Sajid Khan Deobandi refuted

The Asha'irah state khalf al wa'id in its essence is karam not kidhb and thus it is mumtani li ghayrihi and has nothing to do with imkan al kidhb. See the answer of Shaykh Akhtar Rida Khan رحمة الله تعلى عليه here:
http://www.jamiaturraza.com/session/21Oct12/12.mp3
http://www.jamiaturraza.com/session/22Feb15/7.mp3

The opinion of those a'imma you mentioned who say khulf al wa'id is muhal dhati is valid.
They are speaking about its wuqu which is muhal dhati. See Sharh al Aqa'id:

“((ولا يكلف العبد لما ليس في وسعه)) سواء كان ممتنعاً في نفسه كجمع بين الضدين أو ممكناً في نفسه لكن لا يمكن للعبد كخلق الجسم، وأما ما يمتنع بناء على أن الله تعالى علم خلافه أو أراد خلافه كإيمان الكافر وطاعة العاصي فلا نـزاع في وقوع التكليف به لكونه مقدوراً للمكلف بالنظر إلى نفسه، ثم عدم التكليف بما ليس في الوسع متفق عليه، كقوله تعالى: ((لا يكلف الله نفساً إلا وسعها)) والأمر في قوله تعالى: ((أنبئوني بأسماء هؤلاء)) للتعجيز دون التكليف، وقوله تعالى حكاية عن حال المؤمنين: ((ربنا ولا تحملنا ما لا طاقة لنا به)) ليس المراد بالتحميل هو التكليف، بل إيصال ما لا يطاق من العوارض إليهم، وإنما النـزاع في الجواز فمنعه المعتزلة بناء على القبح العقلي، وجوزه الأشعري لأنه لا يقبح من الله تعالى شيء.
وقد يستدل بقوله تعالى: ((لا يكلف الله نفساً إلا وسعها)) على نفي الجواز، وتقريره: أنه لو كان جائزاً لما لزم من فرض وقوعه محال، ضرورة أن استحالة اللازم توجب استحالة الملزوم، تحقيقاً لمعنى اللزوم، لكنه لو وقع لزم كذب كلام الله تعالى، وهو محال، وهذه نكتة في بيان استحالة وقوع كل ما يتعلق علم الله تعالى وإرادته واختياره بعدم وقوعه.
وحلها أنا لا نسلم أن كل ما يكون ممكناً في نفسه لا يلزم من فرض وقوعه محال، وإنما يجب ذلك لو لم يعرض له الامتناع بالغير، وإلا لجاز أن يكون لزوم المحال بناء على الامتناع بالغير، ألا يرى أن الله تعالى لما أوجد العالم بقدرته واختياره فعدمه ممكن في نفسه مع أنه يلزم من فرض وقوعه تخلق المعلول عن علته التامة، وهو محال.
والحاصل أن الممكن في نفسه لا يلزم من فرض وقوعه محال بالنظر إلى ذاته، وأمابالنظر إلى أمر زائد على نفسه فلا نسلم أنه لا يستلزم المحال

I honestly trust Sayyidi Taj al Shari'a رحمة الله تعلى عليه and Imam al Taftazani رضى الله عنه over you.

wassalam

 

No problem, my beloved brother.

 

okay, there's a lot to deal with br Saad Sohail. Will respond soon

jazakAllah brother

 

You wrote: "3) If these scans are not about khulf al wa'id then are you saying they support imkan al kidhb or khulf al wa'ad?"


Once you read the previous two posts in this thread, it should be clarified what the scans meant. For the sake of ease, using the proposition: "The Pardon of KUFFAR", i will demonstrate for you the difference.

Proposition: The Pardon Of Kuffar.
1) Is Rationally possible & contingently impossible (according to all asharis).
2) Is Rationally impossible (according to maturidis>>>they see it as KHILAF-UL-HIKMA). Therefore we will not be talking about maturidis to remain on the topic.

The Pardon of Kuffar is rationally possible and contingently impossible MEANING:

Allah could have willed "FROM ETERNITY" that the KUFFAR will be pardoned INSTEAD of BEING IN HELL FIRE forever. But this is NOT something that He willed and He informed us of this decree in the Quran i.e. they will stay in hell fire forever. Therefore the pardon of the KUFFAR is CONTINGENTLY impossible and Rationally possible* according to the INTELLECT. We know then, that the PARDON of KUFFAR will never ever be because Allah has not willed it.

*It is, HOWEVER, absurd to say "Rationally possible" became rationally impossible as that is the transformation of realities.

____________

“Khulf al-Wa`d” means to promise something, and then not do it. “Khulf al-Wa`id,” means to threaten something, and then not do it.

So how does this fit in what we have illustrated earlier.
Both of these essentially MEANS: "Can Allah Change His will? Or His decree?
Can Allah tell a lie?"
All of these are RATIONALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

Meaning Allah has eternally decreed that a KAFIR's abode is HELL FIRE FOREVER. If somebody asks "Can Allah change His decree" meaning He has decreed that the KUFFAR will be in hell fire forever, and it is said He changes His decree to "They will come out of Hell fire".
This is RATIONALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
It is rationally impossible that His Will undergoes change. This also entails Kidhb and that is rationally impossible. Therefore it is rationally impossible that He DOES NOT DO what He promised, or What He has threatened.

 

You wrote: 2) Are they speaking about imkan al kadhib, khulf al wa'id or khulf al wa'ad or none of the above?

