salam With all due respect hazrat, I have a few questions regarding this. I am not a deobandi alHumdulillah. But a few questions came to my mind and thought to ask them here: to gain satisfaction myself and be a means of satiating others (through your answers)as well who might be having the same questions in sha Allah? Apologies for any upcoming mistakes. 1) Please can you clarify why you mentioned this? If the sher is fine then shouldn't it not matter if it is his composition or not, Mufti sahab praises the couplet as well by saying "khub kaha"? With all due respect, doesn't a need to specify the "emphasis" on this couplet not being his imply negativity about the sher? 2) With all due respect hazrat, when we explain the kufriat of the deobandis, or irfan shah about his insults (not saying that mufti sahab commited kufr naudhubillah), we tell them that those statements are kufr regardless of the context. I am not neither an alim nor a talib ul ilm so I cannot decide whether mufti sahab's quotation of the couplet would have a hukm with or without context but thought to mention this as a question since this might be arising in other people's mind and one of the motivations of the deobandis against the argument that their kufriat are kufr regardless the context? 3) This is my third question about mentioning this couplet "in context": would we say something like this about our parents? For example, imagine one is talking to his mother and father - sitting in the same room - and says that (bila tashbeeh) "wah! maa ki kia baat hai. Jab baab ko bache par ghussa aata hai to maa darmiayn mein aa kar baap ke kisi ka kisi tariqw se baaq ke bache se razi kar deti hai aur bache ko maar khane se bacha leti hai. Lekin jab maa bache par ghussa ho to baap bhi maa hi ki side leta hai. And then read this sher baap ka pakda chuda le maa maa ka pakda chuda koi nahi sakta"? I certianly would at least have some hesitation before saying this in front of my dad. 4) I remember mawlana abu hasan sahab saying the following about a sher attributed to dr iqbal: and the following specifically this from the second scan: With all due respect, isn't the sher mufti sahab mention quite similar? If someone said this sher above - which is attributed to dr iqbal - within the the following context, would that be fine: Apologies if I did any gustakhi. I just mean that this is shan e uluhiyat we are discussing. Shouldn't we be even more careful than this? May Allah protect all muslims from saying anything which displeases Him and his Rasool sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wasallam. Of course, I don't consider myself to be equivalent to even the blessed dust of the khalifa of ala hazrat mufti Ahmed yaar khan naeemi, but if something is a mistake by even one of our own scholars (which I am not saying it is since that is why I asked the above questions, but rather to explain what is going on in my head so that you can guide better in sha Allah), shouldn't we continue the tradition of admitting the mistake - like we did for allama awaysi, saeedi sahab, mufti muneeb sahab etc.
The Deobandi duo have now released another video presenting it as a continuation of the prior video we engaged with earlier in this thread. In this latest video, their focus shifts to 'Shān-i Ḥabīb al-Raḥmān min Āyāt al-Qurʾān', the work of Muftī Aḥmad Yār Khān Naʿīmī. Specifically, their contention lies with a poetic couplet cited under Verse 38 Firstly, it must be emphasised, that the couplet is merely quoted by the author and not his own composition. Let's look at the entire section under 'Verse 38'for context. Prior to citing the couplet, Muftī Aḥmad Yār Khān explains that there exists no distinction between displeasing Allāh ﷻ and displeasing His Beloved ﷺ. The implications are the same. A man may torment his parents, harm all of creation, and still not fall into disbelief. But if he shows enmity to the sacred person of the Messenger ﷺ, he has committed kufr. The path to Divine mercy, he notes, is through the Prophet ﷺ. But—and this is the crux—should the Beloved himself be displeased with a person, who then shall mediate for that said person? Satan’s expulsion was not due to a denial of Allāh’s ﷻ tawḥīd, nor because he refused to prostrate before Allāh ﷻ directly. Rather, his downfall lay in his refusal to obey a divine command—namely, the command to prostrate before a prophet of Allāh ﷻ, Sayyidunā Ādam ʿalayhi al-salām. Only after constructing this theological edifice does Muftī Aḥmad Yār Khān present the couplet. And thus, it is not a loose poetic musing, but rather the distilled essence of an established theological principle expressed with poetic concision. Only one who wants to wilfully misconstrue the couplet will analyse it in the way the Deobandis did so. The lines in question are: خدا جس کو پکڑے چھڑا لیں محمد محمد جو پکڑیں، چھڑا کوئی نہیں سکتا A refined rendering into English might read: Whom God seizes, Muḥammad ﷺ may yet redeem; But whom Muḥammad ﷺ seizes—none shall ever rescue him. The meaning is that if, in accordance with Divine justice, one is destined for punishment, the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ—who is the embodiment of Divine mercy [raḥmat li al-ʿālamīn] and the supreme intercessor—may, by Allāh’s ﷻ permission, intercede on behalf of that soul, and obtain forgiveness. However, if the Prophet ﷺ disapproves of a person—then Allāh ﷻ will also disapprove of that said person. None from creation will be then able to intercede for that person. Ultimate sovereignty lies with Allāh ﷻ, and intercession [shafāʿah] is granted by His decree. Importantly, this is not a matter of conjecture. Muftī Aḥmad Yār Khān himself explicitly clarifies the meaning of the couplet immediately after the couplet. He states: “That is, if someone is seized by God, then the Prophet ﷺ may intercede for them