Deobandis insist on justification for
Kufr statement in Hifzul Imaan by
their elder Ashraf Ali Thanvi (d.1943 CE) Here
--
When
we talk about cults, we talk about blind following and being unapologetic for
even those things that are blatantly inexcusable. Here
If
that's cultish, then aren't deobandis the biggest cult of all...?
We're not just
talking about justifying haram,
such as a shaykh praising deviants,
(Here) we're
dealing with statements of kufr; and still deobandis refuse
to accept.
The
Biggest Cult!
Quote: Saman
Alam said:
Are the beliefs of the Deobandis kufr or is
it that some of their statements are interpreted as kufr by
non-Deobandis while they interpret them to not be kufr? In
other words, do Deobandis actually admit to holding beliefs
that are kufr?
Sunni
response: Course they don't. Otherwise why would they
hold them? Their
elders committed kufr by insulting RasulAllah (صلى
الله عليه وسلم) and
the deobandis refuse
to distance from those passages. (Here)
Saman
Alam said: My
question would be, what is the kufr if they don't interpret those
passages as insulting RasulAllah?
Sunni
response: Interpretations
are invalid in explicit words. 33 scholars of Haramayn and 268 of
India ruled them as kufr.
Saman
Alam Of
course, they do not believe these passages are explicit (or implicit)
insults. Are
you saying there are no non-Deobandi
scholars who
did not interpret these passages as insults? If
some impartial non-Deobandi scholars understood
them to not be insults, maybe they are not explicit?
Saman
Alam I
say this, because all
excuses have to be exhausted before a statement is ruled to be kufr.
Sunni
Reply: http://sunniport.com/index.php...
A
fatwa of Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah
--
Saman
Alam I
was sent an English book called "A
Critique of Husam al-Haramayn".
In
that book, on page
85 it
mentions that this phrase "mitti
mei milne"
idiomatically means "to
be buried".
It refers to dictionaries Nur-ul-Lughat, Jami-ul-Lughat,
Munir-ul-Lughat and Sa'eed-ul-Lughat. Maybe
the other passages can have similar explanations. If
so, it would be necessary to avoid calling them kufr.
Sunni: Saman
Alam pretty sure Imam Ahmad Raza exhausted the hundreds of
possibilities over
13 years of
back and forth conversation with those scholars
of Deoband before
he finally gave the fatwa of Kufr.
Sunni
reply: And
that's why explanations are not heard for explicit words, otherwise
nothing would be kufr.
--
Mohammed
Kamal Hussain said: But
then any Tom,Dick and Harry could put kufr upon anyone.
Theses
disputes have become like Chinese
whispers.
They will never end and there
is no point in trying to fix that which can’t be fix.Just don’t
talk about it and carry on with life.
Sunni
reply: Well
said. That's
why it wasn't Thomas
or Richard, it was 33
of the greats of Haramayn.
--
Saman
Alam I'm
sure Deobandis also point to some of the greats of Haramayn and other
places who exonerated them of kufr. If
there is legitimate disagreement, the
view of it not being kufr is the safe position.
Sunni
reply: That's
where we come to this "exoneration", al-Muhannad.
What
exactly did they exonerate? (Here)
--
Saman
Alam You
can have a look yourself.
I found this translation
online: https://www.themajlis.co.za/.../Al-Muhannad_%27ala_al...
Mohammed
Kamal Hussain said: They
say that many great ulamaah of haramayn and other say there
is nothing kufri in their books.
Sunni
reply: This
is the reality
of Muhannad:
http://files.aqdas.webnode.com/200000093.../muhannad.pdf
--
Mohammed
Kamal Hussain Why
is what you put correct and what Saman put incorrect or vice versus ?
Saman
Alam I
am not in a position to assess the reliability of the historical
information.
Nor
do I think most people are
Sunni
reply: Saman
only posted a link to the book. I
posted why that book is a total deceit.
