Yasir Deobandi Defending Tahdhir al-Nas

The grandson of Qasim Nanotwi, his kufr was read in the debate. He said:

Therefore, taking the meaning of “Khatm-e-Nubuwwat” (the Seal of Prophethood) to be that the door of prophethood has been shut is to mislead the world. Rather, prophethood has been completed, and that completed prophethood will suffice until the Day of Judgment — not that prophethood has been cut off and the world has fallen into darkness, with neither knowledge nor character remaining. So one should not fall into deception: the meaning of “Khatm-e-Nubuwwat” is not the cessation of prophethood, but the perfection and completion of prophethood.
Screenshot_20251118-184723_WhatsApp.jpg
 
As for the doubt that is being spread around that rutbi/perfection of prophethood necessarily entails temporal finality and Nanotvi said temporal finality is implied in the Quranic verse, this has been answered in detail by the scholars. It is not a new objection. Allama Kazmi refutes it, Allama Ghulam Naseerudin Sialvi refutes it and so does Tabbasum Shah Bukhari. Its just a matter of fact of translating their answers into English
 
This question was posed by Imam Shahid to Usman but it flew over his head.

1) If being a Prophet bil dhat necessitates temporal finality, when Nanotwi said the Prophet peace be upon him has Imaan bil dhat and whatever is bil arad will end in bil dhat, are there any believers after the Prophet peace be upon him? Usman can't answer this and neither can any Deoband. If they say yes there are believers, then that means that proohethood doesn't end with the Prophet. If no there are no believers, eveyone after the Prophet including the wifes and Sahabah are not believers. We seek refuge with Allah.

2) If the lazim is negated so is the malzum. If temporal finality is negated so will essential prophethood becuase they say temporal finality is the lazim. Nanotvi negated temporal finality by saying if another Prophet was born it would have no affect. He negated the lazim therefore negating the malzum.

3) The Deobandis say Qasim Nanotvi's understanding of the verse Khatam al-Nabiyyin still means temporal finality iltizaman by way of implication. The problem with this is the verse no longer remains Qati al-dalala. This verse according to the Ummah is mass transmitted in its meaning but now Nanotvi has given more than 1 interpretation, which no longer makes the verse Qati al-dalala. This is why Usman avoided the question. According to Nanotvi the verse can no longer by Qati in its Dalala. Which consequently means the Deobandis cannot bring a single verse in the Quran which is Qati in its Dalala to prove the finality of prophethood. Astagfirullah.

Note - it is late and there might be some typos but these questions need answering by the Deobandi sect.
 
Also Nanotwi states, “Even if after the Prophet (ﷺ), or during his lifetime, a prophet exists on this earth or on some other earth, it would not affect his finality in any way.”

2 questions arise here:
1) if prophethood has terminated with the Prophet peace be upon him why is Nanotvi still talking about the possibility of another prophet being born? what need remains for the distinction between essential and accidental prophethood?

2) And if their prophethoods still remain, then how has the chain of what is accidental terminated in what is essential?

These are part of 12 questions that Allama Ashraf Sialvi posed to the Deos which remain unanswered.

Note - this is all a summary of what the scholars have said. To read what they fully said in detail, refer to their books.
 
When Yasir disclaims that "unbeknownst to Imām Qāsim, the letter was later published as a book without his consent", is he not admitting the following:
(i) at best, the fatwa was a lazy/non-rigorous; or
(ii) at worst, the fatwa was patently flawed
and, therefore, not fit to be printed as a book?

Yasir is effectively imputing that Nanotwi would've likely produced a different, non-controversial fatwa had he known that it would be reproduced in the form of a book. Is this not a back-handed way of admitting the deobandi guilt on Nanotwi's error?


abu Hasan said:
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".
Click to expand...

