Mufti Taqi Usmani on Fayslah Kun Munazarah/The Decisive Debate by Mawlana Manzur Nu’mani

January 12, 2019

Mufti Taqi Usmani writes:

During my time as a student, I had the opportunity to read numerous books on the methodological differences between the scholars of Deoband and the scholars of Bareli. The reality of the matter with respect to the strong objections that were raised by the scholars of Bareli against some writings of the senior scholars of Deoband (may Allah have mercy on them) was clarified by many respected personalities. However, the book that impressed me most on this subject was Hazrat Mawlana Manzur Nu‘mani Sahib’s (may Allah have mercy on him) book Fayslah Kun Munazarah. The truth is that after reading the evidenced, engaging and firm way in which Hazrat Mawlana clarified these writings, the slightest doubt cannot remain in the heart of any fair-minded person about the beliefs of those elders.

Although the name of the book is Fayslah Kun Munazarah, from which one may get the impression that it is a typical polemical book, and it is our misfortune that we have the impression of “debates” (munazarah) that it is a term used for a public arena in which two headstrong “wrestlers” each seize every opportunity to bring down the other in every just and unjust [rhetorical] battle, and behind these opportunities, the urge to seek the truth is left behind and suppressed; but the reality is that this book of Mawlana is far afield from this type of polemical ground. Rather, in reading it, one comes to know what a good-intentioned debate is.

In its origin “munazarah” is a word from the Arabic language, the meaning of which is “to collectively ponder over a particular issue.” In this book, Mawlana presents a practical demonstration of this reality of “munazarah.” His style and method is not the style of a typical debate. It is in a sincere, positive, objective and evidenced form of writing, the objective of which is to provide understanding, not to debase and humiliate the opposition. (Nuqush-e-Raftegan, pp. 395 – 6)

Read a translation of Fayslah Kun Munazarah here: https://barelwism.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/decisive-debate.pdf


Deceptions and Distortions of Abu Hasan

November 4, 2013

Source: http://reliablefatwas.com/deceptions-distortions-abu-hasan/

The following are examples of lies and distortions collected from just a few of the writings of the fabricator and falsifier, Abu Hasan, who writes on Masabih Forums and collaborates with/is admired by young Barelwi preachers from UK like Asrar Rasheed, Munawwar Ateeq, Naveed Jameel etc. Hopefully, this sample will serve to alert unbiased and clear-minded individuals to the fact that this person is not a reliable source of information, and is no less than a kazzāb.

For an in-depth study of some of the slanders and lies perpetrated by the undisputed Imaam of these Barelwis, see Maulana Manzoor Nu’mani’s detailed analyses posted here: The Barelwi Slanders Against the Ulama-e-Deoband

Deceptions and

Distortions of Abu

Hasan

NUMBER ONE:

LIE/SLANDER

Abu Hasan said:

[Shāh] Ismāýīl…was slain by upright Muslims in Balakot – but Deobandi/Wahābī followers colour it as a martyrdom.

Shāh Ismā’īl was killed by Sikhs. The Balakot Battle was led by Maharajat Sher Sing. See, for instance, Sayyid Abu l-Hasan Nadwī’s Idhā Habbat Rīh al-Imān, pp. 181-8. The academic, Harlon O. Pearson, says: “In 1831, in a full-scale battle at the town of Balakot located in the Himalayan foothills, the Sikh army decisively defeated and dispersed the mujahidin. The two Muhammadi leaders, Sayyid Ahmad Brelwi and Muhammad Isma’il were killed.” (Islamic Reform and Revival in Nineteenth Century India, p 41)

NUMBER TWO:

LIE/SLANDER

Abu Hasan said:

The fatwā of Gangohī, however is disputed by later Deobandis and claimed to be a forgery – yet, Gangohī did not deny it himself; his followers point out OTHER fatāwā to prove Gangohī’s actual belief, but there is no explicit denial of Gangohī of that fatwā, even though it was reproduced by his critics and publicly decried in his own lifetime, and takfīr was also made by his critics on this issue. There is not a single statement of Gangohī that explicitly repudiates that fatwā or simply says: “That fatwā is not mine”.

