Shaykh Asrar meeting GFH and Shaykh Foudeh on kadhib

Discussion in 'Bickering' started by SaadSohail, Aug 11, 2020.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. SaadSohail

    SaadSohail Well-Known Member


    Think of it as "digging" a grave where they ultimately fell into.
    There's no way out for the deobandiyah whether they talk about Kalam Nafsi or Kalam Lafdhi.


    1) Aļļaah’s Eternally Speech (which is not letters, sounds, or language) must be true, and cannot be untrue, because it is not created. In a speech that could tell a lie, a specific lie is only one possibility among infinite possibilities, thus such a speech would need to be specified and brought into existence, i.e. it would have to be created. This is unlike true speech, because the truth can only be one about any particular matter, and is known by Aļļaah eternally. This is the meaning of imam Ahmad’s saying, "His Speech is from His knowledge," i.e. "agrees with His knowledge," and His knowledge is One, Eternal, and True just as His Speech.

    2) The uttered speech that is called "Aļļaah’s Speech" tells us what He said with His Eternal Speech. The Qur’aan in the sense of the book with Arabic expressions is utterable speech that tells us what Aļļaah said eternally. That is why it is called Aļļaah’s speech, even though Aļļaah’s actual attribute of speech is eternal, and is not letters, sounds, or language.

    3) According to 2), an utterance that says something other than what Aļļaah said eternally is not His Speech.

    4) Therefore, any uttered speech that is not true cannot rationally be said to be Aļļaah’s Speech, because it does not tell us what He said eternally.

    5) Conclusion: it is impossible in the mind’s eye that Aļļaah’s so called kalaam lafţħiyy (speech of utterable expressions) could contain a lie.

    Courtesy: Shaykh Abu Adam Al Naruji.

    Source
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2020
  2. ramiz.noorie

    ramiz.noorie Active Member

    Nothing is wrong, that's what I am wondering that post is from 2010 and and the video from 2020 he is faulting Alahazrat. The post is from his forum

    Mawlana Abu Hasan, I want to understand why Deobandiyyah bring up the topic of Kalam Nafsi, in the book of Alahazrat or the Maturidis, there is no mention of Kalam Nafsi. May be that is the way out for them for their blunder?


