Yasir Deobandi Defending Tahdhir al-Nas

I have a draft, but do not want to post it publicly yet; I can send it to you directly if you wish.

 

JazakAllah @Aqdas. That's absolutely fantastic.

 

find attached:

 

I have found this thread most insightful. I think a short timeline starting with Ismail Dehlwi and finishing with the Refutation of Al-Muhannad would work really here as a quick point of reference. I saw something similar in TKM but it would be useful if refutations of the deos before Ala Hazrat are also included on the timeline. Thoughts @abu Hasan, @Hassan_0123 and @HASSAN

 

i doubt this is the case.
either it is the scholar from rampur - or some unknown person as the deobandi author has commented - which you have posted yourself here.

----
as you can see, nadwi in nuzhatu'l khawatir mentions that shaykh abdul ghaffar lucknawi kanpuri was the author of fatawa bey nazir.
and thus he has signed in the fatwa p.9:




he was born in the year 1247 AH / 1831 CE.

---
this book - fatawa beynazir - was published in the year 1290 AH. the shaykh would be 43 year old. and this was prior to tahziru'n naas (1291 AH).

qasim nanotvi was born in 1248 AH / 1833 CE.

mawlana irshad husayn rampuri was also born in 1248 AH.
---
the book ibTal e aghlaT e qasimiyah was purportedly published in 1300 AH - at any rate, it was after tahzir (1291 AH).
shaykh abdul ghaffar kanpuri would be 53 year old and was a prominent scholar and among the senior scholars of his time.

it does not seem plausible that he would copy the munazarah of a lesser known scholar (i.e. muhammad shah punjabi) and send it to ulama YOUNGER than him in the manner of an ordinary mustafti (mawlana abdul qadir bada'uni was born in 1253 AH and thus 6 years younger; mawlana irshad husayn rampuri was one year younger to him).

even if you deem it possible, at the least he would sign off his name and/or add his seal. i find it difficult to accept that this is mawlana abdul ghaffar lucknawi/kanpuri.

there is a fatwa by muhammad khan punjabi in the end of fatawa beynazir, p.104. and conditional takfir of nanotvi as well.




===
however, shaykh abdul ghaffar rampuri could be the mustafti - as he would be 27 year old at that time (i.e. in 1300AH).

and even if not, and even if it is an anonymous commoner - the munazarah of amr and zayd (i.e. nanotvi vs. punjabi) was validated by the scholars. so there is no harm if the identity of the compiler is not known.

====
sidenote:

in fatawa beynazir, is a fatwa of mawlana naqi ali and alahazrat has attested his father's fatwa.










alahazrat would be 18 year old at this time. (i.e. 1290 AH).

====
Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

I believe this is someone else. The author of Ibtal was from Lucknow and then Kanpur (Cawnpore). Or was your point to mention Nadwi’s bias?

To clarify, Nadwi doesn’t say anything against Mawlana Abd al-Ghaffar al-Lakhnawi (author of Ibtal), but does make condescending remarks against Mawlana Rampuri (deputy of Mufti Irshad Husayn)

 

the biographical compendium of notables of rampur, tazkirah e kamilan e rampur, is written by hafiz ahmad ali khan "shauq."

he was in the employ of the then nawab of rampur sayyid hamid ali khan - as a chief librarian, and received medals of service. he acknowledges that hakim ajmal khan had forwarded recommendations to the nawab.

he started compiling this work in 1914 and completed in 1929. hafiz shauq is not affiliated to the "barelwi" or the "badauni" school - and he does not make these distinctions in his book.

shauq praises mawlana abdul ghaffar rampuri as a man of intelligence, extreme humility, taqwa.

--
https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.450443

see pg: 230-232










===

mawlana abdul ghaffar rampuri was one year younger to alahazrat, and he even opposed alahazrat on the matter of the second aazan in jumu'ah. (the ulama of bada'un also opposed it)

---
in tazkirah e ulama e ahl e sunnat, p.138-139, mawlana mahmud ahmad qadri writes:

 

and this is the habit of abul-hasan nadwi the slanderer. he undermines every aalim who has criticised devbandi tawagheet, and insinuates that they were either not proper scholars or were bidyis or some other accusation, without providing a shred of evidence for this opinion.

except the crow eating gangohi and the rest of the gang.

now zameel needs to find a way out of this conundrum.

 

Deobandis say the author of Ibtal-i Aghlat-i Qasimiyyah is majhul.

Number 264 is his entry in Nuzhah al-Khawatir

 

Muhammad Shah Panjabi thumma Dihlawi debated Qasim Nanotwi’s Tahdhir al-Nas

These are two of his books:

Eterazatu Ahlil-Sunnati Ala Masayil-e-Ahlil-Bidati by Mohammad Shah | Rekhta https://share.google/S2JciiSGCNNuDm9p5

Urwat-ul-Wusqa by Mohammad Shah | Rekhta https://share.google/QYl1EwKe6eX9TIuHg

 

Who has published this work and does it include any taqreez from other Sunni ulema?

@HASSAN what I would be interested to know is that does he harmonise the finality of prophethood in terms of time and the Athar he uses as the basis of his work. In reality it goes back to Ismail Dehlwi and his beliefs.

 

Managed to get hold of four copies from Pakistan

 

@HASSAN what I would be interested to know is that does he harmonise the finality of prophethood in terms of time and the Athar he uses as the basis of his work. In reality it goes back to Ismail Dehlwi and his beliefs.

 

Qasim Nanotwi doubles down on his claim in Tahdhir, but this time doesn't even use “bil-dhat” this time when he argues that temporal finality has no virtue

In TN, he calls those who take the meaning of khatam as temporally final as common folk, i.e., ignorant or unintelligent; here, he calls them literalists (in the Farsi) and superficial understanding (in the Urdu)

 

Yes, I've read skimmed through most of it.

I was talking about a new edition with takhrij and tahqiq that's mentioned in the post.

 

I posted the link to that book before. Its here. Not published properly of course as with many books from the Subcontinent

https://archive.org/details/tahqeeqat-e-muhammadia-hal-auham-e-najadia

 

This was posted in 2018, I wonder where this work got to. Alahazrat mentions this work in his commentary on al-Mutaqad

 

i explained this in tkm - see p.106



====



=====