Deo Defending Tahdhir al-Nas on X

[HASSAN]

Edit: realised the screenshot hasn't uploaded in high definition so I'll copy and paste below -

1

Imagine the psychological turmoil and subsequent mental instability in those brothers in Islam who believe they must make Takfir on a particular scholar (or three scholars) from another orientation that virtually resembles them in everything but name, and believing that the only way salvation in the Hereafter can be achieved is if they die upon that Takfir based on what one random scholar dictated to them just over a century years ago...

...yet nobody else in the Muslim world subscribes to their Takfiri tendencies no matter how hard they try to convince them, so they have to make excuses for the rest of the Ummah outside their wee bubble.

Please keep them in your Duas. They are suffering from the inside and need our Duas.


2

A message to Brillo numbskulls who are now pronouncing Takfir on Qari Tayyib:

In the scans iswhat he has said in two separate places about the finality of prophethood, from his commentary on Aqidah Tahawiyyah.

Unfortunately, the problem with Brillos is that they take an ambiguous statement from their adversaries and assign the worst possible meaning to it. This is indicative of not only intellectual dishonesty but a spiritual malady. It is also for that reason nobody beyond their bubble takes them and their Takfir seriously.


3

Publication of Qari Tayyib on ختم نبوت

https://dn790006.ca.archive.org/0/i...Maulana-Qari-Tayyib-ra/Khatam-al-Nabiyyin.pdf


4

Is it possible for a prophet to be sent after the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم?

The simple answer is yes, as per the following narration from Sunan Ibn Majah:

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ نُمَيْرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بِشْرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ أَبِي خَالِدٍ قَالَ: قُلْتُ لِعَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ أَبِي أَوْفَى: رَأَيْتَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ ابْنَ رَسُولِ اللهِ ﷺ؟ قَالَ: مَاتَ وَهُوَ صَغِيرٌ، وَلَوْ قُضِيَ أَنْ يَكُونَ بَعْدَ مُحَمَّدٍ ﷺ نَبِيٌّ لَعَاشَ ابْنُهُ، وَلَكِنْ لَا نَبِيَّ بَعْدَهُ

The wording of the same narration in Sahih 'l-Bukhari reads:

حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ نُمَيْرٍ حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بِشْرٍ حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ قُلْتُ لِابْنِ أَبِي أَوْفَى : «رَأَيْتَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ ابْنَ النَّبِيِّ ﷺ قَالَ: مَاتَ صَغِيرًا، وَلَوْ قُضِيَ أَنْ يَكُونَ بَعْدَ مُحَمَّدٍ ﷺ نَبِيٌّ عَاشَ ابْنُهُ، وَلَكِنْ لَا نَبِيَّ بَعْدَهُ.»

This basically means that, had Ibrahim رضي الله عنه lived, he would have been a prophet. But it was destined that his father صلى الله عليه وسلم would be the last prophet, therefore Ibrahim was taken by Allah as a child.

Ibn Hajar commentates:

هَكَذَا جَزَمَ بِهِ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ أَبِي أَوْفَى. وَمِثْلُ هَذَا لَا يُقَالُ بِالرَّأْيِ، وَقَدْ تَوَارَدَ عَلَيْهِ جَمَاعَةٌ: فَأَخْرَجَ ابْنُ مَاجَهْ مِنْ حَدِيثِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ قَالَ: لَمَّا مَاتَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ ابْنُ النَّبِيِّ ﷺ صَلَّى عَلَيْهِ وَقَالَ: إِنَّ لَهُ مُرْضِعًا فِي الْجَنَّةِ، لَوْ عَاشَ لَكَانَ صِدِّيقًا نَبِيًّا، وَلَأَعْتَقْتُ أَخْوَالَهُ الْقِبْطَ. وَرَوَى أَحْمَدُ، وَابْنُ مَنْدَهْ مِنْ طَرِيقِ السُّدِّيِّ: سَأَلْتُ أَنَسًا: كَمْ بَلَغَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ؟ قَالَ: كَانَ قَدْ مَلَأَ الْمَهْدَ، وَلَوْ بَقِيَ لَكَانَ نَبِيًّا، وَلَكِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ لِيَبْقَى ; لِأَنَّ نَبِيَّكُمْ آخِرُ الْأَنْبِيَاءِ. وَلَفْظُ أَحْمَدَ: ولَوْ عَاشَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ ابْنُ النَّبِيِّ ﷺ لَكَانَ صِدِّيقًا نَبِيًّا، وَلَمْ يَذْكُرِ الْقِصَّةَ. فَهَذِهِ عِدَّةُ أَحَادِيثَ صَحِيحَةٌ عَنْ هَؤُلَاءِ الصَّحَابَةِ أَنَّهُمْ أَطْلَقُوا ذَلِكَ