Mawlānā Rashīd Ahmad Gangohī did deny the fatwa as documented by his student, Mawlānā Murtazā Hasan Chāndpūrī, in several of his works. See translation of Fayslah Kun Munāzarah, pp. 37-8 (http://ukkhuddam.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/fayslah-kun-munazarah-updated-translation.pdf)

Note: Abu Hasan is aware of Fayslah Kun Munāzarah and its translation.

NUMBER THREE:

LIE/SLANDER

Abu Hasan said:

[Deobandi elders believe] that it is bidáh to believe that Allāh does not have a direction.

In Mawlānā Khalīl Ahmad Sahāranpurī’s al-Muhannad ‘ala l-Mufannad, signed by many of the Deobandi elders (including Shaykh al-Hind and Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī), it says: “As for direction and place, we do not allow affirming them for Him – Exalted is He – and we say that He – Exalted is He – is pure and transcendent beyond them and from all qualities of temporality.” (وأما الجهة والمكان فلا نجوز إثباتهما له تعالى ونقول إنه تعالى منزه ومتعال عنهما وعن جميع سمات الحدوث)

[Note: Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd is not technically an elder of Deoband, and the attribution of the above view to him is also incorrect.]

NUMBER FOUR:

LIE/SLANDER

Abu Hasan said:

“It is also true that Ismāýīl Dihlawī…derided adherence to madh’habs… and Deobandis choose to ignore the subject

The claim “Deobandis choose to ignore the subject” is demonstrably untrue and another clear falsehood. Mawlānā Rashīd Ahmad Gangohī himself addressed the issue. He said in Fatāwā Rashidiyyah: “That which this slave has heard, it was the condition of the deceased Mawlānā [i.e. Shāh Isma‘īl] that as long as a non-abrogated authentic hadith could be found, he would act on that. And if it could not be found, he would do taqlīd of Imām Abū Hanīfah – And Allah Ta’ala knows best…” (p. 93) He goes on to say that this is what becomes clear from reading his books.

NUMBER FIVE:

LIE/SLANDER

Referring to Taqwiyat al-Imān, Abu Hasan said:

commonly accepted practices like tawassul were slammed as polytheistic.”

In fact, far from saying it is polytheistic, Shāh Isma‘īl said tawassul through personalities was correct in Taqwiyat al-Imān. He wrote: “But if it is said, ‘O Allah, give me for the sake of Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir’, then this is allowed.” (Taqwiyat al-Imān)

NUMBER SIX:

TAHREEF/INEPTITUDE

Abu Hasan quoted an Arabic passage of Musamarah/Musayarah and then translated it as follows:

وأما 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, and is clear distortion (tahrīf). 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-’Umdah.

“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.

NUMBER SEVEN:

LIE/SLANDER

Abu Hasan said:

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”.

Nowhere does Mawlānā Manzūr Nu’māni say Ahmad Ridā Khān Barelwī mistranslated this phrase.

NUMBER EIGHT:

LIE/DECEPTION

Regarding the view that having the garment below the ankle without pride is not makrūh tahrīmī or harām but only slightly disliked, Abu Hasan said: “qaDi iyaD, nawawi, ibn Hajar [al-‘Asqalānī], sanusi, qastallani on one side

It is not true that Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī sided with this view as clear from his Fath al-Bārī

NUMBER NINE:

LIE/SLANDER

Abu Hasan said:

What Khalīl had said was that the encompassing knowledge of the earth is proven for Satan but unproven for RasūlAllāh.

Nowhere does Mawlānā Khalīl Ahmad Sahāranpūrī say encompassing knowledge of earth is proven for Satan. He only affirms “extensive” knowledge of the earth for Satan based on the evidences provided by his opponent. He only mentions “encompassing knowledge of the earth” as a hypothetical knowledge which was wrongly affirmed for Rasūlullāh (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) based on a false analogy.

NUMBER TEN:

LIE/SLANDER

Abu Hasan said:

Tawassul of Awliyā’ / Prophets [is] Bid‘ah/Shirk according to elders [of Deoband].”

