[janeloveslifenow]

Also is it true that Ahmad Raza Khan sent the deobandis hundreds of letters for years asking them to make it clear what they really meant in their books or do tauba before he declared takfir on them?

Because so far the majority understanding is that Ahmad Raza Khan declared takfir on deobandis blindly just by reading their books and misinterpreting them.

[WeightWatchyshow]

Also is it true that Ahmad Raza Khan sent the deobandis hundreds of letters for years asking them to make it clear what they really meant in their books or do tauba before he declared takfir on them?

If anyone can back this up with clear proofs when please do so. So far, people have come up with this argument but no one has been able to prove it.

Because so far the majority understanding is that Ahmad Raza Khan declared takfir on deobandis blindly just by reading their books and misinterpreting them.

It wasnt misinterpretation. It was pure DECEPTION

[searkibia]

Also is it true that Ahmad Raza Khan sent the deobandis hundreds of letters for years asking them to make it clear what they really meant in their books or do tauba before he declared takfir on them?

Because so far the majority understanding is that Ahmad Raza Khan declared takfir on deobandis blindly just by reading their books and misinterpreting them.

He made Takfir of Deobandi scholars some 11/12 years later from the time of ikhtilaaf between him and them, once he became sure they wont repent, he made Takfir and had the Fatwah attested by Ulamah of Haramain, and then published it as Hasam Ul Haramain.

Ismail Dehalvi he didnt declare Kaffir but stated that his statements are kuffr. He did not make Takfir on him due to Ismail Dehalvi has passed away before him, and he could not make SHARA'EE hujjat which is pre-requisite of Takfir. And due to that fact he did not declare him Kaffir.

In light of these facts people those who say he Takfir gun, may Allah guide them. My advice is PAKI maulvi's appologetics disgusting, due to two reasons, one the awam they adress are knowledge wise nill, secondly the awam as strong sense of belonging, and due to these two facts, maulvis get away with lies, exagerations. If people had knowledge they would know its wrong, and if they had less sense of belonging to a sect, they would speak up against it. But currently the situation is that anything goes against the other, as long as public is excited, and shouting Allahu Akhbar, and Deoband Zindabad, Barelwi Zindabad, Nara e Risalat ya RasoolAllah, anything goes, as long as people are happy, and excited, anything is legitamate weapon against the other side.

And I realised this very very early in my BIDDAT, SHIRK, KUFR, MUSHRIK, KAFFIR, shouting days.

Deobandi: Barelwis dont beleive RasoolAllah is human being, yet Quran says he is, here is proof.

Me: O Barelwi stupid person why dont you beleive prophet is human being, Quran says he is here is the evidence.

Barelwi: You are liar, we beleive he is bashr, imam ahmad raza said it here, one who does beleive prophet is bashr, such a person is kaffir, and Quran says it here and here he is bashr, and hadith here and here, how dare you acuse me of not beleiving.

Me: my brother {to deobandi} i had discussion with MUSHRIK BARELWI he said he beleives in bashariat and showed the proof from ahmad razas book.

Deobandi: You see they beleive he is Noor, Noor not of guidance but Noor in body like angles, thats why they dont beleive in humaness of prophet of Allah.

Me: oye Mushrik grave worshipping BARELWI, you beleive he is Noor thats why you beleive he is not bashr, thats why you become kaffir.

Barelwi: Well I beleive he is Bashr, but i beleive he is Noor as well, like i beleive Jibraeel is Noor who became Bashr when he went to maryam alayhis salam.

Me: well Barelwi, and Deobandi i organised this debate between you to to decide who is right, i get confused when i meet the other so u talk and i will decide on that.

Barelwi: i beleive he is Bashr and Noor,

Deobandi: but there is no proof that he is Noor.

Me: {And then my thinking mode kicked in}, well so you know he beleives in humaness of Prophet?

Deobandi: yeah

Me: why dint you tell me that.

Deobandi: it was technical, and complex and i didnt want to confuse you.

Me: so you told me the half lie and half truth

And i can make up a a realistic situation where a BARELWI misrepresents a Deobandi Aqeedah.

Barelwi: Deobandis dont be in knowledge of ghayb of RasoolAllah.

Me: Deobandi why dont you beleive in Ilm Ghayb of RasoolAllah, here is the proof.

Deobandi: Only Allah knows Ghayb, and your proof is not of Ilm e Ghayb, but akhbar e ghayb, ittla alal ghayb, mushayda alal ghayb, amba alal ghayb, izhar al ghayb, not of ilm al ghayb.

And after arguing senselessly for years between the both, I REALISED THAT THE IKHTILAAF IS DUE TO DIFFERENCE IN DEFINITIN OF ILM E GHAYB. And not in beleife, what Barelwis consitute proof of Ilm e Ghayb Deobandis consider it either akhbar, ittla, amba, mushayda of ghayb.

Let me explain, if i define darkness as: a time of day where sun shines bright, and day was time when you cant see very well, and everyone goes to sleep in that period, and there is someone with normal definition of these regardless of what evidence i presented we wont be able to agree on it, cause our definition of day and night mean different, so when you present evidence to prove day, it others definition it will be evidence of night, and vice versa,

Now the Paki, and Indian molvies wont tell you this, and neither will the Barelwi and Deobandi Maulvis cause to advance their own religious beleives they have to demonise the other, if they give the balanced few, and honest one, then people will be like okay fine so not much wrong with them. Each side is wroking to paint the HORRIABLE UGLIEST PICTURE OF THE OTHER, in the hope that their side doesnt join their oppossers, and opposers side when they see their own ugly picture which we painted of them they will join us.

