Book Release : The Truth About A Lie

Discussion in 'Ridawi Press' started by Baba_07, Jul 25, 2022.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Abu Darda

    Abu Darda New Member

    Shaykh Abu Hasan, please shed some light on this 'reply' which says imkan ul kidhb is a valid belief:

    Reply & Clarification on Imkan al-Kidhb

    This is a response to Ihsān Ibn Sharīf regarding his post on the issue of Imkan al-Kidhb and the position of the Ulama’ of Deoband, his post can be seen here:�... The entirety of your post will not be answered point by point however, the general objections which you are in a misunderstanding regarding, will be addressed and insha’Allah it will remove any doubts or confusions. First your statement will be presented followed by the response.
    You said: “Clearly here the author [of al-Muhannad] ascribes the theoretical possibility of Allāh acting contrary to what He promised and that such a thing is capacitated within the Qudrah of Allāh.” Response: It is necessary to differentiate between two different concepts:
    One is the logical or rational possibility (imkān ‘aqlī) of a proposition, and the other is its occurrence or materialisation.
    For Allāh to act against what He has promised is rationally possible, but its occurrence is impossible. A “rational possibility” does not preclude the impossibility of actual occurrence. It only means that the proposition is not in itself inconceivable: the mind does not preclude its possibility a priori.
    Allāh’s power connects to everything that is logically/rationally possible. To say otherwise would be to attribute a deficiency to Him. As the mutakallimūn said: "قدرته تعالى يعم سائر الممكنات" "كل ممكن مقدور" "المقتضي للقادرية هو الذات والمصحح للمقدورية هو الإمكان". Al-Dawwānī said to not have power of some things that are possible (mumkin) is an imperfection, which is not possible for Allāh. (العجز عن البعض نقص وهو على الله تعالى محال)
    Consider the propositions: "a wicked and wretched disbeliever like Fir'awn is put into Jannah" or "a pious believer is put into Jahannam." There is no rational absurdity in these propositions. The mind does not regard these as inconceivable or impossible in themselves (unlike, for example, the propositions: “the number 2 is odd”, “8 is a prime number” and so on). Hence, the Qudrah of Allāh connects to them as Allāh has the power to do everything that is rationally possible. Similarly, the mind does not preclude the possibility of these things even after Allāh's promise. Allāh's promise that a pious believer will not enter Jahannam does not make it rationally impossible for a pious believer to enter Jahannam. Hence, the Qudrah still connects to it. Yes, the promise makes its occurrence impossible.
    This was precisely the response of the Ash'ari theologians to the arguments of the Mu'tazila (particularly, the followers of Naẓẓām) that "punishing a pious believer" and other apparently ugly acts are not in Allāh's power. In response to this argument of the Naẓẓāmiyya, it states in Sharḥ al-Mawāqif: “The response is that there is nothing ugly in relation to Him because everything is subordinate to Him, thus He may do with it as He pleases. And even if it is accepted that the act is ugly in relation to Him, the most that can be said is that it won't occur due to the presence of something stopping it, i.e. its ugliness, and that does not negate power over it.” (والجواب أنه لا قبح بالنسبة إليه فإن الكل ملكه فله أن يتصرف فيه على أي وجه أراد، وإن سلم قبح الفعل بالنسبة إليه فغايته عدم الفعل بوجود الصارف عنه وهو القبح وذلك لا ينفى القدرة عليه)
    The same thing is mentioned in other works, like Sharḥ al-Maṭāli', Ṭawali‘ al-Rūmi and Sharḥ al-Ṣaḥa'if. Quotes can be found at the following link:
    The mistake of the Mu'tazila (Naẓẓāmiyya), in the words of Sharḥ al-Mawāqif, is as follows: “They presumed that purifying Allāh from despicable and ugly things is only by negating His power over them. In doing so, they are like one who flees from rain and stands under a drain!” (توهموا أن تنزيهه تعالى من الشرور والقابئح لا يكون إلا بسلب قدرته عليها، فهم في ذلك كمن هرب من المطر إلى الميزاب)
    This is precisely the mistake made by those who say Allāh does not have the power to act against what He has promised or He does not have the power to create a speech that does not conform to reality. They say: We can only say He is free from these things by negating His power over them. But the Ash'ari theologians responded that by negating His power, you are limiting the power of Allāh. There is no rational absurdity or impossibility in these propositions, so they must fall under His power. Yes, their occurrence from Him is impossible because His divine intent does not connect to them on account of His wisdom, fairness and so on.
    On the question of kidhb/kadhib itself, it is first necessary to the understand the nature of kidhb. Kidhb is defined as the act of producing a sentence that does not conform to reality. As the Deobandi author of Juhd al-Muqill states, we all agree that after Ādam (‘alayhissalām) ate from the tree, it was in the power of Allāh Ta'ala to produce the sentence "Ādam disobeyed His Lord" (عصى آدم ربه) and then to send it down to a chosen prophet. Not only does everyone agree that it is in His power, but they agree that it actually happened, as it is in the Qur'ān. Now, if hypothetically Ādam (‘alayhissalam) actually did not eat from the tree, would producing this sentence and sending it down on a chosen prophet be excluded from the power of Allāh? It is obvious that if it is in His power after Ādam (‘alayhissalam) ate from the tree it would also be in His power before this, and it would also be in His power in the hypothetical situation that he never ate from the tree. The Qudra of Allāh does not change. It does not become limited or constrained. Yes, there are things that are within the Qudra of Allāh which will actualise and others that will never actualise. But this is due to the divine will (irāda), and not due to any limit in the Qudra.