Defining TERMS:

1. Imkan Kidhab: Possibility of telling a lie.

2. “Khulf al-Wa`d” means to promise something, and then not do it.

3. “Khulf al-Wa`id,” means to threaten something, and then not do it.

None of the scans posted above above ARE TALKING ABOUT 1,2, AND 3. NONE.
IMKAN KIDHB, KHULF AL WAD and KHULF- AL WAID are DIFFERENT ISSUES ALTOGETHER.


Imkan Kidhb: IS RATIONALLY IMPOSSIBLE ACCORDING TO ALL ASHARIS AND MATURDIS.

KHULF AL-WAD and KHULF AL WAID are RATIONALLY IMPOSSIBLE ACCORDING TO MATURDIS AND MAJORITY OF ASHARIS.

____________________

Question: what is Khulf al-Wa`d and Khulf al-Wa`id

Question: what is Khulf al-Wa`d and Khulf al-Wa`id and what is the difference between Imkan al-Kadhib, Khulf al-Wa`d, and Khulf al-Wa`id?

Answer: There is no big difference, just different words for the same thing. Imkan al-Kadhib, means “possibility of saying something untrue,” “Khulf al-Wa`d” means to promise something, and then not do it. “Khulf al-Wa`id,” means to threaten something, and then not do it. When Aļļaah says that the blasphemers will be in Hell forever, for example, then this is a threat that must come true, because Aļļaah does not lie, and nothing can prevent what He wills. When Aļļaah tells us this, it is because He knows what will happen in the future. (Click here)


Question: Ya Sayyidi! Is it correct to say that “Allah Almighty has the power to put a Kaafir in Jannah but He has told us otherwise and hence, doing so would be Khulf al-Wa`d, so He will never put a Kaafir in Jannah.”

Shaykh Abu Adam writes: Yes, that is correct. (in the comments here).


________________

In another place, in the comment section, Shaykh Abu Adam Writes:

I do not accept to say that “the AsħˆAriyys say that Al-kħulf Fi-l-Waˆiid is possible.”

You can find many strange things in books. That is one reason why a novice is not allowed to read books alone. If there is something obviously wrong in a book then we reject it, because as Asħˆariyys we hold that imitation is not correct in beliefs. That is why the wahabi claim of Abu Hasan Al-Asħˆariyy rejecting Asħˆariyy doctrine and becoming an anthropomorphist in the end is unimportant to us, even if it was true (which it is not).

So the issue then is al-kħulf fi-l-Waˆiid karam? It may be so at some cases for humans, at least from a position of power. It is not a praise to say this about Aļļaah, because it implies lying, and lying is a flaw. What is a praise for a human being may be kufr to say about Aļļaah. For example, it is a praise for a human to say to him that he has nice children.

Many Asħˆariyys attacked those who said Al-kħulf fi-l-waˆiid is possible. Among them Az-Zaraksħiyy, Al-Qaraafiyy, Al-Għazaaliyy, Al-Raaziyy, and Al-Urmawiyy (who told Ibn Taymiyyah during a debate, “”You are a sparrow flying here and there,” ) and since this is the only possibly valid saying we ignore the rest, and affirm that al-kħulf fi-l-waˆiid is impossible.

It is impossible that Aļļaah should not do what He said He would, because He is informing us of what will happen in the future, and Aļļaah knows what is in the future. It is an obvious ijmaaˆ consensus in the Asħˆariyy creed that Aļļaah’s speech pertains to what His knowledge pertains to, and not to lies. Allaah’s kalaam does not belong to the possible category of things. As has been made abundantly clear already. The bottom line here is that in belief matters, imitation is not allowed, and the expressions used even by several individual authors, if proven used, are their own problem. Not the least when they contradict basic principles, such as knowing that Aļļaah being attributed with Speech is not a possibility, but a must. That is why quoting books is not very interesting if they contain contradictions to such basics.

______________________

DISCLAIMER: Those (asharis) who did believe Al-kħulf Fi-l-Waˆiid is possible, DID NOT DEEM it MUMKIN for Allah to tell a lie.

^This is THE KEY POINT. >>> MEANING there's NO IKHTILAF among ASHARIS and MATURIDIS pertaining to LIE being RATIONALLY IMPOSSIBLE for Allah.

When refuted, some Deobandis switched the argument and said that kadhib is a corollary of khulf fi’l waýīd; and since some Ashárīs differed that, it is permissible (khulf fi’l waýīd), the Deobandis stretched it to include kadhib. The Deobandi argument is: a. khulf fi’l waýīd is differed upon by Ashárī mutakallimūn b. kadhib is a corollary of khulf fi’l waýīd c. Therefore, Ashárī scholars differed upon imkān al-kadhib. (Truth about a Lie, PAGE 5)

One important thing to note here is, that the Ashárīs* vociferously reject the implication of falsehood that the Māturīdīs say khulf fi’l waýīd necessitates. Ashárīs write elaborate proofs refuting that it necessitates falsehood. This clearly shows that they abhor the idea that falsehood is contingent. Otherwise, there was simply no need to refute the Māturīdī objection. All they had to say was, ‘So what? We already believe that falsehood is only contingently impossible; your objection does not apply to us. Move on.’ (TRUTH ABOUT A LIE: Page 44).

*Those who deemed khulf al Waid is rationally possible. (Footnotes mine).

