A Critique of Husam al-Haramayn: How a fatwa split the Ummah

[Abu Sulayman]

Then it is proven from other classical scholarly explanation on the Burda that the issue is as presented:

in haytami's al-umdah:


http://sunniport.com/index.php?attac...p666-png.6066/


http://sunniport.com/index.php?attac...p667-png.6065/


http://sunniport.com/index.php?attac...p669-png.6064/

al-zubdah al-ra'iqah of shaykh al-islam zakariyya al-ansari:


http://sunniport.com/index.php?attac...sari-png.6068/



MS in KSU: p22


http://sunniport.com/index.php?attac...sari-png.6067/


link: https://makhtota.ksu.edu.sa/browse/m...1#.Xy4ZvigzaUk

from a manuscript of a sharh attributed to imam abu shamah:


http://sunniport.com/index.php?attac...amah-png.6069/

from another MS attributed to imam abu shamah:


http://sunniport.com/index.php?attac...amah-png.6070/

MS of sharh burdah by raDi'uddin al-luTfi al-maqdisi (passed away after 1000 AH as mentioned in the MS)


http://sunniport.com/index.php?attac...radi-png.6071/

MS of mahalli's sharh:


http://sunniport.com/index.php?attac...alli-png.6072/

shaykh dussuqi's gloss on maHalli:


http://sunniport.com/index.php?attac...i-p1-png.6074/


http://sunniport.com/index.php?attac...i-p2-png.6073/

Comment: One really has to say that this has been very well researched. The two in the video should really learn from this.

[Abu Sulayman]

Deoband Revisited & Blind Conformity | LIVE by Sh. Asrar Rashid

Comment: I haven't watched the video yet, but usually his videos are interesting and in line with classical Sunni scholarship.

[Abu Sulayman]

Believing that the knowledge of the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - is equal to that of Allah ta'ala is obviously not what the Barelwis believe and this is clear from their authoritative works like al-Dawla al-Makkiyya.
It's really not a good thing to accuse each other of things, which are not true. And it doesn't get somehow true by using deceptive tactics against each other.



On the sunniport forum there is a thread in response to the above video:

This PDF ("Knowledge of the Unseen and the Five by Mawlana ‘Abdul Hakim Sharf Qadri") represents the Barelwi view and classical sources are also mentioned (I found it here: "ulum al-khamsa and ilm al-ghayb").

Here a quote from it:

Imam Ahmad Rida Baraylawi discussed the issue of whether the knowledge of Allah and that of His creation is equal. He writes:

From this research, it is clear that no Muslim can even think that if the knowledge of the whole of creation is on one side, it can be equal to the knowledge of Allah.
Can the blind not see that there are many differences between the knowledge of Allah and the knowledge of the Prophet [and the whole of creation]?

1. His knowledge is personal and innate, that of is His creation is bestowed.

2. Knowledge is necessary for Allah and possible for His creation.

3. His knowledge is beginningless and endless, eternal, it has and will always exist and real whereas the knowledge of creation has a beginning because all creation has a beginning and the rule is that an attribute cannot exist before that to which it is attributed.

4. His knowledge is not created, the knowledge of creation is created.

5. His knowledge is not governed, the knowledge of creation is governed and constrained.

6. It is necessary for His knowledge to always exist, the knowledge of creation can be destroyed.

7. It is impossible for His knowledge to undergo change, the knowledge of creation is changing. [al-Dawlah al-Makkiya, p.212, Karachi]

- end of quote -

[Abu Sulayman]

This PDF ("Knowledge of the Unseen and the Five by Mawlana ‘Abdul Hakim Sharf Qadri") represents the Barelwi view and classical sources are also mentioned (I found it here: "ulum al-khamsa and ilm al-ghayb").

Another quote from the above PDF:

Imam Ahmad Rida Baraylawi writes:

After all these consensuses, our scholars disagreed whether the innumerable knowledge of the unseen granted by Allah to the Prophet sallAllahu 'alaihi wasallam include the knowledge from the first day to the last for the whole universe as is the meaning of various verses and hadith; or is there specificity in it. Many Ahl al-Dhahir [people who take apparent meanings] have leant towards specificity. Some of them said knowledge the ambiguous, some said of the five and many said of the Hour [Day of Judgement]. The Ahl al-Batin [who consider inner meanings, Sufis], and following them, many Ahl al-Dhahir, have opined that the verses and hadith are general. It is possible that it includes the knowledge of ma kan wa ma yakun [from beginning of creation till Qiyamah] as explained above. Whether knowledge of the Hour is included or not, it is but a small portion of the knowledge of Allah.

He then writes:

This is the issue that our scholars of Ahlu’s Sunnah have discussed and it is similar to the differences between Ash’aris and Maturidis where there is no scorn upon one another. Yes, our adopted position is that which is the creed of most gnostics and numerous scholars and details of verses, hadith and sayings of the scholars can be found in my monographs Anba’ al-Mustafa and al-Lu’lu’ al- Maknun fi ‘Ilm al-Bashir ma Kan wa ma Yakun. [Khalis al-I’tiqad, p.26-27, Lahore]

- end of quote -

[Muhammad Hasan]

Many of the scholars of these two sects fight and lie against each other. What it comes down to is that some of the founders of deoband have Kufr in their works (e.g. comparing the Prophet Alayhis Salam to shaytan). Ahmad Rida Khan and others before him pointed this out. But the deviant Sufis who the founders of deoband were refuting now latched onto the works of Ahmad Rida Khan forming the Barelvi sect.

