Shaykh Saeed Foudeh on Imkan al-Kadhib

Any link for this?

 

and why did he keep quiet - repeatedly assuring that he is just QUOTING facts?
is this issue lesser than wahdat wujud on which he attacks akabir ulama?

clearly foudeh seems to be afraid of backlash if he criticises deobandis. and he is willing to remain equivocal - why can't his fiery pen refute those who challenge tanzih of Allah ta'ala by saying that Allah ta'ala can lie? and why doesn't he show the courage that he follows akabir ulama - which among the great ulama has ever admitted this filthy aqidah?

until the day foudeh gathers the courage to call spade a spade and this aqidah as bid'ah and those who hold this as mubtadiys, his attacks on ulama who cannot defend themselves (i.e. those who have passed away) is just playing safe.

instead like a NYT reporter, he simply compiled a work on kadhib with a disclaimer: 'i am just reporting'.

 

more importantly, we need original works or reliable translations of the classical texts in the english language.

 

i have read about 75 pages. this book is not suitable for the general public; they cannot read it properly, let alone derive any benefit from it. only those who are already familiar with kalām terminology, the context of the issues, and the background of the passages cited can make sense of it.

what is needed today is that these intricate concepts, terms, and statements be presented and explained in simple, layman-friendly language. as for scholars, the matter is already well-established, and we have many comprehensive works that address this heresy in detail.

in short, although it is a good book, it does not benefit the layperson.

 

you forgot to include sbuhan as-subbuh, the last nail in the coffin.

these works should also be translated into english.

 

Imkan al-Kazib is a recent issue, the last 200 years or so approximately. The best refutations have always been the ones written in the early days by those scholars who were masters of the rational sciences like:
- Allama Ahmad Hassan Kanpuri
- Syed Barkaat Ahmad Tonki
- Mufti Muhammad Abdullah Tonki

These works should he published properly and used when refuting Imkan al-Kazib.

 

released where?

 

imkan e kizb e deobandiyyet? they are blatant and shameless liars.

 

To be released on 5 December

 

Salam hazrat. I was not underestimation ala hazrat naudhubillah. I understand that the tone can't be fully conveyed over chat. This was a genuine question pertaining to the scope of allowance of saying such a statement. I wanted to ask this especially because the deobandis say that he said it is kufr to say that Allah lies in fatawa rashidiya. Could you please shed some light on that. Of course, I believe gongohi to be a murtad based on his approval of the book (I don't fully remember the name of the book, though I think it might have been called barahin e qati'aa)

don't they already say that. I remember watching a video of shaykh shadee al masry in which he said that regarding the statements attributed to deoband, we say that they are blasphemous there is not doubt about it. I am sure all the arab scholars would consider them to be kufr sareeh in sha Allah.

 

do not estimate alahazrat like you would do scholars of our time. not even prominent scholars of another time. you don't measure him with a yardstick - he IS the yardstick.

alahazrat himself says in husam that he saw the fatwa with his own eyes and then issued takfir. even though other ulama had already made takfir years ago and such takfir and refutation of the fatwa was printed in books and magazines in gangohi's own lifetime, which he never refuted; he did not even whimper that it was not his fatwa.

 

I obviously can’t make a definitive judgment — but part of me feels there’s already enough material available for Arab scholars to engage with. That includes, but isn’t limited to, Shaykh Muhammad Khalid Thābit’s “Al-Inṣāf lil-Imām” and the recently printed Arabic translation of Radd al-Muḥannad.


At the very least, they could address the content of the statements. Even if they want to withhold judgment on attribution, they can still say: “As these statements have been presented to us in Arabic, they are unquestionably kufr — regardless of who said them.”


That’s the minimum level of clarity one would expect when the honor of the Prophet ﷺ is in question.