____________________________________

 

You wrote: Please back up your assertions with dalil- dalil is not "Saad is right, AR Ahmed is wrong" but actual references of ilm al kalaam

1) This going to be sincere warning from one brother to another brother. To avoid delving into KALAM until you have "settled" the fundamentals or basics. This post will demonstrate the error in sha Allah but that's besides the point.

2) I also see it as a rather poor attempt at straw-manning. If you had bothered to read the posts which I have asked you to read earlier, it would have made the matters easy. The posts linked in my previous post DO NOT simply say "I am right and you are wrong", those posts go step by step to highlight for the audience "backed' by intellectual proofs and references from the KALAM literature. All you had to do was closely study them. This post would have been unnecessary.

3) Finally when it comes to demonstrating "truth" as far as "Rational proofs" are concerned, what the scholars said comes secondary. There's no taqleed here. Otherwise, you would be stuck "reading" ilmul Kalam, jumping like a bird here and there. I am strictly talking about your approach here when it comes to Ilmul Kalam, not saying what the scholars say or write carries no weight.

What should be done is to understand:
1) why some scholars said what they said?
2) Why are all united upon this?
3) Why are there differences and why differed?

Take these three questions when reading any literature pertaining to Ilm-ul-Kalam. Sit down and think. If you know the fundamentals very well, you can't help but come to the same conclusion that those scholars reached. And if you don't, try again especially if the conclusion reached is position of majority/ and or all of them.

And sometimes, you would find that some of them made an error and you will be able to pinpoint that error, before you come across the statement of the majority of scholars (within that group) who said that some of them did commit an error.

That's why Shaykh Abu Adam writes:

You can find many strange things in books. That is one reason why a novice is not allowed to read books alone. If there is something obviously wrong in a book then we reject it, because as Asħˆariyys we hold that imitation is not correct in beliefs. That is why the wahabi claim of Abu Hasan Al-Asħˆariyy rejecting Asħˆariyy doctrine and becoming an anthropomorphist in the end is unimportant to us, even if it was true (which it is not).

More on this here.
____________________________________________________


You wrote : Explain then what is in the scan. What do they refer to?

It is important to define the terms first.

Rationally Necessary: a proposition that does not accept negation in of itself. This is because negating it would violate the law of identity. For example: the proposition “an even number is divisible by two, which must be true, and cannot be false.

Rationally Impossible: a proposition that does not accept affirmation in of itself. This is because affirming it would violate the law of identity. For example: the proposition “an even number is not divisible by two”, which must be false, and cannot be true.

Rationally Possible: a proposition that accepts both affirmation and negation in of itself, because neither entails a violation of the law of identity. For example: the proposition “Zayd will die tomorrow”, which can be true, and can be false.

____________


I am going to begin by giving a very simple example FIRST, to help you understand what is being said in those scans.


What is the judgment of intellect pertaining to the following statements.

1) A body is at rest at T1.
2) A body is at motion at T1.

T1= moment of body's existence.

You can't help but say. "Both stillness OR motion is rationally possible".

Now imagine if you were to SEE a BODY moving at T1.

What is the judgement of intellect pertaining to Stillness of that Body at T1.

It remains RATIONALLY possible, But it CANNOT occur in the same instance at T1, because that would entail gathering of two contradictories "Body being at rest and motion at t1" which is rationally impossible. But that doesn't mean "STILLNESS" has become "Rationally impossible at T1" rather quite the contrary. It simply means: Stillness Cannot occur at T1 due to there being motion in the body at that instance. This impossibility is known as CONTINGENT IMPOSSIBILITY.

In intrinsic rational judgment is one about a proposition, irrespective of anything other than the essence of the subject and the essence of the predicate.

For example: it is intrinsically impossible for a seven-faced cube to exist. This is because a cube is a six-faced shape by virtue of what it is, and so a seven-faced cube would be a seven-faced six-faced shape, which is a contradiction. It’s existence therefore, is said to be impossible in of itself.

On the other hand, an extrinsic rational judgment is one about a proposition, while also taking into consideration other factors that may affect its truth.

For example: it is intrinsically possible for Zayd to occupy a chair. For Zayd’s occupation of a chair, in of itself, is not absurd. However, this can become impossible when we take into consideration the occurrence of something other than Zayd’s occupation of the chair, like ‘Amr’s occupation of the same chair. In this case, it is said that Zayd’s occupation of the chair is impossible, but for other than itself.

More on this here.


1) Those who claim 'Stillness" has become rationally impossible are IN ERROR.

We are NOT proponents of Transformation of REALITIES. ALL MUTAKALIMUN are AGREED on this. There's no dispute here.

The falasifah are proponents of Inqilab Al Haqaiq because their aristotlean metaphysics forces them to.

Changes in intrinsic truths are called transformations of realities (Inqilab Al-Haqa’iq).

Click here to learn more.

For example: an essence whose existence is an intrinsic possibility, to become intrinsically necessary or impossible.

The transformation of realities is impossible. This is because what is intrinsic to an essence is that which makes it itself, without which it is not itself. And so claiming that a reality changed, is tantamount to claiming that an essence is no longer itself, and that would be a violation of identity.

For example: if existence were intrinsically possible for a particular essence, then this essence accepts both existence and non-existence by virtue of what it is. So to claim that this essence no longer accepts existence (i.e. that its existence is now an intrinsic impossibility), or non-existence (or an intrinsic necessity), is to claim that this essence is no longer this essence. And that is absurd.

In simple terms:
Claiming something that by virtue (intrinsically) accepts both non-existence and existence and then by virtue (intrinsically) does not accept existence is to say that thing is no longer that thing and that is absurd.

It is further nonsense, because Allah's power pertains to rational possibilities. To say "rational possibility" became "Impossible" is to say His power got RESTRICTED (and that's impossible) or that it under went taghaur (and that's impossible).

Click here to learn more.

And here.


_________________

Coming back to the PROPOSITION:

What is the RATIONAL IMPOSSIBILITY entailed from the notion:

1) That a KAFIR is granted entry into JANNAH.

2) That a BELIEVER is granted entry into Hell.

?

By entailment I mean "WITH RESPECT" to the PROPOSITION ITSELF.
What is the INTRINSIC IMPOSSIBILITY entailed from such a proposition?

In the mind's eye, supposing the existence of a Kafir in JANNAH or a Believer in Hell DOES NOT lead to any INTRINSIC or INTERNAL CONTRADICTION (with respect to the proposition itself) like it is entailed from saying "A square circle exists" or "2=5".

NOTE:
An intrinsic rational judgment is one about a proposition, irrespective of anything other than the essence of the subject and the essence of the predicate.

For example: it is intrinsically impossible for a seven-faced cube to exist. This is because a cube is a six-faced shape by virtue of what it is, and so a seven-faced cube would be a seven-faced six-faced shape, which is a contradiction. It’s existence therefore, is said to be impossible in of itself.


Question 1: Oh but wait does that mean, that a KAFIR's entry in JANNAH could occur on the DAY OF JUDGEMENT ?

No claiming that would be KUFR. It is IMPOSSIBLE. Not because it is intrinsically or rationally impossible (with respect to the INTELLECT. The mind judges the proposition as rationally possible).

It is IMPOSSIBLE because Allah has DECREED that a KAFIR will STAY in HELL FIRE FOREVER.
And He has informed us of this DECREE in the QURAN.

And it is RATIONALLY IMPOSSIBLE (MUHAL BIL DHAT) that

1. HIS Will under goes changes (It is rationally impossible for His will to undergo change because it is ETERNAL) or
2. That He lies (It is rationally impossible For Him to tell a lie because His speech is ETERNAL AND PERTAINS TO TRUTH and Kalam Lafdhi signifies His Eternal TRUE speech) or
3. That He breaks His promise or THREAT (KHULF AL WAID AND KHULF AL WAD).

(^WARNING: What happened in the three points listed above is extremely important. Multiple readings may be required).

Question 2: If the entry of A kafir into Jannah is NOT rationally impossible. What kind of impossibility are you speaking about?

I am talking about Contingent Impossibility (Mustahil Aradi).
Contingent impossibility is an impossibility which is NOT intrinsic BUT extrinsic to itself.

On the other hand, an extrinsic rational judgment is one about a proposition, while also taking into consideration other factors that may affect its truth. Other factors that are external to the essence of the subject and the essence of the predicate.

For example: it is intrinsically possible for Zayd to occupy a chair. For Zayd’s occupation of a chair, in of itself, is not absurd. However, this can become impossible when we take into consideration the occurrence of something other than Zayd’s occupation of the chair, like ‘Amr’s occupation of the same chair (Since it is impossible for both Zayd and ‘Amr to occupy the same chair, at the same time). In this case, it is said that Zayd’s occupation of the chair is impossible, but for other than itself.


Question 3: Why can't I say that a Kafir's entry into Jannah IS made RATIONALLY IMPOSSIBLE in relation to Allah's decreeing His entry into Hell?

Answer: Changes in intrinsic truths are called transformations of realities (Inqilab Al-Haqa’iq). Transformation of realities is RATIONALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

More on this here.

Coming back to the SCANS:


Answer: Based on the views of Jumhur/majority of Ahlus Sunnah, it is sharan Muhal (Impossible with respect to Shariah, Mustahil Aradi) and Aqlan Mumkin Bil dhaat (Intrinsically possible/ Rationally possible) while according to some scholars (Imam Nasafi and others) it is also rationally impossible.



Question: Is forgiveness of mushrikeen within the Qudrah of Almighty Allah (swt) or not?

Answer: Without a doubt the pardon of the Kufar is within the Qudrah of Almighty Allah (swt) but its occurrence (wuqu) is muhal. The pardon of mushrikeen is Aqlan mumkin bil dhaat (Rationally possible or intrinsically possible) but Sharan Muhal bil ghayr (Mumtaniý bi’l Ghayr or Mustaĥīl Árađī).



Translation: Pardon of Kuffar according to Hanafis (Maturidis) is AQALAN MUHAL (NOT RATIONALLY POSSIBLE). Keeping the believers in HELLFIRE and Kuffar in Paradise FOREVER is RATIONALLY POSSIBLE according to Asharis.

IMPORTANT NOTE: According to MATURIDIS the Pardon Of Kuffar is RATIONALLY IMPOSSIBLE because they see it as KHILAF UL HIKMA. Meaning there is no possible (hypothetical) world, in which a KAFIR could have entered JANNAH.

According to ALL ASHARIS, the PARDON of KUFFAR and the PUNISHMENT OF A BELIEVER is RATIONALLY POSSIBLE. There's NO DISPUTE ABOUT THIS.



From refined explanation of SANUSI CREED by SHAYKH SAEED FOUDEH.