According to Ibn Hajar, this is a mawquf narration that is technically marfu'. He then went on to reject the claims of some other scholars who found these narrations to be implausible.

The idea therefore that it is logically and intrinsically impossible for a prophet to come after the Prophet flies against the aforementioned narrations.

Even if it is a purely mawquf narration (i.e., a Sahabi's own position), I wonder if these numbskull Brillos would like to pronounce Takfir on Ibn Hajar, or on Ibn Majah and Bukhari, or indeed on Abdullah ibn Abi Awfa himself.


5

وهو بعد أن علمنا الله عز وجل أنه لا نبي بعد محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم ممتنع لا سبيل إليه في الوجود لا على معنى أنه تعالى لا يوصف بالقدرة على ذلك بل نعوذ بالله من الفكر في هذا أو التشكيك بل هو عز وجل قادر الآن وأبدا على أن يبعث نبيا آخر بدين آخر ولكنه أخبرنا أنه لا يفعل ذلك مريدا لتركه

This is Ibn Hazm in al-Ihkam spelling out that Allah is able a prophet after the Prophet, though He will not do it. Ibn Hazm seeks Allah's refuge in doubting Allah's ability to do so.

 

[HASSAN]

6

There is a chapter in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah called:

من كره أنه يقول: لا نبي بعد النبي

Those who disliked saying "There is no prophet after the Prophet"

Two narrations here. One from A'ishah with a broken chain (also mentioned in Tafsir Yahya ibn Salam), and another from Mughirah with a weak narrator in it (also mentioned in al-Mu'jam al-Kabir by Tabarani). Assumed in the former and explicitly mentioned in the latter, the reason for this is Isa عليه السلام will come towards the end of times.

So if we are to take these narrations as admissible (which I personally am not due to their weakness), I wouldn't hasten to Takfir someone based on this statement alone, as indeed they might have a ta'wil for this statement (i.e., Jesus is a prophet who will come after the Prophet).

So those to whom the undesirability of saying "There is no prophet after the Prophet" is ascribed does nto entail they disbelieved in the finality of the prophethood of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. Rather, it is to avoid the semblance of denying the return of Jesus.

Without this context, and without knowing who brought this chapter in his Hadith work, I'm sure the Brillos would have unwittingly pronounced Takfir on Ibn Abi Shaybah, and would have accused him of giving comfort and solace to Qadiyanis. Such is their ISIS-like obsession with Takfir.


7

One can legitimately disagree with the interpretation of خاتم النبيين as offered up by M. Nanotwi and Qari Tayyib Qasmi. It is a minority view, and it is a weak one that has little - if any - precedent in the books of Tafsir. But that doesn't mean they denied the chronological finality of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم overall as a key tenet of faith, as is clearly substantiated by the Hadith.

It does seem to me that Iblis (no less) continues to do his magic on Brillos and keeps them labouring under a misunderstanding of this basic point. Iblis is doing his best to keep them on Takfir and the Ummah disunited.

There can be no unity unless this cancer of Takfir emanating from Barelwis is chemoed and expunged.


8

From the book الدلائل في غريب الحديث by Qasim al-Awfi (d. 302 AH) of Zaragoza (al-Saraqusti):

A man in Kufa had a dream that whoever prays in the Mosque of Kufa will be forgiven.. The people gathered in the mosque. Harithah ibn Mudarrib (مضرب) came to Abdullah ibn Mas'ud and informed him of this. He stood up hurriedly and walked until he came to the mosque. He stood at the mosque door and started pointing to his clothes (i.e., signalling to the people to come out), saying, "Leave so that you are not punished. It is but a breeze from satan. There is no prophet after your Prophet, and no scripture after your scripture."