    https://ketabonline.com/en/books/102922/read?page=454
    and
    Syed alusi from Baghdad
    وقد نقل عنه بالخبر المتواتر أن كلام الله تعالى صدق، وأن الكذب عليه سبحانه محال، ونظر فيه الآمدي بأن لقائل أن يقول: صحة السمع متوقفة على صدق الرسول صلّى الله عليه وسلّم وصدقه متوقف على استحالة الكذب على الله تعالى من حيث أن ظهور المعجزة على وفق تحديه بالرسالة نازل منزلة التصديق من الله سبحانه له في دعواه، فلو جاز الكذب عليه جل شأنه لأمكن أن يكون كاذبا في تصديقه له ولا يكون الرسول صادقا، وإذا توقف كل منهما على صاحبه كان دورا لا يقال إثبات الرسالة لا يتوقف على استحالة الكذب على الله تعالى ليكون دورا فإنه لا يتوقف إثبات الرسالة على الإخبار بكونه رسولا حتى يدخله الصدق والكذب، بل على إظهار المعجزة على وفق تحديه، وهو منزل منزلة الإنشاء، وإثبات الرسالة وجعله رسولا في الحال كقول القائل: وكلتك في أشغالي، واستنبتك في أموري، وذلك لا يستدعي تصديقا ولا تكذيبا إذ يقال حينئذ: فلو ظهرت المعجزة على يد شخص لم يسبق منه التحدي بناء على جوازه على أصول الجماعة لم تكن المعجزة دالة على ثبوت رسالته إجماعا ولو كان ظهور المعجزة على يده منزل منزلة الإنشاء لرسالته لوجب أن يكون رسولا متبعا بعد ظهورها. وليس كذلك، وكون الإنشاء مشروطا بالتحدي بعيد بالنظر إلى حكم الإنشاءات، وبتقدير أن يكون كذلك غايته ثبوت الرسالة بطريق الإنشاء، ولا يلزم منه أن يكون الرسول صادقا في كل ما يخبر به دون دليل عقلي يدل على صدقه فيما يخبر به، أو تصديق الله تعالى له في ذلك، ولا دليل عقلي يدل على ذلك، وتصديق الله تعالى له لو توقف على صدق خبره عاد ما سبق، فينبغي أن يكون هذا المسلك السمعي في بيان استحالة الكلام اللساني وهو صحيح فيه، والسؤال الوارد ثم منقطع هنا فإن صدق الكلام اللساني وإن توقف على صدق الرسول لكن صدق الرسول غير متوقف على صدق الكلام اللساني بل على الكلام اللساني نفسه فامتنع الدور الممتنع، وفي المواقف: الاستدلال على امتناع الكذب عليه تعالى عند أهل السنة بثلاثة أوجه: الأول أنه نقص والنقص ممنوع إجماعا، وأيضا فيلزم أن يكون نحن أكمل منه سبحانه في بعض الأوقات أعني وقت صدقنا في كلامنا، والثاني أنه لو اتصف بالكذب سبحانه لكان كذبه قديما إذ لا يقوم الحادث بذاته تعالى فيلزم أن يمتنع عليه الصدق، فإن ما ثبت قدمه استحال عدمه واللازم باطل، فإنا نعلم بالضرورة أن من علم شيئا أمكن له أن يخبر عنه على ما هو عليه، وهذان الوجهان إنما يدلان على أن الكلام النفسي الذي هو صفة قائمة بذاته تعالى يكون صادقا، ثم أتى بالوجه الثالث دليلا على استحالة الكذب في الكلام اللفظي والنفسي على طرز ما في المسلك الثاني وقد علمت ما للآمدي فيه فتدبر جميع ذلك ليظهر لك الحق.
    فَما لَكُمْ مبتدأ وخبر، والاستفهام للإنكار، والنفي والخطاب لجميع المؤمنين، وما فيه من معنى التوبيخ لبعضهم، وقوله سبحانه: فِي الْمُنافِقِينَ يحتمل- كما قال السمين- أن يكون متعلقا بما يدل عليه قوله تعالى:
    فِئَتَيْنِ أي فما لكم تفترقون في المنافقين، وأن يكون حالا من فِئَتَيْنِ مفترقين في المنافقين، فلما قدم نصب على الحال، وأن يكون متعلقا بما تعلق به الخبر أي أي شيء كائن لكم في أمرهم وشأنهم، فحذف المضاف وأقيم المضاف إليه مقامه، وفي انتصاب فِئَتَيْنِ وجهان- كما في الدر المصون..
    أحدهما أنه حال من ضمير لَكُمْ المجرور، والعامل فيه الاستقرار، أو الظرف لنيابته عنه، وهذه الحال لازمة لا يتم الكلام بدونها، وهذا مذهب البصريين في هذا التركيب وما شابهه، وثانيهما- وهو مذهب الكوفيين- أنه خبر كان مقدرة أي ما لكم في شأنهم كنتم فئتين، ورد بالتزام تنكيره في كلامهم نحو فَما لَهُمْ عَنِ التَّذْكِرَةِ مُعْرِضِينَ [المدثر: 49] وأما ما قيل على الأول: من أن كون ذي الحال بعضا من عامله غريب لا يكاد يصح عند الأكثرين فلا يكون معمولا له، ولا يجوز اختلاف العامل في الحال وصاحبها، فمن فلسفة النحو كما قال الشهاب، والمراد إنكار أن
     
  3. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    what exactly is wrong with this and what is new?

    looks like i must expedite the second edition of 'truth' which is long overdue.

    wa billahi't tawfiq.
     
