t go there just check out his teachings if they are against the Koran and sunna then
by all means hate him .If not then don/t hate him because you do not believe his family tree.The
jews couldn't except Jesus .Hd they looked at his teachings then excepting Jesus would be
easier.No man can swear that the child is his only god and mummy know the fact. SO WHO ARE
YOU TO DOUBT SOMEONE ELSE.OR IS IT LIGHTS OUT AND FREE FOR ALL WEEKEND
AGAIN
Quote
anzargilani
Sharif Of Lahore
anzargilani
Advanced Members
0
276 posts
Location:Pakistan
Posted January 18, 2010 (edited) Report post

guys, i found a site where people are doing search on syeds DNA.... its a good way to find truth...
the link is
http://dna-forums.com/index.php?/topic/5105-descendants-of-the-prophet-mohammads-paternal-
line/page__st__20
a website from where you can check your DNA is
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/sharifs/default.aspx
i hope you guys who choose this go for 67 markers...or atleast 37 markers
http://www.familytreedna.com/group-join.aspx?Group=Sharif
Results up till now of Sharifs DNA Project
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/sharifs/default.aspx?section=results
Edited January 18, 2010 by anzargilani
Quote
anzargilani
Sharif Of Lahore
anzargilani
Advanced Members
0
276 posts
Location:Pakistan
there are two thoughts
1.. haplogroup of syeds is J1e
2. haplogroup of syeds is J2a4
i found one gilani to be a J2
http://www.ysearch.org/lastname_view.asp?uid=&letter=&lastname=gilani&viewuid=KS7W4&p=0
but anyways...one one person we can say nothing....
Quote
anzargilani
Sharif Of Lahore
anzargilani
Advanced Members
0
276 posts
Location:Pakistan
another link....
which says Haplogroup of syeds should be J1e, so all syeds should check it.
http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090619/NATIONAL/706189822
Quote
bob_chasm
bob_chasm
Advanced Members
0
25 posts
Religion:Islam
On 1/18/2010 at 11:47 AM, anzargilani said:
another link....
which says Haplogroup of syeds should be J1e, so all syeds should check it.
http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090619/NATIONAL/706189822
Anzar,
I just wanted to clarify that J1 and J2 are both subclades of haplogroup J. So there is a
consensus in the Islamic community, Shia and Sunni, Arab and non Arabs, that Sayyids belong to
haplogroup J. We just do not know with certainity, whether it is J1 or J2. A formal study on
Sayyids of Iran has been conducted suggesting they are probably twice as likely to be J2 as J1.
In contrast, more members of the Quraish and Hashimite tribes in Saudi Arabia belong to J1 than
J2. As such, more studies need to be conducted. By the way, these two subclades (J1 and J2)
also show up in Jewish communties and are making it difficult to determine whether Abraham and
the prophets were J1 or J2 for the Jews and Christians too.
regards,
bob
Quote
hardtoforget
Member
hardtoforget
Advanced Members
0
142 posts
Religion:Islam

But it doesnt show a way to find sayyed who is sayyed with some of the mothers and not all full
father. This makes a flaw in the thing bcuz there will be even more sayyed out there.
Quote
bob_chasm
bob_chasm
Advanced Members
0
25 posts
Religion:Islam
On 1/24/2010 at 11:17 PM, hardtoforget said:
But it doesnt show a way to find sayyed who is sayyed with some of the mothers and not all full
father. This makes a flaw in the thing bcuz there will be even more sayyed out there.
If you are wondering if there is a scientific way to track ones mother's dna, then the answer is yes,
there is a way by examining the mitochondrial dna. However, nobody has conducted tests on
men or women who claim their mother's mother's mother etc goes back to Bibi Fatimah. If you
are such a person and know others who claim it then perhaps you can start a project to find out
for certain.
regards,
bob
Quote
hardtoforget
Member
hardtoforget
Advanced Members
0
142 posts
Religion:Islam
I dunno bout mother's mother's mother's cuz Zahra AS didnt have daughter that had kids, but I
know where its mix. Sometimes there is a mother and her father is seyd or sometime a seyed got
named as it by his mother than he has a son. Is there a mix dna test?
Quote
bob_chasm
bob_chasm
Advanced Members
0
25 posts
Religion:Islam
On 1/29/2010 at 0:56 AM, hardtoforget said:
I dunno bout mother's mother's mother's cuz Zahra AS didnt have daughter that had kids, but I
know where its mix. Sometimes there is a mother and her father is seyd or sometime a seyed got
named as it by his mother than he has a son. Is there a mix dna test?
