Featured Book Release : The Killer Mistake -A critique of Nuh Keller's "Iman, Kufr and Takfir"

Discussion in 'Aqidah/Kalam' started by Unbeknown, May 2, 2017.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    will faraz give translation of the article 'imam e ahlussunah or Muhammed Alavi Maliki' to keller? or at least show the following if he wants to save his time?

    shayk Muhammed Alavi declared mushrik.png
     
  2. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    keller, the defender of deobandies, wrote
    and the die-hard-deobandi here acknowledges that
    it is a misfortune for keller that even those he defends so blindly do not agree with him.

    this is my personal opinion which i had made up after reading keller's IKT, and strongly feel that it is now corroborated after TKM (though sidi abu Hasan nowhere in the book said or insinuated it), that the article IKT was actually written by keller's two murids, and keller only gave it some color. I feel that deobandies had noticed some shortcomings in him and intelligently used him for their agenda. I admit i cannot present proofs for it, but this is what i strongly feel.
     
  3. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    If they do not consider the explicit meaning as kufr then they would immediately become kafir, as it would mean denying the fundementals of faith, however if they don't understand the statement due to being complicated and in old urdu then they won't. This is how i understand it, and if it is wrong then i'll take it back and correct myself as i am not fond of takfir either, just like any other prudent sunni who is cautious of takfir.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 27, 2013
  4. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    What I meant is:

    Just as a Mufti looks at a statement and even if the first meaning that comes to mind is one that warrants takfir he deliberates as to whether other meanings exist.

    I understand that the deobandit's kufr is explicit and an urdu speaker's first impression will definitely be that they are blasphemous. But what if he tries to see if he can avoid takfir. Will this bring the kufr upon himself?

    Because of this I fear to quote those despicable passages to those who are completely clueless about them. Should we expect a person to immediately and unequivocally class them as kufr statements? what if they say that they are indeed wrong but dither about terming them as kufr?
     
  5. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i am not 140 years old.
     
  6. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    Final question:

    From the time that AlaHazrat first read the Deobandi's kufr statements until the time that he issued the fatwa of kufr, how did he view them. Did he consider them potentially kufr and tried to find all possible interpretations for them and only when he was convinced that there was no valid tawil that could save the day for the deobandis did he issue the fatwa of kufr?

    If this is so then should a layman be given time, when first presented with these staements, to realize that they have no valid interpretation before he is expected to deem them as kufr?

    JazakAllah.

    Wassalaam.
     
  7. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    next time you talk to faraz, ask him where he found the fatwa of mufti jalaluddin sahib and we want to make sure that faraz did not really miss out anything from what he quoted in keller's IKT.

    unfortunately, given distortions of his shaykh, nuh keller, we are under the impression that faraz also skipped some lines in his translation as pointed out in TKM.

    ----
    tell that to jawhari. given below is from SiHaH of jawhari.
     

    Attached Files:

  8. Yasser Rashid

    Yasser Rashid Active Member

    I just wanted to mention that I briefly discussed for 5 minutes with Faraz rabbani the issue of kidhb/kadhib and he tried proving for the whole time why it's wrong to say kidhb. He was adamant that the correct and only pronunciation is kadhib.
    The reason why he wouldn't allow me to proceed to the actual issue is- I believe- because he deep down acknowledged the flaws inherent within this decrepit belief.

    Having said that I believe it's sheer ignorance on his contemporary Karmalis part by trying to prove kidhb based on the distinction of kalam nafsi/lafzi. That is because the latter is simply a ta'bir of the former. That is its an "expression" of the pre eternal speech in contingent form and that's all.
    Having said that there's no room for addition or deletion within the latter due to it being an exact copy of the former so to speak.
    The kalam works are replete in dispelling the notion of addition or deletion within kalam lafzi as some may try to prove based on its contingent nature.

    Karmali went quite after some lengthy discussion with sidi munawwar.

    That's the imkan kidhb issue.

    As for disparaging the messenger (peace be upon him) its elucidated by imam subki after an elaborate discussion on examples of people disrespecting and then being forgiven with the words: "fal haqqu lahu": the right is (only) his (salAllahu alayhi wa sallam). This line alone proves how Nuh Keller placed out of context the whole passage. And this line alone refutes his whole argument.

    I haven't yet read sidi Abu hassans work but I'm quite sure he mentions this point.

    May Allah grant him excellence in every thing he does.
    Amin! Bijaah al nabiyy al Amin
    SallAllahu alayhi wasallam!
     
  9. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    if you make wild accusations which you cannot prove; or cannot present strong and convincing reasons that led to your belief, you must pause and think - how will i answer this if i am questioned on judgement day?

    there would be little difference between you (sunnis) and certain 'sufis' - who consider themselves above things, which they themselves commit.

    ---
    secondly, we must not be bothered about the personal lives or personal choices of those we criticise. why should anyone be worried about the livelihood of keller or what he eats for dinner? it could be from his own private purse or his rich murids might do that of their own free-will and love for their shaykh.

    ---
    otherwise, the same accusation might be levelled at other sunni shaykhs - many rich murids invite them and consider it their good-fortune [sa'adat] to serve their shaykhs.

    insinuating that either the shaykh is hungry for dunya, or that the murid is just looking for a way to spend his 'haram' income, is false accusation without proof. and you have zero benefit in meddling with that. have you examined the accounts of all those who subscribe to, say, 'the noble road' suHbah?

