There are a few things you have left out. By answering them many things will be made clear. Please answer one question at a time. I previously wrote: Just to make this clear: if someone does luzumi kufr, how does he repent? What must he do? What actions are considered tawnah? Imam Suyuti is saying he must make tawbah, how is that done? What are the pre requisites? I also wrote: So far we have not discussed the ruling of the one who refuses to repent. I have placed two questions here, once you have answered them we can move on.
Actually, I change my mind. I think I'll take your suggestion and start by answering your questions in this post first. If my understandings prove to be faulty, then you can clear them up by telling me where I misunderstood and then refer me to the relevant passages in mu'taqad for clarification. Okay, so my answer to your first question is that the above case mentioned by al-suyuti is a case of luzum and not iltizam. In my understanding, the controversial statements could be examined similarly to the case of the first scenario illustrated by al-suyuti since he predicates not doing takfeer on account of إِذَا عُرِفَ بِالْخَيْرِ قَبْلَ ذَلِكَ And given that the controversial statements were done by people who would fall into this category, then by extention, they would merit such an examination. Now I see the portion you bolded above and I think what it comes down to is if all those things mentioned after "alaihi", if they are not done, then would takfeer be brought back upon his head? And that's the last question you asked above and to that I would say no, takfeer would not then be mandated. My reasoning is that if one were to take that meaning then it doesn't flow with the overall meaning of the text. Yes, I do believe that he is being asked to do tawba and istighfar and the rest of the stuff on account of doing something that is haram, but if he doesn't do it, I don't believe takfeer is brought back upon him. It doesn't seem to flow with the text, I would've expected him to say something along the lines of "so long as" or "upon the condition that he", "contingent upon", etc. Moreover, practically speaking, such a meaning doesn't make sense either. If a qadi ruled as such in a court of law, what would he then do, have regular check-ups to see if he's fulfilling all these forms of tawba, and if he's not then he will reinstate the kufr? And for that matter, how much time does he have to do all these acts of tawba? Therefore, I took this to mean that takfeer is not to be done due to his prior reputation but he should be advised that it is mandatory for him to make amends by doing these forms of tawba due to his haram words, not because of kufr being reinstated if not done. Please advise if I've erred.
thank you very much for your last two posts. I think it's better I read through the relevant pages from mu'taqad before answering the questions you posed in your first post. All I ask is time... In the meantime, try to address the questions I also posed in my posts before this one regarding the "protocol" and those who were solicited and did not endorse. Take your time too.
My point has not been understood. What I' am saying ia that if those books which had insulting statements had been published in the Arab world, would have the Deobandi's been accepted as they are? The fact that the Deobandi's do not publish those works in Arabic, and yet continue to do so in the Sub Continent shows they have something to hide. Imam Zahid Kawthari, Abu Ghudda, Shaykh Shaghouri and others, were not aware of the controversial side of Deoband. Again, scholars who unaware of the controversies, as is very clear from their works.
After you have answered the above I would like you to look at the following: http://ia700309.us.archive.org/28/items/rodoud_Ach3ariya3/mo3taqadmontaqad.pdf This will help you in your sincere request, as you may know that this was the prelude to the husam, and it also contains a passage similar to that as the 'hawi'. Read the whole 'Nubuwaat' chapter. If not, then from page 149 to 178. In it you will find a discussion similar to that of Imam Suyuti. Badayuni summarises seven ways in which someone may be considered to have insulted. Ala Hazrat comments on this also. Each one has a different ruling. The cases Imam Suyuti has forwarded can also be placed in those categories. Then we will look at 'furooq' between these categories and analyse the sayings of the Deo elders, and the hukm on that particular category. After you have read Badayuni's and Ala Hazrat's summation, we will continue our discussion.