Lessons:
1. Keep your dreams (like this one) to yourselves.
2. There is no prophet after the Prophet.
3. Ibn Mas'ud did not like newly invented practices in the religion at all.

 

[abu Hasan]

1. 21st century babies born in the UK - think they know better urdu than the north-indian ulama of the 19th century.

2. especially, the language of the late 19th century (which has become archaic now) with its idioms and figures of speech.

it is amusing to see deobandis - who are not native speakers of urdu or have the ability to read and interpret high urdu of the last century - acting as if they are masters of the language and trying to fault the understanding of the ulama of the 19-20th century, who were men of letters in the urdu heartland of UP, bihar, delhi and haryana!

whoever posted the below is an would be dismissed without second thought in a different age as an ignoramus; but his wall of text appears readable only in this age of ignorance.

the somersaults the devbandi has made in these two posts are laughable - looks like they suspend all logic and intelligence when it comes to defending their akabir OR when attacking alahazrat. either cases, they make arguments that are outright stupid.

====================

Without this context, and without knowing who brought this chapter in his Hadith work, I'm sure the Brillos would have unwittingly pronounced Takfir on Ibn Abi Shaybah, and would have accused him of giving comfort and solace to Qadiyanis. Such is their ISIS-like obsession with Takfir.

strawman. typical of devbandis who have no ability to reason.

in case of nanotvi - it was not an ambiguous statement, but rather insistence - repeated clarifications after refuted by scholars of the day - and nanotvi clarifying in at least THREE different places - tahzir, its defense tanweer and in a letter - that "THERE is no problem if another prophet appears after the coming of our Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

by the way, this malady of picking half-phrases and making takfir is favourite pastime - where they distort quotes of ulama ONLY to exonerate the clear, explicit and impossible to justify statements of their akabir.

if nanotvi was a 300 year old scholar and his work was 300 year old - i can assure you that NO barelwi would have made takfir of nanotvi for finding a statement in a book, and when the scholar was long dead. instead, we would dismiss it as a possible tampering. however, nanotvi was alive - and ulama demanded answers and instead of clearing the air, he kept repeating his claim and wrote refutations of those who objected and letters to his friends repeating this belief.

i do not think that the poster below either believes in judgement day, or that he will be held accountable. i expect him to ignore my explanation and act as if nothing was said. but those who have not buried their iman in nanotvi's grave, should look at both arguments and decide for themselves who is right.

wa billahi't tawfiq.

-----

Without this context, and without knowing who brought this chapter in his Hadith work,

coming back to tahziru'n naas - the context, and everything has been debated for 150 years.

leading ulama of the day - in nanotvi's own time debated him. thanawi has said that no scholar in india except abdul hayy lucknawi supported him in his tahzir when it was published.

for context, tahziru'n naas was published in 1290 AH (even if it was unbeknownst to nanotvi)

sh. abdul hayy lucknawi was a 26 year old in 1290 AH. imagine! devbandi apologists speak as if all the older scholars were dead at that time! shaykh lucknawi was a good reporter and a compiler of books and even faltered on issues requiring independent opinion that did not have precedents. i will post on another thread about lucknawi's involvement in this issue.

sh. abdul hayy lucknawi was born in 1264 AH and passed away in 1304 AH at the age of 40 years.

qasim nanotvi was born in 1248 AH and died in 1297 AH (1832-1879 CE)

---
we are in an age when head masters of madrasahs are unaware of principles, terms, books and authors - and many are inferior to an ordinary scholar of the early 1900s. yet, young men of our age who are incapable of even reading the names of their books properly act like frenzied monkeys in their attempts to fault masters of that age!

thanawi said ifazat e yaumiya 5/239:

so would a 26 year old's support outweigh all other masters of that age? ulama like wakil ahmad sikandarpuri and ghulam dastagir qasauri refuted nanotvi. the latter also was foremost in refuting qadianis - we will also see how gangohi was reluctant to do takfir, and tried all kinds of ta'wilat to excuse him. yet the numskull usman raves that it was alahazrat who "facilitated" qadianis because alahazrat's books were not found in qadiani's library or because qadiani did not refute alahazrat! go figure.

besides, even the 26 year old lucknawi, was only over zealous about the REPORT - as he was trained as a hadith scholar. he still did not support the conclusions aired by nanotwi as we will see shortly in sha'Allah.

