Why are most ex shia stories about people who werent so religious in first place

[sid]

Salam, one question i have is whenever i read the ex shia statements  or stories online, except for ebn hussein's story, most of the ex shias come from not so religious families.But for sunnis converting to shia islam, most of them do their research and have know how of the sunni religion.how do ex shias know shiism is wrong when they didnt even practice it properly? is this true for other ex shias on this forum, what are your opinions ?

[MuslimK]

Walaikum Salam wr wb,

I personally know some ex-Shia brothers some of whom belong to religious families - one brother was even debating Sunnis for years until he left Shiism. As for "converting after research" then I believe it is actually the other way around i.e. Shias converting to Sunni after research.

We have some ex-Shia members on this forum - lets see what they have to say about this.

[Rationalist]

What about ex-12ers like Taair al Quds or Macisaac?

[ZulFiqar]

Many of the Shī’a converting to the Sunna are in fact from among their ‘Ulamā’, such as the famous (or perhaps ‘infamous’) Ali Sher Haydiri a leader of the Sipahi Sahāba in Pakistan, who was murdered by Shī’i extremists some years ago. On social media, Syed Ali ul Ahsan Naqwi Tirmizi is very active and is a knowledgable ex-Shī’i. He is also an associate of Eng. Muhammad Ali Mirza, also very active on social media. Although the Engineer is not an ex-Shī’i per se, nevertheless he spent time among them and was for a period heavily under their influence. From my own experience, Shi’ite laity tend to be quite secular and irreligious and not very knowledgable about Islām. I saw some of their youth were tattooed (it is allowed in their Madhhab), pierced, wearing jewelry, eating non-Halāl food, and frequenting night clubs. Most of them do not offer Salāt regularly or frequent the ‘Imāmbāra’. The latter may be due to the fact that the Shī’a are not as zealous about establishing places of worship as the Sunnis. The Prophet ﷺ encouraged his followers to construct mosques, even if they are as small as a sparrow’s nest. Living in proximity to a mosque facilitates greater religiousity. The Shi’ite laity do not have a tradition of distinguishing themselves as Muslims through dress. They don’t wear skullcaps including when they pray or read the Qur’ān. Their women tend not to observe the strictures of Veil and are ‘loose’ and less shy than the average Sunni lady especially if they regularly engage in Mut’a. Speaking of the Qur’ān, the Shī’a are very distant from it, as their expressions of spirituality are focused more on mourning rituals. These and many other factors explain why ordinary Shī’a are less religious, and so obviously why when an ordinary Shī’i converts to Sunni will not have come from a religious background or experience.

[Ebn Hussein]

Salam, one question i have is whenever i read the ex shia statements  or stories online, except for ebn hussein's story, most of the ex shias come from not so religious families.But for sunnis converting to shia islam, most of them do their research and have know how of the sunni religion.how do ex shias know shiism is wrong when they didnt even practice it properly? is this true for other ex shias on this forum, what are your opinions ?

Salam dear brother,

I partly agree, however, but I believe this goes for both sides, Shia and Sunni, in fact for all religions, how many former priests or cardinals have you heard of, compared to some random Christians?

As for people becoming Sunni like myself:

In this very forum we have other Ex-Shia members (not very active though), brother Efendi (owner of Gift2Shias.com) is an Ex-Shia brother from a religious backround, brother Abu 'Ammar on this forum (what's his username?) is from a very religious Shia backround, but yes, many are from not so religious backrounds, but the same goes for Shias, at least according to my experience. Here Husayn's thread (Ex-Shia):

http://forum.twelvershia.net/ex-shias/why-i-left-shiaism/


As for people becoming Shias:

My experience is, and I can fill books with true stories of myself having either converted (or at the very least confused) many innocent and ignorant Sunnis to Shiism, may Allah forgive me, that most so called Ex-Sunnis are also from not so very religious families (just look at the "Reborn" series of the AhlulBayt TV youtube channel, absolutely embarassing, even their white reverts. They barely speak about Tawhid and Allah, it's all about the Prophet's cousin and his descendants, as for the Sunnis then most of them are absolute Jahils, I recently watched the one about the famous Pakistani Shia wailing reciter Nouri Sardar. What a miskeen, from a Barelwi-Sufi backround who converted to Shiism because he was fooled to believe that the reports about the fairy tale attack on Fatimah, ra, are mutawatir in Sunni books! Then another Turkish miskeen. Then some random Somali Taxi driver who has clearly no clue about Tawhid and the beliefs of Ahl Al-Sunnah. From their names alone you can tell what mindset they had and from what Quburi backround they are. One guys name is Shaheer GULAMNABI (i.e. Ghulam Al-Nabiyy), names only given by Sufis. Another guy's name is Burak Ilhan, I found his twitter account, endorsing celebrating Aisha's, r.a., death, a miskeen from Turkey of a Sufi backround who admits in his interview that he doesn't know much about his Deen (if he would, he would have never left Tawhid for Rafidism). A sad show really, reminds me of all the Ex-Sufi and jahil Sunnis I met and confused when I was a Shia.