Ilm-ul-Ghayb

Some of these Deobandis now defend the undefendable, and some of the Barelvis do the opposite, they read in the undefendable into the defendable. So you have deobandis who state, "The Prophet Alayhis Salam did not have Ilm-ul-Ghayb" intending "The Prophet Alayhis Salam does not have complete knowledge of the unseen" (for some reason they dislike the term "Ilm-ul-Ghayb" thinking it means complete knowledge of the unseen. The Barelvis state, "He did have Ilm-ul-Ghayb," intending, "He had some knowledge of the unseen,". But now the problem comes with the few Deobandis who intend, "He had no knowledge of the unseen," and the Barelvis that intend Ilm-ul-Ghayb Kulli.

Hadhir-wa-Nadhir

Then the Deobandis and Barelvis debate Hadhir wa Nadhir. The Prophet Alayhis Salam is not Hadhir wa Nadhir if that means Ilm-ul-Huduri (Kulli). The term "Hadhir wa Nadhir" is such a problematic term for it means different things according to who you ask and whose works you read. Ahmad Sirhindi uses this for Allah and intends that Allah has complete knowledge of the essences of all things, and sees all things (I.e. that he is a witness over all things). Ahmad Sirhindi does not intend, "Allah is in every place," The other scholars use this to mean (with regards to the Prophet Alayhis Salam), that the angels present the deeds to him. It does not mean he knows all things.

If someone says, "Allah Subhana Wa Tala is Hadhir wa Nadhir" and intends as Ahmad Sirhindi does (i.e. that Allah is a witness over Kulli Shay - all things), then this is fine and Sunni Aqeedah.
If someone says, "Allah Subhana Wa Tala is Hadhir wa Nadhir" and intends that Allah is in all/multiple places, then this is the innovated belief (and in the case of EVERY place it is clear Kufr) of the Jahmiyyah/Mu'tazila.
If someone says, "Allah Subhana Wa Tala is Hadhir wa Nadhir" and intends that the Most High requires angels to bring him knowledge, then this is an innovated belief (if not Kufr) and perhaps the belief of some Hashwiyyah/Mujassimah.
If someone says, "Allah Subhana Wa Tala is Hadhir wa Nadhir" and intends that the Most High acquires knowledge, then this in an innovated belief (if not Kufr), held by the Hashwiyyah/Mujassimah.
If someone says, "Allah Subhana Wa Tala is Hadhir wa Nadhir" and intends that he knows at one time only the actions of the Ummah, then this is an innovated belief (if not kufr), perhaps held by early anthropomorphists.

If someone says, "The Prophet Alayhis Salam is Hadhir wa Nadhir" and intends that the angels present the deeds of this Ummah and is thus a witness over us (as stated in the Qur'an), then this is fine and Sunni Aqeedah.
If someone says, "The Prophet Alayhis Salam is Hadhir wa Nadhir" and intends that he in all/multiple places, then this is a strange belief but not Shirk. (It is Kufr, without Shirk, if one would mean EVERY place as that would be insulting to the Prophet Alayhis Salam.)
If someone says, "The Prophet Alayhis Salam is Hadhir wa Nadhir" and intends that he is a witness over Kulli Shay (all things), then this is Kufr and Shirk.
If someone says, "The Prophet Alayhis Salam is Hadhir wa Nadhir" and intends that the Prophet Alayhis Salam is made aware by Allah of the deeds without the Angels bringing them, then this is perhaps an inaccurate belief but certainly not Shirk or Kufr.

Allah is Rab al-Amakin and is always aware of all (infinitely-many) things. Allah is timeless. The Prophet Alayhis Salam is his blessed slave and creation, who acquires knowledge (his knowledge being finite), through whatever means (asbab) Allah wills. It is a rational possibility that he can acquire knowledge directly from Allah without such asbab e.g. Angels (as happened on al-Isra wal-Miraj).

In my personal, humble opinion, one should avoid using the words "Hadhir wa Nadhir". There are more appropriate words that can be used for the Sunni beliefs. Those who read the works of those scholars should be educated in the different meanings.

The Deobandis will say that the Barelvis think that the Prophet Alayhis Salam is present over all things. The Barelvis will say that the Deobandis say that the Deobandis negate that the Prophet Alayhis Salam receives the knowledge of the actions of his nations from the angels.

Prophets in the Grave

Amongst the Deobandis you have those who then believe the Prophet Alayhis Salam is a corpse who does not pray for his nation, and amongst the Barelvis you have those who negate death for the Prophet Alayhis Salam. The correct belief is that they (the Prophets Alayhim Salam) died but Allah returns their souls to their bodies and thus they are alive in the grave, praying for their nations, as is recorded in various hadith.

Various Other beliefs

E.g. the issue of the Prophet Alayhis Salam's nur, the fiqh on grave building, the fiqh on mawlid etc. There are some amongst the Deobandis that reject such things and others that accept without going to far (and e.g. with Mawlid this would making it wajib, fixing a date etc.). Then there are some Barelvis that accept these without going to far and others go far (believing the Prophet Alayhis Salam is a being of light akin to the angels, when the opposite is found in the Qur'an etc.). In fiqhi issues, one must remember that this is the realm of acceptable difference of opinion within the confines of the Quran and Sunnah, arabic grammar etc.

We see that one group has those who go in to reject such beliefs and others who go into excess with regards to such beliefs.

In other words, the Deobandis have been infiltrated by the Najdis and the Barelvis have been infiltrated by the deviant "Sufis"

You have amongst the Barelvi, some who throw away the term Barelvi and attempt to return to Sunni Aqeedah and you have those who attempt similarly amongst the Deobandi. E.g. Amongst the Barelvi you have the likes of Asrar Rashid, and amongst the Deobandi you have the likes of Hassan Ali (note I quoted two english scholars as I don't speak Urdu and am unfamiliar with those scholars who speak urdu only).

Then you have the fools amongst both.

Both groups should throw away such sectarian identity.

