I want to ask you that is there any authenticity about the predictions of Hazrat Naimat Ullah Shah Wali? Now a days many people are quoting his predictions especially regarding the current situation of Kashmir and the world's great countries' defeat. I heard that many are fake as they have been amended time to time to prove that how much Naimat Ullah Shah Wali is true. So, please tell me is there any authenticity of his predictions?
|Published (Last):||23 November 2012|
|PDF File Size:||7.99 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.48 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
I want to ask you that is there any authenticity about the predictions of Hazrat Naimat Ullah Shah Wali? Now a days many people are quoting his predictions especially regarding the current situation of Kashmir and the world's great countries' defeat. I heard that many are fake as they have been amended time to time to prove that how much Naimat Ullah Shah Wali is true. So, please tell me is there any authenticity of his predictions? Also tell me if the Ahadith about ghazwa i hind are not authentic then how these Ahadith are gradually been proved by the nature as you can see that situations are going in the same manner as Ahadith tells us.
The Hadith reports about Ghazwa e Hind are also weak in authenticity. But even if they are true, there is no basis to apply them to the issue of Kashmir or to use them for making future plans or to think that they re talking about Pakistan attacking India.
Muslims should always act according to the explicit and clear directives of the Quran and the Sunnah, and then hadith in a subsidiary capacity and also future predictions cannot be mae the basis of any actions to carry about the scenarios depicted in the hadith accounts. That is a wrong way to approach eschatological hadith reports.
The saying ascribed to the Prophet pbuh , which you have alluded to in your question, is reported by Al-Nasa'i in his "Sunan" and by Ahmad ibn Hanbal in his "Musnad" It is reported in two different texts and through six different chains of narrators.
The first of the two texts is:. God shall save two groups of people from amongst my followers from hellfire. One, which shall fight in "Al-Hind" and the other, which shall accompany Isa ibn Maryam Jesus [on his return]. This text has been narrated, with very nominal differences, by the following two chains of narrators:. As reported in Al-Nasa'i's "Sunan". As reported in Ahmad ibn Hanbal's "Musnad".
The Prophet pbuh promised us the battle of "Al-Hind". Thus, if it happens in my lifetime, I should give away my life and all my belongings in it.
Before we can derive any conclusions or making any applications, we must judge these narratives on at least the following two grounds:. The basis of this narrative in either of the two primary sources of Islam, i.
In my opinion, the second criterion of judgment needs to applied only if the narrative seems to be acceptable on the basis of the first criterion of judgment i.
In view of this fact, I shall first of all present a brief analysis of the chain of narrators. The first chain of narrators, who have reported the first of the two texts includes "Asad ibn Musa".
Ibn Yunus says that Asad ibn Musa has narrated a number of abominable Munkar narratives. According to Ibn Hazam, Asad ibn Musa is abominable in his narratives and is a weak narrator. Asad ibn Musa has narrated this text from "Baqiyyah". Al-Dhahabi has also quoted Ibn Habban as saying that Baqiyyah ascribes to reliable narrators such sayings which he heard from weak and unacceptable narrators.
Abu Haatim says: "His Baqiyyah's narratives are not acceptable to be presented as a basis of an argument" Abu Mus'har gave his opinion about Baqiyyah in the form of a poetic verse, which means: "Narratives of Baqiyyah are not clean, so guard yourself against them".
Abu Is'haq Al-juzjaniy says: "May God have mercy on Baqiyyah, he quoted worthless narratives without caring to check who was he taking such narratives from". Ibn Khuzaimah says: I do not hold Baqiyyah's narratives as acceptable to be presented as a basis of an argument.
Ahmad ibn Hanbal is narrated to have said: "I thought that Baqiyyah only narrated acceptable narratives by ascribing them to unknown people.