So basically so called Ex-Sunnis who became Shias can be put in one of the two categories:

1. Former khurafi Quburis (in the UK mostly of Barelvi backround): These people are Quburi (grave/saint venerators) from begin with and already nutured on man ykhurafat (superstitions) and shirkiyat (polytheistic practices) that are like oxygen to Imamite Shiism. Also Ghuluww with the Ahl Al-Bayt is common among many so called Sunni groups, hence it is no wonder (and I don't blame them for that, I'd do the same) that the Rafidah prefer the most extremist forms of Sufism (despite the opposition they have with them in matters of 'Irfan, tasawwuf and what not) over more orthodox Sunnism.

I myself in my Shia times met many "Ex-Sunnis", most of them were almost without exception of a strong extremist Quburi backround, i.e. they used to call upon numerous saints, Shaikh/Pir veneration (similar to the exaggerated status of Maraji' in Shiism), so basically all I and my Shia mates needed to do was to replace their saints with the Prophet's (saws) cousin and his offspring.

A perfect example of our age is the Tunisian Sufi from the Tijani order Muhammad Al-Samawi Al-Tijani, the arch-liar who after being exposed in the Mustakillah debates in 2002, barely appeared on TV again. All his so called "evidences" from Sunni books (like in his book "Then I was guided") turned out to be either weak/fabricated reports or distorted reports. Young Sunni students back then (today's Sheikh Othman Al-Khamis) completely annihilated him academically in their refutations of his book (called: "And then you were MISGUIDED"), on our website we have translated refutations of many of his lies:

http://www.twelvershia.net/exposing-tijani/

2. Sunni born but absolutely ignorant of their religion


As for Sunnis who studied 3Aqidah, Tawhid etc. i.e. firm in these matters: Even in my Shia times I've never met one of them becoming Sunni (yeah, Shias call many so called "Ex-Sunnis" as "Ex-Salafi/Wahhabis", the reality is that most of them turn out to be former khurafi Sufis like Tijani or worse, former Zaydis like the Yemeni Essam Al-'Emad), in fact every knowledgable Sunni I met in my Shia times knew at least the basics of Islam to understand that Shiism and Tawhid are polar opposites. Of course these kind of Sunnis (even if they were non-Salafis) were branded by us as "evil Wahhabis". I remember once a Sunni telling me something along the lines: "To you Shias, even if a Hindu refutes and disagrees with you, you will call him Wahhabi!" There is definately some truth in that statement.

Anways, these are my two cents, everybody is free to disagree and share his opinion, to me, my experience reflects the reality that is repeating itself whenever I hear of so called "Ex-Sunnis".

Btw: There are some very knowledgable Ex-Shias out there, a brother on an Arab forum who has written numerous books, from a Shia family so religious, till today he managed to hide his identity. Also as some of you might know, I had a live show on Wesal Farsi TV (between 2011-2014), everyday for 2 hour, we covered all the globe, of course our targets were Persian speaking countries. On my show alone I had numerous conversion by Shias from Tehran, Shiraz, Isfahan, Tabriz and even Mashhad and Qom. It was not rare, this phenomenon raised even the interest of American think tanks: https://sonsofsunnah.com/2014/04/18/the-rise-of-persian-salafism/

At the end of the day, people convert from all religions, it is not a Hujjah (clear evidence for the correctness of ones belief) in and by itself, however, and here I give credit to Shias: They present they so called Ex-Sunnis MUCH better than us. Their TV channels dedicate entire series to their lives, Sunnis are lacking on this field, in fact we have nothing equal and shy away DESPITE the growing number of Ex-Shias, inshaallah I am planning to change that in the near future inshaallah: http://forum.twelvershia.net/ex-shias/the-rise-of-the-sunnais-ex-shias-(video)/msg444/#msg444

[ZulFiqar]

One guys name is Shaheer GULAMNABI (i.e. Ghulam Al-Nabiyy), names only given by Sufis.