There are autosomal tests that test mixtures, but they are not accurate. In the cases you have
described, the mother's brother as well as her brother's sons (her nephews) will carry the Sayyid
father's dna.
regards,
bob
Quote
hasani
Member
hasani
Advanced Members
25
121 posts
Location:ny usa
Religion:shia islam
On 7/21/2009 at 5:49 AM, _kaneezFATIMAH_ said:
(bismillah)
Assalam o Alaikum wa Rahmatullah wa Barakatuhu
Intended to write b i t c h on both the occasions.
----------------
Where was all that drama in my post? Avoid spicing up the talk. Don't watch Indian channels
for a few days and they'll get off your mind and you won't see that much action/drama in a
religious discussion. Personally I seldom watch TV; mostly when there's something quite
important being aired because of fear and shame of watching Na-mehrams. Similarly I don't
watch the channels you mentioned because Kafir lady is the same as a Kafir male. So I
guarantee you that whatever I wrote was in noway inspired by any soap serial.
What I wrote might also be the beliefs of millions of other people; so discuss publicly. Correct
me, a million others and earn Thawab. Emailing and pming not only beats the setup of whole
bulletin board system but also our soul purpose of participating in a "dialogue" forum.
Your ace you invited lost his interest.
----------------
In my life I am bound to follow only the religion
and there's only one thing
I take it from where it emerged from
and that is the People of the House
----------------
Zahrah might belong to any one, two or all of the following three categories:
1: Zahrah is ignorant of proper use of internet shortcuts and emoticons
Even the people opposing the status of Hadhrat Shaikh Sayyid Abudl Qadir Jilani (Aleh Salam)
as Sayyid will not be able to find anything in the quoted sentence which makes them laugh out
loud over it. Above 70% of the people that are not native English, make wrong use of internet
shortcuts in an attempt to put over other people an impression of having command over modern
English. Plus this makes them psychologically satisfied by deluding them to a world where they
have a command over modern English and internet when in actual they don't have. Zahrah tried
to win the post the same way. A "normal" (i.e., with normal healthy brain conditions) native
speaker of English who understands internet shortcuts better will never use lol after this sentence
unless it's case no. 2 with him as well.
2: Zahrah is a psycho
Or I might be wrong in my opinion that Zahrah is ignorant of proper i-net shortcut usage. She is
totally aware of where to use lol and was really laughing out loud when she was writing the above
quoted sentence. Now imagine Zahrah sitting in front of her computer and hysterically bursting
into loud laughter while writing the sentence "Abdolghade Jilani son of no one". My sympathies
with her. What category does she fall in? How many of the readers are laughing out loud on the
subject sentence?
3: Zahrah is a prevaricator
Zahrah might come now and tell that she nither is ignorant of proper use of internet shortcuts
nor was laughing out loud because of psychoneurotic hysteria while writing such a simple
sentence like "Abdolghade Jilani son of no one" but in fact was serious or simply smiling. In this
case Zahrah is a liar.
To sum up:
1. I would advise kids to learn languages first instead of stepping into the difficult field of Ilm-ul-
Ansab and speaking on the nasab of famous saints and Jafari saadaat in Pakistan who are
Sunni.
2. Getting into debate with psychotics aint any worthwhile. I pray for them to heal up quickly
and advise them not to indulge in tough mental activities and lead a simple harmonious life.
3. Everyone of us hates liars. Lies take you the ticket to hell. Liars only worsen up the things.
They don't have any knowledge and try to meddle in each and every thing they come across. Spit
on liars!
4. Is this really a place for dialogue?

Are these forums meant for dialogue? Any (unbiased) mods around? Or is it a piss off Sunnis
drama? Had this debate been about an Ayatollah with same lols from an ignorant, a psycho or a
liar; moderators would have surely kicked in at the spot.
Zahrah might have read all the posts before posting her laughter... including my post, a Jilani's
post trying to tell truth about her father (as)... but she continued to write her mocking statement. Is
this is what's called a typical Shiah girl? Is this what Shiahism all about? Are all Shiahs like that?
Any decent Shiahs around? Any Shiah that could digest Sunnis can be Sayyids? Any moderator
or admin that could highlight the policy guidelines necessary to create a true dialogue place? A
debate is in progress about the lineage of a saint but an ignorant, or a psycho, or a liar made fun
of him and no moderator is yet here to guide her to New Guidelines and enforcement of Shiachat
rules, EVERYONE MUST READ by Noor Fatimah at http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?
showtopic=73802. Why? Because he is Sunni?
