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

What is the difference between these two?

 

this is actually a good point against muhannad and refutes the claim of its proponents that scholars of haramayn 'were disturbed' and 'asked for clarifications' which resulted in muhannad. those who answered seem to be oblivious of who asked those questions - why did they not mention in those attestations that "yes, we are now satisfied. you have answered OUR queries."

moreover, this is a loaded question. it has to be emphasised that only two scholars who have attested husam al-haramayn figure in the attestations of muhannad. of course, there are two others but by muhannad's own admission, they took back those 'attestations' citing an excuse.

----
shaykh asrar's comment in the clip is an inconsequential slip; and except for the name of the book, what he says is correct - devbandis use the attestations for kamal al-tathqif (of barzanji) as attestations for muhannad.

 

Clarification

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMNVY-fjGWk

The Shaykh mentiones at 51:55 the book Gayatul Mamul, and the introductions for that book were added to Al Muhannad, but in The Killer Mistake p.136 it states the book was Kamal al-Tathqif wat Taqwim, and also mentioned on the same page is that the questions were not asked by the scholars of Haramayn, if that is the case then why didn't the Ulema of Haramayn point this out before writing attestations for Al Muhannad, can someone clarify these points? Jazakullah.

 

of course, full responsibility goes to him.

 

Keller is far from innocent and the blame cannot be shifted to Faraz and Hamza.

Keller is responsibile for his own actions and on the face of it the article IKT was penned by him until proven otherwise.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

i am not 140 years old.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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!

 

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?




---
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.

 

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

 

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"?

 

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

 

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.

 

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'