But then I found that he also narrates unacceptable narratives by wrongly ascribing them to known and reliable narrators". Abu Al-Hasan ibn Al-qattan says: "Baiyyah wrongly ascribed his narratives to people and did not see any harm in doing so. If this is correct, it renders him unacceptable". Ibn Hajar has also quoted Khateeb as saying: "Among his narratives are abominable ones". He has also quoted Al-Baihaqiy as saying: "There is a consensus regarding the fact that Baqiyyah is not fit to be presented as a basis of an argument".
Not much could be found about Abu Bakr in books about the lives of people who have narrated sayings of the Prophet pbuh. The little that was found is not very encouraging. Ibn Hajar in his book "Taqreeb Al-tehzeeb" writes: His life and character is not known". This fact renders the narrator quite unreliable.
This really means that the narratives of Muhammad ibn Al-Waleed have generally been accepted by the experts of the field. However, the case of the particular narrative under consideration is quite different. His narratives are reliable, if they are reported by a reliable narrator is not fulfilled in this particular narrative of Muhammad ibn Al-Waleed.
In the second set of narrators of the first text, we have some of the same weak, unacceptable and unreliable narrators as were present in the first chain of narrators, like Baqiyyah and Abu Bakr ibn Al-Waleed Al-Zubaidiy, and moreover, according to this chain, Abd Allah ibn Saalim has reported from Abu Bakr ibn Al-Waleed whereas, according to a number of authorities, no one other than Baqiyyah has reported from this person.
He was much more well versed with the Torah". Abu Wahab Al-Asadi has also been cited by Ibn Hajar in his book "Taqreeb Al-tehzeeb" as saying that he is sometimes prone to confusions.
It also includes Hushaim. Ahmad ibn Hanbal says that Hushaim has ascribed his narratives to a number of people whom he did not hear from. Incidentally, among these names, we also find Sayyaar, from whom Hushaim has cited the narrative about the battle of Hind.
This incident shows not only that Hushaim was guilty of wrongly ascribing narratives to people, but was also quite well known for doing so, even during his own times. Ibn Hibban has also given the same opinion about Hushaim as is expressed by those cited above. The third as well as the fourth set of narrators includes Hushaim, quoting from Sayyaar there is no Yaasar among the people from whom Hushaim has narrated, thus there seems to be a spelling error in the fourth set of narrators due to which Sayyaar has become Yaasar.
The two names in the Arabic language are written with the same alphabets. In the preceding paragraphs, I have tried to briefly present an analysis of the narrators of the narratives ascribed to the Prophet pbuh. As is quite obvious, not even one of these six chains consists of people who are reliable enough to allow us to say with any degree of confidence that the narratives under consideration are correctly ascribed to the Prophet pbuh. In view of this fact, there does not seem to be any need of going into further details regarding these narratives.
Auto-login on future visits? Toggle navigation. Fri, August 16, - - views By Mushafiq Sultan. Question Assalam u Alaikum! Regards and Thanks Jazak'Allah! Answer By Mushafiq Sultan. About the Author View Profile.
Sign-in Close. An Al-Mawrid Account gives our members unfettered access to resources and content on more Al-Mawrid sites. The ability to bookmark and annotate content, created custom collections and participate in discussion forums is provided to members only. We are constantly adding more sites to our network. Sign-in Register Close.
Prediction of Naimat Ullah Shah Wali And Other Sufi Saints Regarding India And Pakistan War
Ni'matullah travelled widely through the Muslim world, learning the philosophies of many masters, but not finding a personal teacher he could dedicate himself to. Ni'matullah met Abdollah Yafe'i Qadri in Mecca and subsequently became his disciple. He studied intensely with his teacher for seven years. Spiritually transformed, he was sent out for a second round of travels; this time as a realized teacher. It was here that he met the conqueror Tamerlane , but in order to avoid conflict, Ni'matullah soon left and eventually settled in the Baloch region of Kerman. His shrine is in nearby Mahan. By the time Ni'matullah died, his fame had spread throughout Persia and India , Though his presence is not much noted in India and it is said [ vague ] he initiated hundreds of thousands of followers in the path now known by his name.
Shah Nimatullah Wali