Shaykh Saeed Foudeh on Imkan al-Kadhib

Very irresponsible of him…sure Barelwis are to carry the brunt of the blame (if you wish to see it that way) but don’t assume that the Arab Ulema are completely innocent and are free to write what they will without doing their due diligence…

 

ah! shaykh saeed fudah believing in lies without verifying from imam's works, I wonder if he has read al dawlah al makkiyyah. he is buying it from ghayat al ma'mul which is only printed by deobandies

 

Anyways I don't want to shift the topic away from Sh Saeed's book and get accused if being anti barelvi because I'm not. It would be good if brothers who have contact with Sh Asrar and Mufti Monawwer can send the PDF to them. Mufti Monawwer is mentioned in the book btw

Also look forward to see what aH says

 

No I blame ourselves. I don't like the notion of pointing fingers at others for something we could have quelled ages ago. I don't know where exactly we got it wrong in the last 100 years but Deos decided to publish Arabic works, build Darul Ulooms, make quality scholars and what did we do? Well I don't want to go into that incase I get abused but I felt like we could have prevented all this mess if we did the work in the first place.

 

they are not worthy of blame according to you?

 

Btw I don't blame (if that's the right word) Sh Saeed Foudah for anything in his book, he seems quite open-minded and is willing to look at more evidence from our side and I don't blame Deobandis aswell, they did what they had to do. I blame our side for being late to the party. The Deobandis have made solid connections and have contributed in scholarly endeavours well before us. Only recently with the likes of Daral Nabhani, DI, Daral Malik, Mufti Aslam Sheywani etc... have we done anything significant in publishing Arabic works.

 

Did the devbandis present it to him to gain a comprehensive insight into their flip flop aqaid?

Did the Barelwis present it to him?

You can't expect a non desi to be aware of every single Urdu work by any sect.

Besides, how many of our OWN ulama can give a talk or write a sharh on Subhan As-Subbuh? This is what happens when you replace knowledge seeking with consumerist and commercial naatkhwani based Sunniyat and shakhsiyat parasti.

 

Also I don't understand why Usman is still quoting Imam Barzanji when Imam Barzanji clearly states that lying is impossible in both Nafsi and Lafzi.

Also I feel like Sh Foudah could have engaged with other Deobandi works more, not just Al Muhannad. Juhd Al Muqill by Mahmood Hassan Deobandi is in Arabic if I'm not mistaken, he should have commented on that too.

 

Welcome to the devbandi world of irrelevant hype - khoda paharh, nikla chuha

Plus don't forget, it seems he has been misinformed with standard muhannad lies. Anyways I need to read properly before talking further.

 

Disclaimer before I comment on the book. I'm not a student of knowledge, I don't claim to be but if people see me as one, just know that I'm not a very good but these are my comments. Looking forward to what aH and other scholars have to say

I think deos are blowing it out of proportion. What's there actually new in the book?

He said a minority of Asharis said its possible in Kalaam Lafzi but we already knew that. He didn't say whether their position was a valid one in the Madhab.
He disagress with the Deobandi position but he doesn't give a verdict. Is this belief misguided, an innovation, what the hukm?
Even some of the Asharis deos quote, Sh Foudah said Deos can't use them as proof, like Taftazani
He didn't really comment on the Al Muhannad passages. He should have commented on the difference between Khulf al Waeed and Kizb but he didn't.
As for the Gangohi fatwa, it's still on Barelvis to prove that fatwa exists/existed.
He said the majority position was it's impossible in Lafzi and this was the stronger position.

So is it actually revolutionary? Idk

 

Dr Sa'īd Fūdah's book -
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yOW3A0KOVyEigiZdngSeB3h8QK5C_a_4/view?usp=drive_link

 

shaykh hashmat ali rahimahullah has refuted it in raad al muhannad, and provided evidences from al muhannad that this passage was an addition after the endorsements, otherwise there would be clear contradictions in the endorsements.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if it's the latter case. Just a few years back, you could see some of the young "Arab Ulama" who were confused about the issue of Imkan al Kadhib. Alhamdulillah, they retracted after Sh. Salek's video. This just goes on to show the ineptitude of many speakers and their blind following of popular faces in such issues. Given that the case, it would be disastrous, if a 15th century Faudah makes a claim that there is a valid Khilaf on this issue. Expect many to simply blind follow such a popular face from ilm al-kalam.

 

which sunni arab ulama?
whoever signed it either didn't read it - or if they signed after reading it, then their knowledge in kalam is poor.

---
if a thousand ulama of 15th century contradict a sanusi or a razi, it is 1000 ulama of our age whose knowledge is patchy.
besides, khalil ahmad did big time khiyana in the signatures and in fact lied about shaykh barzanji. i came across the risalah of barzanji quoted in al-muhannad, and it clearly refutes khalil and his shameless sect. i am trying to find the risalah in full - in sha'Allah. and they more lies of devs will be seen.

 

It doesn't seem like Sh. Sa'id Faudah is only talking about Khalf al-wayid in reference to Doebandis. The book is about Imkan al-Kadhib primarily and this is where he brings the Deobandi-Barelwi conflict.

True, he should have referenced other important Deobandi works on the subject like Juhd al-Muqil for a more thorough analysis. However, how do Barelwi Ulama explain the following passage from al-Muhannad which was signed by Sunni Arab Ulama:




Unlike on other issues in al-Muhannad, where Deobandis seemed to have lied about their actual beliefs, here they seem to be accepting that if it is assumed that Khalf al-Wayid necessitates Imkan al-Kadhib, then even the latter is not Muhal bi'l Dhat. Why did the Sunni Arab Ulama accept this response where Kizb is not regarded as Muhal bi'l Dhat?

 

shaykh saeed fudah is deceived by deobandies, that they mean imkan al kazib = khalf al way'id, otherwise he is clearly stating that imkan al kazib is mustah'il in kalam lafzi as well.

his comments show that he does not know the full details, he is just relying on al muhannad, which is a deception

had he bothered to research the matter rather than buying it from muhannad then he would have known that deobandies are liars. internet is full of their claims and explanations in writings and videos both in urdu and english, contrary to what he is assuming by looking at muhannad.

he should see what zaleel has been writing on his blog, many arab ulama read/speak good english, is it impossible (mustahil) for him/them to read and understand their arguments?

if arab ulama (especially from syria) can go to turkey to escape the flames of war and learn turkish just for their dunya, then they should also learn urdu and save the iman of millions of muslims from falling into bid'ah and kufr. it is not difficult if a few arab ulama learn urdu and then research the matter.

deobandies say that all ugly things, not just imkan al kazib, are within the power of Allah Ta'a'la, but He Subhanu wa Ta'ala will never do it. so deobandies believe that any ugly action is rationally possible for Him Subhanu wa Ta'ala but He will never do it in actuality (bil fay'l).

 

It seems Sh. Saeed Fawda in his work "Mas'ala nisbat al-kadhib ila Allah" concludes that there is established difference on imkan al-kadhib in the kalam lafdhi among classical Asharis.

The majority say it is intrinsically impossible, while a minority say contingently impossible. pic.twitter.com/pIp7Qtnoqo

— Salman Younas (@salyounas) August 30, 2023

Sh. Saeed states that he finds the view of the majority stronger (aqwa) and also states that the position of Deobandis "is the view of some Asharis, as we have seen."

— Salman Younas (@salyounas) August 30, 2023