why is there the need to refute shaikh nu hah mim keller

sajid

where is thye origina article of ha mim keller and

where is the response from taj ushariah

sajid

salam

where is this article?

sajid

salam

i want to read the article. where cAn i get it.

It seems as though the article was paraphrased into the ears of other scholars and hence this fracas.

SAJID

salam

i have read it and cant see  it opposing the dobs.

sajid

Salaam,

Maybye people should read the article, in the first part the sheikh actually defends imam Ahmed Raza Khans beliefs, refuting the D******ies by proving his beliefs were not shirk!

"As we have seen, Ahmad Reza's position is neither "against decisive scriptural texts," for such texts are not "decisive" but rather interpretable as being prior in time to others that abrogate them; nor "without proof," since his position is borne out by numerous intersubstantiative rigorously authenticated (sahih) hadiths; nor "proceeding solely from false analogy," for it rather proceeds from the Prophet's very words (Allah bless him and give him peace) in these hadiths".

Then he refutes the doebandies, in fact D******ies have themselves written refutations on this article as they are also unhappy with the content!!!

"In sum, Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri's disadvantageously comparing the Prophet's knowledge (Allah bless him and give him peace) to Satan's, the vilest creature in existence-regardless of the point he was making-is something few Muslims can accept. Whether Khalil Ahmad regarded it as a feat of ingenuity to show that because the Prophet's knowledge was less than the Devil's, it was a fortiori less than Allah's, or whatever his impulse may have been, he badly stumbled in this passage. In any previous Islamic community, whether in Hyderabad, Kabul, Baghdad, Cairo, Fez, or Damascus-in short, practically anywhere besides the British India of his day-Muslims would have found his words repugnant and unacceptable"

"Aside from Thanwi's artless comparison of the highest of creation with the lowest, the very point of saying it in refutation of Reza is not plain, in view of the latter's explicit acknowledgement that no one can equal Allah's knowledge or possess it independently or be given anything but a part of it, even if, as Reza says, "what a patent and tremendous difference between one part [the Prophet's] and another [anyone else's]: like the difference between the sky and the earth, or rather even greater and more immense" (al-Dawla al-Makkiyya (c00), 291).

 Here sheikh Nuh uses the works of ahmed raza to refute the doebandies and affirms and accepts why ahmed raza called the prophet(ALLAH bless him and give peace) the knower of the unseen.

This "patent and tremendous difference" is clear, as we have seen, from the great knowledge of the unseen given to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) in the hadiths of Bukhari, Muslim, and Tirmidhi, which, taken with the vastness of the revelation of the Qur'an and sunna as a whole, make it easy to see why Reza and others called him "Knower of the Unseen"-meaning in comparison to the rest of mankind, not to Allah-and that by any measure, he possessed knowledge plainly not of the same order as that possessed "by every child and madman, and even by all animals and beasts," to use Thanwi's phrase."

Then Sheikh Nuh refutes ahmed raza khan on the takfir of the D******ies, and that is his opinion, he has nothing against ahmed raza khan he has said himself when asked about the article that he did not do it to please either side and that both sides were wrong! But he did say that the intentions of Ahmed Reza were sincere!!!

Plus sheikh nuh in his virginia suhba which is available to all on the shadhili tariqa website actually quotes imam ahmed raza khan, when asked on which  criteria should be looked at when looking for a sheikh, he used the criteria imam ahmed raza gave.

Finally, i think the brelvis need to accept the fact that many ahlul sunnah wal jammah scholars dont accept the takfir on the D******ies and they are entitled to their opinion. It does not mean that they are against Imam Ahmed Reza Khan!! In fact they have a lot of respect for him.

JazakALLAH Hassan Ali

salam

lovely reply

Why are the people offemde by this article. I dont see anyting wrong with it now

sajid

But what we see is that Shaykh Nuh does not like Wahabis very much. The whole world knows that Deob**** share the Aqeedah of the Wahabis. So I would have expected more from Shaykh Nuh.

I also feel it is unfair to force Arab Shuyukh to take sides in this issue. Deob*** have a habit of deceiving Arab Shuyukh and act almost like Sunnis in their presence. Then they complain 'Barelvis are harsh towards us!'. Most Arab Shuyukh are not even aware of the difference but it seems Shaykh Nuh has been persuaded to take a middle ground.

Lastly, I would remind everyone to respect the Ulama. Even if we have a difference with Shaykh Nuh on this matter, I do not think anyone would doubt Shaykh Nuh being a staunch Muslim of correct Aqeedah.

Difference of opinions exist and always will.

You cannot say it is not a defence of D******is, clearly it is as he tries to say that they were not as bad as the fatwas of ulama make them out to be, plus it was his D******i mureeds such as faraz rabbani and karmali who asked him to write it and they provided him with translations from urdu to english!

And just what is a mutually acceptable position?

a good man generally speaking but is 100% D****i? So an insulter can be a good man generally speaking but he is a 100% insulter?

now that will be a step in the right direction.

I agree that deviants like the senior deoband school need to be put in their place but have definetely noticed a change in D******is, they act more like us with their sufism and quote great awliya such as Khawaja Moinuddin Chisti Radi Allahu Anhu, shocking but true, seems theyve drifted apart from their once wahabi masters

Br Qadri Jilani can we have proof of Sheikh Nuh writing the article because Sheikh Faraz And Sheikh Hamza told him too? Plus niether are D******ies therefore they are not his "D******i mureeds". Would it be a shock to you if i were to tell you that in England, yes Sheikh Nuh has D******i murids (so what), but the majority are brelvis or from a brelvi background. yet at the same time Sheikh Yaqoubi has D******i mureeds, some D******ies are also ba alawi, are we to blame them for previous generations mistakes?.  Secondly do we not have differences of opinion like i said before many scholars today of the ahlul sunnah wa jammah do not agree with the takfir on the D******ies, it does not mean they dislike Imam Ahmed Raza Khan they just disagree with him on this particuler point. As already proved in my previous post Sheikh Nuh has respect for ahmed raza, he has defended his beliefs, qouted him in one of his main suhba 98. He is without doubt from the ahlul sunnah wal jammah, in America full of wahabies it was him and sheikh hamza yusuf who started to bring people back to sunni Islam from wahabism. So i think people need to repect the opinion of others and not have bad views about sheikh nuh and others as they are true scholars of sunni Islam.

JazakALLAH Hassan Ali

There is only a shift in western D******ism, not in traditional D******ism. The problem these guys in the west had was that when they went over to the Arab lands, they realised that there was no one who had an aqida like them. You either have Salafi wahabis (ghayr muqallids) - which the D******is destest, or you have Sunnis (same aqida as what you call "Sunnis"). So they had to make a choice, the choice they made was to appease the Sunni scholars there and pretend to be in line with Sunnis. All of a sudden they accept Milad Sharif and Ilm-e-Ghayb. These things are bida and shirk according to their D******i masters back home.

Nuh Kellar himself says who asked him to write on this and his article mentions who provided him with the translations. To be honest, he should never have wrote on something he does not know much about. This has discredicted him real bad. Any defense of those ugly and kufria statements of the D******is is inexcusable.

I have not heard the speeches from the Urs so cannot comment. I think the article is what you should judge and even though Nuh Kellar's article was full of flaws and as well as contradictions, I still believe the refutation by Allama Akhtar Raza will blow him away. The amount of flaws the article had meant that it was inevitable someone sooner or later would refute it, so no one should be surprised. The only complaint I have heard people making is that it should have come out much much sooner.

good points qadri jilani

sajid

I will admit he is rather confused in regards to imkan e khidhb issue(infact does not seem to know what he's talking about,maybe lacking proper research in that field),hence in error.

He should be approached by sensible sunni ulema and corrected

Thats my view.

This article by Shaykh Nuh has been refuted by Shaykh Ul Islam Madni Miyan....

http://www.islam786.org/D******is.htm#105703649

Please put d e o b a n d i s wherever u get a ****.

Look at the chapter under

Shaykh Nuh

---------------------------------------------

The article has a word of caution though and I personally feel we shouldn't jump to conclusions so early.Please go through this part of article..:cool:

---------------------------------------------

There are also sadly some illogical & unsubstantiated remarks by the Shaykh to which we will give him the benefit of doubt for since it is highly likely such comments perhaps were inspired by the adversaries of the Ahl as-Sunnah w’al Jama’ah. The content is fore mostly the ancient rhetoric we have been accustomed with for many years by the heard-hearted D******is.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hope it helps in clrifying things to some extent..

I ask a simple question, putting your hand on your heart, just think that can u repeat those blesphemous remarks in front of Allah on the day of judgement and claim that you are a Muslim. Never, I am sure....

D******is must accept that their elders made Kufr in these statements and the only middleway as someone said could be to start the dialogue by admitting yes it was Kufr.....

The beauty of the refutation is that it proves scholarly why the statements are taking one out of Islam.

Great masterpiece.....

Reflecting the True Meaning of Iman Kufr and Takfeer

by Shaykh Muhammad Akhtar Rida al Azhari

may Allah Ta'ala protect him.

" 　 وا  ن، وا
 "ا

2. The Infidelity (kufr) of Qasim Nanontawi for His Outright Denial of the Fixed Meaning of

“Khatam al-Nabiyyeen” in Tahzir al-Nas (p. 7)

3. The Author’s Contradictions Regarding the Disgraceful Comments of Khalil Ahmad &

Ashraf Ali (p. 15)

4. The Author’s Acceptance that D******i Comments are Offensive Hence Explicit in the

Meaning of Kufr (p. 18)

5. The Argument on Imkan al-Kadhib (p. 21)

6. The Author Breaches the Criterion of Iman (p. 28)

7. The Infidelity of Qasim Nanotawi & A Scholastic Refutation of His Position From al-Mawt al-

Ahmar (p. 30)

8. The Correct View Regarding the Explicit (Sarih) Kufr & The Value of Intention (p. 33)

9. The Fallacy to Consider the Takfir Invalid According to the Hanafi Madhab (p. 42)

10. An Explanation to the Comments of Ibn Abideen in Rad al-Muhtar on Words that Contain

a Kufr Meaning (p. 45)

11. “Things Not Everyone Knows” (p. 49)

12.1 The Hadith of Usamah (may Allah be pleased with him) (p. 50)

12.2 Takfir in the Absence of a Qadhi & the Fallacy of Placing Ulama among “Ordinary

Muslims” (p.52)

12.3 Exposing the Author’s Affirmation that D******i Comments are Certainly Fixed in the

Kufr Meaning (p. 55)

13. An Analysis of the Author’s “A True Measure of Unbelief” (p. 56)

14. An Analysis of the Author’s “The Fallacy of Hearsay Evidence” (p. 59)

15.1 Imam Subki’s Agreement that Rulings Apply to The Obvious (zahir) (p. 64)

15.4 The Hanafite Position on the Repentance (p.71)

15.6 The Hadiths on Giving Offence (p. 76)

15.8 The Reply to the Hadith of Sayyida Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) (p. 80)

15.9 Imam Subki’s Comments Are in Regards to Sarih Mutabayyin and Not Sarih Muta’ayyan

and the Final Blow to The Author’s Misuse of Ahadith (p. 82)

of Prophethood from Qadhi Iyadh’s Kitab al-Shifa (p.84)

The English article in front of us entitled ‘Iman, Kufr and Takfir’ penned by the

American author, Nuh Ha Mim Keller, attempts to disprove the charge of infidelity

against the D******is sect. We listened to the entire article and noticed that it is full

of contradictions as it should be declared through the coming statement from us. We

begin by putting some questions to the author, reflecting to him his contradictions:

Q1- The author1 (p. 1) raises the following question in the beginning of the article

and offers its reply,

“Question: Is someone who has an idea that is kufr or “unbelief” thereby an

“unbeliever? Answer: The short answer, somewhat surprisingly, is “not

necessarily”.”

