I will ignore your personally emotive response and please keep in mind that Shaykh Nuh's article was released, circulated and kept on the internet for over 2-3 years.raeesshah (02.03.2010)
It is clear as day he was presented books which have been modified by deo's.What were the modifications to these books (as presented by Shaykh Nuh Keller), my brother?
Here is an extraction from Shaykh Nuh Keller's article (wherein he has agreed that these were the writings of the De-bandis. He did not in any way reject that these were NOT their writings. Subsequently, he took it upon himself to defend these writings),
1. “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.”
2. “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?”
3. “Looking back, one cannot help wondering why Khalil Ahmad’s and Ashraf ‘Ali Thanwi’s own students and teachers and 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 kufr, because the intention behind them was not to insult the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), but to defend Islam from what the writers viewed as a serious threat.”
Yes, brother, he agrees that these are the statements of the De-bandis, then he goes ahead and defends them!
To your question regarding the number of the years that Sayyidi Ala Hadrat (RadiAllahu Anhu) took in making takfir of the De-bandis: Yes, he took many years (well over 10 years if I am correct for I am just rounding off). But during that period, wherein the writings of the De-bandis, became as clear as day; When did he regard them as Muslim? Wherein, during that period (from the actual point in time that their writings (becoming as clear as day) did Ala Hadrat regard them as Muslim? Did he do this from the view of the jurists or from the scholars of kalaam? And when he did go onto the view of the Scholars of Kalaam? Thereafter, when did Ala Hadrat take the view of the Muta'ayyan category of their kufr?
I will post these questions asked by another brother on another forum:
"1. Why did Shaykh Nuh not consult the ‘Ulema of the Sunni community in UK or Pakistan whom he had access to? – as they have in the main been his main hosts and facilitators (even to this day) and allowed him open access to their members, communities and resources especially in the UK. NB - At the time when Shaykh Nuh’s article was released he was in Lahore at the time!
2. Why did Shaykh Nuh not consult his ‘learned’ and ‘connected’ mureeds who could have helped him shape a more accurate and better informed writing.
3. Why Shaykh Nuh has not read some of the specific works of Imam Ahmad Raza Khan pertaining to these very issues – which I hear he has been trying to gather after he released the article his website.
4. How come he has no real awareness of the historical chronology and grasp of the views of contemporaries pertaining to these issues leading to the build up to the eventual haramayn endorsed fatwa and incorrectly accusing Imam Ahmad Raza Khan for coining the term imkan al-kadhib
5. How would he have dealt with the ‘ulema of De-band who were not ordinary scholars, teachers or mosque imam’s but carried distinguished titles as hakim ul ummat’, ‘muhaddith’, ‘shaykh al hind’ and ‘shayk ul islam’ but were tainted by their irresponsible writings that entailed ‘indefensible breaches of proper respect’ were ‘unacceptable’, ‘repungant’ and vulgar to Muslims of all times repulsive ‘in any Islamic community’. Keeping things real how is he dealing or has dealt with the blasphemous comments of the Mufti of Shaam or is he querying his ‘intent’ too? Shaykh Yaqoobi has clearly taken a stand and made his view public suffering some personal consequences as a result similar to Imam Ahmad Raza Khan who took a stand in his time against a kaleidoscope of fitnah’s the ramifications of which are felt even today through the clearly drawn dividing line between haq and baatil. Surgeons make life and death decisions daily based on their knowledge and responsibility and competently qualified 'ulema should be able to clearly demarcate the parameters of faith and infidelity for the laity and not sit on the fence or tie themselves in knots with waswasa
"
When Shaykh Nuh's article was released, I did not see the same passion in defending Ala Hadrat and ALL of the Ulema of the Ahl as-Sunnah as I see now from some people when an article is released refuting Shaykh Nuh!
It's fine for Shaykh Nuh to try to damage the credibility and honor and love for our Mother, Sayyidatuna A'isha (RadiAllahu Anha) but it's a problem when someone refutes this (and mind you my brother, this is not some view he received from some De-bandii sympathizer - this is his OWN view from his OWN research conducted in all zealousness to defend the De-obandis again) and when someone defends her blessed honor and love for the Prophet (Peace and Blessings of Allah, Almighty be upon him), then it is a problem!
Then again it's a problem when someone defends the Truthfulness and Might of Almighty Allah against some who deem it possible for the Creator to lie! Amazing, is it not that when someone who has come forward to defend the Siffat of our Creator, someone has a problem with this too! And mind you again, my dear brother, this view of Shaykh Nuh is also his own view!
Why is it that when Sayyid al-Yaqoubi (may Allah protect him) refutes the Mufti of Syria, the same view of dialogue first is NOT taken? In fact, he is applauded (and rightfully so)!!!
But, do you know what my dear brother, we are going to go and on...you will bring your daleel and I will bring mine, then we will be caught in an endless loop....So, in the view of the fact that you and I are both FOR Sunni unity, I leave this open to you to make a suggestion for a way forward. And I am quite positive that I can reach out to the right people to make this happen.
