Sajid Khan Deobandi refuted

Discussion in 'Refutation' started by AR Ahmed, Jan 9, 2021.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. AR Ahmed

    AR Ahmed Well-Known Member

    Some Deobandis quote the book Tawali al-Anwar and Sharh Maqasid and Musamarah (see video of Sajid Khan at 1:06:00 onwards)

    The answer is here in Qam ul Mubin (Arabic) by Sayyidi Alahazrat رضى الله عنه - explaining Sharh al Mawaqif and Siyalkuti and Musayarah

    https://ia800805.us.archive.org/8/items/ShaykhAkhtarArabic/Al Qam ul Mubin.PDF
    https://archive.org/details/QamaAlMubinLiAmalAlMukadhdhibin/page/n41/mode/2up





    Also
     
    SaadSohail likes this.
  2. SaadSohail

    SaadSohail Active Member

    Please brother, don't use that term while addressing me. I don't deserve it. By Allah, I do not come near it. We shouldn't be using these "noble" titles so loosely.
     
  3. Khanah

    Khanah New Member

    Jazak Allah khair shaykh
     
  4. SaadSohail

    SaadSohail Active Member

    There's no need to delve further than this.
    The thing is this issue wouldn't even be brought up if the zaleels (Deobandiyah) stopped looking at every dispute among the giants of ilmul kalam as a sign of validation of their kufr belief "Imkan Kidhb". They are deluded, hallucinate and bely the esteemed ULEMA. There's NO DISPUTE AMONG AHLUS SUNNAH (ALL ASHARIS AND ALL MATURIDIS) as far as Imkan Kidhb is concerned. It's MUHAL BIL DHAT by AQAL and CONSENSUS.
     
  5. AR Ahmed

    AR Ahmed Well-Known Member

    Understood. I understand what you're saying now.
     
  6. Khanah

    Khanah New Member

    Shaykh,

    Regarding the very minority of Asharis who held that Khulf Al Waid is rationally possible: how could they justify this?

    Surely, if Allah states that disbelievers will enter hell, and He does not then enter them into hell, then the statement would not have been true (Allah is above such things and I seek refuge in the Most Truthful!).

    A statement can either be true or false, so how could Khulf Al Waid be anything other than rationally impossible? Just saying that removal of a threat shows magnanimity doesn't change the fact that the threat was not carried out as promised and therefore wasn't true (Allah is above such things and I seek refuge in the Most Truthful!).

    How did these scholars try and get around that? I understand if you do not wish to delve further in case this leads to complicated proofs that are not necessary for laymen such as myself to see, I was just confused as to how they reached that conclusion.

    Jazak Allah khair
     
  7. SaadSohail

    SaadSohail Active Member

    It is not disputed, that some asharis did deem khulf-al waid as mumkin bil dhaat (Rationally possible).
    It is also not disputed that All maturidis and Majority of asharis criticized them severely for that.

    I find shaykh abu Adam's hesitation, in calling it not even an opinion (Khulf al waid) among Ashari school, is some what telling (read comments section). Some scholars often do this because they do not want to give impression to the readers that it is allowed for someone to say that there is a "valid" difference/ ikhtilaf of opinion in such issue. I have also seen a similar attitude from Shaykh Saeed Foudeh in yet another issue of dispute among asharis pertaining to SIFAT of Allah and the position held by Imam Razi (Rh) and Imam Saad Taftazani (RH) was criticized by the majority of asharis.

    ______

    In so far as the deobandiyah are concerned, there are so many blunders they commit in order to save their face such as trying to hide themselves under the issue of Khulf Al waid, but it does NOT grant them any cover. It exposes their "sophistry' and deceit. Because those who did adopt the position of khulf al waid, deemed it as rationally impossible for a Allah to tell a lie.

    Their approach is inherently flawed as well. First they are maturidis (and maturidis reject khulf al waid) , secondly no amount of quoting any "isolated sentence" in a book or misrepresenting any scholar is going to remove them from the absurdity/kufr they have falled themselves into. Taqleed in Aqeedah is HARAM.

    Shaykh abu Adam makes a similar point here.