Our question to the author is that he himself has later declared that in some

conditions such a person will be called an infidel and in others he will not. Since this

ruling was limited to some conditions, why did he state in a short answer “it is not

necessary”? If he could not surround all the conditions in a short answer, he could

have said “it is not necessary in every condition”. Is it by chance that he does not

mention the condition and in advance declare the result which comes at the end of

the discussion i.e. D******is are not infidel in any way and that it is wrong to

declare them kafir, or is it to be firm on that very absolute rule”It is not necessary”?

We will consider this issue within the subsequent passages.

Q2- The author (p. 1) raised another pressing question, that is, should we call a

person an “unbeliever” who has an idea that is kufr or unbelief?

Our question in regards to this is: thought, ideology and belief are synonymous words

and an intention is a must for them. The result of the said answer by the author is

that it is not necessary to declare the person whose thought is based on infidelity or

false belief an infidel. Whereas the author himself has later declared that the

intentional disgrace of the Messenger of Allah (May Allah send peace and blessings

upon him) is kufr. Is it not a clear contradiction in his comments? If not, then why not?

And what reason does the author offer to connect these contradictory statements?

Q3- The author continues to write (p. 1),

“Many people today read an expression labeled in books of Islamic law as

kufr, and when they realise that some Muslim they know or have heard of has

an idea like it, they jump to the conclusion that he is a kafir.”

1 Note that we address Nuh Ha Mim Keller as “the author” throughout this reply.

that a person has an idea that is labeled kufr in the books of Islamic law, then why

does he object? If that book is authentic and the infidelity charge against the certain

person is established according to the statement of the book, so why then shouldn’t

people rely upon it? Does the author want people to ignore the reliable books, as well

as the reliable Ulama, and listen to him only?

Q4- The author (p. 1) also says,

“Charging fellow Muslims with unbelief (takfir) is an enormity in the eyes of

Allah.”

obligatory to consider the person a kafir and to declare him as kafir on demand. This,

in actual fact, is not charging a Muslim with unbelief but it is to consider someone an

infidel who left the fold of Islam due to committing blasphemy and or refusing anyone

of the principles of the religion (Ma’lumat min al-Din bi al-Dharurah).The ugliness of

the D******i statements is so admitted by the author that he himself states in the

very same article (p. 20-21),

“In sum, Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri’s disadvantageously comparing the

Prophet’s knowledge (Allah bless him and give him peace) to Satan’s, the

vilest creature in existence—regardless of the point he was making—is

something few Muslims can accept. Whether Khalil Ahmad regarded it as a

feat of ingenuity to show that because the Prophet’s knowledge was less than

the Devil’s, it was a fortiori less than Allah’s, or whatever his impulse may

have been, he badly stumbled in this passage. In any previous Islamic

community, whether in Hyderabad, Kabul, Baghdad, Cairo, Fez, or

Damascus—in short, practically anywhere besides the British India of his

day—Muslims would have found his words repugnant and

unacceptable.”

their opponents asked them: when did any Islamic scholar ever compare

the knowledge of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) to the

depraved, to the mad, or to animals—even to make a point? Few Muslims

words were indefensible breaches of proper respect, they were not kufr,

declare them as kafir, is it not a contradiction by the author? Also, is the

aforementioned sentence absolute according to the author, or is it conditional? If it is

absolute, the author contradicts what he said (p. 1) before that, “the person would be

considered as kafir in some cases and in some not”. It means that the ruling is

conditional, so why did he leave it absolute? And in the case of it being conditional,

why didn’t he elaborate the conditions (quyud) and possible aspects through the

statements of Scholastic (wujuh mumkinah fi kalam al-mutakallim) such as the

‘evident’ (sarih), Determined (muta’ayan); and why didn’t he mention the rulings of

them both, as well as detailing of the various thoughts of Theologians(Fuqaha) and

Scolastics (mutakallimun) regarding them? How could the author have elaborated all

of this, whereas he says after he mentioned the strife of the Wahhabis, which took

place in the eighteenth century (p. 1),

“Charging fellow Muslims with unbelief (takfir) is an enormity in the eyes of

Allah. It is the fitna or “strife” that destroyed previous faiths, and whose fire in

Islamic times was put out with the defeat of the Kharijites, only to be revived

on a wholesale scale almost a thousand years later by Wahhabi sect of

Arabia in the eighteenth century, from whence its acceptability has spread

today to a great many otherwise orthodox Muslims, becoming the bid‘a

of our times, and one of the most confusing Islamic issues”?

The article of the author is in English, wherein the author has called many Muslims

"orthodox". Orthodox according to the English dictionary is used in a few meanings,

which are given as follows: a) orthodox (adj.) “generally a person holding accepted

rightly taught belief” and “old fashioned” thus someone with such views, b) orthodoxy

(n.) being orthodox, i.e. holding the correct belief or having old fashioned views.

It comes through the above reference that orthodox has two meanings: a person who

upholds correct beliefs or someone who has old fashioned views. The author should

be questioned regarding what he means by orthodox? On the basis of the first

condition, that is someone who upholds correct belief, he must clarify: how could

those people remain orthodox amongst whom the acceptability spread according to

the author of that which he claims to be a bid'a of our age? And on the basis of the

second condition, is it not evident through his statement, that the matter which is

usually acceptable to many Muslims, who are according to him orthodox, and this

very issue is outmoded according to his statement, which has been prevailing since

the early age, then, how could it be correct to call this a great bid'a or innovation of

this time? Is it not a false accusation against orthodox Muslims? And is it not an

indiscriminative contempt of all Muslims?

2. The Infidelity (kufr) of Qasim Nanontawi for His Outright

Denial of the Fixed Meaning of “Khatam al-Nabiyyeen”

in Tahzir al-Nas

Q5- The author asserts (p. 1) it is an enormity to charge a Muslim with infidelity.

Although, this is a general comment, but it is clear that the author makes this

assertion in order to defend the D******is. That means clearly that D******is are

Muslims in the author’s view and it is an enormity to call them infidels. Now,It is a

responsibility upon the author to prove that D******is are Muslims: is the denial of

Khatm al-Nubuwwah (Finality of Prophethood) not a rejection of an Islamic principle?

The author must read carefully the following statement by Nanotvi

““Suppose if there should be any Prophet in the era of His Holiness or

thereafter, even then it would not affect the finality of

(Syedna)Muhammad in Prophethood””2

Ummah to consider the Qur’anic term ‘Khatam al-Nabiyyeen’ in the meaning of ‘the

last messenger’ as the belief of laymen (i.e. the ignorant)? If not, then why not? And

if it is a refusal, and indeed it is so, then is it not infidelity? After declaring the

aforesaid meaning of “Khatam al-Nabiyyeen” as a thought of laymen, is it not a

refusal upon refusal and is it not denial upon denial to later say that “it would be clear

to the people of understanding that being advance or late in time has no virtue in

itself”2?

2.1 The author must declare in light of Imam Ghazali’s al-Iqtisad, a book reliable to

him, whether there is any acceptable interpretation (ta’wil) regarding the verse

) !" ا
)“Khatam al-Nabiyyeen”? If there is any, then what is it? And what

evidence is there on the acceptability of it from the Shari’ah? If there is never any

interpretation3 at any account, then does this not become refusal upon refusal and

denial upon denial of the sacred verse(!" ا
) ?Also, not to consider it as an

appreciable attribute of praise even though Quran has mentioned it in the situation of

praise and it has been considered through the Sunnah and unanimous belief of

2 These were the comments of Qasim Nanotawi in Tahzir al-Nas.

3 I.e. that which deviates from the mass-narrated and well known meaning of “Khatam al-

Nabiyyeen” among Muslims.

statements.Even then, he is a Muslim according to the author and it is baseless to

charge him with infidelity. How can the author give an interpretation to “Khatam al-

Nabiyyeen”, whereas Imam al-Ghazali categorically states in al-Iqtisad,

Imam Ghazali set a chapter describing the groups whose takfir is necessary, the

summary of which is as follows,

“The sixth stage is that a person neither refutes the Quran or Sunnah clearly,

nor refuses such a matter which is known to be the principles of the religion

that is transmitted through continuity and unbroken series (tawatur), though

he denies a matter whose authenticity is proven through mere consensus”.

He continues saying,

“If the gate to refuse the consensus through interpretation (ta’wil) is opened, it will

drive to many evil matters, so should a person say: it is possible that anyone after our

declaration of Allah (!" ا
)“Khatam al-Nabiyyeen” (the last of the Prophets), as

the objector may assert that “Khatam al-Nabiyyeen” refers to the ambitious

Messenger (ulu al-azm), because Allah’s word “al-Nabiyyeen” is general (aam) and

the specialisation (takhsis) of a general verse is not unlikely, and he may also say the

Noble Prophet never meant to say “there shall be no Rasool after me” when he said

“there is no Nabi after me”, and that there is a difference between a Prophet and a

Messenger, as a Prophet is superior to a Messenger in degree. Besides this He may

make assertions of this kind which are considered as a sort of delirium (Hizyan).

Hence a claim of impossibility cannot be expressed for this assertion and other

comments of this kind on the grounds of mere words. , because in regard with the

interpretation of the verses which are giving clearly the meaning of likeness

(Tashbeeh), we decided to repulse such many probabilities, which were more farfetched

than these conditions of likelihood. Even then, the aforesaid probabilities

could not be considered to be repulsing the verses. However, this objector should be

frustrated in this way that the Ummah unanimously understood through this word and

the context of its condition that this word means “Neither should be any new Nabi nor

any Rasool after the Noble Prophet (may Allah give him peace and blessings) and

there is no interpretation to this and no capacity of specialization. So he who refuses

this will be only considered as the refuser of the coalition (Munkir-e-Ijma). [End of

quote]

2.2 The author should consider the explicit comments of al-Iqtisad, a work he holds in

high regards, that there is no room for any kind of interpretation or specialisation to

the meaning of Khatam al-Nabiyyeen, which has a fixed meaning through the

consensus of the Ummah that the possibility of a new Prophet and a new Messenger

after the Noble Prophet (may Allah give him peace and blessings) is forever nonexistent.