--
Saman
Alam Under question
20, one
of the passages in dispute is written out in full:
"Moreover,
if this usage were correct for his holy essence (Allah bless him and
grant him peace) according to the statement of a questioner, we will
ask for clarification from him: what
does he mean by this ghayb? Does
he mean every particular from the particulars of ghayb or a part of
it, whichever part it may be? If
he intended a part of the ghayb, there is no speciality in this for
the Chief of Messengers (Allah bless him and grant him
peace), since the knowledge of some ghayb, even if it is
little, is attainable by Zayd and ‘Amr, rather every child and
madman, rather all animals and beasts, because every one of them
knows something another does not know and [something that is] hidden
from him.
Hence,
if the questioner permits the usage [of the term] ‘alim
al ghayb for one because of his knowledge of a part of the ghayb, it
would be necessary for him to allow its usage for all those
mentioned, and if that was the case, it would not then be
from the perfections of prophethood because they all share in it;
and if it is not the case, he will be asked for a
distinction, and will find no path to it. [Here] ends the
statement of Shaykh al-Thanawi."
Sunni
reply: Show
me in the entire Muhannad the
passages verbatim, as they appear in the original books. Time
starts now.
--
Mohammed
Kamal Hussain
said: He posted his source and posted yours, besides there are
100s of books from both groups not to mention YouTube clips. It’s
not correct to ask for clarification of a derbondi book from a brelvi
or vice versa. Also
one could argue that it’s all semantics.
Sunni
reply: I'm
asking devbandis about their own book. If that book is an
exoneration, show us the passages verbatim that ulama of Haramayn
said weren't kufr.
--
Saman
Alam Does
the paragraph that
I quoted from Muhannad not
accurately represent one of the passages in dispute?
Mohammed
Kamal Hussain
said: More to the point why should a non drebondi have a say on
what the text mean ? Surly
the students of the person would have a better understanding of what
the text is implying also vice versa.
Sunni
reply: Exoneration
would only be if you quote the exact words and THEN ulama say they're
not kufr. If the deobandis believed they weren't kufr, why not
quote the precise words...
--
Mohammed
Kamal Hussain said: why
should the burden of proof be upon the writer,
surly it’s upon the claimant. And from what I’ve seen both in
writing and on YouTube, it seems all semantic driven by the mob from
both sides.
Sunni
reply: The
writer's aimed to exonerate themselves by writing Muhannad.
Where in that book are their passages that were deemed to be kufr by
33 ulama of Haramayn?
--
Saman
Alam In
the paragraph I have quoted above, what would you say requires
changing to make it accurate?
Some
things would obviously be lost in translation from Urdu to
Arabic.
But
what in your view makes the above paragraph not kufr and the original
paragraph kufr?
Mohammed
Kamal Hussain Exonerate
or clarification ?
Sunni
reply: Thanwi wrote: aysa ilm
(such
knowledge).
Show
me from your translated passage these words.
------
--
Saman
Alam "The
knowledge of some ghayb" = "aysa ilm
ghayb" See
page 63 of "A Critique of Husam al-Haramayn". "Aysa" can
mean "this kind of", and is not necessarily used for
comparison. So the words say, "This kind of ilm ghayb", or
in the translation of Muhannad, "The knowledge of some ghayb",
which is what "this kind of ilm ghayb" refers to.
Sunni
reply: But
didn't deobandis say it's for comparison? Tashbih.
--
Saman
Alam I'm
going by what's mentioned in the above work. Based on what I have
mentioned, is the translation of Muhannad a linguistically valid
meaning?
Sunni
reply: When aysa is
used and the mushabbah and mushabbah bihi are mentioned, it's for
comparison. The words are in Urdu and that's the rule in Urdu.
I've
not even commented on the signatories
of Muhannad yet.. And
why should we forget what deobandis themselves said
about aysa? Husain
Ahmad Tandwi,
anyone? (Here)
--
Saman
Alam Aysa
seems equivalent to the English "such", as you have
translated it. When it says "such knowledge of ghayb",
could it not be referring to "the knowledge of some ghayb"
as translated in Muhannad? Is this linguistically possible or not?
Sunni
reply: Aysa
ilm e ghayb - 'such knowledge of ghayb'.
So
which two things is SUCH comparing?
If
we accept partial knowledge for Zameel, then what is his speciality?
Such
knowledge is also held by animals and madmen.
Such
is comparing Zameel with dogs and pigs.