Imam Suyuti says in the quote you have presented in posts 3 and 6 respectively: فَهَذَا لَا يُكَفَّرُ وَلَا يُعَزَّرُ إِذَا عُرِفَبِالْخَيْرِ قَبْلَ ذَلِكَ ، وَيُقْبَلُ مِنْهُ دَعْوَى سَبْقِ اللِّسَانِ ، وَلَايُكْتَفَى مِنْهُ فِي خَاصَّةِ نَفْسِهِ بِذَلِكَ ، بَلْ عَلَيْهِ أَنْ يُظْهِرَالنَّدَمَ عَلَى ذَلِكَ ، وَيُنَادِيَ عَلَى نَفْسِهِ فِي الْمَلَأِ بِالْخَطَأِ ،وَيُبَالِغَ فِي التَّوْبَةِ وَالِاسْتِغْفَارِ ، وَيَحْثُوَ التُّرَابَ عَلَىرَأْسِهِ ، وَيُكْثِرَ مِنَ الصَّدَقَةِ وَالْعِتْقِ وَالتَّقَرُّبِ إِلَى اللَّهِتَعَالَى بِوُجُوهِ الْبِرِّ ، وَالِاسْتِقَالَةِ مِنْ هَذِهِ الْعَثْرَةِ . And he also says: فَالْجَوَابُ : رَدْعُ هَذَا الرَّجُلِ وَزَجْرُهُ وَهَجْرُهُ فِي اللَّهِ ، وَعَلَيْهِ التَّوْبَةُ وَالْإِنَابَةُ وَالْإِقْلَاعُ Now the question to you, if you have understood Imam Suyuti's statements is: What ruling is this in terms of category? Is it luzum or iltizam of kufr? What is the tafri' of luzum? Imam Suyuti says the one who claims slip of the tongue must make tawbah and istighfar. Question to you is what is this tawbah for in terms of hukm? ie is it for haram, makruh, or what. What if the person refuses to do tawbah, what does his ruling become? When you answer these questions, your understanding of the subject will be made clear, and maybe then we can help you in understanding.
I forgot to address something I wanted to say earlier. Some of the brothers on this forum have utilised the expression of whoever doubts the kufr will in turn fall into kufr themselves. In light of this...I'd like to ask if it has been written anywhere of how many individuals did NOT sign husam or sawarim when their opinion was solicited? Is there a listing of this anywhere? If every single individual that was approached signed it, then please show me evidence that it was indeed a unanimous approval across the board. Secondly, if there were individuals who did not sign it, then was takfeer done upon them due to "man shakka fi kufrihi..." or not? After all they were urdu-speaking, they were scholars, they were contemporaries, they had access to all of the original books and the original men. If not, then why not? What excuse was afforded to them that cannot be afforded to people today, a hundred years later? For all those who uphold this principle of "whoever doubts the kufr has committed kufr", then please come forth and explain this apparent quandary.
Thank you for your reply dear sister. You've mentioned a lot, and so let me go address it. You mentioned that Shaykh Ahmad Raza Khan presented a translation of the Urdu in Arabic to some of the non-Urdu speaking endorsers. It seems as though you are familiar with the process that was undertaken to solicit their opinions. Can you then inform me if you're aware if what was shown to the endorsers was just translations or excerpts in Urdu or was the entire picture and context of the controversial works also presented? Again, as said earlier, what was the protocol of soliciting the endorsements in both husam and sawarim? Was it even mentioned to them that these writers were high-ranking scholars and [FONT=Arial","sans-serif]ذوي الهيئات[/FONT] , if you're familiar with the hadith then you'll surely recognise these words and why it matters and how it should be taken into consideration...as aptly exemplified in al-suyuti's fatwa. The point of mentioning that scholars such as al-shaghouri and others praised their works was not to then equate them to the mu'tazila but to show that unbiased scholars outside the Deobandi-Barelwi paradigm have recognised their worth as outstanding scholars, whether or not brothers like abu hasan want to admit it or not. It's obvious it irks him internally to admit that and that is why I said that he has to either come to terms with that or admit his opinion of such praises is a solitary one. Of course he won't come on the record to do either because he's just not one to do that. But that shouldn't matter to us anyway and it doesn't...the point is to internalise it...verbalising it is not necessary. And since you brought it up, can you, out of curiousity, show if any of the men I listed have perceived the Deobandis to be outside of Ahlus Sunnah, like the mu'tazila? A sincere question because I don't remember: Did Shaykh Ghulam Dastagir sign husam al-haramayn or sawarim?