  4. ramiz.noorie

    ramiz.noorie Active Member

    Shaykh Saeed Fudah wrote on this topic on his website

    وما معنى أن العقل يحيل الكذب على الله تعالى إلا أن يكون مثبتا الصدق كمالا له تعالى من حيث إنه متصف بصفة الكلام وهي كمال له، وهي متعلق بالأشياء على ما هي عليه، وهذا أصل منشأ استحالة الكذب عليه جل شأنه. فكلامه صفة له، والكذب والصدق صفات للأخبار، وهي راجعة لكلامه.
    فكون الكذب قبيحا عقلا لا مدخلية له بنفي الاشاعرة للقبح والحسن العقليين كما ربما يتوهم، فإن القبح والكذب العقليين المنفيين هما اللذان يترتب عليهما المدح والذم من حيث الفعل لا من حيث الذات والصفة، وإلا لما أمكن إثبات صفة لله تعالى مطلقا بالاعتماد على أنها كمال لله تعالى. ولكن العلماء يستدلون على إثبات صفات الله تعالى بأنها كمال لله تعالى، ويرتبون على ذلك أنها واجبة له، وهي حسنة عقلا بلا ريب، وإثباتها لله تعالى حسن عقلا، وضدها وأضدادها قبيحة عقلا، بمعنى أنه يستحيل عقلا إثباتها لله كما وجب عقلا إثبات الكمالات لله تعالى.
    وهذا الأمر راجع إلى إجماع أهل السنة مع غيرهم على أن الحسن والقبح بمعنى الكمال والنقص كالعلم والجهل عقليان لا خلاف في ذلك.
    فيصير مرجع الكلام إلى أن العقل يستقبح إثبات الكذب لله تعالى، ويستحسن إثبات الصدق له جلَّ شأنه، من حيث إن الأول صفة نقص والثاني صفة كمال. والله تعالى إذا اتصف بصفة كمال كالقدرة، فيقبح عقلاً إثبات صفة نقص لها هي ضدها كالعجز.
    فينبغي التفريق بين القبح العقلي بالمعنى المختلف فيه، وما نحن فيه هنا
    A Malibari (kerala) brother wrote:
    نعم سيدي، ثبوت استحالة الكذب على الباري المتقدس المتعالي بالعقل أولا ثم بالنصوص الشرعية وإجماع من يعتد به، وقد ذهل بعض كبار الأشاعرة عن موطن الوفاق والخلاف في الحسن والقبح - كما لاحظه العلامة السعد وغيره بحق - فصدر عنهم كلمات لا ينبغي لمثلهم الذهاب إليها لو لا هذا الذهول، وقد أفرد الإمام أحمد رضا خان البريلوي الهندي رحمه الله في المضوع كتابا مستقلا باللغة الأردية بعنوان (سبحان السبوح عن عيب كذب مقبوح)، ردا على بعض الديوبندية في دعواهم أن ثبوت ذلك ثبوت شرعيا فقط، فبين بطلان زعمهم بعشرات الأدلة المنيرة، وهذا الكتاب للأسف الشديد لم يطبع، ولكنه بفضل الله تم تعريبه، نسأل الله التيسير لطبعه. وأنا قد تناولت هذا المضوع بالدراسة والتحليل ضمن رسالتي التي نلت عنها درجة الدكتوراه في الفلسفة من جامعة الأزهر قبل بضعة أيام بعنوان (نشأة المذهب الأشعري وتطوره في الهند)، وذلك حين تعرضتُ للفرقة الديوبندية وبعض مزاعمهم الباطلة. ونظرا لطول الكلام في الموضوع أتردد في نقله هنا، وربما أنقله تدريجا في وقت لاحق بإذن الله.

    May Allah give raise the rank of Taj us Shariah, grandson of Alahazrat from translating it and publishing it

    upload_2020-8-11_11-27-41.png
    upload_2020-8-11_11-28-4.png
     
  5. SaadSohail

    SaadSohail Well-Known Member

    This doesnot mean Shaykh Saeed Foudeh has reservations on the issue of Imkan Kidhb or that he disagrees with Ala Hazrat (Rh) on this. Disagreement with Ala Hazrat (Rh) on this issue is acceptance of Kufr. And we all know the verdicts. There's no difference of opinion.

    Having said that, I have explicit statement from the Shaykh Saeed Foudeh when asked about "Imkan Kidhb". He denied that.

    Why I asked him?
    For this reason:
    Claim of the deobandiyah:

    "It is enough to state that Shaykh Sa'id Fuda accepts the deobandi view in his unpublished book on imkan al-kadhib i.e. kadhib being aqlan possible in kalam al-lafzi only, not nafsi. I am not allowed to share the book but he ascribes this view to a group of scholars even though he states there is a group who does not agree with this view".



    So we should at the end of the day accept the statement which is apparant and explicit (i.e. Shaykh Saeed Foudeh denies having accepted or endorsed the deobandi false view) instead of "wildly" guessing his position from the video OR giving ears to deobandiyah's lies.
    ____________________________________________________


    Having said that:
    It is possible that He disagrees with Ala Hazrat (rh) on some of the differing positions on the same issue within the Ahlus Sunnah.
    (I am not talking in particular in reference to Divine Speech Here.)

    For e.g.

    I remember bringing a quote from the works of Ala Hazrat (rh) here. The position adopted by Ala Hazrat (rh) is the position of Imam Fakhrudin Razi (rh).

