Yasir Deobandi Defending Tahdhir al-Nas

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

 

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

It's a transcript of a debate between Mawlana Abd al-Qadir Badayuni and Amir Hasan Sehswani on the Athar of Sayyiduna Abd-Allah b. Abbas.

 

one of my ex colleagues would routinely name files like: final final final final. and it was a meme some 20 yrs ago. i wouldn't be surprised if these are from devbandi computers...

 

Having looked at this post by Yasir, he doesn't make any actual arguments or provide any analysis other than in paragraph 4. There are a couple of other points scattered in there that have also already been addressed:

​

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

​

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

​

See above

​

So this is a claim he has made regarding this specific takfeer which he'll now try to explain in the remaining paragraph.

​

​

So Yasir says takfeer cannot be made on interpretation.

​

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

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

​

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

What would he say about the principle 'man shakka fi kufrihim...'

 

no their reasoning is, awam could not understand the high level of nanotwi's rambling and hence he was put in a spotlight. if it was not printed, he would continue to be the aarif that they claim, without anyone questioning him.

this is the apologists clinging to thin blades of straw.
nanotvi himself was not repentant - rather he ridiculed those who refuted him and clarified that all of his deviant claims in tahzir were well-thought out and as you can see in the clip below, firmly believed that "chronologically last" is the thinking of the layperson.

 

When Yasir disclaims that "unbeknownst to Imām Qāsim, the letter was later published as a book without his consent", is he not admitting the following:
(i) at best, the fatwa was a lazy/non-rigorous; or
(ii) at worst, the fatwa was patently flawed
and, therefore, not fit to be printed as a book?

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

As @abu Hasan and @HASSAN have pointed out that this excuse is a clear red herring, as evidenced by Nanotwi doubling down instead of retracting.

 

ifadat e samadiyyah:

 

munazarah samadiyah where mawlana sayyid abdul samad cornered ameer hasan sahswani's son ameer ahmad in khyrabad.

 

Also Nanotwi states, “Even if after the Prophet (ﷺ), or during his lifetime, a prophet exists on this earth or on some other earth, it would not affect his finality in any way.”

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

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

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

Note - this is all a summary of what the scholars have said. To read what they fully said in detail, refer to their books.

 

This question was posed by Imam Shahid to Usman but it flew over his head.

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

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

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

Note - it is late and there might be some typos but these questions need answering by the Deobandi sect.

 

As for the doubt that is being spread around that rutbi/perfection of prophethood necessarily entails temporal finality and Nanotvi said temporal finality is implied in the Quranic verse, this has been answered in detail by the scholars. It is not a new objection. Allama Kazmi refutes it, Allama Ghulam Naseerudin Sialvi refutes it and so does Tabbasum Shah Bukhari. Its just a matter of fact of translating their answers into English

 

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

Therefore, taking the meaning of “Khatm-e-Nubuwwat” (the Seal of Prophethood) to be that the door of prophethood has been shut is to mislead the world. Rather, prophethood has been completed, and that completed prophethood will suffice until the Day of Judgment — not that prophethood has been cut off and the world has fallen into darkness, with neither knowledge nor character remaining. So one should not fall into deception: the meaning of “Khatm-e-Nubuwwat” is not the cessation of prophethood, but the perfection and completion of prophethood.

 

Also Allama Wakeel Ahmad Sikandarpuri harshly refutes Allama Abdul Hayy al-Lucknowi for his defense of the Athar of Ibn Abbas. This shows the Ulema of the time did not agree with his position. Allama Wakeel Ahmad Sikandarpuri was a Sunni scholar and endorsee of Anwar e Satiah.

https://archive.org/details/tanbeeh-ul-juhala-ala-mubtadiat/page/n4/mode/1up

 

Here is the refutation by Fadl Majeed al-Badayuni

https://archive.org/details/tahqeeqat-e-muhammadia-hal-auham-e-najadia/page/n17/mode/1up

 

Fatwa Bey Nazir was supposed to be used in the debate but obviously due to the nature of the debate and time constraints he couldn't use it. The author of Bey Nazir is the same author of Ibtaal. When Zameel objects against Ibtaal and states that the author is unknown, this is a ridiculous accusation purely because of the endorsements. So many scholars have endorsed Bey Nazir which shows that the author was known at the time by major Ulema. This unknown gimmick is just a desperate attempt to exonerate Nanotvi.

 

I only recently managed to find a copy of this book - I strongly suggest someone reads it, writes some English notes on it, and gather names of the endorsers.

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

6. Mufti Irshad Husayn Rampuri

 

In the biography of Ahsan Nanotwi, the author gathers the names and a brief description of some of the books written against Qasim Nanotwi. This is from a Deobandi perspective.

 

See some of my recent posts:
https://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/bhūnchāl-bar-lashkar-i-dajjāl.16336/
https://sunniport.com/index.php?thr...anotvi-against-shaykh-asrar.15336/#post-87312
https://sunniport.com/index.php?thr...anotvi-against-shaykh-asrar.15336/#post-87313
https://sunniport.com/index.php?thr...anotvi-against-shaykh-asrar.15336/#post-87314
https://sunniport.com/index.php?thr...anotvi-against-shaykh-asrar.15336/#post-87323
https://sunniport.com/index.php?thr...anotvi-against-shaykh-asrar.15336/#post-87416

Qistas -
https://archive.org/details/QistasFiMawazinaAsarIbnAbbasByShaikhMuhammadBinAhmadThanvi/mode/1up

Ibtal Aghlat Qasimiyyah -
https://archive.org/details/Abtal-e...anotviMurtadKaRaadAhleBidat/page/n37/mode/2up

Tanbih al-Juhhal -
https://archive.org/details/TanbeehUlJuhaalRadETakhzeerUnNaas/mode/2up

Taqdis al-Wakil -
https://archive.org/details/TaqdeesUlWakeelAnTauheenUrRasheedWalKhalil/mode/1up

Fatawa Bey-Nazir -
https://archive.org/details/FatawaBenazeerDarNaifMisalAanHazratBashirWaNazeer

 

I guess nanotwi must have imagined there were so many people claiming him to be kaafir because according to usman and Co, it was ala hazrat that did takfeer in 1905. Several decades after this quote by nanotwi was written.

And did these dehlawi scholars make takfeer in 1873/74 based on the passages in rearranged/summarised form found in hussam in 1905? Suppose the deos on twitter believe there was time travel involved.

Would be interested to know if these pre-ala hazrat fatawa against nanotwi are available anywhere. A translated collection would surely be useful in and of itself