I get the feeling you don't read but just skim. But anyway, for the third time, yes, I read both Urdu and Arabic. As for "a" above, I find their statements incorrect in the same way that al-suyuti found the statements made by the man incorrect as pasted in posts 3-6 here: http://www.sunniport.com/masabih/showthread.php?t=10451
Some of the endorsers of Husam Al-Haramayn were of Indian background, from Ilahabad who migrated to Makkah Sharif. Imam Ahmad Rida Khan did not present a paraphrase; he presented a translation of the original urdu statements, unlike Al-Muhannad. The Ulema of Haramayn stipulated that whoever utters statements A B and C, he has blasphemed. Now are statements A, B and C in the Deobandi works?? If one does not make takfir shakhsi now a days of the deobandis due to external factors such as 'they may have made tawbah,' etc then that is their choice. But the statements are kufr. Even Nuh Keller acknowledged this. As for the likes of Al-Qutb Al-Shagouri (Rahimahullah) teaching from a deobandi work then, quite frankly, so what? We study Mu'tazili tafsirs and even Nahjul Balagha is taught as a literary piece. That doesn't mean anything. I'la Al-Sunan is a good work but that doesn't mean the authors uncle thanvi didn't blaspheme.. The takfir was made years (1320 ah) after the statements were published: 30 years after Tahzir Al-Nas, about 16 years after Barahin Qati'a and 1 year after Hifz Al-Iman. In the course of those years, the Deobandis were contacted, not only by Ala Hazrat. Why did they not reply? Explain themselves? Meet Ala Hazrat? In fact in 1306 ah, Mawlana Ghulam Dastagir Qasoori debated Ambetwi on his statements. Even after that he did not retract, clarify or present a viable "ta'wil." n.b. Faisla Kun munazara was just a rip off of Shihab Thaqib. A refutation of the latter is available on scribd somewhere.
@Brother_786: Do you read Urdu? Please answer the question, as it will save us time. There are two issues that are being discussed here: a) the actual statements of the four Deobandi elders. b) the takfir of the Deobandi elders. At the moment it is clear that you disagree with 'b'. but whats your opinion on 'a'? InshaAllah we will be patient with you as well.
Okay, I'm actually glad you brought this up about the fact that only a few lines were quoted (in husam al-haramayn) from the said controversial works because the whole book cannot obviously be quoted. In that case, were the entire works provided to each of the endorsers or were they just handed the select paraphrased lines found in husam al-haramayn or just husam al-haramayn itself? Please provide proof for your answer to this direct question as it's a very crucial question as I'm sure you'd agree. With due respect, I will not be satisfied by an answer to this question without proof to show that the endorsers were informed about the entire picture and not just paraphrased excerpts from the works. In other words, what was the protocol used in informing these scholars about the controversial statements when soliciting their opinions? And was this protocol that Shaykh Ahmad Raza Khan used also then used by Shaykh Hashmat Ali Khan when getting endorsements for al-sawarim or was another one used? If the protocol used was as primitive as what the Deobandis used in al-muhannad, by using their self Q&A method and their cryptic solicitation of endorsements, then I say with due respect again, that such endorsements of husam and sawarim are likewise greatly flawed. But before I firmly jump to that conclusion, I will patiently wait for your reply. As for your second comment on my use of "virtually at all costs", then what is obvious by that is the emphasis laid down by the scholars on searching for ambiguities when such searching is warranted. And again, I repeat myself, the pages cited from al-suyuti's fatwa do warrant, in my humble opinion, such searching given who these individuals were and what their backgrounds were and their defence-arguments found in works such as Faisla. And as I've been saying, if you disagree, then feel free to show why a.) the fatwa itself is invalid, or b.) it's inapplicable. You know it's very easy to just accuse me of being ignorant of this book or that book while the same can be said of you. You didn't address all of the things I posted