    But Shaykh Saeed Foudeh disagrees with this position or more precisely put the "wording":


    1)In a video, (not specifically mentioning Ala Hazrat) he talks about this particular position in reference to Imam Razi (rh):





    2)In his book "Refined explanation of Sanusi Creed" he talks about this position again:

    sanusi.png
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2020
  6. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    brother ramiz, i don't know how old you are but this is the approach that has made us stand where we are today in comparison to deobandis.

    i am not saying that we should be hypocrites like them. but if we do not meet people, when will we get the opportunity to set the record straight?

    khayr, so long as shaykh asrar does not expressly accept GFH's incompatible positions, you cannot call that as 'hanging around'.
     
  7. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    See, that's another assumption. How do you know he read Minhaji Fata Morgana? If he did, how do you know he didn't warn his shaykh or that he didn't yet get around to it or needs to speak to our ulama about it?

    Listen, we don't support GFH, or anyone else for that matter, if they do wrong. But we must be fair, even with those we disagree with.

    Shaykh Asrar meeting with someone who has some problematic stances but who hasn't been declared out of Ahl al-Sunnah by ulama is not wrong in every instance.

    We know the devbandi issue first hand. They don't. Our qualified ulama should build rapport with them so that they can show them the missing pieces.

    You say GFH knows the devbandi issue. Maybe. But perhaps they don't have first hand experience like us of their wahabism.
     
  8. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    He didn't invite GF Haddad. They were both invited to an event in a Sunni masjid by the same person. GF Haddad is one of his teachers so he went. And did islah.
     
  9. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    Mufti Aslam is a good scholar and candid. One of my favourites in the UK.

    There's no need to compare him and Shaykh Asrar.

    Shaykh Asrar can speak on many topics. From the young ulama, he's a beacon of light. He's a bibliophile from a young age and notice how promptly he can answer questions as if answers are being pulled at will.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2020
  10. ramiz.noorie

    ramiz.noorie Active Member

    Mawlana Abu Hasan, I am in agreement as long as the Creedal Aqida matter is not serious, it could be overlooked, but in the case of GF Haddad you have covered one serious heresy of GF Haddad over here http://sunniport.com/index.php?thre...e-coming-to-an-end-position-of-sahabah.12177/ and you have also mentioned "show me your friends, i will tell you who you are".

    My objection is what is the need to hang around with such questionable people. I agree Shaykh Asrar is doing superb job, but some things I don't agree with him, one of them is hanging around dodgy people.

    I have found Mawlana Aslam Bandalywi to be the top-notch scholar of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah in our times, Sh. Saeed Fudah is no where in comparison to Shaykh Aslam Bandalywi.

    Mawlana Aslam can speak on any topic be it kalam, hadith, fiqh, tasawwuf...
     
  11. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    my response is:
    let us wait.

    ---
    there may be people over-awed by his knowledge of kalam, and it is indeed impressive when looking at our contemporaries. this is his specialisation and his corpus of works indicate this.

    alahazrat on the other hand was not only a mutakallim, but a faqih and muhaddith, a mufassir and a sufi. one should read his corpus if they do not believe me. so alahazrat's approach was multi-disciplinary and the breadth of his knowledge goes beyond kalam works. in the books/essays i have seen written by sh. saeed, i do not see this versatility. he is a good reporter of ash'ari positions; but does he have the uncanny ability to derive masa'il and use citations for istinbat? my opinion - feel free to disagree - it appears that he mostly works within the framework of ash'ari corpus (i could be wrong) and refers to other sciences in a limited manner, as one drawing reference, not a master of that science. and as an ash'ari, considers the ash'ari positions to be strongest.

    we - and our imam alahazrat - are maturidis. we have been criticising ash'aris and their positions in various masa'il, which is a well-known issue of disagreement between the two schools of ahl al-sunnah.

    my hunch is that sh. saeed relies overwhelmingly on the ash'ari proof and this could be the reason he finds 'errors' in alahazrat's work on Divine Speech. is there indeed an error? as i have said, it is not wise to take a stand NOW. let us wait for his book.

    wa billahi't tawfiq.

