| Revision as of 16:44, 12 October 2006 editHassanfarooqi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,189 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:52, 12 October 2006 edit undoHassanfarooqi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,189 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| :: What happens at the tomb of nizamuddin in delhi now does not mean that nizamuddin himself endorsed that. People later on fabricate a lot of stuff, so they take him as murshid means nothing. read abdul qadir jilani's books (fatuhul Ghayb or gunitu-talibeen and like) and you will know what his aqida was. Also, there are incidents in this article without any proof. It deserves a disputed tag ] 11:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | :: What happens at the tomb of nizamuddin in delhi now does not mean that nizamuddin himself endorsed that. People later on fabricate a lot of stuff, so they take him as murshid means nothing. read abdul qadir jilani's books (fatuhul Ghayb or gunitu-talibeen and like) and you will know what his aqida was. Also, there are incidents in this article without any proof. It deserves a disputed tag ] 11:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::: I don't think it deserves a disputed tag. I don't know of anyone who seriously disputes that he was a Sufi. I can't read his books since I don't have copies nor do I understand the language. Perhaps you could post some links as to why he shouldn't be regarded as a Sufi? Also, perhaps it's a good idea to register a username for yourself? It helps track discussions and archive them. --] 12:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ::: I don't think it deserves a disputed tag. I don't know of anyone who seriously disputes that he was a Sufi. I can't read his books since I don't have copies nor do I understand the language. Perhaps you could post some links as to why he shouldn't be regarded as a Sufi? Also, perhaps it's a good idea to register a username for yourself? It helps track discussions and archive them. --] 12:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::: I have read all his books and have some with me. There is one thing for certain, he was not a Wahhabi because he never advocated suicide bombing on fellow muslims just for showing love to their prophet and his house. When Wahhabi uses the word Sufi, they mean someone who worships the grave and then claim that none of the Sufi saint was really a sufi. What a stupid claim. ] 16:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: you dont know the whole world - not even a small part of it ] 17:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC) | :::: you dont know the whole world - not even a small part of it ] 17:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 16:52, 12 October 2006
Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani bein attributed as a Sufi Sheikh is baseless and incorrect. The article is POV and has arguments and statements that have no proof. 68.69.58.146 04:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- The Qadiri order of Sufis has him as their Murshid. There are books on Tasawwuf written by him. Why do you say that he is not a Sufi Sheikh? --Nkv 05:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- What happens at the tomb of nizamuddin in delhi now does not mean that nizamuddin himself endorsed that. People later on fabricate a lot of stuff, so they take him as murshid means nothing. read abdul qadir jilani's books (fatuhul Ghayb or gunitu-talibeen and like) and you will know what his aqida was. Also, there are incidents in this article without any proof. It deserves a disputed tag 68.233.38.154 11:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it deserves a disputed tag. I don't know of anyone who seriously disputes that he was a Sufi. I can't read his books since I don't have copies nor do I understand the language. Perhaps you could post some links as to why he shouldn't be regarded as a Sufi? Also, perhaps it's a good idea to register a username for yourself? It helps track discussions and archive them. --Nkv 12:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have read all his books and have some with me. There is one thing for certain, he was not a Wahhabi because he never advocated suicide bombing on fellow muslims just for showing love to their prophet and his house. When Wahhabi uses the word Sufi, they mean someone who worships the grave and then claim that none of the Sufi saint was really a sufi. What a stupid claim. Hassanfarooqi 16:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it deserves a disputed tag. I don't know of anyone who seriously disputes that he was a Sufi. I can't read his books since I don't have copies nor do I understand the language. Perhaps you could post some links as to why he shouldn't be regarded as a Sufi? Also, perhaps it's a good idea to register a username for yourself? It helps track discussions and archive them. --Nkv 12:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- What happens at the tomb of nizamuddin in delhi now does not mean that nizamuddin himself endorsed that. People later on fabricate a lot of stuff, so they take him as murshid means nothing. read abdul qadir jilani's books (fatuhul Ghayb or gunitu-talibeen and like) and you will know what his aqida was. Also, there are incidents in this article without any proof. It deserves a disputed tag 68.233.38.154 11:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- you dont know the whole world - not even a small part of it Killbillsbrowser 17:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Your ad hominem attacks are not helping at all. All I'm asking for is sources. --Nkv 17:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- you dont know the whole world - not even a small part of it Killbillsbrowser 17:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Ya Ghaus Al Saqlain!!
He is THE greatest of all Sufi Saints - or the "Saint of Saints" (Pir of Pirs). I don't think anyone can dispute that. His "Foot" is on the Shoulders of all other Sufi's,Auliya's- (No one can be a true auliya/pir who doesn't consider this.). He is a True Friend of Allah(SWT). Only the ignorant and arrogant cannot digest these facts.
Descendant speaks out
He was my great X grandfather. He being labeled as a Sufi isnt right. HE was muslim and never called himself as anything else. He lived his life as much as he could as the prophet lived his life. He didnt create no biddath (new false laws) and he never went to someones tomb.
Another Jilani Descendant Speaks out
You are right my brother! Sheikh Jilani never called people to worship shrines or graves of other pious people. He was a strict Hanbali and he never intended to form a sufi order. Those who came after him made him god-like figure and called him all kind of names that fit only God, such as "Gouth al-thaqalain" (the helper of humans and jins). Also, they say about him, "Abdul Qadir al-Jilani mutasarrif bi-lakawni" (i.e. A. Q. Jilani is in control of the universes!). Such saying are absolute kufr, al-Jilani had never attributed these things to himself! Bring your proofs if you are truthful!
The Nejdi Factor
Those who dispute that the Sheikh was a Sufi are a new minority sect in Islam financed by Saudi Arabian Royal family. They consider Sufism against Islam because it teaches non-violence and peace. They beleive in spreading their version of Islam thru sword and call themselves Salafies but are commonly known as Wahhabies or Nejdies (after Ibn Abdul Wahhab of Nejd). There are now two sects within this sect. One is follows the King and call itself Athari Salafi. The second follows Osama bin Ladin and is called Takfiri Salafi. Both the groups are violent in beleif and the whole world saw what they did on 9/11
Fake descendants
Having the last name of Jilani does not make someone a descendant of the Shaikh. It just signifies that someone's ancestor has come from Jilan, or someone was a descendant of someone named Jilani. Maybe someone became a Muslim on the hand of Jilani. There are lots of Jilanies who are Shias and dead against the Shaikh. After the 1947 partition, many people changed their family name during the crossing. Even someone is a descendant of Shaikh, he can be a convert to Wahhabism. I have seen some Jilani converts to Christianity.Hassanfarooqi 16:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)