previously so should I just accuse you publicly of being ignorant too? Should I accuse you of showing abject ignorance of al-suyuti's fatwa? Accusations of jahala aside, let's stick with the substance of the matters at hand as opposed to accusations of this or that to one another. For the record, and I take oath, I am neither zamil or ibn arabi. And yes, in all sincerity and seriousness, I would highly welcome and value your recommendations on refutations written on faisla. So please do recommend those works to me if they are available on the www, then if it's not too much to ask, please also provide a link. Refutations in Urdu or Arabic are fine for me. I know you mentioned already that your previous post will be your last post, but I ask that you make an exception and reply at least once more. But if you choose not to, then that's fine too. I've come to terms that when searching for answers in any issue in a sincere manner, one must exercise patience. May Allah azza wa jalla make us from the sabireen.
this will be my last post on this issue for the present. now why are you asking me questions about ta'wil etc? thanawi made statements that are insult and it is our duty to warn people about the blasphemer. turn around the same question - why do you feel obliged to find ta'wil or exonerate thanawi? will you be asked about him if you did not read his books or promote them? this is loaded even if you didn't realise it. see the process was thus:1. statements made/printed 2. ulama criticised, tried to approach thanawi to retract 3. ulama examined whether takfir could be avoided 4. when it was inevitable, takfir made. 5. to justify takfir, a few lines were cited as obviously the whole book could not be quoted. you are ignoring the first four points and taking up from the fifth. can takfir be avoided by making ta'wil of these four-five lines? obviously, you have not read shifa, or have not understood it - otherwise, you would not pose such an objection. -- if you are that zamil guy who posted here as ibn arabi, and wrote to me in private - my answer is still the same. -- virtually all costs? patent nonsense and betrays an abject ignorance of fiqh and usul. go back and read anwar shah's ikfar al-mulHidin if you so love the "shining" deobandis so much. --- it is your time and your wait. i have an intention to debunk faisla-kun and its fallacies, but at this juncture, there are far more important things to do. if you can read urdu, there are a number of refutations by our ulama - i plan to refute the translation of zamil. but certainly not now. just as you said: why should i think that i will be asked about your questions to begin with?
Thank you for your reply dear brother. I'm pleased that you will help me in understanding the deception behind faisla kun munazarah. I will re-read the text in the near future and will post here the relevant portions which I feel warranted an explanation from the Barelwi side. Please be patient with me as it will take time for me to re-read it just as I have been patiently waiting for a reply to the fatwa of al-suyuti I quoted in the thread last year. Secondly, obviously I didn't mean the controversial works of hifzul iman and baraheen, tahzeer, etc. when I said that "these" works have been accepted. I thought that was pretty obvious from my words so I don't know what made you think I would include the very works that are contentious in that group. Look above again to see which works I mentioned that were praised by scholars and commoners alike across the Muslim world from the past as well as in the present. In the meantime, while I look for the relevant passages again in Faisla, perhaps you could spend some time in explaining why the passages I quoted in the other thread from imam al-suyuti's fatwa cannot be applied here. I will be patient inshaAllah.
I would love you to post those excuses from 'Faysla Kun Munazara', and we, with the Will and Might of Allah the Most High, will show you the deception. Then publish 'Hifz ulEiman' and 'Baraheen Qati'a' in Arabic in the Arab world as well. We will see how much acceptance that has. The texts of these books is not even mentioned in 'alMuhannad'. And if our view were an isolated one, what would you say of the two hundred plus signatories of the fatwa in 'alSawarim alHindiya'.