--
Saman
Alam "What
Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanavi meant was
that if when Zayd says 'Alim al-Ghayb' (Knower of Unseen knowledge)
only some of that knowledge of the Unseen is meant then what is the
specification of the Messenger in that; for the like of that (i.e.
some), and as a result of which Zayd is calling the Messenger
“Knower of the Unseen knowledge”, is found with Zayd and Amar, in
fact with every child, insane person, and even animal and beast.
Therefore it would demand Zayd to call all of them (Allah Almighty
forbid) “Knowers of the Unseen”. This has to be so as according
to Zayd to be called Knower of the Unseen it is enough to have any
piece of knowledge of the Unseen, and it is certain that all these
beings have some knowledge of the Unseen. If they do not then at the
very least they have knowledge of their Creator and that too comes
under Unseen knowledge.
"Mawlana Ashraf Ali
Thanavi never
meant the
kind of Unseen knowledge possessed by the Messenger of God is also
possessed by the things he lists. Nor did he mean (Allah Almighty
forbid) that the knowledge possessed by the Messenger is of the same
level and equal to that which is possessed by every child, insane
person, animals and beasts as has been portrayed by Mawlana Ahmad
Raza Khan, as signified by his words: “See the parity he is
creating between the Messenger of Allah and any insignificant
being.”" (A Critique of Husam al-Haramayn, page 64)
--
Saman
Alam It
is an interpretation to say RasulAllah is the "mushabbah".
It
is possible there is no mushabbah, and the word "aysa"
means "this kind of knowledge of ghayb", referring to some
knowledge of the unseen.
Based on this, the rendition of
Muhannad is a possible linguistic meaning and the original passage is
not kufr.
Sunni
reply: He
mentioned the partial knowledge of RasulAllah صلى
الله عليه وسلم and
compared it to animals.
What
do you think, is this disrespectful to a chap called Zameel:
If
it means Zameel has
partial knowledge, then what is special about him?
Such
knowledge is also held by animals and madmen.
Is
that insulting the knowledge of Zameel or
not?
Or Thanwi himself:
If
we accept partial knowledge for Ashraf
Ali Thanwi and
because of that we call him aalim, then what is special about Thanwi?
Such knowledge is also held by animals and madmen.
Hand on
heart, would you accept that for Thanwi?
--
Sunni: Saman
Alam If,
according to Khalil Anbethwi, there was no kufr in the passages on
page 8 of Hifz al-Iman, page 51 of Barahin-e-Qati’ah and pages 3,
14 and 28 of Tahdhir al-Nas; then
what was he afraid of?
It
was binding upon him to present the actual passages to the scholars
of Haramayn and their correct translations and the meaning which he
understood from them. He should then have asked the scholars of
Haramayn whether these are the meanings of these passages or not and
are they free from kufr or not?
The
climax of all dishonesty was
that one passage was declared to be the summary of the meaning
of Barahin-e-Qati’ah. Another
passage was said to be the summary of the subject of Tahdhir
al-Nas and
at the end of another passage, he wrote that here end the words
of Thanwi.
In al
Muhannad Khaleel Ambethwi never
presented the actual
text.
Remember that.
--
Saman
Alam The
subject is not knowledge or ilm in general, but knowledge of unseen
and ilm al-ghayb. Can
you answer this question. Is the rendition of Muhannad a possible
linguistic meaning? It's
not possible to present the actual text when you are communicating
between languages! The question is whether the meaning was accurately
conveyed.
Sunni: Saman
Alam it is definitely possible.
Khaleel
Ambethwi was a teacher in arabic literature. (شیخ
ادب) Khaleel
made his own interpretation and presented it. When
he can write a whole book in arabic. How can he not translate the
passages? This
clearly reflects injustice and dishonesty that actual texts were not
presented.
--
Sunni
reply: No,
it's not accurate and not a possible meaning.
Why?
Because it was the word AYSA that
was the basis of kufr and it is that very word
that Muhannad omitted.
Alahazrat
translated it: مثل
هذا العلم بالغيب so
why didn't Anbethwi?
Why
did he give his interpretation rather
than a translation?
Manzoor
Numani agreed
with Alahazrat's translation, by the way.
--
Saman
Alam Maybe
he felt it was not necessary to provide a verbatim translation and it
would be enough to convey the meaning.