 

1) I have a question please. But if we imagine the situation. From the perspective of the arab scholars, there a bunch of individuals who have been accused of kufr, and deaming orthodox sunni practices such as mawlid as bid'ah (the deobandi elders). Upon being questioned about their stance on these issues, they deny the allegations and say "No, we are sunni. We believe that Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wasallam has knowledge of the awwal and akhir, and we believe mawlid to be permissible" and basically portray themselves as sunnis by writing down all the sunni creed in their book muhannad (Note: see below). And every one of the followers of those people charged with kufr come and deny all the charges made against them and portray themselves as sunnis. In this case, how can they possibly sign a fatwa of kufr against those four individuals. Of course, I consider them murtads because I am from the sub continent but they aren't. With all due respect. This is a real question btw not just me posting my opinion. I genuinely wish to know the answer to this.

2) The deobandis deny wuqu e kizb for gongohi and say that he said in fatawa rashidiya that whoever says that Allah lies is a kafir. I read Appendix C of preamble of faith but (maybe I overlooked it but didn't see the mentioning of deobandis putting forward gongohi's fatwa as evidence that he didn't believe in wuqu e kizb). Can we say that Ala hazrat was mistaken in his fatwa against gongohi for wuqu e kizb and that perhaps he should've done more research before the takfir?

3) Accept for the imkan al kadhib mas'ala, which might be a forgery by the later deobandis because as we all know they are complete liars as they lied in the case of shaykh saeed supporting imkan al kadhib naudhubillah. Ilyas ghumman also makes a similar mistake on khulf ul waeed, saying that Allah has power over going against his word in the case of sending firoun to hell naudhubillah at 03:06.

Of course, the whole conversation he made is silly and stupid and kufr and the common deobandi mistake of "not obliged to send to hell" to mean "power over sending to heaven", but what is ruling on his statement when he said "Allah apni habar ke khilaf karne par qadir hain, ikhtiar ke saath, istirar ke saath nahi".

 

Salam alaykum.

Sorry. I missed your post. As much as i know to believe Kizb is momkin/possible is Kufr. I have explained why believing it momkin is kufr:

"Lying is fear of someone, and fear of repercussions and Allah fears none, and there are no repercussions leading Him to lie or for it to be momkin. Kizb is only Momkin if Allah fearing another is momkin or Allah fearing another will impose on Him repercussions. "

To believe there is Imkan of Allah lying is greater degree of Kufr than one who believes its Momkin. And one who believes in Wuqu ie Allah actually telling a lie ... Is greater Kufr than first two. All nullify Islam.

 

this i wholly agree.

the only thing that i hesitate and withhold is doing takfir of those arab and non-subcontinent ulama (or non-urdu speaking) who do not do takfir of deobandis, in spite of a lot of material floating around.

recently an anecdote of shaykh muhammad shakir was circulated on how he did takfir of a man who indirectly insulted the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. this was proudly circulated and pinned on social media accounts - showing off their zeal for the honour of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

and rightly so.

forgive my cynicism but most of these people did so because that khatib was not a deobandi. if the khatib happened to be a deobandi, people would probably whine about shaykh mohamed shakir being a sectarian and "harsh." many others would ignore or keep quiet, even if they agreed with shaykh mohamed shakir - not having hte stomach to take the backlash of deobandi minions.

and since that khedive khatib is unknown and has no followers, people have no hesitation in sharing the anecdote and - rightfully so - preaching on the sensitivity of the matter and brooking zero tolerance.

---
while the khedive khatib's blasphemy was due to implied insult - the devbandi elders openly and directly insulted the messenger of ALlah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

but the ghayrat of many such people will not be rankled when blasphemous statements (see below) were written by deobandis. laa Hawla wa laa quwwata illa billah.

only keller knows how he ignored takfir even after acknowledging those statements to be blasphemous that one would not tolerate about their own father.

nas'alu Allah al aafiyah.

 

What about those non-Desi ulema who speak English?

Didn’t Faraz Rabbani himself translate the Deobandi texts into English?