And he who believes the commission of a new Prophet to be possible is the

refuser of the consensus and is counted among the very people whom must be

charged with infidelity (takfir). And again after looking at the aforementioned

passage, the author must declare the result of his own judgment he makes on page

21 saying,

“His [i.e. Imam Ahmad Raza’s] fatwa of kufr against the D******is, however,

was a mistake.”

And he must declare the ruling of the Shariah concerning himself in light of this

passage of “Al Iqtisad”, to which party does he belong? Hence, both of the views are

contrary, so how could it be right for him to uphold both of them to be correct? what

sign and trace of intrinsic possibility (PV ن ذا Z[\ إ) does he have bearing the meaning of

‘Khatam al-Nabiyyeen’ in mind!!! That is why Imam Ahmed Raza has written in his

knowledgeable book al-Mu’tamad al-Mustanad,

“That is inexistent bearing ‘khatam’s’ meaning in mind, that is to say, the

occurring liklihood (imkan wuquw’i) is inexistent as it is infidelity because of

the refutation of the verse, and refusal of what is counted among the

Essential Islamic Principles. However, the possibility in person (imkan dhati)

never has the likelihood of the infidelity charge (ikfar), but it is right (correct)

here, even if it is false in sight of Khatam al-Nabiyyeen because the meaning

of the word “Last” which has to be regarded here never accept participation

intellectually.”

2.3 To support the statement of al-Iqtisad, we present a passage from Imam Ibn

Hajar Makki’s al-I’lam who says,

will be charged with infidelity and it is obvious that there is no difference

between both conditions whether should he wish by mouth or by heart.” [I

have to say that saying “obvious” here doesn’t mean that there is likelihood

of any other aspect, so at this place, the technical sense is not intended by

saying obvious, but the literal meaning which is pronounced in the state of

certainty is intended, i.e. this issue is so clear that it never needs expression].

As this comprehensive paragraph outlined many issues in brief, it also expressed

that meaning of the abovementioned comments of al-Iqtisad which was well

grounded in al-Iqtisad . Hence, it must be admitted by the author and it is indeed a

solid proof against him since al-Iqtisad is a reliable book according to him. If the

author has not looked, then he must look now that al- Iqtisad mentioned so many

interpretations to the meaning of ‘khatam al-Nabiyyeen’ that apparantly seem to be

acceptable, however al-Iqtisad rejected them at all. Then how may the said

interpretation by Nanotawi be acceptable? And, is it an interpretation (ta’wil) or is it a

conversion (tahwil)? How could it be right to consider it an interpretation, whereas,

the supposed interpretation is not understandable in any way through the meaning of

the term ‘Khatam al-Nabiyyeen’? Through his improper interpretation, Qasim

Nanotawi, refutes the finality of Prophethood, refuses explicit ahadith, and rejects the

the Noble Prophet] is a Prophet personaly (nabiy bi al-dhat) and the others are

crosswise prophets (nabiy bi al-ardh).” Doesn’t this assertion clearly suggest that

Prophets are not in reality (haqiqatan) attributed with Prophethood and that

prophethood is an crosswise attribute (wasf aaridh)? Is such attribute a real attribute

of the person in actual fact or is it that the person is not actually attributed with that

quality like in the case of the crosswise movement of a person sitting in a sailing

boat, as the movement in actuality is in the boat and the person on board seems to

be moving? So what is the reason that Qadiyanis are declared infidels and

D******is remain Muslim, although both are in denial of the Quran, Hadith, and

consensus of the Ummah, and deny the Prophethood of other Prophets?

He emphatically supported the view of likelihood in person (imkan dhati), but does

this possibility allow a person to deny the unanimous meaning of ‘khatam al-

Nabiyyeen’ by considering it to be the thought of laymen (ignorant)? And emphasise

saying,

The author must declare whether the personal possibility (imkan dhati) is pronounced

in this manner or is this occurring likelihood (imkan wuquw’i)? And if this is a

declaration of occurring likelihood(imkan wuquw’i) which it indeed is, how could the

author’s assertion4 that everyone5 believes it to be effectively impossible (mustahil

aradhi) be true?

The author previously admits (p. 14-15),

“Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but the Messenger of Allah

and the Seal of the Prophets. Where the word khatim or “seal” in Arabic,

when annexed (mudaf) to a series, as in the expression “Seal of the

4 Look at the author’s comments (p. 15) “Here, as in the preceding question, both the

Sunnis and D******is agree about the actual resulthFor even though the Prophet (may

Allah bless him and give him peace) is merely a contingent and created human being, whom

it is hypothetically possible (ja’iz aqli) that Allah could create others exactly likeh”

5 I.e both the D******is and Sunnis.

Is this not a clear admission that no other meaning of ‘Khatam al-Nabiyyeen’ is

possible? So bearing this in mind, what justification is there to his assertion that it is

“though hypothetically possible (Ja’iz aqli)”? Regardless of the meaning of “Khatam

al-Nabiyyeen’’ suppose there should be an escape from the infidelity6, but which

believer is supposed to ignore the meaning of ‘Khatam al-Nabiyyeen’? Hence, the

meaning of ‘Khatam al-Nabiyyeen’ is regarded and is present in the mind and heart

of every believer at all times, how could it therefore fall into the category of the

hypothetically possible (ja’iz aqli) as the author asserts? In spite of this, he gives

“Khatam al-Nabiyyeen” a possible (imkani) meaning and then asserts (p. 15),

“Were there any doubt about this, it is also unanimously agreed upon by

scholarly consensus (ijma’) and explicitly stated by the Prophet himself (Allah

bless him and give him peace) in many rigorously authenticated (Sahih)

Hadiths, such as that in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad: Prophetic

messengerhood (risala) and prophethood (nubuwwa) have ceased: there

shall be no messenger after me, nor any prophet”

This statement by the author is an interrogation in a denying way which means

clearly that he is denying any difference in this connection and his later statement is

a clear indicator to this, wherein he in clear words admits that there is unanimous

consensus of the scholars of this Ummah on it. He must declare in light of these

words, have not the D******is become the deniers of consensus as well as refusers

of the Qur’an and Sunnah on this matter? Indeed they have become refusers of the

consensus according to the very admission made by the author.

The author states on the second page of his preface,

“Things that everyone knows: To deny anything of the first category above

constitutes plain and open unbelief. It includes such things as denying the

oneness of Allah, the attributes of Prophethood, that Prophetic

Messengerhood has ended with Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him

peace) [until he further says] As Imam Nawawi explains: Any Muslim who

denies something that is necessarily known to be of the religion of Islam is

adjudged a renegade and an unbeliever (Kafir)”.

2.4 The above mentioned comments by the author and his statement on page 15

(quoted above) “Were there any doubt about thish” both clearly accept that belief in

the finality of Prophethood is an absolute essential of the religion, upon which there is

consensus which allows no form of disagreement, and no weight is given to the

opposing view7. Why does the author refute his own admission and mix the belief of

6 by using the hypothetically possible argument.

genuine aqida issue”.

He breaches the principle admitted by him earlier by this assertion and offers the

following preamble to avoid the infidelity charge against D******is (p. 2-3),

“No position upon which one scholar may disagree with another because of

evidence from the Qur’an, Hadith, or human reason (as opposed to emotive

preference) may be a criterion for faith or unfaith (Kufr)h”

So why did he state earlier (p. 15) “were there any doubt about this”? And why did he

agree and assert (p. 2), “to deny anything of the first category above constitutes plain

and open unbelief”? And since previously he has agreed to that, why did he take

cover by using the disagreement of the Ulama argument? And why did he write on

page 15 that comment which was mentioned here? Is this not an attempt to escape

from admission and insist on denial? Doesn’t this demonstrate that the author has no

peace at mind? He presented another example of demonstrating his instability and

confusion, saying (p. 3),

“hprovided it is a scholarly position, minimally meaning that:

a) it is not based on a fanciful interpretation of Qur’an or Sunnah that violates

the grammar or diction of the Arabic Language.

b) it does not contradict some other evidentiary texth [until he further adds]

c) it does not violate Ijma or “Scholarly consensus”h. [until he further adds]

d) and it does not violate a fortiori from either (b) or (c).”

The author must realise that in his very own standard in these comments, doesn’t it

categorically issue a final verdict concerning all the D******i statements? Haven’t

these very words from him put an end to the entire discussion? Indeed it has. Hasn’t

the author clearly admitted, in the beginning and the end, that there is no look at any

opposing view at all if it violates any of the absolute essentials of the religion and the

consensus of the Ummah? Did he not clearly refute any form of disagreement by

saying (p. 3),

“It is not based on a fanciful interpretation of the Qur’an or Sunnah that

violates the grammar or diction of the Arabic Languageh.”

2.5 We ask the author to look at his abovementioned phrases. He himself said “to

deny anything of the first category above constitutes plain and open unbelief,” and he

admitted that there was no disagreement on the issue of the finality of Prophethood.

consider both of them to be genuine aqida issues! If this is not a contradiction

then what is this? Whilst forgetting all that he has mentioned before, he asserts (p. 2-

3) that no position upon which one scholar may disagree with another may be a

criterion for faith or unfaith, yet here accepts that there is disagreement and then

places conditions on this disagreement and then rejects it. Can the author prove that

the meaning of ‘Khatam al-Nabiyyeen’ declared by Qasim Nanotawi is not based on

fanciful interpretation and it doesn’t violate the grammar or diction of the Arabic

language, and that it doesn’t contradict some other evidentiary text? And the

passage written by Khalil Ahmad, does it not contradict the evident verses of the

Qur’an? And does not the word of Ashraf Ali violate the clear purport of the Qur’an

whence the author himself considers their comments (p. 22) “indefensible breaches

of proper respect” and “clear rudeness”. Is it not a heap of contradiction?

3.1 The author writes on page 28,

“In sum, Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri’s disadvantageously comparing the

Prophets knowledge (Allah bless him and give him peace) to Satan’s, the

vilest creature in existence – regardless of the point he was making – is

something few Muslims can accept. Whether Khalil Ahmad regarded it as a

feat of ingenuity to show that because the Prophet’s knowledge was less than

the Devil’s, it was fortiori less than Allah’s, or whatever his impulse may have

been, he badly stumbled in this passage. In any previous Islamic

community, whether in Hyderabad, Kabul, Baghdad, Cairo, Fez, or

Damascus – in short, practically anywhere besides the British India of

his day - Muslims would have found his words repugnant and

unacceptable”.

