Sh. Nuh Keller on Deoband VS Barelwi Conflict

Discussion in 'Refutation' started by Clueless, Mar 19, 2007.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. tazkiyya2003

    tazkiyya2003 Active Member

    The key sections were NOT translated by faraz rabbani, but by Sidi Hamza Karamali.As far as I'm aware the only thing faraz translated was the fatwa on marriage to a deobandi woman.
    All the stuff from bahraeen al qaatia'/hifz al iman etc was translated by sidi hamza to keep it impartial.

    So please lets keep the discussion factual.
     
  2. [34] The author’s thanks to Faraz Rabbani, who translated the fatwa’s text from Urdu

    looks like shaykh nuh's whole analysis of the deobandi writings is based on what and how shaykh faraz has translated to him. hm!!!

    And then the shaykh can say this : [35] That is, scholars and muftis whose understanding of the matter derived from Ahmad Reza Khan’s sending them his own Husam al-Haramayn to ask for endorsements,

    Shaykh really needs to learn urdu, if he wants to make an-unbiased or a less flawed analysis..Inshallah.
     
  3. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i haven't read the whole article properly yet, [i have copied it in word and a 10 point calisto makes 28 pages A4] but this comment is very surprising.

    so is shaykh nuH implying that imam aHmed riDa khan barelwi raHimahullah did not have this knowledge or the 33 major scholars of Haramayn did not have the scruplousness to investigate or ascertain - that they gave their approvals so very lightly?

    but more importantly, the shaykh says in a footnote:
    [FONT=&quot][35][/FONT][FONT=&quot] That is, scholars and muftis whose understanding of the matter derived from Ahmad Reza Khan’s sending them his own Husam al-Haramayn to ask for endorsements, which a number of them gave, then subsequently withdrew when Deobandis presented their side, some of the most salient points of which have been coveyed in the previous section.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]imam ahmed raza khan did not 'send' his 'Husam al-Haramayn' for endorsements. he took his fatwa al-mu'tamad al-mustanad personally to Haramayn [and khalil ahmed was ALSO present there]. he presented it to scholars, who gave their endorsements. the name of the collection of the original fatwa and such endorsements is 'Husam al-Haramayn'. alaHazrat did not write a book by name 'Husam al-Haramayn'.

    secondly, this withdrawal of endorsements i keep hearing about; one question: WHERE? if it is endorsements to al-muhannad, khalil told blatant lies - he outright denied statements written in their books.

    we hear about khalil ahmed's muhannad, but why did khalil ahmed not present his defence when he was there at the time endorsements were being given out?

    --
    the feeling i get - and Allah ta'ala knows best - is that shaykh nuH never saw Husam al-Haramayn. a few more questions to the shaykh [at the moment; a more detailed questionnaire comes later]:

    1. apart from faraz rabbani and other deobandi inputs, did you consult any barelwi scholar and/or reviewed any barelwi books, primarily alaHazrat's works? have you ever seen alaHazrat's books at all?

    2. have you ever seen Husam al-Haramayn?

    3. if not, isn't it necessary to hear both sides of the argument before presenting a judgement?

    4. mufti jalaluddin amjadi's fatwa is quoted for illustration and numerous inferences drawn by generalization. is it fair?

    5. who is the better judge of a situation? someone during that time itself, or someone who comes a hundred years late?

    -------------------------------------------------------
    and for faraz rabbani [or any deobandi who gave input to shaykh nuH], if you are reading this: fear Allah ta'ala. and fear the day when there is no other refuge except that of the Messenger sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam. and fear that day when nobody can make false excuses in the presence of Almighty Allah.

    fa idha lam tastaHi fa'Sna'a ma shiyt.
    wa ma `alayna illa'l balagh.
    [/FONT]
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2007
  4. Wadood

    Wadood Veteran

    Sidi Asif I have sent you a private message, please read it.
     
  5. Wadood

    Wadood Veteran

    You must all remember, or if you dont, know that Shaykh NuH loves Imam Ahmad RaDa Khan and this goes a long time back.

    The way Shaykh NuH enters Lahore and leaves is a testification of his love for the Sunnis there

    Shaykh NuH is far far ahead than anyone here on this site in Tasawwuf. Allah ta'ala has given him the firasa more than anyone else here
     
  6. Abu Fadl

    Abu Fadl Banned

    to me this article is an attempted refutation of 'Ala Hazrat (R.A.), it just dont seem that way because of who is writing it, but if it was a clearly labelled deobandi writing then we would have have taken it as that; the content remains the same regardless of author. There is not much in it that we have not already heard from deobandis.

    I found it disrespectful to the great Imam too.
     
  7. taz,

    i didn't say 'refute' i said 'reply'. i.e. comment on. Allah has given us a brain and the power of logic.
     
  8. harun

    harun Active Member

    It seems Shaykh Nuh Keller claims to understand the following issue better than Haji Imdadullah Muhajir Makki (rahmatullah alayh) and Hafiz Anwarullah Farooqui (rahmatullah alayh)

    http://www.sunniport.com/masabih/showthread.php?t=1892

    “[34] The author’s thanks to Faraz Rabbani, who translated the fatwa’s text from Urdu to English.”

    This makes me laugh as it is the same person who prompted the following deceitful Fatwa trying to make out Taqi Usmani allows the celebration of Mawlid. It seems he doesn’t understand either Urdu or English or is just a LIAR

    http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=3527&CATE=108
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 27, 2007
  9. tazkiyya2003

    tazkiyya2003 Active Member

    Sidi Nj.

    It would take a kalam scholar to refute this document.
    Not an aami....
     
  10. shaykh nuh's whole argument boils down to his conclusions that ala hazrat's fatwa was mistaken because according to him (a) ala hazrat either made a mistake in understanding the real meaning of 'imkan al kidhb' in arabic or (b)that the deos are innocent because they did not intend to insult the prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and, therefore, according to imam subki, they cannot be called kafirs. (c) he also said ala hazrat's prophetology was 'exotic' yet despite the above he admitted that what some of the deos had written was insulting to the Prophet.

    like i said i will write and post a detailed reply insha Allah dealing with this and other points which i picked up in my reading.
     
  11. abu nibras

    abu nibras Staff Member

    jazakallah khair for the link.

    I will have to re-read this at leisure but it seems like Shaykh Faraz and others have not furnished Shaykh Nuh with details of the correspondence between the Imam of Ahlus Sunnah Imam Ahmed Raza Khan and the Deobanid stalwarts who were explicitly notified of the "imputed intentionality" coming out their blasphemous statements for around a decade before any fatwa was issued.

    The article also says something that alahazrat said which I dont know the source of :

    There was a good decade between when this was written and Husam al Haramayn, more is unsaid here than what is said. Someone needs to publish those letters.

    I am sure there will be fair and balanced replies to this article by the more knowledgeable and the `ulema.

    --an
     
  12. :s1:

    thank you for sharing. I have read it in detail and am in the process of composing a serious response which I will put on here but my initial impression is that though Shaykh Nuh tries to be fair, balanced and certainly rigorous but, essentially, his essay amounts to an apologia for the deobandis and exonerates them all through technicalities which, I believe, are flawed because they are based on some erronous assumptions/logical steps and contradictions in his arguments but like I said I will post my lengthy reply on here soon.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2007
  13. faqir

    faqir Veteran

Share This Page