    It is important to understand what "kidhb" means in this context. (See: muqaddima 4 and 6 from the link given above). "Kidhb" does not characterise a person. Nor is it an intrinsic characteristic of speech. A "speech" in and of itself is not described as "truthful" or "false." It is only described in this way relative to its context. For example, the proposition "Zayd is standing" in one context would be described as "true" and in another context as "false." Hence, "true" and "false" neither (primarily) characterise a person, nor are they intrinsic qualities of speech. In our context, kidhb means: producing a speech that does not conform to reality. In other words: does Allāh have the power to create a speech that is untrue, and then send it down to a chosen prophet or angel? It is clear that since "kidhb" is not primarily a characteristic of a being/person, nor intrinsically a characteristic of the speech itself, it does not entail any change within the Dhāt (Being) of Allāh. Moreover, there is nothing in this proposition – i.e. "words/sounds coming into existence that give a meaning that does not conform to reality" – that is intrinsically impossible. Hence, the Qudra definitely connects to it, based on the fact that the Qudra connects to everything possible.
    A question that some people have at this point is the nature of Allāh's "speech." For a full discussion on this issue, see muqaddima 4 from the link given above. In brief, there are two kinds of speech as it relates to Allāh:
    1. One is a single, undifferentiated, simple attribute subsisting within the essence of Allāh. This is commonly known as “Kalām Nafsī.”
    2. The second is the words and sentences arranged by Allāh, created into sounds or letters, and then brought down to one of His creatures. This is known as “Kalām Lafẓī.” [وليس كلام الله تعالى إلا ما رتبه الله تعالى بنفسه من غير واسطة والكلمات لا تعاقب بينها فى الوجود العلمي حتى يلزم حدوثها وإنما التعاقب بينها فى الوجود الخارجي، وهو بحسب هذا الوجود كلام لفظي]
    It is important to understand that the single undifferentiated attribute of “Kalām Nafsī” does not itself consist of statements, whether declarative, imperative or otherwise. Rather, these statements exist only within the “Kalām Lafẓī.”
    [A technical point: Allāh’s knowledge of the meanings of the contents of the “Kalām Lafẓī” is eternal, but the Kalām Lafẓī itself is originated. Sometimes, Allāh’s eternal knowledge of the meanings of the Kalām Lafẓī is also referred to as “Kalām Nafsī”, which can be a source of confusion. The term “Kalām Nafsī” therefore sometimes refers to the eternal attribute of speech in Allāh’s Dhāt, and sometimes to Allāh’s knowledge of the meanings contained within the Kalām Lafẓī]
    Hence, the Kalām Nafsī itself – that is a single, undifferentiated, attribute within the Dhāt – does not consist of “meanings”. It only “connects” to the meanings found in the Kalām Lafẓī just as the Qudra connects to creation. The Kalām Lafẓī also “points to” the Kalām Nafsī just as creation points to Qudra. It doesn’t “point to” it in the sense of words pointing to their meanings, but in the sense of an effect pointing to its cause or to its point of origin. [أقول: ليس معنى كونه عبارة عنه أنه عينه كما قال بعد هذا: أن القرآن عبارة عن هذا المؤلف المخصوص والنحو عبارة عن القواعد المخصوصة، وذلك ظاهر ولا أنه دال عليه بالوضع لأن المدلول الوضعي له هو المعاني الوضعية الحادثة، بل معناه أنه دال عليه عقلا، ودلالة الأثر على مبدئه فإن النطق الظاهر فى الإنسان كما يدل على مبدء له يغاير العلم والقدرة والإرادة كذلك فى الباري تعالى يدل الكلام اللغظي على مبدء له يغاير سائر الصفات]
    [For a more thorough discussion, with extensive quotes from the Ash‘ari theologians, see muqaddima 4 from the link given above].
    The point to take away from this technical discussion is that the speech that is an intrinsic attribute of Allāh Ta'āla (i.e. the Kalām Nafsī) is not under discussion here, as "ṣidq" and "kidhb" do not even enter into the realm of possibilities when we talk about "Kalām Nafsī". "Kalām Nafsī " is neither "inshā" (imperative, interrogative etc. statements) nor "khabar" (declarative statement). It only connects to these types of statements, in just the same way the “Qudra” connects to creation. Hence, "truth" or "falsehood" are inconceivable (ghayr mutaṣawwar) when we talk about "Kalam Nafsi."
    The speech we are talking of in this context is, thus, the created speech that is arranged by Allāh Ta'āla without the intermediary of any other sentient being, which is then brought down to one of His creatures. This is also part of Allāh's "speech" as it is not the speech of any other being. Now, this speech is always true because Allāh is truthful, but that does not mean His power over producing an untruthful statement in this speech is negated. This in a nutshell is the Deobandi argument.
