(Munazara Thread): Mawlana Shahid Refutes Lying Deobandi Clowns

4 hrs, deo brings up the text re shaytaan being a muwaahid. This guy doesn't know that muwaahid means someone who believes Allah is one. Which shaytaan clearly does. It's also a distraction. Seems the deo thought the debate is about everything and anything, I don't understand this. Debate conditions should be published publicly pre debate next time and a moderator involved who can hold participants to the subject only.

4 hrs 2 mins, he mentions again efforts by deos against qadianis. Miskeen doesn't realise that the efforts of some deos on this issue doesn't negate the kufr of nanotwi. Otherwise do the good efforts of some barelwis negate any issues he holds with ala hazrat?

4 hrs 9, that one guy the deos quoted did in fact end up exposed as a deo. As mentioned in the previous post, it's a terrible argument from authority even if he wasn't since he's essentially unknown... Even to the deos who quoted him in the debate!

4 hrs 24, deo has quoted a few other texts that say that the verse means final AND greatest Prophet sallallahu alayhi wassallam.

4 hrs 33, Shahid Ali explains that takfeer is not done in cases of doubt in response to the taqwiyat ul imaan situation that the deo keeps bringing up.

There's an argument about various other references that usman brings out where he's got a scatter gun approach trying to prove various people have said blasphemous statements, including on a line of poetry which I didn't understand myself. Others should address it

Debate over. I'd note a few points here:

1. Deos used an old debating tactic where lots of references are provided that aren't even relevant to the debate topic in order to tie up your time so you can't debate the main topic. Additionally, if you don't have time to address everything, they'll claim you didn't address it because of lack of capability

2. Deos didn't address the main question asked many times- is the verse Qati Al dalalah

3. Debate conditions and subject should have been made public before the debate and moderator included to keep debate on topic

4. Deos seemed to think they could get away with trying to claim kufr passages in barelwi books as if that somehow absolves nanotwi

5. Deos in the comments talking about how usman debated three people at once yet it was usman debating shahid Ali, the other two were there to assist in the manner of all debates and the deo even had his own helpers. Deos unable to count, it seems

6. Think shahid Ali did a good job of sticking to the debate topic and avoiding falling for the trap of the deo of having to respond to quotes that aren't even relevant to the debate

7. Shahid Ali clearly won. The deo didn't even seem to understand the basis of the takfeer and he decided to talk about everything else except the question at hand. Started making fallacious arguments such as oh, the deos have produced so many huffaz etc which is an argument from achievements and has no bearing on whether nanotwi committed kufr.

8. Deo kept claiming nanotwi said he believes in the finality of Prophethood in other places and kept getting told that's irrelevant to the far fetched and false interpretation of the verse under discussion. Still kept bringing this up as if it has some meaning. Ignored the very good analogy re verses of salah brought up by shahid Ali. Comprehension issues are a clear cut problem with these deos

 

Bro you're dealing with a seasoned crook. Always post his trash with screenshot, as ugly and painful as it may be.



Just realized you were talking about the clowns, not their showmaster - nonetheless the reference from zameel is copied here.

 

Could someone here clarify the statement of Hakim Tirmidhi that the deo brought up in support of Nanotwi's view about the meaning of khatam.

 

those monkeys are probably still busy jumping from branch to branch, so their madari zameel had to chime in with gymnastics between "positional" and "chronological" played upon "hypothetical":

https://barelwism.wordpress.com/202...elwi-on-mawlana-qasim-nanotwi-tahdhir-al-nas/

(please take other screenshots too as you see fit.)



no one should be angry at me calling him a madari! that's exactly what this lowlife is.

 

2 hr 54. Deo screeching that ala hazrat is a kaafir according to Fazl e Haq khayrabadi because kufr was done on dehlawi by the former but not by the latter. We have already discussed this in earlier posts: abstention from takfeer was only done due to a belief he may have repented. The statements have been called out as kufr sareeh in any case.

2 hr 56, he brings up karam shah Al azhari and says his opinion wasn't retracted. Deo again fails to realise that if it wasn't retracted from, then this is kufr and we don't defend it so it's not some hujjah in the debate. Second point, the passage he presents doesn't provide any help to him either because in the passage, it's being claimed that nanotwi said the one who says the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wassallam isn't the final Prophet is a kaafir within Tahzeer itself. As mentioned in other posts: this doesn't mean the passages in question are not kufr. It's possible for someone to believe in the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wassallam being the last Prophet whilst also denying the clear and explicit meaning of the verse under discussion and therefore be a kaafir due to the denying of the MEANING of the verse itself.

