Do asharis believe in imkan al-kadhib?

Discussion in 'Aqidah/Kalam' started by abu Hasan, Sep 29, 2006.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    it beats me whether some people do not understand, or do not want to understand or plainly enjoy misrepresentation or lying. how is it possible to continue a dialog with such dishonest people?

    first of all, the quoted passage is in a different context, but we will come to that later. let us have a look at the FUD first.

    and then he quotes a passage; and 'translates' [if you can call that] whatever he wants. let him translate the entire passage and you will see how his own lie is caught out. i am surprised at the gall of some people who will quote as proof, the very texts that refute their position.

    anyway, note that in the text, the imam refutes that kadhib or falsehood is a lie immediately even when discussing the conditional cases:

    لكنه لو وقع لزم كذب كلام الله تعالى، وهو محال وهذه نكتة في بيان استحالة وقوع كل ما يتعلق علم الله تعالى وإرادته واختياره بعدم وقوع

    but if it happened, then it would necessitate that there is falsehood in the Speech of Allah ta'ala - AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE/MUHAL. this is an important point in describing the impossibility of occurence in everything related to the Knowledge, His Intention and Selection that it shall not occur.
    the imams of kalam - refuted the notion even when used for an argument. but that is not the only thing. the objection of m786 that to 'burden a being more than it can carry' is a form of khulf al-wa'ad is actually refuted in this very passage.

    but all of this is befuddled by sneaking the imkan al-kadhib in khulf fi'l wa`yeed. and m786 now extends this to khulf fi'l wa'ad as well - ignoring that `allamah taftazani was debating the issues.

    wa laa Hawla wa laa quwwata illa billah.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2006
  2. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    another FUD. truth and falsehood might be furuyi to deobandis, but the ijma'a of scholars is that it is muHal for Allah ta'ala to Speak a lie.

    what is muHal can never be mumkin. therefore, the imkan or possibility of His lying does not arise.

    Allah ta'ala knows best.
     
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  3. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    actually the arabic has ellipsis in a very critical position; i cut-and-paste from his post below:

    والجواب غايته وقوع العقاب فأين وجوب العقاب الذي كلامنا فيه إذ لا شبهة في أن عدم الوجوب مع الوقوع لا يستلزم خلفا ولا كذبا...وهما من الممكنات

    translation:

    when there is no doubt that it is not mandatory for it [punishment] to occur, then it does not necessitate reneging nor falsehood...and they are both among possibilities [mumkinat]

    the part prior to ellipsis in tone is refuting the possibility of reneging or falsehood, so ideally it should not go back and refute oneself as indicated by the fractured quote.

    i am highly suspicious of this kind of ellipsising and if you give me the reference of sharH al-mawaqif, i will verify it. but until then, i consider this to be an incorrect quote.

    there is an obvious reason behind it. that is, if the author of sharH al-mawaqif agrees that the possibility of falsehood exists, he does not have to debate any further on the matter of not keeping the promise of punishment.

    he can just say, falsehood is possible and end of story.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2006
  4. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i was sick of this debate, because the opposite number does not provide any proof but only surreptious comments. so one apologist comes up with 'proofs'. but there is gross dishonesty in there. standard technique of the bid`yis is that they quote valid opinion and do a sleight of hand. the unsuspecting reader (mostly who do not know arabic) imagine that the proof is quite strong and fall to doubt. a very good english word that comes to mind is insinuation. another marketing concept is FUD.

    let us examine the post of m786. the tafsir of imam razi quoted here is:

    الصفة الثانية: من صفات كلمة الله كونها صدقاً، والدليل عليه أن الكذب نقص والنقص على الله محال، ولا يجوز إثبات أن الكذب على الله محال بالدلائل السمعية، لأن صحة الدلائل السمعية موقوفة على أن الكذب على الله محال، فلو أثبتنا امتناع الكذب على الله بالدلائل السمعية لزم الدور وهو باطل. واعلم أن هذا الكلام كما يدل على أن الخلف في وعد الله تعالى محال فهو أيضاً يدل على أن الخلف في وعيده محال بخلاف ما قاله الواحدي في تفسير قوله تعالى:
    { وَمَن يَقْتُلْ مُؤْمِناً مُّتَعَمّداً فَجَزَاؤُهُ جَهَنَّمُ خَالِداً فِيهَا }
    [النساء: 93] إن الخلف في وعيد الله جائز، وذلك لأن وعد الله ووعيده كلمة الله، فلما دلت هذه الآية على أن كلمة الله يجب كونها موصوفة بالصدق على أن الخلف كما أنه ممتنع في الوعد فكذلك ممتنع في الوعيد.

    its translation:
    the second attribute: from the attributes of the Word of Allah is that it is truthful. the proof is that because falsehood is a flaw and it is impossible to attribute Allah ta'ala with a flaw [muHal].

    it is not permissible [laa yajuz] to prove that falsehood is muHal for Allah ta'ala by narrated proofs [dalayi'l as-sam`yiyyah] because the validity [siHHah] of narrated proofs [itself] is dependent on the [premise] that lying or falsehood is impossible for Allah ta'ala.

    because if we attested impossibility of lying [imtina'a al-kadhib] by narrated proofs, it becomes circular logic and is [therefore] inaccurate.

    know that that just as this [above statement] proves that it is impossible [muHal] for Allah ta'ala to renege on His Promise [al-khulf fi'l w'ad], it also proves that it is muHal for Him to renege on His Promise of Punishment [al-khulfa fi wa'yidihi] unlike what WaHidi has said in his tafsir:

    whosoever kills a believer deliberately, then his punishment is hellfire, wherein he shall abide forever. [an-nisa, 93] verily, it is permissible for Allah ta'ala to revoke His promise of punishment.

    This is because His promise of reward and punishment [wa'ad and wa'eed] are the Words of Allah; when this verse [al-maidah, 115 - on which ar-razi is commenting] proves that it is mandatory to attribute the Word of Allah with Truth; therefore just as reneging on His promise of reward is impossible [mumtani`y] so also is revoking His promise of punishment.
    now, the comment:
    also when you go back to check al-waHidi's reference [al-wajiz] on the same site, it is something else. there al-waHidi says, that it is because Allah ta'ala is censuring very harshly and the point of kadhib is not mentioned anyway.

    actually, ar-razi is refuting al-waHidi that khulf fi'l wa'eed is possible using the argument that:

    1. both wa'ad and wa'eed are Words of Allah
    2. the Word of Allah is Truthful
    3. therefore opposing either wa'ad and wa'eed is opposing the Word of Allah
    4. therefore, opposing wa'ad nor wa'eed is impossible.


    our friend, m786 retrofits this to his argument:

    1. ar-razi refuted WaHidi on the matter of reneging on wa'eed
    2. ar-razi said wa'eed is Word of Allah
    3. ar-razi said the Word of Allah is truthful
    4. this means waHidi by claiming the opposite actually claims that the Word of Allah can be false.

    the fallacy is obvious. one of the objections on khulf fi'l wa'eed is that it necessitates falsehood; and those who hold that khulf fi'l wa'eed is possible refute it.

    for example, take imam al-bayjuri in his SharH of al-jawharah:
    and the permissibility of revoking punishment has been objected upon stating that this necessitates many repugnant beliefs [bi luzumi mafasidin kathirah]. among them is falsehood [al-kadhib] in the Speech of Allah ta'ala whereas there is a unanimity that the Saying of Allah ta'ala if free from falsehood. [wa qad qam al-ijma`a ala tanazzuhi khabarihi ta'ala `ani'l kadhib]
    and then he goes on refuting that IT DOES NOT NECESSITATE FALSEHOOD. this does not mean that he is justifying it. [his answer to the objection is a bit long and not quite relevant here, because we acknowledge the difference of opinion on the matter of khulf al wa'eed.]

    ----
    further m786 says:
    where did alaHazrat say so? actually ar-razi was refuting al-waHidi's opinion that khulf fi'l wa'eed is permissible; not that he held that falsehood is permissible. if one reads the last line, imam razi clearly and unambiguosly states that it is wajib to believe that the Word of Allah is Truthful. and in umm al-barahin it is said: what is wajib, it's opposite is mustaHil. if Truth is wajib, then falsehood is mustaHil.

    unless, falsehood is not the opposite of truth according to a certain people.

    ----
    first of all, this is an iftira on al-waHidi that he permitted kadhib. and using an iftira as the basis, someone goes ahead insinuating that there are 'many' scholars. this is similar to steve ballmer's FUD when he said that linux violates more than 200 patents.

    http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020390,39174372,00.htm
    http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1729908,00.asp
    http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/57261/index.html
    http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=603

    you don't have to provide any, just throw it in the air: 'there are many scholars who allow imkan al-kadhib.'

    ---
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2008
  5. Muslim786

    Muslim786 Banned

    How about the quote from Sharh Aqaid Nasafiya that I provided above where it claerly states the Asha'ir believe it is possible for Allah to burden a soul more than it can bear, despite it being a wa'd that he would not?
     
  6. sherkhan

    sherkhan Veteran

    Masha'Allah brother abu Hassan, keep up your good work. If only the deobandies/wahabies read your analysis without bias, then they wouldn't continue wandering in their contumacy.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 2, 2006
  7. Muslim786

    Muslim786 Banned

    Just another point I wanted to make. When a scholar says "there is ijma' on such and such" it doesn't always indicate it is totally unanimous. Total ijma' on furu'i (secondary) matters is near impossible.

    Also Im sure this issue is not a fundamental (usuli) point of aqidah but a furu'i (secondary) one. Many issues of aqidah are furu'i and allow scope for differece, just as the Ash'ari-Maturidi differences. Not all aqidah issues are fundamental.
     
  8. Muslim786

    Muslim786 Banned

    Salam, my first post on this forum

    About kidhb [lying] and khulf min al-wa'd (retraction from a [previous] word) being imperfections is dependent on whether Allah makes it so. In Sharh Aqaid Nasafi, it states:

    ((ولا يكلف العبد لما ليس في وسعه)) سواء كان ممتنعاً في نفسه كجمع بين الضدين أو ممكناً في نفسه لكن لا يمكن للعبد كخلق الجسم، وأما ما يمتنع بناء على أن الله تعالى علم خلافه أو أراد خلافه كإيمان الكافر وطاعة العاصي فلا نـزاع في وقوع التكليف به لكونه مقدوراً للمكلف بالنظر إلى نفسه، ثم عدم التكليف بما ليس في الوسع متفق عليه، كقوله تعالى: ((لا يكلف الله نفساً إلا وسعها)) والأمر في قوله تعالى: ((أنبئوني بأسماء هؤلاء)) للتعجيز دون التكليف، وقوله تعالى حكاية عن حال المؤمنين: ((ربنا ولا تحملنا ما لا طاقة لنا به)) ليس المراد بالتحميل هو التكليف، بل إيصال ما لا يطاق من العوارض إليهم، وإنما النـزاع في الجواز فمنعه المعتزلة بناء على القبح العقلي، وجوزه الأشعري لأنه لا يقبح من الله تعالى شيء.
    وقد يستدل بقوله تعالى: ((لا يكلف الله نفساً إلا وسعها)) على نفي الجواز، وتقريره: أنه لو كان جائزاً لما لزم من فرض وقوعه محال، ضرورة أن استحالة اللازم توجب استحالة الملزوم، تحقيقاً لمعنى اللزوم، لكنه لو وقع لزم كذب كلام الله تعالى، وهو محال، وهذه نكتة في بيان استحالة وقوع كل ما يتعلق علم الله تعالى وإرادته واختياره بعدم وقوعه.
    وحلها أنا لا نسلم أن كل ما يكون ممكناً في نفسه لا يلزم من فرض وقوعه محال، وإنما يجب ذلك لو لم يعرض له الامتناع بالغير، وإلا لجاز أن يكون لزوم المحال بناء على الامتناع بالغير، ألا يرى أن الله تعالى لما أوجد العالم بقدرته واختياره فعدمه ممكن في نفسه مع أنه يلزم من فرض وقوعه تخلق المعلول عن علته التامة، وهو محال.
    والحاصل أن الممكن في نفسه لا يلزم من فرض وقوعه محال بالنظر إلى ذاته، وأما بالنظر إلى أمر زائد على نفسه فلا نسلم أنه لا يستلزم المحال

    This passage is an explanation of the fact that "Allah does not charge a soul above its capacity". One point of dissension amongst the Mu'tazilites and the Ash'araites highlighted here is whether it is possible for Allah to burden a soul with more than it can bear. According to the Mu'tazilites it is impossible because it is rationally heinous, but according to the Ash'aris nothing is heinous (qabih) except that which Allah makes so, and thus it is possible for Allah to do so.

    I have also read a quote from Sharh al-Mawaqif (not directly from the book itself however) which states:

    أوجب جميع المعتزلة والخوارج عقاب صاحب الكبيرة إذا مات بلا توبة ولم يجوزوا أن يعفو الله عنه بوجهين.
    الأول: أنه تعالى أوعد بالعقاب على الكبائر وأخبر به أي بالعقاب عليهافلو لم يعاقب على الكبيرة وعفا لزم الخلف في وعيده والكذب في خبره وأنه محال.
    والجواب غايته وقوع العقاب فأين وجوب العقاب الذي كلامنا فيه إذ لا شبهة في أن عدم الوجوب مع الوقوع لا يستلزم خلفا ولا كذبا...وهما من الممكنات

    Here it says the Mu'tazilites make punishment for a major sinner incumbent because of Allah's promise to punish an major sinner who does not repent. The Ash'arites, on the other hand, allow a major sinner to be pardoned. This passage clearly states kidhb and khulf are from the mumkinat. Can somebody please check this quote to see if it is reliable.

    Also, ar-Razi says in his tafsir of 6:115

    الصفة الثانية: من صفات كلمة الله كونها صدقاً، والدليل عليه أن الكذب نقص والنقص على الله محال، ولا يجوز إثبات أن الكذب على الله محال بالدلائل السمعية، لأن صحة الدلائل السمعية موقوفة على أن الكذب على الله محال، فلو أثبتنا امتناع الكذب على الله بالدلائل السمعية لزم الدور وهو باطل. واعلم أن هذا الكلام كما يدل على أن الخلف في وعد الله تعالى محال فهو أيضاً يدل على أن الخلف في وعيده محال بخلاف ما قاله الواحدي في تفسير قوله تعالى:
    { وَمَن يَقْتُلْ مُؤْمِناً مُّتَعَمّداً فَجَزَاؤُهُ جَهَنَّمُ خَالِداً فِيهَا }
    [النساء: 93] إن الخلف في وعيد الله جائز، وذلك لأن وعد الله ووعيده كلمة الله، فلما دلت هذه الآية على أن كلمة الله يجب كونها موصوفة بالصدق على أن الخلف كما أنه ممتنع في الوعد فكذلك ممتنع في الوعيد.

    (see www.altafsir.com)

    Here ar-Razi shows he is of the opinion that kidhb is impossible for Allah because it is a defeciency. However, he also says the al-Wahidi was of the opinion it is possible (ja'iz) for Allah. Ar-Razi did not say al-Wahidi is a kafir because of this but refutes his view.

    I'm sure just like al-Wahidi, there are many other scholars with the view that kidhb is possible for Allah, but impossible in its actual occurence (wuqu').

    It would be well appreciated, if somebody could check the Sharh al-Mawaqif quote above and see that it is rightly used and not misquoted.

    Thanks Wasalam
     
  9. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    deobandis are supposed to be maturidis, but let that go. but please try to understand what i say, rather than putting words in my mouth. i did not bash shaykh bouTi or shaykh gibril; as for others, i commented on their opinion and showed how they contradict classical sources. deobandis can redefine the meanings of words themselves but still cannot understand conditional statements. i cannot help on that count.

    faraz apparently teaches jawharah but conveniently ignores the classification of khulf al-wa'ad and khulf al-wa'eed; vide his endorsement of guidinghelper. if jawharah and its sharH by bayjuri 'bash' an opinion of modern folk, it is not my fault. it is clearly mentioned in al-bayjuri's Hashiyah that there is ijma'a among both ash'aris and maturidis that khulf al-wa'ad is not possible; whereas ONLY the ash'aris differed in khulf al-wa'eed. you cannot ignore the distinction.

    next thing we will hear is that Allah ta'ala can [contigently] have a child but He has chosen not to, because of the conditional verse: 'if RaHman had a son, i would be the first to worship him'. ta'ala Allah `uluwwan kabeera. [moron alert: this whole paragraph is a refutation; not a statement]

    --
    this only corroborates my earlier statement that people do not have basic understanding of argument, its reasoning or comprehension. in other words, certain people are dimwits but still try to grapple with lofty matters. go read what i have said earlier. this objection of yours is extremely foolish and together, dishonest.

    ---
    for the umpteenth time, i have not said - nor did my master alaHazrat - kufr kufr on THIS matter of imkan al-kidhb. if you had any shame, you would read alaHazrat's risalah before making sweeping accusations. this is the standard technique of deobandis: subversion. deobandi elders who were ruled kafir were because of using insulting language describing RasulAllah sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam.

    about imkan al-kidhb, you have have either not read any of my post - or did a selective reading - or choose to be wilfully blind. my point is very simple:

    that imkan al-kidhb is an innovation of deobandis; they claim this to be the `aqidah of our elders. therefore, those who MAKE the claim should provide proof. as you said, anybody can come to their own conclusions; alaHazrat merely showed that the ijma'a or the consensus of sunni scholars is that there is NO imkan [possibility] of kidhb to be attributed to Allah ta'ala. whereas deobandis and some scholars following them try to MAKE their own conclusions.

    this is another wretched habit of deobandi apologists and their elders that they accuse us of what they are guilty themselves. like alaHazrat said, they have chosen one Hadith to act upon for their lifetime: 'if you have no shame, do whatever you want.'

    as for us, we believe that kidhb is muHal for Allah ta'ala. anyone who has read a fundamental aqidah text like umm al-barahin of imam sanusi will know the meanings of wujub, istiHalah and imkan. if anybody is ignorant of this or cannot understand this, it is not our problem.

    so: i quoted taftazani and bajuri on what is muHal and alaHazrat has quoted numerous other sources which categorically state that kidhb is muHal and there is ijma`a on this.

    ---
    on shaykh bouTi: we acknowledge that he is a scholar of the ahlu's sunnah; but he is not ma'aSum. he CAN make a mistake - and it is not necessary to follow him even when he makes a mistake. this is a deobandi trait that no matter what their scholars are right. deobandis like yourself have never been objective, because it would defeat their case. so they indulge in generalizations and summarizations to muddy the pond.

    you make a valid point that anyone can arbitrarily then decide what is a mistake and refuse to follow them. therefore we have something known as authorities. if shaykh bouTi contradicts all authorities [may i remind that there is ijma'a?] would you follow shaykh bouTi or the authorities? then what is the problem with albani and his followers? isn't it because they contradict the ijma'a?

    having said that, i ask you or anyone to provide quotes from any classical work [no deobandis please] that kidhb is considered jayiz or mumkin for Allah sub'Hanahu wa ta'ala. please NO interpretations or extrapolations because that is where it all started. if you can do that, i will grant it that there is ikhtilaf.

    you may ask, why do i object for extrapolations - the reason is because people doing extrapolations do not have a sound theory behind it; they have erroneous reasoning [trying to derive from a Hadith or document that already refutes that position] - one cannot argue with a person whether sugar is sweet, when he has no understanding of the words 'sugar' or 'sweet'.

    most `aqidah texts say: that kadhib is muHal by ijma'a. if shaykh bouTi contradicts ijma'a, then all this shouting and crying on your part is waste - would you follow ijma'a or shaykh bouTi?

    ---
    the main problem is, people with no standard education or elementary understanding of concepts and reasoning abilities jump to conclusions and it is rampant in our age. that is why we have to be wary of modern day scholars. if you want to include me in it, i will not fight you for that; but when i quote classical scholars, i am just a messenger.

    ---
    alaHazrat was asked whether he accepts that a certain book or a certain scholar as authority. even though he has praised them as authorities in various places in his books, he replied in a different way describing the principle which i paraphrase:

    if a certain scholar or a book is considered from ahlu's sunnah; it doesn't mean that it is mandatory to follow EVERY opinion of that scholar or EVERY word in that book. we accept them as long as they are with the jam'ah - that is the biggest group of scholars. this goes for even alaHazrat. when they introduce any new concept or idea, and it contradicts the majority we need not accept it. i said 'need not' because, the new concept may be concerning basic aqidah, furu', or concerning fiqh etc. further, the gravity of the concept may be farD, wajib, sunnah or mustaHabb or merely mubaH.

    if it is concerning fundamental belief and unanimously agreed upon matters - like kadhib being muHal - any new opinion, is rejected. but if it is concerning furu' it is safer to stay with the majority opinion.

    if it is concerning fiqh, this requires further investigation. if it is a matter already decided by consensus, any new opinion is rejected. like the salafis refuse to do taqlid which is also against ijma'a of later scholars.

    shaykh bouTi is an ash'ari scholar and he might have come to this erroneous conclusion [note that the english is not from shaykh bouTi; it is translated; the question is itself a loaded one. suppose the translation is accurate and that is what he really meant in the original, then his conclusions are erroneous]; it is our duty to refute this opinion. of course, if i were to 'judge' on this matter, i would have chosen the safe path - that is kept silent. but this issue was raised a hundred years ago and alaHazrat imam aHmed riDa khan refuted it comprehensively. notice here that alaHazrat did not introduce any new explanations; he only drew notice towards what is mentioned in the classical texts. notice that it is wajib for shaykh bouTi to follow alaHazrat, not the other way round. if i point that out, it suddenly becomes 'bashing'
    shaykh bouTi.

    you are reluctant to even accept the ijma'a because of your antipathy towards alaHazrat. there is little we can do other than perhaps shout a little.

    when a mufti has conclusively proved that this opinion is false and bid'ah [apart from it being obvious to even commonfolk] it is obligatory on us to follow it and to dispel doubts sown otherwise.

    if anybody conclusively refutes alaHazrat's risalah sub'Han as-subbuH and proves that there is valid ikhtilaf, we will remain silent [even though we will continue to believe the ijma'a that kidhb is muHal].

    go ahead and quote the difference among classical scholars about kidhb; not khulf al-wa'eed. of course, you can sneak a premise that imkan al-kidhb is a furu' of khulf al-wa'eed and then quote the difference in the latter to prove your point. first, prove how imkan al-kadhib is a furu' of khulf al-wa'eed. also, how is it possible when the unambiguous statement: kidhb is muHal for Allah by ijma'a is present in classical works. can something be muHal and mumkin at the same time?


    may Allah the Truthful guide you towards the Truth.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2006
  10. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    kharay khoh mitthay nain honday
    bhawain seh manaa gur paiyyay ho


    wells of sour water will not become sweet
    even if you pour tons of sugar


    i see that it befits many deobandis.
     
  11. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    correct me if i'm wrong but what sidi aH is saying (which reconciles what ibn abi al-hanafi points out) is that taqlid in aqida is not allowed for asharis - so you don't have to follow what shaykh buti etc. say

    and for maturidis - taqlid in aqida is [at least] allowed, and no maturidi mentions imkan e kidhb

    so, either way, imkan e kidhb is a no no
     
  12. harun

    harun Active Member

  13. All this bashing of contemporary Ashari scholars like Shaykh Buti, Shaykh Faraz Rabbani, Shaykh GF Haddad and others [including Deobandis] shows that abu Hasan is not able to scholarly answer the objections raised by faqir and other brothers regarding "imkan kadhib"

    I will just show one major flaw of abu Hasan which will prove my point.



    Then it makes no sense to follow Taftazani or Bajuri since there is no Taqlid in Aqida. Every Scholar can come to his own conclusion !! Why do you have to shout kufr kufr on the Deobandi scholars or criticize the contemporary Ashari scholars.

    Remember there is no Taqlid in aqida so no point in quoting fulan or some fulan.
    Seriously, if one starts to quote fulan and fulan then you will have many groups of scholars within Asharis and Maturidis who agree with you, who disagree with you on imkaan kidhb and who somewhat agree/disagree..

    so what is the fuss all about ?
     
  14. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i am sorry i deleted your original post; because you had copied a long answer from some deobandi - my 'pipsqueak' comment was for that, not for shaykh buTi.

    the reason i deleted the post was it was already present in another thread; also, i regret to have made the 'spam' comment. i was just angry and did not have the time to answer. i am sorry for that.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2006
  15. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    no. infact, this is khilaf al-wa'ad because the wa'ad or the promise for the righteous is salvation not punishment. it is clearly mentioned in the books that the ash'ari difference on khilaf al-wa'eed does not entail punishing the righteous. quotes later, inshaAllah.

    interestingly, most books of aqidah quote couplets in this regard. certain rebuttals from deobandis scorn 'poets making takfir'; well, poets are only translating fatwa of takfir into verse to drill sense into wooden blocks and rocks that do not move with sensible speech. but as usual, the deobandi muftis fret about sidelines than bother about the main issue.

    kadhib - as far as i know - means a lie. tomorrow, someone can redefine tawallud [to give birth] as 'to bring into this world' and al-`iyadhu billah claim that tawallud is jayiz for Allah ta'ala and ratiocinate that what he meant by tawallud is 'takhliq'. i cannot buy that.

    a deobandi fatwa was recently posted somewhere here that commonly prevalent meanings among native speakers is considered for ruling, not the linguistic intricacies - notwithstanding the cruel hard fact that kidhb means falsehood and is emphatically inambiguous.

    in which case, DHulm can be redefined as Qahr or Intiqam [power, punishing, avenging] and then is it allowed to attribute - ta'ala Allahu `uluwwan kabeera - His Exalted Majesty with DHulm/oppression?

    when one takes the premise that deobandis are right no matter what, you have all kinds of justifications. thereafter, one can go to the extent of redefining the very words themselves.

    to wit:
    rashid gangohi is a fool of deoband. i mean, in arabic fool means a bean; a bean is like a seed; what we exactly mean is he is among the seeds or originators of deobandi school.

    so forth, ad nauseum.

    ----
    takfir e deobandi-elders is actually Iyla e Kalimatu'l Haqq. one can ask, why do you oppose Iyla e Kalimatu'l Haqq? [Exalting the Truthful Word]

    ---
    i don't have it now, but any brothers that have can point it out. i think, he said so in his ek-rozah. i am willing to recant if i am proved otherwise - alHamdulillah, after all i am not a deobandi.
     
  16. Lurker

    Lurker Guest

    MashaAllah Brother Abu Hasan for a very informative and fine reply to this issue. As always, I believe you could've been more effective by being a bit more calmer in your earlier posts in this specific thread, but it's a bit too late for that. Anyway, just wanted to say shukriya and jazakallah.

    A couple of quick questions though. I recall reading that the Asharis also believe that khalf al-waeed is not just related to the concept of foregoing the promise of punishment upon the wrongdoers but also Him(swt) being able to inflict Divine Punishment upon the righteous too(i.e. the reverse holds true too) Is this what you found to be the case in the books of kalam and aqidah that you perused through or not?

    Another thing, I remember reading an excerpt from the malfuzat of the late mufti of the Deobandis, Mahmood-ul-Hasan al-Gangohi, where he described and defined what the deobandiyya meant by "imkan al-kadhib" and it seemed like he completely defined the concept of khilaf al-waeed. Do you think it's a possibility that they are guilty of "just"innovating an utterly impious phrase known as "imkaan al-kadhib" for what was all along known as "khilaf al-waeed"? After all, we already know how bad they're(deobandiya) poor in the science of aqidah, so I'm wondering if we can just say that what they were defining all along was known to the Asharis already but under a MUCH more appropriate and befitting name. Because in the same passage, the deobandis' Shaykh Sayyid Husain Ahmad Madani was known to define it as Imkan-e-Kizb "Tawsi`-e-Qudrat". I'm hoping you're understanding what I'm trying to convey here. Dont worry, I'm straight, I just like to give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to such matters. But please do explain.

    Lastly, what is the reference for Ismail Dehlawi saying, "'it is bid'ah to believe that Allah ta'ala is free from direction [jihat] or space and place [makan]'"?
     
  17. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i have just checked a booklet from guiding helper [i don't know if i have earlier] and in the preface, the book of imam sanusi is mentioned as a source for the arabic condensation on which guiding helper is based.

    inshaAllah, we will see how imam sanusi criticized ibn Hazm on the very matter so harshly and referenced by imam bayjuri in his Hashiyah of al-Jawharah.
     
    Nur al Anwar likes this.
  18. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    if one had half the decency that one so ostentatiously displays, they would investigate the fatwa before commenting upon it or so carelessly misquoting/misrepresenting it.

    moreover, if shaykh bouTi or anybody in our time opposes classical scholars - our elders - in matters of belief, we reject their opinion. if shaykh bouTi is an ash'ari, according to his own school, it is not necessary to follow anyone in matters of `aqidah.

    this emotional blackmail has become habitual among modern day sanitized deobandis who hypocritically talk about tasawwuf and surreptitiously try to push their fasid aqayid - many times firing over shoulders of arab/western shuyukh.

    i don't know who runs guidinghelper or whether the quote elsewhere here on the forum by guidinghelper is true; if it is true, then certainly whosoever wrote that has no clue about the matter because they speak of it without classification or qualification. if anyone has ghayrah they will go back and read imam ibrahim al-bayjuri's tuHfatu'l murid bi sharH jawharatu't tawHid quotes of which are given below. [alHamdulillah, i can quote a dozen books but i stick to jawharah because we know - or hope - that it is acceptable to the guidinghelper/sunnipath]

    any shaykh of today will be rejected if they oppose the ijma'a of earlier scholars. it is clearly written in books of aqidah and kalam that there is ijma'a that it is muHal for Allah ta'ala to lie.

    as for me, i consider alaHazrat a bigger scholar than shaykh bouTi or shaykh nuH or shaykh Hamza or shaykh gibril. i feel safer in his fatawa - even if the whole world turns otherwise. it is said in the beginning of sharH fiqh al-akbar by ali al-qari quoting a pious predecessor that even if i was the only one remaining on earth who has the ahlu's sunnah belief, i would not be intimidated to forsake it - or something like that. inshaAllah, quote later.

    and i state my belief, no matter what hair-splitting people in our deteriorated times, times of immense fitna say: that it is MuHal for Allah sub'Hanahu wa ta'ala to lie. Allah ta'ala is Al-Haqq, the Truthful. there is no imkan/possibility included in His Absolute Power because lying is a flaw and His Absolute Power is free from faults.

    i couldn't care any less what the rest of the world believes in.

    ----
    you can stick to your fancy wax-crayon world and fallacious reasoning, opportunistic-selective quoting and blackmail; show me one proof from books of kalam that allow imkan al-kadhib if you can.

    wa laa Hawla wa laa quwwata illa billah. innaa lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji`un.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2006
    Nur al Anwar likes this.
  19. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i will try to translate alaHazrat's appeal titled 'iltimas' in the blessed risalah sub'Han as-subbuH. he implores the misguided to sit alone and read his risalah without bias and cross check his references and then decide whether they should blindly follow the deobandi elders in their blunders or believe that kidhb is a flaw, a defect that cannot be attributed to Allah ta'ala.

    faqir quoted long excerpts from desai and other deobandis - i felt like laughing at their juvenile justifications. you may ask, then why not refute it? the problem is, who will understand it?

    people who claim to teach jawharah do not seem to have read the basic text of jawharah or the basic principles of kalam. that is, if you attribute something as wajib to Allah ta'ala, its opposite is muHal; if Sidq is wajib for Allah, kidhb is muHal. how can you debate with people who do not even now the meaning of istiHalah and imkan/jayiz?

    if something is considered as muHal for Allah ta'ala, its imkan is impossible - that is by definition. this is written in the text of jawharah itself. [inshaAllah, i will translate it when i find some time.]

    [mis?]guidinghelper casually throws away the difference of khulf al-wa'ad and khulf al-wa'eed. i have earlier quoted - QUOTED - ibrahim al-bayjuri that there is ijma'a among both ash'aris and maturidis that the former is muHal for Allah, whereas the latter is debated upon by ash'aris. notice that maturidis do not admit even that because they say that to pardon those muslims who deserve punishment is not khulf al-wa'eed in the first place at all.

    as for desai, he is awful and only parrots what his deobandi elders have said; and he so confidently lies - no wonder, the deobandis hasten to claim imkan for Allah ta'ala the Truthful, Al-Haqq.

    -----
    over the last week, i pored over numerous kalaam books and i could not find one instance where they have said, al-kidhb jaayiz li'llahi ta'ala. this furu'u or corollary is invented by the deobandis - just show me any classical scholar claiming that khulf al-wa'eed is another word for imkan al-kadhib.

    as for the fallacious reasoning that Allah has power to do anything includes kidhb, it is clearly explained by our [i mean ulama ahlu's sunnah] that this is a mu'tazili belief. in sharH fiqh al-akbar, allamah `ali al-qari says: 'the mu'tazilah believe that DHulm [or oppression] is in the Power of Allah but He does not do it.'

    the deobandis reason that: a man can lie; and if Allah could not lie, then His Power becomes lesser than that of man. quoting the verse: 'verily Allah ta'ala has the Power to do all things'. that is why alaHazrat illustrated this in his risalah [which the deobandis as usual, pick, choose, shave and quote]: in that case, man can have children - then is it possible for Allah to have children but He 'chooses' not to have? ta'ala Allahu `uluwwan kabeera. man is ignorant, so will the Power of Allah decrease if He is not ignorant? al-`iyadhu billah wa sub'Hanallahi `ammaa yaSifun ad-Dhalimun.

    most books of kalam [except usul al-kalam like taftazani's] start with the precepts: know what is wajib, what is jayiz/mumkin and what is mustaHil for Allah ta'ala to be attributed with. it is clearly said in these books that it is wajib for Allah ta'ala to be free from flaw and fault. tanazzuh.

    which is why, we debate the anthropomorphists who claim istiwa and moving up and down or to be confined in space or time; because such things are flaws and our basic premise is that Allah ta'ala is free from all faults and flaws and defects.

    even the mu'tazili doesn't accept that Allah ta'ala can lie because according to them falsehood is an ugly thing and the Power [qudrah] of Allah ta'ala precludes ugly things. whereas ahlu's sunnah say that falsehood is a naqS or flaw, and it is impossible [muHal] for Allah ta'ala to be attributed with a flaw. if something is muHal, the question of imkan does not arise - atleast if one goes by classical works and established definitions until the turn of the twentieth century. our age has all sorts of people defying masters and claiming all sorts of things describing Allah ta'ala and His messengers salawatullahi ta'ala `alayhim ajma`yin.

    inshaAllah, i will try to translate the sources presented by alaHazrat - because some people are so prejudiced against alaHazrat that they will refuse to read anything written by him. but they will oh-so grandly 'refute' him and discuss his opinions - all without having read his books. take ibn arabi, for example who so confidently claimed that alaHazrat ruled rashid gangohi kafir for this matter of imkan al-kadhib, whereas he explictly says in the end of this risalah that he withholds from takfir because the ignorant [juhhal] folk have misunderstood the difference of the ash'aris in matter of khulf al-wa'eed. he says, i still consider them muslims because there is a weak reason to withhold from takfir, even though they are ruled to be kafir by a majority of scholars. this was in 1308 AH, prior to Husam al-Haramayn.

    people can go hunting sources refuting anthropomorphism as if this is nothing to do with deoband; this fitna in india was sown by ismayil dahlawi who clearly said: 'it is bid'ah to believe that Allah ta'ala is free from direction [jihat] or space and place [makan]' among other shameful and repugnant beliefs.

    ----
    regardless, ye poor sheep of muSTafa sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam! do not be beguiled by any scholarship flashed in your faces. believe that Allah ta'ala is absolutely free from the possibility of uttering falsehood. this is unequivocally stated in books like sharH al-maqaSid of taftazani; al-mawaqif of sharif jurjani; musamarah of ibn humam; sharH fiqh al-akbar of mulla ali al-qari and other sources.

    if you are an ash'ari, you do not have to do taqlid in matters of `aqidah; and if you are a maturidi, no maturidi scholar allowed the matter of khulf al-wa'eed and by transition even the supposed [and egregious] deobandi-invented corollary of imkan al-kadhib; therefore, you do not have to believe in it either.

    ----
    don't be cheated by shayaTin al-jinn and shayaTin al-ins that this is ramaDan and we should not argue - care for your very belief. remember that your Lord Almighty Allah says:

    wa man aSdaqu minAllahi qeela / who is more Truthful in Speech than Allah? [4:122]
    wa man aSdaqu minAllahi Haditha/ who is more Truthful than Allah? [4:87]
    innAllaha laa yukhlifu'l mee'ad/ verily Allah ta'ala shall not renege on His Promise. [3:9] ][13:31]

    Allah ta'ala knows best.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2013
    Nur al Anwar likes this.
  20. tazkiyya2003

    tazkiyya2003 Active Member

    Do the fatawa of takfeer now extend to shaykh bouti and
    sunnipath and guiding helper etc?
     

Share This Page