The Deobandi elders clearly pronounced the permissibility of tawassul in al-Muhannad, quoting from Mawlānā Gangohī himself: “According to us and according to our mashāyikh taking a means (tawassul) in supplications through Prophets and the righteous, from the Friends, martyrs and truthful saints, is permissible during their lifetime and after their death, in that one says: ‘O Allah! I take so-and-so as a means to You that you accept my supplication and You accomplish my need,’ etc. as stated by our shaykh and our master, Shāh Muhammad Ishāq al-Dehlawī thumma al-Muhājir al-Makkī; and then our shaykh and our master, Rashīd Ahmad al-Gangohi – Allah’s mercy on them – clarified it in his Fatāwā, which is in this time widespread and well-circulated in the hands of people, and this issue is mentioned on page 93 of the first volume of it, so whoever wishes may refer to it.”


Some challenges to Abu Hasan of Masabih Forums Regarding his Book, “The Killer Mistake”

October 27, 2013

In this post, we challenge Abu Hasan to substantiate some of the claims he made in his recent book, “The Killer Mistake.” We will only ask him to substantiate two statements that he made in this book. If he cannot, then let him and his blind followers remember what he himself wrote in this book: “May the damnation of Allāh táālā be upon liars.”

[For the rest of us, these examples serve as further evidence that Abu Hasan has imbibed the qualities of deception and lying displayed so strikingly by his ‘grand master’, Ahmad Rida Khan Barelwi]

Challenge 1

On page 100, Abu Hasan writes: “What Khalīl had said was that the encompassing knowledge of the earth is proven for Satan but unproven for RasūlAllāh.”

Challenge: Substantiate that Mawlānā Khalīl Ahmad Sahāranpūrī said that “encompassing knowledge of the earth” is proven for Satan.

{Note: Nowhere does Mawlānā Khalīl Ahmad Sahāranpūrī say encompassing knowledge of earth is proven for Satan. He only affirms “extensive” knowledge of the earth for Satan based on the evidences provided by his opponent. Never does he affirm “encompassing knowledge.” This is, in fact, one of the lies of Ahmad Ridā Khān Barelwī, which Abu Hasan has rehashed here.}

Challenge 2

On page 118, Abu Hasan writes: “Tawassul of Awliyā’ / Prophets [is] Bid‘ah/Shirk according to elders [of Deoband].”

Challenge: Prove that Tawassul is Bid‘ah or Shirk according to the elders of Deoband.

{Note: Even Shāh Ismā‘īl – who is technically NOT an elder of Deoband – allowed Tawassul in Taqwiyatul Imān. He said in Taqwiyatul Imān: “But if it is said, ‘O Allah, give me for the sake of Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir’, then this is allowed.” (Taqwiyat al-Iman, p.123) – which Salafis conveniently omit in their translations.

And the Deobandi elders clearly pronounced the permissibility of tawassul in al-Muhannad, quoting from Mawlānā Gangohī himself: “According to us and according to our mashāyikh taking a means (tawassul) in supplications through Prophets and the righteous, from the Friends, martyrs and truthful saints, is permissible during their lifetime and after their death, in that one says: ‘O Allah! I take so-and-so as a means to You that you accept my supplication and You accomplish my need,’ etc. as stated by our shaykh and our master, Shāh Muhammad Ishāq al-Dehlawī thumma al-Muhājir al-Makkī; and then our shaykh and our master, Rashīd Ahmad al-Gangohi – Allah’s mercy on them – clarified it in his Fatāwā, which is in this time widespread and well-circulated in the hands of people, and this issue is mentioned on page 93 of the first volume of it, so whoever wishes may refer to it.”}

Update: Noori, senior moderator on the Barelwi forum, replies: “Khalil said ‘ilm e muhit zamin ka’, did he not use the word muhit?” The challenge was to prove that this “encompassing” knowledge was affirmed for Satan – which is what Abu Hasan claimed -, not that Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri merely used the word. Hence, challenge still stands.

Update 2: After the above update, Noori sneakily added another sentence to his post (which was not there in the original post): “He said ‘shaytan o malik al-mawt ko yeh wus’at nas say sabit hoi’, which wusa’t? That is ‘ilm e muhit zamin ka’.” Incorrect. ‘Ilm muhit zamin ka (encompassing knowledge of the world) is used in Barahin Qati’ah for the hypothetical knowledge that is mistakenly affirmed for RasulAllah (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) based on a false analogy with Satan/Malak al-Mawt (not “Malik al-Mawt” by the way). It is not the knowledge affirmed for Satan. The knowledge affirmed for Satan is the “expansive” knowledge proven in the book that is being refuted (Anwar Sati’ah) i.e. being present with most of the children of Adam. The “expanse” of Satan’s knowledge is already assumed in the passage, as the sentence starts, “Seeing the condition [i.e. expansive earthly knowledge as shown in Anwar Sati’ah] of Satan and Angel of Death” – even before “encompassing knowledge” is mentioned. One can refer to the original book, and clearly see that this is the case. Both challenges, therefore, still stand.

