LOGO
Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 07-07-2010, 08:15 AM   #1
gusecrync

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
530
Senior Member
Default The Truth Concerning the Beliefs of Wahiduddin Khan
The intent here is to merely highlight *some* of the major mistakes written by Molvi Wahiduddin Khan. In no way is this an exhaustive attempt to seek out all of the mistakes he has made throughout his writings over the past few decades. We only hope that the concerned reader will read the below blunders and save himself from this man’s fitnah. It appears that many Muslims are totally unaware of his true beliefs on account of his books being sold by certain Deobandi bookshops such as al-rashad and onlineshariah, and the fact that he graduated from a "Deobandi" madrasah.

Reference #1 and #2:
The June of 2007 issue of the "al-Risala" magazine downloadable straight from the official al-Risala website:
http://www . A l r i s a l a dot org/Al_Risala_Urdu_Monthly/Yr2007/June2007/June-2007.pdf
Please refer to his "maseeh model ki aamid-i-saani" article in this issue. Also, please see the October of 2007 issue of the "al-Risalah" magazine downloadable here:
http://www. A l r i s a l a dot org /Al_Risala_Urdu_Monthly/Yr2007/Oct2007/oct-2007.pdf
Please refer to his "payghambar-i-inqilaab" and "deen aur minhaaj" articles in this issue as well.

To start, Wahiduddin Khan states that the model of the Prophet (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallama) is no longer applicable in certain partial matters and that we need to instead adopt the model of Christ:
"...Muhammadi model zamani haalat ki nisbat se juzi'i taur par QAABIL-E-INTIBAAQ NA RAHEY GA. IS KE BAJAAI' MASEEH MODEL JUZI'I TAUR PAR QAABIL-E-INTIQAB BAN JAAIY GA."

To make his point all the more clearer, Waheeduddin Khan writes that the Prophet (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallama) should not be considered to be the “final model” with regards to his minhaaj (pattern/model, i.e. sunnah/qidwah/uswah), but only as the “final prophet” with regards to the deen (religion):
"...LAYKIN MINHAAJ KE I`TIBAAR SE AAP FINAL MODEL NA THEI."

Furthermore, he continues by stating that the glorious verse wherein Allah ta`ala Praises the noble character of the Prophet (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallama) in the Qur’an (al-ahzaab:21) by referring to him as having “uswah hasanah” (beautiful model), is actually proof that his model is NOT complete/perfect (i.e. “kaamil”). He states that for one to think of him possessing a model that is “kaamil” (complete/perfect) is “without doubt an incorrect belief”:
"Agar is mawqa` par Qur'an main "uswah kaamilah" ka lafz ist`imal kiya jaa taa to log ghalat fahmi mai pardsaktey thei...AISA SAMAJHNA BILAA SHUBHA AIK GHALAT FAHMI HOTI..."

To knock home the point made above, he reiterates by stating that the Prophetic example is not the final example to be followed in every time and age. Again, he says the proof for this lies in the fact that the Prophet (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallama) was referred to as having “uswah hasanah” (beautiful model), as stated above, and that Allah ta`ala did NOT refer to him as having “uswah kaamilah” (complete/perfect model):
"laykin AAP HAR SOORAT HAAL KE LIYE AAKHIRI NAMOONA NA THEI...CHUNANCHE AAP KEI LIYE "USWAH HASANAH" KA LAFZ AAYA HAI, NA KE "USWAH KAAMILAH"..."

Moreover, he continues by saying that it is not even possible to have a Prophet that has a “final model” to be followed by everyone in all ages and times:
"...PAYGHAMBAR KA FINAL MODEL HONA BHI MUMKIN NAHIN."

He continues onwards to declare that Sayyiduna `Isa (`alayhi al-salaam) (Jesus Christ) will not be returning to earth again and that all of the evidences that say he will are actually referring to the “return” of the following of Christ’s (maseeh) model (minhaaj) and NOT the return of Sayyiduna `Isa (`alayhi al-salaam) himself. And that the following of Christ’s model by the Muslims will be more applicable and more warranting of followership than the model of the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallama):
"In ke saheeh ta'weel ya hai ke ba`d zamaaney mai jo cheez waaqi` hogi wo MASEEH KI AAMED SAANI NAHIN HAI, BALKE MASEEH KE MODEL KI AAMED SAANI HAI. ya`ni ba`d ke zamaaney main haalat le andar aisi tabdeeliyaan waaqi` hoonge ke haalat ke i`tibaar se hazrat maseeh ka `amaliy model ziyaadah qaabil-e-intibaaq (applicable) ban jaa'igaa."