And i had severe depression because of this, each side was being the holy pious of the Allah, when you sit with them and ask questions, each side was being the victim who is being kicked while they are on the floor, each side was saying they kick us, we dont even point finger at them, it got to a stage where i was at verge of becomming ATHEIST, and renounce Islam. And with duas Allah increased my knowledge, and guided me to level of understanding of matter that i began to see what i was blind to. I use to make dua for guidance, that o Allah make those people my guide who are on straight path, the path of the blessed, and i use recite Surah Fatiha alot, and always said o Allah guide me to those scholars in this era whom you have blessed, and Allah opned the gates of guidance for me.

Allah guided me spiritually, after some period of four five months, I was ready to take on the ikhtilaafi issues, indipendantly of guidance of Ulamah. Took time of 14 years to get to where I am now, but worth it, steped into darkness, and now apreciate the light of the day.

If you cant do what i did i advise, remain silent, neither denounce nor support, say Allah knows best.

[searkibia]

Sometimes you need to throw the bucket alongside the water for the simple reason that when you will be adding clean water afterwards, it will get dirty automatically due to the fact that the bucket was so dirty in the past. I hope you understand what I mean.
And by the way, let aside the fact that the forum was infected by filthy things, if this wahabi forum was clean from the start, would you still have taken control of it? What do you believe Imam Ahmad Raza Khan would have thought about you doing such a thing considering the things he said about wahabies?

So what you gona do with a dirty kaffir who becomes a Muslim, are you going to work to educate, and help him to quit his ghair Islami habbits, or get rid of him all togather.

Slaming the door shut on the face of diffcult person is the easy answer to a difficult person, but convincing that person might be hard, might take long time, but that option is preffered by me. And I took the hard task, took me weeks to clear it, but i did.

If it was clean, i would have gone there for tableegh, there is no prohibtiion on tableegh is it? Do you think he would have said to preach them correct understanding of deen?

Just confess it that it burns you that I am in charge of it, and not a DEOBANDI. If it was upto you there would be SUICIDE-BOMBING in the forum.

You are just a fitnah all you want is something to argue about.

[searkibia]

Assalam, Brother can you give an instance for more understanding?

Ilm e Ghayb issue, i wrote previously and i quote it again:

And i can make up a a realistic situation where a BARELWI misrepresents a Deobandi Aqeedah.

Barelwi: Deobandis dont be in knowledge of ghayb of RasoolAllah.

Me: Deobandi why dont you beleive in Ilm Ghayb of RasoolAllah, here is the proof.

Deobandi: Only Allah knows Ghayb, and your proof is not of Ilm e Ghayb, but akhbar e ghayb, ittla alal ghayb, mushayda alal ghayb, amba alal ghayb, izhar al ghayb, not of ilm al ghayb.

And after arguing senselessly for years between the both, I REALISED THAT THE IKHTILAAF IS DUE TO DIFFERENCE IN DEFINITIN OF ILM E GHAYB. And not in beleife, what Barelwis consitute proof of Ilm e Ghayb Deobandis consider it either akhbar, ittla, amba, mushayda of ghayb.

Let me explain, if i define darkness as: a time of day where sun shines bright, and day was time when you cant see very well, and everyone goes to sleep in that period, and there is someone with normal definition of these regardless of what evidence i presented we wont be able to agree on it, cause our definition of day and night mean different, so when you present evidence to prove day, it others definition it will be evidence of night, and vice versa,

[dgdhgjjgj]

He made Takfir of Deobandi scholars some 11/12 years later from the time of ikhtilaaf between him and them, once he became sure they wont repent, he made Takfir and had the Fatwah attested by Ulamah of Haramain, and then published it as Hasam Ul Haramain.

I will go through the rest of the post later on, but I just wished to burst the bubble in the first para. Much of the attestations in Husamal Haramayn were revoked. A complete clarification of deobandi aqeeda and views were prepared especially as a response of this dishonest attempt of Maulvi Ahmed Raza Khan Sahib..

If you can get a copy of the following :



Al Muhannad Alal Mufannad.

If you seek detailed clarification which the brother boldly claims that there were no clarification then read the 10s of articles written after the husamal haramayn hit the sub-continent.. Perhaps something like Shihabus Thaqib (Husain Ahmed Madni r.a) , or Faisal Kun Munazira (Manzur Ahmed Naumani r.a).. aur a compilation of these two along with the muhannad as well can be purchased from Darul Isha'at which goes under the name "Aqaid Ulama Deoband aur Husamal Haramayn"

InshAllah will go through the rest of the post later on..

[searkibia]

I will go through the rest of the post later on, but I just wished to burst the bubble in the first para. Much of the attestations in Husamal Haramayn were revoked. A complete clarification of deobandi aqeeda and views were prepared especially as a response of this dishonest attempt of Maulvi Ahmed Raza Khan Sahib..

If you can get a copy of the following :



Al Muhannad Alal Mufannad.

If you seek detailed clarification which the brother boldly claims that there were no clarification then read the 10s of articles written after the husamal haramayn hit the sub-continent.. Perhaps something like Shihabus Thaqib (Husain Ahmed Madni r.a) , or Faisal Kun Munazira (Manzur Ahmed Naumani r.a).. aur a compilation of these two along with the muhannad as well can be purchased from Darul Isha'at which goes under the name "Aqaid Ulama Deoband aur Husamal Haramayn"

InshAllah will go through the rest of the post later on..

The issue is not about Deobandi Aqeedah as Jammat, issue is what Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Qasim Nanotavi, etc .. wrote in their Books, Al Muhannad does not deal with any of the statements in dispute. Khalil Ahmad made up questions, and their Answers, this was a dishonest attempt to pull wool over the eyes of general public.