----

 

[abu Hasan]

Those who disliked saying "There is no prophet after the Prophet"

shameless distortion by the devbandi. as i said, it appears that they do not believe in judgement day - just blind worship of their elders. al iyadhu billah. the way this fellow has cited musnad ibn abi shaybah is only to exonerate his nanotvi guru.

here is the portion that he has cited. musannaf ibn abi shaybah, new awwamah edition 13/566:

221. those who disliked saying: "there is no prophet after our Prophet sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam".

27186: narrated to us husayn ibn muhammad - said he: narrated to us jarir ibn hazim from muhammad from (sayyidah) ayishah that she said: SAY: the LAST (seal) of all prophets (khatam al-nabiyyin), do not say, there is no Prophet after him.

27187: narrated to us abu usamah from mujalid said he: aamir informed us and said: a man said to mughirah ibn shu'bah - may Allah send blessings upon muhammad, the last of all prophets and no prophet after him.

mughirah said: it was enough when you said "last (seal) of all prophets"; for indeed, we would speak about (sayyiduna) yisa outside this, for he is out - so he was before and after. [i.e., he was born before, but he will come back after]​

=====
nowhere do the reports above even remotely hint that that khatam does not mean the last. in fact, they insist that khatam means the LAST!

compare this to nanotwi's statements which QUESTION the meaning of khatam as FINAL prophet!

where the above reports clearly indicate that the reason they didn't use the phrase was to accommodate the explanation of sayyiduna yisa alayhis salam returning in the last days - nowhere did they say: there is no problem if a new prophet were to come EVEN after the qur'an was taken away.

anyone with basic knowledge of end-times knows that this will happen - i.e. when the qur'an is taken away - is after the return of sayyiduna yisa alayhis salam and dajjal is killed.

nanotvi said - EVEN after this, if a new prophet comes, there will be no problem (muza'iqah) with this.

SIDENOTE: nanotvi's original was in farsi - the translator, added a bold heading: "there is no prophet after muhammad arabi sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam" in both the urdu translation and also the farsi original (!!) even though the actual passage speaks otherwise, desperately trying to save nanotvi by inserting words and statements before and after and doing somersaults.

----
so it is standard devbandi shamelessness, nothing less nothing more.

إذَا لَمْ تَسْتَحِ فَاصْنعْ مَا شِئْتَ

 

[abu Hasan]

This is Ibn Hazm in al-Ihkam spelling out that Allah is able a prophet after the Prophet, though He will not do it. Ibn Hazm seeks Allah's refuge in doubting Allah's ability to do so.

so much for the much flaunted "we are maturidis".

ibn hazm is the last person to quote for aqidah matters! isn't he the one who said that god can sit on a gnat if he willed (al iyadhu billah) and have a son if he wished - and that is what your devbandi elders picked up in terms of "maqduriyat"

neither ibn hazm had the common sense of knowledge of a fundamental principle - nor did the devbandi elders, nor do you morons: Divine Power does not include muhalat and wajibat.

so you can frame ibn hazm's quote and hang around your necks for all we care.

 

[abu Hasan]

Imagine the psychological turmoil and subsequent mental instability in those brothers in Islam who believe they must make Takfir on a particular scholar (or three scholars) from another orientation that virtually resembles them in everything but name....

hello!
we have no psychological turmoil or mental instability. we call spade a spade. kufr is kufr even if devbandi elders do it. deal with it.

... and believing that the only way salvation in the Hereafter can be achieved is if they die upon that Takfir based on what one random scholar dictated to them just over a century years ago...

this mindless rambling is because of the "psychological turmoil and subsequent mental instability" borne out of the fervour to defend kufri beliefs of their elders even by sacrificing their own iman! laa Hawla wa laa quwwata illa billah.

this devbandi should produce proof that sunni ulama say: "salavation in the Hereafter can be achieved if they die upon that Takfir..."

when they cannot answer, the resort to lies and distortions. not surprised, as this is the devbandi modus operandi for more than a 100 years.