Additionally, he writes that from the perspective of “minhaaj” (pattern/example/model), the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallama) was NOT the final model. He ends by stating that this is precisely the reason why Christ will descend again, i.e. referring to Christ’s model. The obvious implication here being that the return of the model of Christ is to abrogate and supplant the model left by the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallama):
"LAYKIN MINHAAJ KE I`TIBAAR SE AAP FINAL MODEL NA THEI. GHAALIBAN YAHI WAJHA HAI KE HADITH MAI YA PAISHEEN GOYI KI GAIYI HAI KE AAKHIRI ZAMANEY MAI MASEEH DUBAARAH NAAZIL HUN GEY."

Reference #3:
This is the August of 2007 issue of the "al-Risalah" magazine which can be downloaded here:
http://www. A l r i s a l a dot org /Al_Risala_Urdu_monthly/Yr2007/Aug2007/aug-2007.pdf

Please see pages 2-4 for his belief in the Dajjaal being an ideology and not an individual and his belief that the Mahdi (`alayhi al-salaam) is the same individual as Sayyiduna `Isa (`alayhi al-salaam), both of which are not Sunni beliefs:
"hadeeth ke muttabiq, us zamaaney main aik "rajul mu'min" uthaiga jo dajjaal ko qatl kareygaa, magar ye qatl jismaaniy ma`non main na hogaa balke fikriy ma`non main hogaa, ya`ni dajjaal fitna ko expose karnaa. Dajjaaliyat aik `ilmiy fitnah hogaa...is main "shahaadat" se muraad gawaahiy hai, na ke jaan ki qurbaaniy. deen-e-haqq ki yahi woh azeem tareen gawaahiy hai jis ko hadeeth main "qatl-e-dajjaal" kaha gaya hai. Dajjaal akbar ka muqaabalah karney waaley is rajul-e-mu'min ko hadeeth main "mahdi" kaha gaya hai. Ghaaliban yahi wajh hai ke aik hadeeth mai mahdi aur maseeh donon ko aik shakhsiyat bataayaa gaya hai..."

As for topics unrelated to `aqeedah, then one can find many more mistakes written by him in his articles relating to ijtihaad, jihaad, abrogation, etc. IF anyone has doubts concerning the above quotes then please feel free to check the original Urdu in the articles found in their respective al-Risala journals. We urge anyone who has doubts regarding the appropriateness/correctness of the content of these quotes to consult with their local Sunni scholars.
gusecrync is offline


Old 07-07-2010, 09:54 AM   #2
Vomephems

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
727
Senior Member
Default
Assalamu Alaikum

Are their any problems with his English translation of the Quran?
Vomephems is offline


Old 07-07-2010, 03:55 PM   #3
EasyLOAD

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
567
Senior Member
Default
assalamu alaikum
plz see this link
http://islamicbookslibrary.wordpress...mateen-khalid/
for a book about vahiduddin khan sb in urdu language
EasyLOAD is offline


Old 07-07-2010, 08:18 PM   #4
gusecrync

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
530
Senior Member
Default
wa alaykum as-salam,

@ Talib84: Unfortunately, I'm unfamiliar with his translation of the Qur'an. But given the fact he completely abuses the meaning of al-Ahzab:21, I would steer clear from anything written by him. Period.

@ Moulana Junaid: JazakAllahu khayran for this link. I was thinking that someone in India must've written against him by now but did not find any literature on my own. I'll be sure to look through this book insha'Allah.