And he also writes (p. 22),

“Looking back, one cannot help wondering why Khalil Ahmad’s and Ashraf Ali

Thanwi’s own students and teachers, friends did not ask them before their

opponents asked them: When did any Islamic Scholar ever compare the

knowledge of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) to the

depraved, to the mad, or to animals – even to make a point? Few Muslims

would suffer such a comparison to be made with their own Father, let alone

the Emissary of God (Allah bless him and give him peace). But while such

words were indefensible breaches of proper respect, they were not kufrh”

And how will the author prove his argument, whereas in light of the abovementioned

quotes, he holds the D******i scholars clearly responsible by name, to have

contradicted the Qur’an and Sunnah, and have made comments repugnant and

unacceptable to all Muslims which that are indefensible breaches of proper respect?

So even though he did not repeat the words mentioned by him in the preamble ‘’i.e. it

is not based on a fanciful interpretation of Qur’an and Sunnah that violates the

grammar or diction of the Arabic Language” but the resumed admission by him in the

previous two quotes gives a clear indication that the precondition laid by him in the

preamble doesn’t exist here. So in spite of his own admission, he disregarded the

condition here. He considered the disagreement invalid and then valid, and that is

why he is firmly against the infidelity charge against D******is. If this is not an open

contradiction then what is this?

The author admitted (p. 28) that “Muslims would have found his words repugnant and

unacceptable” and he forgot that which he said about the words of Khalil Ahmad

Saharanpuri’s disadvantageously comparing the Prophet’s knowledge to Satan’s

“his something few Muslims can accept”. Regardless of the fact that both of his

has said there “few Muslims”, and he says here “Muslims”8, and he has called the

people who can accept such words as “Muslim” and has negated their Islam through

saying “Muslims would have foundh” Is it not evident through his own words, in spite

of this contradiction upon contradiction, that such comments would never be

pronounced from the mouth of a Muslim? Imam Ibn Hajr Makki has commented

regarding such comments,

the author of Iman Kufr and Takfir has proclaimed in this following manner, “Muslims

would have found his words repugnant and acceptable” (p. 28). Hasn’t this author

clearly admitted to Muslim consensus on the infidelity of those comments9? Indeed

he has! Now look at this contradiction, he converts his own admission to denial and

says these comments do not fall into the category of kufr (p. 22), but exactly why?

According to the author it is not kufr, must it be a part of Iman since there is no

connection between infidelity and belief? The author’s assertion necessitates that it is

Iman because two opposites can neither coexist nor be absent at one time. And if

these comments do not fall into the category of infidelity even though they are

8 In absolute terms.

9 of Khalil Saharanpuri and Ashraf Ali.

3.2 All orthodox Muslims and every just person should have a look at the wonderful

meeting of admission and denial, and negation and approval in the author’s

comments, which render the absolute essentials of Islam, the consensus of Muslims,

the principles of Islam, and unbelief and belief all unreliable! In other words, the

differences of belief and infidelity have become ineffective so one may consider

whatever he chooses as kufr, and then later consider the same to be Iman, what

harm does this cause to the Iman? Now remember our first question, in which we

asked, “is it in advance to declare the result which comes at the end of the

discussion, i.e. D******is are not infidels in any way and it is wrong to declare them

kafir?” But, is it not evident now that according to the author, the infidelity charge is

not placed on a person who rejects the absolute essentials of Islam, violates Muslim

consensus, negates explicit evidentiary text, even if his comments should be

repugnant and unacceptable to the Muslims of the entire world, and whether they

should be clear rudeness and indefensible breaches of proper respect, still it wont be

considered Kufr?

Offensive Hence Explicit in the Meaning of Kufr

“Only when the intention entails kufr do such words take the speaker out of

Islam (till he says) something might be said that while outwardly offensive to

Allah or His Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace), was

nevertheless intended by the speaker to make a valid point, not as an insult”.

The answer to this is evident through our statement above concerning Khalil Ahmad.

There is a question here to the author. Whilst forsaking his own assertions, he relied

upon the imputed intention argument to save the D******i statements from infidelity

and said regarding them “they were not kufr”, would he also say that the reverse

meaning (mafhum mukhalif) of these comments does not fall into the category of

infidelity since he did not intend infidelity? What kind of principle is this that until the

one making the statement does not intend infidelity, his statement shall not be kufr,

even though it may be a fanciful interpretation of the Qur’an and Sunnah, rejection of

explicit evidentiary text, denial of an absolute essential of Islam, unacceptable to the

entire Muslims and an indefensible breach?

4.2 Here we wish to quote a true account to prove our point and to substantiate the

claim that the words of Ashraf Ali Thanwi were unacceptable and contempt of the

Holy Prophet (peace and salutations upon him). In one of the law suits in India, the

Caliph of Imam Ahmed Raza called Maulana Hashmat Ali Khan said to the Judge

The judge became furious and said “This is contempt of court”. He immediately

exhibited the book and said to the judge, “This book is written by Ashraf Ali

Thanwi and it says “If it refers to but some of the unseen, then how is the

Revered One [the Prophet] (Allah bless him and give him peace) uniquely

special, when such unseen knowledge is possessed by Zayd and ‘Amr [i.e. just

anyone], indeed, by every child and madman, and even by all animals and

beasts? “ and he then said, “Is it not the clear insult of our Holy Prophet?” The

judge was surprised and (now the author must look at his words). The judge said,

person that is called a Muslim?” and then, he gave the verdict in favour of

Maulana Hashmat Ali Khan.

The point to ponder here is that even a non Muslim found these words repugnant,

disrespectful and unbelievable and now after almost a century; people are trying to

4.3 Furthermore, the author places the Islamic principles in the first category of

religious issues, and has said about it absolutely without any condition (p. 2),

“To deny anything of the first category above constitutes plain and open

unbelief”.

And has also said (p. 2),

“There is no excuse not to know these things in the lands of Islam.”

And he confirmed it through the statement of Imam Nawawi, put by the author

himself (p. 2) in the following words,

“Any Muslim who denies something that is necessarily known to be of the

religion of Islam is adjudged a renegade and an unbeliever (Kafir)h”

The statement of Imam Nawawi is unconditional that supports these two

aforementioned assertions by the author. Is it not the purport of Imam Nawawi and

the words of the author that denial of Islamic principles is open infidelity? Indeed this

is the very meaning, for which reason the author called it, “open unbelief”. Before

this, he has rejected “fanciful interpretations” absolutely without any explanation, and

has conditioned absolutely without any elaboration that it should not contradict some

other evidentiary text and these ‘absolute’ and ‘unconditional’ statements are indeed

solid evidences against him. The Author must therefore declare is it not clear

through these unconditional terms that the denial of Islamic principles is

unbelief without any condition, whether it should be intentional or not? And is it

not evident through this that interpreting an explicit comment (sarih) is invalid?

Indeed it is so. That is why, even though forgetting his own admissions from time to

time and making contradictions, he had to admit that “Muslims would have found his

words repugnant and unacceptable” and “such words were indefensible breaches of

proper respect”, “hdisadvantageously comparing hhis something few Muslims can

accept.” He made people realise through his absolute admission, which he

emphasised many times and established, that it is impermissible to make any

interpretation (ta’wil) to any of the absolute essentials of Islam even if it is acceptable,

not only did he make people realise, but he expressed his meaning many times in

that though there is no room for interpretation in the kufr statements by the

D******is they do not fall into the category of kufr statements and that D******is

are not thus infidels because they never intended kufr. Previously, I quoted the

author saying, the summary of which is that he admitted that such words were

indefensible and Muslims would have found these words repugnant and

unacceptable. Is this not an agreement to the fact that the mentioned words of

D******is are at the highest level of explicitness (sarih) that is to say they are

“fixed” (muta’ayyan) in the kufr meaning, wherein there is no likelihood of

another meaning? Yet even then they are not kufr and D******is are not infidels,

for the reason the author mentions because the intention behind them was not to

insult the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace).

4.4 Every just person is invited to look at this clear affirmation by the author and

declare: is it not clear in the author’s own comments that the D******i

statements are not only explicit but also fixed in the kufr meaning which the

speaker cannot interpret those which the pleader himself declares as

“indefensible”? And to uphold that even then the intention will be determined,

as according to the author, without it the comments will not fall into the kufr

his work? Then, why only single out D******is with this argument, why must not all

Shi’ite and Qadiyanis be granted leave on the grounds that they also have no

scandalous intentions? Intention means belief at heart. Neither shall one profess his

intention nor can one’s intention be known. How then, should ‘any statement’ be

considered kufr even if it is as clear as it should be? Is it not an attempt to put an

end to the distinction between kufr and Iman? Does this attempt not make the

entire rulings of the Shari’ah unsafe? Is it not destroying the schools of the

scholastics (mutakallimun) and Theologins (fuqaha) in the methods of takfir?

What sort of an excuse is it to bear upon the disagreement of the ulama in a

way that the opinions of all of the ulama become ineffective? So what was the

outcome of bearing upon the scholarly disagreement as an excuse? That has

become clear in our question to the author.

The author has stated ahead saying as follows: “whoever dies in a state of

unbelief without excuse shall be punished in hell forever”.

I have to ask about the word “excuse” written by the author. What does it mean?

This question has been put to the author because the word ‘excuse’ is used in

several meanings according to the dictionary. We are just writing here the various

meanings of this word as follows:

Excuse: give reasons for not being blame worthy, for – give, excuse oneself (from

something) ask to be set free from (eks – kews) reason invented for explaining one’s

conduct.)

This illusory statement by the author is giving the sense that if should someone die

without giving a valid reason or without justifying this, he will be punished in hell

forever. In other words, taking the contrary as true, can it be said, “If someone dies

in a state of unbelief, after giving a valid reason, he will not be punished in hell

forever? ” This very misleading statement has drawn the attention of the translator

to a meaning of excuse which is usually understood through this word. That is why

he translated it in this manner saying as follows in Urdu:

i.e. “He who dies in the state of unbelief without any reason will be punished in

Hell forever”.

