(Munazara Thread): Mawlana Shahid Refutes Lying Deobandi Clowns

TDSD— Deobandi Thick Skull Disorder should be an official thing

 

"If a new God was to Exist, It wouldn't affect the Wahdaaniyyah of Allah"

"If another Divine Book was to be Revealed it wouldn't affect the Truthness of the Quran"

These are also HyPoTHeticAls, does it automatically becomes valid to hold such beliefs?

 

I don't think there will be a post-analysis video. Both parties seemed like they wanted to move on from this.

 

Seen the deos have already posted a 'victory' post... Which they must have made prior to the debate itself. Which goes to show they would have posted they won no matter what.

One of the problems with debates as well is that everyone claims they won. Need a post debate analysis video to clear up whatever junk claims they will have made today

 

Didn't watch the whole debate but dipped in and out. @Khanah is right that a written debate works better because there is less of 'playing to the audience' that we saw from the deo side. I thought Mufti Shahid did a good job, and ultimately with the deos it's a lot of claims but no explanation of how Namotwi's statement is not a denial of finality of prophethood in terms of time. Any objective person would see the fallacies in that work, and why it should be discarded.

 

Agreed. Written is better because:

1. Can produce higher quality arguments and more thought out responses
2. Can check sources. In verbal debates, people claim all sorts without adequate time to look into the veracity of what's being claimed
3. No interruptions
4. Audience gets more clarity from being able to re read etc though suppose video allows re watching now too
5. Easier for someone to fool people into thinking they're winning if the person is loud or charismatic enough

Unfortunately, these types of deos aren't ready for a written debate. Let's say you suggest a written debate to them, they'll claim you're avoiding a debate or scared etc. Basically they just want to perform especially since most people will watch a debate for entertainment on YouTube but not want to read about the subject itself even if it's a higher quality of debate. That's why ulema write books refuting people... That's basically a written debate

 

I'm waiting til the debate is over to watch on double speed so not sure what Shahid Ali has said in response to this.

But the point is: nanotwi's hypothetical is kufr because he denies the clear meaning of the text. With regard to this specific verse, someone might commit kufr in two ways:

1. By denying the verse as being from the Quran or being the word of Allah or denying that it's true
2. By denying the clear cut meaning of the verse, the meaning which has consensus of the entire ummah upon it and is necessarily known from the religion

Nanotwi didn't do point 1, meaning he didn't deny it being a verse of the Quran etc. However, through his statement, he denied the clear cut meaning of the verse itself despite that meaning having the consensus of the ummah upon it. That specific clear cut meaning is that our Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wassallam is the final Prophet to be sent in time. Nanotwi is saying that, even though he agrees that the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wassallam is the final Prophet to be sent in time, this specific verse doesn't carry this meaning. That's why:

1. It's irrelevant when the deos bring up that Nanotwi in other places makes it clear that the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wassallam is the final Nabi because he still denied the clear cut verse that is being discussed by denying its obvious and sareeh meaning

2. It's also irrelevant if the order of Nanotwi's passages were different in Hussaam ul Haramaym because the individual passages are kufr in and of themselves even if no other passages were taken into consideration. Meaning that even one passage would have received fatwa of kufr

If usmaan's main rebuttal was that this is a hypothetical, then he hasn't understood the actual reasoning behind the takfeer which isn't a surprise because his reading comprehension is atrocious

 

Usman is only there to vomit his misinterpretations of Barelwi texts and to use the oath of Allah to convince the public that Barelwi's have committed kufr according to their own principles. Just randomly bringing out the filth from the videos his made back in the days without answering questions.

 

Deobandis believe that if any prophet was to come after Rasūlallah ﷺ, it would not affect his ﷺ's Finality.

Usmans main argument against this was that it is just a hypothetical

Then he gave examples from ahaadeeth and Ala hazrat himself where hypotheticals were used

Like the saying of Rasūlallah ﷺ;
"If there was to have a Prophet after me, it would have been 'Umar bin Al-Khattab"

Just Repeatedly throwing in the word "hypothetical" does not absolve one of kufr.

But it would still be beneficial if someone knowledgeable can explain what the ahkaam of hypotheticals are in the shariah,
What types of hypotheticals are there,
was that statement of Qasim Nanotwi really even a hypothetical or was he affirming the possibility of the coming of another prophet

Is it correct to say that there are stages to hypotheticals.
A true hypothetical does not AFFIRM anything

But Qasim Nanotwi was affirming a kufri possibility

So in reality his statement was NOT a hypothetical but an affirmation.

Hypothetical
: involving or being based on a suggested idea or theory : being or involving a hypothesis : conjectural

 

Debates need to be in written form.

 

***Statement Regarding the Events of Thursday 20th and Friday 21st October 2025***

This statement is issued to clarify and address the recent matter that occurred on Thursday 20th October 2025 and Friday 21st October 2025.

First and foremost, I wish to affirm that the highest priority in all such discussions is the honour and sanctity of the Noble and Final Prophet ﷺ.

More than a century ago, certain elders associated with the Deoband movement committed numerous blasphemous heresies. In response, the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamā‘ah, through the work Husām al-Haramayn ʿalā Manhar al-Kufr wa’l-Mayn, established the orthodox Sunni position on these issues.

Over the past two years, there have been ongoing exchanges between myself and two imams affiliated with the Deobandi school of thought — Uthman Iqbal and Abdul Haleem. On Thursday 20th October 2025, they released a video containing several personal attacks directed at me.

In order to prevent further discord and to bring this matter to a close, they were invited for a discussion on Friday 21st October 2025. However, they attended with the apparent intention of engaging in a debate, which was not the intended purpose of their invitation to Al-Hikam Institute. When they attempted to initiate a debate, I made it clear that this was neither the reason for our meeting nor the correct method of scholarly discourse, which requires agreed-upon conditions and structure.

It was also assumed by some that I lacked the requisite knowledge regarding these theological matters. I categorically reject this assumption. Such knowledge is essential, and I am fully acquainted with these issues. However, the gathering was not the appropriate forum to elaborate on these theological differences. I emphasised that these disputes have persisted for over a century and that little benefit is achieved through continued argumentation. My stance remains firm upon the creed and methodology of the elders of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamā‘ah as articulated in Husām al-Haramayn.

The differences with the Deobandi school have already been comprehensively addressed by our senior scholars. In due course, these matters will again be clarified with conclusive and verified evidence.

It has also been claimed that I agreed to refrain from addressing this issue or from declaring the disbelief of the Deobandi elders. I must make it absolutely clear that no such agreement was made. What was agreed upon was simply to move forward without unnecessary confrontation.

Despite this, a number of false and inaccurate statements have since been made, which required clarification. My position remains unchanged: we have always exposed, and will continue to expose, the falsehoods of all deviant sects, including the Deobandis.

Muhammad Adil Shahzad

 

The deobandis claimed that Imam Adil admitted he didn't have enough knowledge to discuss this issue with them and agreed not to speak on it in public again. Is this true?

 

One of the conditions should be that the position of each side should be provided in advance of the debate in Arabic so that it can form the part of an istifta to neutral parties agreed upon by both (can be submitted after the debate). In the format of 'the passage from the book tahzir un naas states this, our position on this statement is this'.

Otherwise what happens is: no matter how the debate goes, both sides claim clear victory. Don't get me wrong, there is still benefit to this as it shows our own public that we have answers too.

Believe asrar rashid had a similar idea with these two before but they never followed up on it