faisla kun munazara

C

calltoallah

Active Member
highly convincing especially
Click to expand...
as you note:
as far as the layman is concerned.
Click to expand...
only if that layman is also stupid that he cannot tell the difference between a thousand pounds and a thousand pakistani rupees. "after all, both are notes of thousands..." or the person is blind and cannot tell the difference light and darkness.

for'ex: check the analogy on page 57.
Such a crime this is that those of your city commit it!
Click to expand...
i am giving back the same coin.

---
a quick gist: nomani is trying to prove that khalil's analogy about the angel of death/satan and RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam does not mean that the Master's knowledge is lesser. so he has all kinds of analogies where he tries to befuddle the statement of khalil that he said: "if this is not shirk then which part of tawhid is this?" and tries to attack alahazrat for this.

and his tour de grace is this citation from anwar e sati'ah:
The supporters of the gathering of Milad do not claim that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is present in all pure and impure, religious and irreligious, gatherings. The presence of the Angel of Death and Iblis is found in even more places than him, of purity and impurity, disbelief and belief.
Click to expand...
after citing this, numani comments:
Look! Even Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Sahib did not write with this much clarity. He [i.e. Mawlana Khalil Ahmad] expressed only knowledge of the world as the specific expanse which was not documented in the texts. This likeminded brother of Mawlawi Ahmad Rida Khan Sahib, Mawlawi ‘Abd al- Sami‘ Sahib, clearly says that the presence of the Angel of Death and Satan is not only more than the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him
peace), but is found in more places.
Click to expand...
notice the switch and notice how he falls in his own pit; we will come to that shortly after numani's gloating:
1) Is Mawlawi ‘Abd al- Sami‘ a disbeliever because of this passage or not?
2) And where does Khan Sahib himself stand because of writing a commendation on it?
Click to expand...
so we ask devbandis - what is your opinion about Allah sub'Hanahu wa ta'ala? according to numani sahib, if He is not present in those impure places, He should not have knowledge of that place. and according to his own rule, to have knowledge of that place, He should be present in that place. [that is the implication, otherwise what else does it mean?] i won't be surprised if they bring the imkan-rule here: if creation can do it and Creator cannot, then the Creator's Power is diminished.

thus, do you believe like mu'tazilah that certain minutiae are outside Divine Knowledge? or do you believe like the Hululis that He is present even in impure places? al-iyadhu billah, wa la Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah.

what has knowledge got to do with being physically present?

----
the book of numani is "the decisive gloat" or the "the expansive bloat". i have made a note for myself, that we should look at it in detail after i fulfil a few commitments now. in-sha'Allah wa bi tawfiqih.

---
i picked a random page here to comment. i read the book long ago, when i was in my early twenties and had laughed at the powers of his reasoning. i didn't know at that time that he was a major devbandi 'munazir'. if this is their best, i can assure you, we can win any munazarah and trounce any munazirah.
 
i am sure the deeply immersed devbandis will point out that the difference between "encompassing knowledge" and "encompassing knowledge of the world" is being discussed. apparently, according to numani, alahazrat mentioned the former whereas all khalil said was the latter, thereby deceiving arab ulama.

charges and because numani told you so, just believe it.

---
all these additional qualifiers, mutlaq, intrinsic, given are all drawn out of thin air to use where necessary. keep adding and removing attributes to make the argument sound - is there any basis or consistency? who cares and as i said, who's looking?

---
but a disclaimer is in order: faisla kun should be refuted from the urdu original and here i was relying only on the translation (which is tweaked and massaged btw) and by those comments i don't mean that i agree to his citations or that i don't have any other issues with that text. i was only showing the inconsistency of the text in a random page - and a detailed analysis will show far more than that. wa billahi't tawfiq.

---
now let us go back to numani's accusation from the quote above (vide translation on p60)

He believes in encompassing earthly knowledge for Iblis, and when the mention of Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (Allah Almighty bless him and grant him peace), comes, he says, “This is shirk.” Shirk is only to affirm a partner for Allah Almighty, so when affirming something for any of creation is shirk, it will definitely be shirk for all creation, since it is not possible for anyone to be a partner of Allah Almighty.
Click to expand...
the translator helps numani a little by skewing the phrase: "encompassing earthly knowledge"

what khalil wrote was: "ilm e muHiT e zameen"

and alahazrat in husam (according to numani mistranslated the above) "bi `ilmi'l arD al-muHiT"
(see the attached image from this text.)

---
numani shamelessly hacks and whacks quotes and with chutzpah oozing from the seams, wonders why sunnis do not question alahazrat.

throwing intrinsic/granted, absolute/confined where convenient for his explanation is something else, accusing alahazrat of misrepresenting is another.

---
khalil was talking about ilm-e-muHiT-e-zameen and saying

1) satan has this, RasulAllah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam does not

2) the expanse of satan's knowledge is proved by nuSuS, RasulAllah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is not

3) proving it for RasulAllah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is shirk, but for satan is not.