Update 3: Abu Hasan has replied here. I’ll ignore the excess and filth. But what it boils down to is the same thing that Noori said, which has been addressed in “Update 2” above. I see no point in repeating. Anyhow, does that mean Abu Hasan is conceding he lied on the second issue above, which they seem to have conveniently skipped?


The Argument of the Barelwis: Regarding the Fabricated Fatwa

February 29, 2012

Even when Mawlana Rashid Gangohi explicitly stated that the fatwa justifying lying for Allah, was a lie ascribed to him, the Barelwis still come with this false accusation. Is this what you call academic honesty?

In Faisla Kun Munazra when discussing Ahmad Rida Khan’s justification of attributing the fabricated fatwa to Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, Mawlana Manzoor Nomani discusses the “proofs” given by Ahmad Rida Khan in Tamhid e Iman to justify this attribution and illustrates their flimsiness, which completely falsifies Ahmad Rida’s self-claim that he is extremely cautious and careful in issuing takfir. Such a flimsy attribution can never be the basis of takfir even for the most careless and reckless mufti let alone somebody who claims to be extremely cautious.

Even if this aspect is ignored, the main premise for attributing this fatwa to Mawlana Gangohi (from Rida Khan’s Tamhid e Iman and Appendix C in the ebook mentioned above) that he did not deny the attribution of this fatwa to him, is in fact untrue. This should be enough to silence the blind followers of Ahmad Rida Khan on this matter:

For references, see pages 77-8 of Mawlana Nomani’s Faisla Kun Munazra here (originally printed in 1933). For example, Mawlana Murtaza Hasan Chandpuri (1868 – 1951) who was a student of Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, Mawlana Muhammad Ya’qub Nanotwi, Mawlana Zulfiqar, Shaykh al-Hind and others, wrote in several of his works in reply to Ahmad Rida Khan, including Tazkiyat al-Khawatir and al-Sahab al-Midrar that he wrote to Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi in 1323 (the year he passed away) with the text of the fatwa based on which Ahmad Rida Khan issued the fatwa of kufr and asked him to clarify whether it was his fatwa or not, and Mawlana Gangohi replied: “This is an outright fabrication and pure slander. Who can write such a thing?!” Mawlana Manzoor notes that Ahmad Rida Khan was aware of these writings of Mutaza Hasan Chandpuri, and yet refused to retract his takfir which was baseless to begin with. This should be sufficient for even the present-day followers of Ahmad Rida Khan to absolve Mawlana Gangohi of this baseless fatwa which allows the attribution of lies to Allah – Exalted is He.


A Reply to Preamble to Faith

February 29, 2012

Some Berelwis are circulating an ebook called The Preamble to Faith, which contains the same falsehoods and misrepresentations discussed above. A quick discussion on some of them:

The translator says: “Saharanpuri wrote a book Al-Muhannad in which he denies (both on his own behalf and those scholars of his group) that they held such beliefs and even claimed that they never said or wrote any such thing.”

This false claim that Muhannad does not deal with the original statements or denies them altogether is still repeated even when the translations of the parts in question dealing with those quotes are available on the internet. With respect to all four statements, replies are given. The passage from Hifz al-Iman is translated in a summary-form; the passage from Barahin is summarised, as is Tahzir al-Nas; and the so-called fatwa by Mawlana Gangohi is denied and a statement from Fatawa Rashidiyya, stating exactly the opposite of what is found in that fatwa that whoever believes in the occurrence of falsehood in Allah’s speech is a disbeliever, is produced. So how can it be said after this that the Muhannad “denies (both on his own behalf and those scholars of his group) that they held such beliefs and even claimed that they never said or wrote any such thing,” – unless this is regarding the way in which Ahmad Rida misrepresented the passages to say for example: “Thanawi compared the Prophet’s knowledge to animals; Saharanpuri said satan’s knowledge was more than the Prophet’s; Nanotwi said it is possible for a prophet to be born after the Prophet” – which are all no doubt lies and misrepresentations of the passages in question. In short, the impression the above writer tries to give that Mawlana Saharanpuri skirts the issue, is clearly dishonest and deceptive, as Muhannad directly addresses the quotes/statements/books in question.