3 hr 1 minute. Talks about haadhir naadhir issue. Why is the deo bringing this up? I didn't understand the reasoning

3 hr 4- shahid says that karam shah azhari changing his stance is accepted by khalid mahmood in one of his books.

3 hr 19, the deo brings up a passage from malfuzat. Same passage has been discussed on this forum previously. The deo again clearly doesn't understand that in a conditional statement, having a muhal antecedent isn't kufr in itself. The reason why nanotwi is kaafir is that his consequent denied an explicit verse (not by denying it as being revelation but by denying its clear meaning). Deo is burning straw men. Additionally, can he get anyone to give fatwa of kufr on this statement in malfoozat? And if he somehow did, would it absolve nanotwi of his own kufr?

At 3 hr 20, he mentions the statement of Naqi Ali Khan regarding the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wassallam and his being the Seal and that he is therfore the adornment of Prophethood. He doesn't realise that this doesn't negate the clear meaning of the verse whereas we're saying nanotwi does and doing so is kufr.

3 hr 32, Shahid Ali quotes nanotwi's grandson where he also denies the clear meaning of the verse. At the same time, the deos are laughing because they can't understand the point being made. They seem to think the whole point is about whether making a conditional statement in and of itself is kufr. No one has claimed this in the entire debate so why keep bringing it up?

At 3 hr 47, Shahid Ali brings up shafi usmani and how he states that denying the clear meaning of the verse is kufr, whilst also quoting from Al ghazali.

You'll notice that I'm repeating a lot of points here because the debate does have a lot of the same points being made again and again. For example, Shahid Ali asking whether the verse is Qati Al Dalalah and not being answered as yet. And the deo bringing lots of references in a scatter gun approach and either claiming:

1. So and so made a hypothetical statement and therefore you should make takfeer of them too
2. So and so made a statement that is even more irrelevant and you guys haven't done takfeer etc

And I think by now, it's obvious what the response to the above should be as has been mentioned in other posts.

3 hr 53, deo talks about how there's confusion re whether karam shah retracted or not. However, this isn't relevant because:

1. Those who believe he retracted say he's not a kaafir as a result of repentance
2. Those who say he didn't retract say he's a kaafir

So how does this help the deo cause? The clear purpose of the deo bringing this up initially was to:

1. Highlight perceived barelwi hypocrisy
2. Try and use karam shah as a 'barelwi' reference on nanotwi's passages not being kufr

However, both points fail because if those who believe he didn't retract still make takfeer, then there is no hypocrisy. And those who believe he retracted wouldn't accept his pre-retraction statements as any type of hujjah in any case. So the whole thing is a distraction

3 hr 57, he brings up qamaruddin sialvi and that he's some barelwi reference and has supported nanotwi's statement, he's pleased to have nanotwi in his isnad etc. I believe this is going to be the guy that gets revealed to be a deo later on in the debate but haven't got there yet. Point is- even if he wasn't deo, then he commits kufr regardless. We'll apply our principles evenly. And secondly, this guy is clearly unknown, who is he and why is he being used as a reference?

In the same passage from sialvi, sialvi is claiming that barelwis took the hypothetical statement to mean it's something that actually occurred in reality. This is not correct, we don't believe this and that's a complete straw man as to why takfeer has been made.

I'm wondering if that's why usmaan seems to be confused as to the reason for takfeer... Is this what Al muhannad claimed?

3 hr 59, he mentions tafsir naeemi claims the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wassallam was not bashar. He also states the conditions of the debate allow him to bring these things up even though they're completely irrelevant to the nanotwi issue.

 

These guys are absolutely besharams.
They did open takfeer of some sunni scholars even saying Allah ki qasam at times.

Obviously the devs around the world would be happy cause he ditched the main question of whether he believes Nanotvi did kufr by stating what he said.

Alot of the lies he came up with, especially the one about siyalwi peer khana who was a deo influenced himself, was displayed as a barelwi pir.
That was refuted and caught out immediately.

As well the the 1974 incidents surrounding the government of Pakistan and Allama shah ahmed noorani were refuted immediately.

And Mawlana shahid asked him this question and something similar like 3 times and he barely answered it. As to why then the qadiyanis use Nantovis work as evidence for their toiletry belief. He barely answered this.