Can you quote me a single statement which Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Barelwi objected on, and Khalil Ahmad adressed that objection in Al Muhannad. Yes the book can be refflection of Aqedah Deobandi Jammat, but surves no purpose in defence of Qasim Nanotavi's statements, or Ashraf Ali Thanvi's statements. The books is on aqeedah of Deobandi Jammat and not on the statement which are in dispute.

Secondly you claimed that Fatwah were retracted, just a claim, and no written document seals to prove that. SEcondly if someone has retracted Fatwah that would be when Al Muhannad was presented to them, which isnt about the statements in dispute, its about Deobandi Jammats aqeedah. Forexample, book says, gustakh are apostates they are wajib ul qatal, argues so how can we insult RasoolAllah when we beleive this, if someone retracted fatwah after hearing that with husn zan, it hardly is support of statements.

Please provide a book, fatwah in which Ulamah of Arab world read the actual statements and said we retract our fatwah. Can you show me a fatwah in which Ulamah of Arab world after reading these statements of Qasim Nanotavis:

1} "Agir bilfarz bad zamana Nabvi [saw] is'see zameen meh kohi Nabi peda ho toh phir Khatamiyat e Muhammedi meh farq nah ahay ga. Cha'h jahay kay aap kay ma'sir kissi aur zameen meh aur Nabi tajweez keeya jahay toh phir bee aap kee KHATAMIAT BADASTOOR QAHIM RAHAY GEE"

2} "Gharz ihtitaam agir baheh mahni tajweez kiya jaway joh meh nay arz keeya toh aap ka Khatam hona Ambiyah e Ghuzishta hee kee nisbat khas na ho ga. Balqay agir bilfarz aap kay zamanay meh be kahen aur kohi Nabi ho Jab be aap ka khatam hona badustoor baqi rehta heh." Said no harm done, my friend we read your statements, and Qasim Nanotavi is our brother, and we support him fully, but please please make sure it isnt refference from Al Muhannad, because that book does not discuss the statements but misleads the public.

Can you quote me any where khalil Ahmad quoted the original statement of Qasim Nanotavi and people retracted FAtwahs AFTER READING THEM.

AlMuhannad's case is like this, we say to Hindu you worship the idol you are Kaffir for that, he writes up a question, and says O Muftiyan e karam e deoband I worship one God who created the universe and who sustains the world. But Deobandis say I am Mushrik for this. And Mufti issues fatwah, no you are muwahid, now hes got fatwah of Deobandi Mufti saying he is Muwahid, will that be sufficent proof that he is Muwahid, and will his muwahidness be proven, NO. The reason for which he was declared Mushrik was not for beleiving in Brahma as one, but beleiving in brahma created mini gods who deserve worship.

Just as Hindu gets fatwah for his innocence Khalil Ahmad got fatwah without actually reffering to disputed statements, but reffered to points on which there is no ikhtilaaf.

[WeightWatchyshow]

He made Takfir of Deobandi scholars some 11/12 years later from the time of ikhtilaaf between him and them, once he became sure they wont repent, he made Takfir and had the Fatwah attested by Ulamah of Haramain, and then published it as Hasam Ul Haramain.

Ismail Dehalvi he didnt declare Kaffir but stated that his statements are kuffr. He did not make Takfir on him due to Ismail Dehalvi has passed away before him, and he could not make SHARA'EE hujjat which is pre-requisite of Takfir. And due to that fact he did not declare him Kaffir.

In light of these facts people those who say he Takfir gun, may Allah guide them. My advice is PAKI maulvi's appologetics disgusting, due to two reasons, one the awam they adress are knowledge wise nill, secondly the awam as strong sense of belonging, and due to these two facts, maulvis get away with lies, exagerations. If people had knowledge they would know its wrong, and if they had less sense of belonging to a sect, they would speak up against it. But currently the situation is that anything goes against the other, as long as public is excited, and shouting Allahu Akhbar, and Deoband Zindabad, Barelwi Zindabad, Nara e Risalat ya RasoolAllah, anything goes, as long as people are happy, and excited, anything is legitamate weapon against the other side.

And I realised this very very early in my BIDDAT, SHIRK, KUFR, MUSHRIK, KAFFIR, shouting days.

Deobandi: Barelwis dont beleive RasoolAllah is human being, yet Quran says he is, here is proof.

Me: O Barelwi stupid person why dont you beleive prophet is human being, Quran says he is here is the evidence.

Barelwi: You are liar, we beleive he is bashr, imam ahmad raza said it here, one who does beleive prophet is bashr, such a person is kaffir, and Quran says it here and here he is bashr, and hadith here and here, how dare you acuse me of not beleiving.

Me: my brother {to deobandi} i had discussion with MUSHRIK BARELWI he said he beleives in bashariat and showed the proof from ahmad razas book.

Deobandi: You see they beleive he is Noor, Noor not of guidance but Noor in body like angles, thats why they dont beleive in humaness of prophet of Allah.

Me: oye Mushrik grave worshipping BARELWI, you beleive he is Noor thats why you beleive he is not bashr, thats why you become kaffir.

Barelwi: Well I beleive he is Bashr, but i beleive he is Noor as well, like i beleive Jibraeel is Noor who became Bashr when he went to maryam alayhis salam.

Me: well Barelwi, and Deobandi i organised this debate between you to to decide who is right, i get confused when i meet the other so u talk and i will decide on that.

Barelwi: i beleive he is Bashr and Noor,

Deobandi: but there is no proof that he is Noor.

Me: {And then my thinking mode kicked in}, well so you know he beleives in humaness of Prophet?

Deobandi: yeah

Me: why dint you tell me that.

Deobandi: it was technical, and complex and i didnt want to confuse you.

Me: so you told me the half lie and half truth

And i can make up a a realistic situation where a BARELWI misrepresents a Deobandi Aqeedah.