and secure forgiveness. But if one is seized by the Prophet ﷺ and by Islam, then who can liberate them?” Muftī Aḥmad Yār Khān proceeds to substantiate his point with the following: "In al-Durr al-Mukhtar, under the chapter on apostates, it is stated that anyone who shows disrespect towards Allāh is a disbeliever and deserving of death. However, if they repent, forgiveness is possible. But anyone who insults the threshold of Prophethood is a disbeliever, and even if they repent later, they must still be punished by death. This is because it concerns the sanctity of Allāh’s Messenger, and forgiveness of the right of Allāh does not extend to the right of His appointed Messenger." From this, it is clearly evident that in terms of worldly juridical rulings, the transgression of dishonouring the Messenger of Allah ﷺ invokes a far graver consequence than any other. To further anchor his argument, Muftī Aḥmad Yār Khān references 'Madārij al-Nubuwwah', recounting the episode of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Abī Sarḥ—formerly a scribe of revelation, who apostatised and fabricated slanders against the Prophet ﷺ, alleging that he composed the Qurʾān himself. When he died and was buried, the earth persistently rejected his corpse, casting it forth no matter how deep the grave was dug. Thus, those expelled from the court of Prophethood find no refuge, not even in the earth itself. This is the context of the entire quote. This is, quite frankly, a textbook instance of selective quotation—what can only be described as intellectual dishonesty—on the part of the Deobandi duo. By extracting a poetic couplet from its context—context which Muftī Aḥmad Yār Khān himself clarifies—they present a misconstrued and ultimately misleading narrative. Their interpretation—claiming it draws an impermissible comparison between Allāh ﷻ and His Messenger ﷺ—is fundamentally flawed. The couplet does not posit parity between Allāh ﷻ and the Prophet ﷺ, but rather underscores the Prophet’s ﷺ intercessory authority as granted by Allāh ﷻ Himself. Incidentally, I had previously addressed their mischaracterisation of so-called 'omnipresence' in a Twitter thread. I shared a comment on their YouTube video when they brought up that allegation again. However, the comment has mysteriously disappeared—presumably deleted. In their most recent video, the Deobandi pair request that any rebuttal of this present allegation should be made in light of this video and the previous video, i.e., the one discussing Muftī Fayḍ Aḥmad ʿUwaysī’s statements. On that note, it should be stated unequivocally that Mawlana Abu Ḥasan has already censured the problematic wording found in Muftī Fayḍ Aḥmad ʿUwaysī’s work. While the phrasing is indeed objectionable, it does not warrant takfīr, since there is reasonable tawil that can be made. So, if the Deobandi duo are reading this, let it be clear: we do not agree with Muftī Fayḍ Aḥmad ʿUwaysī’s incorrect wording. But your treatment of Muftī Aḥmad Yār Khān’s quotation of a couplet is disingenuous and misleading. The poetry in question has been stripped from its context, misconstrued, and manipulated to suit their polemical narrative.
these mistakes often occur when speakers try to present unique or novel ideas to impress the audience. i’ve heard several statements in speeches that, although they may initially sound fresh and appealing, actually contradict core or secondary beliefs, or even cross the boundaries of adab. i prefer that khutaba speak in plain language, without adding embellishments that are not found in the narrations.
not sure but assuming it is hujjatu'llahi ala al-aalamin of shaykh yusuf nab'hani because it is an extensive compilation of the miracles (mujizat) of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.
Perhaps an alternative sentence would be along the lines of: جس آنکھ کو حضور اقدس ﷺ نے اپنی دست مبارک سے شفا عطا فرمائی، وہ بینائی میں دوسری آنکھ پر سبقت لے گئی۔
His choice of words was inconsiderate. While we grasp the underlying intent of his statement, he unfortunately failed to exercise the necessary prudence and sensitivity when addressing such a delicate matter. He references a book titled Ḥujjat-Allāh—do you know which work this refers to?
the expression is certainly incorrect and a bad choice of words. mufti sahib should have not said it. may Allah ta'ala forgive him. we must not repeat such expressions. but a ta'wil can be found to abstain from takfir - as it was a literal translation of the hadith. 'khuda ki banayi aankh' - meaning his original eye/eyesight prior to the Prophet's miracle. sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. and it is no way contrasted - because every action of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is sanctioned by and created by the Only One. so he was only saying: the eye became better than what was before. --- other than alahazrat and his immediate students, the level of ihtiyat / caution is not always found in others. and there are other howlers in mufti fayz owaisi sahib's book including inaccuracies. we must not go about defending what should not be defended. Allah ta'ala knows best.
Usman and Abdul Halim Deobandi have once again resumed their video-based attacks on Ahl al-Sunnah. In their latest instalment, they have taken issue with a passage from Tanha Dari, a work authored by Mawlana Fayz Ahmad Uwaysi. https://archive.org/details/Tanhadari--mojizatEMustafaByAllamaFaizAhmadOwaisi/page/n64/mode/1up. The excerpt they object to reads as follows: "تو حضور نے دست مبارک سے ان کی آنکھ ٹھیک کر دی ۔ اور حضور کی بنائی ہوئی آنکھ خدا کی بنائی ہوئی آنکھ سے زیادہ روشن ہوگئی۔" According to their interpretation, this comparison crosses into the bounds of blasphemy. I haven’t watched the entire video; I merely skimmed to the middle section to see what they’ve chosen to (mis)represent this time.