But they say, "It is an academic affiliation e.g. like al-Azhari," Well I say the scholars of al-Azhar should also avoid such titles. The Ulama in the past affiliated themselves with their Maddhab and the land they came from, that is it. We should keep it that way - these scholars should identify themselves as "Hanafi" not "Deobandi" or "Barelvi".

If someone wants to know how to understand these groups objectively then they should read the works and teachings of those outside the sub-continent. Especially the Hanafi ulama of e.g. Turkey, Russia, Syria etc. When you read the works of some of these deobandi/barelvi scholars, you come to realise that both these groups are saying more or less the same thing, just that both suffer from blind following and defending the mistakes (sometimes serious) of the Ulama in the past. If your education in an institute disables you from criticising the false beliefs of that institute, then you shouldn't study in such an institute.

The british have done an excellent job in dividing this Ummah, influencing its scholars with Batil and creating sectarian division.

How to figure out the truth

Familiarise yourself with the writings of scholars before both groups. Read what english speaking non-indian Ulama (even Hanafis for congruence) have said on these issues. E.g. in English I would recommend the following site for these issues in Aqeedah

https://questionsonislam.com/ - Turkish Hanafi

I am sure there are also suitable websites from the other Madahib from other parts of the world, but I quoted the two above for parity.

I would also recommend the lectures of Asrar Rashid and the lectures of Hassan Ali on this issue.

In the end, I reckon too much mental effort is wasted on these conversations. The moderates from both groups should unite and criticise the extremists from both, under the banner of "Sunni" not "Deobandi" or "Barelvi". They should follow the example of Hanafi ulama outside the sub-continent.

[YahyaIbnSelam]

Muhammad Hasan I assume that Turkish website is closer to the Barelwi school, as it is funded by Ä°stanbul Suffa Foundation which I have seen collaborating with British Barelwi institutions.


These points of debate are not important anyway, as they are mostly established on derivative (ẓannī) knowledge, and nor have we been ordered to deal with such matters. As for affiliating with schools, I do not see any harm in that. We must just realise and affirm that every claim to truth is equal, just as the legal schools have historically done. This is even true about doctrinal schools and Salafism, there is no point in accusing somebody of innovation and falsehood, because every matter that is discussed has only freshly appeared and everybody commenting on it, even if he follows a conservative approach, is commenting and thus taking a stance on a new matter. Hence, as long as somebody does not oppose an already established consensus, it is not rightful to accuse him of innovation.

The problem with affiliation is that ordinary people who have not studied affiliate themselves with schools. Somebody might be a Hanafi or Hanbali, because he lives by the legal views of that school. But how can somebody who has not studied at Azhar call himself an Azharite? In my opinion it is also pointless to call oneself a Maturidi, Asharite or Salafi, because this variety of schools is founded on advanced debates that do not concern the ordinary people. I am merely a Muslim, nothing else; and who is better than one who says, verily I am from the Muslims?

[Abu Sulayman]

Many of the scholars of these two sects fight and lie against each other. What it comes down to is that some of the founders of deoband have Kufr in their works (e.g. comparing the Prophet Alayhis Salam to shaytan). Ahmad Rida Khan and others before him pointed this out. But the deviant Sufis who the founders of deoband were refuting now latched onto the works of Ahmad Rida Khan forming the Barelvi sect.

...

How to figure out the truth

Familiarise yourself with the writings of scholars before both groups. Read what english speaking non-indian Ulama (even Hanafis for congruence) have said on these issues.
...

The solution is as you mentioned: One should simply refer to the scholars before this split happened and then these issues between them will be easily solved (at least if one is interested in following the truth).


Regarding the issue of 'Ilm al-Ghayb:
It's established that Allah ta'ala has informed His Messenger - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - a vast amount of knowledge from the unseen, and that he - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - is the most knowledgeable from among the creation.
As for the Creator, then it's obvious that His knowledge can not be compared to that of any of His creation, because His knowledge is eternal and limitless, so no matter how much knowledge a creation has been given by Him it can not be compared to His knowledge.


Regarding the issue of Hadhir Nadhir: There is no need for the usage of such ambiguous terms.
As for Allah ta'ala: He's the All-Knowing, All-Seeing and All-Hearing and is beyond time and space.
As for the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam: He's alive in his grave and is informed of the deeds of his Umma and prays for them. All of this is established. And Allah ta'ala has blessed him with Mu'jizat (miracles) that do not stop with his death and are renewed through all ages.


Regarding the issue of "whether God can lie": The one asking this seems to have a problem in the first place.
Lying is a defect and Allah ta'ala is free from all defects and imperfections. As for saying things like "intrinsically possible, but extrinsically impossible" in the context of saying "God has power over everything", then this is not acceptable!
Lying and all other defects do not apply to Allah ta'ala, so it's not to be said "He has the ability to lie" nor "He hasn't the ability to lie", because it does not apply to Him at all and He's transcendent from this, subhanahu wa ta'ala!


Regarding disrespecting the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam: Disrespecting our beloved Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - in the slightest manner is disbelief that throws one out of the religion and this ruling applies even if it's done unintentionally as clarified by al-Qadhi 'Iyadh (d. 544 AH) and other classical scholars.
So if the author of Taqwiyatul Iman or some of the early Deobandi elders or anyone else have uttered or written words that are disrespectful, then saying that they did not intend it is not a defense! Rather it has to be shown that the wording in itself is not disrespectful, otherwise the rulings of disbelief applies no matter what and in that case making Tawba and renewing ones Islam becomes necessary!

Muhammad Hasan I assume that Turkish website is closer to the Barelwi school, as it is funded by Ä°stanbul Suffa Foundation which I have seen collaborating with British Barelwi institutions.

Let's please not import this split into the Middle East.
In the Middle East we have the Sunnis represented by the Ash'aris, Maturidis and [traditional] Hanbalis on one side, and then we have mixed groups consisting of innovators and heretics like the "Salafis", Shi'a, fake "Sufis", modernists, etc.

