faisla kun munazara

Subhan Allah!

Brother Abdullah Sabri Chishti has posted this on his site:

http://www.falaah.co.uk/books/info-about-books/207-sunni-deobandi-ikhtilaf-ka-munsifana-jaiza

 

A I noted above he appears to harbour the false notion that faisla-kun munazara is, as its dubious title suggests, the final or decisive word on the subject. The man is either a greater ignoramus than we give him credit for or a hypocrite par excellence. At any rate his readership, and perhaps he too, will be in for a rude awakening when a comprehensive and irrebuttable response is served up to them in the English tongue.

They will have to go back to the tradition of their disgraceful and disgraced forbears and starting dodging the issue with more lies, errors and distortions.

 

http://barelwism.wordpress.com/

hahaha.... gotta love these nuh keller clones who settle the world's greatest disputes on mere internet essays. so the desis on the deo side should stop the presses and revert back all queries to this idiot's post, rather than bothering to design crafty excuses in Urdu.

 

Can anyone name/list direct refutations of Faisala kun Munazara?

 

The ignorance of the author of those sites is self-evident whereas with the Barelwism site the sophistry is a touch more subtle making the need for categorical refutation all the more important and pressing.

 

lol, some poor diljala wahabi dog is even trying to unleash his fury on Shaykh Asrar Rashid ... obviously Asrar Rashid has caused a major heartburn to these dogs of hellfire

http://asrarrashid.wordpress.com/

(it is either very similar or the same person who runs the other virtual dog pound http://www.asharis.com/creed/index.cfm)

it's about time some english speaking Sunni got up the nose of these blasted anthropomorphists

 

A translation of an Urdu text would do just fine.

I'm not worried about the hypocrites but the innocent lay person whom they entangle in their web of deceit.

Can anyone name some urdu refutations?

 

Do you think that even if there is a refutation (in english, there are many in urdu) will benefit the dogs of hellfire?

But don't worry, the lions of ahlussunah will not let these wounded dogs get a sound sleep ever. InshaAllah.

 

The cur from the heretical WordPress site is referring to Abu Hasan's above posts as ramblings and is laboring under the apprehension that faisla-kun munazara is an irrefutable text.

This imbecile is barking up the wrong tree and a formal full-on refutation of this baneful tract would serve as a fitting slap on his face

 

Tamhid-e-iman is exactly what numani sets out to refute in faisla, esp with regard to gangohi's fatwa on wuqu'-e-kizb

 

I read up to his refutation the takfir of Gangohi. He claims that the fatwa of wuqu-e-kizb does not exist and that alaHazrat was quick to do takfir before ascertaining the "facts". Any comments on Numani's reasoning here?

 

i am sure the deeply immersed devbandis will point out that the difference between "encompassing knowledge" and "encompassing knowledge of the world" is being discussed. apparently, according to numani, alahazrat mentioned the former whereas all khalil said was the latter, thereby deceiving arab ulama.

charges and because numani told you so, just believe it.

---
all these additional qualifiers, mutlaq, intrinsic, given are all drawn out of thin air to use where necessary. keep adding and removing attributes to make the argument sound - is there any basis or consistency? who cares and as i said, who's looking?

---
but a disclaimer is in order: faisla kun should be refuted from the urdu original and here i was relying only on the translation (which is tweaked and massaged btw) and by those comments i don't mean that i agree to his citations or that i don't have any other issues with that text. i was only showing the inconsistency of the text in a random page - and a detailed analysis will show far more than that. wa billahi't tawfiq.

---
now let us go back to numani's accusation from the quote above (vide translation on p60)

the translator helps numani a little by skewing the phrase: "encompassing earthly knowledge"

what khalil wrote was: "ilm e muHiT e zameen"

and alahazrat in husam (according to numani mistranslated the above) "bi `ilmi'l arD al-muHiT"
(see the attached image from this text.)