Didn’t Nuh Keller himself include those translations in his article, which Faraz Rabbani then promoted?


So then, are the English-speaking scholars—particularly those associated with Faraz Rabbani and his platform, or those who associate with or promote Nuh Keller—not liable based on the English translations themselves?


Even if they can’t verify with certainty that those translations are indeed accurate representations of the original kufri statements in Urdu, can’t they at least acknowledge that the English translations themselves are undoubtedly kufr, and that whoever defends or believes in them has committed kufr as well?

However, since they don’t know if these are exact translations, they may refrain from making takfir on the original Urdu statements.


Can Arab ulema do the same for the Arabic translations presented to them?

That is, can they make takfir of whatever is presented to them in Arabic and then qualify it by stating that they are only making takfir based on what they see in front of them, while refraining from ruling on the original Urdu statements they cannot verify?


And what about having Deobandis themselves sit in front of them and endorse their takfir of these Arabic translations so that at least these Arab ulema are no longer at risk of being implicated for promoting a deviant group?


There is too much negligence and too much intentional avoidance of the issue.


Perhaps it’s because some of the major donors funding the madaris run by these non-Desi ulema are Deobandis.


So in some cases, it’s not really about truth—it’s about political pragmatism rather than taking a stance based on deen.

Also, another point to consider:

What if, at least among the English-speaking ulema, some of them are not even knowledgeable enough to understand the rules of takfir?

What if they don’t truly grasp the severity of blasphemy against the Prophet ﷺ at the level required to make these rulings?

Is it possible that some of them don’t even realize that explicit blasphemy is unexcusable kufr, where ta’wil is not valid?


Have they even been explained this properly—that if the words of blasphemy are explicit, no ta’wil can be done, and the ruling of kufr is clear? Do they even know this?
That’s another question worth asking.


Sometimes, we put certain scholars on a pedestal, assuming they have deep knowledge of every issue, when in reality, maybe their expertise is limited to the basics.

Maybe they simply haven’t studied these matters in depth, and that’s why they are overlooking these rulings. Of course, this issue itself is basic—so if they’ve missed it, that says something in itself.


And then there’s another question I’ve been thinking about:


How do we understand
من شك في كفره وعذابه فقد كفر

What was the context of this statement as mentioned by Ibn Abidin in Radd al-Muhtar?

Does this mean that if someone doubts the kufr of an explicit kufr statement—trying to find ta’wil for it—they themselves fall into kufr? Is this what is meant?


Because if that’s the case, then what about those who hesitate to make takfir of these explicit statements today?

Are they not included in this ruling?
That’s something that needs to be explored further.

 

With regards to Arab ulema and Deobandis, whether we like it or not, the latter put in a lot of groundwork to present themselves as 'Sunnis'. This groundwork goes back pretty much to the time of Ala Hazrat or just after, so to expect anything different to what you're currently seeing is wishful thinking.

We need to focus on having our major works translated into Arabic and promote our beliefs that align with the Arab ulema. Through this approach you have a better chance to expose the machinations of the Deos.

Neither is 'Hussam ul Haramain' sufficient to understand the issue because one has to first unpick the beliefs of Ismail Dehlwi. In some ways it's probably better to expose his works to the Arabs because of their alignment with the ideology of Ibn Wahab Najdi.

 

This is what angers about them also. We would think they would be careful about Deobandis and at least hold their tongue. What was said about Deobandis in Fatawa and the threats in Quran Sunnah for one who champions ahlul bidda n kufr would be deterrence. But no effect they are busy writing Na'at about Deobandi insulters n defenders of insults like of Anwar Shah Shaytan Kashmiri.

It stopped paying attention to Arab scholars. I am about Ala Hazrat as Ala Hazrat said about our Messenger sallallahu alayhi wassallam:

Rukh e Mustafa heh wo ayna , ab aisa dosra ayna, na hamari bazm e khiyal mein, na dukan ayna saaz men.