Also, I forgot to mention in my previous post that all of the quotes I posted were sent to Mr. Wahiduddin Khan himself as well as his student, Khaja Kaleemuddin, in hopes they can offer a thorough explanation of these beliefs. No response was ever received by W.K. himself but Khaja Kaleemuddin did reply but with nothing substantial, just mere hollow words. It is important to note here that neither Wahiduddin Khan or Khaja Kaleemuddin ever denied writing such words or recanted/repented from them.
gusecrync is offline


Old 07-08-2010, 05:53 AM   #5
feedcomnet

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
428
Senior Member
Default


Man, where do all these crazy opinions come from?
feedcomnet is offline


Old 07-09-2010, 03:13 AM   #6
Pypeassesty

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
382
Senior Member
Default
...
Pypeassesty is offline


Old 07-10-2010, 11:15 AM   #7
gusecrync

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
530
Senior Member
Default
wa alaykum as-salam Brother "a_muslim":

I haven't read either of the two books you've mentioned, but in all honesty there's nothing unbelievable or shocking about this. As you know, it's not uncommon for learned men to write a lot of beneficial and correct points within their books. Yet this does not qualify as a 'carte blanche' to then say whatever they please, especially in the public sphere. What worse harm can there be than from a man who after gaining the laymen's trust deceives them by surreptitiously releasing innovative opinions into his discourse? This is why our ulama have said that the biggest mistakes are indeed those committed by the biggest ulama due to the reputatio and rapport they have in the eyes of the public.
As for which "Deobandi" madrasah he attended, then as far as I'm aware, he is an alimiyyah graduate of Madrasatul Islaah in Azamgarh (UP).
Lastly, I will choose not to publicly display the e-mail correspondence from Khaja Kaleemuddin because I simply believe the details of it to be private and not meant for public perusal. However, if you have any doubt regarding the attributions of those statements to Molvi Wahiduddin Khan, then feel free to e-mail the webmasters of either the al-Risala or Goodword websites and insha'Allah they can respond to your queries.
gusecrync is offline


Old 07-10-2010, 03:12 PM   #8
Hbkj89D2

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
403
Senior Member
Default
wa alaykum as-salam Brother "a_muslim":


As for which "Deobandi" madrasah he attended, then as far as I'm aware, he is an alimiyyah graduate of Madrasatul Islaah in Azamgarh (UP).
.
salaam,
This Madrasatul Islaah in Azamgarh (UP) is not deobandi . Actually its based on Ml Hameeduddin Farahi' s thoughts and I dont think he was Deobandi. This madarsa has been a bastion of Maududist and ghair muqallid ideologies as far as I know from my JIH days.
wassalaam,
Hbkj89D2 is offline


Old 07-10-2010, 05:12 PM   #9
UriDepkeeks

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
396
Senior Member
Default
What he seems to be saying is wrong. The muhaqiq sufis tackled this much better.

Mawlana tahanwi (rahmatullahi alayh) has a brilliant discussion on this. He talks about some Sufis who were Musawi and some who were Isawi .

But then he told us the Musawi and Isawi models were 2 ways from the brilliant depth of the Muhammadan(saw) way.

The point sounds similar but the difference is like the distance between the earth and the sky.

The point about the return of sayyidina Isa(as) seems to be rubbish also as the return of Isa in our texts and the xtian texts is not marked by Rahmah but wars and manifestation of Jalal whereas the Muhammadan example is complete rahmah to the aalimeen. And in his post worldly manifestation according to the new testament jesus the lamb is flinging the sinners into hell. According to our understanding Muhammad(saw) makes shafa'ah and frees millions from that torment.

Also has he not heard of al afw ma'al Qudrah
This is the highest manifestation of rahmah. When youhave power but forgive, like the conquest of Makkah.

Sayyidina Isa's (alalyhis Salam)life was all makki(so far) And sayyidina Muhammad(saw)'s life was makki and madani
UriDepkeeks is offline


Old 07-10-2010, 06:10 PM   #10
gusecrync

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
530
Senior Member
Default
salaam,
This Madrasatul Islaah in Azamgarh (UP) is not deobandi . Actually its based on Ml Hameeduddin Farahi' s thoughts and I dont think he was Deobandi. This madarsa has been a bastion of Maududist and ghair muqallid ideologies as far as I know from my JIH days.
wassalaam,
At first glance, I noticed their website indicating that the founder was Ml. Muhammad Shafi, but I'm beginning to think this is NOT Mufti Muhammad Shafi Uthmani. So perhaps you're right brother. Plus, their website had this written as one of their "objectives":
"This Madrasah would be the meeting ground of all the various groups and sects of Ahl-i Sunnah wal Jama'h. Hanafis and Ahl-i Hadith would live here together and both Nadvis and Deobandis would teach here together." I'm not aware of how many Deobandis and Nadwis teach there.
gusecrync is offline


Old 07-10-2010, 06:35 PM   #11
gusecrync

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
530
Senior Member
Default
What he seems to be saying is wrong...

