Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Ridawi Press' started by Baba_07, Jul 25, 2022.
Salaam, The link in website is not working to download the book.
the book was being revised and i had other things to do. in sha'Allah, the second edition will be released soon.
wa billahi't tawfiq.
Someone please share the download link for this book
Something that I have discussed with some local ulema. I am attaching the relevant scans here as well from Fatwa Fazul Rasool.
It would be great If Abu Hassan expands on this in his upcoming revised editon/version in sha Allah.
1) The Birth of a Prophet After Prophet Mohammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is Mustahil Aradi and NOT mustahil Dhati.
What this means is that Allah could have willed otherwise BUT since He has informed us of His Decree that Prophet Mohammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is the Last Prophets we know then that the birth of a Prophet after himصلى الله عليه وسلم WILL NEVER EVER be.
2) The Pardon of Kafir is Mustahil Aradi and NOT mustahil Dhati (according to the Asharis).
What this means is that Allah could have willed otherwise BUT since He has informed us of His Decree that mushrikeen will be in hellfire forever, we know the Pardon of a Kafir will NEVER EVER be.
3) Nazir of Prophet Mohammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is Mustahil Dhati.
What this means is that idea of his Equal is rationally absurd and intrinsically impossible.
1) Prophet Mohammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is the last of the Prophets (seal of Prophets).
2) To claim that there could be another Khatimul Ambiya (Seal of Prophets).
3) is rationally absurd. Because Affirmation of (2) would imply negation of (1). (This also entails KUFR)
4) This absurdity is similar to saying 2+2=5 or something is existent and NOT existent at the same time.
Shariah Board of America (Deobandis) affirming the ugly belief of lying being included in Divine Power here.
Here Faraz gives the correct answer and explanation to rational possibilities / impossibilities...so why the 180 on the issue of lying...
maybe needs to be reworded. will pay attention to it in the upcomind revised edition.
It is says words and letters are accidents, and then further below it says according to Imām al-Ashʿarī kalām nafsī "includes both words and meanings and are Pre-eternal."
However, we know 'letters and sounds cannot be beginninglessly eternal. Not a single one of them, and not a series of them' (Shaykh Abu Adam).
I'm curious to know what books of aqidah do the deos teach at their seminaries. Do they actively teach such nonsense? Or do they teach from traditional Sunni texts but in a twisted manner? Or do they skip the topic altogether?
Ya Hayyo, Ya Qayyoom, Ya Awwalo, Ya Aakhir
the answer is an unequivocal, absolute, clear, unambiguous and an emphatic 'IMPOSSIBLE'.
al-iyadhu billah - only a filthy mind and a heart in which iman has not entered will ask such a question, unless it is a just rhetorical question to emphasise that such a thing is an absolute impossibility. because Divine Power is related to mumkinat - not muHalat and wajibat.
نسأل الله العافية
edit [28.9.2016]: brother abdalQadir pointed out that a 'no' could be wilfully misinterpreted by zanadiqah and turned around to mean that we attribute 'inability' to Allah ta'ala - al-iyadhu billah. indeed, one should say 'it is precluded from Divine Power' instead of saying 'unable to do it'. wa billahi't tawfiq.
I stumbled across this site where when questioned about imkan al-kadhib, the deobandi asks in return: "Does Allah have the ability to exterminate himself?"
Unless I'm mistaken, I believe he is advocating Allah ta'alas existence as being a mere possibility only!
on his blog, at the start of the section dedicated to the refutation of the kadhdhabiya, regarding the belief of 'imkan al-kadhib', shaykh Abu Adam writes:
This is one of the most blasphemous beliefs a human can have, and now some deviants claim that this is the belief of Sunnis.
and by the way, we hanafis/maturidis have a slightly differing view on qub'h al-aqli.
shaykh zadah in his naZm al-farayid explains it thus:
that kadhib is muHal does not need proof; it is a foregone conclusion and it is actually a premise.
otherwise, if you admitted that kadhib was possible, then what is the guarantee that the verse is true:
and if the above is not truthful - al-iyadhu billah - then how can you trust any information from the qur'an?
if you did not believe that kadhib was muHal, it would raise questions on the truthfulness of everything.
o muslim, think about your grave - ismayil, gangohi, nanowti are all dead and rotten. mar kar matti me milgaye, chamar se bhi zaleel.
nas'alu Allaha al-aafiyah.
ya sub'HanAllah, only a devbandi can be so shameless - when you see that there isn't a drop of water on their face, know that they are devbandis. la Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah.
take taftazani in his sharh al-maqaSid. he is saying it is muHal. he is not saying it is mumkin. this is the argument that we see in sh.mawaqif.