As @abu Hasan and @HASSAN have pointed out that this excuse is a clear red herring, as evidenced by Nanotwi doubling down instead of retracting.
 
sherkhan said:
therefore, not fit to be printed as a book?
Click to expand...
no their reasoning is, awam could not understand the high level of nanotwi's rambling and hence he was put in a spotlight. if it was not printed, he would continue to be the aarif that they claim, without anyone questioning him.

sherkhan said:
Nanotwi would've likely produced a different, non-controversial fatwa had he known
Click to expand...
this is the apologists clinging to thin blades of straw.
nanotvi himself was not repentant - rather he ridiculed those who refuted him and clarified that all of his deviant claims in tahzir were well-thought out and as you can see in the clip below, firmly believed that "chronologically last" is the thinking of the layperson.
 
Having looked at this post by Yasir, he doesn't make any actual arguments or provide any analysis other than in paragraph 4. There are a couple of other points scattered in there that have also already been addressed:

Aqdas said:
Yasir Devbandi has written thus:




1. The topic of the debate, I believe, was the text of ‘Taḥdhīr al-Nās’ by Hujjatul Islām Imām Qāsim Nānōwtwī (r.h). It would be worthwhile to research the historical context of this text, as I have heard from reliable sources that it was initially written by Imām Qāsim as a letter to his relative, Shaykh Muḥammad Aḥsan Nānōwtwī (r.h), who inquired about the narration of Sayyidunā Abdullāh b. Abbās (r.a). Unbeknownst to Imām Qāsim, the letter was later published as a book without his consent. Unfortunately, I do not have this book, nor ever researched it. However, I think it would be beneficial to first establish its historical context, as that may have potential consequences.
​
Click to expand...
​

This is irrelevant because whether he intended to have published it or not, it was still his speech and his belief and therefore the hukm applies regardless. If someone writes a private letter confessing atheism to his cousin, then it gets published, he still committed kufr in that particular piece of writing.


Aqdas said:
3. In the debate, I believe there were several ad hominem attacks, red herrings, and personal jibes. Therefore, whilst eschewing all that, I believe Moulana Usman did categorically demonstrate that Imām Qāsim *does* believe in the finality of Prophethood ﷺ, and not only that, he believes that whoever posits a new prophet after our beloved Prophet ﷺ is a ‘Kāfir’, by quoting the same book, ‘Taḥdhīr al-Nās’. I honestly believe this is sufficient. This is in unmitigated contradistinction to the Qadianis who *actually* believe in a new prophet.
Click to expand...

​
Saying that he believes in the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wassallam being the final Prophet doesn't change his kufri taweel of the verse, however, as it's denying the clear meaning which has the consensus of the ummah upon it.


Aqdas said:
4. Notwithstanding the fact that Mufti Shahid Ali endeavoured to remain on the topic of the debate, which is one of the rules of debating, it seemed he conceded that Imām Qāsim has accepted the finality of Prophethood ﷺ, and that whoever posits a new prophet after our beloved Prophet ﷺ is a ‘Kāfir’, as stated elsewhere in ‘Taḥdhīr al-Nās’.
Click to expand...
​
See above

Aqdas said:
However, Mufti Shahid’s main contention was regarding Imām Qāsim’s interpretation of the verse related to the finality of Prophethood ﷺ. The contention is that Imām Qāsim confined the verse, which states that the Prophet ﷺ is the final Prophet, to essential or intrinsic prophethood without addressing the temporal element. Mufti Shahid argued that it is not enough to state that one believes in the finality of prophethood whilst interpolating a pivotal verse about the finality of prophethood. He also gave an analogy of Ṣalāh and then quoted the verse. I think this is an untenable argument and a strange method of doing ‘takfīr’.
Click to expand...
​
So this is a claim he has made regarding this specific takfeer which he'll now try to explain in the remaining paragraph.