I apologise as I'm not quite skilled at posting. I haven't managed to figure out how to reply to posts by parsing up the poster's words. anyway, hopefully this will suffice for now: you wrote: "exactly. and i don't understand how anyone can side with devbandis if he does this. if you have read shifa and sayf al-maslul; and the many fatawa on blasphemy how can one wager their own faith for a 'good opinion' of others - and for what? between my own faith and that of a good opinion of thanawi, my own faith is dearer to me." I say: I'm not sure I follow...if I'm understanding you correctly then I would reply by saying that it may be as simple as asking why you think you will be asked about Shaykh Thanawi's words to begin with? You will never be asked about what he said in his controversial book in the hereafter. So you need not worry that your "own faith" is in any way at risk. [Idiots that your site's moderation promote (or choose not to censor or censure), like abdal qadir and wadood, seem to think they will be asked about everyone's words and posts on the internet after they are dead. They spend their days reading the latest posts by the same people they brand as innovators. If they are innovators, then why are you still reading their posts?! What is the ruling on commoners reading the works of innovators?! It is from the beauty of one's faith that he leaves that which doesn't concern him...has he or wadood ever heard of this hadith?] you wrote: "Alahazrat has already demonstrated in his 'tamhid' why this is a lame excuse, but specific quotes also will be analysed, Allah willing. if anyone reads only those four lines quoted for justification of takfir and decides that it can be interpreted is seriously deluded..." I say: It may very well be "lame" and it may very well be "four lines", but that's the whole point. The asl is to search for ambiguities to ward off takfeer...not the opposite. I think ibn abideen's words that I posted in the other thread highlight this notion as well as the quotes by various different scholars on avoiding takfeer at virtually all costs. you said: "but as i said, only after his ta'wil is presented and examined we can take a stand. just saying "ta'wil" does not hold water - what kind of ta'wil?" I say: Well since you're asking then I would say it's the same ta'weel that can be deduced from all of the excuses and ambiguities that come forth from faisla kun munazara et. al. If you're asking for specifics then I can post them here if you like. But it seems by your comments above that you plan on addressing this work "in good time" anway, so perhaps I should wait for now? you wrote: "only time will tell how much of it is mere hagiography and how much is real knowledge. but let us not argue about this here now. it is a different discussion and a different platform. we are not shy, but just that we don't have time for secondary issues now." I say: the proof is in the pudding my brother. just open up works like fatawa rizwiya, al-dawlah, al-zubdah, inbaa', jadd al-mumtar, and at the same time open up works like i'laa al-sunan, awjaz, badhl, fath al-mulhim, fayd al-bari, hayat al-sahaba, fazail-e-a'mal...and you will see all of these shining with light upon light...showing the depth of their knowledge and the breadth of their education and erudition. Works like i'la al-sunan have become indispensable for hanafis across the globe...al-shaghouri specifically taught from hayat al-sahaba for a reason....murabit al-hajj praised awjaz al-masalik for a reason....abdul hadi kharsa praised al-dawlah for a reason....habib umar bin hafeez wrote muqaddimas for Shaykh Ahmad's works for a reason....husam al-farfur desired to publish jadd al-mumtar in the arab world for a reason...etc., these works have been accepted by the ummah today, scholars and commoners alike, whether one likes it or not. so either come to terms with it or admit your opinion of them is a solitary one.