    PS:

    but not impossible. we need some of our smart and young scholars to tackle individual issues. it is do-able. but the problems is the vacuum at the top. we do not have sound leadership. people who can lead the way and mentor the new generation.

    people are quick to jump at shaykh asrar on his insistence to stay away from the term baraylawi. but who do the deobandis 'see' as a baraylawi and attack in the UK? and who responds to them and defends imam ahmad rida khan?

    anyone?
     
    abu Usman and sherkhan like this.
  12. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    brother ramiz you are going by the off the cuff remark in the video. where i am talking about the actual issue that sh. foudeh has, you are harping on his talk. and this is clear even by the transcript you have cited. this is why it is essential to LEARN how to read. reading the words is one skill; comprehension is second and ability to contextualise is another. reading between lines and the subtext is yet another level.

    did he say "i sided with devbandis and faulted barelwis in this book"?

    let us see when it is released. until then it is not right to insinuate. don't jump the gun. if at all sh. foudeh says that "it is not muhal dhati" then we will talk. i am not clairvoyant. i do not know what is in the book. but i won't attribute a position to him until there is evidence.

    i.e. in the book. without having seen the book, only fools will make claims.
    what about OUR claims about sh. saeed does not side with devs on THIS issue? well it is fair to assume that he takes the default position of ahl al-sunnah that kadhib is muHal dhati for Allah ta'ala. that which is maqdur is mumkin; not muHal or wajib. kadhib is muHal and hence it is not subject to Divine Power. this is written explicitly in n number of texts INCLUDING those which sh.saeed has edited! to assume that he contradicts this requires proof.

    as i said, he is talking of an issue related to Divine Speech in the argument against imkan kadhib and is not the position per se. as per the information i have received, this is a risalah of alahazrat in arabic. now you can discuss with your mates and put four and four together.

    i am told that he does not subscribe to the idea that imkan kadhib is ja'iz/mumkin for Allah ta'ala. and this should be the standard position, given that he is an ash'ari mutakallim and has published books of imam sanusi. it beggars belief that he would contradict sanusi, even if he does not agree with alahazrat.

    now, now. who needs to learn to 'understand' mantuq and mafhum?

    you seem to always attack shaykh asrar. this is a pattern i have observed by some of our brothers in the UK who do not seem to realise that he is one of our best man on the front. indeed, i do not agree with him in certain issues of presentation and choice of words etc - but that is not something which is a major issue. we are one family and we can sort out our minor differences. pulling down shaykh asrar is not the correct approach.

    what irritates me is insinuation. if you think shaykh asrar is going here and there - give us proof. just because it 'feels' or because you closely watch his movements and they appear to indicate this or that sounds silly.

    though i am not one in a position to give any advice, i urge ulama in the UK to be together and cover each others' backs. this is not a time to settle petty quarrels.

    ---
    to me, you are being hasty. you don't know what sh. saeed has written but you seem to second guess his position. only time will tell whether you are right or wrong. nas'alu Allah al-aafiyah.

    this is the product of very limited knowledge. you don't know what sh. fudah's position is but you write shuruh on it and refute it!

    hadha shay'un ajeeb.

    i have told you that it is a matter related to Divine Speech but not permissibility of imkan kadhib per se.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2020
    SaadSohail likes this.
  13. sherkhan

    sherkhan Veteran

    Going by the subtitle to the clip, it does appear that Sh Foudeh specifically disagrees on certain points over Divine Speech (among others, which he doesn't specify). He refers to a number of errors (not just one). In the absence of specific details (and purely on the basis of the clip), it would be unfair to presume that his disagreement is over imkan kadhib. But is his critique genuine/specific (or is as vague as Keller's accusations of "esoteric prophetology")?

    We don't claim AlaHazrat to be infallible; furthermore since the Imam himself stood on the shoulder of several giants, it is entirely possible that he preferred one strand of opinion over the other (which Sh Foudeh may not agree with). Sh Foudeh makes a fair point that error doesn't diminish a scholar's stature, and that more widely acclaimed scholars have had a fair share of errors/criticism leveled against them.


    It is fair point. We, from subcontinent, are prone to exaggerations and easily outraged ("chipped") by criticism; which can readily put off someone like Sh Foudeh (and probably colour their neutrality, in turn). As an Arab alim, without complete access to all/most of AlaHazrat's work, if Sh Foudeh hasn't got a proper measure of his standing then that is understandable. We shouldn't expect every scholar to be fulsome in praise.


    Which work is it?



    That's a tall task. Deobandi aberrations are ensconced within a large body of work (which is not entirely aberrant); so to the outsiders (and neutrals and objectives, like Sh Asrar) they will always be deemed as belonging to ahl us-Sunnah. Let's face it: Arab world is more exposed to deobandi works, than ours; deobandis have several neutral endorsements to their credit.