E.g. in English I would recommend the following site for these issues in Aqeedah

https://questionsonislam.com/ - Turkish Hanafi

The website contains some well researched refutations of the evolution theory. Barakallahu fik.

[YahyaIbnSelam]

Abu Sulayman Brother you are on the one hand discarding the disagreement around nomenclature and affiliation, on the other hand you support the Barelwi view that Deobandis were disrespectful towards the Prophet, salatullahi wa salamuhu alayh. You cannot impose your understanding of respect on others, saying 'he shall not do or say this or that, otherwise he is disrespectful'. Every individual should ponder for his self whether he shows the necessary respect (in any given matter) or not.

The points of disagreement between the Baralwiyya and Deobandiyya are global one could say. There are also non-Salafi jurists criticising Sufi 'excesses' (in their view) in Turkey and the Mashriq. People disagree, we should accept this. I am not a Salafi, I should tell you, but disagreements around Sufism are much older. Weren't there many Sufis both in India and the Hijaz who rejected the opinions of Imam Rabbani Ahmad al-Sirhindi in the 16th century? Also there were Sufis who rejected Ibn Arabi like Alauddawla al-Simnani. We should just learn to respect each other's views, no matter what. It is especially wrong to discredit a whole school by calling them heretics. Why do you specialise those blameworthy Sufis as fake Sufis, while leaving all other without a further delimitation? What you are basically saying is everyone is a heretic except myself. There are good Salafis, good Shia and good Sufis. I am saying it with the utmost conviction: you are not going to effect any change if you go by this way. We should rather criticise ideas and behaviour separately instead of alienating whole collectives. This is necessary especially in our time where we need unity to confront the enemies of religion.

Also, who are the bad Sufis? I would like to know.

[Muhammad Hasan]

The website contains some well researched refutations of the evolution theory. Barakallahu fik.

In a time of sectarianism and endless division, it is good to know we have come to the same conclusions of the deobandi-barelvi issue.

Evolution

Subhanallah, my brother we have discussed this at length and you know my views on the issue. I have summarised my beliefs in the past by saying the following:

My position is the position of David Jalajel/ Abdullah al-Andalusi and the position the Dr Shadee permits, that evolution is compatible, but that we make tawaqquf on it theologically and we accept the descriptions of the Quran on Adam literally as we have always understood them. Allah does not tell us how he created Bashar, but one can guess that Bashar evolved. One who has correct Aqeedah and understands occasionalism understands that Allah creates everything directly anyway, but here we are saying that the occasional cause of Bashar is evolution (i.e. the Asbab). Allah then made a particular Bashar ex nihilo out of clay in Jannah and breathed into him his Ruh. He made his wife from his rib. We are patrilineally descendent from that Bashar and science affirms this when they talk of genetic adam.

If you haven't done so already, I recommend you watch this interview with Shaykh Shadee El-Masry (al-Maliki al-Ash'ari), he explains the issues with those who attempt to force evolution into the Qur'an. At the end however, he admits that if one affirms Adam Alayhis Salam being made out of clay in Jannah (his wife from his rib, etc.), he being the father of us all, and then you accept evolution on top of that, then he would not declare such a person out of Ahlus Sunnah, although he says that he personally doesn't agree with evolution.

My criticisms of his objections are given rather hot-headedly in the comment section on YouTube.

Furthermore, Shaykh David Jalajel (al-Hanafi al-Ash'ari) formalises in an interview with the same person, that Evolution cannot be definitively believed in or denied (it is in the realm of rational possibility - Mumkin) iff one affirms the descriptions of Adam Alayhis Salam in the Quran and Sunnah according to the apparent text. His position is the position of Imam al-Ghazali with regards to certain views of the scientists of his time (which turned out to be correct).

My only criticisms of his view would be that he affirms acceptance of the compatibility of evolution is possible for the "Salafis". I point out this is not true, due to their interpretation of certain ahadith. (I also would criticise him including them as members of Sunni Islam - something that I am sure Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari, who is in his isnad, would agree with.)

We negate the existance of actual randomness, such an idea is illogical, unmathematical and above all kufr.

I also advise brothers and sisters to familiarise themselves with "Genetic Adam", and to perhaps research the "Saan people" who bury their dead and have familiar but corrupted narrative of creation.

It is quite surprising that people are unaware that science confirms that mankind are descended from a common ancestor. Of course, the "Genetic Adam" of the western, non-Muslim scientists is a man born to others - but this is just an assumption that is based on generalisation ("we observe that all humans are born to parents therefore the same with Genetic Adam")

We Muslims believe that there are no true causes to effect apart from Allah, and that observed causes (occasional causes) are due to his explicit will and decree. Thus he could have decreed otherwise, against his Sunnan and thus against what we observe as the norm and such things are known as "miracles". In reality they are just Allah choosing to break his Sunnah and he was not bound to it in the first place. Allah creates without Asbab, and he make Asbab seem to appear if he wishes so, and this is his regular practice.

Allah does not "guide" processes, he is the one that does and creates them. Allah does not give "permission" for things to happen, he either creates or decrees their non-existance (by creating whatever is in it place - and place itself is created). If he explicitly creates them, if he explicitly wills and decrees them then they happen at that time decreed. Otherwise, his explicit command is there non-existance. His Qadar extends over the infinite range of possibilities. His Qadar - his divine decree is absolute - when he decrees it, it is - Kun Faya Kun. There is nothing outside his decree but he himself. He does not get tired, nor is he subject to time. His decree and will are reality (exception himself), not thoughts, wants or requests. He spoke in pre-eternity and has no needs. He is the perfect (as-Salam) and the perfect never changes. He is al-Mateen - the firm.