Sunni: Saman
Alam wow. One presents according to his own feelings. Where on earth
this happens? Particularly when you are in court of Ulama Haramain
--
Sunni
reply: Ya
RasulAllah ( صلى
الله عليه وسلم)!
Unnecessary?! They were deemed kafirs for the verbatim.
Why
didn't he go to the SAME ulama who called Thanwi a
kafir and say, 'you've been duped. Here's the exact translation and
this is the meaning.'
You say Alahazrat lied. Fine.
Then why didn't Anbethwi present
the correct TRANSLATIONS according to HIM and get the fatwa of kufr
retracted from the SAME scholars who called them kafirs...??
--
Saman
Alam “In
the Urdu language the word aysa (like)
has several meanings. The poet Ameer Minai in his famous Urdu lexicon
Ameer al-Lughaat, explaining the word aysa, writes:
1. Of
this kind; used in a phrase such as, to make a pen-case like this is
difficult for any person, (Aatish). Also, there is no beloved like
her in the garden of the world – neither is there a rose that emits
her fragrance nor is there a fruit with the like of her
pleasure.
2. This
amount or extent; like (this) he struck him (aysa
maara)
such that he was left lifeless. Also,
This wine-presser‟s body
is so (aysa) supple and clean
that the religious believe it
tantamount to a wave of wine
Clearly it is possible to take
either the meaning of like this kind or of this amount/extent.
Keeping this in view the passage of Mawlana
Ashraf Ali Thanavi becomes completely faultless and under
no circumstances can it be said he was guilty of blasphemy against
the Messenger (Allah
forbid), the
very thought never crossed his mind.” (A
Critique of Husam al-Haramayn, page 63)
--
Saman
Alam It
doesn't matter if the word is omitted, if what the word refers to is
conveyed accurately.
Is
it not possible that
"aysa"
could mean "this kind of ilm al-ghayb", referring
specifically to "some knowledge of the unseen"? Is
this a possible meaning or interpretation?
Sunni
reply: It's
ok to take the meaning of 'this amount'?
So now we're equating the amount of
knowledge of RasulAllah صلى
الله عليه وسلم with
animals! (Astaghfirullah)
Please,
why don't you stop for the sake of your iman?
So
now your passage becomes:
“Then
what is extraordinary about RasūlAllāh in possessing it?
This
much knowledge of unseen is also possessed by all and sundry [Zayd,
Amr]; even infants, lunatics and all the animals and quadrupeds.”
--
Saman
Alam As
far as I can see, this is just a matter of linguistic gymnastics.
Deobandis clearly have their reasons, linguistic etc., for
believing this passage is not blasphemous. They
presented their understanding, and were exonerated of kufr.
"This
amount" would mean "the amount of some knowledge of
unseen", that is as opposed to "the amount of all knowledge
of unseen", not "the amount of knowledge of RasulAllah"!
It
seems you will jump to only the worst possible meaning.
Sunni
reply: Then
why say 'amount'?
What is the need at all to mention amounts and quantities?
You
can just say partial or total unless you wish to equate the
amount?
Is the amount of partial knowledge of RasulAllah صلى
الله عليه وسلم the
same as animals? No! Then why say aysa, 'this
amount of partial knowledge of unseen is also held by
animals.'
Mentioning amounts with the word aysa is
for what? The words itnā and
is qadr come to mind...
Amounts
and extents are mentioned for quantities, not types.
Partial
knowledge is a type.
Total knowledge is a type.
Amount of
partial knowledge is for quantity.
Do
you deobandis have any intellect at all?
--
Saman
Alam It
would be rendered as, "This amount or extent of knowledge of
unseen", not, "This amount of partial knowledge of unseen"
as you have rendered it.
"This amount of knowledge of
unseen" refers to "partial knowledge of unseen" as
opposed to "total knowledge of unseen". An "amount"
or "extent" does not have to be static but can be variable,
as with the amount of "partial knowledge of unseen". It
means: "anything less than total".
Saman
Alam The
types in reference are quantities: partial quantity or total
quantity.
