Wa Muhammada
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2017
- Messages
- 1,463
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
if a person doesnt want to go beyond the literal meanings of the Quranic verses then it is his choice. no one can force him do that. even in Quran it is said that some people only go after the literal meanings. ghamidi school of thought is creating doubt in everything related to islamic escatotology i.e. second coming of jesus, coming of mehdi and ghazwa e hind. i partly agree to only his ghazwa e hind part otherwise he seems to be totally wrong about second coming of jesus. he negates all the hadiths about second coming of jesus and the bible but quotes bible in one of his lecture regarding the age of hazrat Esa. if there is no second coming of hazrat esa then who will kill dajjal? then these people should also reject dajjal as it is not mentioned in quran. it is in hadiths only and in previous scriptures but then they do talk about dajjal. some scholars are tasked to create doubts in the minds of muslim masses even when somethings are very clear. i think such people think that when Quran was sent through the Prophet Muhammad SAW he only narrated it to his companions and they wrote the verses and thats all. they fail to understand that the first teacher of Quran was the Prophet Muhammad SAW himself and his instructions were in hadiths which many "learned" scholars dont consider correct so they go only for literal meaning of Quran hence misguiding the masses. actually scholars use Quran and hadiths for supporting their own agenda when it suits them. . there is plenty of debate about this issue of second coming of hazrat Esa between some educated scholars on youtube and if one listens to it it will become very clear in our minds that who is talking with logic and who is just trying to create doubts for his selfish agenda. but then the "patwari" attitude doesnt exist in politics only. it exists in religion as well even strongly. people are not ready to call sharifs as thieves even when it is so obvious how such people can change their views about something which is so obvious.
as far as muwatta imam malik is concerned it is not in sahai sitta it means it is not considered authentic by the early islamic scholars.
ghamidi quotes bible when it suits him but doesnt mentions about bible when it talks about second coming of hazrat Esa. this is called hypocrisy.
Bro
Plz correct me if I am wrong... isn’t Ghamidi a Qadyani?