5. The Argument on Imkan al-Kadhib

5.1 Now, the author does not take the (false belief regarding the) “Likelihood of

Allah’s lie” (Ma Aaz Allah) as a genuine Aqida issue. We wish to explain it as

follows:

Just as the entity (Zaat) of ALLAH is eternal , similarly, every attribute of ALLAH is

ageless. Therefore, there is neither any attribute of the Creator that was not there

before and now, it appeared nor any attribute that is vanishable for ALLAH or

modifiable. One of the attributes of the Creator is truthfulness, which is free from

change and disappearance. It is explicitly mentioned in all books of scholastic

theology that the entity of ALLAH encompasses all praise worthy attributes and free

of imperfection and decrement i.e. every praise worthy attribute for ALLAH is

permanent and everlasting and is eternal and being it passing from Him is impossible

and imperfection that is the opposite of perfection is away from Him. Therefore,

ALLAH has never been attributed with imperfection and never can any imperfection

take upto the Holy entity (Zaat) of ALLAH (Tabarak wa ta’ala). Telling a lie is an

imperfection and it is to label imperfection to ALLAH to believe the possibility of it

(Telling a lie) for the Holy Creator and it is to disassociate ALLAH with ALLAH’S

attribute of truthfulness that is infinite and that can never be disassociated from

ALLAH and it is to declare all attributes of ALLAH as worthy to vanish by considering

it a venue of occurrence and this is infidelity. Hazrat Imam-e-Azam has clearly

explained “One who says that the attributes of ALLAH are created or occurant

or he is indifferent or doubts in it, then he is a refuter of Almighty ALLAH (i.e.

an infidel).”

Theologians (Fuqaha), the saying of “likelihood of ALLAH to tell a lie” is attributing

ALLAH with imperfection. In this manner, the speaker considered it possible to

attribute ALLAH with imperfection and decrement and declared the possibility of non

existence of the praiseworthy attributes of ALLAH, not even that, but by assuming it a

venue of occurrence, he considered all attributes of ALLAH as occurrent and that

pulls it towards negating the Entity of ALLAH. Because of the above mentioned so

many reasons, the speaker will be charged with infidelity. From these, one of the

reasons for infidelity is that he is refuting that principle which is well accepted by the

Ahle Sunnah, (and even by the corrupt) Moatazella and the other false sects i.e. the

entity of ALLAH is free from every imperfection, decrement and bad attributes from

forever to eternity.

Imam-e-Ahle Sunnat Ala Hazrat Imam Ahmed Raza has refuted these wrong tenets

in a very enlightening manner in his book “SUBHAN-AL-SUBBOOH” and explained

in detail the reasons due to which the infidelity is requisite to the speaker according

to Theologians (Fuqaha). The author supported D******is and wahabis once again

and has led the people to fallacy, by saying that it is not a genuine Aqida issue.

We ask the author what is the meaning of “hypothetically possibly” (ja’iz aqli)? Is it

possible in person (mumkin dhati) or something else? It is clear that the

hypothetically possible(ja’iz aqli) is the possible in person(mumkin dhati) which is

established through the following admission of the author (p. 13),

“Allah’s omnipotent power (qudra) only relates to what is “intrinsically

possible” (ja’iz dhati), meaning possible in itself, not logically absurd or selfcontradictory.

In light of this assertion, the author has admitted that the D******is consider telling

lies for Allah possible in person (ja’iz dhati) which is occasionally called, according to

author, hypothetically possible (ja’iz aqli). What is the difference between “ja’iz dhati”,

“mumkin bi al-dhat” and “ja’iz aqli”? There is no difference in these and the author’s

admission establishes too that they are all different expressions for the same

meaning. Thus he admitted that D******is believe in the possibility of Allah lying

“imkan al-kadhib” which were furthermore emphasised by his saying (p. 14),

“while the only disagreement is whether (a) this is intrinsically impossible

(mustahil dhati), or whether (b) this is not intrinsically impossible, but only

contingently impossible (mustahil ‘aradhi) ”

position, that while a lie told by God is hypothetically possible (ja’iz aqli) in the

very limited sense of not being intrinsically impossible (mustahil dhati) it is

nevertheless contingently possible”.

person(ja’iz dhati) and not impossible in person(mustahil dhati), and is mumkin bi aldhat,

which the author also names “mustahil aradhi”? What is the meaning of

“mustahil aradhi” except that it is not impossible in reality rather it is possible and its

impossibility is only transitory? In brief, the author has affirmed in various ways that

according to the D******is, the possibility of Allah lying is in person (mumkin bi aldhat).

Note: (1. Possible in Person (Jaiz e Zati), intellectually possible (Jaiz e Aqali)

We have replaced the word “Hypothetically possible” which is usually pronounced by

the author with the word “Intellectualy possible” as we have noted that the word

Hypothetical does not officiate intellectually possible as it means according to the

English dictionaries as follows:

Hypotheitical : Conjectual, Conditional.

Whereas the word “Intellectual” means according to the dictionaries as follows:

Intellectual : Of the intellect, (person)having good reasoning and so on

5.2 The spectators must now have a look at the author’s contradiction, he himself

declares this view as the D******i stance, yet considers Imam Ahmad Raza to have

erred in expressing the D******i position saying (p. 14),

“Gangohi’s concept of the jawaz ‘aqli or “hypothetical possibility” of God’s

lying was mistakenly translated into Arabic by Ahmad Reza Khan as imkan alkadhib,

which in Arabic means the “factual possibility of [God’s] lying”—a

position that neither Rashid Ahmad Gangohi nor any other Muslim holds, for it

is unbelief. Whether this mistranslation was due to Ahmad Reza Khan’s

honest misapprehension of Gangohi’s positionh”

The “concept of the jawaz ‘aqli or “hypothetical possibility” of God’s lying” which

according to the author’s knowledge, is only upheld by Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi; he

must know that this is in fact the view of all Wahhabies and D******ies that follow

Ismail Dehlawi. As for his comments that “hypothetical possibility” of God’s lying was

mistakenly translated into Arabic by Ahmad Reza Khan as imkan al-kadhib” the

author must remember his own statement regarding “ja’iz dhati” (p. 14) that is “it is

sometimes termed the “hypothetically possible” (ja’iz ‘aqli)” which clearly means that

“ja’iz dhati” is the same as “ja’iz aqli” which is also known as “mumkin bi al-dhat”.

Why does he thus make an attempt to make people realise by the underlined

assertion that “jawaz aqli” is something other than “imkan al-kadhib”? And in his

assertion that it “was mistakenly translated into Arabic by Ahmad Reza Khan as

imkan al-kadhib, which in Arabic means the “factual possibility of [God’s] lying”, does

the expression “ja’iz dhati” mean “ja’iz aqli” in non-Arab languages as the author

affirms and not in Arabic? Is “ja’iz dhati” synonymous to “mumkin dhati” in languages

except Arabic? What evidence does the author have to this claim?

The author adds (p. 14),

“ha position that neither Rashid Ahmad Gangohi nor any other Muslim

holds, for it is unbelief.”

Is this not the denial of the assertion he previously made (p. 14),

“while the only disagreement is whether (a) this is intrinsically impossible

(mustahil dhati), or whether (b) this is not intrinsically impossible, but only

contingently impossible (mustahil ‘aradi )h Rashid Ahmad Gangohi of the

D******is seems to have held the latter position, that while a lie told by God

is hypothetically possible (ja’iz ‘aqli) in the very limited sense of not being

intrinsically impossible (mustahil dhati)”.

Even in the aforesaid comment the author has admitted that God’s lying is not

impossible in person (mustahil dhati) according to the D******is. Does this mean it

is thus “mumkin bi al-dhat” or something else? The readers should observe how the

author is neither firm on his previous assertion nor his last one. Put his words from

his previous statement that starts with “Gangohi’s concept of the jawaz ‘aqli or

“hypothetical possibility” of God’s lying was mistakenly translated into Arabic by

Ahmad Reza Khan as “imkan al-kadhib” together with his assertion “a position that

neither Rashid Ahmad Gangohi nor any other Muslim holds, for it is unbelief”, and

ask, is it not a rejection of his own affirmations? Is it not uniting two antitheses, denial

and affirmation, together? And ask the author in light of his comment “for it is

unbelief” why does he blame Imam Ahmed Raza and say (p.14), “this mistaken

construing of Gangohi’s position in turn became the basis for Ahmad Reza’s

declaring that Gangohi was a kafir, nicknaming those who subscribed with him to this

view Wahhabiyya Kadhdhabiyya or “Liar Wahhabis” h yet he himself has put a

confirmation stamp on the unbelief of the D******is himself? Allah alone knows

what he intends to suggest by saying “Ahmed Raza Khan’s honest misapprehension

of Gangohi’s position”.

5.3 The author previously said (p. 14),

“hBecause of His own decision and knowledge that He never lies, which He

has informed us of by saying, “His word is the truth” (Qur’an 6:73), and many

other Qur’anic verses”

The author must declare that when D******is have upheld the possibility of Allah’s

lying, the first question is, what evidence do they have to establish this assertion?

Their evidence must be mentioned and the claim of the possibility must be

established on its basis. To present Allah’s omnipotent power as an evidence for

“imkan al-kadhib” is invalid. The author himself has indicated to this saying (p. 13),

question is that once he has held the view of imkan al-kadhib, what authority does he

have to quote this verse?

“and his word is the truth” (6: 73)

Does this specific saying of Allah not have the very possibility of lying in it (imkan alkadhib)?

If not, why not? And if it carries the possibility, how does it prove that Allah’s

lying is impossible? Whereas the author claims that Allah’s telling a lie is ja’iz dhati

and ja’iz aqli which is mumkin bi al-dhat. The author uses the expression “mustahil

aradhi” for this meaning too which means that in reality there is no impossibility in

any way; it is neither “muhal dhati” nor “muhal bi al-ghayr”, and this meaning is

evident from a number of his statements. That is why he has termed it “mustahil

aradhi” and called it “contingently impossible” in English, and the claim of Possibility

of telling a lie has appointed this nominal “Mahal e Aradi Haqiqatan Muhtamil”

(potential) rather made it Mumkin (possible). That is why he translated it as

“contingently impossible” which takes the following meanings in the English

dictionary, “something dependant”, “contingent”, “uncertain”, “accidental”. Mawrid

offers the following meanings,

ن }\\ ل، \Vm\ ، d رZ رض، ط Ze : Contingent

That is why the author avoided the term “mumtani bi al-ghayr” and how would it be

right even in the case if “mumtani bi al-ghayr” had been used since “mumtani bi alghayr”

is the same as the possible in person“mumkin bi al-dhat”, occurrence of which

if should be supposed as possible necessitates an impossible in person“mustahil

dhati”. The author and all D******is must reply; though they do believe in the

possibility “imkan al-kadhib” and Rashid Ahmed Gangohi has declared it “mumtani bi

al-ghayr” but in case of the actual possibility “imkan wuquwi”, which impossible in

person(mustahil dhati) was indespensible? They must describe that impossible in

person and in case they fail to explain, and no doubt they shall remain unable to do

so, then the possibility remains in person (imkan dhati). And on this basis it remains

possible for Allah to tell a lie according to all Wahhabis and D******is. Hence it is

only a verbal debit and credit to call it “mumtani bi al-ghayr”.