    You said: “How do you know that 4:87 and all other Āyāt where He states he is truthful isn’t a lie and actually ended up occurring? – The fact is you don’t when the possibility is attributed to Allāh’s Qudra.”
    Response: There are two ways in which something can be said to be unbefitting of Allāh. One is that it entails a contradiction and absurdity. For example "ẓulm" with the meaning that Allāh meddles in another's ownership without his consent (التصرف في ملك الغير بغير إذنه). This is impossible and does not fall in the Qudra of Allāh since it entails an absurdity. Nothing falls outside the ownership of Allāh, so ẓulm with this meaning cannot apply to Allāh. Such things are intrinsically impossible. Other examples are creating another "God" (how can something created be uncreated?), eating/drinking (how can a Being without body or need eat/drink?) etc. Another way in which something is unbefitting Allāh is that it is against His nature. Despite being possible and being included under His Qudra, such things cannot emanate from Him on account of His nature of fairness (‘adl), wisdom (ḥikma), truthfulness (ṣidq), mercy (raḥma) etc.
    An ordinary example is a very pious person who is known to be very pious. Now if an allegation was to be made against this person, our immediate response would be: "he couldn't have done such a thing!" Not that it is not possible (i.e. he had the ability to do it), but it goes against what we know of his nature and of the way he behaves and conducts himself. In the same way we know Allāh is fair and truthful. This is our experience and knowledge of His nature. He will not punish a pious believer though He has the power to, and He won't reward a wretched disbeliever though he has the power to. In the same way He will never issue a statement that does not conform to reality, though it is within His power to do so. The Ash'ari theologians who said doing so is within His power clearly mentioned that it is known by necessity that it will not occur from Him based on our knowledge of His nature.
    It states in Sharḥ al-Ṣaḥa'if:
    قلت: إن فعل القبيح من غير حاجة محال، فإن أردت أنه محال لذاته فذلك غير مسلم لأنا نعلم ضرورة أن ذلك الفعل لا يقتضى عدمه لذاته، بل نعلم أن نسبة وجوده وعدمه إلى ذاته واحدة، وإن أردت أنه محال لأن الله تعالى قادر حكيم لا يريد أن يفعل مثل ذلك الفعل، فذلك مسلم، لكن ذلك لا يوجب انتفاء القدرة عليه، بل تركه بقدرته وإرادته
    “If you mean that an ugly act is intrinsically impossible, we don’t accept that, because we know that there is no intrinsic necessity of that act being non-existent. In fact, we know that to attribute its existence and nonexistence to His Dhāt is one and the same. But if you mean that it is impossible because Allāh is a Wise Agent, and He would not intend to do something like that – this is accepted. But this does not entail He lacks power over it. Rather, He avoids it by His power and His will.”
    It states in Sharḥ al-Maqāṣid:
    فإن قيل: التمسك بالكتاب والسنة يتوقف على العلم بصدق كلام الله تعالى وكلام الرسول عليه السلام ودلالة المعجزة وهذا لا يتأتى مع القوم بأنه خالق كل شيء حتى الشرور والقبائح وأنه لا يقبح منه التلبيس والتدليس والكذب وإظهار المعجزة على يد الكاذب ونحو ذلك مما يقدح في وجوب صدق كلامه وثبوت النبوة ودلالة المعجزات، قلنا: العلم بانتفاء تلك القوادح وإن كانت ممكنة في نفسها من العاديات الملحقة بالضروريات
    “If it is argued: Adhering to the Book and Sunnah depends on knowledge of the truth of the speech of Allah & the Messenger (upon him peace) and the evidence of miracles. This will not be possible if we believe that He is Creator of everything, even ugly things, and that deception, trickery, lying and producing a miracle at the hand of a liar and such things… are not ugly for Him. We answer: Knowledge of the negation of these things that are possible in themselves is based on our knowledge of the normal way [that Allāh operates] (‘ādiyyat) which are annexed to those things that are known by absolute necessity.”
    For other similar passages, see the link given earlier.
    A lot more could be said about some of the misunderstandings in your post, but the above was written only to bring a bit of clarity to the debate; rather than to get fixated on some technical issues and errors. By keeping the above explanation in mind, it should not be difficult to understand some of the problems with your reasoning and the quotes that you bring to substantiate your points.
    One more point that needs highlighting, however, is that while the Naẓẓāmiyya amongst the Mu‘tazila limited the Qudra of Allāh, and said He does not have the Power to punish a pious believer or to reward a wretched disbeliever etc., another group amongst the Mu‘tazila, known as the “Mazdāriyya,” said that not only does He have power over these things but He may even do them! They believe it is possible for a lie or injustice (in the sense of punishing a pious believer) to actually occur! The Ahlus Sunnah are in between these two extremes. While they do not negate Allāh’s power over these things – as they are rationally possible, and everything rationally possible is included within Allāh’s Qudra –, they clearly state that these acts are unbefitting of Allāh and thus their occurrence from Him is impossible.
    Note: Brother Ihsan recently contacted me and mentioned that he has since changed his view on the issue (in light of the above response to him) and now believes there to be valid ikhtilaf.
  2. shahnawazgm