​
Aqdas said:

First, if what Mufti Shahid is saying is correct, even then ‘takfīr’ cannot be made based on an interpretation, especially given that the author has unequivocally explicated his creed elsewhere, and also stated that the finality of Prophethood ﷺ —in terms of its temporal aspect—is affirmed via ‘tawātur’ revelatory evidence.
​
Click to expand...
​
So Yasir says takfeer cannot be made on interpretation.
​
1. He should provide proof of this claim from classical sources
2. Does this rule apply to baatil interpretations that go against consensus?
3. What about perennialists who interpret certain verses to make it seem like people of the book go to heaven too. According to the same principle, we cannot do takfeer of such people?
4. Yasir has also ignored the actual analogy. He hasn't even attempted to show why this isn't an appropriate analogy according to him. Yasir should explain- if someone claims the verses regarding salah are not about salah as we know it, but that same person actually prays salah etc and believes in it's obligatory nature, then would Yasir call that person a kaafir or not?
5. We keep getting told that nanotwi mentioned he believes the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wassallam is the final Prophet. Yet we didn't say he believed in mirza or someone else so why keep arguing this strawman? We're saying he made a false interpretation in a verse which is Qati Al Dalalah and the meaning is mutawatir and clear. This is kufr regardless of what other statements nanotwi made elsewhere in the same manner as the analogy regarding salah made by shahid Ali.

Aqdas said:
Also, it is important to note that Imām Qāsim was adumbrating the components of finality of Prophethood, namely, essential and temporal, not that he was repudiating the latter. It seemed, from the debate, that Imām Qāsim was postulating the essential property of Prophethood, whilst demonstrating that time itself is an accidental incipient that has no intrinsic value, though Prophet ﷺ is the last prophet in terms of time, too.
Click to expand...

Nanotwi very literally claimed that the meaning of the verse does not relate to time at all and in fact, it would be a contradiction to believe it related to time since it relates to only praise, according to him.

Aqdas said:
6. Whilst acknowledging that I may have my biases, I believe Imām Aḥmad Razā Khān erred in issuing ’takfīr’. Even those who agree with his fatwā will accept that the matter of ‘takfīr’ is related to ‘fiqh’ and not creed, as stated by the polymath, Imām al-Ghazālī, and others. Therefore, its epistemic nature exemplifies that scholars can err or disagree in ‘takfīr’. This is important to note because a scholar's judgment is not necessarily binding on others.
Click to expand...
​

Would he say the same thing about people who refuse to make takfeer of qadianis?

What would he say about the principle 'man shakka fi kufrihim...'
 
one of my ex colleagues would routinely name files like: final final final final. and it was a meme some 20 yrs ago. i wouldn't be surprised if these are from devbandi computers...




final.png



final2.png





final3.png



final4.png



final3.jpg
 
Does anyone have a copy of the pamphlet ‘Munazarah Ahmadiyyah’?

It's a transcript of a debate between Mawlana Abd al-Qadir Badayuni and Amir Hasan Sehswani on the Athar of Sayyiduna Abd-Allah b. Abbas.
 
HASSAN said:
I only recently managed to find a copy of this book - I strongly suggest someone reads it, writes some English notes on it, and gather names of the endorsers.

I'll start off with some names
1. Mufti Naqi Ali Khan
2. Mufti Abd al-Qadir Badayuni
3. Fazl Majid Badayuni (wrote book 1 in the list above)
4. Fasih al-Din Badayuni (wrote book 3 in the list above)
5. Alahazrat attested in 1286h (aged 14!)
View attachment 11033
6. Mufti Irshad Husayn Rampuri
Click to expand...


In 'Munazarah Samadiyyah', it mentions regarding the book 'Fatawa Bey-Nazir' that the Sunnis and even Wahabis deemed the originator of this fitnah as a kafir - earlier, it mentions explicitly the originator of the fitnah as Amir Hasan Sehswani
BookReaderImages.php
 
IMG_20251217_194704.jpg


This was posted in 2018, I wonder where this work got to. Alahazrat mentions this work in his commentary on al-Mutaqad
 
QasimUlUloom_0059.jpg


Qasim Nanotwi doubles down on his claim in Tahdhir, but this time doesn't even use “bil-dhat” this time when he argues that temporal finality has no virtue

In TN, he calls those who take the meaning of khatam as temporally final as common folk, i.e., ignorant or unintelligent; here, he calls them literalists (in the Farsi) and superficial understanding (in the Urdu)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top