Quoting from Barahin, the ebook says: “The expanse of Satan’s knowledge is proven by documentary evidence, [but] where is such absolute documentary evidence for the knowledge of the Pride of the world?”

The sentence is taken out of context, and begins with “yeh wus‘at” (this expanse) with the demonstrative noun referring to a particular expanse in knowledge not all knowledge, or knowledge in general. And the particular expanse in knowledge that is being referred to was mentioned only a few words earlier “encompassing knowledge of the word” (‘ilm muhit zamin) i.e. knowledge of the particulars of this terrestrial realm, not knowledge in general. So it is simply a lie to say Barahin states satan’s knowledge is superior to the prophet’s; and this slander was also explained in Muhannad. For more details see this post above.

This link also addresses Ahmad Rida’s claim that al-Barahin commits shirk by affirming for satan what it states to be shirk when affirmed for the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam). The translator also says this: “Look at it whichever way you want, but Khalīl is saying that if you prove such knowledge for RasūlAllāh _, you commit shirk; but the same knowledge is possessed by Satan and it is proved by naşş.” As the post explains, this is distortion based on not taking into account the full passage. Mawlana Saharanpuri’s main premise is that affirming knowledge of the unseen for any being more than what is established by clear texts is shirk, as it is tantamount to affirming intrinsic knowledge of the unseen for such a person. Based on this, affirming such unseen knowledge for the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) without evidence equates to shirk; whereas for the angel of death and satan, since it is proven by clear text it is not shirk. This is obvious from the entire passage, but Ahmad Rida and his followers distort it. This was clarified and this distortion was exposed nearly a century ago by Mawlana Husayn Ahmad Madani in al-Shihab al-Thaqib.

Regarding the passage from Barahin the translator says: “It is in this book that Maulvi Khalīl Aĥmed Sahāranpūri says that the knowledge of Satan is proven from documentary evidence and there is no such evidence for the knowledge of RasūlAllāh _. He also wrote another book in Arabic named Al-Muhannad where he denied that he ever said such a thing” It is completely untrue that the Muhannad denies this statement (- it neither affirms it nor does it deny it), as this statement was not even up for question; rather what he denies was the claim that he said satan’s knowledge is superior to the Prophet’s in absolute terms.

The translator further says: “Khalīl Aĥmed misquotes and states the opposite of what Shaykh Abd al-Ĥaq said; such a thing is either as tadlīs or as kadhib. Because, in the first volume of Madārij the Shaykh says: “Some people pose an objection on this and say that it has been mentioned in some reports that RasūlAllāh _ said: ‘I am a slave and I do not not know what is behind this wall.’ Whereas, this statement is baseless and there is no authentic report of this kind.”” This has also been addressed in the post linked above. This claim – which was also made by Ahmad Rida – assumes Mawlana Saharanpuri took the narration from Shaykh ‘Abd al-Haq’s Madarij, whereas in fact he took it from his other book on the commentary on Mishkat in which he uses the narration in the context of proof and does not criticise it.

Regarding the ebook’s “analysis” of the passage from Hifz al-Iman, the passage from Hifz al-Iman (discussed in more detail here) says the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) is not distinguished by partial knowledge of the unseen as others also possess partial knowledge of the unseen. However, Ahmad Rida, as is clear from what he wrote and the examples he uses and from his other work Husam al-Haramayn, misconstrues this to say: these others also possess the same quantity of unseen as the Prophet, not that they merely share with him the quality of possessing partial knowledge of unseen. This distinction between what was originally meant and the distorted meaning of Ahmad Rida was clarified by Mawlana Thanawi himself in Bast al-Banan.