Denial of Evolution and other Scientific Theories

Evolution like all scientific theories is up for debate and can be denied if one is not convinced by the evidence. Ultimately it stands and falls with its evidence. But I notice Muslims are denying evolution for no good reason - coming up with weak arguments based on pseudo-science and denialism which is akin to the flat earthers and arguably (ironically) akin to Atheism. They deny it due to the following:

1. An (Agnostic) Atheist came up with it. This is fallacy of association where one assumes the Kuffar can speak or discover no truth. Even Shaytan spoke the truth in the story regarding Abu Hurairah Radiyallahu An.
2. Lack of education into the theory, thinking the theory states that Chimpanzees become human, being ignorant of DNA mutations that occur even today etc. Thinking that it leads to one requiring that Allah creates imperfections, not realising that the "imperfections" he creates are perfections in overall design.
3. Lack of education in general. It seems only the Sunni Ulama of Muslim lands are doing any thinking, western and Saudi-based education has dumbed everyone down into either white man worshippers or bedouin worshippers.
4. They do not reflect on the other processes Allah creates - particularly the creation of people in the wombs of their mothers, particularly his willing of the civilisations to materially progress through time, failing and rising to new heights, only to keep on failing due to their arrogance and love for their world and hatred towards his Prophets. He brings one group from the posterity of the previous groups. His Sunnah is even seen in the planets. He creates and destroys and repeats this, to us it seems that over time this happens on a larger and larger scale (until the inevitable) - this is his Sunnah.
5. They think it contradicts the explicit Quran and Sunnah because most they come accross deny the Quran and Sunnah when affirming it. This is a hasty generalisation. It has been shown before that one can take the explicit texts and affirm evolution at the same time.
6. They think such harmonisations, whilst rational possibilities, are complicated. This is an appeal to Occam's Razor. Perhaps they forget the Kasb of al-Ash'ari.
7. They dislike anything to do with the west. Whilst I sympathise with this one, this is again a fallacy of association. If Muslims actually bothered studying it, as the earliest Ulama such as Shaykh Hussein al-Jisr advised, we wouldn't haven't the problem on relying on the Kuffar of the west for such knowledge.
8. They assume randomness is integral to it, negating divine selection and are uneducated regarding occasionalism and the historical understanding of cause and effect amonst the Ash'aris and Maturidis (I am unaware of the Hanbali beliefs in that regard but assume them to be the same).
9. They buy into the pseudo-intellectual arguments of the likes of Adnan Oktar.
10. They listen to such Ulama, who after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire have by and large not bothered to give much thought to the issue of compatibalising it as done by previous Ulama. Thus such Ulama began harshly condemning it assuming it must contradict the Quran and Sunnah. Another group of "Ulama", simply accepted it and forced it into the Qur'an, denying the parentless creation from clay of Adam.
11. On that note: They do Taqlid in Aqeedah.
12. People are unaware of and have essentially rejected the Hadith of RasulAllah Alayhis Salam, the condemnation of Ibn Abbas, the criticisms of al-Bukhari and later Muhadithin and the Mutakallimeen (including al-Ghazali, ad-Dhahabi, Ibn Kathir etc.) regarding the prohibition of taking as firm belief the Isra'iliyyat that are not confirmed or denied by the Quran. I am sure half the people in this forum are not aware of the fact that Bani Isra'il are not descended from Nuh Alayhis Salam, nor that "Isra'il" is not known definitively to be Yakub Alayhis Salam, nor that the Prophet Alayhis Salam never traced back his lineage to Isma'il Alayhis Salam, nor that we do not know who was about to be sacrificed by Ibrahim Alayhis Salam, nor that Adam Alayhis Salam is not known to have been a farmer, nor that the belief that Adam Alayhis Salam built the Kaaba is unfounded, nor that we do not even know definitively the names of the sons of Adam Alayhis Salam or what they sacrificed, nor that we can confirm Sheeth as a prophet, nor that we do not know if Ibrahim Alayhis Salam is descended from Nuh Alayhis Salam.
13. The spread of false Aqeedah from the partisans of Najd. The Hashwiyyah think Adam's form is semi-divine so the idea of his form being evolved (not he himself but the pattern to which he was created physically speaking) is repulsive. Their beliefs are so pervasive in us now, that if I was to say, as the early Ash'aris and Maturidis (and Kullabis e.g. al-Bukhari) said, that our recitation of the Qur'an is created and that Allah's original divine eternal and beginningless speech does not contain letters or have tartib (order), then I would be called a Mubtadi' if not Zindiq. If I then used this to explain the Ahruf according to the understanding of Abu Shama al-Maqdisi (al-Shafi'i), these people would accuse me of Zandaqa if not Kufr.
14. The spread of equally false Aqeedah from the likes of 'Abduh in Egypt. Such "Ulama" imitated the Mu'tazila of the past - practically denying miracles, explaining them away as having to do with some unknown laws of physics or natural occurences. Thus the people who would otherwise have no problem with Evolution, see such "Ulama" spouting such nonsense and assume that one must be a modernist like them to affirm evolution (and of course they resort to declaring the Qat'i verses of the Qur'an symbolic with regards to Evolution).

Summary

One can hold whatever belief they choose about Evolution, as one can hold whatever belief they want regarding the shape of the Earth. Neither are spoken about explicitly in the Qur'an and Sunnah, but one could argue that the Qur'an and Sunnah allude to both. I simply wish people would stop denying it in a way that mimics the way that the Atheist denies Allah - they deny through illogic, false analogy, circular reasoning, emotional arguments and above all they have already decided to deny it in their hearts inventing falsehood as a coping mechanism and so will never accept it, unless Allah wills.