---
What was amusing was where he said let's take this to Awwamah bakri Saeed foudeh and all these greats. The above mentioned scholars barely understand or even know the issue properly.

Its clear as day that they cant read and understand Alahazrat and they cant refute him via a written work. Look at how zameel becomes zaleel everytime he tries. Therefore they try to use modern day polemics from youtube to show the world that look at these people they confused themselves and he actually mentioned it in the debate when he was citing Mufti Rashid et Al.

The most baffling part is they try to convince the public by saying typing error or doing taweel to their mistakes. Yet barely give Alahazrat a chance when any such errors are found in his works which ofcourse aren't his but are publishing errors. But Alhamdulillah one of the miracles of Alahazrats works is that there is no need for us to elaborate on them. Alahazrat wrote everything clearly and he backed every single work with numerous dalail therefore today we dont need to do taweel of Alahazrats works.

 

The following Sher of Imam Ahmed Raza was questioned in yesterdays debate:

کثرتِ بعدِ قِلّت پہ اکثر درود
عزّتِ بعدِ ذِلّت پہ لاکھوں سلام

Just found this explanation by Mufti Akhtar Rida:

https://s3.lakhana.com/ziaemadinah/mn-addons/1847a.mp3

 

At 2 hrs 14 mins, deo keeps asking Asrar Rashid to listen instead of reading the quote he wants an answer to. This is a performative element from the deo as Asrar Rashid isn't debating, the debate is with Shahid Ali but he wants to pick up performance points and gotcha moments.

At 2 hr 20, he mentions a quote about Anwar shah kashmiri being seen in jannah in a dream by a barelwi author on the basis that Anwar shah had put forward a case to defend Khatam Al Nabuwwat. Firstly, this is not some gotcha moment because there's no reason for us to accept this statement or dream. What exactly does it prove? We're not tied down such that we can't say so and so is wrong or as if it lifts the hukm of kufr from nanotwi himself.

Around 2 hrs 24, they have an argument about what's actually under discussion. The deos seem to believe absolutely anything can be referenced and discussed in addition to Tahzeer. Are the debate conditions to be found anywhere? I couldn't see them.

At 2 hr 30, shahid is refuting a claim that ghulam dastageer didn't do takfeer of the nanotwi passages. Shaykh Muhajjir Makki has endorsed this specific work by Mullah Ghulam Dastageer. He then asks the same two questions posed previously re whether the verse is Qati Al Dalalah.

2 hr 35 mins, the deo goes on a tangent on deos producing huffaz etc. This is irrelevant to the debate. Additionally, producing huffaz etc is not a hujjah for having correct aqeedah anyway.

At 2 hrs 39, he states that a barelwi has written that if mirza had been a Prophet, he wouldn't have had a teacher. Someone also stated that if mirza had been a Prophet, he wouldn't have failed to go to hajj due to the fear of pathans. The deo then goes to ask why this is used as evidence if the interpretation is enough but clearly it's being used as an additional proof to show that mirza was a liar. Just because we can prove mirza is a liar through many verses and hadith, it doesn't mean we can't use additional proofs from his life in order to prove it. I know deobandis also use various other proofs against mirza such as his private life, contradictions in his works etc so how is this any different?

I was trying to do a more detailed write up but this is taking a long time and there's a lot of going over the same ground. I'll be more succinct going forward as half the debate is still to go. If any deo claims this write up is hiding things, they're more than welcome to join the forum and point things out with timestamps so they can be addressed.

At 2 hr 49 mins, shahid mentions that if there are problematic statements found in books of older scholars, we would condemn those statements where needed and mention it's kufr where needed. Whereas the deos wouldn't do that when their elders were alive and won't condemn the statements even now. And if the deos don't want to talk about this, then they shouldn't be bringing up these statements and defending them in the first place

 

Hypotheticals are game of devil's deception. Good way to counter such senseless hypotheticals is to heap more hypotheticals on the deobandi's kins (I have seen Mawlana Farouque Rizvi employ this to good effect):

"Your mother/sister/daughter can hypothetically be a fornicator, but it wouldn't affect their character".
"Your father can hypothetically commit incest, but it wouldn't affect his standing"

Add more hypotheticals, and watch the deobandi squirm and his rage come to boil.

Any sensible individual wouldn't countenance uttering/hearing such "hypotheticals" about dear/near one; how then is deobandi able to utter and promote muhal hypotheticals against Allah (azza wa jal) and the Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam)?