Sunni
reply: Is
this acceptable:
If
it refers to partial
knowledge of
unseen, then what is special about RasulAllah صلى
الله عليه وسلم in
possessing it? This amount of
knowledge of unseen is attainable by animals and madmen.
--
Saman
Alam It
is acceptable if "this amount of
knowledge of unseen" is referring to "partial knowledge of
unseen" and not the knowledge of RasulAllah.
Sunni
reply: Then
you wouldn't say amount,
would you? It's silly. You'd
just say, partial knowledge. If you mention an amount, it
only means quantity.
It's
like saying:
Bill
Gates has some money but what is special about Bill in
this? This amount is
even held by Zameel too.
--
Saman
Alam The
discussion is about something attributed exclusively to Allah, "Alim
al-Ghayb", not about things that are attributed to creation also
like knowledge in general or wealth.
So a better analogy would
be something like "Khaliq" (Creator). Take the following
analogy:
'If someone said, Elon Musk can be called "the
Creator", he of course does not mean creator of everything, but
creator of some things, while creating some things is not exclusive
to Elon Musk; such an amount of creation is carried out even by ants
and other creatures, so they should all be called "Creators".'
It
is obvious that what is being attributed to ants is not the same
quantity of invention or creation as Elon Musk but of creating some
things in general. There is no equation made between Elon Musk and
ants. In the same way, no equation is made between the ilm al-ghayb
of RasulAllah and the other creatures in the original passage.
Sunni
reply: Yes,
equation IS made. Because
you've said AMOUNT.
Saman
Alam The
amount of "some" as opposed to "all", not the
amount held by the person in question.
I would have thought
that's an obvious distinction.
--
Saman
Alam In
the analogy that I presented and the original passage, the actual
amounts held are not even brought up.
All that is
mentioned is that a general amount described as "some" is
held by them, which is not something exclusive to them, rather a
general amount of "some" is also held by others.
The
actual, precise amount of that "some" is not even in
question.
Sunni
reply: YOU
brought up amounts. YOU
said it's
a valid interpretation. It
would be good if you took that wording back and denounced it, for
your sake as it points towards equality. No
harm in doing tawbah from something once it's brought to your
attention.
--
Saman
Alam ??
You seem to be evading the problems with your blasphemy theory. The
passage clearly has a valid, alternative meaning which you are not
willing to even consider.
The
meaning presented in Muhannad is not linguistically invalid or
implausible. If the passage has a linguistically plausible meaning
that is not kufr, that meaning will have to be assumed.
--
Saman
Alam "Now
at the end I consider it appropriate, in order to complete this
reply, that I further explain the passage of Hifz al-Iman that was
the basis of this accusation, though it is completely clear. Firstly,
I made the claim that the kind of Unseen knowledge that is intrinsic
and independent (bi-laa wasita) is exclusively for Allah Most High.
As for that Unseen knowledge that is dependent (bil-wasita) it is
possible for the creation, but it is not permitted to call the
creation Knower of the Unseen (`Alim al-Ghayb) thereby. For this
claim I presented two proofs. That passage comes from the second
proof which begins with the words: Then if it is true as held by Zayd
that the ruling of knowledge of the Unseen is established for the
pure person of the Messenger. It means that the application of the
ruling of knowledge of the Unseen to the sacred person of the
Messenger, is merely due to his possessing Unseen knowledge by
dependency (bil-wasita) and this is sound according to you. Then by
`Alim al-Ghayb (Knower of the Unseen) if you mean that he possesses
all limitless knowledge, then that is impossible by the demand of
scripture and reason. If, however, you mean only some branches of
Unseen knowledge, even if it were just one thing, no matter how
insignificant that one thing was, what is the specification of the
Messenger in that. For the likeness (aysa) of that knowledge is
possessed by Zayd, Amar etc.
"The word aysa here does
not mean they possess Unseen knowledge just as the knowledge of the
Unseen possessed in reality by the Messenger, (We seek refuge of God
from that). Rather the meaning of aysa here is exactly what we
mentioned above, that is (all possess) some of the Unseen Knowledge
(be it even a small amount, and no matter how insignificant). The
reason for this is that some, as stated above, is general in its
application. The very following words in the passage are also the
proof for this; namely: The reason for this is that every person will
have knowledge of something or other that is hidden from another
person….Consequently, if Zayd considers it reason enough to apply
knowledge of the Unseen to all cases of possessing any piece of
Unseen knowledge, no matter how insignificant, then Zayd will have to
call all these beings Knowers of the Unseen. Is it not so that they
too know some Unseen things? A superficial reading of this very
passage is clearly saying this…." (A Critique of Husam
al-Haramayn, page 65)
According
to the above work, this was written by the author of the original
passage himself in 1910.