    shahnawazgm Veteran

    Yes, this is what they state, and the reasoning they give for the "wouldn't" is that it is proven from the Quran!

    What their blind followers don't understand is that by placing the possibility of lying to Allah they are creating doubts in the very authenticity of the Quran itself, as for the latter to be the absolute truth it is necessary for the impossibility of any falsehood to be attributed to Allah!

    This single heresy of the deobandi's has opened up a whole bunch of doors for other heresies, including their creation of doubts of several other verses of the Quran to suit their heretic beliefs.

    Their ignorant followers ought to take heed, repent from being fooled and misled by such deviances, and disassociate themselves from this treacherous group.
  3. sunni_porter

    sunni_porter Well-Known Member

    Which raises the question as to whether that passage has actually been endorsed or not and if so, how.

    CHISHTI Well-Known Member


    Brothers i'm a total layman but have always thought that deobandis try to befuddle innocent muslims by being deliberately obtuse.

    Ive read some deobandis/acolytes who say Allah Ta'ala can's within His power..but hasn't/wouldn't....but my question is..if that's do you know??...I mean people can be accomplished liars..very convincing and can con many...but through the arising of certain circumstances, evidence, the intelligence of an individual or because of error by the liar..he can be found out...but because Allah Ta'ala is the greatest at everything..then His lies (astaghfirrulah) could never be brought to light or found your confidence in saying He hasn't/wouldn't lie is unfounded because how do you know??...thus every part of belief becomes open to question and doubt..from tauheed to the Holy Qur'an to finality of prophethood etc etc...totally destroying your imaan!!