NOTICE that this is being said in the sharh of iji's statement: "frankly, i could not make out the difference between "flaw in Action" [naqS fi'l fiyl] and "rationally ugly" [qub'H al-aqli]; indeed, both are one and the same thing."
what sharif says upon this is a dialectical statement and should not be taken in isolation as the standard position of sharif himself, or that he is conveying the standard position of ash'aris. what he says is:
1. according to you, there is nothing qub'H aqli; it is known only by shara'a
2. according to you, anything Allah ta'ala does cannot be termed ugly. Actions of Allah ta'ala are never ugly.
3. thus, according to you - if kadhib is NOT ugly rationally, then it can be admitted in the actions of Allah ta'ala.
4. according to you, kadhib is a flaw (this is mentioned in another place in an entirely different discussion)
5. that would necessitate that the Actions of Allah ta'ala can be flawed, because you have also said that kadhib is a flaw.
6. now tell me, how will you resolve this paradox?
for an astute reader, the rejection of kadhib is implicit in this statement itself! because, if the ash'aris considered that 'kadhib is mumkin for Allah ta'ala', the whole argument of sharif is pointless. because the above argument hinges on the common agreement that "kadhib is muHal"
if kadhib were mumkin, the ash'aris would simply. "oh yes. there is no contradiction. kadhib is not a flaw and not rationally ugly. we already admit it as mumkin. so what is your argument about?"
there is another thing that is implicit here - if ANY of the ash'aris had said that "kadhib is mumkin" sharif would not have raised this objection. and given that allamah sharif is among the authorities in the subject, it can be safely assumed that no ash'ari had ever said that 'kadhib is mumkin'.
i mean, it is so childishly simple - but then nobody taught the devbandis to think. they just mindlessly defend their moronic elders.
Allah ta'ala knows best.
as for the statement: 'how will our companions who reject qub'H aqli be able to answer the objection...'
just think. if ash'aris believed in imkan kadhib, they would say: "hey, we accept that kadhib is possible - move on. no contradiction."
and even more importantly - if allamah sharif KNEW that some ash'ari admitted 'imkan kadhib' he would not even have raised this objection in the first place!
the devbandi reads half a statement which in his deranged mind vindicates his mullaji and doesn't care whether this is insulting to Allah sub'Hanahu wa ta'ala. but gangohi nanotwi and thanawi should be vindicated at all costs.
imkan kadhib is an invalid belief.
none of the imams accepted it as valid. the devbandis employ the method of filibustering. zameel uses this. and that mufti adam uses it.
i don't know whether they are really poor in writing, or whether they intentionally try to confound people by complex constructions and rambling.
utter nonsense. instead of pouring bilgewater just deal with proper quotes of ayimmah which i have listed in 'truth'.
the guy who wrote the stuff has no idea of what he is talking about, just hotch-potch from his devbandi elders without pausing to think, and most of the time assuming that their devbandi elders are unmistakably right.
what does nazzam have to do about this and what has Husn-qub'H got to do with this?
ash'aris said kadhib is muHal because it is a flaw.
maturidis said kadhib is muHal because it is a flaw - as well as the fact that some things can be rationally known to be ugly.
devbandis are utterly shameless and they try to bring proof from those texts which slap their faces left and right. here let me post a few pages from sharh al mawaqif. you tell me whether any of them admits this ridiculous belief of "Allah ta'ala can lie"
besides, if you read it well, he says that falsehood has to be negated from both kalam lafzi and nafsi - because anyway there isn't difference except superficial which was admitted to explain certain issues related to kalam.
in sha'Allah, we will release a better formatted edition, and expand upon some.
wa' billahi't tawfiq.