Mawlana tahanwi (rahmatullahi alayh) has a brilliant discussion on this. He talks about some Sufis who were Musawi and some who were Isawi .

But then he told us the Musawi and Isawi models were 2 ways from the brilliant depth of the Muhammadan(saw) way....
Based on my experience with reading various articles of his in Urdu in his al-Risala journal, the reason for his bringing in the model of Sayyiduna Isa (alayhi al-salaam) has nothing to do with tasawwuf or whatever Shaykh Ashraf Ali al-Thanvi was discussing in terms of sufis. Mr. Wahiduddin Khan seems to be using this as a means of further supporting his known stance against jihad. Because at the end of the day, he knows that the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) waged jihad on the battlefield himself numerous times and he knows he'd be a fool to deny this publicly because of it being an undeniable fact. Thus, the only recourse he has is to try and adopt the model of Sayyiduna Isa (alayhi al-salaam) and using that ayah as so called "proof" for his viewpoint. So in essence, by him grasping on to the model of Sayyiduna Isa, he has effectively gotten rid of any *past* precedence set forth for jihad fi sabilillaah on the battlefield by the Prophet (Sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam), at least in his mind. BUT...he has another problem to deal with...the *Future* jihad fi sabilillaah spoken about by the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) that will be waged by Sayyiduna Isa (alayhi al-salam) and al-Mahdi (alayhi al-salaam) towards the end of times as foretold in numerous hadiths that reach the rank of tawaatur as per our Sunni aqaa'id. So how does he now deal with this *future* foretelling of jihad fi sabilillah on the battlefield? He takes that belief of returning to the model of Sayyiduna Isa (alayhi al-salam) one step further by stating that those hadiths foretelling the return of Sayyiduna Isa (alayhi al-salam) and his fighting the Dajjal is NOT referring to his physical return, but merely advocating the return of Muslims to the "model" of Sayyiduna Isa (alayhi al-salam). So by saying this, he has now effectively (in his mind) gotten rid of any *future* foretelling of jihad fi sabilillah on the battlefielf. What remains now is his problem with the narrations discussing the coming of al-Mahdi (alayhi al-salam) and his fighting the Kuffar. And so how does he get rid of this? He takes it one more step further by stating that al-Mahdi is one and the same as Sayyiduna Isa (alayhima al-salam) by relying on to that one obscure and weak hadith in the Sunan of ibn Maajah and ignoring all the others that differentiate between the two. So now, he feels content that he has gotten rid of any past and future precedences and foretellings of jihad fi sabilillah in the shariah, and this is what he is known for in India, as being an extreme pacifist who will do anything, even if it means to demean the uswah of Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) to "prove" his viewpoint on jihad. If you really study his recent articles, you will see that all of it comes down to this basic point of his, i.e. jihad. He thinks that anyone who disagrees with this then he does not know what true jihad is and what Islam stands for. He seems to forget that our ulama have explained the fiqh of jihad in great details proving that our religion is the most peaceful religion, that we're the ones who allowed non-Muslims to practice their religion under our guard, and that we're the ones who gave them rights within our judicial systems, and our books of fiqh make it clear that we do NOT use jihad to cause chaos, mayhem, anarchy, and dissensions in the lands even if some absolutely idiotic Muslims today think that this is justified. I mean, how low can one can stoop to to attack the uswah of our Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) in proving their own personal viewpoints? How can a man who proclaims to be a Muslim even wake up in the morning and live a life after having written such trash? May Allah ta'ala Protect us from uttering or believing such baatil, aameen.
gusecrync is offline


Old 07-11-2010, 01:06 AM   #12
gusecrync

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
530
Senior Member
Default
See more nonsense here: http://www.eeqaz.com/main/articles/09/20090710a.htm

And here: http://www.eeqaz.com/main/articles/09/20090707.htm

Here's his unsound opinion on the niqaab and you can tell by the article he even somewhat downplays the obligation of hijaab:
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/...100235383.html

His questionable interactions with Hindus is well-known amongst Muslims in India:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sanjaya...n/photostream/
gusecrync is offline


Old 05-29-2011, 12:29 AM   #13
gusecrync

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
530
Senior Member
Default
In his article, "Maseehi Model", Wahiduddin Khan states that it is unislamic to refer to the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallama) as a 'kaamil model':
“aisi haalat main kaamil model kaa lafz aik aysaa lafz hai jo ghayr fitri bhi hai aur ghayr `amli bhi aur nateejatan ghayr islaami bhi".