in-sha'Allah i will try to answer some of these questions, and some others later. ---- this should be about the issue itself. for example, concerning blasphemy what have ulama said about it? is alahazrat the first to take a stand or are there precedents? looking at it as devbandi-baraylawi is a skewed look. exactly. and i don't understand how anyone can side with devbandis if he does this. if you have read shifa and sayf al-maslul; and the many fatawa on blasphemy how can one wager their own faith for a 'good opinion' of others - and for what? between my own faith and that of a good opinion of thanawi, my own faith is dearer to me. we will examine this later, in sha'Allah again. Alahazrat has already demonstrated in his 'tamhid' why this is a lame excuse, but specific quotes also will be analysed, Allah willing. if anyone reads only those four lines quoted for justification of takfir and decides that it can be interpreted is seriously deluded. read those books in full for the context and the tone of respective authors, the history of the conflict - number of books and fatawa written back and forth - the debates etc. and then ask yourself - how can this be a 'mistake' upon which takfir can be avoided. but if one bases his judgement on contentious passages - and the extent of his research is only those cited three or four lines - which he examines minutely to check whether a ta'wil can be made, yes, his error in judgement will be an admissible excuse for adam-takfir of THIS person. but as i said, only after his ta'wil is presented and examined we can take a stand. just saying "ta'wil" does not hold water - what kind of ta'wil? only time will tell how much of it is mere hagiography and how much is real knowledge. but let us not argue about this here now. it is a different discussion and a different platform. we are not shy, but just that we don't have time for secondary issues now. in-sha'Allah, in good time, lies will be unravelled one after another. similar to the fog of 'hypothetical possibility' and other myths, the existing wide berth of 'different impressions' will become more and more constricted - as the thicket is cleared, it will become more and more difficult for people to hide behind excuses. wa billahi't tawfiq.
thank you for your explanation above. I must've missed it when it was originally posted and only came across it now. If I kindly may, I'd like to ask you to consider looking at the perspective of an "outsider", one who has no affiliation to the Barelwis or the Deobandis, yet understands both Urdu and Arabic and is a practicing Muslim in the sense that he adheres to Sunni islam as learnt from its scholars. Having not been born or raised in the Subcontinent, he hears about this conflict regarding the two schools and begins to assess the positions of both sides in an unbiased manner based upon his own knowledge, research, and consultation of scholars outside the Deobandi-Barelwi paradigm. He sees and hears great things in terms of taqwa-chocked biographies, amazing scholarly works virtually in discipline, lives full of dedication to the religion, mujahada, tasawwuf, karamat, muqallids in fiqh, endorsements from "outsider" scholars that can fill the skies, etc. regarding BOTH the Deobandis and Barelwis (or at least Shaykh Ahmad Raza Khan). He then reads the original controversial writings in their original language and original publications. He then reads hussam al-haramayn as well as faisla kun munazara. He then consults the scholars belonging to both schools for their "personal" assessment and "hears them out", so to speak. He then goes back to see what can be made of his findings by further consulting scholars outside the paradigm and scholars of repute who existed prior to the major figures of both the Deobandis and Barelwis. He comes across the statements written by giants as stated in before in posts 2-6 at this thread: http://www.sunniport.com/masabih/showthread.php?t=10451 After all this, if he comes to the conclusion based upon the above analysis, that takfeer can be avoided, then would it be a mistake? If so, how so? Please only address the analysis given above and make use of quotations from scholars who are giants and prior to the conflict. In other words, wadood and abdal qadir, stay out, since none of your posts have any substanace and just a spewing of najasa with not a single reference to scholarly works but your nufus.
these are either senseless zealots or cunning opportunists who wish to bask in some borrowed glory. or these could be wahhabis/deobandis. reminds me of the battle of siffin. 'mufti' misbahi appears to be dodgy. the same video has be uploaded under various offensive usernames. similarly, the bold claims made about the passage not being in fatawa ridawiyyah and the flimsy arguments in the same video shows that these people merely wish to spread fitnah and have no principles whatsoever. this increases the possibility that wahhabis/deobandits/rafidis/ qadiyanis maybe working to create dissent. divide and defeat. as always.
Just to clarify, this video has nothing to do with thesunniway, the uploader just decided to stick the logo on there for some reason.. And in the above clip, the Misbahi sahib says some disgusting things, and it is clear who they are aimed at.