Barelwi: Deobandis dont be in knowledge of ghayb of RasoolAllah.

Me: Deobandi why dont you beleive in Ilm Ghayb of RasoolAllah, here is the proof.

Deobandi: Only Allah knows Ghayb, and your proof is not of Ilm e Ghayb, but akhbar e ghayb, ittla alal ghayb, mushayda alal ghayb, amba alal ghayb, izhar al ghayb, not of ilm al ghayb.

And after arguing senselessly for years between the both, I REALISED THAT THE IKHTILAAF IS DUE TO DIFFERENCE IN DEFINITIN OF ILM E GHAYB. And not in beleife, what Barelwis consitute proof of Ilm e Ghayb Deobandis consider it either akhbar, ittla, amba, mushayda of ghayb.

Let me explain, if i define darkness as: a time of day where sun shines bright, and day was time when you cant see very well, and everyone goes to sleep in that period, and there is someone with normal definition of these regardless of what evidence i presented we wont be able to agree on it, cause our definition of day and night mean different, so when you present evidence to prove day, it others definition it will be evidence of night, and vice versa,

Now the Paki, and Indian molvies wont tell you this, and neither will the Barelwi and Deobandi Maulvis cause to advance their own religious beleives they have to demonise the other, if they give the balanced few, and honest one, then people will be like okay fine so not much wrong with them. Each side is wroking to paint the HORRIABLE UGLIEST PICTURE OF THE OTHER, in the hope that their side doesnt join their oppossers, and opposers side when they see their own ugly picture which we painted of them they will join us.

And i had severe depression because of this, each side was being the holy pious of the Allah, when you sit with them and ask questions, each side was being the victim who is being kicked while they are on the floor, each side was saying they kick us, we dont even point finger at them, it got to a stage where i was at verge of becomming ATHEIST, and renounce Islam. And with duas Allah increased my knowledge, and guided me to level of understanding of matter that i began to see what i was blind to. I use to make dua for guidance, that o Allah make those people my guide who are on straight path, the path of the blessed, and i use recite Surah Fatiha alot, and always said o Allah guide me to those scholars in this era whom you have blessed, and Allah opned the gates of guidance for me.

Allah guided me spiritually, after some period of four five months, I was ready to take on the ikhtilaafi issues, indipendantly of guidance of Ulamah. Took time of 14 years to get to where I am now, but worth it, steped into darkness, and now apreciate the light of the day.

If you cant do what i did i advise, remain silent, neither denounce nor support, say Allah knows best.

I am afraid to say that there are numerous things that you are not aware of. I would suggest you to go back to your studies and research before you post again on the Barelwi vs Deobandi issue.

By the way, a good starting point for you would be Rah e Sunnat (The Path of Sunnah) by Allamah Sarfaraz Khan Safdar . Grab it from this link: http://www.archive.org/download/Apri...nSafdarr.a.pdf

[WeightWatchyshow]

Thats deception on your part. Its unethical, and very unmuslim like. One statement was written in the context of punishment of gustakh, and me only reflecting Imam Ahmad Raza's opinion on punishing a insulter of RAsoolAllah, me only taking his conclusion and then investigating his conclusions from Quran and Hadith. I am sure you can understand what that means, I TOOK HIS CONCLUSIONS AND INVESTIGATED THEM FROM qURAN AND HADITH. Meaning I investigated his conclusions and presented them with evidence from Quran and Hadith.

This is the biggest mistake you made. You ought to have checked whether Imam Ahmad Raza Khan was truthful in whatever he claimed, which you never did.

Anyway I will help you out with it but take your time and read them carefully. Once you are done, then you decide whether Imam Ahmad Raza Khan was right or wrong in whatever he wrote in Husam ul Haramein.

http://www.alislam.co.za/uploads/dow...20Part%201.pdf

http://www.alislam.co.za/uploads/dow...20Part%202.pdf

[searkibia]

List of the books I have read on the subject of Deobandi Barelwi ikhtilaaf, is very long, i recogmend that you read some BARELWI books with open eyes, and without preconceived SHIRK BIDDAT, KAFFIR, MUSHRIK, GRAVE WORSHIPPER notions, you probally learn something.

[searkibia]

This is the biggest mistake you made. You ought to have checked whether Imam Ahmad Raza Khan was truthful in whatever he claimed, which you never did.

Anyway I will help you out with it but take your time and read them carefully. Once you are done, then you decide whether Imam Ahmad Raza Khan was right or wrong in whatever he wrote in Husam ul Haramein.

http://www.alislam.co.za/uploads/dow...20Part%201.pdf

http://www.alislam.co.za/uploads/dow...20Part%202.pdf

Rightness of Sayyidi Ala Hazrat Fatwah can be judged based on your answer to this question:

* Suppose If a Prophet is born after RasoolAllah sallalahu alayhi was'salam will the finality of Prophet Muhammed be effected or not?

We dont need long books, a simple question, and your of yes and no will validate and invalidate Fatwah of Hasam Ul Haramain.

[dgdhgjjgj]

The issue is not about Deobandi Aqeedah as Jammat, issue is what Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Qasim Nanotavi, etc .. wrote in their Books, Al Muhannad does not deal with any of the statements in dispute. Khalil Ahmad made up questions, and their Answers, this was a dishonest attempt to pull wool over the eyes of general public.

since I did not get to tackle your previous post, I will be brief here. Moreover, since you have shown that you have done extensive reading over the years on the issue, I will only be directive and not comprehensive. For Reference, I will be using "Aqaid Ulama Deoban aur Husamal Haramain". There is a reason I mentioned this book. In anycase all the pages will be from this book. The book is organized in a way to give these books in this order : 1. Khulasa Shihabuth Thaqib 2. Faisal Kun Munazira 3. Al Muhannad Alal Mufannad.