For duffers who don't understand muhal bi'l dhat, aqli dalil (rational proof/argument) can shut them up better than naqli ones.

 

Hypotheticals of themselves do not result in kufr (of course there are caveats to this).

In a nutshell, what nanotvi got wrong and fell into the black dungeoun of kufr is the following:

He tried being clever and saying that the meaning of Khatam is understood by commonfolk to mean final chronologically. However he and his cronies apparently knew that it doesn't carry this meaning only but it means a special rank as well (this is when they keep mentioning martabi).

Now, the word khatam in itself does contain various meanings. However, in the nass of Quran related to this matter the meaning is Qati' aldalalah meaning that he alaihi salat wa salaam is the final and last prophet.

Thus when nantovi says "if a nabi comes after his time it will not affect the khatamiyyat", he effectively is removing in absolute terms the applicability of the meaning of being last and final in time, thereby resulting in the following kufr:

Allowing the possibility of a Nabi who is lower in rank to the prophet peace be upon him to come after his time. (note: the deos do believe that no nabi has come after the prophet peace be upon him, however, the statement of nanotvi allows the possibility of such which is kufr. Its example is a person saying "i believe with absolute certainty that angels exist and this belief is core to Islam, but if someone believes they don't exits its not a big deal").

The muslim position is that the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him is the final and last prophet in absolute terms and it is impossible for a nabi to be born after the prophet peace be upon him. In our muslim position even holding the belief of possibility (not actualisation) is kufr.

Thus mawlana Shahid did a good job in asking "if a nabi comes today will it affect the khatamiyyat?". The results are only two:
- Yes it will = nanotvi's statement was wrong (but the wretch would rather save the scoundrel and not prove his statement wrong).
- No it will not = deos do not believe the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him is the final and last prophet absolutely.

In either case the wretch would be a loser. In the first he would lose the debate. In the second he would lose his aakhirah.

أُو۟لَـٰٓئِكَ ٱلَّذِينَ ٱشْتَرَوُا۟ ٱلْحَيَوٰةَ ٱلدُّنْيَا بِٱلْـَٔاخِرَةِ ۖ فَلَا يُخَفَّفُ عَنْهُمُ ٱلْعَذَابُ وَلَا هُمْ يُنصَرُونَ

Allah shower his mercy a hundred thousand fold upon alahazrat who saved us from such low and illogical beliefs.

 

i been saying this for ages. also, this was alahazrat's advice a hundred years ago.

https://sunniport.com/index.php?posts/57696

https://sunniport.com/index.php?posts/61682

https://sunniport.com/index.php?posts/61656

https://sunniport.com/index.php?posts/67807

https://sunniport.com/index.php?posts/68438

https://sunniport.com/index.php?posts/68447

 

this is slander and we have refuted this with proof in "bequests" that it was tampered by the scribe. i showed specific examples of how the scribe was uninformed. see this thread:

https://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/shameless-deobandis-vis-wasaya-alahazrat.16339/

 

thanks for the summary brother. jazakAllahu khayran.

 

1 hr 35ish. Deo brings a bunch of quotes but they don't support what nanotwi said in Tahzeer. In none of those quotes is the meaning of the verse (of finality) being in relation to time denied. He also brings up muneeb ur Rahmaan at 1 hr 41 as if he's some kind of hujjah, and then he says something so dumb it's actually hard to believe. He says that Ala hazrat is a kaafir according to his own principles because he believes Prophet Isa alayhissalaam is alive. He doesn't actually explain why he believes this would result in Ala hazrat having to make takfeer of himself because there's no explanation given in this segment. It just doesn't make sense, full stop. If someone can explain what he means, go ahead and tell me

At 1 hr 44, Shahid Ali keeps bringing up the point that the clear meaning of the verse has been denied. Has done a good job of sticking to the topic so far and keeps asking the right question. He has also shown previously that nanotwi actually claimed it's logically impossible for this verse to be both of the following:

1. A praise of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wassallam
2. To say that he is the final Prophet sallallahu alayhi wassallam in terms of time

And because he insists it can only be number 1, therefore he is clear cut in rejecting number 2. Whereas we Muslims believe there is no contradiction between the two and therefore it's both praise and the clear meaning is that the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wassallam is the final Prophet in terms of time and being sent.

He also explains that the words of other sufis re the meaning of the verse were not a denial of the clear meaning of the verse. Rather, they are a further explanation of the verse, more nuances arising from the verse which are all complimentary in meaning (such as final also meaning most perfect due to the finality). Whereas nanotwi denied the clear meaning and took a far fetched meaning only.