Luckily we Sunnis, have a very different attitude by the grace of the Almighty Allah (Subhanahu
wa Ta'ala). Most of us pray for the victory of Iran and destruction of US and Israel when they talk
about attacking Iran. I'm citing Iran specifically because it's a country with most Shiah population
(around 90%). I still remember Iran vs. USA in FIFA World Cup (France'98) and how tears of
thanks trickled down my eyes and millions of other Sunnis as well when Iran butted USA out of
the way... I know Sunnis (including me) who always dream of going to Iran and joining the Jihad
in case Kafirs dare to attack... but imagine a Sunni amongst lot of Anti-salafis and Zahrahs, trying
to prove his lineage legitimate amidst shower of bullets and bombs...
----------------
For those of you who have interest in exploring Sunnism and/or Sufism without bias, there is a
lot lot lot of work on The Shaikh, The Imam, The (15th) Ma'soom, The pious abstainer, The dutiful
worshipper, The knower by direct experience, The avoider of excess, The Shaikh of Shaikhs, The
proof of Islam (Hujja tul Islam), The axis of the human race, The upholder of The Sunnah, The
suppressor of heretical innovation, The crown of those who know by direct experience, The love
of those who tread the spiritual path, The knower of the Haqiqah (The Reality), The Chief of the
saints, The leader of the pure, The lantern of those who travel the spiritual way, The guide of
those who are devoted to their duty, The lamp of the people of devotion and purity, His higher
Exellency Nur-e-Panjtan Pak, Ghos-ul-Waqt, Siraj-ul-Awliya, Burhan-ul-Awliya, Shams-ul-
Fuqaha, Sultan-ul-Arifeen, Sultan-ul-Awliya, Qutb-e-Rabbani, Mehboob-e-Subhani, Piran-e-Pir,
Muhiyuddin (Reviver of the Religion), Hadrat Ghauth-ul-Azam Dastgir Sayyid Muhiyuddin Abu
Muhammad Abdul Qadir Jilani Baghdadi al-Hasani wal-Husayni (Aleh Salam).
His paternal lineage is as follows:
Sayyid Abu Saleh Musa Jangidost
S/o Sayyid Abdullah
S/o Sayyid Yahya Zahid
S/o Sayyid Muhammad
S/o Sayyid Daud
S/o Sayyid Musa Sani
S/o Sayyid Abdullah Sani
S/o Sayyid Musa al Jaun (aka Syed Musa Salas)

S/o Sayyid Abdullah al Mehaz al Kamil
S/o Sayyid Hassan Muthanna
S/o Sayyid Imam Hassan (Aleh Salam)
And maternal lineage as follows:
Sayyidah Fatimah Ummul Khair
D/o Sayyid Abu Abdullah Soumai
S/o Sayyid Abu Jamaluddin Muhammad
S/o Sayyid Abu Mehmood Tahir
S/o Sayyid Abu al Atta Abdullah
S/o Sayyid Abu al kamal Issa Roomi Akbar
S/o Imam Muhammad al Jawwad (Aleh Salam)
S/o Imam Ali Raza (Aleh Salam)
S/o Imam Musa Kazim (Aleh Salam)
S/o Imam Jaffar Sadiq (Aleh Salam)
S/o Imam Muhammad Baqar (Aleh Salam)
S/o Imam Zain ul Abideen Ali (Aleh Salam)
S/o Imam Hussain (Aleh Salam)
And I... a daughter... conclude my discussion on the topic with one line for my Papa:
A diamond is forever.
Thanks to all of you, the neutral and prejudice-free Shiah sisters and brothers for reading. With
best regards,
Allah Hafiz
_KF_Q
~~~~~~~~~~~
Allah | Muhammad | Fatimah | Ali | Hassan | Hussain | Khadijah | Aishah
Zayn ul Abidin | al Baqir | as Sadiq | al Kadhim | ar Ridha | at Taqi | al Hadi | al Askari | al Mahdi
| al Jilani
salam, @kaneez fatima, the maternal lineage you posted of abdul qadir jilani(rz) is not correct,
imam muhammad jawaad(as) didnt have son named issa rumi, his progney continued through
musa al-mubarqa(rz) and musa al-mubarqa,s(rz) progeny continued only through his son ahmed.
i am not denying abdul qadir jilani(rz),s paternal lineage, but if this his true maternal lineage then
his mother is not descended from imam hussain(as). i have also read that his mother was from
imam sayyid-e-sajjad(as). confused!
