Shaykh Saeed Foudeh on Imkan al-Kadhib
- Thread starter HASSAN
- Start date
shaykh saeed fudah is deceived by deobandies, that they mean imkan al kazib = khalf al way'id, otherwise he is clearly stating that imkan al kazib is mustah'il in kalam lafzi as well.
his comments show that he does not know the full details, he is just relying on al muhannad, which is a deception
had he bothered to research the matter rather than buying it from muhannad then he would have known that deobandies are liars. internet is full of their claims and explanations in writings and videos both in urdu and english, contrary to what he is assuming by looking at muhannad.
he should see what zaleel has been writing on his blog, many arab ulama read/speak good english, is it impossible (mustahil) for him/them to read and understand their arguments?
if arab ulama (especially from syria) can go to turkey to escape the flames of war and learn turkish just for their dunya, then they should also learn urdu and save the iman of millions of muslims from falling into bid'ah and kufr. it is not difficult if a few arab ulama learn urdu and then research the matter.
deobandies say that all ugly things, not just imkan al kazib, are within the power of Allah Ta'a'la, but He Subhanu wa Ta'ala will never do it. so deobandies believe that any ugly action is rationally possible for Him Subhanu wa Ta'ala but He will never do it in actuality (bil fay'l).
his comments show that he does not know the full details, he is just relying on al muhannad, which is a deception
had he bothered to research the matter rather than buying it from muhannad then he would have known that deobandies are liars. internet is full of their claims and explanations in writings and videos both in urdu and english, contrary to what he is assuming by looking at muhannad.
he should see what zaleel has been writing on his blog, many arab ulama read/speak good english, is it impossible (mustahil) for him/them to read and understand their arguments?
if arab ulama (especially from syria) can go to turkey to escape the flames of war and learn turkish just for their dunya, then they should also learn urdu and save the iman of millions of muslims from falling into bid'ah and kufr. it is not difficult if a few arab ulama learn urdu and then research the matter.
deobandies say that all ugly things, not just imkan al kazib, are within the power of Allah Ta'a'la, but He Subhanu wa Ta'ala will never do it. so deobandies believe that any ugly action is rationally possible for Him Subhanu wa Ta'ala but He will never do it in actuality (bil fay'l).
Ibn Rida Safdar
sunniport user
It doesn't seem like Sh. Sa'id Faudah is only talking about Khalf al-wayid in reference to Doebandis. The book is about Imkan al-Kadhib primarily and this is where he brings the Deobandi-Barelwi conflict.
True, he should have referenced other important Deobandi works on the subject like Juhd al-Muqil for a more thorough analysis. However, how do Barelwi Ulama explain the following passage from al-Muhannad which was signed by Sunni Arab Ulama:
Unlike on other issues in al-Muhannad, where Deobandis seemed to have lied about their actual beliefs, here they seem to be accepting that if it is assumed that Khalf al-Wayid necessitates Imkan al-Kadhib, then even the latter is not Muhal bi'l Dhat. Why did the Sunni Arab Ulama accept this response where Kizb is not regarded as Muhal bi'l Dhat?
abu Hasan
Administrator
which sunni arab ulama?
whoever signed it either didn't read it - or if they signed after reading it, then their knowledge in kalam is poor.
---
if a thousand ulama of 15th century contradict a sanusi or a razi, it is 1000 ulama of our age whose knowledge is patchy.
besides, khalil ahmad did big time khiyana in the signatures and in fact lied about shaykh barzanji. i came across the risalah of barzanji quoted in al-muhannad, and it clearly refutes khalil and his shameless sect. i am trying to find the risalah in full - in sha'Allah. and they more lies of devs will be seen.
Ibn Rida Safdar
sunniport user
I wouldn't be surprised if it's the latter case. Just a few years back, you could see some of the young "Arab Ulama" who were confused about the issue of Imkan al Kadhib. Alhamdulillah, they retracted after Sh. Salek's video. This just goes on to show the ineptitude of many speakers and their blind following of popular faces in such issues. Given that the case, it would be disastrous, if a 15th century Faudah makes a claim that there is a valid Khilaf on this issue. Expect many to simply blind follow such a popular face from ilm al-kalam.
shaykh hashmat ali rahimahullah has refuted it in raad al muhannad, and provided evidences from al muhannad that this passage was an addition after the endorsements, otherwise there would be clear contradictions in the endorsements.
Dr Sa'īd Fūdah's book -
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yOW3A0KOVyEigiZdngSeB3h8QK5C_a_4/view?usp=drive_link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yOW3A0KOVyEigiZdngSeB3h8QK5C_a_4/view?usp=drive_link
Disclaimer before I comment on the book. I'm not a student of knowledge, I don't claim to be but if people see me as one, just know that I'm not a very good but these are my comments. Looking forward to what aH and other scholars have to say
I think deos are blowing it out of proportion. What's there actually new in the book?
He said a minority of Asharis said its possible in Kalaam Lafzi but we already knew that. He didn't say whether their position was a valid one in the Madhab.
He disagress with the Deobandi position but he doesn't give a verdict. Is this belief misguided, an innovation, what the hukm?
Even some of the Asharis deos quote, Sh Foudah said Deos can't use them as proof, like Taftazani
He didn't really comment on the Al Muhannad passages. He should have commented on the difference between Khulf al Waeed and Kizb but he didn't.
As for the Gangohi fatwa, it's still on Barelvis to prove that fatwa exists/existed.
He said the majority position was it's impossible in Lafzi and this was the stronger position.