The translator shows either his ignorance or his disregard for truth when he says about Hifz al-Iman “If one reads the whole passage, it is clear that Thānawī rejects ‘part ilm al-ghayb’ and draws similarlity of such ‘part ilm alghayb’ of the Prophet _ with that of animals and madmen; because he trails the discussion with the invalidity of ‘kull ilm al-ghayb.’ So the parallels drawn are not accidental or an incidental outcome, but rather deliberate and intentional.” If he rejects “part ilm al-ghayb,” how can he draw a similarity of it with that of animals and madmen? Mawlana Thanawi’s discussion is straightforward if all the deceptive commentary is removed: He says: ‘Ilm al-ghayb in its technical and absolute sense means intrinsic self-knowledge of the unseen and this can only be used for Allah, as the Qur’an identifies it as His exclusive attribute. It can only be used for others if qualified with an indication (qarinah) stating that this knowledge is received and not intrinsic. With respect to received knowledge of ghayb, even this cannot be regarded as a distinguishing feature of prophethood [- note this was said by earlier mutakallimun too, using the same argument]. This is because partial received knowledge is shared by others, so there is no distinction for prophets, while complete received knowledge is unanimously denied for all creation. Therefore, since ‘ilm al-ghayb is not exclusive to prophets, it should not be made from their distinguishing features.

Regarding the so-called fatwa of Mawlana Gangohi on the validity of the view of the occurrence of lying (wuqu kadhib), as Mawlana Husayn Ahmad Madani says in al-Shihab al-Thaqib, this is not found in any of his published writings, and is unheard of amongst his students (Mawlana Madani was also one of his direct students), and his published writings say the complete opposite that the belief in the occurrence of lying is clear disbelief; while his actual belief is of possibility, that lying is in His power but will never occur, which is a valid view as for example stated clearly by Ibn al-Humam (which both al-Muhannad and al-Shihab al-Thaqib quote – as they do other books).

The book that is translated in the ebook does not analyse Tahzir al-Nas, otherwise there were clear distortions in Ahmad Rida’s representation of that book too, as shown here.

There are, therefore, several clear distortions which originate from Ahmad Rida Khan, which his Berelwi followers perpetuate rather than justify: Ahmad Rida says Barahin said satan’s knowledge was superior (or “more vast”) than the Prophet’s in an absolute sense, whereas Barahin clearly says “yeh wus’at” referring, using the demonstrative noun, to encompassing knowledge of the world, not knowledge in general; Ahmad Rida says Hifz al-Iman states the knowledge possessed by the Prophet is equivalent to the knowledge of animals and madmen (-i.e. in terms of quantity), yet Mawlana Thanawi himself said this statement is revolting (khabith) and what he actually said was that the quality of possessing partial knowledge of unseen is not exclusive to the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam), but this possession of partial knowledge is also a property of animals; with Tahzir al-Nas, Ahmad Rida mistranslatedbizzat” as aslan, and rearranged three separate sentences concocting one contiguous quote.


Iblis has more Knowledge than the Prophet (upon him be peace)?

January 23, 2012

Question:

Do you say that the knowledge of the Prophet (upon him be peace) is limited only to the laws of the Shari‘ah or was he given knowledge pertaining to the Essence, Attributes and Acts of the Maker (Exalted is His Name), the hidden secrets (al-asrar al-khafiyyah), the divine judgement (al-hukm al-ilahiyyah) and other than of that of which none from creation, whoever he may be, reached the pavilions of his knowledge?

Answer:
We say with the tongue and we believe in the heart that our master, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace), is the most knowledgeable of all creation, with sciences pertaining to the Essence and Attributes [of Allah], legislations (tashri‘at), of the practical rules and the theoretical rules, the true realties and the hidden secrets, and other sciences, that none from creation reached the pavilions of his courtyard, neither an angel brought nigh nor a messenger sent.

Indeed he was given the knowledge of the first and the last and Allah’s grace upon him was immense (Qur’an 4:113). However, this does not entail knowledge of every particular from the temporal matters in every moment from the moments of time, such that the concealment of part of it from his noble vision and his exalted knowledge harms his (upon him be peace) being the most learned of all creation, and [harms] the extensiveness of his knowledge and the excellence of his cognizance, even if one other than him from creatures and servants becomes cognizant of it. Sulayman (upon him be peace) being the most learned [in his time] was not harmed by the concealment [from him] of what Hudhud had comprehended of strange incidents, as it says in the Qur’an, “He said: I comprehend that which you do not comprehend and I have brought to you a sure information from Sheba” (Qur’an 27:22).

