Yasir Deobandi Defending Tahdhir al-Nas

See some of my recent posts:
https://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/bhūnchāl-bar-lashkar-i-dajjāl.16336/
https://sunniport.com/index.php?thr...anotvi-against-shaykh-asrar.15336/#post-87312
https://sunniport.com/index.php?thr...anotvi-against-shaykh-asrar.15336/#post-87313
https://sunniport.com/index.php?thr...anotvi-against-shaykh-asrar.15336/#post-87314
https://sunniport.com/index.php?thr...anotvi-against-shaykh-asrar.15336/#post-87323
https://sunniport.com/index.php?thr...anotvi-against-shaykh-asrar.15336/#post-87416

Qistas -
https://archive.org/details/QistasFiMawazinaAsarIbnAbbasByShaikhMuhammadBinAhmadThanvi/mode/1up

Ibtal Aghlat Qasimiyyah -
https://archive.org/details/Abtal-e...anotviMurtadKaRaadAhleBidat/page/n37/mode/2up

Tanbih al-Juhhal -
https://archive.org/details/TanbeehUlJuhaalRadETakhzeerUnNaas/mode/2up

Taqdis al-Wakil -
https://archive.org/details/TaqdeesUlWakeelAnTauheenUrRasheedWalKhalil/mode/1up

Fatawa Bey-Nazir -
https://archive.org/details/FatawaBenazeerDarNaifMisalAanHazratBashirWaNazeer

 

I guess nanotwi must have imagined there were so many people claiming him to be kaafir because according to usman and Co, it was ala hazrat that did takfeer in 1905. Several decades after this quote by nanotwi was written.

And did these dehlawi scholars make takfeer in 1873/74 based on the passages in rearranged/summarised form found in hussam in 1905? Suppose the deos on twitter believe there was time travel involved.

Would be interested to know if these pre-ala hazrat fatawa against nanotwi are available anywhere. A translated collection would surely be useful in and of itself

 

yasir devbandi's beating about the bush and putting words in shaykh shahid's mouth, only to cheer his devbandi friends, will be refuted line by line. in sha'Allah wa bi tawfiqihi.

 

Qāsim Nānotwī’s supposed ignorance of Taḥdhīr al-Nās being printed is a total red herring, even if it were true.

The hard fact is that Aḥsan Nānotwī sent the istiftāʾ to both ʿAbd al-Ḥayy and Qāsim Nānotwī; Qāsim Nānotwī's reply ended up as the Taḥdhīr al-Nās as we currently know it.

If publication truly displeased him, the remedy was that he could have withdrawn his fatwa, or declared it a technical discourse meant for the initiated, not the lay public. There is no trace of such follow up from Qāsim Nānotwī.

What we do have is Qāsim Nānotwī’s own admission that barely a year after the book was published, a fatwa of kufr was issued against him by most of the Delhiite scholars (except one) and was being circulated for further signatures, even abroad in the Arab lands.

Instead of defending himself, clarifying his intent, or repudiating the text, he chose to meet the charge with nothing but silence.



* the translation is not final, it was done a few years ago

 

in this clip qasim nanotvi gives mirza qadiani a free pass.

...and you know that the Word of Allah will be raised (taken away) after the apocalypse is triggered [qiyamat ka barpa hona], and this is certain occurrence ordained by the command of Allah ta'ala. otherwise, while the world exists, if a new prophet came, there would be no objection to that.​

the poor translator had to add in his translation: "since the world does not endure, a new prophet cannot come." but poor mindless sheeple that he was, he ignored that nanotvi explicitly admitted the possibility of a new prophet coming after our Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam - irrespective of his qiyamat tak ya qiyamat kay baad!

this is what we been saying - and not tahzir - nanotvi is repeating in multiple letters, defence etc. but devbandis wish to pull wool upon the eyes of the world.

not so fast, liars.

 

aqdas sent me this.