Al Muhannad was indeed a clarification sought by the Arab Ulama after the menace of Husamal Haramayn. Mufti Ibn Adam Kawthari explained all this, and its documentations are also available for those who wich to see. Mufti Ibn Adam mentioned :

In order to clarify this, the Ulama of Hijaz sent a questionnaire consisting of 26 questions to the Ulama of Deoband asking them to elucidate their position with regards to issues such as: using intermediaries in supplication to Allah (tawassul), visiting the grave of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace), Prophets being alive in their graves, sending blessings in abundance upon the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace), following one of the four Sunni Schools of Islamic law, Sufism, celebrating the Mawlid, knowledge of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace), the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) being the last and final Prophet of Allah, etc. Shaykh Khalil Ahmad al-Saharanpuri (Allah have mercy on him) took on the task to compile a detailed response to these questions in Arabic. The answers written by him were verified and endorsed by 24 other major Scholars affiliated to the Deobandi School including Hakim al-Umma Shaykh Mawlana Ashraf Ali Tahanawi and Shaykh al-Hind Mawlana Mahmud al-Hasan Deobandi (Allah have mercy on them all). Thereafter this compilation was sent to the Ulama of Hijaz who approved and endorsed the answers and also wrote short letters declaring that the answers and viewpoints penned by Shaykh Khalil Ahmad were in accordance with the beliefs of the Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'ah. It was also sent to other Arab lands such as Egypt and Syria where it was endorsed by numerous other Scholars. Those who endorsed the work from the various Arab lands included: ....
read further : http://www.daruliftaa.com/question.a...nID=q-19001186 So, NO I did not intend the name of Al Muhannad as a clarification of statements. It was indeed to show that the Da'wa of Deobandi Ulama about their Aqaid is displayed in this book, which was endorsed by Ulama of not only Haramayn but also Azhar , Sham and others...See all the Tasdeeqat ( Al Muhannad Alal Mufannad - Pg 270 - 326)

Can you quote me a single statement which Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Barelwi objected on, and Khalil Ahmad adressed that objection in Al Muhannad. No but you can find all that you need in the one I had actually mentioned for the specific purpose of reading on details.

Yes the book can be refflection of Aqedah Deobandi Jammat, but surves no purpose in defence of Qasim Nanotavi's statements, or Ashraf Ali Thanvi's statements. The books is on aqeedah of Deobandi Jammat and not on the statement which are in dispute. Read the other in this compilation...

Secondly you claimed that Fatwah were retracted, just a claim, and no written document seals to prove that. That is pretty bold isnt it. Can I also request the original scan of the makhtut of Husam Al Haramain with the original seals as well. But if you wish to read on refusal of attestations on Husaam the please see (Khulasa Shihaab... Pg 31 - 39) For the retration of Sheikh Ahmad Barzanji read ibid. Pg 48.

Moreover, those attestations that were on Mu'tamad (i.e Husaam) were dependent on the statements as quoted in the Mu'tamad. So if those statements have been tempered, interpolated, forged then these attestation dont mean anything. Please take note of this as well. (ibid. Pg 52 - 57)

SEcondly if someone has retracted Fatwah that would be when Al Muhannad was presented to them, which isnt about the statements in dispute, its about Deobandi Jammats aqeedah. Forexample, book says, gustakh are apostates they are wajib ul qatal, argues so how can we insult RasoolAllah when we beleive this, if someone retracted fatwah after hearing that with husn zan, it hardly is support of statements. When we discuss on the actual Ibaraat, thats where the actual dishonesty of Maulvi Ahmed Raza Saheb comes to the fore. All above is only based on what Tasdeeqat and endorsement of correctness of Al Muhannad. If AL Muhannad displays the Deobandi Aqeeda completely, and is thereafter endorsed by the Ulama of Hijaz, Syria, Azhar etc.. then There remain little need in refuting Husaam al Haramain, since the maqsud of husaam was to get a fatwa of kufr! I hope you get that point. So now since the fatwa of kufr wouldnt remain, then what we will discuss is how aptly did Maulwi Ahmed Raza Saheb quoted the texts. And for these please start reading the actual texts along with clarifications WITHOUT the interpolations and misquotations of Khan Saheb.

You can read all these in the second book of the compilation "Faisla Kun Munazira". Alas, only a few clarifications have been translated online into engligh like the one on Tahzeerun Naas. They are available on deoband.org (Guess what though, these are brought as an explanation of the questions from Al Muhannad.)
Please see :
Clarifying Misconceptions about Tahdhir al-Nas : http://www.deoband.org/2010/12/histo...ahdhir-al-nas/
Defending Hifz al-Iman against the Lies of the Innovators : http://www.deoband.org/2010/11/aqida...he-innovators/
Repelling the Deceits of Al-Barelwi surrounding the Issue of Imkan al-Kadhib : http://www.deoband.org/2010/08/histo...kan-al-kadhib/

Please provide a book, fatwah in which Ulamah of Arab world read the actual statements and said we retract our fatwah. Can you show me a fatwah in which Ulamah of Arab world after reading these statements of Qasim Nanotavis: Ironically you cannot even prove that they read the original statements to endorse the fatwa of kufr either! It was the risala of husaam on which they approved the takfeer muallaq!