From Shaykh Abu Adam of Sunnianswers:

Mustaheel `arađiyy is when something is possible, like the existence of any created thing, but Allah tells us that it will not be, such as a mukallaf kaafir entering Paradise. That is, it is rationally possible that a kaafir could go to Paradise, but contingently impossible, because Allah has told us that this will never happen, as this is His decree.


_______________________________________________________________

^^^^^^^This is what the scans are talking about.

 

Explain then what is in the scan.
1) What do they refer to?
2) Are they speaking about imkan al kadhib, khulf al wa'id or khulf al wa'ad or none of the above?
3) If these scans are not about khulf al wa'id then are you saying they support imkan al kidhb or khulf al wa'ad?

Please back up your assertions with dalil- dalil is not "Saad is right, AR Ahmed is wrong" but actual references of ilm al kalaam

 

Explain....

 

Asalamo Alaikum brother Ar Ahmed:
You wrote: "Similarly these refer to khulf al wa'id and not kidhb" (^ See the QUOTE OF YOUR POST ABOVE)

^The above is INCORRECT. Meaning: I am not talking about the scans (quoted above) BUT your inference of it, highlighted in ^ RED ABOVE.

The above that which is in the scans is NOT EQUIVALENT TO "KHULF-AL WAID"


It is HIGHLY recommended to read what is mentioned in this post (Click here).

POSTS to be read:

1) #49.
2) # 52.
3)#55. (Extremely important).

____________

 

Similarly the author of this burnable Deobandi pamphlet "Hadya e Barelviat" on p 29 quotes Fawaid al Fawad as well as Tafsir Na'imi (7:211-212) which has to do with khulf al wa'id and is not a part of kidhb



He also lies on Maktubat e Sadi and Tafsir al Kabir of Allamah Razi رحمة الله تعلى عليه on imtina al nazir

 

See Takmil al iman on khalf al wa'id/khulf al wa'id- has nothing to do with imkan/imtinaa al kidhb

 

https://youtu.be/XMUYWYTng7o
This is Molvi Sajid khan Deobandi lying on imkan and wuqu e kadhib as well as Tahzir un Nas, Nur and other masa'il. Let us start with imkan/imtina' al kadhib. He mentions some works like Hidayat ul Barelviya of a Deobandi molvi Mujahid and Tanqide Matin of Sarfaraz Safdar Gakharwi and Juhd al Muqil of Mahmud ul Hasan etc. He also cites Musayyarah and Sharh al Mawaqif

Some resources that refute him and his kufriya beliefs:
1. Radd e Hadyatul Barelviyya https://www.islamimehfil.com/topic/25861-hadya-e-barelviat-ka-radd-abu-abdullah-naqashbandi/

2. Tauzih ul Bayan
https://ia802309.us.archive.org/7/items/TouzeehUlBayanLeKhazainUlIrfanByAllamGhulamRasoolSaeedi/Touzeeh Ul Bayan Le Khazain Ul Irfan by Allam Ghulam Rasool Saeedi.pdf

3. Explanation of the Musayyarah passage
https://scholarsink.files.wordpress...-al-humam_s-al-musayarah-imkan-al-kadhib1.pdf

4. Qam ul Mubin (Arabic) by Sayyidi Alahazrat رضى الله عنه - explaining Sharh al Mawaqif and Siyalkuti

https://ia800805.us.archive.org/8/items/ShaykhAkhtarArabic/Al Qam ul Mubin.PDF

5. Maqam e Wilayat o Nabuwwat- http://s595909773.online-home.ca/KB/Maqam-e-Walayat-o-Nabowat/WQ.pdf and https://archive.org/details/MaqamEWalayatONabuwatByAllamaGhulamRasoolSaeedi.pdf

Sajid Khan Deobandi has purposefully mixed up khulf al wa'id and kidhb to confuse people and then stupidly accused Sunnis of believing Allah is a'jiz, wa iyadhubiLlah.

Note this is what is written (and what Deobandis oft quote) from Sharh al Aqa'id al Nasafiyya on khulf al wa'id:



“((ولا يكلف العبد لما ليس في وسعه)) سواء كان ممتنعاً في نفسه كجمع بين الضدين أو ممكناً في نفسه لكن لا يمكن للعبد كخلق الجسم، وأما ما يمتنع بناء على أن الله تعالى علم خلافه أو أراد خلافه كإيمان الكافر وطاعة العاصي فلا نـزاع في وقوع التكليف به لكونه مقدوراً للمكلف بالنظر إلى نفسه، ثم عدم التكليف بما ليس في الوسع متفق عليه، كقوله تعالى: ((لا يكلف الله نفساً إلا وسعها)) والأمر في قوله تعالى: ((أنبئوني بأسماء هؤلاء)) للتعجيز دون التكليف، وقوله تعالى حكاية عن حال المؤمنين: ((ربنا ولا تحملنا ما لا طاقة لنا به)) ليس المراد بالتحميل هو التكليف، بل إيصال ما لا يطاق من العوارض إليهم، وإنما النـزاع في الجواز فمنعه المعتزلة بناء على القبح العقلي، وجوزه الأشعري لأنه لا يقبح من الله تعالى شيء.
وقد يستدل بقوله تعالى: ((لا يكلف الله نفساً إلا وسعها)) على نفي الجواز، وتقريره: أنه لو كان جائزاً لما لزم من فرض وقوعه محال، ضرورة أن استحالة اللازم توجب استحالة الملزوم، تحقيقاً لمعنى اللزوم، لكنه لو وقع لزم كذب كلام الله تعالى، وهو محال، وهذه نكتة في بيان استحالة وقوع كل ما يتعلق علم الله تعالى وإرادته واختياره بعدم وقوعه.
وحلها أنا لا نسلم أن كل ما يكون ممكناً في نفسه لا يلزم من فرض وقوعه محال، وإنما يجب ذلك لو لم يعرض له الامتناع بالغير، وإلا لجاز أن يكون لزوم المحال بناء على الامتناع بالغير، ألا يرى أن الله تعالى لما أوجد العالم بقدرته واختياره فعدمه ممكن في نفسه مع أنه يلزم من فرض وقوعه تخلق المعلول عن علته التامة، وهو محال.
والحاصل أن الممكن في نفسه لا يلزم من فرض وقوعه محال بالنظر إلى ذاته، وأما بالنظر إلى أمر زائد على نفسه فلا نسلم أنه لا يستلزم المحال