---
numani shamelessly hacks and whacks quotes and with chutzpah oozing from the seams, wonders why sunnis do not question alahazrat.

throwing intrinsic/granted, absolute/confined where convenient for his explanation is something else, accusing alahazrat of misrepresenting is another.

---
khalil was talking about ilm-e-muHiT-e-zameen and saying

1) satan has this, RasulAllah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam does not

2) the expanse of satan's knowledge is proved by nuSuS, RasulAllah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is not

3) proving it for RasulAllah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is shirk, but for satan is not.

---
notice that khalil was saying:

notice that he uses the word "yeh wus'at" - but still numani says khalil was talking of intrinsic knowledge concerning RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam and 'granted' for satan.

secondly, according to numani, satan has been 'granted' this knowledge; why can't this be 'granted' to RasulAllah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

numani himself decides that it is not important knowledge* and hence his straw man argument: if RasulAllah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam does not have that knowledge it does not mean that shayTan knows more. [just ilm-e-muHiT-e-zameen nothing to rave about; nothing fancy. shaytan has it, the Master SallAllahu `alayhi wa sallam doesn't - astaghfirullah, wa'l iyadhu billah]


-----------------
*apparently, he seems to be in the know - perhaps by his teacher's teacher satan himself. then how can numani decide which knowledge is good or bad or valid or invalid for RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam? is it via any naSS qaTyi or merely qiyas-e-fasidah? [afaik, in urdu as in arabic, qiyas is muzakkar - but you cannot argue with them; they, whose association with devband imparted knowledge of urdu to RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam - al-iyadhu billah, astaghfirullah - i merely cite the words of a blasphemer and i abhor citing this and i will do a hundred times istighfar for citing them.]

 

again just as a test, i annotated one page just now - after i made my last post below.

 

as you note:

only if that layman is also stupid that he cannot tell the difference between a thousand pounds and a thousand pakistani rupees. "after all, both are notes of thousands..." or the person is blind and cannot tell the difference light and darkness.

for'ex: check the analogy on page 57.

i am giving back the same coin.

---
a quick gist: nomani is trying to prove that khalil's analogy about the angel of death/satan and RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam does not mean that the Master's knowledge is lesser. so he has all kinds of analogies where he tries to befuddle the statement of khalil that he said: "if this is not shirk then which part of tawhid is this?" and tries to attack alahazrat for this.

and his tour de grace is this citation from anwar e sati'ah:

after citing this, numani comments:

notice the switch and notice how he falls in his own pit; we will come to that shortly after numani's gloating:

so we ask devbandis - what is your opinion about Allah sub'Hanahu wa ta'ala? according to numani sahib, if He is not present in those impure places, He should not have knowledge of that place. and according to his own rule, to have knowledge of that place, He should be present in that place. [that is the implication, otherwise what else does it mean?] i won't be surprised if they bring the imkan-rule here: if creation can do it and Creator cannot, then the Creator's Power is diminished.

thus, do you believe like mu'tazilah that certain minutiae are outside Divine Knowledge? or do you believe like the Hululis that He is present even in impure places? al-iyadhu billah, wa la Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah.

what has knowledge got to do with being physically present?

----
the book of numani is "the decisive gloat" or the "the expansive bloat". i have made a note for myself, that we should look at it in detail after i fulfil a few commitments now. in-sha'Allah wa bi tawfiqih.

---
i picked a random page here to comment. i read the book long ago, when i was in my early twenties and had laughed at the powers of his reasoning. i didn't know at that time that he was a major devbandi 'munazir'. if this is their best, i can assure you, we can win any munazarah and trounce any munazirah.

 

The translation of this text can be found below.

This certainly requites a rebuttal in english. This will serve a purpose for many of us who are not conversant with urdu and cannot access its refutations. I, in particular, look forward to seeing Numani's arguments put to rest, some of them seem highly convincing especially as far as the layman is concerned.

http://archive.org/details/TheDecisiveDebatefaislaKunMunazraByShaykhMuhammadManzoorNomanir.a