Quote
Syed Zain Bukhari
Syed Zain Bukhari

Basic Members
1
3 posts
Religion:islam
He probably was sunni and is praised and exaggerated by sunnis in majority....though i consider
them to be in such extent as to if they are commiting shirk
Quote
Haider Bilgrami
Haider Bilgrami
Basic Members
1
6 posts
Religion:Islam
Shaikh Yes, Sayed No, he never claimed to be, it was his followers who in his aardent love,
raised him to that standard. No shais alim claims it, only a handful of sunni aalims who in his
reverence have gone to the extent of saying that he was hassani and hussain both, well that
would make him the most unique of the lot if that were to be true. but like earlier said, Shaikh Yes
sayed No.
Quote
naqvimunaf
naqvimunaf
Basic Members
0
8 posts
Religion:shia
Posted October 10, 2015 Report post
abdul kadir jalani is syed?
so,anybody tell me where is his sijra and he's belong to which 'nasl'
Quote
zeesh_ali110
Member
zeesh_ali110
Advanced Members
100
296 posts
Religion:Rafidhi Shia
Posted November 18, 2016 (edited) Report post
HOW CAN A SHIA PRAISE SOMEONE WHO IS THE LOVER OF MUAWIYA (LA) ????
How can a shia like or praise someone who is hanbali, no matter he was a syed or not but his
praise for Muawiya is enough for us to hate him. There is no reason why these ignorant sunnis
remember him on 11th day of every Islamic month. This is clear that he was just a person
overpraised and exaggerated by the people of Abbasid dynasty to make people forget about
Imam Hussain (A.S). I AS A SHIA BELIEVE THAT I HAVE TO LOVE THOSE WHO ARE THE
LOVERS OF MUHAMMAD AND HIS FAMILY. Why do you have to praise him just because he is
syed ?? PRAISE MUHAMMAD, ALI AND THEIR LOVERS !!
Edited November 18, 2016 by zeesh_ali110
Quote
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Page 5 of 5
Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Qadir

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Qadir

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234959713-abdul-qadir-jilani-syed-or-no/?

Started by smrr110, February 21, 2009

Rate this topic

122 posts in this topic

Posted February 21, 2009 Report post

Posted February 22, 2009 Report post

Posted February 22, 2009 Report post

Yes, Just like Murtaza Mutahari and Dr. Tijani Samawi.

Posted February 24, 2009 Report post

Maula Dha Mallang

Resident Wahabbi Vermin Slayer At Your Service

Posted February 24, 2009 Report post

I Hate, Because I Love.

Source: Al Kafi Volume 2 Page 125

UNITY WITH SUNNI IS AGAINST ISLAM

Posted February 24, 2009 Report post

Maula Dha Mallang

Resident Wahabbi Vermin Slayer At Your Service

Posted February 24, 2009 Report post

I Hate, Because I Love.

Source: Al Kafi Volume 2 Page 125

UNITY WITH SUNNI IS AGAINST ISLAM

Posted February 24, 2009 Report post

Posted February 24, 2009 Report post

Maula Dha Mallang

Resident Wahabbi Vermin Slayer At Your Service

Posted February 24, 2009 Report post

I Hate, Because I Love.

Source: Al Kafi Volume 2 Page 125

UNITY WITH SUNNI IS AGAINST ISLAM

Posted February 24, 2009 Report post

maula dha mallang said:

Posted February 24, 2009 Report post

who cares, like it actually matters

Posted February 25, 2009 Report post

Shia scholars has nothing to do with genealogy

the (fabricated) lineage of Abdulqader al-Gelani is as following

Noor al-Absar, by Sheblenji, page 320

Umdat al-Talib, page 129

Resident Wahabbi Vermin Slayer At Your Service

Posted February 25, 2009 Report post

I Hate, Because I Love.

Source: Al Kafi Volume 2 Page 125

UNITY WITH SUNNI IS AGAINST ISLAM

Posted February 25, 2009 Report post

the whole chain is fabricated, he is not from Imam Ali's progeny

Resident Wahabbi Vermin Slayer At Your Service

Posted February 25, 2009 Report post

I Hate, Because I Love.

Source: Al Kafi Volume 2 Page 125

UNITY WITH SUNNI IS AGAINST ISLAM

Posted February 25, 2009 Report post

Resident Wahabbi Vermin Slayer At Your Service

Posted February 25, 2009 Report post

I Hate, Because I Love.

Source: Al Kafi Volume 2 Page 125

UNITY WITH SUNNI IS AGAINST ISLAM

Posted February 25, 2009 Report post

Posted March 4, 2009 Report post

bro i think i can be free today and tomorrow

so plz post your questions

Resident Wahabbi Vermin Slayer At Your Service

Posted March 5, 2009 Report post