What
more is required after the explanation of the author himself?
Sunni
reply: A
retraction maybe of the original passage which he changed?
--
Saman
Alam He
explained what he meant by the original passage in the above quote,
and later made a modification but not because he believed there was
anything problematic with the original:
"On
the 28th of September 1923 (1342 Hijri), a friend of Mawlana
Thanvi from Hyderabad Dakkan wrote to to him with reference to
the Bast al-Banaan treatise:
"After
your clarificaion there is no room left for any doubt. There is
neither the slightest hint of a contrary meaning being intended nor
bad ettiqutte. Hence truly there is absolutely no necessity to amend
the passage for this reason. However, the Muslim world is filled with
all kinds of people with different understandings and there are those
who will deliberately cause confusion for their interests. They will
of course claim it is for the sake of religion they do what they do,
but in reality it is for worldly interest. Due to this situation, in
consideration of those with less understanding, who may themselves
fall into error or be confused by others, if this passage was
modified in a way such that though the words would be altered, the
substance would remain the same. It is hoped that this would be
rewarded. This modification though would not be at the level of
necessity, only desirable. The end decision is whatever you believe
is correct.
"This
is how Mawlana Thanavi replied to this letter:
"May
God reward you. It is a very good idea. Because before this no one
showed any real basis for modifying the passage, and so I thought
making a modification would be necessarily admitting that the passage
had a contrary meaning. It is a principle to make an admission of
disbelief is disbelief (iqrar bil-kufr kufr). Thus I considered a
modification, not only not necessary, it was actually forbidden. Now
your letter has shown me a genuine justification and in line with
your advice, I change the words from: 'If it some of the knowledge of
the Unseen that is meant, then what is the specification of the
Messenger in this? The like of this knowledge of the Unseen (aysa
`ilm-e-ghayb) is also found with Zayd, Umar, moreover every child,
insane person and even all animals and beasts. The reason for this is
that every person will have knowledge of something or other that is
hidden from another person, this will then require one to call
everyone Knower of the Unseen (`Alim al-Ghayb)…' to this: 'If it is
some of the knowledge of the Unseen that is meant, then what is the
specification of the Messenger in this? Some knowledge of the Unseen
in general terms (mutlaq `ulum-e-ghaybiyya) is also found with other
than the prophets, may God's blessing be upon them. Thus it will
require one to call every one Knower of the Unseen (`Alim
al-Ghayb)….'
"This reply was then published under
the title Tagheer al-Unwaan (Modification of the Address) in the same
year. This letter was also published as an appendix to future
editions of Hifz al-Iman." (A Critique of Husam al-Haramayn,
page 68)
Sunni
reply: He changed the
passage. It's still problematic as there's no repentance from the
original.
The
question still remains:
1. Why didn't Anbethwi present
the actual passages or their correct translation? He could have then
added what Thanwi meant.
Why did he hide the original?
If
there's no kufr, then why didn't he present it?
2. Why didn't he
go to the same ulama who are in Husam?
--
Saman
Alam I
have no idea about
the second question, but I think it has been established that what he
presented accurately conveys the meaning of the passage.
What
matters is the meaning, not the words.
--
Saman
Alam He
does not believe the original is problematic, so of course there will
be no repentance. In fact, he said to repent would be an admission
that the passage is kufr, but he does not accept this based on the
clear explanation he has given.
Sunni
reply: Wrong.
Totally wrong.
When
talking about RasulAllah صلى
الله عليه وسلم,
it's words.
Do
you know Rā'inā?
The
ruling will always be on the apparent.
As
for the meaning, NO, it isn't present in Muhannad.
Because Thanwi said aysā for
tashbih but there is no word that indicates tashbih in Muhannad.
It
was the word aysā that
was the cause of kufr and Anbethwi removed
it.