Ghulām Nabi is a beautiful name and it isn’t Shirk at all. In fact the Prophet ﷺ instructed slave-masters not to refer to their slaves as ‘Abdi’ but as ‘Ghulāmi’ ‘my boy’:

وَلَا يَقُلْ أَحَدُكُمْ عَبْدِي أَمَتِي ، وَلْيَقُلْ فَتَايَ وَفَتَاتِي وَغُلَامِي
(Agreed upon)

[Hadrami]

I myself in my Shia times met many "Ex-Sunnis", most of them were almost without exception of a strong extremist Quburi backround, i.e. they used to call upon numerous saints, Shaikh/Pir veneration (similar to the exaggerated status of Maraji' in Shiism), so basically all I and my Shia mates needed to do was to replace their saints with the Prophet's (saws) cousin and his offspring.

true, from my experience i may add, there are also ex-sunnis who knows more about politic than basic Islamic knowledge. Understandably, the were awed by NATO (No Action All Talk) of Iran, because it barks the loudest at the west.

[ZulFiqar]

NATO (No Action All Talk)

Dude, learn English. The acronym doesn't match.

[Hadrami]

NATO (No Action All Talk)

Dude, learn English. The acronym doesn't match.

OK, NATO=No Action Talk Only or maybe NATO=false prophet died on poop 😂😂😂

[MuslimAnswers]

In this very forum we have other Ex-Shia members (not very active though), brother Efendi (owner of Gift2Shias.com) is an Ex-Shia brother from a religious backround, brother Abu 'Ammar on this forum (what's his username?) is from a very religious Shia backround, but yes, many are from not so religious backrounds, but the same goes for Shias

It could be that some come from non-religious backgrounds thus the repulsion against Sunnism is not there and also many may simply not wish to flaunt their stories, their conversion may have been very simple, with little drama, and they don't want to argue with anyone about the how and the why (basically they were absorbed into the mainstream Muslim community and that was that).

I could understand if that is not the case with Twelvers though, who live in constant anxiety and paranoia with regards to the Muslim Ummah, thus the need for drama and suspense; while in many cases Sunnis of different stripes simply did not historically consider the Shia arguments and presentation of affairs to be very academically interesting to begin with, thus we simply gave a summary in almost all circumstances and moved on to other matters.

[Ebn Hussein]

One guys name is Shaheer GULAMNABI (i.e. Ghulam Al-Nabiyy), names only given by Sufis.

Ghulām Nabi is a beautiful name and it isn’t Shirk at all. In fact the Prophet ﷺ instructed slave-masters not to refer to their slaves as ‘Abdi’ but as ‘Ghulāmi’ ‘my boy’:

وَلَا يَقُلْ أَحَدُكُمْ عَبْدِي أَمَتِي ، وَلْيَقُلْ فَتَايَ وَفَتَاتِي وَغُلَامِي
(Agreed upon)

And who said is shirk?

In fact even calling yourself Abdul-Hussein is not shirk, however it's an ugly bid'ah and against the practice of the Prophet, his companions and the Salaf Al-Saleh. As for the narration you (mis)used, it is in the context of calling ones SLAVE as ghulam and not 'abd, it does not refer to name giving. Not a single Sahabi named one of his children Ghulam of anyone. Of course the kafir Ghulam Ahmad and other heretics oppose the Sunnah.

[ZulFiqar]

And who said is shirk?

In fact even calling yourself Abdul-Hussein is not shirk, however it's an ugly bid'ah and against the practice of the Prophet, his companions and the Salaf Al-Saleh. As for the narration you (mis)used, it is in the context of calling ones SLAVE as ghulam and not 'abd, it does not refer to name giving. Not a single Sahabi named one of his children Ghulam of anyone. Of course the kafir Ghulam Ahmad and other heretics oppose the Sunnah.

I disagree with you that the name 'Abdul Hussayn isn't shirk. In my view it is Shirk to have such a name.

Now you say that the name Ghulām Nabi is an innovation because none of the Salaf had this kind of name. This is absolutely incorrect. In Islām it is allowed to have any name in general as long as its meaning is not evil and it doesn’t constitute Shirk or Kufr. None of the Salaf had the name Taqī Uddīn, and names like Taqī Uddīn, Nāsir Uddīn became popular in the time of the Khalaf and were unheard of in the time of the Salaf. Will you call these names innovation too?