Said no harm done, my friend we read your statements, and Qasim Nanotavi is our brother, and we support him fully, but please please make sure it isnt refference from Al Muhannad, because that book does not discuss the statements but misleads the public. Read Faisla Kun Munazira Pg 96 - 116 (hey its not muhannad )

Can you quote me any where khalil Ahmad quoted the original statement of Qasim Nanotavi and people retracted FAtwahs AFTER READING THEM. He didnt need to. He was asked the 26 questions, and he answered them aptly according the aqeeda of Deoband, hence he is not liable for it. See Pg 67/68

AlMuhannad's case is like this, we say to Hindu you worship the idol you are Kaffir for that, he writes up a question, and says O Muftiyan e karam e deoband I worship one God who created the universe and who sustains the world. But Deobandis say I am Mushrik for this. And Mufti issues fatwah, no you are muwahid, now hes got fatwah of Deobandi Mufti saying he is Muwahid, will that be sufficent proof that he is Muwahid, and will his muwahidness be proven, NO. The reason for which he was declared Mushrik was not for beleiving in Brahma as one, but beleiving in brahma created mini gods who deserve worship. If that were the case then Khan Saheb would not have needed interpolation and tempering of the statements to get the Fatwa of Kufr in the first place. The actual statements presented intheir context would not have warranted the Fatwa. And no, the mufti would not issue the fatwa of muwahidness just like that. You ought to know better than that.

Just as Hindu gets fatwah for his innocence Khalil Ahmad got fatwah without actually reffering to disputed statements, but reffered to points on which there is no ikhtilaaf. Dont you get it, even Khan Saheb got his fatwa.. Only difference was Khan Saheb actually did interpolate and tempered with the original texts, while Khalil Ahmed r.a clarified the reality of the Aqeeda. Go read the actual statements of the husaam and compare with the actual ibaraat in the original books! You wont need an einstein to sort out the right from wrong.

Ironic that you wont mention the arrest of Khan Saheb in hijaz and then being asked 3 questions to clarify his aqeedah as well! Pg 26-29 Kher, jis ki nazar jahan talak, us ki pohonch wahan talak . I have been trying to drum the basic of deo / barelwi ikhtilaaf in many people for some time. All it needs is to obtain the original text, and some tedious work of compare and contrast..

P.S Br. Spooned, dont worry I do not have that much time, these things have been discussed more than 50 times. Unlike Barelwies, My daily routine does not revolve around refuting barelwies. I have much more constructive things on my hand. I will be out of city for next two days or so anyway. So Br. RadiatingAli can go all wild, it wont hurt me a bit..

P.P.S I urge those who do read into the thread to actually get these books and read them. Do not let your knowledge be built on a mere online discussion. Once you have the actual texts in front of you, then its a completely different ball game.

[searkibia]

Answer my question:

* Suppose If a Prophet is born after RasoolAllah sallalahu alayhi was'salam will the finality of Prophet Muhammed be effected or not?

Forget long discussions keep it simple and easy for reader.

[searkibia]

Read Faisla Kun Munazira Pg 96 - 116 (hey its not muhannad )

.

You wrote that Arab Ulamah retracted Fatwah, and i wrote they might have retracted because of Al Muhannad but quote me books in which the Ulamah of Arab world retracted their FATWAH after reading the texts of Tazir Un Naas. The demand of evidence was in this context mentioned above, in other words prove to me that ORIGINAL DISPUTED STATEMENTS OF HIFZUL IMAAN, TAZIR UN NAAS, ETC ... were presented to them, and after which they retracted their Fatwahs.

Secondly you prsented Faisla Kun Munazira that was not presented to Arab Ulamah on the basis of which they retracted their FATWAHS. ARE you arguing on that ARab ULAMAH RETRACTED THEIR FATWAH AFTER READING FAISLA KUN MUNAZIRA?

This is what i wrote:

Secondly you claimed that Fatwah were retracted, just a claim, and no written document seals to prove that. SEcondly if someone has retracted Fatwah that would be when Al Muhannad was presented to them, which isnt about the statements in dispute, its about Deobandi Jammats aqeedah. Forexample, book says, gustakh are apostates they are wajib ul qatal, argues so how can we insult RasoolAllah when we beleive this, if someone retracted fatwah after hearing that with husn zan, it hardly is support of statements.

Please provide a book, fatwah in which Ulamah of Arab world read the actual statements and said we retract our fatwah. Can you show me a fatwah in which Ulamah of Arab world after reading these statements of Qasim Nanotavis:

1} "Agir bilfarz bad zamana Nabvi [saw] is'see zameen meh kohi Nabi peda ho toh phir Khatamiyat e Muhammedi meh farq nah ahay ga. Cha'h jahay kay aap kay ma'sir kissi aur zameen meh aur Nabi tajweez keeya jahay toh phir bee aap kee KHATAMIAT BADASTOOR QAHIM RAHAY GEE"

2} "Gharz ihtitaam agir baheh mahni tajweez kiya jaway joh meh nay arz keeya toh aap ka Khatam hona Ambiyah e Ghuzishta hee kee nisbat khas na ho ga. Balqay agir bilfarz aap kay zamanay meh be kahen aur kohi Nabi ho Jab be aap ka khatam hona badustoor baqi rehta heh."
Said no harm done, my friend we read your statements, and Qasim Nanotavi is our brother, and we support him fully, but please please make sure it isnt refference from Al Muhannad, because that book does not discuss the statements but misleads the public.

Can you quote me any where khalil Ahmad quoted the original statement of Qasim Nanotavi and people retracted FAtwahs AFTER READING THEM. I demaned evidence where the original statements of the people concerned were presented to ARab Ulamah, and because of reading these original statements they retrated their fatwahs.