The author and all D******is must give the meaning to verse “and his word is the

truth”. Is Allah’s impossibility of telling a lie restricted to the future only? And it is not

impossible for Allah to be attributed with telling a lie in the past period and even

before the age? Then they should also tell that it will be impossible only in the

conditions that “Truthfulness” should be His permanent attribute and the passing of it

should be impossible from Allah, whereas, possibility of telling a lie requires that

“Truthfulness” to be a permanent attribute of Allah is not necessary and it can be far

away from Allah, rather this is to declare the attribute of Truthfulness of Allah as

“Hadith” (Occurent) and it is to make it as a venue of occurrence(Mehl e Hawadis).

And if it means that for Allah to be attributed with falsehood is eternally impossible

and no doubt, the meaning is such then this Ayat is an evidence for us which proves

magnum opus work on the issue titled “Subhan al-Subbuh an Aybi Kadhibin

Maqbuh”10. Whoever requires further detail on this issue must study this work. Not

only shall one find the replies to using the argument of Allah’s omnipotent power to

establish lying, the reader shall learn the specific reasons too that entail kufr for

someone who upholds this view and also know the details as to what the Imam’s

chosen view was regarding such a person which shall become clear in the

conclusion of this work. This shall unveil the false claim of the author that Imam

Ahmad Raza declared D******is infidels merely on the basis of their

pronouncement of “imkan al-kadhib”. This specific issue is quite evident from a single

paragraph from the Arabic book “al- Mu’tamad al-Mustanad” where Imam Ahmad

Raza states that he never declared anyone who upheld the view of imkan al-kadhib

actuality of lying attributed to Allah Most High “wuquw al-kadhib bi al-fi’l”. Imam

Ahmad Raza mentioned that D******i fatwa and that it had been printed a number

of times from Bombay and other places along with its refutation. In the same work he

remarked “observe how the ill meaning of imkan al-kadhib lead the speaker to

wuquw al-kadhib bil al-fi’l” and also mentioned that he refuted these views in his work

“Subhan al-Subbuh”, which he posted to the D******is through registered mail

whose receipt he received acknowledging that it had reached them but D******is

remained unable to reply. We have mentioned the summary from al-Mu’tamad and

present the Arabic text which does not require a translation,

10 Originally in Urdu with ample Arabic citations and commentaries. Alhamdulillah, Mufti

Akhtar Raza Khan has made full translation into Arabic.

م۔ d ظU. ا P`U. ا

5.4 As a result of this, how can the author’s following assertion be sound (p. 15)?

“Here, as in the preceding question, both Sunnis and D******is agree

about the actual result—that no one like the Prophet (Allah bless him and give

him peace) shall ever be created again—and that to believe otherwise is

infidelity (kufr).”

He adds (p. 15),

“For even though the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is merely

a contingent and created human being, whom it is hypothetically possible

(ja’iz ‘aqli) that Allah could create others exactly like, it is contingently

impossible (mustahil ‘aradhi) that Allah should do so, since He has informed

us in the Qur’an and mutawatir sunna that no more prophets or messengers

shall ever be created.

Is this the author’s interpretation of the D******i position? D******is consider

God’s lying “mumtani bi al-ghayr” to prove their point11, although their claim has been

unequivocally refuted in the works of the grand Mufti of India, Shah Mustafa Raza

Khan (may Allah have mercy on him). It is quite evident that the meaning of mustahil

aradhi that was termed as “contingently impossible” is uncertain,Ghair Muhtamil, and

impossible as we have mentioned in light of the English lexicon. The spectators must

see how the author in an attempt to interpret the stand of D******is have even

exceeded the D******is in this matter.

11 And do not thus consider it mustahil aradhi.

6. The Author Breaches the Criterion of Iman

6.1 In this respect, the author wrote two passages from which we may have not yet

addressed the first of them. Now we should ask our readers to have a look at what

both of the author’s comments when joined mean to him. The author says (p. 2-3),

“No position upon which one scholar may disagree with another because of

evidence from the Quran, Hadith, or human reason (as oppose to emotive

preference) may be a criterion for faith or unfaith (kufr) provided it is a

scholarly position”.

The readers should declare, what is the purpose of his words, “h because of

evidence from the Qur’an, Hadith or human reason (as oppose to emotive

preference)h..”? Doesn’t it mean that in cases of disagreement, an inference even if

it should be based on the explicit texts from the Qur’an and Sunnah has no authority?

And that disagreement is allowed and acceptable in all matters, even if it should be

violating the clear evidence from the Qur’an and Sunnah? That is why he said, “no

position upon which one scholar may disagree with another h May be a criterion for

faith or unfaith” and here, he kept his comments absolute and unconditional, and

suggested that disagreement is allowed in any case. He then conditioned it by saying

“provided it is a scholarly position”, which he explained point by point, minimally

meaning that (p. 3),

“(a) It is not based on a fanciful interpretation of the Qur’an or Sunnah that

violates the grammar or diction of the Arabic language.

(b) It does not contradict some other evidentiary text that is both h

(c) It does not violate Ijma or “scholarly consensus h

(d) And it does not violate on a fortiori analogy from either (b) and (c)

And he made it clear through this condition that disagreement is not acceptable

where it is based on a fanciful interpretation of the Qur’an or Sunnah that doesn’t

violate grammar or diction of the Arabic language and where it contradicts some

other evidentiary text and neither violate scholarly consensus (ijma). And he made it

very clear through his statement, whichever view fulfills this standard shall be the one

that conforms to the Qur’an and Sunna, the Arabic grammar, and the consensus of

the Ummah upon which belief shall be necessary, and whatever falls below this

criterion has no weight and shall be disregarded. In this light, the actual opponent to

the correct view shall be the one who denies the evidence of the Quran and Sunnah,

whose assertion should not be based on a scholarly position but based on the

fanciful interpretation of Qur’an or Sunnah which results in the negation of Arabic

grammar or diction, contradicts some other evidentiary text, and violates scholarly

consensus!

6.2 Readers should look at both of the author’s passages besides each other; what a

combination of absolute and conditional comments, expressions and connotations

this is! He himself sets the standard through the last words and violates it himself

saying, “no position upon which one scholar may disagree h” Let it go! Suppose his

is accepted by him as well; the author must declare whether the D******i

statements conform to this standard? Not on any account, as it is clear from

the very confessing declarations of the author that we have cited a many times

above.

peace) in these Hadiths.”

affirmed of the Message of Allah (Allah bless Him and give Him peace): either

it is a divine attribute that is shirk to ascribe to any creature, or it is not”.

In spite of this, he still says that it was a mistake by Imam Ahmad Raza to consider

D******is infidels, as he says (p. 21), “his fatwa of kufr against the D******is,

however, was a mistake”. He falsified the D******i statements many times, yet he

supported them asserting they did not belong to the category of words that are kufr in

his words, “hthey were not kufr” (p. 22). Is it not contradiction upon contradiction? Is

it not a violation of the standard prescribed by him? And his comments “no position

upon which one scholar may disagreeh” which he firmly holds, is there any doubt

that he takes the disagreement of the Ulama only as an excuse? What to talk about

consensus , if the clear negation of Qur’an and Sunnah takes place, even then he

considers the opposition to be valid. That is why he asserted earlier in absolute terms

without any condition (p. 2-3), “because the evidence from the Quran, Hadith or

human reason (as opposed to emotive preference)h”

His Position From al-Mawt al-Ahmar

7.1 Whatever the author has said in order to defend Qasim Nanotawi has been

refuted before in our Questions12 put to the author. That is, in brief, that there is no

interpretation to the meaning of “Khatam al-Nabiyyeen” to which the passage from al-

Iqtisad was presented as a testimony as well as other passages from works

supporting its purport. The argument was thus adduced against the author and

refusal of the probability in person (Imkan e dhati), bearing the meaning of “Khatam

al-Nabiyyeen" in mind was clarified, which reflects that the occurring likelihood(Imkan

e Waqooi) is very clear through the words of Nanotvi, through which it was refuted to

consider it as impossible. (mumtani bi al-ghayr)

India (Mufti al-Azam bil-Hind), may Allah enlighten his grave, presented in “al-Mawt

al-Ahmar”. What is mumtani bi al-ghayr? that is actually the same “possible in

person” (mumkin dhati) which calls in case of occurance an intellectually impossible

(Muhaal Aqli) and that intellectually impossible is Allah’s lie. However, all D******is

following imam-ul-wahhabia Ismail dehlvi, considered telling lies for Allah to be

possible. Now whatever calls a possible , how can it be Mumtinaa Bil Ghair

(impossible)?! (Mumtina bil Ghair) has already passed away in the very beginning,

and now this question is additional to that claim: If this is not fallacy then what is it? to

put on the meaning which is never understood through the (words of) Nanotvi.

7.2 Here we shall present the statement of Tahzir al-Nas to which we offered our

remarks previously (question 5) highlighting the many kufr aspects within it. In order

to remind, we shall place numbers on his comments, so that the readers may know

exactly where his words of infidelity are located in his passage. We also consider it

appropriate to end this discussion by offering a few words of the great Mufti of India

(Mufti al-A’zam bil-Hind), Mustafa Raza Khan, who quoted many of the comments

from Tahzir al-Nas proving the infidelity charges against Nanotwai and showing how

he denied both finality in person (khatm dhati) and finality by time (khatm zamani). It

will also show that meaning declared by Qasim Nanotawi is, according to the author,

“unacceptable to any Muslim”. Mufti al-A’zam bil-Hind, in order to refute and disprove

Nanotawi’s self-innovated meaning to “Khatam al-Nabiyyeen”, asks him as follows:

(1) Nanotvi: “Being the last Messenger in the view of laymen is in the meaning that

he is the last of all”.

HUZOOR MUFTI E AZAM: “Look at the meaning which was realized by all leaders,

Ulama, successors, Companions and which was declared by the Holy Prophet

(peace and blessings upon him) himself as well. Nanotvi declared it as a thought of

illiterate and stupid persons.”

12 See: section2, Q5.

(2) Nanotvi: “it has misgiving by Allah to talk non sense. At least what is the

difference between this quality and in feature, color and living and other qualities?”

Secondly it has likelihood of lack of prestige because people used to mention the

excellence of excellent people and the use of ordinary qualities of so-so (inferiors)

HUZOOR MUFTI E AZAM: look! How clearly he is expressing that the special quality

of Khatam al-Nabiyyeen in the meaning of last Messenger has no interference in

virtue. What to say of being itself a virtue. (He is saying that it) is not of any

excellence or having any marvels, but it is like the silly positions of inferiors.