[ZulFiqar]

And during the time of the Salaf there was a man named Ghulām Khalīl (and Khalīl is the epithet of sayyidina Ibrahīm, the Khalīl-ar-Rahmān)

“Abū ʿAbdallāh Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Ghālib al-Bāhilī, known as Ghulām Khalīl (d. 275/888), was originally from Basra, a client (mawlā) of the Bāhila clan, who resided most of his life in Baghdad. He appears in the sources as a controversial figure, mostly in connection with the persecution (miḥna) that he inflicted on the Ṣūfīs of Baghdad. He is known otherwise as an ascetic and a popular preacher (qāṣṣ, wāʿiẓ), who had a poor reputation as a traditionist (muḥaddith).”

Although he was dispraised by the Muhaddithīn and considered a fabricator of Hadīth, nevertheless, none of the Salaf objected to his name.

http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?idfrom=2534&idto=2534&bk_no=60&ID=2397
غلام خليل

الشيخ ، العالم ، الزاهد ، الواعظ ، شيخ بغداد أبو عبد الله ، أحمد بن محمد بن غالب بن خالد بن مرداس ، الباهلي البصري ، غلام خليل . [ ص: 283 ] سكن بغداد . وكان له جلالة عجيبة ، وصولة مهيبة ، وأمر بالمعروف ، واتباع كثير ، وصحة معتقد ، إلا أنه يروي الكذب الفاحش ، ويرى وضع الحديث . نسأل الله العافية

[Ebn Hussein]

I didn't say none, don't play these games with me, I know them well. A student of knowledge or someone learned should understand what is meant with Salaf. The Salaf were not an infallible entity, nor were the Sahaba, some Salaf had even mistakes in Aqidah issues, nobody is perfect, however, from the guidance of Muhammad, his companions and the Salaf is to NOT name your son Ghulam X and what not, that's the asl, exceptions don't disprove the asl and the common practice. The Prophet himself had a son, he named him IBRAHIM and not Ghulam Ibrahim, same with other Sahabah.

known as Ghulām Khalīl

I disagree with you that the name 'Abdul Hussayn isn't shirk. In my view it is Shirk to have such a name.

Your and my view are not hujjah, shirk has its definition, Abdul-Hussein certainly indicates shirk, however many Sufis have names like Abdul-Nabiyy, that is not shirk per se as there is a shubha which is 'Abd as in meaning. Rafida excuse it by saying that they mean to be the servants of Ahl Al-Bayt. This is not shirk but a hideous bid'ah and against the practice of the Ahl Al-Bayt AND their children themselves.

Khalil is also a very common Arabic name, Ghulam Khalil means servant of Khalil, and as he was a Mawla (client i.e. non-Arab in most cases), that could simply mean that he was the servant of Khalil in real sense, and not as in carrying such name.

None of the Salaf had the name Taqī Uddīn, and names like Taqī Uddīn, Nāsir Uddīn became popular in the time of the Khalaf and were unheard of in the time of the Salaf. Will you call these names innovation too?

Yes, that's an innovation in the linguistic sense, but nothing wrong with it as the meanings are good, same with non Muslim names with good meanings (Arsalan, Turkish for lion), however Ghulam X is not a name, it's a profession, it's when one is an actual Ghulam (servant of someone). Carrying such a name and adding Prophets/saints resembles the bid'ah of the Sufis and Rafida, so it's an evil innovation.


BTW: Fishing for shaadh opinions is the trait of the Zanadiqah, like the Kafir Qadiyanis.

[ZulFiqar]

The Salaf were not an infallible entity, nor were the Sahaba, some Salaf had even mistakes in Aqidah issues, nobody is perfect,

This is strange that you say the Salaf are not an infallible entity when before you were appealing to them as an authority in the question of naming.

however, from the guidance of Muhammad, his companions and the Salaf is to NOT name your son Ghulam X and what not, that's the asl, exceptions don't disprove the asl and the common practice. The Prophet himself had a son, he named him IBRAHIM and not Ghulam Ibrahim, same with other Sahabah.