---
notice that khalil was saying:

The outcome: One should ponder, that by looking at the state of Satan and the angel of death, [and then] proving such encompassing knowledge of the earth for the Pride of the World, without any scriptural evidence and merely by fallacious analogy – if this is not polytheism, then which part of faith is it? The extensiveness of knowledge for Satan and the angel of death is proven by scriptural proof; where is such scriptural proof for the extensiveness of the knowledge of the Pride of the World, thereby refuting all scriptural proofs and establishes one polytheistic belief?
Click to expand...
notice that he uses the word "yeh wus'at" - but still numani says khalil was talking of intrinsic knowledge concerning RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam and 'granted' for satan.

secondly, according to numani, satan has been 'granted' this knowledge; why can't this be 'granted' to RasulAllah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

numani himself decides that it is not important knowledge* and hence his straw man argument: if RasulAllah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam does not have that knowledge it does not mean that shayTan knows more. [just ilm-e-muHiT-e-zameen nothing to rave about; nothing fancy. shaytan has it, the Master SallAllahu `alayhi wa sallam doesn't - astaghfirullah, wa'l iyadhu billah]


-----------------
*apparently, he seems to be in the know - perhaps by his teacher's teacher satan himself. then how can numani decide which knowledge is good or bad or valid or invalid for RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam? is it via any naSS qaTyi or merely qiyas-e-fasidah? [afaik, in urdu as in arabic, qiyas is muzakkar - but you cannot argue with them; they, whose association with devband imparted knowledge of urdu to RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam - al-iyadhu billah, astaghfirullah - i merely cite the words of a blasphemer and i abhor citing this and i will do a hundred times istighfar for citing them.]
 

Attachments

  • barahin.png
    barahin.png
    165.6 KB · Views: 226
  • husam p60.png
    husam p60.png
    18.7 KB · Views: 245
Last edited:
I read up to his refutation the takfir of Gangohi. He claims that the fatwa of wuqu-e-kizb does not exist and that alaHazrat was quick to do takfir before ascertaining the "facts". Any comments on Numani's reasoning here?
 
aH did a good job with the handwriting analysis but it would be good if a professional graphologist had a look too just to confirm. how they can deny it, i know not.
 
The cur from the heretical WordPress site is referring to Abu Hasan's above posts as ramblings and is laboring under the apprehension that faisla-kun munazara is an irrefutable text.

This imbecile is barking up the wrong tree and a formal full-on refutation of this baneful tract would serve as a fitting slap on his face
 
Do you think that even if there is a refutation (in english, there are many in urdu) will benefit the dogs of hellfire?

But don't worry, the lions of ahlussunah will not let these wounded dogs get a sound sleep ever. InshaAllah.
 
Noori said:
Do you think that even if there is a refutation (in english, there are many in urdu) will benefit the dogs of hellfire?

But don't worry, the lions of ahlussunah will not let these wounded dogs get a sound sleep ever. InshaAllah.
Click to expand...

A translation of an Urdu text would do just fine.

I'm not worried about the hypocrites but the innocent lay person whom they entangle in their web of deceit.

Can anyone name some urdu refutations?
 
lol, some poor diljala wahabi dog is even trying to unleash his fury on Shaykh Asrar Rashid ... obviously Asrar Rashid has caused a major heartburn to these dogs of hellfire

http://asrarrashid.wordpress.com/

(it is either very similar or the same person who runs the other virtual dog pound http://www.asharis.com/creed/index.cfm)

it's about time some english speaking Sunni got up the nose of these blasted anthropomorphists
 
AbdalQadir said:
lol, some poor diljala wahabi dog is even trying to unleash his fury on Shaykh Asrar Rashid ... obviously Asrar Rashid has caused a major heartburn to these dogs of hellfire

http://asrarrashid.wordpress.com/

(it is either very similar or the same person who runs the other virtual dog pound http://www.asharis.com/creed/index.cfm)

it's about time some english speaking Sunni got up the nose of these blasted anthropomorphists
Click to expand...

The ignorance of the author of those sites is self-evident whereas with the Barelwism site the sophistry is a touch more subtle making the need for categorical refutation all the more important and pressing.
 
http://barelwism.wordpress.com/
We can rest in peace therefore with the knowledge that the matter is settled, and Abu Hasan and his lying, deluded or unwary ilk have lost all credibility.
Click to expand...

hahaha.... gotta love these nuh keller clones who settle the world's greatest disputes on mere internet essays. so the desis on the deo side should stop the presses and revert back all queries to this idiot's post, rather than bothering to design crafty excuses in Urdu.
 
AbdalQadir said:
http://barelwism.wordpress.com/


hahaha.... gotta love these nuh keller clones who settle the world's greatest disputes on mere internet essays. so the desis on the deo side should stop the presses and revert back all queries to this idiot's post, rather than bothering to design crafty excuses in Urdu.
Click to expand...

A I noted above he appears to harbour the false notion that faisla-kun munazara is, as its dubious title suggests, the final or decisive word on the subject. The man is either a greater ignoramus than we give him credit for or a hypocrite par excellence. At any rate his readership, and perhaps he too, will be in for a rude awakening when a comprehensive and irrebuttable response is served up to them in the English tongue.

They will have to go back to the tradition of their disgraceful and disgraced forbears and starting dodging the issue with more lies, errors and distortions.
 
Back
Top