If wuqu' of khulf al wa'id (not khulf al wa'id itself) entails kidhb and is muhal then kidhb must be muhal. That would mean khulf al wa'id itself and imkan/imtina' al kadhib are separate as much as Rashid Gangohi tried to make them the same quoting Bahr al Ra'iq.

Sajid's English speaking Deobandit counterparts quote this:
"
4) In Hawashi al-Kalnabwi ‘ala Sharh al-‘Aqa’id al-Adudiyyah by Al-Muhaqqiq al-Dawwani (Allah Most High have mercy on them) [it is mentioned], the text of which is:

“In sum, lying being ugly in the uttered-speech (al-kalam al-lafzi), in the sense that it is an attribute of deficiency, is prohibited according to the Ash’aris. That is why Al-Sharif al-Muhaqqiq (al-Jurjani) said it is from the totality of the possibilities (mumkinat), and acquiring decisive knowledge of its non-occurrence in His speech by consensus of the scholars and the Prophets (upon them be peace) does not negate its intrinsic possibility like all decisive knowledge of normal occurrences (al-‘ulum al-‘adiya) and it does not negate what Imam al-Razi said,” to the end.

(5) In Tahrir al-Usul by the author of Fath al-Qadir, Imam ibn al-Humam, and its commentary by Ibn Amir al-Hajj (Allah Most High have mercy on them) [they say], the text of which is:

“Therefore – i.e. since whatever is conceived as a deficiency is impossible for Him – the decisiveness of the impossibility of attributing Him – i.e. Allah (Exalted is He) – with lying and the like of it (Transcendent is He beyond that) becomes apparent. Also, if His act being attributed with ugliness was possible, confidence in the integrity of His promise, the integrity of His speech besides it – i.e. [besides] His (Exalted is He) promise – and the integrity of His Prophets would disappear – i.e. in principle, His integrity would be uncertain.

“According to the Ash’aris, He (Exalted is He) is certainly not attributed with ugly acts, but they are not rationally impossible, like all of creation. [This is] just like all the sciences in which one of two opposites being the reality is certain, but the other is not impossible, if it were assumed that it is the reality; just like the certainty of Mecca and Baghdad – i.e. their existence – since their non-existence is not rationally impossible. Therefore – i.e. when the matter is such – confidence [in the integrity of His word] disappearing is not necessitated because the possibility of something rationally does not necessitate not having firm resolve of its non-existence.

“The running dispute regarding the rational impossibility and possibility of this applies to all deficiencies – is Allah’s power over it absent or is it, i.e. the deficiency, contained in it, i.e. His Power? He will certainly not do it, i.e. the absolutely decisive condition is the deficiency will not be performed,” to the end."
The quote of Imam Jurjani is addressed in
Qam al Mubin and extends to the quote of Shaykh Kalnabawi.

As for the statement from Usul al Tahrir, it is about khulf al wa'id. The Deobandis admit this when they write:

“….. Ibn Abidin quotes him to show his favour of khulf al-wa’id in order to show that to pray for forgiveness of all Muslims all their sins is not haram (http://feqh.al-islam…ParagraphID=345).

The above (from Muhannad) is a quote from Tahrir Usul of ibn Humam (not ibn Amir al-Hajj) but with the latter’s added commentary. In explaining the Ash’ari view in relation to falsehood, ibn Humam gave the example of the existence of Mecca: now that it exists it cannot not exist, but its non-existence is rationally possible; in the same way, since Allah is eternally Truthful, falsehood cannot coexist, but it does not mean it is not rationally possible. The quote can be verified from the book (vol. 3). ” (from the post on http://marifah.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2931&st=60#entry13562)

The author of Hadyat ul Barelviya also spouts lies- mixing up wa'id and wa'ad


My answer:


As for what was quoted from Fawa`id al Fawad p. 209, majlis 13, this is regarding khulf al-wa`id which is muHal li ghayrihi (due to the Ayaat of the Qur`an) and the same is mentioned from Tafsir Na`imi (jild 7 safha 5 so basat) and from Maktubat e Imam Rabbani, maktub 266, p. 516, Hadrat Sharfuddin Yahya Muneri in his Maktubat, maktub 35, and Shah Abdul Aziz in his Tuhfa Ithna Ashriya and Imam Parharwi on p. 20 of Nibras and Shah Abd al Quddus Chisti in his Maktubat e Quddusiya mand Imam Ghazali in al Iqtisad and Shah Abdul Haq Dehlvi in Takmil ul Iman m, and Musammarah and Fathul Rabbani m and Hashiya ala Sharah Sahih Muslim and Sharah Muslim (https://youtu.be/cBVbDcmjLlg?t=33m12s) and Nibras , the jawab is that none of this proves imkan/imtina al Kidhb but rather proves that khulf al wa'id is separate and is muhal li ghayrihi . As for Fawaid al Fawad, it is about khalf al waid . Where in Fehrist Fatawa Ridawiya p. 409 and Tafsir Naimi vol. 7 is regarding saying it is mutlaqan jaiz – here qadir means jaiz mutlaqan without qayd and the same is in Kufriya Kalima ke bare me sawal jawab whereas these Ulama are not saying be qayd and even Abu Ayyub (Deobandi) admits that they are not saying it without qayd as he adds “magar woh hi karega jo khabr aya hai”. As for Radd Sayf e Yamani (p. 201), it is referring to takzeeb of khabr of Allah Azzawajal which is by considering khalf al-waid as not being muhal li ghayrihi but ja’iz without qayd which is not what the Akabirin mentioned wrote and this is in line with Allama Taftazani’s ibarat (لكنه لو وقع لزم كذب كلام الله تعالى، وهو محال، وهذه نكتة في بيان استحالة وقوع كل ما يتعلق علم الله تعالى وإرادته واختياره بعدم وقوعه.). For example, in Makutbat e Quddusiya, it mentions that this is mumkin fi nafsihi but mumtani li ghayrihi. Another example is in Al Iqtisad it says there is no istihalala fi nafsihi which entails it is muhal li ghayrihi. Another example is from Tuhfa Ithna Ashriya which mentions that khulf al-waid is fadhl not dhulm which does not help Abu Ayyub’s da`wa since it does not speak against the fact that this is muhal li ghayrihi (mumtani li ghayrihi). As for what was mentioned in Maktubat Imam Rabbani and Takmil al-Iman, it is speaking fi nafsihi and not without qayd. The fatwa of Mufti Ahmad Yar Khan Na'imi قدس الله سره , Radd ul Yamani, Hazrat Mawlana Ilyas Qadri دامت بركاتهم العليه and the author of Fahrist Fatawa Ridawiyya was placed on considering it mutlaqan mumkin or jaiz not considering it mumtani li ghayrihi. This is in line with the ibarat of Imam al-Taftazani:
لكنه لو وقع لزم كذب كلام الله تعالى، وهو محال وهذه نكتة في بيان استحالة وقوع كل ما يتعلق علم الله تعالى وإرادته واختياره بعدم وقوع

What Allamah Parharwi says in Nibras is not supporting the Deobandi position on naqais and qubh etc.

A Sunni brother on this forum, may Allah reward him, quoted Fatawa Fayzul Rasool by Hadrat Faqih ul Asr Mufti Jalaludin Amjadi رحمة الله تعلى عليه

See Fatawa Faize Rasool. p. 10

Answer: Based on the views of Jumhur/majority of Ahlus Sunnah, it is sharan Muhal (Impossible with respect to Shariah, Mustahil Aradi) and Aqlan Mumkin Bil dhaat (Intrinsically possible/ Rationally possible) while according to some scholars (Imam Nasafi and others) it is also rationally impossible.



Question: Is forgiveness of mushrikeen within the Qudrah of Almighty Allah azzawajal) or not?

Answer: Without a doubt the pardon of the Kufar is within the Qudrah of Almighty Allah (azzawajal) but its occurrence (wuqu) is muhal. The pardon of mushrikeen is Aqlan mumkin bil dhaat (Rationally possible or intrinsically possible) but Sharan Muhal bil ghayr (Mumtaniý bi’l Ghayr or Mustaĥīl Árađī) .

Similarly these refer to khulf al wa'id and not kidhb:

on p. 204 and 211 of alMustanad al Mutamad Alahazrat mentions that this is jaiz as per the Asharis and not as per the Maturidis – what Alahazrat did takfir on is considering it mutlaqan jaiz not muhal li ghayrihi as the Ash`aris did



agr rab taala kisi ki sari nekiya barbad kar de to zulm nhi or agr kisi ko bila jurm saza de tab b zulm nhi

{ tafseer e maeemi jild 4 safa 300 }

note Deobandis will use anything. For example Abu ayyub used an ibarat from Tafsir Naeemi:


On Tafsir Na`imi (jild sath, safha panch so basat) – it allegedly was mentioning that the one who says Allah is qadir on putting mu`minin in jahanam and jahanamis in jannah as being kufr. Even if this was in Tafsir Na`imi, Mufti Ahmad Yar Khan Nai`mi is correct as per the Maturidi aqida as is Mawlana Ilyas Qadiri who mentioned the qawl be-qayd as kufr. There is a difference between what Mufti Ahmad Yar Khan Na`imi has written and what was called as kufr. Mufti Ahmad Yar Khan Na`imi calls it kufr when it is said that it is mutlaqan ja`iz without qayd whereas Mufti Ahmad Yar Khan Naimi in another place states that it is mumtani li ghayr. What Hazrat Taj al-Shari`a said is also correct that khalf al-wa`id is mumtani` li ghayrihi and mentioning it mutlaqan is naqis and against aqidah and ordered tawba which is the same as what was attributed to Mufti Ahmad Yar Khan Na`imi and Mawlana Ilyas Qadiri. Thus, saying the qawl is be-qayd kufr doesn’t negate the ruling of being mumtani` li ghayrihi and saying it is fi nafsihi mumkin and mumtani li ghayrihi – as all these `ibarats have been saying . It is different than saying it is mutlaqan mumkin which is where the hukm of kufr is given but Abu Ayyub has mixed up these two. What is attributed to Hadrat Mufti Ahmad Yar Khan Na`imi is that it is fi nafisihi mumkin and mumtani` li ghayrihi and mamnu’ (see Tafseer e Naeemi vol. 7 p. 182) but then mentions the qawl be qayd as being kufr (see Tafseer e Naeemi vol 7 p. 562) (). Note Molwi Abu Ayyub did not read the full `ibarat which is in front of us from Tafsir an Naimi (here) which states such a thing is mamnu’ on p 182 vol 7:



Same is mentioned in Maktubat e Qudusiyah and Takmil al-Iman that it is mumtani li ghayrihi due to khabr:

As for Fahrist Fatawa Ridawiyya Sharif – the fahrist is not the original book

In Radd Sayf al Yamani it doesn’t have anything that Abu Ayyub mentioned and even so this is regarding wuqu’ of khalf al-waid which is in line with Imam Taftazani’s ibarat.

As for Tafsir Naeemi jild 7, Surah Ana`am ayat pensath – this is also regarding saying so be qayd without saying it is mumtani’ li ghayrihi ()

Tafsir Naimi does not have this –

https://archive.org/stream/Tafsir-e-naeemiUrdu/Tafsir-e-Naeemi-Para7#page/n567/mode/2up

Mawlana Ilyas Qadiri’s book


As for putting mum`inin in jahanam being mentioned alone as mentioned in Tuhfa Ithna Ashriyya and in Maktubat e Do Sadi, this is still not khulf al-wa`ad as it did not mention this as a promise.

The translation of Musayarrah:

{The author of Úmdah} – Állāmah Abu’l Barakat an-Nasafi – {among Ĥanafīs said: “a mu’min to remain forever in hell and a kafir to go to paradise is permissible by intellect according to them} – that is the Ashárīs. {They say however, there is revealed evidence against this occurring.} Therefore it is ruled that it is impossibile [yamtaniy] on account of evidence from revelation [dalīl as-sama’a] and we Ĥanafīs say: It is not possible.” [Here ends the statement of Úmdah along with its explanation (Musāyarah with Al-Musāmarah, Pg.178)

One jawab – regarding putting jannatis in jahanannam- this is not meant as khulf al-wa`ad but as khulf al-wa`id and as an extension of khulf al-wa`id and therefore it would not serve the purpose of proving the imkan of khulf al-wa`ad. Secondly, khulf al-wa`id itself is not an extension of or the same as imkan al kadhib.

Note Taj al-Shari`a رحمة الله تعلى عليه called khulf al wa'id mumtani li ghayrihi

See:

http://www.jamiaturraza.com/session/21Oct12/12.mp3
http://www.jamiaturraza.com/session/22Feb15/7.mp3

See also: https://www.scribd.com/document/170735064/Truth-About-a-Lie


As for these references here (https://www.islamimehfil.com/topic/25211-ahle-sunnat-par-imkan-e-kizb-ka-ilzam/#comment-106006), these are all about khulf al-wa`id.

As for this, Allamah Mufti Ahmad Yar Khan Naeemi mentions an itiraz – this is not supporting khulf al-wa'ad as Deobandis claim

Someone also mentions Tafsir Naeemi when they say:

tafseer e naeemi me ek ayat ki tafseer me likhte he :-

yani ham qadir he ke apna wo wada tod de or tum par azab bhej de

{tafseer e naeemi jild 7 safa 458}



As for this – this is regarding khulf al-wa`id and Mufti sahib alayhirrahma states that this is mumtani li ghayr when it is written:

“ho sakta he ke kuffar isaaiyo ( yahudiyo ) k kufr ki bakhshish hi murad ho or maqsad ye ho ke agr tu un kafiro or mushriko ko b bakhsh de to tujhe koi rok nhi sakta isi surat me ye arz o marooz shafat nhi balke rab taala ki badayi bayan karna he jese hazrat abdulillah bin umar ka farman he ke rab Taala sab ko dozakh me bhej de to uska adl he or sare bando ko jannat de de to uska raham he waha b rab taala ki qudrat ka zikr he”

{ tafseer e naimee jild 7 safa 182} http://www.alahazratnetwork.org/modules/quran/item.php?page=187&itemid=7



Abu Ayyub mentioned the same quote here


note- i respect hazrat mufti ahmad yar khan naeemi رحمة الله تعلى عليه as he is from our Akabir ulama but regarding where we get Aqaid points from, please note this ibarat from kulliyat makatib e Raza:


Similarly the quote here of Alahazrat alayhirrahmah is regarding khulf al-waid:

ye bat aqalan jaiz he ke Allah taala apni makhlooq ko bagair jurm ke azab de or bad me is par sawab na de

{ al mustanadul mu,tamad safa 201 }

This is also in the meaning of mumtani li ghayrihi not mutlaqan imkan/jawaz and has no relation to our view that kidhb is muHal dhati for Allah Azzawajal in both the kalam nafsi and lafzi by consensus of Ahl al Sunnah wal Jama'ah and the denier of this is out of Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama'ah (Ash'ari/Maturidi/Hanbali)