So, again, what was the harm in Anbethwi presenting
accurate translations?
Manzoor
Numani said
the translations in Husām are correct.
Why
didn't Anbethwi just
show the same translations and THEN give his own
meaning?
Listen. Muhannad can
only be a reply to Husām if:
The same passages that are in
Husām were presented to the same ulama and then they
retracted.
Right now, it's apples and oranges.
--
Saman
Alam Going
in circles.
Sunni
reply: The
crux of which is, if the passages of devbandis didn't contain kufr,
why didn't the very book that sought to exonerate them mention the
actual passages?
Why
only give the purported meaning and that too as understood by the
devbandis themselves?
Why not let the ulama decide the
meaning?
Saman
Alam are
you Zameel?
--
Saman
Alam I
am not Zameel.
A
big factor would be communicating across languages.
Are you
saying that when they wrote their defences in Urdu, like in the work
I quoted above, they did not quote the complete passages?
Sunni
reply: Numani did. Chandpuri did.
But the clincher is, Anbethwi DIDN'T because
the former two didn't have to present to Arabs, the latter did. He
hid the original passages.
That's dishonesty. If you're so sure
you haven't blasphemer, go ahead and present the actual accurate
translations or even the original Urdu to people like Abdul Haq
Muhajir Madani.
--
Saman
Alam Were
there no impartial non-Deobandi Urdu-speaking scholars who exonerated
them of kufr?
Sunni
reply: Keyword:
beliefs. The question ISN'T about beliefs, is it?
It's
about what was WRITTEN.
The
partial knowledge of RasulAllah صلى
الله عليه وسلم has
been compared to the partial knowledge of animals and madmen. That's
insulting and therefore kufr.
My question remains, if devbandis
didn't think it's kufr in the original passage, then:
-------------------------------------------------------
1. Why
didn't they present the actual translation of the passage?
2. Why
did they later change the same passage?
3. Why
didn't they present Muhannad to
the same scholars who had endorsed
Husām?
-------------------------------------------------------
*Changing
a passage or only presenting what you claim it means doesn't
remove kufr.
It actually proves it
further.
--
شهاب
صديقي Abd-Allah
S. Qureshi this Barelwi is trying too hard. Tell
him to shut up and start giving the interpretations that are now
being shown from the books of his Akabir.
Let’s
see him use the same yardstick that he uses with Deobandis.
Btw,
great job Saman in exposing the hypocrisy of this guy. I
am sure it didn’t register with him at all.
---------------------
Sunni
reply: The
partial knowledge of RasulAllah صلى
الله عليه وسلم is
compared to that of animals and
you lot don't see the issue.Sad.
--
Sunni
reply: Even
if aysā refers
to partial knowledge
of unseen, whose knowledge is being compared with what?
Sunni
reply: Tell
me, would a deobandi find
this offensive:
And
then, if it is correct to attribute
knowledge to
be possessed by Thanwi, as Zameel says,
then it remains to be asked, which
one he refers to. Is
it only a ‘part’
of it (ba’ad) or ‘complete’;
if he refers to ‘part’,
then what
is extraordinary about Thanwi in
possessing it?
Such
knowledge is also possessed by all and sundry; even infants, lunatics
and all the animals and quadrupeds.
The
knowledge of Gangohi,
Anbethwi, Nanotwi and Thanwi; what's
extraordinary about it?
Such
knowledge is possessed by pigs and dogs too.
So
we should call pigs aalims
too.
====================================
Malik
Ibn Wahb related that Malik said,
إن
رداء النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم ـ و يروى
زر النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم ـ وسخ ، أراد
عيبه ـ قتل
"Anyone who
says that the Prophet's cloak (or button) was dirty,
thereby intending to find
fault with him, should
be killed."
--
Abu'l-Hasan
al-Qabisi gave a fatwa that
فيمن
قال في النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم :
الحمال
يتيم أبي طالب ـ بالقتل
a
man who called the Prophet "the porter,
the orphan of Abu Talib" should be killed.
--
Abu
Muhammad ibn Abi Zayd gave a fatwa to kill a man who
was listening to some people discussing what the Prophet
looked like. When a man
with an ugly face and beard walked by, he said to them, "You
want to know what he looked like? He
looked like this passer-by in physique and beard." Abu
Muhammad said,
و
لا تقبل توبته و قد كذب ـ لعنه الله ، و
ليس يخرج من قلب سليم الإيمان
"His
repentance is not accepted. He lied, may Allah curse him. That could
not come out of a heart with sound belief."
--
Ahmad
ibn Abi Sulayman, the companion of Sahnun, said,
إن
النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم كان أسود يقتل
"Anyone
who says that the Prophet was black should be killed."
--
Muhammad
ibn Sahnun said that
أجمع
العلماء أن شاتم النبي صلى الله عليه و
سلم المتقص له كافر .
و
الوعيد جار عليه بعذاب الله ، و حكمه عند
الأمة القتل ، و من شك في كفره و عذابه كفر
The
'ulama' agree that anyone who
reviles the Prophet
and disparages him
is an unbeliever and the threat of Allah's punishment is on him. The
community's judgment on him is that he be killed. Anyone
who has any doubts about such a person's disbelief and punishment is
also an unbeliever.
Ibrahim
ibn Husayn ibn Khalid, the faqih, uses the instance
of Khalid ibn al-Walid killing Malik
ibn Nuwayra for referring to the Prophet as
"your companion."
--
Abu
Sulayman al-Khattabi said,
لا
أعلم أحداً من المسلمين اختلف في وجوب
قتله إذا كان مسلماً
"I
do not know of any Muslim who disagrees about
the necessity of killing such a person if he is a Muslim."
Ibn
al-Qasim reports from Malik in
the book of Ibn Sahnun, the Mabsut, and the 'Utibiyya and Ibn
Mutarrif relate the same from Malik in the book of Ibn Habib,
من
سب النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم من المسلمين
قتل ، و لم يستتب
"Any
Muslim who curses the Prophet is killed without being
asked to repent."
Ibn
al-Qasim said in the
'Utibiyya,
من
سبه أو شتمه أو عابه أو تنقصه فإنه يقتل
، و حكمه عند الأمة القتل كالزنديق
"Anyone who
curses him, reviles him, finds
fault with him or disparages him
is killed. The community says that he should be killed just like the
dualist. Allah made it obligatory to respect the Prophet and be
dutiful to him."
--
In
the Mabsut from 'Uthman ibn Kinana we find,
من
شتم النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم من المسلمين
قتل أو صلب حياً و لم يستتب و الإمام مخير
في صلبه حياً أو قتله
"Any
Muslim who reviles the
Prophet is killed or crucified without
being asked to repent. The Imam can choose between crucifying
him and killing him."
--
Abu'l-Mus'ab and Ibn
Abi Uways, they heard Malik say,
من
سب رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم ، أو
شتمه ، أو عابة ، أو تنقصه ـ قتل مسلماً
كان أو كافراً ، و لا يستتاب
"Anyone who
curses the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him
peace, reviles him, finds
fault with him or disparages him
is killed, be he Muslim or
unbeliever, without being asked
to repent."
--
Habib
ibn Rabi' al-Qarawi said that
مذهب
مالك و أصحابه أن من قال فيه صلى الله عليه
و سلم :
ما
فيه نقص ـ قتل دون استتابة
The
school of Malik and his companions is that anyone who says
anything disparaging about the
Prophet is killed without being asked to repent.
--
Ibn
'Attab said that
الكتاب
و السنة موجبان أن من قصد النبي صلى الله
عليه و سلم بأذى أو نقص ، معرضاً أو مصرحاً
، و إن قل ـ فقتله واجب ، فهذا الباب كله
مما عده ا لعلماء سباً أو تنقصاً يجب قتل
قائله ، لم يختلف في ذلك متقدمهم ولا
متأخرهم
The
Book and Sunnah require that someone who intends to even slightly
harm or disparage the
Prophet, either by
allusion or clear
statement, must be killed. Anything like
this which is something that the 'ulama' consider to be a curse or
disparagement necessitates that the one who says it be killed.
Neither the early or later people disagree about that.
-------------
--
Shaykh Asrar Rashid & Usman Deobandi Videos
(Edited
by ADHM)