---
apparently qasim nanotvi himself said that the fatwa was published as a book, which he did not expect. but HE never regretted those statements. not did he take back any of those words. rather, he wrote another work justifying his tahzeer!

so what is the point of this useless "excuse" that nanotwi was not aware of this being published? talk about red herrings. it is good to know as a historical fact, but has no bearing on the "historical context".

in fact, if you read nanotvi's defence of his own work, he clearly insists that the "chronological khatamiyyat" is not the REAL meaning - and insists that it is the meaning taken by common folk. and all the circus of osman devbandi and yasir's 'explanation' is laid to waste by qasim nantovi's own admission.


see tanwiru'n nibras, p.34



fools like osman may try to split hairs, but back then people would refer to themselves in third person; "sahib e tahzir" is nanotwi referring to himself. rahimahullah in brackets is added by the editor of the later edition.

in the above passage he says:

the author of tahzir means to say that: "chronologically last" [khatamiyat e zamani] is one meaning that is implied by a compound word, it is not the exact meaning (or corresponding meaning / madlul mutabiqi) nor is the REAL meaning [ma'ana e haqiqi] of the word khatam, as it is a single word.

rather the word "khatam" only suggests being the 'seal' [khatamiyyat] and has no relation whatsoever to the restriction of time [qayd e zamani] - that is an additional meaning.

common people, due to the popularity and intending that it is chronologically last - take it to mean (i.e. understand/ samajh jatay hain) that khatamiyyat is restricted to the chronological context and this is the REAL MEANING and that it is the exact (or corresponding) meaning [madlul e mutabiqi].
​

here qasim reiterates that the meaning of khatam being chronologically last is the understanding of common people. the tone specifically excludes the higher class from taking it to be the REAL meaning as he expounds in the next sentence.

he sarcastically derides the author of "qawl e faseeh" [radd of tahzir by maulana faseehuddin, but nanotwi insisted that it was shaykh abdul qadir bada'uni's work attributed to mawlana faseehuddin] and unless one is a shameless spinmeister like zaleel zameel or the two clowns, nanotvi mocks at those who believe this meaning to be REAL!

firstly, even if the people of discerning may have doubt in this, but after seeing the meaningless book (daftar e bey-ma'ana), everyone will be convinced that this world is not bereft of such superior intellects (aali fahm / said sarcastically) who think/believe [samajhtay] that the meaning of "chronologically last" [khatamiyat e zamaani] is the REAL meaning [haqiqi ma'ana] and the exact (or corresponding) meaning [madlul e mutabiqi].

​

here nanotwi mocks those who believe that "khatamiyat e zamani" is the TRUE and EXACT meaning of khatam al-nabiyyin. likes of zameel may try to spin it further and accuse us of distorting nanotvi. so nanotvi himself emphasised:

now, someone should tell us - if we do not consider people of such understanding as commoners [awaam], should we consider them elite [khawas]'? if the anger upon the author of tahzir is because of this, then hear the reply from us:​

====

nanotvi doggedly chides those who believe khatamiyat as khatamiyat e zamani (i.e. chronologically last) as "commoners". this is explicitly categorising RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam and sahabah as commoners - whereas nanotvi and his ilk are "elite". if this is not insult, then what is?

nas'alu Allah al-aafiyah.

 

View attachment 11020

 

yes that was oversight - and not intended. i wanted to write "except nazeer husayn dihlawi" - but i didn't have the reference, so i removed it. will correct.

 

Sorry to nitpick, but is it appropriate/fair to say that ‘all’ scholars put a fatwa of kufr on him.

I know Thanwi famously said that nobody backed Nanotwi for TN apart from Abu al-Hasanat Abd al-Hayy Lakhnawi, but surely he didn't mean they all made takfir?

 

after the deed was done, there was a very simple option left for nanotvi. "i am sorry, i made a mistake, i take it back" - instead of this, he doubled down and the rest of deobandis to this day sacrifice their iman for a 13th century indian molvi.

 

yasir appears to be a bit decent - so i won't call him a zindiq

yeah, published by nanotvi, unbeknownst to himself.

who are these reliable sources?

even if you assume it was published without his knowledge - but he got to know afterward. why did qasim nanotvi not alter his book or recant or give some sort of clarification? he simply stood by it and that is explicit endorsement. these lame excuses that "it was published without his knowledge.." hold no water. until his death, he was adamant and refused to step back.

he wasn't dead when he got to know of this and fatwa of kufr placed on his head by *many* scholars of india - even shaykh abdul rahman siraj makki - whereas alahazrat was a young man of merely 18 years! devbandis give the impression that it was alahazrat who made takfir. rather ulama of india of that time had already made takfir of nanotvi for his book tahzeer.

in fact, in one of his letters, he reiterates that the meaning of "khatam" as chronologically last is the understanding of "zahir parast" - those who are given to superficial understanding.

 

oh syrians and chinese and martians everyone can issue judgement without even knowing the language, let alone the issue. at least yasir speaks the language. relatively, he is more qualified to issue judgements.

 

So, basically not having researched the texts or the issues he feels comfortable enough to issue a judgement?