devbandi euphemism: "issue an untrue statement"

(This is a breakdown of what I see wrong with Zaleel's argument. Please correct me if I am mistaken in any of my points.)



1. Zaleel is equating 'ability' with 'possibility'.


So he says that it is 'possible' for Allah to lie because he has the ‘ability’ to lie.
And then he uses the example of Prophets:
So if Prophet’s are physically ‘able’ to commit sins, then according to his logic, it is 'possible' for sin to occur by them?
And if it is 'possible' for Prophets to sin, then why would they still remain Masum? (Astaghfirullah)


Ability does not necessarily establish possibility neither does impossibility necessarily imply inability.
Ability is only one of the conditions that allows for possibility. There may be other conditions besides ability that may disqualify possibility.

Example:
"At this moment, since I am physically 'able' to drive my car, it is, therefore, possible for me to drive my car."
"No it is impossible at the moment, because the car is completely depleted of gasoline."




2. Zaleel said:
A* "To go beyond this and say that He is not even 'able' to issue an untrue statement is in fact to admit a flaw within Allah's complete power (over all things intrinsically possible)."

Firstly, nobody said that He is "not even able to issue an untrue statement." (Not only because it is disrespectful to say but also because it is not even the argument being presented).
Rather what was said is that "it is impossible for Allah to lie." And just because it is impossible for Allah to lie, this does not imply any form of inability for Allah.

Why?
Because Allah has the perfect 'ability' to always be truthful.

And to say that "Allah is able to lie" is to say that "He is 'unable' to absolutely always remain perfectly truthful."

In other words, Im saying (Using Zaleel's language):
B* To go beyond this and say He is not even 'able' to always remain perfectly truthful is to admit a flaw within Allah's complete power over all things intrinsically possible.

I highlighted "flaw" and "intrinsically possible" because zaleel admits that Allah's power extends to those things which are intrinsically possible. And flaws are not included within Allah's power. Therefore 'lying', which is a flaw, is not included in the power of Allah, and therefore is intrinsically impossible for Allah.


(*Between A and B above, which one sounds like deviance/Kufr and which one sounds closer to Iman?)




3. Conversely, according to Zaleel’s logic (of equating ability and possibility):

"If Allah has the perfect 'ability' to always be truthful, then it is merely ‘possible’ for Allah to be truthful." (La hawla wa la quwwata illa billah)

(Note: Zaleel doesnt even believe that Allah has the perfect 'ability' to always be truthful)

However, we all know that its Wajib for Allah to be Truthful, not just merely 'possible'.
Similarly it is Wajib for Allah to be One, not just merely 'possible'.

Now if Zaleel argues that:
"why should it be Wajib for Allah to be Truthful? Allah is under no obligation to be truthful."

Then the response is that, according to Zaleel logic:

"Why is it Wajib for Allah to be One? Allah is under no obligation to remain undivided. He should be able to divide into as many units as He wants" (Al-iyadhubillah)

 

This deo has been going at it for a while now. I think it's time that he put his keyboard to good use and have a written debate with @abu Hasan on this issue.

The terrible duo Uthsman and Abu Haleem have been badly exposed and to an extent so has Zameer too. However, I think it's time that on this issue, he is taken to task fully. I know that @abu Hasan prefers a written debate and Zameer prefers the written form too so maybe something could be arranged.

 

more idiotic reasonings.

spot the sleight of hand here:

 

jalega to burnol hi chalega??

seriously this guy's sick and evil along with the obvious jahil who uses false equivalences and idiotic premises. i guess in devband, horses and donkeys are the same!

 

well, I don't know if that line of argument is complete.

yes, humans lie for all of those reasons but not only for those. some maybe habitual liars - or might lie simply to bamboozle the recipient of the false information and many people lie just for fun - all the time.

it has more - or equally - to do with Jalalah and Taqaddus and 'Uluw and Hikmah - and of course Sadaaqah.

Allah ta'ala is far exalted from actions that are frivolous or futile or ignoble or untrustworthy.

His actions cannot even be described as void of all reason or hikmah - as neither good nor bad.

All His actions are based on Wisdom and are all Perfect and Weighty/Lofty.

And of-course, you don't want to worship a Deity you cannot trust.

Which sensible person would describe his Lord as Untrustworthy?!

And yet, when you admit a possibility for falsehood - that's exactly what you are doing.