Question:

Do you believe that Iblis, the accursed, is more knowledgeable than the Chief Existent (upon him be peace) and has more expansive knowledge than him in absolute terms? Have you written this in a book? And how do you judge one who believes this?

Answer:

A review of this issue preceded from us, that the Prophet (upon him be peace) is the most knowledgeable of creation in general, of the sciences, the judgement, the secrets and other than that from the Kingdom of the Horizons, and we believe with certainty that one who says that so-and-so person is more knowledgeable than the Prophet (upon him be peace) has disbelieved. Our elders have given the verdict of disbelief for one who says that Iblis, the accursed, is more knowledgeable than the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), so how is it possible that this matter is in a certain book we authored?

However, the concealment of some insignificant particular things from the Prophet (upon him be peace) due to his inattention to it does not cause any defect in his (upon him be peace) being the most learned once it is established that he is the most knowledgeable of creation of the noble sciences that are fitting to his lofty station, just as cognizance of most of those insignificant things due to the intensity of Iblis’s attention to them does not cause glory and perfection of knowledge in him, since this is not the criterion of virtue. Hereof, it is not correct to say that Iblis is more knowledgeable than the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) just as it is not correct to say about a child who knows some particulars that he is more knowledgeable than an erudite research scholar in the sciences from whom those particulars are hidden. We have recited unto you the story of Hudhud with Sulayman (upon our Prophet and upon him be peace) and his statement, “I comprehend that which you do not comprehend.” The records of hadith and the books of tafsir are replete with abundant examples of this which are well-known amongst people.

The physicians are agreed that Plato and Galen and their likes are from the most knowledgeable of physicians about the qualities of diseases and their states, despite their knowledge that maggots are more knowledgeable about states of filth, their taste and their qualities. Hence, the absence of Plato’s and Galen’s knowledge of these despicable states does not harm their being the most learned, and none from the intelligent and the stupid will be satisfied with the view that maggots are more knowledgeable than Plato, although they have more extensive knowledge than Plato about the states of filth. The innovators of our lands affirm for the blessed prophetic soul (upon it a million greetings and peace) all the sciences of the base lowly things and the lofty virtuous things, saying that since he (upon him be peace) was the best of all creation, it is necessary that he possesses all of those sciences, every particular and every universal. We rejected the establishment of this matter using this corrupt analogy without a proof-text from the relied upon texts. Do you not see that every believer is more virtuous and more honourable than Iblis so following this logic it would be necessary that every person from the individuals of this ummah possesses the sciences of Iblis, and it would be necessary that Sulayman (upon our Prophet and upon him be peace) knew that which Hudhud knew, and that Plato and Galen knew all the knowledge of maggots? These concomitants are absurd in their entirety as is obvious.

This is a summary of what we said in al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah in order to sever the veins of the foolish deviants and break the necks of the forging deceivers. Hence, our discussion about it was only in regards to some of these temporal particulars, and for this reason we used the demonstrative noun to indicate that the objective in affirmation and negation there was those particulars, and nothing besides [them]. However, the iniquitous distort the speech and do not fear the reckoning of the Knowing King. We are certain that those who say that so-and-so individual is more knowledgeable than the Prophet (upon him be peace) is a disbeliever, as more than one of our respected ‘ulama stated. And whoever concocts about us that which we did not say, upon him is [the burden of] proof, [and he should] fear the interrogation before the Recompensing King. Allah is witness over what we say.

Al-Muhannad ‘ala l-Mufannad ya‘ni ‘Aqa’id ‘Ulama Ahl al-Sunnah Deoband, pp. 55-60


Ml. Gangohi and the Fabricated Fatwa of Raza Khan

January 23, 2012

Question:

Did the eminent shaykh, the scholar of his time, Mawlawi Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, say that the Creator (Exalted is He) has actually lied, and that the one who says this has not erred, or is this amongst the fabrications against him? Assuming the latter, how do you respond to what Al-Barelwi (Ahmad Rida Khan) mentioned that he has with him a photocopy of the respected shaykh’s fatwa?