 

[abu Hasan]

Unfortunately, the problem with Brillos is that they take an ambiguous statement from their adversaries and assign the worst possible meaning to it. This is indicative of not only intellectual dishonesty but a spiritual malady. It is also for that reason nobody beyond their bubble takes them and their Takfir seriously.

this is devbandi modus operandi. it is the paranoia of a thief - everyone appears a thief to him.

it is this shamelessness which led usman devbandi to accuse alahazrat of "facilitating" qadianis just because the liar qadiani did not have alahazrat's books in his library! YET, he had tahziru'n naas - but that is not a tell tale sign that he used nanotvi's argument for his own use; but his not refuting alahazrat is definitive proof!

intellectual dishonesty is when nanotvi says: 'there is no problem even if a new prophet comes" but the translator adds a bold heading: "there is no prophet after our nabi alayhis salatu was salam"

intellectual dishonesty is when none of the signatories of husamul haramayn RETRACTED from their fatawa - but the entire devbandi cult keeps whining that al-muhannad is a definitive 'REFUTATION' of husam and that ulama took back their fatwa!

intellectual dishonesty is when barzanji repeated the takfir in his purported risalah (which curiously was first published in india by deobandi sympathisers) but his disagreement about ulum khamsah is paraded as "refutation of ahmad raza khan" - and not a word about numerous scholars who held the same position as alahazrat. if alahazrat was the first or his position was indeed different, then deos should show side by side how alahazrat differed from say, shaykh jafar al-kattani (vide his jalaa al-qulub).

intellectual dishonesty is when numerous scholars refuted tahzirun naas and nanotvi - when alahazrat was merely 18 year old. but the entire devbandi cult has no shame in peddling the lie that it was alahazrat who spearheaded the takfir of nanotvi and others!

intellectual dishonesty is when ismayil paleed and his burnable tafwiyatu'l iman was the first salvo that caused rift among hanafi/sunnis in the subcontinent - but shamelessly devbandis keep saying that it was alahazrat who caused the rift in the subcontinent.

intellectual dishonesty is when numerous arab scholars, for centuries held the same beliefs as alahazrat - and devbandis pour their scorn on alahazrat - but not the arab scholars. WHY?

intellectual dishonesty is when the same words of tahzir are sent to devband without naming the author and a fatwa of kufr is issued; but when it is discovered that these filthy statements belong to their own gurus, they take it back and make excuses.

----
sub'HanAllah.

here is homework to all of you: list down all the devbandi refutations of qadiani dajjal in chronological order with the dates.

 

[abu Hasan]

This basically means that, had Ibrahim رضي الله عنه lived, he would have been a prophet. But it was destined that his father صلى الله عليه وسلم would be the last prophet, therefore Ibrahim was taken by Allah as a child.

if a bag containing bukhari and ibn majah is laden on a donkey, it does not make it knowledgeable. the donkey remains a donkey.

the above hadith is in the context of there being no other Prophet after nabiy sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. this is similar to the other hadith which say: sayyiduna umar would be a prophet, IF there would be another prophet; or sayyiduna ali is like harun alayhis salam in relation to RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam, EXCEPT that there is no prophet after him.

The wording of the same narration in Sahih 'l-Bukhari reads:
حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ نُمَيْرٍ حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بِشْرٍ حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ قُلْتُ لِابْنِ أَبِي أَوْفَى : «رَأَيْتَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ ابْنَ النَّبِيِّ ﷺ قَالَ: مَاتَ صَغِيرًا، وَلَوْ قُضِيَ أَنْ يَكُونَ بَعْدَ مُحَمَّدٍ ﷺ نَبِيٌّ عَاشَ ابْنُهُ، وَلَكِنْ لَا نَبِيَّ بَعْدَهُ.»

the imbeciles quote hadith and they don't even understand what they quote; and they expect others to not know. as alahazrat has said, they attempt to bring as evidence statements that clearly refute them. what exactly is the translation of this hadith?

if it were ordained [law quDi'ya] that there would be [an yakuna] AFTER muhammad sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam a prophet, his son would have lived - HOWEVER, there is no prophet after him.​

it is this bit - the long and short of deoband cannot understand. and it is because of this heresy, "understanding" fahm is closed upon them. if only the imbeciles could forget their tawagheet and earnestly ask Allah ta'ala to open their hearts, they would understand a very simple principle - i daresay, even a christian or a jew can understand.

let me explain:

1. Allah ta'ala ORDAINED (qaDaa) that there will not be a prophet after the coming of our Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

2. Allah ta'ala INFORMED us in the Qur'an that 'he is the seal of all prophets' - i.e. he is the final prophet and there will not be another prophet after him. sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

3. Divine Speech corresponds to Divine Will; and Divine Will is known to others ONLY when Allah ta'ala HIMSELF makes it known.