So is it actually revolutionary? Idk
I think deos are blowing it out of proportion. What's there actually new in the book?
He said a minority of Asharis said its possible in Kalaam Lafzi but we already knew that. He didn't say whether their position was a valid one in the Madhab.
He disagress with the Deobandi position but he doesn't give a verdict. Is this belief misguided, an innovation, what the hukm?
Even some of the Asharis deos quote, Sh Foudah said Deos can't use them as proof, like Taftazani
He didn't really comment on the Al Muhannad passages. He should have commented on the difference between Khulf al Waeed and Kizb but he didn't.
As for the Gangohi fatwa, it's still on Barelvis to prove that fatwa exists/existed.
He said the majority position was it's impossible in Lafzi and this was the stronger position.
So is it actually revolutionary? Idk
Welcome to the devbandi world of irrelevant hype - khoda paharh, nikla chuha
Plus don't forget, it seems he has been misinformed with standard muhannad lies. Anyways I need to read properly before talking further.
Also I don't understand why Usman is still quoting Imam Barzanji when Imam Barzanji clearly states that lying is impossible in both Nafsi and Lafzi.
Also I feel like Sh Foudah could have engaged with other Deobandi works more, not just Al Muhannad. Juhd Al Muqill by Mahmood Hassan Deobandi is in Arabic if I'm not mistaken, he should have commented on that too.
Also I feel like Sh Foudah could have engaged with other Deobandi works more, not just Al Muhannad. Juhd Al Muqill by Mahmood Hassan Deobandi is in Arabic if I'm not mistaken, he should have commented on that too.
Did the devbandis present it to him to gain a comprehensive insight into their flip flop aqaid?
Did the Barelwis present it to him?
You can't expect a non desi to be aware of every single Urdu work by any sect.
Besides, how many of our OWN ulama can give a talk or write a sharh on Subhan As-Subbuh? This is what happens when you replace knowledge seeking with consumerist and commercial naatkhwani based Sunniyat and shakhsiyat parasti.
Btw I don't blame (if that's the right word) Sh Saeed Foudah for anything in his book, he seems quite open-minded and is willing to look at more evidence from our side and I don't blame Deobandis aswell, they did what they had to do. I blame our side for being late to the party. The Deobandis have made solid connections and have contributed in scholarly endeavours well before us. Only recently with the likes of Daral Nabhani, DI, Daral Malik, Mufti Aslam Sheywani etc... have we done anything significant in publishing Arabic works.
Abdullah Ahmed
sunniport user
they are not worthy of blame according to you?
No I blame ourselves. I don't like the notion of pointing fingers at others for something we could have quelled ages ago. I don't know where exactly we got it wrong in the last 100 years but Deos decided to publish Arabic works, build Darul Ulooms, make quality scholars and what did we do? Well I don't want to go into that incase I get abused but I felt like we could have prevented all this mess if we did the work in the first place.
Anyways I don't want to shift the topic away from Sh Saeed's book and get accused if being anti barelvi because I'm not. It would be good if brothers who have contact with Sh Asrar and Mufti Monawwer can send the PDF to them. Mufti Monawwer is mentioned in the book btw
Also look forward to see what aH says
Also look forward to see what aH says
Abdullah Ahmed
sunniport user
Very irresponsible of him…sure Barelwis are to carry the brunt of the blame (if you wish to see it that way) but don’t assume that the Arab Ulema are completely innocent and are free to write what they will without doing their due diligence…
i don't know about other countries, but one of the first things i learnt in driving was you must assume that everyone on the road other than you is blind and careless and it's your job to ensure your safety
this is specially true in our times for Sunnis
devbandis are of course keeping their end of the deal being lying degenerates and enemies. you only expect ambushes and attacks from an enemy, only a fool will expect decency from the enemy
as for Foudeh or other Arab ulama like him, maybe devs worked hard on him, as they did with keller. he's human too and in line with the driving example, don't expect nondesi ulama either to not be complacent or immune to lapses, don't expect present day anyone to be as meticulous as ulama of the past. technically yes it's his mistake to not get an accurate reading of the imams position, but how much have the barelwis worked to do "tashkeel" of him (a tb buzzword)?
we can't expect to fight the devs based on karamats alone. not gonna happen. the sahaba fought with hard work for the deen. we want to achieve results? we gotta do the hard yards for it without expecting either a wali's karamat or expecting everyone in the world to do everything right
i was talking to an entrepreneur yesterday and he said a great thing which another businessman gave him as a rule of thumb - until you spend 10000 work hours on your gig, you don't have the right to say it's not working out, and if you make it before that, it's luck, not you! of course we have the akabir who wrote voluminous books and tirelessly did work for deen and all, but as a generality among today's ulama, can you show me a Sunni aalim who can show you such an effort with x number of hours logged in the service of deen, be it writing books, translating Ala Hazrats books, lobbying with government against qadianis, anything, even reading Sunnis own books?
Abdullah Ahmed
sunniport user
I completely understand your point and definitely agree.
I was just pointing out the irony of his mentioning that "Al-Baraylawi" also made mistakes and was just another scholar and not free from error. The difference is that "Al-Baraylawi" was actually not the one who erred in this matter...
i disagree a bit, it was very easy for him to ascertain this blame of deobadies because ad dawlah and anba al hay, which is a direct refutation of barzanji's risalah, are in arabic, he can be excused for not able to read urdu books or not believing in the translations, but it is very hard to believe that he would have not known about ad dawlah which barzanji's quote talked about.