Sir I'm astonished that you are someone who engages in polemical debates claiming to represent Sunni Islām when you haven’t mastered basic logic and Mantiq. How is the fact that the Prophet ﷺ named his son Ibrahīm a proof that to keep the name Ghulām Nabi is an innovation? This is as I said previously, you will have to declare names like Taqi Uddīn and Nāsir Uddīn, etc., as innovated names that oppose the way of the Prophet ﷺ and the Salaf.

What you need to do is cite the Islamic principles and guidelines with regard to names, and then subsequently prove based on that that the name Ghulām Nabi is a reprehensible innovation. The principle with regard to naming is that it is not Tawqīfīya but rather al-‘asl fī kull al-ashyā’ ibāHa.

Khalil is also a very common Arabic name, Ghulam Khalil means servant of Khalil, and as he was a Mawla (client i.e. non-Arab in most cases), that could simply mean that he was the servant of Khalil in real sense, and not as in carrying such name.

I infer from your remarks that you make a distinction on the ruling concerning a personal name and an attributive name. But where is the Dalīl for such a distinction? If it is impermissible to keep a certain name as a personal name, it automatically becomes impermissible to keep the same name as an attributive one. The Prophet ﷺ specifically prohibited the name Mālik-al-Amlāk ‘King of Kings’ ‘Shāhinshāh’, making no distinction as to whether it is kept as a personal name or an attributive one. Therefore, if you argue that the name Ghulām Khalīl is forbidden as a personal name you cannot then claim that it is permissible as an attributive one.

Yes, that's an innovation in the linguistic sense, but nothing wrong with it as the meanings are good, same with non Muslim names with good meanings (Arsalan, Turkish for lion), however Ghulam X is not a name, it's a profession, it's when one is an actual Ghulam (servant of someone).

If Ghulām is a profession does that mean any name which indicates a profession is incorrect? Then even the name ‘Abd is incorrect, like ‘Abd Allāh. If you say that in reality we are Slaves of Allāh, then a true Muslim is likewise a Ghulām of the Prophet ﷺ. And what will you say about the name Mujāhid which likewise indicates a profession, yet a person has this name without having ever done Jihād in the real sense?

And your remarks imply that you think the name ‘Ghulām Nabi’ doesn’t have a good meaning (God forbid). If I didn’t know better that you are a Muslim, I could be excused for thinking you are a Jew or a Christian or an enemy of the Prophet ﷺ. 

Carrying such a name and adding Prophets/saints resembles the bid'ah of the Sufis and Rafida, so it's an evil innovation.

Where did you derive the principle that resembling the people of innovation in something that is MubāH is forbidden? That which distinguishes people of innovation is their innovation itself. You cannot say it is an innovation to wear black clothes because it resembles the Rāfida, or that it is an innovation to shave one’s head (for a male) because it resembles the Khawārij, especially if such acts are done without the intention of resembling such groups. The prohibition of ‘resemblance’ firstly relates to resembling the people outside our Millat, i.e., non-Muslims, in something that is particular to their religions, i.e., wearing a crucifix, a monk’s belt, a Christian priest’s collar, putting Tilak on one’s forehead like the Hindus, etc. Likewise it will be forbidden to keep a name that is particular to non-Muslims like Singh, Kaur, Ram, Krishan, Shiva, etc. (Hindu/Sikh names). There is no Nass like this that it is forbidden to resemble people of innovation in something that is in its essence Mubāh.

Now as for your claim that the Sūfiya are included within people of innovation, this too I dispute, and you are not distinguishing between the various types of people that ascribe themselves to Tasawwuf, which in its essence is neither reprehensible nor an innovation.   

[Ebn Hussein]

The Salaf were not an infallible entity, nor were the Sahaba, some Salaf had even mistakes in Aqidah issues, nobody is perfect,

This is strange that you say the Salaf are not an infallible entity when before you were appealing to them as an authority in the question of naming.

An authority (like a Sahabi or even a group of them or even an entire generation) is not infallible by bil-Dharoorah, I think you should take some basic Usul classes.

Sir I'm astonished that you are someone who engages in polemical debates claiming to represent Sunni Islām when you haven’t mastered basic logic and Mantiq. How is the fact that the Prophet ﷺ named his son Ibrahīm a proof that to keep the name Ghulām Nabi is an innovation? This is as I said previously, you will have to declare names like Taqi Uddīn and Nāsir Uddīn, etc., as innovated names that oppose the way of the Prophet ﷺ and the Salaf.

Get off your high horse, mate, I never said that the Prophet (saws) naming his son Ibrahim is a proof that naming oneself Ghulam X is a bid'ah, it was just an illustration that it was certainly not from the guidance of the Prophet, his companions and the generality of the Salaf.

What you need to do is cite the Islamic principles and guidelines with regard to names, and then subsequently prove based on that that the name Ghulām Nabi is a reprehensible innovation. The principle with regard to naming is that it is not Tawqīfīya but rather al-‘asl fī kull al-ashyā’ ibāHa.[/size][/font]

This is correct, and as a Muslim I have the freedom to follow a section of Sunni scholarship who deem these kind of names a reprehensible niovation, especially since it has become a sign of Mubtadi3ah, and even kafir (Ghulam Ahmad and his people).

I infer from your remarks that you make a distinction on the ruling concerning a personal name and an attributive name. But where is the Dalīl for such a distinction? If it is impermissible to keep a certain name as a personal name, it automatically becomes impermissible to keep the same name as an attributive one. The Prophet ﷺ specifically prohibited the name Mālik-al-Amlāk ‘King of Kings’ ‘Shāhinshāh’, making no distinction as to whether it is kept as a personal name or an attributive one. Therefore, if you argue that the name Ghulām Khalīl is forbidden as a personal name you cannot then claim that it is permissible as an attributive one.

You didn't get it, it wasn't a name in the first place, if somebody is known as 'the servant of Bilal' then this doesn't make it his name.

If Ghulām is a profession does that mean any name which indicates a profession is incorrect? Then even the name ‘Abd is incorrect, like ‘Abd Allāh. If you say that in reality we are Slaves of Allāh, then a true Muslim is likewise a Ghulām of the Prophet ﷺ. And what will you say about the name Mujāhid which likewise indicates a profession, yet a person has this name without having ever done Jihād in the real sense?

Every Muslim does Jihad in one way or another, Jihad is not just Qital. You should open a basic book of fiqh once you got off your horse.

And your remarks imply that you think the name ‘Ghulām Nabi’ doesn’t have a good meaning (God forbid). If I didn’t know better that you are a Muslim, I could be excused for thinking you are a Jew or a Christian or an enemy of the Prophet ﷺ.  [/size][/font]

It has a good meaning, but it is a sign of Mubtadi3ah and kafirs like the kafir Ghulam Ahmad. As for you mistaking me for a Jew and what not. Come on, boy, the only kafir is that nasty looking Ghulam Ahmad with his incorrect English revelation that you deem a Muslim. No need to lash out at me with your pseudo-intellectual posts.

Where did you derive the principle that resembling the people of innovation in something that is MubāH is forbidden? That which distinguishes people of innovation is their innovation itself. You cannot say it is an innovation to wear black clothes because it resembles the Rāfida, or that it is an innovation to shave one’s head (for a male) because it resembles the Khawārij, especially if such acts are done without the intention of resembling such groups. The prohibition of ‘resemblance’ firstly relates to resembling the people outside our Millat, i.e., non-Muslims, in something that is particular to their religions, i.e., wearing a crucifix, a monk’s belt, a Christian priest’s collar, putting Tilak on one’s forehead like the Hindus, etc. Likewise it will be forbidden to keep a name that is particular to non-Muslims like Singh, Kaur, Ram, Krishan, Shiva, etc. (Hindu/Sikh names). There is no Nass like this that it is forbidden to resemble people of innovation in something that is in its essence Mubāh.

https://islamqa.info/en/45200

Don't lecture me. It is a DISTINCTIVE sign of the people of Bid'ah and kufr actually, such as the Rafidah to name themselves Ghulam X, Y, Z. Black is not unique to them, but these kind of names are unique to all groups of bid'ah.

Now as for your claim that the Sūfiya are included within people of innovation, this too I dispute, and you are not distinguishing between the various types of people that ascribe themselves to Tasawwuf, which in its essence is neither reprehensible nor an innovation.

Give it a rest. I myself am a Sufi, I believe in authentic Tasawwuf i.e. tazkiyat Al-Nafs and oppose simpletons who paint all Sufis with one brush, making it seem as if all Sufis are of the lunatic kind and Quburi kind. Our Salaf were authentic  Sufis, Tasawwuf is an Islamic science, even Salafi scholars agree (although they prefer other terms for this science). You don't know nothing about me. You are a hasty fellow, calm down.

[ZulFiqar]

An authority (like a Sahabi or even a group of them or even an entire generation) is not infallible by bil-Dharoorah, I think you should take some basic Usul classes.

I already know this. I am saying it is strange that initially you quoted the Salaf as a final authority on the matter and now that I gave an example from the Salaf (Ghulām Khalīl), then suddenly you changed your tune and started saying the Salaf are not infallible.

Get off your high horse, mate, I never said that the Prophet (saws) naming his son Ibrahim is a proof that naming oneself Ghulam X is a bid'ah, it was just an illustration that it was certainly not from the guidance of the Prophet, his companions and the generality of the Salaf.

Your logic is still weak. The Prophet ﷺ had a limited number of children born to him, but the list of good names a person can be named with is vast. You still don’t realise that the principle with regard to naming is easy, and only if there is a proof that a name is incorrect can you issue a Fatwā against it, such as a name that is Shirk, Kufr, or has a vile meaning, like naming someone your child Himār or Khinzīr etc.

This is correct, and as a Muslim I have the freedom to follow a section of Sunni scholarship who deem these kind of names a reprehensible niovation, especially since it has become a sign of Mubtadi3ah, and even kafir (Ghulam Ahmad and his people).

You still haven’t quoted any actual scholar who says that the name Ghulām Nabi is a reprehensible innovation. This seems to be your personal Fatwā based on very weak analogies and arguments.

I can actually tell you the names of several Ahl-al-Hadīth scholars, especially from the Indian subcontinent, with names like Ghulām Rasūl, Ghulām Muhammad, etc. So your contention that such names belong exclusively to innovators is out the window. I dispute the claim that such names are distinctive of people of innovation. And even if they were, it isn’t a proof for its prohibition. The Prophet ﷺ said that the distinctive sign of the Khawārij is that they keep their heads shaved, yet this isn’t a proof for its prohibition. Likewise, certain misguided grave-worshiping sects are distinguished by green color turbans, yet wearing a green turban is not in its essence something prohibited; and as you know there is no proof that the Prophet ﷺ ever wore a solid green colored turban like the members of the so-called Da’wati Islāmi sect in the Indian subcontinent.

You didn't get it, it wasn't a name in the first place, if somebody is known as 'the servant of Bilal' then this doesn't make it his name.

Incorrect. Ghulām Khalīl was his name, though an attributive name and not his personal name. But it was his Ism (name) nonetheless. A name, whether personal or attributive, is a word with which a person is called. If a name is forbidden, then to call a person with that word becomes forbidden too.

It has a good meaning, but it is a sign of Mubtadi3ah and kafirs like the kafir Ghulam Ahmad.

If a Kāfir has a name with a good meaning, that is not a reason to prohibit that name. You need to re-study the Islamic principles and guidelines with regard to keeping names. There was a liar named Rashād Khalīfa, does it mean the name Rashād is forbidden? There was a false prophet named Mahmūd al-Faraj during the Abbasid time, does it mean the name Mahmūd has become forbidden?

Don't lecture me. It is a DISTINCTIVE sign of the people of Bid'ah and kufr actually, such as the Rafidah to name themselves Ghulam X, Y, Z. Black is not unique to them, but these kind of names are unique to all groups of bid'ah.

Already disproved that such names are distinctive to innovators. Even if they were distinctive, it doesn't prove prohibition, just like shaving the head is distinctive of Kharijites, yet doesn't prove its prohibition. Giving Khums in this day and age is distinctive of the Shi'ites, yet doesn't mean giving Khums is an innovation or prohibited. Solid green color turban is distinctive of Barelwi grave worshipers, but that isn't evidence of its prohibition, and so on...

Give it a rest. I myself am a Sufi, I believe in authentic Tasawwuf i.e. tazkiyat Al-Nafs and oppose simpletons who paint all Sufis with one brush, making it seem as if all Sufis are of the lunatic kind and Quburi kind. Our Salaf were authentic  Sufis, Tasawwuf is an Islamic science, even Salafi scholars agree (although they prefer other terms for this science). You don't know nothing about me. You are a hasty fellow, calm down.

Then why did you earlier say: "Carrying such a name and adding Prophets/saints resembles the bid'ah of the Sufis and Rafida, so it's an evil innovation." ? Your words are self-contradictory and inconsistent.

[Ebn Hussein]

I didn't change my tune, I've expected some basic knowledge from somebody who throws around fancy words like mantiq. No knowledgable person would misunderstood what I said, as nobody has ever stated that the Salaf are an infallible entity. As for Sufis: I just like other Sunnis use this word in a general way, so when I say: "Bid'ah of the Sufis" I mean the heretical ones, I don't need to add "the mubtadi'ah amongst the Sufis", just like when I say: "The Bid'ah of the Shias", I do not hold the belief that all Shias are evil Mubtadi'ah, the early Shias were not, however, it is understood from the context that I mean the RAFIDA. So please stop acting dumb. As for the rest of your rantings: I won't repeat myself, Salamah.

[ZulFiqar]

I didn't change my tune, I've expected some basic knowledge from somebody who throws around fancy words like mantiq. No knowledgable person would misunderstood what I said, as nobody has ever stated that the Salaf are an infallible entity. As for Sufis: I just like other Sunnis use this word in a general way, so when I say: "Bid'ah of the Sufis" I mean the heretical ones, I don't need to add "the mubtadi'ah amongst the Sufis", just like when I say: "The Bid'ah of the Shias", I do not hold the belief that all Shias are evil Mubtadi'ah, the early Shias were not, however, it is understood from the context that I mean the RAFIDA. So please stop acting dumb. As for the rest of your rantings: I won't repeat myself, Salamah.

I have only one challenge for you: tell me one credible and qualified Islamic scholar who said the name Ghulam Nabi is an innovation and hence prohibited.

[Ebn Hussein]

ما حكم التسمي بإسم ( حسب الله , ضيف الله ، نصرالله ... ) !! هل يوجد بها محذور شرعي ؟
الشيخ عبد الله جبر الخطيب
أما ضيف الله فقد أجازه بعض أهل العلم وقالوا : لا بأس به ؛ تفاؤلاً أنه من ضيوف الله عزوجل ، وجار الله كذلك ، وقد سمي كثير من السلف جار الله، والعائذ بالله عز وجل.. فهذا لا بأس به . ومن العلماء من منعه .قال فضيلة الشيخ بكر ابو زيد – رحمه الله- عن ذلك : هذا من التسميات التي حدثت في الأُمة بعد اختلاطها بالأعجميين ، وإلا فالعرب والمسلمون -في صدر الإسلام- لا يعرفون مثل هذه الأسماء المضافة : عون الله . ضيف الله . عطا الله . قسم الله . عناية الله . غرم الله . خلف الله . وهكذا .
والنصيحة للمسلم أن لا يسمي بها ابتداء ، لكن من سُمِّي بشيء منها ، فإن غيَّرها فهو مناسب ، وإن بقي وهو على معنى : عون من الله ، فلا بأس ، وإن كان بمعنى أنه هو عون الله ، فهو كذب ، والمعنى الأول هو المتبادر . وقال العلماء عن حكم التسمية بالأسماء التالية : وداعة الله ، غلام الله ، جار الله ، نور الله ؟
أنه يجوز التسمية بوداعة الله وجار الله ، والأحسن تغيير اسم غلام الله ، وينبغي تغيير اسم نور الله ، أما غلام الرسول أو عبد النبي ، وغيره من المعبدة لغير الله فلا تجوز ، وأما التسمية ببشير ونذير ، فإنها تصح ولا بأس بهذه التسمية . وعن حكم التسمي بهذه الأسماء (شمس الدين) ، (محي الدين) ، (قمر الدين) ، وغير ذلك من الأسماء ؟
فهذه الأسماء كلها حادثة لم تكن معروفة في عهد النبي -صلى الله عليه وعلى آله وسلم- ، ولا في عهد أصحابه ، والذي وجد (سيف الله) أو (أسد الله) ، أما الأوصاف التي تنم عن ديانة ، فهذه إنما حدثت أخيراً ، وقد تصدق على من تسمى بها ، وقد لا تصدق ، فالأفضل العدول عن هذه الألقاب ، كما أن فيها مفسدة أخرى ، وهي أن الملقب بها قد يزهو بنفسه ، ويعجب بها ، ويترفع بهذا اللقب على غيره . والله تعالى أعلم .

المصادر :
معجم المناهي اللفظية .
فتاوى الشيخ ابن باز رحمه الله
فتاوى الشيخ ابن عثيمين رحمه الله

Now what toilet-Prophet defender, I guess he's not credible, huh? But the Shaitan from Qadyan who received Freshy-English revelation is, right? Jog on (and take some Usul lesson, you don't look smart using mustala7at that you don't understand) and don't waste my time, kid.