4. Allah ta'ala made it KNOWN that there will not be another prophet in the Qur'an (i.e. Divine Speech); and Allah ta'ala KNEW this even before He created anything - His Knowledge is Pre-eternal.

5. If there was a possibility of another prophet, then it would mean:

a) Allah ta'ala does/did not know about His own Will - this implies ignorance (al iyadhu billah) or negation of exercising His Will (i.e., He Willed, but He is unable to effect it - aal iyadhu billah)

b) or Allah ta'ala has not told the truth when He said "Muhammad sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is the last prophet: khatam al-nabiyyin"; in which case, it implies possibility of falsehood in Divine Speech. al-iyadhu billah.
​

6. However, we know by necessity that falsehood is intrinsically impossible in Divine Speech (whereas deobandis claim imkan)

7. We also know by necessity that Allah ta'ala KNOWS about His own Will and nothing can stop Him when He has Willed.

8. When Allah ta'ala has ORDAINED that there will not be another prophet, it is muhal dhati - not because Allah ta'ala does not have power to create (al iyadhu billah) but rather because He has Willed that it will NOT BE THE CASE - and He has proclaimed it Himself.​

the above hadith actually supports our argument - if it was NOT ordained (qaDaa) that there would be NO prophet after our prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam, THEN sayyiduna ibrahim would be a prophet. hazrat ibn abi awfa emphasises - wa la nabiyya ba'adah - and there is no prophet after him.

dropping ibn hajar's name does not help his argument - because neither do we argue against it. in fact, ibn hajar cites another narration via hazrat anas, which corroborates the above - see fath, v.14/p.72

if he survived, he would be a prophet - however, he was not (destined) to survive - BECAUSE your prophet is the LAST PROPHET.​

====

Even if it is a purely mawquf narration (i.e., a Sahabi's own position), I wonder if these numbskull Brillos would like to pronounce Takfir on Ibn Hajar, or on Ibn Majah and Bukhari, or indeed on Abdullah ibn Abi Awfa himself.

he does not even understand the hadith but yet pretends to act as if he has delivered a death blow!

by the way, your hatred of barelwis aside, a giant among imams like nawawi and ibn abdul Barr rejected these narrations and criticised assuming that it was mawquf narration: "in such matters of unseen one should not be audacious..."

as i said - imaginary rejection of barelwis can draw ire, but what about actual rejection of hadith masters?

intellectual dishonesty, anyone?


=========================
and in the backdrop of the above hadith, let us see what nanotwi said:

p.2:

on page 33:

if, hypothetically even after the time/age of the prophet (sal'am) - if a prophet is born - even then there will be no impact on the khatamiyyat (i.e. being last) of Muhammad - let alone in his time, a contemporary in any other earth [kisi aur zameen] - OR suppose EVEN ON THIS EARTH, deeming the possibility of another prophet....​

----
go ahead and put your spin on that. seek expert help from zameel. show how this is the same as the quote from ibn abi shayba's musannaf or the hadith of ibn majah and bukhari above or even that it is the correct explanation of aayat of surah ahzab, which all the mufassirin misunderstood and only nanotvi understood it correctly.

---
if you wish to see the devbandi somersaults and blissfully contradicting themselves without even realising what they blabber notice:

The idea therefore that it is logically and intrinsically impossible for a prophet to come after the Prophet flies against the aforementioned narrations.

and he says:

This basically means that, had Ibrahim رضي الله عنه lived, he would have been a prophet. But it was destined that his father صلى الله عليه وسلم would be the last prophet, therefore Ibrahim was taken by Allah as a child.

so my suggestion to this genius from deoband: read the muqaddimat and sughra of sanusi, and a few commentaries - on why it is muhal dhati when Allah ta'ala has Himself made it known that He has DESTINED that our nabi sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is the last prophet. if you cannot find anyone in the whole of deoband who can explain this simple concept, come back to me in humility and i will teach you what it means. until then you can wallow in your blind worship of devbandi tawagheet, for all i care. laa Hawla wa laa quwwat illa billah.

wa billahi't tawfiq.