(3) Nanotvi: “well, if should you not consider this quality as an excellence, and don’t

suppose this BLESS to be the place of praise, then indeed being the status of last

Messenger could be considered as being late in time. But I know that it won’t be

acceptable to any one among Muslims”

HUZOOR MUFTI E AZAM: Look, it is a clear announcement (by Nanotwi) that this

sacred specialty is unable to be mentioned in the place of praise. Whether any

Muslim has ever gabbled like this? Could any Muslim insult such a respected quality

of the Holy Prophet ?

(4) Nantovi: “if should a new Nabi be supposed at the time of Huzoor, but even after

him, then, no disorder will take place in the belief of finality of Prophecy”.

HUZOOR MUFTI E AZAM: All praises due to Allah! You don’t deny the existence of

this phrase in س ZR. ر ا d ز mV .

It must be noted that this statement has put an end to the faith of Nanotvi about the

finality of Prophecy, and the veil was raised from over the hypocritical admission of

finality in time and charging the refuter of it with infidelity was exposed, or in other

words you can say it like this, that the clear infidelity on page 33(of Tahzir al Nas) has

cancelled the obvious Islam on page 11, which was mentioned through self

admission by Nanotvi. How can the primary Islam remove the infidelity after it? But in

fact, this infidelity abolished that Islam. It is axiomatic that in case any Nabi comes to

existence after the time of the Holy Prophet, the finality in time will be falsificated, as

its meaning was that he is the messenger last of all. And how he remains last of all

while other Nabi exist after him, as the other one became last. In brief, through this,

the nothingness of finality in time is self evident and through nonexistence even the

finality in person produced by Nanotvi is over, as the finality in time was requisite to

this.

5) Khatm-e-Nubuwwat in the known meaning requires being late in time, and nonexistence

of the requisite calls the nothingness of necessitated (an inseparable thing:

malzoom i وم V ) so neither the finality in time is rest nor the finality in person is save,

all are destroyed. Even the finality is opportune with no disturbance to it. How violent

infidelity is this with how much blamelessness! [End of Qutoes from al-Mawt al-

Ahmar]

7.3 Now look at the author’s comments “since there is no excuse not to know these

things in the lands of Islam” which he said very rightly. I wish he would have added to

this that the knowingly refusal of these issues or saying a word causing the refusal of

never said this, this meaning is clear through the author’s comments which he made

many times regarding the D******i comments, which have been mentioned above

that it is clear that those comments are objectionable, unacceptable and inexcusable.

Yet still he asserts that D******is are pardonable since they have the excuse of

having no evil intention whilst making those comments. However as the author has

said “that they were not kufr”, so then how does it depend on intention? Now, if it

should be intended, then what effect is there to these words? Whether the issue

which should be clear rudeness, refusal of Islamic principle, contrary to the coalition

of the Ummah and unacceptable to all Muslims will be one counted as kufr only if the

speaker has intended so, and if he didn’t intend then the speaker would escape the

infidelity charge even if that word was out of the group of infidelity, even if it should

be based on clear rudeness, repugnance and based on the refusal of Essential

Islamic principles.

8. The Correct View Regarding the Explicit (Sarih) Kufr &

The Value of Intention

8.1 The author must provide evidence to demonstrate that which is evident(sarih)

require an intention. The Noble Qur’an does not accept an excuse whereas the

author tirelessly tries offering excuses to save the D******is yet is unsuccessful,

and at last he had to admit that which was mentioned many times above. Has he not

read what the Qur’an has said,

seriousness, as Zawajir mentions “hor pronounces a wordh”

In the commentary of the above verse Ruh al-Ma’ani states,

Ma’alim also states,

The mentioned statement of Ruh al-Ma’ani is known from the Qur’anic text itself

which was elaborated by Ma’alim that even laughing over comments that are

dishonoring is infidelity, although the person never says any word by mouth. There is

greater room for the excuse of not having an intention while laughing in

comparison to making a clear statement, since sometimes laughing takes

place unintentionally. Now return to the comments of the author concerning the

issue of intention, and bring to attention the standard he himself appointed for Iman

8.2 Well O’ author! Is the last part of Ruh al-Ma’ani’s comments “there is no

disagreement among A’imma on this” not clearly suggesting that consideration is not

given to the intention when an explicit kufr is made, either intended or not? And, that

there is consensus of the theologian leaders on this? Thus whoever disagrees on this

is in breach of consensus and no weight is given to disagreement in this regard. This

is the very principle you explained through the standard admitted by yourself

concerning consensus. Even then you use the differences of the scholars as an

excuse contradicting your self appointed criterion, and you admit D******i

comments are indefensible breaches of proper respect, unacceptable and repugnant

and remain unable to defend D******is, violating not only the scholarly consensus

8.3 Imam Qadhi Iyadh says in Kitab al-Shifa,

be considered to be excused due to any one of the reasons mentioned by us ”

tongue (Sabqat Lisaani)”

Kufr and Takfir” in various places? The author himself has declared the intention

to be inacceptable through his absolute and unconditional words in the

criterion he sets, where he explicitly declares on page 7,

“sarcasm about any ruling of sacred law, or quoting a statement of

unbelief-even jokingly, without believing it – when one’s intention is

sarcasm [about religious matters]”

Does this very statement of the author not abolish his entire argument on the

intention through his comments “even jokingly, without believing it”? Is it that

the author’s memory is weak or is it headstrongness, that he forgets his

previous words and adds to his comments that “when ones intention is

sarcasm”?

8.4 The author frequently makes contradictory comments and here I want the

readers to observe another example. The author says on page 2,

“to deny anything of the first category above constitutes plain and open

unbelief. It includes such things as denying of oneness of all ALLAH, the

attributes of Prophethood, that Prophetic Messengerhood has ended with

Muhammad ( Allah bless him and give him peace)h.”

Didn’t the readers witness that he at the very place of this admission changed it to

denial saying (p. 2-3),

preference) may be a criterion for faith or unfaith (kufr)h”

Then again the author refuted the first-mentioned unconditional statement by adding

conditions to it, saying at the very same place (p. 3),

“. provided it is a scholarly position, minimally meaning that it is not based

on a fanciful interpretation of the Quran or Sunnah.”

We want to demonstrate if the author is firm on this view. Look at these statements

by him together with the following: he wrote, whilst elaborating on a legal rule

regarding the charge of infidelity on page 6 under the subheading “words that entail

leaving Islam (p. 6)”,

“Denying any matter necessarily known to be of the religion of Islam that is

established by a text from either the Holy Quran or mutawatir Hadith,

(shubha) for disagreement about it.”

the religion”. And here, he makes the definition of the Islamic principles conditional.

8.5 We have said many times that clear (sarih) never require an intention. Even the

author has unknowingly agreed to this in his subsequent comments. On pages 3-4,

he mentioned the tradition reported from the companion Usamah (may Allah be

pleased with him). What is the clear meaning of this, besides that the Holy

Prophet (may Allah give him peace and blessings) guided the Ummah to rely

upon the clear statements and evident condition, and that they must consider

that very explicit comment as an evidence to the willingness and intention ?

Now they do not need to disclose the intention by tearing the heart. By the

grace of Allah this narration is a solid proof for us which the author cites

inattentively in order to support D******is though it is clearly against his

position. So why then does he contradict the evident meaning of this narration and

despite his repeated admission, that “such words were indefensible breaches of

proper respect”, firmly uphold that the intention behind the D******i comments was

not to insult and disrespect the Prophet (may Allah give him peace and blessings)?

The author gave the following explanation to this narration (p. 6),

“The Usama ibn Zaid Hadith shows that a Muslim legally entering Islam by

having said the profession of faith (shahadah) is an absolute certainty. No

one can, thereafter, be considered a kafir without an equal certainty, since the

Prophet condemned Usama for doing so”.

We ask the author what is the meaning of “certainty” here? Is it that which has “no

likelihood of the contrary aspect” or it has “a probability that does not come through

evidence” (ihtimal nashi la an-dalil) or it has “a probability which comes through

evidence” (ihtimal nashi an-dalil)? On the first condition, what type of certainty would

it be and what would it be called in the Shariah? Evident (Sareeh), fixed (Muta`eyan),

clear (Muhkam) explanatory (Mufassar) or something else. On the second condition,

would such certainty be lesser in its value than the first one or equal? How could it be

equal? In case it is lesser, does the conclusion inferred by the author from this hadith

not establish that an evident (sarih) never needs an intention regardless of which

kind of evident should it be? Again is it considerable in case of adopting Islam, and

not in any other case? What proof is to it? And if it is generic, which is

considerable at every place, and indeed it is so, (thus) could one not say as an

argument in reverse (mu’aradha bil-qalb), that the certain evidence to consider

Imam Izz al-Din Ibn Abd al-Salam states in Qawa’id al-Ahkam,

probability that rises from evidence (ihtimal nashi). This is a “likelihood arising from

evidence” (ihtimal nashi an-dalil). In spite of this, the excuse of Usama regarding the

absence of intention (adam al-qasd) wasn’t heard. Whether it means only that you

must act on the obvious and don’t have a look at willingness and unwillingness, or it

means something else That is why the Noble Messenger (May Allah give him peace

and blessings) stated absolutely without any condition:

Imam Ibn Hajr Makki conveys this very meaning in al-I’laam. He says,

interpretation; you have became an infidel even if you had no intention to it in

your heart, as we issue the verdict of kufr considering the obvious meaning

only. Whether you intended this meaning or not, the rules related to this

matter are in regard with the intrinsic. So if should the word have the

possibility of multiple meanings, then should a meaning be more clear, the

comments would be taken in that very meaning. And this rule applies to the

case when some meanings are alike and when we get any aspect preferring

that meaning, We have no interest in the willingness and unwillingness

of the speaker.”

It is clear through his last comments that the clear obvious (sarih mutabayyin) never

requires an intention, and the speaker will be considered as an infidel in absolute

terms according to the fuqaha, until he does not elaborate his intended meaning.

Should he fix a meaning, the Muslim jurists shall accept it. Ibn Hajar conveys this

very meaning in his comments “If he should interperate his comments, it will be

accepted”. In case he doesn’t interpret his comments, all the fuqaha will consider him

an infidel. The latter explained this saying “we will act according to that which his

word is pointing out” and he declared this very sense clearly saying “We have no

interest in the willingness and unwillingness of the speaker”.