    ___________

    You also wrote: firstly you mention sh Sa'id foudeh hafizahullah and sh abu adam naruji. But you fail to delineate how khulf al wa'id and this other position (pardoning of kuffar) differ.

    I did explain it. I think you missed it. It's on post #9.
    For the sake of clarity, I will mention here.

    What the scans say:
    When Asharis say it is rationally possible and contingently impossible for a Kafir to enter Jannah, what they mean by that is, Allah could have willed otherwise (i.e. decree the entry of kafir in jannah) BUT this is NOT something He has willed and that's why it is impossible (contingently> due to DIVINE WILL) that a Kafir enters Jannah.

    It simply means that the decision of kafir staying in Hell fire forever is ALLAH'S decision. He could have made some other decision but He didn't. And He never will, because He informed us of His decree (a kafir will stay in hell forever) and it is rationally impossible that His decree changes or He tells a lie.

    ___________


    The position of Khulf (Al Waid and Wad):
    This position demands something which is rationally impossible. Namely a change in Allah's decree or that His informing us of a lie (Astagfirullah).

    It essentially means: Can Allah change His Decree ?

    Decree=He has willed Kafir will be in hell fire forever

    Meaning: Can Allah will something (a Kafir will stay in Hell fire forever) and then Will (A kafir will not stay in Hell fire forever)?

    ^This is absurd because it entails either Taghaur of will, or that it necessitates He told a lie when informed of His decree, or that He willed two contradictory propositions to be true at the same time or that infinite period of time elapsed (that which is by virtue without an end came to an end).
    ___________


    You would in sha Allah see there's a HUGE difference between what the scans say and what these positions necessitate.

    ___________________________________________
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2021 at 3:00 PM
    AR Ahmed likes this.
  8. AR Ahmed

    AR Ahmed Well-Known Member

    Also you have a point that Maturidis do not allow khulf al wa'id

    As it was said:

    "notice here, that the deobandis claim themselves to be maturidis and there is no maturidi text that allows the latter [khilaf al-wa`yid] either"
     
  9. AR Ahmed

    AR Ahmed Well-Known Member

    ** If you define khulf al-wa`id you did (entailing kidhb), it is muhal bi dhaat .
     
  10. AR Ahmed

    AR Ahmed Well-Known Member

    I spoke to an alim (who is a graduate of Jami`a Na`imiyya Lahore) and he said your position is also right.
    Mine is right in a way. Depends on how you define khulf al-wa`id

    If you define khulf al-wa`id (khalf al-wa`id?) you did, it is muhal bi dhaat.
    If you define khulf al-wa'id in such a way that it is actually generosity, the hukm is imtina'
    li ghayrihi

    Addition: What i quoted is from Sharh al-Aqa'id but is also in Sharh al-Maqasid (5:152).

    Imam al-Bajuri writes:

    “As for khulf fi’l waýīd, Ashárīs considered it possible; because this foregoing of promise is not a flaw, but rather considered as magnanimity (mercy)”.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2021 at 3:43 AM
  11. SaadSohail

    SaadSohail Active Member

    1. Brother what's wrong with that? We the BRELVIYAH are upon HAQ. And my point is only to demonstrate the TRUTH without committing any ERROR. Whether you refute the wretched zaleel deobandiyah, wahabiyah or any other deviant group, I will support you. All i am saying is to present the argument without "rebutting" your own position or in this case, making flawed inferences.


    2) Why should I? When it is irrelevant to this discussion in the first PLACE.

    3) Fair enough. The SCANS under question DO NOT PROVE KHULF AL WAID. That is all what I wanted to say. It is HUGE mistake to say it DOES. TO DEMONSTRATE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THE SCANS are saying and what khulf waid is: THE ONLOOKER is advised to read posts 7,8 and 9. Multiple readings may be required.

    4) My point is: Khulf al waid is the view of "some" asharis which was HEAVILY criticized by Majority of Asharis and Maturidis. I have not denied this. But this (Khulf al waid) is not the position I adopt based on the reasons given in the previous posts.