In response you have quoted me Faisla Kun Munazra, Khalil Ahmad Saharan Puri misinformed the Arab Ulamah about the statements, he did not present the statements which Sayyidi Ala Hazrat rahimullah alayhi tallah presented to Ulamah of Haramain, but tactfully, and diplomatically, and if i was being rude I would say deceitfully witheld the information about the statements which Sayyidi Ala Hazrat presented to Arab Ulamah. Instead Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri sent the aqeedah of Deobandis as jammat, and not aqeedah of Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Khalil Ambethvi, Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, Qasim Nanotavi, Ismail Dehalvi, which was found in their books. There is no doubt that Deobandi jammats aqeedah as whole is not reflected in the books of these individuals, but honesty and justice demanded that Khalil Ambethvi correctly inform the Arab Ulamah of aqeedah of Deobandi Jammat as well as correctly inform them of the statements on which Sayyidi Ala Hazrat objected,

Yes there is one Aalim on the record who is known to have retracted his fatwah due to what was mentioned in Al Muhannad, but that retraction was not based on the misinformation provided by Al Muhannad, but not due to that Aalim agreeing to any statement of Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Qasim Nanotavi, etc ... he simply was lead to beleive that there are no such statements, and Ahmad Raza lied, and this is our aqeedah, on that basis that one Aalim retracted his fatwah, and that one Aalim is not Barzanji but someone else.

So a retraction based on misinformation is like a hindu getting certificate of MUWAHIDNESS from dar ul uloom by saying i beleive in brahma the creator of all, who was not born, he is one, etc ... But conceals that he also beleives in rama as god, krishna as god, elephant god. And if Ulamah not knowing his full extent of aqeedah issue fatwah of muwahidness, that will count as deception. And we will not blame the Ulamah for giving the FAtwah for they judged on what was presented to them, but the blame lays with the deceiver. And Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri deliberately and in full knowledge withheld the knowledge for the Arab Ulamah.

You are a Aalim, you should know better, and you even admited that AlMuhannad is representation of aqeedah of Deobandi jammat, and not representation of the text which was in dispute.

You know if hindu was to send his muwahid fatwah for tasdeeq, the entire would of Islam would certify it, because it represents the correct beleife. Schoalrs of Syria, Barelwi, Deobandi, Shaam, Yemen, Kuwait, Shia, Wahabi, all will say thats proves he is Muwahid. In the same way the aqeedah AlMuhannad preached was against the books of five individuals books.

What I want you to do is, quote me a Arab scholar who after reading the disputed texts on which Ala Hazrat Imam e Ahle Sunnaat Sayyidi Ala Hazrat gave verdict of kuffr ssaid: This is all Islam, if a Prophet is born after RAsoolAllah still Prophet is the last Prophet, the finality isnt effected. And Thanvis statement that Prophets doesnt have unquness in having knowledge of ghayb, because its proven that such knowledge is possed by animal, insects, children, mad peopele ..."

Please do not misinform, and take out of context what i wrote, and then present me with something which i didnt ask, read the context of what i wrote, you are an Aalim, sayaq o sabaq, ma qabl and baad are important.

Also lets not get into debate about who said what, and who retracted, who deceived. Its pointless it will not sort out anything. My methodology is if you want to sort the bull out, grab it by the horn and wrestle with it, until it sorts you out or it sort you out.

So in my next post I will write the statement, and ask the question on it, you answer it, simply as possiable, and straight forward as possiable, dont make it complex for your self, and me. If you going to make this into a EGO issue, THEN I ADMIT DEFEAT, I TAKE MY TOPI OFF AND PLACE IT ON YOUR FOOT. And to make it more humiliating for my self, I would kiss your feet if you was infront of me, so your ego gets satisfied, and doesnt interfere with whats haq, and the truth of Islam.

[searkibia]

@abuhajira

Tazir Un Naas, by Maulvi Qasim Nanotavi:

"Agir bilfarz bad zamana Nabvi [saw] is'see zameen meh kohi Nabi peda ho toh phir Khatamiyat e Muhammedi meh farq nah ahay ga. Cha'h jahay kay aap kay ma'sir kissi aur zameen meh aur Nabi tajweez keeya jahay toh phir bee aap kee KHATAMIAT BADASTOOR QAHIM RAHAY GEE"

"Suppose if after the time of Prophet {sallalahu alayhi was'salam} in this world another Prophet is born, even then the Finality of Prophet Muhammed will not be effected. ..."

Based on that one statement of Maulvi Qasim Nanotavi, I have question:

* Suppose If a Prophet is born after RasoolAllah sallalahu alayhi was'salam will the finality of Prophet Muhammed be effected or not?

Muhamemd Ali Razvi

[searkibia]

I would be greatfull if Deobandi, and Barelwi not join in, i want this to be a civil and brotherly exchange, without TAKFIRS flying around, and without it being a part of DEOBANDI v.s. BARELWI war. Please let Me and Deobandi Aalim Abu Hajira discuss and share with each other our understandings of matter.

[searkibia]

Salafi_Muslim@

I know you are the true representative of pure, prestine, the holy, Islam, but I was having a discussion with a brother about some statements before you joined the discussion, I HOPE YOU ARE SATISFIED WITH HIJACKING OF THE THREAD, BUT NOW I PLEAD THAT RETURN THE THREAD SAFE AND SOUND, IN ONE PIECE TO ME AND THAT BROTHER SO WE CAN DISCUSS.

I knwo you are very knowledgeable, you are expert, and true fallower of salaf us saliheen, the righteous jammat, the ahlulullah, the ahlul zikr, the ahlul hadeeth, etc ... but can you UN-HIJACK the thread now, please.

[searkibia]

I would be greatfull if Deobandi, and Barelwi and the holy ones of pious SALAF AS SALIHEEN not join in, i want this to be a civil and brotherly exchange, without TAKFIRS flying around, and without it being a part of DEOBANDI v.s. BARELWI war. Please let Me and Deobandi Aalim Abu Hajira discuss and share with each other our understandings of matter.

