Another Example of the Distortions of Abu Hasan


Barelwi, Abu Hasan, has recently been publishing a number of e-books to propagate the heresies and distortions of Barelwism. A number of his lies and manipulations have already been documented on this website. Some years ago an extraordinary example of his deceptive translation of a passage from Ibn al-Humam’s Musayarah was exposed. Unfortunately, that mistranslation and its expose have now been lost as Abu Hasan has taken the time to cover up his tracks. However, one sentence from this deceptive translations remains, and will be presented below as another example of Abu Hasan’s outlandish lies and distortions. The purpose of this and other exposes is to alert readers to the dangers of taking Abu Hasan as a reliable source.

Abu Hasan quoted the Arabic of the text of Musamarah/Musayarah and then translated it as follows:

و أما ثبوتها أي القدرة على ما ذكر ثم الامتناع عن متعلقها اختياراً فبمذهب أي فهو بمذهب الأشاعرة أليق منه بمذهب المعتزلة ، و لا يخفى أن هذا الأليق أدخل في التنزيه أيضا
 

that is, proof of Power on that which has been mentioned but impossibility to act upon it by His Choice. But the madh’hab that is the madh’hab of Ash`aris is more suitable than that of the mu’tazilah. And it is obvious that this better position is also included in Transcendence of Allah

Anybody with a basic comprehension of Arabic can see that the “translation” does not correspond to the original Arabic. The original Arabic leading up to this sentence is as follows:

 
ثم قال أي صاحب العمدة : و لا يوصف الله تعالى بالقدرة على الظلم و السفه و الكذب لأن المحال لا يدخل تحت القدرة أي لا يصلح متعلقا لها و عند المعتزلة يقدر تعالى على كل ذلك و لا يفعل انتهى كلام صاحب العمدة ، و كأنه انقلب عليه ما نقله عن المعتزلة ، إذ لا شك أن سلب القدرة عما ذكر هو مذهب المعتزلة ، و أما ثبوتها أي القدرة على ما ذكر ثم الامتناع عن متعلقها اختياراً فبمذهب أي فهو بمذهب الأشاعرة أليق منه بمذهب المعتزلة ، و لا يخفى أن هذا الأليق أدخل في التنزيه أيضا
 
The translation of which, in context, is as follows:
 

“Then he i.e. the author of Al-’Umdah said, ‘Allah (Exalted is He) is not described with Power over oppression, impudence and falsehood because the impossible is not included in [His] Power, i.e. it is improper for it to pertain to them. According to the Mu’tazilah, He (Exalted is He) is Able over all that but does not do [them].’ End quote from Al-’Umda.

“It appears as though he altered that which he transmitted from the Mu’tazilah, since there is no doubt that the absence of power over what was mentioned is the madhhab of the Mu’tazilah. As for its presence, i.e. power over what was mentioned, and then abstention from pertaining to them by choice, to the madhhab, i.e. it is to the madhhab of the Ash’aris, more fitting than it is to the madhhab of the Mu’tazilah. It is obvious that this more fitting [position] is also included in transcendence

 
The underlined part is the section “translated” by Abu Hasan above. It is very clear that Abu Hasan tries to convey the complete opposite meaning of what was intended by the original passage, which states that the inclusion of the aforementioned things in the Divine Power (and then abstention from them by choice) is the view most suitable to the Ash’aris.
 
Readers of his “works” should bear this and his other distortions in mind. 
Advertisements

3 Responses to Another Example of the Distortions of Abu Hasan

  1. Abul Hussain says:

    Barelwi Abu Hasan al-Ridawi is not a translator but an expert interpolater who distorts and misrepresents the Sunni Islamic Texts to fulfill his khawarij tendencies, and by Allah he is a liar too.

    See this reply from him
    ————–
    i am not answering ibn arabi’s old grouses. the text of musayarah and musamarah are confusing and are in no way the standard aqidah of the authors as they have clarified already. i may inshaAllah revisit this charge of deliberate distortion, but this is not the time to go after red herrings.

    i won’t comment further on the musayarah issue here at all. suffice it to say, that looking only at what is in front of your nose and ignoring the context of the entire passage (nay, the entire discussion) and insisting on literal translation unreasonably, does not make one honest.

    like the person who underlined the two clauses in the durr al-thamin text highlighting it as a proof of the zandaqah the kadh’dhabiyyah camp propounds. but when you read the whole passage, an entirely different view emerges. moreover, this text also clarifies many others texts (as inshaAllah i will demonstrate, wa laa Hawla wa quwwata illa billah).

    if it were not for ibn arabi’s admission of his error, i would have deleted this post.

    ————-
    don’t jump from one branch to another in a faint hope of finding some landing ground for the mufsid fasid, putrid aqidah that kadhib is not intrinsically impossible for Allah ta’ala. ta’ala Allahu ‘uluwwan kabeera.