    It will be hard to disabuse them (Arabs) of their notion (about deoband's sunnism) without them actually seeing/experiencing the ground realities within the subcontinent. Let them tour India/Pakistan (and see the other side in its natural form/colour) and then come to conclusion. I doubt discussions/private sessions alone can disabuse.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2020
    abu Hasan likes this.
  14. ramiz.noorie

    ramiz.noorie Active Member

    Shaykh Saeed Fudah: "and similarily regarding the matter of Imkan al-Kadhib I wrote a book
    I pray to Allah that He allows its release
    I made clear in there, the errors which the Barelwis fell into and the errors
    which the Deobandis fell into regarding this topic

    understood ?"


    To me, it seems Shaykh Saeed Fudah is faulting both Barelwis and Deobandis on the issue of Imkan kadhib. I also thought Imkan e kadhib is either YES or NO, and now we have a third view, where sh. fudah faults both YES and NO and comes up with something else.

    On Divine Speech, Shaykh Saeed Fudah claims Alahazrat also made mistakes.

    Let's wait for his book to be published, I too have reached him directly and through friends, and I got totally different feedback on this matter. His Student Jalal Jahani is pretty accessible also involved in such discussions.


    The best is said by brother unbeknown: "the never-ending circle - those who come after, can correct the predecessors, and those who come after them will correct the correctors, and all the while knowledge keeps diminishing from one generation to next!

    while sh. foudah can expect us to be objective - he can't expect us to accept his view as the correct opinion."


    a kafir can be misguided
    a misguided can be a kafir

    I am not sure which scholars you are referring to.

    Anyone after reading the deobandi kufr still defends it, what would you call him ? A PAKKA SUNNI or from Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jamaah ?

    Anyone who insults Allah or His Prophets (AS) what would you call him Sunni ? or from Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jamaah.

    A guiding star ?

    I cannot find any excuses, and how would Imam Subki react to these type of people who insult Allah and His Prophet (AS) why should we make excuses for them and not others ?
     
  15. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i think we are glossing over shaykh saeed foudeh's point.

    first and foremost, here is what i am told: sh.saeed does not side with devbandis on the imkan kadhib. his disagreement with alahazrat is NOT about this specific issue. it is RELATED to Divine Speech but it is not on imkan kadhib. devbandis being dev-bandis are lying as usual.

    i have no reason to believe otherwise. i would be utterly disappointed if sh.saeed agreed with devs; and it is highly improbable that a man of his learning, exposed to so many texts on which he has himself annotated - would even accept it as a debatable point. it is difficult to believe unless we see proof in writing or speech.

    let us not speculate on this matter anymore. "bring your proof if you are truthful" could shut up the devbandis. but "do whatever you want if you have no shame" is their go to market strategy.

    --
    in the transcript below he is emphasising the point that he only disagrees with alahazrat on an aqidah point related to Divine Speech. according to sh. saeed, alahazrat made an error in this issue. he also acknowledges that alahazrat was a big aalim and that pointing out an error does not diminish his stature. he then criticises his followers [barelwis] who have a chip on their shoulders - who cannot tolerate ANY criticism of alahazrat.

    there is a background to this, which we know. there is no need to discuss the details at this point.

    i reiterate: this is NOT about imkan kadhib.

    it is alahazrat's original arabic work. after i got this information, i read THIS book a couple of times and i couldn't understand where sh. saeed has found an 'error'. though i got a summary from another source what sh. saeed thinks, but the data is not sufficient. unless we see his book and his argument, it is not wise to shout him down. and we cannot say that sh. saeed is indeed mistaken until we examine his viewpoint.

    ---
    as for his general critique of takfir. this is a problem most araba ulama are faced with. they do not investigate it thoroughly, and based on some superficial 'proofs' they conclude that it is a needless fight. perhaps some day we could sit with sh. saeed and run through the numerous devbandi arguments and their aberrations, the books they have written defending their wahabi outlook IN URDU, and their volte-face when facing arabs, will persuade him that the deobandi is certainly a gulabi-wahabi.

    only a deep understanding of the 200 year old history of indian wahabism, its effects and offshoots will bestow an appreciation of why we hold imam ahmad rida khan in such esteem.

