Re: Audio of A Meeting At Baite Raza
Star Gazer said:
In all the talk the participants are talking about Hazrat Mohammad (SAWWS) and praising him, there is no CLAIM by anyone to compare baite Raza with Ghare Hira that is just an analogy to explain the point of view of choosing acertain palce, it may not be correct but nothing more than that. Some people are getting hysterical over it for rabblle rousing only.
There is no Claim of Nabbuwwat and Sahabi means some one who is a friend and and this can be used metaphoricaly beyond the time limits ,again maybe not appropriate but not criminal/antiIslam.
The captions on the video are misguiding and trying to suggest something that is not there in actuality.
As for the court decision it was a session court and would have gone on to high court but did not happen.
As for the ulema what about the undisputed ulema defending Yousaf,like
Maulana Abdus Sattar Khan Niazi, Maulana AbdurRehman Ashrafi and Maulana Abdul Haq? Are th ey also in the same category as you are placing ZZH?
With all due respect, You could have "EXPRESSED" your VIEWS without changing the "TITLE" of the Video, ... As it was really difficult for me to get back to this thread
(current is very irrelevant to the threads content or blame to my bad n ignorant urdu or arabic whatever u tried to make it).
"
ulema defending Yousaf,like Maulana Abdus Sattar Khan Niazi, Maulana AbdurRehman Ashrafi and Maulana Abdul Haq"
If you got any concrete proof plz bring it on and share with us.... As far as I perceived, initially these Ullama said we know "Yousuf couldnt Claim for
Nabuwat" bcoz we spend time with him together, we didnt find him like that and was a Good religious person...
BUT didnt backed him until the End for some reasons.... Whatever the reason was, I will speculate they didnt have anything against
the cogent evidence... U r right It was the session court, where he was "proven guilty".... I wish he had gone to the High Court
and Would have got the Same "Punishment".... Call me illogical people but I will still express myself... Yousuf (is "K").... Zaid Zaman (is "L") and Dawaee Naboowat (is "M") (the current situation is) if K directly implies to M, and L directly implies to K then in our Maths L (indrectly) implies to M.... Just a Reminder: K was "proven guilty" in Court with evidences caz of M.... and M is absolutely unacceptable..... Wish I could be more explicit here donno how :), but hope Indications are enough for Wise people....