He also mentions that qadianis use nanotwi's statement to attempt to prove their claim which usmaan has not yet responded to which is strange since, in his opening statement, he said that if Tahzeer was kufr, mirza would have used this himself. Now that mirza's followers use it, what does he have to say about it? In usmaan's opening statement, he also admitted that mirza had Tahzeer in his library but didn't seem to understand that this is evidence against him, not for him.

At 1 hr 48, he asks usmaan for a yes or no answer to the question whether the verse is Qati Al Dalalah and what is the hukm on denying something which is Qati Al Dalalah. A question which gets to the crux of the matter.

Good point at 1 hr 51, he asks why a Qati Nass with clear unambiguous meaning is being interpreted by an anomalous report in a manner so as to result in a far fetched interpretation.

1 hr 55 mins, the deo says for a second time that nanotwi was claiming that the meaning of this verse is not ONLY limited to finality in terms of time. However, Mufti Shaahid has already shown that Nanotwi denied it was about finality in terms of time at all because he tried to provide a logical proof against this interpretation (see above). It seems like usmaan's reading comprehension issues are coming to the fore again.

The deo says that the qadianis using something as evidence doesn't mean it's wrong because they also try to use Quran and hadeeth. I would say that the problem here is that nanotwi's words are kufr inherently and then they're also used to help further another kufriya agenda.

1 hr 57, deo talks about Shah Ahmad Noorani stating that the verse means last Prophet alayhissalaam and greatest Prophet alayhissalaam.

2 hrs in, he says that some barelwis signed some kind of statement that defends Tahzeer. First of all, he would have to prove this exact claim. Second of all, if someone defends Tahzeer, then he is a kaafir. Someone claiming to be a barelwi and defending Tahzeer doesn't make Tahzeer correct all of a sudden. I'm not sure what kind of weird appeal to authority is being done here but it doesn't actually prove the passages themselves are not kufr. Unlike deos, we will not make excuses for clear cut kufr in the manner that they do for their elders or they do for tariq masood when he claims the Quran has been changed etc. By the way, don't believe this duo have ever mentioned him or his kufr either.

Around 2 hrs 2 mins, he tries to there are other hypothetical statements out there too. The deo doesn't realise that we are not saying it's kufr purely because someone makes a hypothetical statement. Logic lesson for the deo... A hypothetical statement is made up of two parts, the antecedent and the consequent. He keeps giving examples where sunni scholars have made a antecdents that they consider to be similar but fails to realise nanotwi's statement is kufr due to the specific consequent combined with this specific antecedent. It's not the antecedent alone that is kufr

Shahid Ali deals with it immediately at 2 hrs 4 mins in.

At 2 hrs 9 mins, mufti shahid asks usman... Yes or no, if Allah sent a new Prophet today, would it affect the finality? Usman refuses to answer yet he's sitting there defending the statement of nanotwi where he expressly says it wouldn't affect the finality. Why would you refuse to answer but nanotwi literally answered it? Wrongly, of course. Usmaan is also asked whether the verse is Qati Al Dalalah in terms of time again. Let's see if he finally answers

 

Around 1 hr 12, Shahid Ali asks the deo whether the verse is Qati Al Dhalalah in terms of time and reiterates that the meaning of the verse is being denied which is kufr. Unfortunately it seems deos don't understand this point at all. I'll be surprised if he gives a direct answer to this or even an indirect one, typing as I watch so we'll see.

1 hr 16, deo talks about the order of the passages in Hussam. Again, the order doesn't change the meaning. We say: even if only one single passage was brought, it would still be kufr. He then writes a translation on the board at 1 hr 22 and asks whether the statement there is kufr... It seems he believes the fatwa of kufr is on the basis that the passage is asking a hypothetical question. What a buffoon. The reason for takfeer is because the clear cut meaning of the verse is being denied. Even if nanotwi hadn't said anything hypothetically whatsoever but still denied the clear cut meaning of the verse, he would still be a kaafir. To be clear, the meaning he has denied is that the verse is explicit in saying the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wassallam is the final Prophet sent in time.

1 hr 25, Shahid shows that the statement in Hussam is literally the exact meaning of the passages that nanotwi wrote but just made more concise. There's actually an exchange where shahid reads the first passage and usman asks whether this is kufr... Shahid affirms this passage alone is enough for takfeer.