    if one would run through a time-lapse: without ismail dihlawi and his aberration, wahabism would not have reared its head in india. and it is the elders of deoband who nurtured this to which they added their own ingredients. it is ismail's aberration that led to free-thinking and offshoots such as maududi's jama'at, which is said to have influenced sayyid qutub - and other political movements. it is naive to think that each of these people blindly followed others. many were smart and talented people, and in my opinion, caught in an intelligence-trap and thus casually discarding opinions of previous ulama. predecessors made conditions conducive to the new ideas proposed by later heretics.

    without an thriving community of "chuck out the madh'habs" - maududi could not have gained an audience whcih he converted into followers.

    wa billahi't tawfiq.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2020
  16. Tariq Owaisi

    Tariq Owaisi Active Member

    Brother, you said no compromise, the fatwa of Alahazrat is kafirs but earlier you said misguided scholars. By using softer words this would infer that you have compromised or are leaving the actual fight to someone else.
     
  17. sherkhan

    sherkhan Veteran

    I am wondering what's Sh Foudeh's access to AlaHazrat's work. Is he basing his opinion and views of "Shaykh Ahmad Rida Khan al-Barelwi ... mistakes" on the latter's original works in Arabic? Since the vast corpus of Imam's work is in Urdu, how has Sh Foudeh managed to judge AlaHazrat's standing? Has he managed to access works in Urdu or is he basing his views relying on "other" sources" (like Keller did from Faraz's and Hamza Karamali's biased inputs)?


    Very strange and unfair comparison. Sh Foudeh can access each of Imam Taftazani's works; but what (and how much) has he seen of AlaHazrat's works to pass the judgement? At the same time, scholars who came later were at significant advantage in terms of access to more varied array of views/works, and their work could be much richer due to the ability to reference previous works. How is it possible to compare scholars across different eras/milieus/breadth (of expertise)?


    Although Sh Foudeh qualifies at the end of the clip that these are his views in summary, he hasn't made a single specific reference or provided any instance of AlaHazrat's errors. Let him come up with specific points; without which his judgement is invalid and merely an opinion.


    Seems a new malady of neutrality - criticise (praise) both sides, give no specific examples, judge both sides as right (or grey). I recently came across this new book "Defending Muhammad in Modernity" on Barelwi-Deobandi polemic. In a stubborn attempt at neutrality, the author refuses to judge/fault either side. To partisans like us, it would appear like giving too much "benefit of doubt" to dayabina.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2020
    Ghulam Ali and Unbeknown like this.
  18. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    Forget Karam Shah sahib. Where did the former two support devbandism?
     
  19. AbdalQadir

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

    the biggest missionaries of this filth in the subcontinent is the bollywood and drama serial industry, and now increasingly, mainstream news media too - and i'm talking about both india and pakistan.

    i certainly am not well versed with all or most discourses of most subcontinental scholars, but in my life, i have only ever heard of Huzoor Mufti A'azam Hind rahimahullah and Mawlana Ilyas Qadri hafizahullah to actually mention 'filmein-dramein' explicitly as sources of outright kufr.

    it's not funny how much of bollywood filminess is embedded into daily lives and cultures of subcontinentals.

    people should be at the very least to recognize the kufr that they see splattered all across the entertainment industry if they can't stay away from tv, netflix, youtube for any reason, and for that

    even if they can't duck their heads in sand as the industry is all over the place, people should at least be able to recognize salman khan for instance, as a murtad and not 'bhaijaan'
     
    SaadSohail likes this.
  20. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    the never-ending circle - those who come after, can correct the predecessors, and those who come after them will correct the correctors, and all the while knowledge keeps diminishing from one generation to next!

    while sh. foudah can expect us to be objective - he can't expect us to accept his view as the correct opinion.

    the best way for him will be to write/publish his book so that it can be analysed.

    as for overpraise, exaggeration and "a great scholar but not the only nor the best" - this isn't something set in stone. to each his own.

    suffice it to say that from afar, Mount Everest appears to be just another mountain - just a mass rock and ice. Those who have only seen it in pictures can be excused for their tepidity.

    But to those who live in its shadow, for whom the awe and grandeur of that colossal being are an omnipresent reality, the lesson in respect and meekness is soon learnt.

    The overpowering majesty and the disarming beauty create that irresistible draw - from whose enthralling gaze few can hope to escape.

    If you can imagine that, you will get some idea about Alahazrat ...
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 10, 2020
    Abdullah Ahmed and ramiz.noorie like this.

Share This Page