He further states in the same article that the Prophet Muhammad's (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallama) example in some regards are inapplicable for Muslims today and he seems to be implying that the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallama) knew that this would happen which is why he said that Prophet `Isa (`alayhi al-salaam) will return, i.e. so that Muslims living in that time should abandon the Prophetic example for the example of Prophet `Isa (`alayhi al-salaam):
“magar bad key zamaaney main payghmabar islaaam key hawaley sey ye model musalmaanon key liye qaabil-e-daryaaft nahi rahey gaa. Ghaaliban isi liye aap ney is ki waapasi ko maseeh ki waapasi se ta`beer kiyaa.”

He conflates the two personalities of al-Mahdi and Prophet `Isa (`alayhimaa al-salaam) as one and the same in his article "Qayamat ka Alarm":
"...mahdi aur maseeh donon aik hi shakhsiyat key alaamati taur par do alag alag naam hain. Aakhiri dawr main zaahir honey waali aik hi shakhsiyat hai, jis ko kisi riwaayat main rajul-e-mu’min kahaa giyaa hai aur kisi riwaayat main mahdi, aur kisi riwaayat main maseeh".

In this same article he also states that al-Dajjal's killing will not be that of a physical killing but of a symbolic meaning:
"hadees main qatl-e-dajjal kaa zikr hai. Is sey muraad dajjaal kaa jismaani qatl nahi hai. Balke dajjaal key fitney ko be-zaree`a dalaa’il qatl karnaa hai.”

He also states in the same article that it is a common misconception amongst the masses that Prophet `Isa (`alayhi al-salaam) will physically descend to earth and then kill al-Dajjal. He further states that both of these are unsubstantiated by the Qur'an and Hadith!:
“is bahas se ta`alluq rakhney waalaa aik mas’alah woh hai jis ko maseeh ki aamid saani kaa mas’alah kahaa jaataa hai. `aam tawr par ye samjhaa jaataa hai ke hazrat maseeh aasmaani main zindah hain aur aakhiri zamaaney main woh jismaani tawr par aasmaan se utar kar zameen par aa’ien gey aur dajjaal ko qatl karein gey. ye tasawwur agarche logon main kaafi pahlaa huwaa hai. Magar woh apni mawjoodah soorat main na qur’aan se saabit hotaa hai aur na aahaadees se”.

Furthermore, he states in the same article that there is no riwaayaat concerning the physical descent of Prophet `Isa (`alayhi al-salaam)!:
“laykin qaabil-e-ghawr baat ye hai ke un main sey kisi bhi riwaayat main ye alfaaz mawjood nahi ke maseeh jismaani tawr par aasmaani se utar kar zameen par aa’eyn gey. Aasmaan se utarney ka nazriya riwaayaton main mukammal tawr par ghayr mawjood hai."

In his "Qurb-e-Qayamat ka Mas'alah" article in the July 2008 edition of al-Risala journal, he accuses storytellers for interpolating into hadiths that Prophet `Isa (`alayhi al-salaam) will be physically returning to Earth again and that no such additions were there before in the hadiths and that this is how this belief of his physical descent spread amongst the masses:
“Haqeeqat ye hai ke qurb-e-qiyaamat ki jo `alaamatein hadeeth ki kitaabon main aayii hain, woh bajaa’i khud durust hain. Laykin ba`d key zamaaney main qussaas ney us main par `ajooba baton ke idaafey kar dey. Ye idaafay chun key `arabi zabaan main they, is liyey log un ko asal riwaayat kaa hissa samajhney lagey. Us zamaaney main kitaabat kaa riwaaj bahot kam thaa. Ziyaadah tar baathein zabaaniy Tawr par dahraa’iy jaati thein, is liyey yey idaafey nihaayat aasaaniy key saat riwaayaat ka juz ban gayey.”

