Abu Hasan and Fayslah Kun Munazarah
After ignoring the translation of Fayslah Kun Munazarah for over a year, Barelwi forum “sunniport” has finally found itself pressed to issue some form of response.
And the response comes in the form of some incoherent ramblings from its head-in-chief Abu Hasan. Anybody following the debate is asked to read the translation of Fayslah Kun Munazarah with all the evidences the author produced, and then check to see if Abu Hasan’s so-called replies have any substance to them.
Let us look at what he says in reply to the discussion on Barahin Qati’ah. http://sunniport.com/masabih/showpost.php?p=42213&postcount=4
In fact what you will see is desperation and incredible stupidity. Abu Hasan says:
i am sure the deeply immersed devbandis will point out that the difference between “encompassing knowledge” and “encompassing knowledge of the world” is being discussed. apparently, according to numani, alahazrat mentioned the former whereas all khalil said was the latter, thereby deceiving arab ulama.
It has been discussed in Fayslah that the discussion is actually over “expansive” or “extensive” knowledge, meaning a vast knowledge of the world, and not about “encompassing” knowledge of the world. This can be read on page 61 of the translation. As explained in a footnote by the translator: “When the phrase “encompassing knowledge of the world” is mentioned in al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah, it is addressing the knowledge which is wrongly affirmed for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) based on the invalid analogy with Satan and the Angel of Death, not the knowledge that is conceded for the latter. The knowledge that is conceded for the latter is what is described in the work being refuted, al-Anwar al-Sati‘ah, quoted in the next paragraph above. Hence, the deception in Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan’s comment, “He believes in encompassing earthly knowledge for Iblis,””
In sum, “encompassing knowledge” of the world is nowhere affirmed for Satan – this is another of the many lies propagated by Ahmad Rida Khan. Instead what is affirmed is a vast knowledge of the world based on the evidences produced in Anwar Satiah. When “encompassing knowledge of the world” is used in the text of Barahin it is about the hypothetical knowledge that is wrongly affirmed for the Prophet (peace be upon him) based on the incorrect analogy that he is superior so must have more knowledge of the world.
So even in his “summary” of the Deobandi response Abu Hasan gets it wrong.
charges and because numani told you so, just believe it.
Anybody with a familiarity with Fayslah Kun Munazarah will know this is not Mawlana Manzur Nu’mani’s methodology. He does not expect the reader to believe it solely because he says so. He provides extensive documentation from the original texts. In this particular case, one can find quotes to back up the obvious truth that Mawlana Khalil Saharanpuri was discussing worldly knowledge and not knowledge in general on pages 55 and 56. And not only this Mawlana Nu’mani quotes Mawlana Khalil from al-Muhannad who gives the very same explanation!
So in Abu Hasan’s fantasy world these are concoctions by “numani” because his “alahazrat” can never be wrong!
Anybody with a basic understanding can see that Abu Hasan is clearly deluded.
all these additional qualifiers, mutlaq, intrinsic, given are all drawn out of thin air to use where necessary. keep adding and removing attributes to make the argument sound – is there any basis or consistency? who cares and as i said, who’s looking?
Again, all the reader has to do is go back to the original book. Mawlana Nu’mani has two sections, “Proving the First Matter” and “Proving the Second Matter” (pages 61-2) where he proves that these qualifiers are present in the original text of Barahin itself.
After these words of desperation and deception, Abu Hasan issues a “disclaimer” to reassure his bewildered fans:
but a disclaimer is in order: faisla kun should be refuted from the urdu original and here i was relying only on the translation (which is tweaked and massaged btw) and by those comments i don’t mean that i agree to his citations or that i don’t have any other issues with that text. i was only showing the inconsistency of the text in a random page
He is basically telling everyone not to trust their own intellects and powers of reasoning, but to rely on their own ignorance of the original Urdu and Abu Hasan’s superior knowledge of Urdu! Please remember, they were not making these suggestions before the translation of Fayslah Kun Munazarah. Before that no one had to understand Urdu to know the so-called heresy inherent within the said documents. Now, the only way one can understand is if he knows Urdu! In fact what he is saying is: the only way one can understand it is to trust Abu Hasan and his lies.
the translator helps numani a little by skewing the phrase: “encompassing earthly knowledge”
what khalil wrote was: “ilm e muHiT e zameen”
and alahazrat in husam (according to numani mistranslated the above) “bi `ilmi’l arD al-muHiT”
(see the attached image from this text.)
He does not explain how “encompassing earthly knowledge” skews the translation. And again he spews out a clear falsehood where he says “according to numani (alahazrat) mistranslated the above.” Nowhere does Mawlana Manzur Nu’mani say this. Instead what he says is that Ahmad Rida Khan was untruthful in his claim that Mawlana Saharanpuri affirmed “encompassing earthly knowledge” for Iblis. Mawlana Khalil Saharanpuri did not do this in Barahin. Instead he affirmed vast knowledge of the earth for Iblis based on the evidences provided in Anwar Sati’ah which is the book that was being refuted. “Encompassing earthly knowledge” was only mentioned as the hypothetical knowledge that would be affirmed for the Prophet (peace be upon him) based on this incorrect analogy. That was the point at this particular juncture in Fayslah Kun Munazarah which Abu Hasan in his desperation chose not to see, or chose to hide from his fanbase.
Then Abu Hasan summarises:
khalil was talking about ilm-e-muHiT-e-zameen and saying
1) satan has this, RasulAllah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam does not
2) the expanse of satan’s knowledge is proved by nuSuS, RasulAllah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is not
3) proving it for RasulAllah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is shirk, but for satan is not.
For answers to all of these claims (which are a rehashing of Ahmad Rida Khan’s lies) see Fayslah Kun Munazarah.
As for point 1, Mawlana Khalil did not say satan has ilm-e-muhit-zameen as explained above.
As for point 2, The expanse of satan’s knowledge in terms of the world is established in clear texts as provided in Anwar Sati’ah (the book that was being refuted by Mawlana Khail Saharanpuri), and knowledge of these particular matters is not established in clear texts for the Prophet (peace be upon him) – this is what was demonstrated in Barahin. But see how Abu Hasan distorts it in point number 2 by not making these qualifications, just as his alahazrat distorted it.
Again point number 3 is untrue. It is not merely affirming it for the Prophet (peace be upon him) that Mawlana Khalil Saharanpuri stated is shirk. Rather what he determines as shirk is affirming it for him proceeding on a false analogy, as that would be to affirm for him more knowledge than was granted to him (i.e. intrinsic knowledge). In fact, Mawlana Nu’mani quotes (on page 63 of translation) an explicit passage from Barahin where Mawlana Khalil says his discussion on “shirk” is about intrinsic knowledge. This is not something Mawlana Nu’mani pulls out of thin air as Abu Hasan would like us to believe.
Abu Hasan writes:
secondly, according to numani, satan has been ‘granted’ this knowledge; why can’t this be ‘granted’ to RasulAllah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.
This is a straw-man argument as nobody said this knowledge cannot be granted to the Prophet (peace be upon him). The argument is merely that it has not been proven that it has been granted.
One may wonder why I went to the trouble of a lengthy response when one with a little discernment can see that Abu Hasan is rambling incoherently, not addressing the actual arguments and merely repeating the lies of his alahazrat. The above should show they have no replies that have any real basis to the solid arguments presented in Fayslah Kun Munazarah. We can rest in peace therefore with the knowledge that the matter is settled, and Abu Hasan and his lying, deluded or unwary ilk have lost all credibility.