    —–
    any other distractions will be deleted pronto. our objective is clear: that nuH keller and deobandits prior to him made a grave mistake in aqidah. that ought to be refuted and inshaAllah we shall see.

    wa billahi’t tawfiq.

    bootnote: if you are the very same zindiq who debated in that thread, then tawbah is still due for questioning whether it is intrinsically impossible for Allah ta’ala to have a flaw! na’udhu billah min dhalik.

    ————–END OF QUOTE BY THE KNOWN DISTORTER———

    Points to note:

    1. Distorter Abu Hasan al-Barelwi “the text of musayarah and musamarah are confusing and are in no way the standard aqidah of the authors as they have clarified already”

    comment: confusing only to half baked person like Abu Hasan al-Barelwi where he and his master Ahmed Rida Khan Barelwi had no command of Arabic language

    2. Distorter Abu Hasan al-Barelwi ” are in no way the standard aqidah of the authors as they have clarified already.”

    comment: so why did you rely upon it ?

    3. Distorter and liar ( 2 in one charatecteristic of barelwi manipulator Abu hasan sifar ) said : “if it were not for ibn arabi’s admission of his error, i would have deleted this post.”

    comment: so where is the post http://www.sunniport.com/masabih/showpost.php?p=12502&postcount=59 which exposed your lies and deception

    4. Bootnote by barelwi virus: “bootnote: if you are the very same zindiq who debated in that thread, then tawbah is still due for questioning whether it is intrinsically impossible for Allah ta’ala to have a flaw! na’udhu billah min dhalik.”

    comment: hello virus bot, did you forget what mr. aloohazrat ahmed raza khan barelwi said, incase you suffer from dementia then here it is:

    “A woman is capable of committing fornication. Then according to the opinion of your leader and teacher, it is necessary that your God too should be capable of committing fornication – otherwise the prostitutes of the brothers of the Deobandi’s would laugh at Him and say: ‘How do you claim for Godhead? You are not capable of doing which even we can do?’ This naturally implies that your God must possess a female sexual organ – otherwise where will be the sexual intercourse?”
    (Ahmad Raza Khan in his Subhan al-Subbuh. P. 142) .

    “He who doubts about the unbelief of the Deobandi’s is also an unbeliever.”
    (Ahmad Raza Khan in his Fatawa Ridwiyya, 6/82)

    “If anyone has the same beliefs as the Deobandi’s have, he is also an unbeliever.”
    (Ahmad Raza Khan in his Fatawa Ridwiyya, 6/43)

    “If anyone prays behind anyone of the Deobandi’s, he is also not a Muslim.”
    (Ahmad Raza Khan in his Fatawa Ridwiyya, 6/77)

    “Any person who doubts the kufr of these people (Deobandis) will themselves become kaafirs!” (See the preface to Ahmad Raza Khan’s Tamheed-e-Iman, p. v, by the South African Barelvi who called himself the “Khadim-e-Raza: servant of Rida Khan”, Mohammed Bana, dated 19/10/87)

    “Any person who would not call them (Deobandis) disbelievers or would maintain friendship with them, or would take into consideration their positions as teachers or relatives or friends will also definitely become one of them. He is a disbeliever like them. On the Day of Judgement, he will also be tied with them in the same rope. Whatever lame excuses and fraudulent arguments they give here are invalid and false.”
    (Ahmad Rida Khan in his Tamheed-e-Iman)

    “If anyone admires Darul Ulum Deoband, or does not believe in the corruption of the Deobandi’s and does not scorn them, then this is sufficient to make a judgement for him to be a Non-Muslim!”
    (Ahmad Raza Khan in his Fatawa Ridwiyya, 6/43)

    “If there is a gathering of Hindu’s, Christian’s, Qadiyani’s and Deobandi’s, the Deobandi’s alone should be rejected, for they have come out of the fold of Islam and defected from it. Agreement with the unbelievers is far better than the agreement with the apostates!!”
    (Ahmad Raza Khan in his Malfuzat pp. 325-6)

    “The works of the Deobandi’s are more unclean than the various works of the Hindu’s. The doubt about the heresy of Ashraf Ali Deobandi and suspicion about his punishment is also unbelief. To cleanse the impurity with the papers of the works produced by the Deobandi’s is not lawful, not because of the respect for their books, but because of the reverence of the letters with which they have been written.”
    (Ahmad Raza Khan in his Fatawa Ridwiyya, 2/136)

    “The Wahhabi’s are more contemptuous than Iblis, indeed more mischievous and more straying than he, for the Shaytan does not tell a lie, but they tell a lie!!”
    (Ahmad Raza Khan in his Ahkam-e-Shariat (p. 112)

  2. abdul aziz says:

    What can be said about this Barrlvi so called refutation
    http://www.islamieducation.com/refuting-deobandi-mufti-part-1/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: