[speedy]

Salamu alaykum

Mashallah Shaykh Faraz Rabbani is a very balanced scholar. He has praise for both Barelwi and Deobandi scholars though his preference is with the scholars of Shaam and Yemen

http://www.sunnitalk.co.uk/

[kattarsunni]

The Mantiq of the above dictates the following:

a) The controversial Deobandi Ulama have written lots of Hanafi works.

They were charged of commiting kufr

c) But we should ignore that and say the fatwa placed on them is mistaken because they have written lots of good works.

To add to the above:

1) Husam alHaramayn is mistaken because the above scholars wrote lots of works.

2) We should apply this logic with all erring scholars (Like Mufti Hassoun for instance)


One final point: why does the Aquida of many Deobandi Ulama contradict Muhunnad. It reminds me of the writing of Intros to Sayyid Malikis works and then condemning him later....

[faqir]

As-salamu 'alaykum
Balanced scholars like sh faraz and non indo/pak based shuyukh take the good and leave the muddled... Nothing wrong in that.

[Abu Haneefa]

Assalamu^alaykum

Its more scholars like this we need and less criticism.
I heard the same talk by sheikh Faraz Rabbani yet did not come to the same 'logical' conclusion as some

[speedy]

kattarsunni, on 28 January 2010 - 12:16 PM, said:

The Mantiq of the above dictates the following:

a) The controversial Deobandi Ulama have written lots of Hanafi works.

They were charged of commiting kufr

c) But we should ignore that and say the fatwa placed on them is mistaken because they have written lots of good works.

To add to the above:

1) Husam alHaramayn is mistaken because the above scholars wrote lots of works.

2) We should apply this logic with all erring scholars (Like Mufti Hassoun for instance)


One final point: why does the Aquida of many Deobandi Ulama contradict Muhunnad. It reminds me of the writing of Intros to Sayyid Malikis works and then condemning him later....

He has looked into this issue into detail. He is a scholar who understands urdu, the historical contexts and much more. And he has no reason to take any sides. I, and I'm certain most on this forum, trust his findings than any of your kind. If it is you on that forum, shame on you for what are doing to him and Shaykh Nuh.

This post has been edited by speedy: 28 January 2010 - 10:04 PM

[kattarsunni]

I would say shame on those who attribute to the Qudra of Allah any type of blemish.

In the above recording he shows no in depth understanding of the issue at hand.

The article 'Imaan, Kufr and Takfir' is failing scholarship. With the reasoning placed in the above recording 'Mufti' Hassoun should also be let off scot-free.

Faraz does not have an in depth understanding of the topic. When he came to Birmingham he was wrangled in a debate and proven wrong. To people who have no grasp of the subject he may seem strong, but he would not last two mins in front of an expert like Shaykh Munawwar or anyone else for that matter.

No-one on this forum, or Faraz or anyone can justify those disgusting statements. To compare those statements to Sufi statements is a mis-analogy because we know the works of Muhiyy alDin and Sha'rani were tampered, clearly this is not the case here.

Bottom line: there is no blind following in Aquida. The statements were wrong and kufr, end of.

[salman]

kattarsunni, on 28 January 2010 - 08:21 PM, said:

I would say shame on those who attribute to the Qudra of Allah any type of blemish.

Such as Ibn Hummam, who with his mistake is still leaps above you or I in rank and acceptance.

Quote

The article 'Imaan, Kufr and Takfir' is failing scholarship. With the reasoning placed in the above recording 'Mufti' Hassoun should also be let off scot-free.

The articles primary purpose is to demonstrate the usul of takfir. Subcontinental polemicists get into never ending, circular "proof" debates without discussing any of the underlying methodological considerations.

Shaykh Nuh quite clearly and decisively proved that [a] there is a position, a sound one, that would avert the takfir on the Deobandis and [b] taking this position, even if for the sake of argument it is considered a weak one, is necessary to avert such takfir as stated by our scholars like Ibn `Abidin.

So, regardless of what "proofs" and statements you have from scholars justifying your takfir, the mere presence of another position that would avert the takfir suffices to establish that the takfir of the Deobandis was unsound.

These points are clear in the texts. It is not a surprise then that people should concentrate on the peripheral issues in the article, like points of historical accuracy, imkan al-kadhib, and the like.

Quote

No-one on this forum, or Faraz or anyone can justify those disgusting statements. To compare those statements to Sufi statements is a mis-analogy because we know the works of Muhiyy alDin and Sha'rani were tampered, clearly this is not the case here.

Bottom line: there is no blind following in Aquida. The statements were wrong and kufr, end of.

And the takfir was wrong and haphazard, end of, based on our methodological principles, which are clear.

Shaykh Nuh never justified the statements, as the article itself is clear about. He criticizes many of them, but the shallow reading of the laity and their short-term memories probably makes them overlook or forget these points. After all, polemicists only love to concentrate on the "juicy" bits.

As for your statement on tampering, read some `aqida books, like Bajuri, and see how many times he mentions a position of ibn `Arabi and rejects it. We cant brush everything under the guise of "tampering".

Wasalam
Salman

This post has been edited by salman: 29 January 2010 - 10:58 AM

[finqalandar]

salman, on 29 January 2010 - 12:54 PM, said:

Such as Ibn Hummam, who with his mistake is still leaps above you or I in rank and acceptance.

Sidi Salman, could you provide more information on this opinion? Is it generally accepted among Ash'aris? This matter is quite confusing to me because I'm a murid of sheikh Nuh. The discussion on Masabih was terrible as there was no intention of presenting the opinion.

[kattarsunni]

Quote

Such as Ibn Hummam, who with his mistake is still leaps above you or I in rank and acceptance.

This is a misquote from Ibn alHumam. This has been dealt with in 'alQam'u alMubin liAmalil Kadhibin', aswell as the quotes from 'alMusayara' and 'Sialkauti'.

Nuh Ha Mim may not justify the statements, but Faraz Rabbani does as is clear from his recording.

Kidhb for Allah is Mustahil Dhati for Allah by Ijma' of Ahl alSunna.

[Abu Haneefa]

Assalamu^alaykum

Brother this attitude towards this subject is not going to change overnight. So the question is simple Allah is your witness, How many individuals have you come across from the deobandi manhaj who believe that Allah can lie? I have yet to meet one.

That being beside the point it has been mentioned on another link here on marifah, that the person being accused himself has given an explicit statement saying this is not his belief and anyone who believes this to be the case is a disbeliever, then why do you still persist and insist on hanging on to these issue??

Surely we recognise a need to assist one another in the good, as the brother said take the good and leave the bad. So when you see someone especially from amongst the people of knowledge trying to bring about some form of unity and better understanding amongst the muslims, we should not be quick to criticise them and look for so called faults.

On the other hand if you believe that these scholars are mistaken on this issue. Then bring about a new topic detailing the mistakes and the errors of these scholars in dealing with this issue. Preferably from first hand sources which are reliable, rather than 'so and so said this', and copy and paste material.

Wa Salam

[salman]

finqalandar, on 29 January 2010 - 03:04 PM, said:

salman, on 29 January 2010 - 12:54 PM, said:

Such as Ibn Hummam, who with his mistake is still leaps above you or I in rank and acceptance.

Sidi Salman, could you provide more information on this opinion? Is it generally accepted among Ash'aris? This matter is quite confusing to me because I'm a murid of sheikh Nuh. The discussion on Masabih was terrible as there was no intention of presenting the opinion.

assalamu `alaykum sidi

No, the opinion is not generally accepted by Ash`aris. The general rule among Ash`aris is that every flaw is impossible for Allah, intrinsically (`aqlan).

As for your confusion, it is only the devil. Dont let things like this ruin your suluk, and, as Shaykh Nuh said, this is useless stuff for useless people. This is his advice to the laity amongst his murids and so it should be submitted to without question.

Quote

Kidhb for Allah is Mustahil Dhati

I never said otherwise. However, as I said, this claim of "failing scholarship" ignores that the central point of the article was to clarify the usul of takfir, which it did with great insight and accuracy.

As for Ibn Humam, you can read his comments yourself, with Ibn Qutlubugha's running commentary mentioning his teachers slip. Regardless, the point was to mention that many scholars have made mistakes, scholars who we consider the greatest ones in our tradition.

Wasalam
Salman

This post has been edited by salman: 29 January 2010 - 08:59 PM

[Ibn Ajibah]

I dont know why I am wasting my time with this, but as I was looking around, I found this on SF from someone named "speedy" (who I assume is the same "speedy" here):

Quote

salamu alaykum,

Lie of the century is definitely the infallible Ahmad Rada Khan’s claim that Gangohi passed a fatwa that God had actually lied!

Why is everyone debating about imkan kizb when the fatwa was on the actuality of lying by God! Which one is infinitely worse.

I wonder what kind of deep intellectual debate took place between scholars at the time about this actual occurrence of God lying?

How low and how mindbogglingly foolhardy was this one man crusade - If you’re going to twist or forge texts or lie about somebody in order to pass a fatwa of kufr then make it believable at least!

And to top it all, many his followers actually believe this lie of the century. Though deep down I think they doubt, why else are they so obsessed with imkan kizb rather than something much much worse.

So if Sh. Faraz is balanced, then with your words above you are admiting that you are anything but balanced.

[kattarsunni]

Lying is mustahil dhati by ijma' of Ahl alSunna, so why is Shaykh Nuh saying it is mustahil a'radi? In the recording he holds the 'mistake' of Ibn alHumam according to your reasoning.

It is clearly wrong of him to have said this. The stance of mustahil aradi is absurd. So if for arguements sake Ibn alHumam made a mistake we forward this as a valid stance? Why stop at kidhb? The text mention safh (imbeccility) also? Are we going to say safh is mustahil a'radi now aswell?

As for what you mentioned regarding Ibn alHumam then this is answered in 'Qam'a alMubin' and ta'liqat upon the Musamara.

Nuh Ha Mim says the term imkan alkidhb was unappropriately translated by Imam Ahmad Rida. If that were the case then why does Shaykh Rashid Gangohi employ the term in his own 'Fatawa'?

[faqir]

Quote

Nuh Ha Mim says the term imkan alkidhb was unappropriately translated by Imam Ahmad Rida. If that were the case then why does Shaykh Rashid Gangohi employ the term in his own 'Fatawa'?

That could, of course, have been a mistake on Sh. Nuh's part but, do you think perhaps he may have meant that it was mistranslated as wuqu' al-kidhb?

[Ibn Arabi]

speedy, on 28 January 2010 - 11:18 AM, said:

Salamu alaykum

Mashallah Shaykh Faraz Rabbani is a very balanced scholar. He has praise for both Barelwi and Deobandi scholars though his preference is with the scholars of Shaam and Yemen

http://www.sunnitalk.co.uk/

In part of Faraz Rabbani’s answer he touches on the benefit of Deobandi and Berelwi scholarly writings. With regards to the latter only mention of Ahmad Rida Khan is made who wrote treatises on certain issues like a commentary on Ibn Abidin’s super-commentary called Jadd al-Mumtar, but which have not gained wide acclaim throughout the Muslim world.

On the other hand Deobandi works in hadith, fiqh, aqida and siyar have gained wide acclaim. Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri’s Badhl al-Majhud is indispensible in the commentary of Sunan Abu Dawud. Yusuf Kandehlewi’s Hayat al-Sahaba is a popular book read by scholars and lay Arabic speakers alike. Zafar Uthmani’s I‘la al-Sunan (with Habib Kiranawi’s introduction to the principles of Fiqh), written under the supervision of his uncle Ashraf Ali al-Thanawi, is probably the greatest work in defence of Hanafi fiqh in terms of hadith evidence (greater even than the works of Zayla‘i, Tahawi, and Ayni), and is published and studied by scholars throughout the world; Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda wrote a foreword to it and commented on the first part of it on the science of hadith. Zakariyya Kandehlewi’s Awjaz al-Masalik is a highly regarded commentary on the Muwatta of Imam Malik that combines issues of fiqh and hadith. Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda also wrote an introduction to Anwar Shah Kashmiri’s al-Tasrih bi ma Tawatara fi Nuzul al-Masih on the Qadiani heresy. The latter’s Fayd al-Bari and al-‘Arf al-Shadi are brief commentaries on Sahih al-Bukhari and Sunan al-Tirmidhi; and his 150 page treatise on raf' al-yadayn called Nayl al-Firqadayn is perhaps the best treatment of this issue according to Abul Hasan on these forums. Shabbir Ahmad Uthmani’s commentary on Sahih Muslim called Fath al-Mulhim was regarded as the best commentary on Sahih Muslim by Zahid al-Kawthari. Besides these examples of works which have received scholarly acceptance and acclaim in the Muslim world, there are other popular works written in Arabic e.g. those of Abu l-Hasan Ali Nadwi (who has also been responsible for writing forewords to some of the above and getting them published) and also important editions of hadith collections e.g. Habib al-Rahman al-‘Azmi’s authoritative edition of the Musannaf of ‘Abd al-Razzaq. In other words, it would be difficult for a genuine Islamic scholar to do without Deobandi scholarship.

It seems however that Berelwi scholarship has never reached this level of acceptance in any single work on hadith, fiqh, aqida or tarikh. Ahl al-Hadith from India, on the other hand, have made some fine contributions to some of these fields but not to the degree of the Deobandi ulama; these would include Mubarakpuri’s Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi on the commentary of Sunan al-Tirmidhi and some of Nawab Siddiq Hasan’s works. From these three major groups from India, Deobandis, Ahl al-Hadith and Berelwis, Berelwis seem to be singled out as the group that hasn’t produced any lasting contribution to any field of Islamic scholarship in the last century. This stems, in my opinion, from an obsession with sectarian polemics; the same it was said infected Ibn Taymiyya who misplaced his intelligence by delving into controversial matters but had he used it wisely he could have produced great commentaries on the Qur’an and Hadith. Yusuf al-Rifa‘i accurately described the Deobandis as the Ulama or the “brightest scholars” of India and the Berelwis as its masses.