"I am worshipping my Lord because of His promise that He won't punish the obedient - but that's only on a hope that He won't - cause I'm not sure if that promise was true or just a fib"

ta'ala Allahu 'amma yasifun

----
"Lying", "Falsehood", "issuing untrue statements" are some of the worst insults a person can heap upon the Divine.

Because it's such an mean characteristic that it is deemed an insult even for the creation - even for kuffaar - let alone as-SubbooH.

Every sane person knows it "intrinsically" - that lying is an ignobility, a base defect, even among defects.

And how can His Qudrah and 'Uluw admit anything of baseness - when even the unpraiseworthy attributes are negated by definition?

---
Devbandis have been worshipping iblis for so long that their hearts have been blackened to the point of hopelessness, their fitrah has got buried under unfathomable wretchedness - they won't understand such things - truth is to them what light is to darkness, they flee at it's sight.

so don't expect any good from them - leave them to wallow in their misfortune and flee with your imaan, even from their shadows.

nas'al Allahu ta'ala 'aafiya

 

if i remember well, it was the same wretched scoundrel wo said: "where is it written that Allah cannot have a flaw?"

al-iyadhu billah. wa la Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah.

 

ask the scoundrel if he has any issue with khalil al-kazzab and the murid of the mushrik gandhi, mahmud al-hasan devbandi and his juhd al muqill.
in fact, ask him which scoundrel on our forum said: "where is it written that Allah cannot have a flaw?"

 

someone please correct me if im wrong. my understanding is that:

Lying is not an "ability" or a "capability" that if nonexistent for Allah would render him incapable or powerless.
Rather, its a defect or deficiency due to weakness, fear, and or necessity, none of which apply to Allah.
Therefore, the statement that "Allah is 'able' to lie" is itself paradoxical.

 

https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2020/12/20/shahid-ali-imkan-al-kidhb/#more-3530

why can't this guy just use the word "lie" when he talks about his devbandi aqidah. so proud of it, and still can't say it like it is?

it's annoying to read

-"the power to issue a statement contrary to reality"
- "the ability to issue a statement that is not true.
- "the power to issue a statement contrary to reality"
- "Similarly, we know Allāh is truthful. This is our experience and knowledge of His nature. He will not punish a pious believer in the next life though He has the power to, and He won’t reward a wretched disbeliever in the next life though He has the power to. In the same way, He will never issue a statement that does not conform to reality, though it is within His power to do so."

he does say for Shahid Ali "This is a categorical lie, and Shahid Ali knows it."

it seems Shahid Ali really caused him a heartache.

this is awesome - please don't respond to our Urdu works when refuting us, just respond to the muhannad. and yet, when our split personality disorder kicks in, we will gladly say that the muhannad is simply not the bible and gospel of devband!

 

as you can see, mawlana barzanji reiterated that the people mentioned were kafir AND the reason for his ruling them kufr. if he had indeed, withdrawn his fatwa as the lying deobandis claim, he would have mentioned here.

his disagreement with alahazrat imam ahmad rida khan was on the "ulum al-khamsah".

the academic disagreement between shaykh barzanji and his refutation of alahazrat's position is in fact contradicting the jumhur of ahl al-sunnah. alahazrat's position is the preferred position of most sunni-sufi ulama. as seen in TKM, shaykh muhammad ibn ja'afar al-kattani wrote far more than what alahazrat did in dawlah and his book is available.

the devbandi is the most shameless creature - he tries to deceive over and over. in muhannad, the risalah shaykh barzanji spoke about was NOT this ghayat al-ma'mul. it is mentioned in muhannad itself.

truth will out. eventually.

 

Note Sh Abu Hasan mentions Ghayat al Mamul in the following terms:

"
The second was a refutation of a false accusation that he [Imām Aĥmad Riđā Khān] believed that knowledge
of RasūlAllāh salAllahu alayhi wa salim was equal to that of Allāh, except for the difference of accident/pre-eternal, ĥudūth/qidam.
The point is, that in his epistle, Shaykh Barzanji reiterated the takfīr – let alone withdraw it and the rest of the
book is about his disagreement on the finer point of ílm al-ghayb:
Thereafter, a scholar from India named Ahmed Riđā Khān came to the City of Radiance [Madīnah] and when
he met me, he informed me first about people from India, disbelievers and heretics – among whom [were]
Ghulām Aĥmad al-Qādiyānī, because he claims similitude with Jesus and claims that he receives revelation and
prophethood;
And among them are sects named Amīriyyah, Nadhīriyyah and Qāsimiyyah – who claim: “If it is supposed
hypothetically whether in his (alayhi salatu wa salam) time, or even after his time [arrival of] a new prophet, will not have any effect
on his finality...”
Among them, the sect of Belying Wahābīs – followers of Rashīd Aĥmad Gangohī, who does not do takfīr of one
who says that Allāh táālā has lied; and among them, Rashīd Aĥmad who claims expansiveness of knowledge
for Satan but absence of the same for the Prophet (salAllahu alayhi wa salim)"