    Throughout my years in the muslim community I have seen many deviant positions..from the salafis and their anthropomorphism, disdain for following qualified scholarship (taqleed) to raafidi hatred for 95% of those noble souls who accompanied the Holy Prophet peace be upon Him and many, many others...but this position held by deobandis that Allah Ta'ala can lie, I think, is the worst of the worst as it demolishes your imaan in one fell swoop..if I have stated anything wrong please feel free to correct me.
  5. sunni_porter

    sunni_porter Well-Known Member

    That's exactly what I had thought as well. The reason for my confusion was that I've usually seen muhannad described by Sunnis as lies and deceit, not blasphemous (I might be mistaken in this). According to the Deobandies like here, the book was 'endorsed' by numerous Arab ulema. Therefore when I read the passage quoted in my previous post, I was confused as to how (deceits and lies put aside) this could have been endorsed by a Muslim scholar, Arab or non-Arab, when a layman like me could tell it was wrong.
  6. AbdalQadir

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

    the problem is that deobandis and keller are shayateen who like to play with big words and terse phrases to confuse people.

    replace their misplaced big words and phrases with simpler words and phrases in simpler language and that's it.

    just replace the words "not intrinsically impossible" with "intrinsically possible" and you'll see them standing naked right before your eyes.

    not intrinsically impossible = intrinsically possible = can

    not intrinsically impossible to lie = intrinsically possible to lie = can lie

    not intrinsically impossible to commit oppression = intrinsically possible to commit oppression = can oppress
    CHISHTI likes this.
  7. AbdalQadir

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

    this is where the deobandis are not Sunnis but rather mu3tazila heretics par excellence.

    that quoted line has nothing to do with Sunnis, be they Ash3ari or Maturidi

    Allah's Speech is a NECESSARY attribute of His, ie, WAJIB, that which MUST BE.

    His Power relates to all that is POSSIBLE (all of creation). His Power DOES NOT pertain to what is WAJIB (NECESSARY, like His Existing) or what is MUSTAHIL (IMPOSSIBLE, like non-existence of the Creator).


    that donkey has added further blasphemy to the list of deobandi blasphemies by saying that it is intrinsically possible for Allah to commit oppression or impudence, in addition to saying that it is intrinsically possible for Him to lie (wal 3eyadhu billah).

    oppression or zdhulm or injustice is defined as not placing something in its due place. since Allah is the Creator and Owner of all creation and has no one to impose anything like rules etc. on Him, injustice is IMPOSSIBLE (mustahil) to be attributed to Him.

    we are creations and so are our speeches (POSSIBLE) and it is possible for our speeches to be lies or truths.

    Allah's Speech is uncreated and a Qadeem, Azali, Abadi attribute.

    the deobandi is guilty of tashbeeh. he is drawing analogies and amthaal to Allah based on humans. you and i have the capacity (or power, that is granted by Allah) to lie or tell the truth. and he is just applying the same reasoning to talk about Allah too wal 3eyadhu billah.

    firstly, to say that it is intrinsically possible for Allah's Speech to be (true or) false is to say that it is created by Him and goes through changes. the jahil thinks just as you and i utter or write letters and words entrapped in time and space, the same applies to Allah's Speech also wal 3eyadhu billah.

    secondly, of course the jahil mutlaq says that it is textually impossible, that is, according to his damned deen of deoband (and keller) --- since Allah has informed us in texts that He doesn't lie (meaning that by the deobandi's pathetic theology, He won't create a speech that is a lie or change His Speech to a lie) --- that is what he (the deobandi) believes in dearly.


    the poor miskeen of deoband doesn't know that -

    Allah's Speech (Kalam) as an attribute of Him is WAJIB, and therefore His Qudra doesn't pertain to it.

    and secondly, if he (the deo) believes that it is intrinsically possible for His Speech to be a lie, then how on earth can the deobandi prove the revealed text that he supposedly so dearly believes in, to be truthful beyond a shadow of doubt?