    5) Alhamdollilah, i regard both of them (khulf al waid and khulf al wad) to be MUHAL BIL DHAT. This is the view of the MAJORITY.

    |In the end, I apologize for the heat of some of my statements and words used."

    It's alright brother. I shouldn't have lost my cool as well. I also apologize from you for being harsh. I should have also mentioned that none of the posts that I wrote previously was an attempt to put you down or degrade you. I will still apologize for any sentiments I hurt unintentionally.

     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2021 at 10:30 PM
  12. AR Ahmed

    AR Ahmed Well-Known Member


    1. You inserted yourself into this conversation when nobody asked your opinion.
    2. You did not answer the quote of Sharh al Aqa'id
    3. I did not say the scan "proves" khulf al wa'id- I said they are regarding this issue,i.e I was making ta'wil for what Sajid, Mujahid and Abu Ayyub present
    4. You may say Shaykh Akhtar Rida رحمة الله تعلى عليه negated khulf al wa'ad and its wuqu in the recording I sent- thats not our subject.

    5. If you follow the view of mumtaniy bid dhat for both, thats fine.

    In the end, I apologize for the heat of some of my statements and words used.

    Wasalam
     
  13. SaadSohail

    SaadSohail Active Member

    Poor you. This is not going to cut the deal for you.


    Talk about apples and you will have oranges.

    BOTH ARE RATIONALLY IMPOSSIBLE, according to MAJORITY of Asharis and ALL MATURIDIS. This is the POINT.

    Moreover,

    What you had to prove was:
    The scans PROVE Khulf Al Waid.


    THEY DON'T.

    So i can understand your jumping around like a bird to side-track. :)

     
  14. AR Ahmed

    AR Ahmed Well-Known Member

  15. AR Ahmed

    AR Ahmed Well-Known Member

    As you wish
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2021 at 9:32 PM
  16. SaadSohail

    SaadSohail Active Member

    I will ask you to demonstrate where I have committed an error.
    I will also ask you to demonstrate where did I make a "mistake" when I said the scans that you CLAIM prove KHULF-AL WAID is INVALID.

    Your adhominems will not be entertained.

    AHMAQ is someone who claims :

    1) Rational possibility of a KAFIR in JANNAH (contingent impossibility)

    IS EQUAL TO:

    2) “Khulf al-Wa`id,” i.e. to threaten something, and then not do it.

    Even a NOVICE in KALAM cannot make such a mistake. It is essentially a NON-SEQUITUR. (Does not logically follow).

    I am done here.
     
  17. AR Ahmed

    AR Ahmed Well-Known Member

    Ah yes the fake mutakallim comes in. Clearly you're an imbecile.

    firstly you mention sh Sa'id foudeh hafizahullah and sh abu adam naruji. But you fail to delineate how khulf al wa'id and this other position (pardoning of kuffar) differ.
     
  18. SaadSohail

    SaadSohail Active Member

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

    I would advise you to go back to the fundamentals. Nothing that I wrote "CONTRADICT" what you have brought here.

    Moreover, what I have written previously is NOT from my "own self" so your claim "over you" is a meaningless statement, devoid of substance.

    The scans that I have highlighted have got NOTHING TO DO WITH KHULF-AL WAID.

    The contradiction is OBVIOUS.

    1) The scans "CLEARLY" say "The pardon of KUFFAR is rationally possible and contingently impossible" is the POSITION OF THE MAJORITY (I.E. ALL ASHARIS).

    2) KHULF-AL-WAID is the POSITION of "SOME" ASHARIS, NOT ALL ASHARIS. The Majority of ASHARIS criticized those who said "KHULF-AL WAID" is possible.

    It is NONSENSE to CONFUSE (2) with (1) or EQUATE 2 WITH 1.

    Your approach is inherently flawed because your fundamentals are flawed.

    You have no idea what you are talking about.

    That was my POINT.
     
  19. AR Ahmed

    AR Ahmed Well-Known Member

    Please note this portion from Sharh al Aqa'id


    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”

    Furthermore regarding wuqu', Allama Taftazani رحمة الله تعلى عليه says:


    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
     
  20. AR Ahmed

    AR Ahmed Well-Known Member

    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
     

Share This Page