Abdul Qadir Jilani

**Mukarram** · 31-05-2005, 08:15 PM

------

**ahsanirfan** · 31-05-2005, 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by Abdur_Rahman

The excerpt was provided and it's says otherwise akhi.

the universal?
the everlasting?
the incomparable?
the pure foundation?

Isn't this a bit of a stretch akhi?

do you really think that it's comparison is invalid?

It's not a bit of a stretch. I guess your base of understanding things is a LOT different than mine. As I have been taught, a human soul is created for immortality i.e. it lasts for ever after being created. And so using that as a basis I see no problem.

Disconnect yourself from the notion of "comparing everything to God" and you'll see. The praise exists within the modicum of creation, as opposed to outside of it. Everyone Muslim knows Syed Abdul Qadir Jilani was a created human being.

The purity of is soul is such that it is a foundation for us to build upon, hence pure foundation.
He is incomparable to anyone after him, hence the incomparable.
As I said earlier, souls are created for immortality, so I don't see any problem with him being everlasting (as long as you realize that his everlastingness is not like that of Allah's and it is contingent upon Allah).
He is the universal example, after that of the Prophet s.a.s. hence the universal.

**Hmmm** · 01-06-2005, 12:03 AM

It's the definite article that's the problem. Translate it into Arabic and you have some of the names of Allah (swt) being used to describe him.

Of course, you can understand it anyway you like - Christians understand their ascriptions in a variety of different ways too using the extension suggested earlier.

The point is it isn't most likely a good idea to utilise words of praise such as those for any human due to the possibility of misguidance as everyone is, of course, not a sufi, or given to esoteric thought processes.