Of course, this is not an invitation to blindly accept scientific theories either, nor is it an invitation to not critique them, nor improve them - I look forward to the development, if Allah wills, of scientific enquiry in this field. I hope Muslims can take the mantle of such enquiry back from the Kuffar who are unworthy of it by virtue of disbelief and their poisoning the empirical with their baseless philosophical delusions. Ultimately we will only achieve understanding to a point he wills - we did not witness the creation of all these things - just as we did not witness firsthand even our own creation in our mothers' womb.

May Allah increase us all in knowledge and guide us in these times.

[Muhammad Hasan]

Regarding the issue of "whether God can lie": The one asking this seems to have a problem in the first place.
Lying is a defect and Allah ta'ala is free from all defects and imperfections. As for saying things like "intrinsically possible, but extrinsically impossible" in the context of saying "God has power over everything", then this is not acceptable!
Lying and all other defects do not apply to Allah ta'ala, so it's not to be said "He has the ability to lie" nor "He hasn't the ability to lie", because it does not apply to Him at all and He's transcendent from this, subhanahu wa ta'ala!

Watch from 36 seconds in until 1 minute 7 seconds, to avoid the childish response of the video uploader.

In the above, which I unfortunately had to quote from that source as Asrar Rashid's channel upload missed the clip, the Shaykh explains that Allah cannot lie and that if you say he can then he asks how do you know he is telling the truth (without relying on his statement in the Qur'an).

In the above video, an Ash'ari-Maliki Shaykh also explains that Allah cannot lie.

In the above, a Deobandi gives his view that Allah can lie (Mumkin Aqlan) but doesn't. The video contains Kufr and irrationallity e.g. "Allah can create another god etc." One who has any beginners knowledge of Kalam knows such a thing is impossible as it leads to contradictions of either one "god" creating one thing and another contradicting, or all "gods" being limited which would then necessitate

My Understanding after pondering this issue at length

First of all, I would like to be clear. Allah cannot lie. Allah having the ability to lie is neither a rational possibility (Mumkin), nor does he ever do this (he cannot in the first place).

But.

One must fully understand how this is.

It is not suitable to give as an explanation, "He is free from all defects and imperfections," This is true, but not a full explanation. This is circular reasoning as you are relying on a statement implying he does not lie - which is taken from the Qur'an - in order to prove that he does not lie. If such a statement was a lie (which it isn't, but just for the sake of argument), then the proof can be ignored.

A way out for the confused

Before I go any further, I'd like to provide a way out to people who might get confused or uncomfortable with some of the things I say below. The Hanbali school, whose Usuli opinions are completely valid Sunni opinions, hates talking about this topic, which relates to the nature of Allah's speech. Their stance is quite clear: Do not talk on this topic. When Ahmad bin Hanbal was asked regarding the recitation of the Qur'an being created, he said,

“Whoever says the Quran is created is a Jahmi. And whoever says ‘The Quran is the Speech of Allah’ and does not say it is not created or it is created is a waaqifee. And whoever says “my utterance of the Quran is created� is an innovator.�

(Before this, Ibn 'Abdil Barr states:)
There used to be a strong friendship between him – Al Karabeesi – and Ahmad bin Hanbal. But when he disagreed with him about the Quran, that friendship turned into enmity. They began to criticize each other. And all of this was because Ahmad would say,
(Then he quotes the above.)

Ibn Kullab can be quoted as the eponym of group of a Early Sunni Mutakallimun known as the "Kullabiyya" which is merely the pre-Imam Ash'ari Ash'ariyya school (or what you could call the Shafi'i school of usul ad-din as Ibn Kullab was a Shafi'i, and Imam Shafi'i is know to have practiced Kalam and it is known that most Shafi'is are Ash'ari, although most Malikis historically were also Ash'ari so this can't be taken as a hard and fast rule). Such scholars agreed with him as Al Karaabeesi, Abu Thawr, Dawood bin ‘Ali and, most notable, Imam Bukhari, who wrote a book about the creation of the actions of Allah's slaves on this topic. Before Ibn Kullab and the scholars of his time who disagreed with Imam Ahmad on this issue, this is also found in Abu Hanifa's aqeedah works.

Thus it is a valid Sunni position to refuse to say "My utterance of the Qur'an is created". I would however state that it is arguably not a valid position to state, "My utterance of the Qur'an is uncreated," as this is a rational absurdity. The two positions are either the Ash'ari, Maturidi position, which is to state "My utterance of the Qur'an is created," or the Hanbali position, which is to state, "We do not state whether the utterance of the Qur'an is created or not," This is proved as a valid position based on the fact that A) It does not contradict the Ash'ari and the Maturidi and B) One can see that Imam Ahmad included a middle ground (albeit an invalid one) on the creation of the Qur'an - the Waaqifee position. Thus he showed the existance of a middle ground, although he severely disliked the Kullabi (Ash'ari) position.

The statement of a scholar of the later Salaf (Tabi'i and Taba'at-Tabi'i) that 'X' is an innovation is not alone valid as Qat'i evidence that 'X' is an innovation. If someone wants me to give a practical example of this, they can PM me asking about it and I will PM them such an example. I will not publically type out the example I am thinking of as I know there are people of weak Taqwa who will start having baseless doubts if I do.

Imam Ahmad's maddhab is to stop where the Salaf stopped.

My Initial Thoughs on this

I immediately agreed with the Sunni position when learning about the issue, though I struggled with this initially as I could not give a valid proof for why it is. However I lated formulated a proof that can be used to prove Allah does not have even the rational capacity to lie (as in it results in a contradiction).

Central to my thesis is that Allah's speech cannot contain contingencies. This is the well known Ash'ari/Maturidi position. Allah's divine and original speech, from which the Qur'an (meaning its meaning) is a revealed example, does not contain letters, versing, beginning or end, tartib etc. Allah does not, in his divine speech, speak one thing first then the next thing as that would subject him (and thus his speech) to time.

My proof utilises Wahy but in a non-circular method.