Answer:

That which they attributed to the eminent and incomparable shaykh, the scholar of his time, the peerless of his age, Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, that he said that the Creator (Exalted is His Eminence) actually lied and that the one who says this has not erred, it is a fabrication about him (Allah Most High have mercy on him) and is from the lies concocted by the deceptive and lying devils (Allah confound them! How they are perverted!). His respected person is innocent of such heresy and disbelief. The fatwa of the shaykh that was printed and published in volume one of his Fatawa Rashidiyyah (p. 119) falsifies their [claim]. It is in Arabic and was verified and stamped with the seals of the ‘ulama of Makkah al-Mukarramah. A copy of this question [and answer] follows:

In Allah’s Name, the Ever Merciful, the Beneficent. We praise Him and send blessing on His noble Messenger. What is your view (your blessings last!) on Allah being described with the attribute of falsehood? And what is the ruling on the one who believes He lies? Provide us with an answer, and be rewarded.

Answer:

Allah (Exalted is He) is certainly transcendent beyond being described with falsehood, and no element of falsehood is found in His Speech, as Allah says, “Who is more truthful than Allah in speech?” (4:122) Whoever believes or professes that Allah lies, he is certainly an accursed disbeliever, and has opposed the Book, the Sunna and the Consensus of the Ummah.

Yes, the belief of the people of faith is: that which Allah foretold in the Qur’an, that Pharaoh, Haman and Abu Lahab are from the inhabitants of Hell, it is a decisive decision that He will not act contrary to, but Allah (Exalted is He) is Able to admit them into Paradise and is not incapable of this, but He will not do so by His choice.

Allah (Exalted is He!) said, “And if We had so willed, We could have given every soul its guidance, but the word from Me concerning evildoers took effect: that I will fill the Fire with the jinn and mankind together.” (32:12). It is evident from this verse that had Allah wished, He would have made everybody believers but He does not contradict what He says, and this is all by choice, not coercion. He is a Doer by choice, acting as He wills.

This is the belief of all the ‘ulama of this Ummah, as Al-Baydawi said under the explanation of His statement (Exalted is He), “If you forgive them…” (5:118) that “the absence of forgiveness for shirk is a consequence of His threat, but it is not intrinsically impossible.” Allah knows best the truth.

The lowly Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (may he be pardoned) wrote this.

A review of the endorsements of the ‘ulama of Al-Makkah al-Mukarramah, Allah increase its honour:

“All praise to the One Who is deserving of it, and from Him extends all help and guidance. That which ‘Allamah Rashid Ahmad said in reply as cited [above] is the truth from which there is no escape. Allah send blessings and peace on the Seal of the Prophets, his family and his companions.”

The servant of the Shari’ah, seeking tender grace, Muhammad Salih ibn al-Marhum Siddiq Kamal al-Hanafi (Allah support them), the present Mufti of Al-Makkah al-Mukarramah, ordered his signature.

The one hopeful of perfect attainment from His Lord, Muhammad Sa’id ibn Muhammad Babusayl at the Protected Makkah (Allah forgive him and his parents, and his teachers and all the Muslims) signed it.

Seeking pardon from the Giver of bestowals, Muhammad ‘Abid ibn al-Marhum Shaykh Husayn, Mufti of the Malikis at the Protected Land of Allah, [signed it].

“[After] sending blessing and peace; that which ‘Allamah Rashid Ahmad answered is sufficient and upon it is dependence, rather it is the truth from which there is no escape.”

Written by the lowly one, Khulf ibn Ibrahim, a servant of ifta (answering juristic problems) for Hanbalis, at the Noble Makkah.

The response to what Al-Barelwi said that he has in his possession a copy of the fatwa of the deceased shaykh in photocopy form containing what he mentioned, it is from his inventions that he invented and forged by himself, as a slander against the shaykh (Allah sanctify his secret). Such lies and slanders are insignificant for him, for he is the teacher of teachers in this and all of them are dependent on him in his time, and indeed he is a distorting manipulator and a scheming imposter, sometimes creating outright forgeries. He is not less than the Masih al-Qadiyani, since the latter claims messengership manifestly and openly, and the former conceals [hopes of] being the mujaddid, and anathematises (yukaffiru) the ‘ulama of the Ummah, just as the Wahhabis, the followers of Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, anathematise the Ummah (Allah Most High disgrace him as He disgraces them).