My question is: does usman believe the passage in Hussam is kufr and if so, why? If he believes the passage in Hussam is kufr, then it's literally a mukhtasar of the passages in nanotwi's book so why would one be kufr and the other not? If he says it's not kufr, then why does the order make a difference to you anyway since you believe it's not kufr in any instance?

An analogy of the type of summary done in Hussam (from what I can see from this debate so far) is as follows:

Zayd writes a book and one page 1, he says 'if I the sun is shining tomorrow, I'll go to the park'. On page 7, Zayd says 'if the sun is shining the day after tomorrow, I'll still go to the park'. Someone comes along and summarises Zayd's statements as 'if the sun shines tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, I'll go to the park'. The meaning of the statements hadn't been affected in anyway. It would be ludicrous to claim zayd has been misrepresented to such a degree that a hukm cannot be passed on his statements.

To put it another way:

1. If a, then b is unchanged
2. If c, then b is still unchanged
So one summaries this as, even if a or c, then b is unchanged

It is logically valid to reduce two propositions in this manner.

 

Writing some notes as I'm watching. Haven't finished yet:

Opening speech, usmaan ends it by asking why Ismaeel dehlawi didn't have a fatwa of kufr against him- this isn't part of the debate so doesn't need to be answered, it's a tangent

He also states keeps bringing up the phrasing of the nanotwi passages in Hussam. However, the debate isn't about Hussam, the debate is about the specific statements themselves. If he wants to claim that Hussam didn't accurately convey the statements of nanotwi, this wouldn't mean the original passages aren't kufr. The debate is about the original passages so he should focus on those

Around minute 40, he brings up things like statements made by some successors about Ala hazrat, people yearning to see Sahaba less after seeing him etc. Whilst those statements would be silly if true, they're not the topic of the debate.

Around minute 38, he mentions that nanotwi claims the denier of the finality of Prophethood is a kaafir. However that doesn't change the fact that his original passages deny the clear cut sareeh meaning of the verse of the Quran which is kufr in itself. It's possible for nanotwi to say:

1. I believe in the finality and the denier is a kaafir

And

2. This verse isn't talking about chronological finality

And for him to still be a kaafir because statement two is still kufr

Minute 44, he brings up dehlawi again and how the refusal to do takfeer by ala hazrat makes Ala hazrat a kaafir. Let's say this is true... It's still irrelevant to the debate so why bring up the tangent other than to waste time? This is a common debate tactic to get the opponent to deal with irrelevant issues so they don't have time to focus on the topic themselves. Shahid Ali doing a good job of not getting side tracked by these so far.

Additionally, Ala Hazrat refused takfeer only on the grounds that dehlawi may have repented. Otherwise the statements are certainly kufr.

At minute 48, mufti Shahid Ali explains with a good example. If someone claims a verse re establishing salah means something other than actual salah as we know it... Yet he says in other places that salah is obligatory 5 times a day in the exact manner prayed by Muslims. He is still a kaafir for the denial of a clear cut meaning of the verse in question. I notice that usman was busy talking to asrar rashid and looking in books etc around this time so I'm not sure he even heard the argument so I'll be surprised if he addresses it later. I'm typing as I'm listening so we'll see.

Usmaan at 55 minutes brings up, why are you moving away from the order of the passages in Hussam? And I can prove ala hazrat kaafir according to his own principle. However... Again, this is irrelevant to the statements themselves. If Ala Hazrat should have takfeer done on him, does it change the statements of nanotwi and whether they're kufr? This is basically a whataboutism... If nanotwi is a kaafir, so is your ala hazrat (according to Usmaan). But does that change nanotwi being a kaafir somehow?

Minute 59, apparently there's a fatwa from Bareilly saying shahid ali's teacher, Aslam bandyalvi is a kaafir. Usmaan asks how the fatwa is baseless when it's about aslam bandyalvi but not when it's about his teachers.... What an idiot. This is another logical fallacy. If one fatwa issued by a scholarly body is baseless, it doesn't make every fatwa they issue to be baseless. The merits of each fatwa must be assessed individually. Therefore, if bareilly is right or wrong re aslam bandyalvi, it has nothing to do with whether nanotwi is a kaafir or not.

1 hr 1 mins in... He talks about a fatwa of kufr against khadim Hussain rizvi. Literally irrelevant for the same reason I mentioned above. Usman, tell us... If barelwis give fatwa of kufr against other barelwis, how does that mean the statement of nanotwi isn't kufr?