 

[Aqdas]

Someone give me the link to the original X tweet and I'll post Shaykh's replies.

 

[abu Hasan]

One can legitimately disagree with the interpretation of خاتم النبيين as offered up by M. Nanotwi and Qari Tayyib Qasmi.

"disagree" acha! it is not interpretation - it is a novel misinterpretation.

It is a minority view,

shamelessness of deobandis - exactly like the zionists. and lying brazenly.

"minority view"

my question: other than qadianis and deobandis - who else claiming to be muslims present this "minority view"? even shias?

----

and it is a weak one that has little - if any - precedent in the books of Tafsir.

no better than NYT reporting the deaths of gazans.

the scoundrel knows that there is NO precedent, but he cannot say that as it would expunge him from the lying devbandi cult. he has to resort to distortion: "if any"

THERE IS NONE. show me if there is "any".

----

But that doesn't mean they denied the chronological finality of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم overall as a key tenet of faith, as is clearly substantiated by the Hadith.

even the zionists may marvel at this level of detachment from reality. the guy clearly rejects chronological finality - but his minions keep making a thousand excuses to deny that he did! the whole world may call it a genocide, but the zionists won't.

the whole world - why, the man himself clarified that khatam does NOT mean chronologically last, but the devbandi will keep saying he said otherwise.

and yet, usman has the temerity to accuse alahazrat of "facilitating" qadianis! just as the zionists accuse palestinians to be the terrorists.

laa Hawla wa laa quwwata illa billah.

 

[abu Hasan]

Someone give me the link to the original X tweet and I'll post Shaykh's replies.

post as screenshots to preserve the formatting.

 

[Aqdas]

post as screenshots to preserve the formatting.

That's the plan, when I get the link to his post.

 

[abu Hasan]

Is it possible for a prophet to be sent after the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم?
The simple answer is yes, as per the following narration from Sunan Ibn Majah:

no. the ignorant imbecile did not even understand a plain hadith. either that, or he diabolically tries to distort the hadith to exonerate his head honcho's deviance/kufr. and it this third rate learning usman was bragging about!

the hadith clearly explains there is NO possibility, that is why he was taken away - and if there was a possibility, then hazrat ibrahim would have lived! this is the plain translation of the hadith.

nas'alu Allah al aafiyah.

 

[abu Hasan]

Is it possible for a prophet to be sent after the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم?
The simple answer is yes, as per the following narration from Sunan Ibn Majah:

hadith of ibn majah:

allamah sindi in its commentary says what i have said earlier:

the meaning is: that if it was ordained for anyone to be a prophet after our prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam, then it would be possible for ibrahim to live. however, since it was not decreed that (i.e. prophethood after our nabiy) - and it was possible for ibrahim to be a prophet IF he would live, then it was necessary that he would not live (because it was ordained that there would be NO prophet after our nabi)​

another meaning is: "if it were possible for a prophet after our nabi sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam, then ibrahim was more deserviing..

====
learn to read the hadith properly.

 

[AbdalQadir]

on why it is muhal dhati when Allah ta'ala has Himself made it known that He has DESTINED

I once had the good fortune to meet Fakhre Barkas Shaykh Abdullah Qurmoshi rahimahullah, and can never forget one comment from him re wahabis n devbandis -

Yeh log asal mein Rabb ko nahin samjhe hain.

The root of the problem is that these fools haven't understood the proper beliefs regarding their Rabb.

 

[abu Hasan]

https://sunniport.com/index.php?posts/71186

 

[HASSAN]

Someone give me the link to the original X tweet and I'll post Shaykh's replies.

It's not on Twitter; it was posted on a large Telegram challed called Knowledge Revival

https://t.me/KnowledgeRevival/16236

 

[Aqdas]

These posts by Shaykh aH are on my X as 24 images.

https://x.com/AqdasRidawi/status/1992604685933691049?t=m-GYw9kX9QVXgJ8K8gumeg&s=19

Please share.

I'm a little clueless about how to use X so let me know if there's a better way.