Here is the exact reference:

 

and

https://barelwism.wordpress.com/201...efute-aḥmad-riḍa-khans-views-on-ilm-al-ghayb/

 

One other part that needs response;

"
The bulk of Sayyid Barzanjī’s treatise is on the topic of imkān al-kidhb, as reflected by its title. He thus states: “The reason I gave it this title is that the answers which he gave to these questions, although diverse and related to various rules of both peripherals and principles, the most important of them is the one related to the necessity of truthfulness in Allāh’s self and spoken speech. Due to this importance, I give priority to this discussion over other answers…After having realised this adequate clarification and comprehending it with sound sufficient understanding, you know that what the respected Shaykh Khalīl Aḥmad mentioned in answers 23, 24 and 25, is a recognised position in the reliable widely-circulated books of the latter-day ‘Ulamā’ of Kalām like al-Mawāqif, al-Maqāṣid, Shurūḥ al-Tajrīd, al-Musayārah and so on. The outcome of these answers that Shaykh Khalīl Aḥmad mentioned is in agreement with the aforementioned ‘Ulamā’ of Kalām on it being within the ability of Allāh (Exalted is He) to go against the promise and threat and the truthful report in the spoken speech, which according to them necessitates intrinsic possibility, while there is certainty and conviction on it not occurring. This much does not entail disbelief, obstinacy, nor innovation in religion nor corruption. How so when you know the statement of the ‘Ulamā’ that we mentioned agreeing with it? As you saw in the statement of Mawāqif and its commentary which we cited earlier. Thus, Shaykh Khalīl Aḥmad has not come out of the parameters of their speech.” (ibid. p. 121 – 125)

The treatise is dated to Rabī‘ al-Awwal, 1329 H (1911), and was consigned by over 20 scholars of Madīnah.

1. ‘Allāmah Sayyid Muḥammad Abu l-Khayr Ibn ‘Ābidīn (1853 – 1925), the grandson of the brother of the famous Ibn ‘Ābidīn, author of Radd al-Muḥtār. He was a notable scholar of Shām. He states that he has read the treatise and that its author has described the beliefs of Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jamā‘ah. (ibid. p. 130)
2. Shaykh Muṣṭafā ibn Aḥmad al-Shaṭṭī al-Ḥanbalī (1856 – 1929), a prominent Ḥanbalī muftī and ṣūfī of Damascus, and author of a work refuting Wahhābīs. (ibid. p. 131)
3. ‘Allāmah Maḥmūd al-‘Aṭṭār (1867 – 1943), a great scholar of Shām, and the most notable student of ‘Allāmah Sayyid Badr al-Dīn al-Ḥasanī (1851 – 1935). He writes: “I have come across this important work and found it to be a book comprising of all subtle and manifest [matters] in refutation of the innovated group of Wahhābīs, may Allāh (Exalted is He) increase the likes of its author.” (ibid. p. 132 – 133)"

 

i have moved your posts here. that thread is specifically for the hadith of sayyiduna abu dharr and its explanation of zulm.

this will be dealt later. zaleel ki qismat mein zillat ke siwa kya hai!

 

Shaykh Abu Hasan, does this have to do with khulf al wa`id and not imkan alkidhb itself?

Also here is something else these rotten Deobandis wrote: https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2018/12/31/imkan-al-kidhb-and-the-arab-scholars/

 

BTW, the phrase "issuing an untrue statement" is just to rephrase "lying" and try to sanitize the ugliness of the devbandi belief.

 

Also how do we answer this?:

Based on the context, the meaning of ẓulm here is: “He does not lessen reward nor increase punishment”, as Imām al-Bayḍāwī explains. In his ḥāshiyah of Bayḍāwī’s Tafsīr, al-Shihāb al-Khafājī quotes an earlier Muḥaqqiq: “He does not do [this type of] ẓulm given its opposition to wisdom not power.” (Ḥāshiyat al-Shihāb ‘alā Tafsīr al-Bayḍāwī, 3:136)

 

This ahmaq has made it his life's mission to attack AlaHazrat and Ahlus Sunna
Zameel does not believe in Allah - he is worse than the mushrikin