== ==

@abuhajira

Tazir Un Naas, by Maulvi Qasim Nanotavi:

"Agir bilfarz bad zamana Nabvi [saw] is'see zameen meh kohi Nabi peda ho toh phir Khatamiyat e Muhammedi meh farq nah ahay ga. Cha'h jahay kay aap kay ma'sir kissi aur zameen meh aur Nabi tajweez keeya jahay toh phir bee aap kee KHATAMIAT BADASTOOR QAHIM RAHAY GEE"

"Suppose if after the time of Prophet {sallalahu alayhi was'salam} in this world another Prophet is born, even then the Finality of Prophet Muhammed will not be effected. ..."

Based on that one statement of Maulvi Qasim Nanotavi, I have question:

* Suppose If a Prophet is born after RasoolAllah sallalahu alayhi was'salam will the finality of Prophet Muhammed be effected or not?

Muhamemd Ali Razvi

[dgdhgjjgj]

@abuhajira

Tazir Un Naas, by Maulvi Qasim Nanotavi:

"Agir bilfarz bad zamana Nabvi [saw] is'see zameen meh kohi Nabi peda ho toh phir Khatamiyat e Muhammedi meh farq nah ahay ga. Cha'h jahay kay aap kay ma'sir kissi aur zameen meh aur Nabi tajweez keeya jahay toh phir bee aap kee KHATAMIAT BADASTOOR QAHIM RAHAY GEE"

"Suppose if after the time of Prophet {sallalahu alayhi was'salam} in this world another Prophet is born, even then the Finality of Prophet Muhammed will not be effected. ..."

Based on that one statement of Maulvi Qasim Nanotavi, I have question:

* Suppose If a Prophet is born after RasoolAllah sallalahu alayhi was'salam will the finality of Prophet Muhammed be effected or not?

Muhamemd Ali Razvi

In case you did not read my post in its entirety, I said :

P.S Br. Spooned, dont worry I do not have that much time, these things have been discussed more than 50 times. Unlike Barelwies, My daily routine does not revolve around refuting barelwies. I have much more constructive things on my hand. I will be out of city for next two days or so anyway. So Br. RadiatingAli can go all wild, it wont hurt me a bit.. Other than that, You also did not read the books I have referenced. HAD you done so, you would have seen the idiocy of your requests and claims.

Nonetheless, I will onle be free after Thursday (i.e Friday). So untill then please post a scan pic of husaam al haramayn wherein the above quoted statement comes.

My claim : husaam al haramayn does not have that statement as you have posted it here. and if that is the case, then you have to at least accept that all those attestations of Arabs on husaam were not only taken by forgery, rather are rendered false.

AGAIN : I am looking for the following statement in husaam al haramayn

"Agir bilfarz bad zamana Nabvi [saw] is'see zameen meh kohi Nabi peda ho toh phir Khatamiyat e Muhammedi meh farq nah ahay ga. Cha'h jahay kay aap kay ma'sir kissi aur zameen meh aur Nabi tajweez keeya jahay toh phir bee aap kee KHATAMIAT BADASTOOR QAHIM RAHAY GEE" I will check the thread then and respond in detail inshAllah.

[searkibia]

In case you did not read my post in its entirety, I said :

Other than that, You also did not read the books I have referenced. HAD you done so, you would have seen the idiocy of your requests and claims.

Nonetheless, I will onle be free after Thursday (i.e Friday). So untill then please post a scan pic of husaam al haramayn wherein the above quoted statement comes.

My claim : husaam al haramayn does not have that statement as you have posted it here. and if that is the case, then you have to at least accept that all those attestations of Arabs on husaam were not only taken by forgery, rather are rendered false.

AGAIN : I am looking for the following statement in husaam al haramayn

I will check the thread then and respond in detail inshAllah.

I also have a very busy schedual, I am up to neck with writting articles, and answering peoples enquiries, in emails. But after being challenged indirectly to prove my beleife on Hasam Ul Haramain, I chose one statement, with one question, in a attempt to prove to you and the rest here that just claims we reffuted them, and we bashed the barelwis, and our scholars killed them in debates like this, simply arnt truth, they are only fit to keep Deobandis happy, the show manship is a facade, Hasam Ul Haramain and its verdict is definite, and finale, and no truth is opposing it. I too have a busy schedual, and thin its un required to get involved in never ending war, but khadam does beleive in standing up for right. And I chose one statement and asked you to keep it simple, simply cause i dont have time to waste either, if you keep it simple, and I will keep it simple, and it will be over in two exchanges.

I did not reffer to Hasam Ul Haramain, I quoted from Tazir Un Naas directly. The issue isnt whats quoted in Hasam Ul Haramain, the issue is what Maulvi Qasim Nanotavi write in Tazir Un Naas according to Islamic teachings or not. And if we decide its unislamic, then there is no need to go to Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Barelwis quote of Tazir Un Naas, because if the original part from Tazir Un Naas doesnt represent the ISLAMIC teachings, then we can autometically assume Imam Ahmad Raza Khans quote also did point the unislamic nature of statement. And if we come to conclusion that Maulvi Qasim Nanotavi did not write something UnIslamic in Tazir Un Naas, then we can discuss the subject: DID IMAM AHMAD RAZA KHAN BARELWI FALSELY TRANSLATED TAZIR UN NAAS IN ARABIC? To see if the wrong translation was which convinced the Arab Ulamah of Takfir of Maulvi Qasim Nanotavi, if the wrong translation, and mis representation was the cause then we will have no choice but to accept that Arab Ulamah were deceived by Sayyidi Ala Hazrat Imam e Ahle Sunnat Ahmad Raza Khan Barelwi.

Please brother, in my next post i will once again repost my previous post, and the reason for this is i want to keep things simple. Answer the question, if you like I will provide scanned pages of Tazir Un Naas statement, i have three different copies of Tazir Un Naas.