There are three possibilites we initially consider when proving Allah's speech:

1. His speech is necessarily truthful. I.e. He can only speak the truth thus telling falsehood would be impossible - we will be proving this.
2. His speech is possibly truthful and contains lies. I.e. (I seek Allah's refuge).
3. His speech is entirely lies and that is necessary with telling the truth being impossible (I seek Allah's refuge, twice and more.)

All three are mutually exclusive.

Number 2 would prove the Deobandi doctrine - this is a reprehensible Bid'ah. Number 3 is Kufr.

Number 2 is impossible however as it implies contingency - for if his speech could possibly contain truths and possibly contain falsehood then his speech would contain possibilities and possibilities are necessarily contingent and subject to change. Therefore, number 2 is easily disproved, and the Deobandis are asked to stop defending such ridiculous beliefs.

We are left then with 1 and 3. Note that one of these must necessarily be true - it is a rational impossibility that both are true or neither are true.

1 and 3 are mutually exclusive and are a dichotomy. (I.e. in Kleene's propositional logic we would say 'Proposition 1 XOR Proposition 3' is true, we understand T XOR F is T).

One cannot say that, "It is possible that his speech is entirely true or entirely lies," as this implies contingency in speech - that his speech could either be one way in its entirety or the other. Thus one must conclusively identify which it is.

It is possible that there exists someway of solving this conundrum purely by Reason. Imam as-Sanusi is reported to have done this, but I am unfamiliar with his proof.

Nevertheless, my way of solving this resorts to one proving that the Qur'an is divine revelation empirically using prior scriptures and fulfilled prophecies of the Prophet Alayhis Salam (e.g. written down in manuscripts hundreds of years ago, bringing many of these.) This is trivial.

Thus we would affirm the Qur'an is divine speech but we still haven't yet given the decision on which of either 1 or 3 are correct.

But now this is easy.

One simply needs to find a rational necessity (a certain truth in the Qur'an). As 2 is impossible, it would necessarily imply that Allah speaks only the truth.

I will pick the most obvious and elegant one (but there are many to choose from - many of the statements relating to divine are suitable e.g. the many verses relating to necessary attributes and nature of the incontingent like 16:3, 54:49, 39:62, 10:107, 22:62, 31:30 and verses like 7:191):

So exalted is Allah, the Sovereign, the Truth; there is no deity except Him, Lord of the Noble Throne.

(Sahih International's Interpretation of al-Quran, Surah al-Mu'minun, verse 116)

I could have chosen many other verses, some stating basic logical axioms on the nature of truth e.g.:

For that is Allah, your Lord, the Truth. And what can be beyond truth except error? So how are you averted?

(Sahih International's Interpretation of al-Quran, Surah al-Yunus, verse 116)

But I was searching for that verse on oneness for a long time. I made dua, twice in a short period of time, and my dua was answered. That verse states the most fundamental truth, upon which this religion is based, and that is the necessary truth of the Oneness of Allah. Such a necessary truth can be arrived at with merely the Aql and basic acceptance of the senses. It is not a quote, or a verse asking the Prophet Alayhis Salam to say something - it is Allah's own firm statement. It is fitting that before the verse, his name al-Haqq has appeared.

Thus 1 is necessarily and utterly true, and 3 is necessarily and utterly false.

1 is a necessity, 3 is impossible.

Perhaps Allah intended to make it impossible to solve the conundrum rationally, by creating our minds in such a way that inhibits such a proof and thus one must go to his Furqan - the criterian of what is truth and what is falsehood.

That He should establish the truth and abolish falsehood, even if the criminals disliked it.

(Sahih International's Interpretation of al-Qur'an, Surah al-Anfal, verse 8)

So it is established that Allah both cannot and thus will not lie.

Supplementary issues - what about Allah's verses relating to rational possibility?

E.g. His verses on his Ahkam, the nature of the universe e.g. the orbits etc. Such things in 'Aql lie in the realm of rational possibility - he could have created them any other way he wished. So one might ask, "Does this not make his speech contingent, subject to change, as if it is impossible for him to lie, then that means that if he created the creation in a different way he would need to speak different verses."

To answer the question, no it does not - one is confusing the verses he Subhana Wa Tala has revealed with his actual speech. It is Allah's divine speech which the Qur'an captures in its meaning in a sense delineated by him. The analogy would be one of an ocean - that is Allah's speech. If one picked up a glass and got a glass of water - then he would have some of the ocean in his glass and it would be limited, even though we do not observe a limit for the ocean when looking at it. (of course with Allah's speech, it does not decrease from him sending the Qur'an etc.)

Thus we understand that his divine speech contains all statements relating to all rational possibilities. There is a relationship in the Qur'an shown between his speech and his creation (Kun Faya Kun), and so one can understand his divine speech being revealed necessitates that the underlying reality is true. Thus if Allah created the universe differently, the verses revealed would be different, but his speech would be the same. This is confirmed in the reality of the pen - al-Qalam and al-Lawh al-Mahfuz - the preserved tablet.

Nabi (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said:

“The first thing Allah created was the pen after which He commanded it to write. The pen asked its Rabb what it should write. Allah said, ‘Write the decree of all that which is to occur till eternity/Qiyamah'�

- Sunan Tirmidhi, Hadith: 2155 and 3319, Sunan Abi Dawud, Hadith: 4668, Musnad Ahmad, vol. 5 pg. 317; Imam Tirmidhi authenticates it, though notes it is gharib (isolated).

In the case of the Ahkam, he chooses and reveals what he wants (and he is the most wise in doing so), abrogating what he wants. Abgrogation of the divine law is actually proof of this concept - as we still say abgrogated verses are of the divine speech.

Summary

I was unsure whether to actually post this or not, but I believe the benefit of certainty regarding the fact that Allah cannot lie outweighs the harm caused by possibly confusing people with regards to the nature of divine speech.