8.6 In the following assertion of Imam Ibn Hajr Makki “since you pronounced this

word absolutely and never declared any interpretation, you have became an infidel”:

There are some conditions in this rule, and the rule spreads over every condition:

1. the speaker did not intend the infidelity (kufr) meaning

2. He intended the infidelity meaning

3. He had no intention at the time of pronouncement.

It is a unanimous decision of all Theologians (fuqaha) that the second case, while the

speaker intended the infidelity meaning, is from the category of words that have a

fixed meaning (sarih muta’ayyan), and the speaker will be considered an infidel

according to the consensus of all Theologians (fuqaha) and

Scholastics(mutakallimun). The first and the third cases belong to the category of

clear obvious(sarih mutabayyin). In these cases, when the speaker pronounces the

absolute word without interpreting his comments, he will be considered as an infidel

in the view of the Theologians(fuqaha) from all of the schools, and it will not be

advantageous to him if should the jurist (mufti) fix the word in a meaning against the

obvious one. Take the testimonies to this from Durar and al-Durr al-Mukhtar for

example, and this is the latter’s wording,

“It is stated in Durar and other books: if should there be some probabilities in

a word demanding the charge of infidelity and one should be forbidding this,

the jurist must tend to the meaning forbidding the infidelity charge. If the

speaker intended a meaning [that prevents the charge of infidelity] he shall

remain a Muslim and otherwise the jurist’s attempt to fix the meaning

against it13, shall not benefit him”

Ibn Abideen states in his commentary Rad al-Muhtar under the author’s comments

“and otherwiseh”

Look how evident it is through these quotes that clear (sarih) never requires an

intention, even though there should be a possibility of another meaning, which

would not prevent the infidelity charge, in a case in which the speaker makes

the comments in absolute terms without interpreting them, should he have an

intention or not. All of the Hanafite, Shafi’ite, Malikite and Hanbalite jurists agreed

upon this. And the interpretation by the jurist is only in order to avoid the sentence of

death and not to avoid the infidelity charge in absolute terms, as it is the clear

meaning of these comments by Ibn Abideen “so that the sentence of death is

deterred” [“ لV.. ا P.R. .[”

8.7 I should elaborate on this here, so I begin by the given ability from Allah Most

High saying that a word that contains a possibility of multiple meanings (muhtamal)

causes suspicion and punishments (hudud) are deterred due to suspicions

(shubuhat). This is why the suspicion to charge one with infidelity occurrs due to [the

speaker’s] declaration of an interpretation forbidding the infidelity charge, which

demands the removal of the sentence of death. But this suspicion is not at that stage

that makes it contrary to the clear word giving the obvious sense (sarih mutabayyin)

13 I.e. obvious meaning.

explicit word (sarih) negates this and clearly demands the infidelity charge against

him. Or at least in case the opposition should be admitted, both the suspicions shall

remain: The first is the strong suspiscion to the Iman [of that person] and the other

one is to his kufr. This demands action according to both of the suspicions (amal bi

al-shubhayn), otherwise, the action would be taken according to the probable word

(muhtamal) and the evident word (al-lafz al-zahir) would become absurd and

suspended. Therefore, in sight of the probability (ihtimal), the speaker will not be

considered as Kaafir according to Scholastics (Mutakal’limeen) . However, in the

view of the Theologians (Fuqaha), he is indeed a Kaafir bearing the clear in mind and

he is commanded to repent and renew Iman in the view of all, not that the clear word

will be suspended and absorbed in sight of likelihood, but he will be at a preferable

stage commanded here to repent and renew Iman as there is no difference by the

Theologians (Fuqaha) and even in case of difference, Theologians (Fuqaha) have

ordered (him) to repent and renew Iman, so here, in the first place, had the author

not taken the cover of disagreement by the Ulama improperly, again he would have

not made it absurd and ineffective and he would have commanded the D******is to

renew Iman considering them kaafir any way.

In spite of this, is it not out of place for the author to certify his claim through the

sense of the phrase which commence as follows “were there any doubt about thish”

disagreement which he negated by saying “were there any doubt about this” in the

manner of an interrogation for negation (istifham inkari), he declared the same point

many times, a summary of which is his own assertion (p. 21) that “Muslims would

have found his words repugnant and unacceptable’’.

9. The Fallacy to Consider the Takfir Invalid According to

the Hanafi Madhab

9.1 Here the author, in order to support the D******is says (p. 21),

“His (Imam Ahmad Raza’s) fatwa of kufr against the D******is, however,

was a mistake, it was not legally valid in the Hanafi school for the two reasons

named by Imam Haskafi at the beginning of this essay, namely, a fatwa may

not be given of the unbelief of a Muslim whose words are interpretable as

having a valid meaning, or about the unbelief of which there is a difference of

scholarly opinion, even if weak.”

Here we shall present the passage by Imam al-Haskafi in his words and after giving

its translation, we shall give the author’s summary. The passage of Imam al-Haskafi

in al-Durr al-Mukhtar is as follows,

The author is explaining this phrase in this manner : “A fatwa may not be given of the

unbelief of a Muslim whose words are interpretable as having a valid meaning, or

about the unbelief of which there is a difference of scholarly opinion, even if weak.”

The question about the underlined statement is that, ‘which word of Durre- Mukhtar

is translated here?’ Again how could it be right to bring this phrase as a proof in

spite of his own strong admission and the summary of these repeated admissions,

which is in his own words, ‘indefensible, unacceptable to all Muslims’ and it is

proved through these admissions by him that it is not the point of disagreement but it

is the unanimous point.

So, is this (admission by him) only by chance or is it a clear fallacy considering the

unanimous as disagreed.

9.2 Now the author asserts as follows (p. 21-22),

“the D******is’ words are interpretable as “having a valid meaning.” for they

can be construed as making a distinction, however crudely, between Allah’s

knowledge of the absolute unseen and man’s knowledge of the relative

unseen. Saharanpuri and Thanawi both later explicitly mentioned this in their

defense of themselves and secondly there is a valid difference of scholarly

opinion about the unbelief of such words, for “even if weak” in the above

Hanafi texth”

prevention (mahall al-mana).

Thirdly: Is the distinction between Allah’s knowledge and that of creation dependent

upon such a polluted comparison which attempts to abolish the specialty of the Noble

Prophet (may Allah give him peace and blessings) that he declared in the beginning

of his comments and compared the knowledge of the Noble Prophet (may Allah give

him peace and blessings) to the knowledge of all children and insane persons, and

animals and beasts! And in the end of his comments14 through saying, “it is

necessary to explain the reason of distinction” he announced clearly the negation of

the [Prophetic] specialty and established equality15. Is it not a clear blasphemy?

Indeed it is, the author himself admitted this as a clear breach of respect, but even

then he goes against consensus of the religious authorities and the clear still needs

intention!!!

Fourthly: in this question by Ashraf Ali, “it is necessary to explain the reason of

distinction”, if the distinction was clear in his heart and mind, why does he say now

that “it is necessary to explain the reason of distinction”? Is it not explicit evidence to

his belief in there being no difference? Yet according to the author the intention

behind the comment was not to insult.

Fifthly: the author himself refuses the given interpretation by saying (p. 21) “however

crudely”.

Sixthly: since he admitted it was a “crude” interpretation, so how then is this

considered a scholarly disagreement16? And it becomes clear through his admission

that this style and this thought does not meet the mentioned conditions in the

standard which he himself appointed17 and is therefore rejected and for the same

thought presents these comments of al-Durr al-Mukhtar and makes the unanimous

(ijmai) issue seem disputed. If this is not deception then what is this?

Seventhly: why does he combine both the contrary statements after he has declared

the comments to be “artless” and “crude” thus rejected, and why does he change the

rejected into accepted by saying “Saharanpuri and Thanwi both later explicitly

mentioned this in their defense of themselves and other D******i figures”?

14 Ashraf Ali in Hifz al-Iman.

15 Between the Noble Prophet’s knowledge and that of the lowest of creatures.

16 Look at his other assertions on p. 17 too that the D******i comments were “far below the

standards of normal scholarly discourse” and p. 21 where he says Thanawi’s comments

contained an “artless comparison”.

17 i.e. the criterion of faith in his discussion on things disagreed upon by Ulama.

of “scholarly opinion” about the unbelief of such words, for “even if weakh”?

The statement of Ibn Abidin is as follows,

Either that this last passage18 was accidently missed by the author or deliberately not

mentioned. Is he not after all changing the “unanimous” into “disputed” and forgetting

his admissions, and bringing proofs of the disagreements [of the scholars] out of

place, and is this not placing the statements those in place of disagreement in the

places of unanimous agreement? He must present any narration declaring the

comments of D******is are not kufr and must declare whether in Islamic

history the Islamic principles have been refuted, the scholarly consensus has

been refuted, and that comments that are “repugnant”, “unacceptable”, and

“indefensible” were made, even then the opposition to their infidelity charge

occured? Where will he present such proof from when he has previously admitted

“were there any doubt thish”?

Ninthly: Again remember the author’s paragraph to defend D******is where he said

(p. 22) “there is a valid difference of scholarly opinion about the unbelief of such

words for, “even if weak” in the above Hanafi texth” Regardless of the contradiction

in his comments where he now calls a “valid difference of scholarly opinion” he

earlier called “crude” (p. 21) and “artless” (p. 21), right here there is clear

contradiction between the beginning and the end of his comments, he says “valid

difference of scholarly opinion” declaring that the disagreement is evident and

correct, and forgets what he said concerning them that they were “indefensible

breaches of proper respect” and “unacceptable” (p. 21-22). What was the obvious

sense of this aside that the D******i comments are clear in the meaning of

infidelity? Now why does he turn against what he asserts? And why does he then

declare this disagreement as valid? He is still not firm even on this. Why does he

cancel his previous admission by his last comments where he says “even if weak”

and considers it a valid difference of scholarly opinion at the same time it being

“artless” and “crude”?

Tenthly: He should be questioned that since the D******i statements were

“indefensible breaches”, “offensive”, “disadvantageous and artless comparisons” etc,

they were explicit in the meaning of unbelief, he should have at least thus accepted

that they were clear comments (sarih mutabayyin) in the meaning of kufr, and

18 From Ibn Abideen’s comments in Radd al-Muhtar.

considered them infidels on this basis? But how, as in his view this is a “valid

difference of scholarly opinion” and these comments do not fall into the category of

words that entail kufr? He shields himself by using the validity of the differences of

the scholarly opinions. Even now, is there any doubt that this was a verbal debit and

credit and that in his heart, the author believes that it is not necessary to charge them

with kufr and it is a mistake to declare them infidels?

10. An Explanation to the Comments of Ibn Abideen in Rad al-

Muhtar on Words that Contain a Kufr Meaning

10.1 I say: " 19 c. وp ل \m"in the comments of Ibn Abideen means that the mufti will accept

the speaker’s mentioned interpretation, and in this case the word mufti is

synonymous to Qadhi. According to this possibility (ihtimal), the comments of Ibn

Abideen al-Shami convey the same meaning as that of the statement of al-Zawajir “if