    (remember the deobandi stance in simple words is like this "my god can lie, but he says in his book that he doesn't".)


    it's a genuine disgust talking about heretics and their beliefs like these. may Allah keep us steadfast on Islam.
    sunni_porter and Aqdas like this.
  8. sunni_porter

    sunni_porter Well-Known Member

    Just for clarification - the explanation from muhannad is deceiving as the first part of the response ("...the capacity of the Maker (Transcendent is He) to act contrary to what He promised, informed, intended, etc.") has nothing to do with whether Allah (SWT) has the power to lie (nauzubillah) - see The Truth About a Lie for details. Deobandis try to use this explanation to prove that Allah (SWT) can (nauzubillah). So no, I don't think I've misunderstood the issue (or the Deobandies' deceit).


    What I genuinely did not understand due to the deficiency in my intellect was the second part of the response in bold ("...even if the concomitance of the possibility of falsehood in acting contrary to the promise, reports etc. in His capacity is accepted, it too is not intrinsically impossible, rather, like oppression and impudence, it is intrinsically capacitated, but it is textually and logically impossible, or just textually, as more than one of the Imams have espoused."). It would be appreciated if anyone could provide a response as to whether this statement is correct; or point me to where it is covered in The Truth About a Lie or The Preamble to Faith (I didn't see anything on first review; will check again).
  9. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    any sincere seeker will see that khalil ahmad ambhetvi - apart from his kufr - was a bald faced liar and a hypocrite.
    muhannad is a bunch of lies - for sample analysis see a chapter in TKM devoted for that topic. if you have courage, read it and seek answers, until then, i am kicking you out.

    and you devbandis have no shame at all. deobandis are filthy hypocrites. when it is convenient to you, you claim that shaytan's disciple khalil ahmad repented from his views in muhannad, and where it is convenient, this is the aqidah of devband. yet, the biggest devbandis bray like donkeys in indo-pak when the name of mawlid is mentioned.

    as alahazrat said, devbandis hold one hadith dear and act upon it diligently: "if you have no shame, do whatever you want"

    why should we be surprised with lower levels rookies and canon-fodder, when falsehood is the motto of deoband and practised by the high priests? abul hasan nadwi lied slandering alahazrat, taqi usmani lies in his fatawa, khalil ahmad lied.

    la Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah.
    Ghulam Ali, Noori, CHISHTI and 2 others like this.
  10. ottoman1924

    ottoman1924 Shameless Devbandi

    It seems as though you have inadvertently exposed the false accusations In your responses and in particular the final one below.
    That answer below found in al Muhannad is self explanatory and at odds with the accusations that you label deoband with.
    Your comment below is because of the deficiency in your intellect and understanding of the issue.

    "but isn't the above still incorrect - they're attributing oppression and impudence to Allah". This opinion is coming from your own mind. I just wanted to highlight from my intial post that the accusations that bralwiyya have against deoband do not actually match up with the reality of the discussion (that you thankfully) posted. The childish and dangerous accusation of "Allah has lied and can lie "etc has caused much confusion amongst laypeople and me being among them decided to learn the issue for myself. Hence my posting on this forum.
    The reality as written above (your post) in al Muhannad is a scholarly written response which addresses the subtleties.

    Any sincere seeker can see this.
  11. sunni_porter

    sunni_porter Well-Known Member

    Here's another link:

    If you scroll down to the third question / answer in the above link, it says (bolding mine):


    Have you ascribed the view of “imkan al-kadhib” (the possibility of lying) to some of the Ash’aris? If so, what is meant by this? And do you have a proof-text for this view from the reliable scholars? Explain the matter to us as it is.


    This began as a dispute between us and the Indian logicians and innovators about the capacity of the Maker (Transcendent is He) to act contrary to what He promised, informed, intended, etc. They said that acting contrary to these things is absent from Allah’s Ancient Power (qudrah qadimah), hypothetically impossible (mustahil aqlan), impossible to exist within His capacity, and it is necessary for Him [to act] in accordance with His promise, report, intent and knowledge. We said: such things are certainly capacitated, but their occurrence (wuqu’) is not possible, according to the Ahl al-Sunna wa l-Jama’a from the Ash’aris and Maturidis, textually and logically according to the Maturidis, and only textually according to the Ash’aris.