[AmantuBillahi]

Deviant Beliefs of Ahmad Raza Khan by Mufti Taqi Usmani:

Source of the Fatwa:

https://www.deoband.org/2010/07/aqid...-the-barelwis/

[Linkdeutscher]

May Allah give this lunatic what he earned in the hereafter. Ameen.

[Muhammad Hasan]

...

Second video should be this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXLSuKa136E

Divine speech containing all possibilites

To clarify what I mean by, "Thus we understand that his divine speech contains all statements relating to all rational possibilities.", I will give an abstract example:

Say we recite, "A is B" in our recitation of the Qur'an.

In reality A being B is a rational possibility and Allah if he willed need not have made A to be B.

Thus in the Qur'an itself, in Allah's original divine speech, the statement would be, "A is possibly B" (of course such a statement is not made by Allah in time with tartib etc.)

"A is possibly B" necessarily admits "A is B", as it is known in Mantiq that, "Ja'iz implies Wajib" is Wajib I.e. that the possible implies the necessary is necessary as we can look at it from the view point of "Muhal implies Wajib" which is Wajib and "Wajib implies Wajib" which is Wajib. One can formalise this in the principle, "Falsehood can imply anything, but the Truth will only imply the Truth" thus "Possibility implies the necessary, for Possibility must imply the Truth and can imply possibility, and possibility can imply Falsehood" If you are confused, then see the table below:

	T	N (T, F)	F
T	T	N (T, F)	F
N	T (T, T)	N (T, F, T, T)	N (F, T)
F	T	T (T, T)	T

Thus the simplistic proof of the Salaf, "The creation implies the creator" is a necessary and simple truth for the creation is possible and the creator is necessary.

Thus Allah could have created anything and the speech we recite could have been different in those verses but this does not admit contingency and possibility for change in Allah's actual divine speech - merely what we comprehend or recite of it.

This is also reflected in our speech that we use on a daily basis - e.g. If I am sitting down (I am), then I say, "I am sitting down," I do not say, "I am possibly sitting down," even though "I am possibly sitting down" is necessarily true and "I am sitting down" is only possible (even though I am sitting down), for Allah could have willed for me to have not been sitting down. One can remove ambiguity and make an absolute statement by saying, "If Allah wills, I am sitting down" - that is necessarily true.

Of course, one should also remember that Allah's divine speech does not contain letters, tartib (order), beginning, end, delineated verses and words etc. His speech is incontingent, eternal and uncreated.

[Sunni Ashrafi]

Assalamu alaikum,

I want to raise awareness of a serious issue that still affects our Ummah today and must urgently be rectified.

Ahmed Raza Khan issued a fatwa in the 20th century which slandered our Muslim brothers and sisters by labelling anyone who didn't agree with him as a "kafir", may Allah protect us all. This has resulted in a division in the Ummah, the effects of which can still be felt today.

An important piece of work was written by Imam Sarfraz Khan Safdar, and in 2018 this was translated into English: "A Critique of Husam Al-Haramayn: How a fatwa split the Ummah". I’ve included a link to the PDF copy of the book for reading, which refutes the unfair (and potentially invalid) fatwa issued by Khan in his work "Husam Al-Haramayn". I urge you all to read and share this important piece of work and educate our people. We need to do what we can to undo the hate and prejudice advocated by Khan, and re-unite the Ummah - sooner rather than later.

JazakAllah hu Khair.

Link to book: https://barelwism.files.wordpress.co...han-safdar.pdf

Who are you to talk about rectifying issues in the Ummah. What makes you think you're in a position to preach about what needs to be fixed and how. You have no respect when referring to Imam Ahmad Raza Khan but call the Deobandi Sarfraz Khan 'Imam'. Ashraf Ali Thanwi wrote in his book, Hifzul Imaan, pg 16 that the unseen knowledge possessed by Rasoolullah صلى الله عليه وسلم is equal to the unseen knowledge possessed by every ordinary man, every child, every insane person, and any and all animal in existence. This means that Dogs and Pigs fall into this category as well, Astaghfirullah. On the basis of this statement, the 'Ulama of the Ahlus-Sunnah wa'l-Jama'ah declared Ashraf Ali Thanwi and other Deobandi 'scholars' to be Kafirs, as written in Husam Al-Haramayn. When Imam Ahmad Raza Khan presented this Fatwa to the 'Ulama of Hijaz, 33 'Ulama signed the Fatwa and agreed that the people mentioned within the Fatwa are Kafirs and anyone who doubts in their Kufr is also a Kafir. Therefore, your Deobandi 'Imam Sarfraz Khan Safdar' is also a Kafir, according to the Fatwa signed by the 'Ulama of Hijaz. But, of course, even the 'Ulama of Hijaz have no value in your eyes and you'll still say that Imam Ahmad Raza khan was wrong. It can all be condensed into one point, Imam Ahmad Raza Khan spent their entire life defending the honour of Rasoolullah صلى الله عليه وسلم and praising them, whilst the Deobandis spent their every waking moment finding ways to insult Rasoolullah صلى الله عليه وسلم and then trying to find ways to prove the legitimacy of their heresy from the Qur'an and Hadith, Astaghfirullah. He who truly possesses Imaan in his heart will have no trouble understanding who was right and who was wrong, and he who doesn't will wander blind, dumb and deaf, ignorant of the truth, as stated in Surah Al-Baqarah. May Allah keep the true Madhab Ahlus-Sunnah wa'l-Jama'ah strong, and protect it from the evil influences of Wahabis, Deobandis, Shias and any others who claim to be a part of Islam, yet have nothing to do with the Ahlus-Sunnah wa'l-Jama'ah.

[Linkdeutscher]

But I'll help you: People like Abu julaybeeb and abufulaans for example.

TheHaqq