Talk:Abdul-Qadir Gilani

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of the article assessment section of WikiProject Muslim scholars, a WikiProject for all articles about Muslim scholars.
Note: The project includes non-Muslim scholars of Islam.

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
WikiProject Iraq Abdul-Qadir Gilani is part of the WikiProject Iraq, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Iraq on the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Sheikh mudasserhaleem 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)
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)

Contents

[edit] 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.

How are these facts?

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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!

[edit] 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

Nonsense

[edit] 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)

[edit] Silly discussions

I find some of the discussions on here a little amusing - anonymous users with poor language skills claiming to be his descendants don't count as references. However, there are issues with the article. It's written from an extremely positive point of view, when it should just be neutral. Stories such as the man having a dream about Muhammad don't add anything to the article either; this is an informative biography about a historical religious figure, not his blog. In addition, there is an amount of controversy and criticism over his works and his followers and the article doesn't mention that. All articles on prominent figures, especially in the realm of organized religion, should include sections for opposing views. Despite the whining of some anonymous users - and i'm not trying to be rude, but most of what I see on this discussion page is whining - the article could use a tune-up. MezzoMezzo 21:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Persian Empire could never include Gilan. He was always referde as GILANI, neither Persian nor Iranian. Iranian government occupied Gilan almost 500 years after his death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.47 (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)