    They objected that if the capacity of these things were possible, it would entail the possibility of falsehood and this is certainly not in His capacity and is intrinsically impossible (mustahil dhatan). We responded using a variety of answers from the kalam-scholars, of which was: even if the concomitance of the possibility of falsehood in acting contrary to the promise, reports etc. in His capacity is accepted, it too is not intrinsically impossible, rather, like oppression and impudence, it is intrinsically capacitated, but it is textually and logically impossible, or just textually, as more than one of the Imams have espoused.

    This is directly from their English translation of al-Muhannad that is available on the internet (question 25). I thought that Muhannad was supposed to be their "affirmation" of Sunni beliefs, but isn't the above still incorrect - they're attributing oppression and impudence to Allah (SWT)?
  12. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

  13. Abu Hamza

    Abu Hamza Well-Known Member

    Any sane Muslim would reject the filth that is mentioned in those books that's why, Barelvi's are very passionate about it and rightfully so, after all, the honour of the Prophet [Alayhi'salam] means more to us than anything, perhaps you should ponder on that and check where your loyalties lie.
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  14. Abu Hamza

    Abu Hamza Well-Known Member

    1] What is "currently" being taught by the Deobandiyya is not what they were taken to task for, neither do we accuse Deobandi's [laymen] of holding those erroneous beliefs, those statements that were made and printed in their works are PRESENT AND AVAILABLE to this very day in the original urdu, so before jumping to assumptions and throwing accusations, it would perhaps be wise to read entirely on the issue and not simply rely on the drivel that you posted initially.

    2] Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Rashid Ahmed Gangohi, Khalil Ahmed Ambetwi and Qasim Nanotvi all committed KUFR in their works. These are the 4 that were taken to task. Did you know, Shafi Uthmani, the father of Mufti Taqi Uthmani [deobandi] said that the one who believes the word "Khatam" [seal] to mean anything other than the final/seal of Prophets is a disbeliever? Now might i suggest you read Qasim Nanotvi's 'Tahzeer un Naas' and read what he wrote.

    3] Whether these beliefs are being taught or sang in public or in secret is completely irrelevant. Did they make those statements? Manzur Numani refused to debate the issue with Mawlana Mustafa Rida Khan, bet your "little circle" never told you that, or did they tell you another version?

    I say this on record, I am willing to discuss/debate this issue with you or your circle in person.
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  15. Abu Hamza

    Abu Hamza Well-Known Member

    all these points have been refuted numerous times. @ottoman1924 read the work and remember, the original works of the kabair of deoband are available so no matter how much they try to defend the 'undefendables', their efforts are futile.

    Also, perhaps the dude who exerted himself in writing this nonsense should concentrate his efforts towards a more beneficial endeavour & read the work 'Taqdees ul-Wakeel an' tauheen rashid wa khalil' [not Taqdees ul Qadeer].
  16. anisafatima

    anisafatima New Member

    it is really an amazing effort from your side and share this book with others so that others can also get benefit from the useful information about recognizing the truth.
  17. sherkhan

    sherkhan Veteran

    So far only "The Preamble to Faith" (Tamhid) has been printed. The hard copies for the same can be obtained from (or check this thread for more details).
  18. Ghulam

    Ghulam Veteran

    'For example, Abu Lahab was born with apparently the same chance as anyone to hear the Prophet's message (Allah bless him and give him peace), enter Islam, and reach paradise. But when he persecuted the Muslims, and surat al-Masad (Qur'an 111) was subsequently revealed, and Allah manifested His beginninglessly eternal knowledge that Abu Lahab was of the people of hell. Although initially this outcome was merely contingent and possible, when the eternal Word of Allah connected with it, it became necessary, final, and inabrogable, for Allah only informs of what is in His knowledge, and His knowledge only conforms to what truly is, which is why no one alters the words of Allah (Qur'an 6:34), for otherwise His words would express ignorance, an attribute impossible for God, or lies, which equally contradict the nature of the Divine'
  19. Taalib-e-Ilm

    Taalib-e-Ilm Well-Known Member

    A brother wanted to buy all the books by ridawipress in a hard copy. When will the other books be released ? Can anyone help?
  20. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    citations from musamarah are from a hardcopy - published by maktabah al-asriyyah.

Share This Page