    [​IMG]


    ---
    unless, it is of a common concern, such as public charity and donations - such as solicited and collected by minhaj of tahir jhangvi - and under the auspices of such an organisation, a book of poetry by his son is released. even in such a case, we question and demand public accountability. and we advise the public not to waste their money on such a cult which organises bhajan conferences and invites polytheists to proclaim their false gods.

    criticism should be restricted to opinions that are of public concern - such as related to sunni thought and that which is naSiHah for common muslims.

    Allah ta'ala knows best.
     
  10. sherkhan

    sherkhan Veteran

    Who is the ignorant preacher being referred here (page 64)?

     
  11. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    please do not be abusive or call names. please be objective and only say that which can be publicly observed or proved.

    before you post, ask yourself, is this just my feeling or do I have proof for what I say?
     
  12. sherkhan

    sherkhan Veteran

    On page 52(pdf)/47 of the book, Keller is quoted as:

    Although the role of Faraz and Hamza is elaborated in the latter section of the book, it is obvious these squires were the "corrupt person" bringing hearsay evidence against AlaHazrat. Did he "verify" it? How Keller falls in the same trap (i.e. "accepting hearsay evidence") that he accuses others of!

    Now Keller stands exposed for his "ignorance"; but will he "come to regret what [he] has done"?
     
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  13. harun

    harun Active Member

    The Istiftā’a on page 162 of the pdf needs to be sent to a qualified Mufti regarding Zayd, Amr and Baker.
     
  14. Aqib alQadri

    Aqib alQadri Veteran

    The fatwa of Hussam ul Haramain applies on Keller: Keller has lost his Imaan just like the latter Deobandis who tried to defend Khalil, Gangohi, Thanwi and Nanotwi.

    Keller's response? - he will shamelessly carry on as if nothing happened.

    Allah does not guide the unjust: especially those who insult His beloved - their hearts' get sealed.
     
  15. harun

    harun Active Member

    ilm al ghayb

    Khalil in his Muhannad took 23 endorsements from Shaykh Barzanji's (rahmatullah alayh) book. As stated by Mawlana abu Hasan this 'association fallacy' was missed by Keller.

    Would the content of Shaykh Barzanji's book equate to Shirk according to Khalil and Rashid? He borrowed endorsements from a book of a scholar both himself and Rashid would consider an apostate.

    Would Khalil's stance on Ilm al Ghayb in the Muhannad render himself an apostate by his own pen in India?

    Maybe Keller will give the following excuse?

    'Whether this mistranslation was due to Khalil’s honest misapprehension of his own and Gangohi’s position, or directly carrying into Arabic a similar Urdu phrase without understanding the resultant nuance in Arabic, or some other reason, is not clear'
     
  16. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    No, it is not. Do you know why?

    Dil-e-Àādā ko raza tayz namk ki dhun hay
     
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  17. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    abu Hasan has done a superlative job. his ability to present information via tables, charts, infographics etc. is extremely useful and makes it easy to digest and understand.

    it was said Alahazrat was hasty in takfir - the table on p.86 tears this fallacy from the roots.

    it was said muhannad is an answer to husam al-haramayn [don't know whether to laugh or cry] - the table on p.151 shatters this myth. if anyone presents muhannad ever again to defend their 'akabirin' after seeing this table, then does shamelessness have any bounds?

    his analysis of the deobandi belief about ilm al-ghayb is truly implicating, i.e. the argument was never about the extent of knowledge, it was that the deobandis totally denied ilm al-ghayb for rasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

    this book is a notable addition to the list of refutations of deobandi passages. usually, books tend to get translated from urdu to english but this is a rare case where this needs to be in urdu so that the whole of the subcontinent can see the overwhelming evidence that supports the stance that Alahazrat adopted.

    i also want to mention qadi iyad, imam subki, imam ghazzali, even ibn taymiyyah, imam haytami et al - that they showed what the honour of rasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam means.

    i see this book as the final nail in the deobandi coffin. any unbiased reader will certainly send damnation upon the passages that thanwi et al wrote and defended.
     
  18. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    @Noori (post 20)

    of course brother, i mean that i am done skimming and now reading properly.

    as for the abominable kellerian principle, which he pulled out of thin air, what i mean is that it should be LITERALLY made to stand out in multiple places, and it should be stated very clearly that it has no foundation in the shari3ah and is keller's own concoction!

    see this article for example by mark hanson (pages 3 and 10, of 21, for example) where he mentions key heretical bullet points in all caps, larger font, like adverts

    http://www.mujahideenryder.net/pdf/WhoAretheDisbelievers.pdf

    furthermore, i think there should be a separate 1-2 page executive summary of the book written by one of the readers and not the people who contributed to it (abu Hasan, Aqdas, et al) that should summarize the book well and challenge and stimulate any disillusioned mureeds of keller.

    as for the cult leaders and members,

    سَوَاءٌ عَلَيْهِمْ أَأَنذَرْتَهُمْ أَمْ لَمْ تُنذِرْهُمْ
     
  19. sherkhan

    sherkhan Veteran

    Definitely a very profound subject. The book elucidates all difficult concepts and legal precepts but it's still not an easy reading for beginners (but is more suited for intermediate level).
     
  20. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    the point is that will keller or his worshipers bother to read it? whether their ignorgance, teaching without reading, giving fatwa on mere heresy, and slandering elder sunni scholars to get recognition among juhala will continue or true sufism will shine by admitting mistakes and blunders.

    i really wish if keller demonstrate even an iota of sufism he preaches to others.

    is it not fair that we only request him and his murids to read and listen to sunni responses? if they don't then it is a clear evidence against him that his agenda was something else rather than finding a resolution of the conflict; and there was no honesty behind his IKT, and whatever he said in the article was (f)actually a mirror of his own shortcomings.
     

Share This Page