All in all, it can be clearly seen from the above that this man is wholly ignorant in the sciences of `aqaa'id and hadith.

We have made several attempts in contacting both him and his students to further explain themselves for the past 3 years yet none of them have ever furnished a response replying to the points made above.
gusecrync is offline


Old 05-29-2011, 12:55 AM   #14
gusecrync

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
530
Senior Member
Default
Istiftaa’:

as-salamu `alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu,
Molvi Wahiduddin Khan sahib, of India, has written various articles wherein he states the following points of contention:
1.) That the blessed “uswah” (example) of the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallama) is NOT “kaamil” (perfect/complete).
2.) Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallama) is the “final model” only with regards to the deen (religion) but NOT with regards to minhaaj.
3.) The minhaaj (model) of Prophet `Isa (`alayhi al-salaam) is more applicable for Muslims to follow today than the “uswah” of the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallama).
4.) Prophet `Isa (`alayhi al-salaam) will NOT be physically returning back to earth again.
5.) Prophet `Isa (`alayhi al-salaam) is the same personality as al-Mahdi (`alayhi al-salaam), i.e. they are not two different individuals.
6.) Al-Dajjaal will not be a physical being but only an ideology.
We would like to seek the fatwa of Darul Uloom al-Madania’s Iftaa’ Committee with regards to if the aforementioned six beliefs are within Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama`ah or not? If not, are they also outside of Islam?
We have attached the relevant quotes as well as the original articles as an addendum for your perusal.
September 13, 2010

[Here are the references that were sent to Dar al-Iftaa’:
- The June of 2007 issue of the "al-Risala" magazine: Please refer to his "maseeh model ki aamid-i-saani" article in this issue. Also, please refer to the "payghambar-i-inqilaab" and "deen aur minhaaj" articles in the October of 2007 issue of the "al-Risalah"
- August of 2007 issue of the "al-Risalah"
- “Maseehi Model” article
- “Qayamat ka Alaram” article
- “Uswa-e-Hasana” article]

Fatwa:

Assalamualaikum,

The above mentioned beliefs are contrary to Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama`ah, yet we cannot say that those who believe in the above are not Muslim.

Wassalam
[Mufti] Husain Ahmad
September 17, 2010
Dar al-`Uloom al-Madania
Buffalo, NY, U.S.A.
gusecrync is offline


Old 05-29-2011, 09:46 AM   #15
gusecrync

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
530
Senior Member
Default
Deobandi scholar, Mawlana Nadeem al-Wajidi, writes against Molvi Waheeduddin Khan's deviant beliefs:

http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIsl...ArticleID=3222
gusecrync is offline


Old 05-29-2011, 10:35 AM   #16
Narcodran

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
586
Senior Member
Default
Just another day at refutationforum.com

By the way, who is Wahiduddin Khan?
Narcodran is offline


Old 05-29-2011, 10:49 AM   #17
gusecrync

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
530
Senior Member
Default
Just another day at refutationforum.com

By the way, who is Wahiduddin Khan?
On one hand you undermine the contents of this thread and then on the other you admit your jahaalah of what/who is even being spoken about? Amazing...
gusecrync is offline


Old 05-29-2011, 10:55 AM   #18
theatadug

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
485
Senior Member
Default
Maulana Fadhl Muhammad sahib Hafidhahullah rendered Waheeduddeen Khan a deviant about 20 years ago. Sadly, Darulisha'at , Karachi , still publishes his stuff.
theatadug is offline


Old 05-29-2011, 06:27 PM   #19
gusecrync

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
530
Senior Member
Default
Maulana Fadhl Muhammad sahib Hafidhahullah rendered Waheeduddeen Khan a deviant about 20 years ago. Sadly, Darulisha'at , Karachi , still publishes his stuff.
As did Mawlana Yusuf Ludhianwi...who went to the extent of calling him the new age version of Mirza Qadiyaani.
gusecrync is offline


Old 05-29-2011, 08:16 PM   #20
Maryjasmine

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
542
Senior Member
Default
Just another day at refutationforum.com

By the way, who is Wahiduddin Khan?
would you have a problem if mirza qadiyani was been refuted on this forum?
Maryjasmine is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:51 AM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity