Lineage of Abdul Qadir Jilani

[zaid_ibn_ali]

According to sunni’s he is hassani sayid on his father’s side husayni sayid on his mothers side?

I saw this on an old shia forum:

Abdulqader son of Musa son of Abdullah son of Yahya son of Muhammad son of Dawoud son of Musa son of Abdullah son of Musa son of Abdullah son of Hassan son of Hassan son of Ali son of Abi Talib

Noor al-Absar, by Sheblenji, page 320

the famous genealogist Ibn Enba declared that this lineage is false and Abdulqader doesnt belong to Bani Hashim tribe.

Umdat al-Talib, page 129

if you search in genealogy books, you will never find a person with this name (Musa son of Abdullah son of Yahya) because its fabricated character.

our friend Nabil al-Karkhi (may Allah's mercy be upon him) proved the falsehood of Gelani's lineage (Arabic website)

http://tanzeeh.shiaunion.com/trips/iraq_trips/gylanyun.htm


Can anyone clarify?

[Rationalist]

I used to be all pro unity with 12er Shia before tried to force me down with this claim. Taair al Quds used the same ibn Enba to make his claims. Then years after he accepted that Shaykh Abdul Qadir was a syed.

Anyway here is the reply to ibn Enba.

It is important to note that ibn Inaba when writing the aqab of imams of ahl al-bayt(a), he himself has missed out some -great-great grandsons and added some extra great-great-grandsons sons that are not in earlier books of nasab, so does that mean that those claiming nasab from such sons are not syed?

A biographies called Bahjtul Asrar whose author died in 713 AH gives the shaykh's lineage from Imam Hasan al-mujtaba(A), and this alone predates ibn Enaba by 112 years! Shaykh Syed Abdul qadir jilani's son syed abdur razaq in 'Fatihat Futuhul Ghayb' gives his shajra from Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba(A). This refutes the claim that it was his grandson who was the first to call the Jilani (ra) a Syed. Also, his grandson shaykh abu salih nasr, about whose authenticity imam ibn Hajar Asqalani prides himself that I report with three links from him whose sanad is most high and declares him trustworthy and authentic in his book 'ghibta'. those who calim that it was his grandson, should also note that he was a very reliable and superior and honest reporter according to asma ar-rijaal imams.

Furthermore, it is also claimed that none of his contemporaries called him a syed is also a blatant lie. Sheikh's companion and disciple mufti of Iraq, Imam Abullah bin Nasr bin Hamza Bakri Baghdadi in his book 'Anwaarul Naazir' details the lineage of shaykh syed Abdul qadir jilani from Imam Hasan al-mujtaba(A)

The Maliki jurist and geneologist ahmed ibn Jawzy in his book of geneology called 'albayaan fi nasabul adnan' details the lineage of the shaykh from Imam Hasan yet he was not fan of the shaykh as is evident from his book 'talbis'. Also Sibt ibn Jawzy in his book on geneology called 'ansaabul qirtaas' details the lineage of the Shaykh from Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba(A) as well as the renowned historian al-Jabarti details the lineage of Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba and gives the shaykh as his descendent.

These are just a few refrences and you pick up any book on asma ar-rijaal after 561AH and you will see that all are unanimous in the siyadat of the shaykh. There is an absolute ijma from ahl as-sunna from every century on the lineage of hazrat shaykh syed Abdul Qadir jilani. As a matter of fact you can read a book by Qadhi Mohammed Makki bin Azouz, the Tunisian jurist and traditionist where he gives the list and books of sixty ulema of the past that have written on the hasani lineage of the shaykh. The book is called 'As-saif ar-RabbanI fi Unuq Al Mutarid Al Ghauth Al Jilani'.



Ibn Inaba (825 AH) denied nasab in his book, and all those before him as mentioned above consider him syed. The shyakh died in 561AH. So someone who comes 264 years after declares him a non-syed whereas nassabeen and biographers and contemporaries and his son are telling you he was a syed.

As for ibn inaba having extra number of great-great grandsons and less number of grandsons sons of imams in his book when compared to the nassabeen before him and how some shajras printed in Iran and Najaf do not tally with those sons and hence by default making some known syeds as non-syeds is another issue but one should realise that collection of nassabeen is how genoelogists operate and not just a single person's baseless word. there are various shades of opinions. He wrote it out of bias of being a shia or ignorance..

[Rationalist]

Sunni and Shia Geneologists Who Declare Him  To Be A Syed
Sunni Geneologists Who Declared Abdul Qadir Jillani To Be A Syed
Sibt ibn jawzi (654AH) in two books, ‘ansaab al-qirtaas’ and ‘mirat az-zamaan’ both give his family tree from the second Imam(A). note he is almost two hundred years before the deniar ibn inaba!
Bahjatul asraar by shatnufi (713AH) gives chain and family tree from the second Imam(A). 115 years before ibn inaba.
Adhahabi (748AH) famous biographer, in his ‘al-jami lil aayaan’
Ibn al-wardi (749 AH) in tarikh ibn alwardi.
As-Safadi (764AH) in his famous 30 volume book of biographies ‘alwafi bil wafyaat’
Imam ibn hajar asqalani in his ‘al-ghibta’
Imam ibn rajab hambali in his ‘tabqaat al-hanabila’
Jamal ad-deen Al-atabakii(874AH) in his ‘an-nujum az-zahira’
Imam Yafa'ee in his tarikh
Imam sakhawi in ‘natijat at-tehqeeq’
Mulla ali qari hanafi in ‘nuzhat al-khatir’
Ibn ahdal al-hussaini in his ‘tarikh’ on the footnotes of ‘al-muntazam’ by ibn jawzi.
Kamal ad-deen al-fauti in his ‘talkhees muajamtul alqaab’ as well as ibn najjar in his tarikh.
Mohammed bin yahay tadufi in his biography of shaykh ‘ qalaidul jawahir.
Allama ibn emaad hambali (1089ah) in his famous book ‘shadhraatul zahb’
Shaykh mohammed alhalabi ad-dimashqi (1098AH) in his ‘shamul Mafakhir’


Shia Geneologist Who Declared Ghous Al Azam To Be A Syed


Allama Annassaba Mohammed bin Kazim bin Futuh in his 9th century book ‘Annafkhatul anmbariya fi ansaab al-kharul bariya’
Allama anasaba syed mohammed bin ahmed bin ameedudden al-hussaini an-najafi in his 9th century book ‘bahrul ansaab’ and ‘alkashaf li usooli sadaat al-ashraaf’
Mohammed tabari hussaini makki in ‘kashfun niqaab an ansaabil araba’
Naqib alashraf abul huda rifaee al-hussaini in ‘ashar albatoon al-qarshiya fishshaam’
Allama anasaba syed jafar al-araji najafi alhussaini (1382AH) in his book ‘manahiludharab fi ansabul al-arab’
Online Shia Reference for Shaykh Abdul Qadir Al Jillani's Linage

Check the last name ‘chausiya’ where it is clearly stated that shaykh was Hasani syed.
http://www.imamreza.net/arb/imamreza.php?id=1781

[Afzalsheikh]

Shaikh Abdul Qadir Gilani رَحْمَۃُ اللہِ تَعَالٰی عَلَیْہِ wanted to see the religious scholars at very high rank in the community. He addressed the scholars and advised them not to go in the company of rich and rulers.

[Soccer]

Attributing purity to people is God's task not the people's.   God attributes purity and declares pure who he pleases.

Three verses in this regard. One in Suratal Najm telling people not to attribute purity to who they wish and thereby reject Mohammad's (s) out of ignorance of the people they attribute purity to who they believed represented their gods.

Another, is in Suratal Nisa, it says people of the book scholars put themselves on certain level of purity by which they had the right to talk about God's guidance to the degree they can be referred to see if Mohammad (s) is true or if what he says about the Torah or Gospels is true and forbid it in context of authority they claimed in this regard, which was religious authority.

The other, is, concerning Zina and spreading rumors, it says in fact, if God pleased he wouldn't have attributed purity to anyone and thereby Mohammad (s) would not even be known and they would still be thinking Zina is okay and be entrenched in it so what right do they have to spread gossip about and speak about it as if they are above it.

God manifested Mohammad (s) as pure, his family, and no one else, so don't go spreading gossip and talking trash about people when you don't know who is pure and who isn't except that God's compassion for humans and grace to them, is such that he manifests his chosen ones as pure so people can unite on them and hold on to them.

And what is meant by pure, is being chosen by God to represent the religion,  this is proven by paraphrasing Zakariya's (a) prayer in short forms and in more detail forms, and they interpret one another, and so a Tayeb one is one God has chosen and purified in the eyes of people and proven beyond doubt to be pure to the people.

And God says elsewhere pertaining to paganist chaotic leadership "bring your book if you are truthful"  and said "Do they have a clear authority? So let them bring their book if they are truthful."

The Quran is the book that confirms Ahlulbayt purity and the "le" in Ayat Tatheer means the chapter and Quran over all is meant only to make the uncleanness off Ahlulbayt as well aside from that, to make them a single purification that no one else is seen to have.

It's for God to attribute purity to who he pleases.  Of course, when humans die, Allah (swt) through his chosen ones and common sense, we see them as good.

But to them on this guiding guidance role where their opinion is to be sought after and valued without proof but they are to be rather trusted, is the purity level forbidden.

We all can err and no one knows anyone to be authority pertaining to guidance except those who God manifests as completely pure in their understanding of his revelations and their intention to worship and serve God.