|
Post by mohammad on Apr 13, 2008 15:50:55 GMT
:)Shaykh Nuh on Takfir & The Deoband-Barelwi Conflict A very interesting and balanced study of the situation from one of the greatest (neutral) scholars of our times…what is meant is that he is not coming from the perspective of “group-think” that both Deobandis and Barelwis naturally, sometimes, come from. check the link out... and please read with a Open Mind... shadhilitariqa.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=20PS- Please dont condemn me as a WAHABI or a DEOBANDI, Shaykh Nuh is one of the worlds most recognised Sunni SUFIS. Thers a Hidden Blessing to why he needed to write this ARTICLE. May Allah unite the Muslim Ummah. Mohammad
|
|
|
Post by simnani on Apr 13, 2008 16:14:33 GMT
:)Shaykh Nuh on Takfir & The Deoband-Barelwi Conflict A very interesting and balanced study of the situation from one of the greatest (neutral) scholars of our times…what is meant is that he is not coming from the perspective of “group-think” that both Deobandis and Barelwis naturally, sometimes, come from. check the link out... and please read with a Open Mind... shadhilitariqa.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=20PS- Please dont condemn me as a WAHABI or a DEOBANDI, Shaykh Nuh is one of the worlds most recognised Sunni SUFIS. Thers a Hidden Blessing to why he needed to write this ARTICLE. May Allah unite the Muslim Ummah. Mohammad Assalamu 'Alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa BarakatuhuThere is no argument for what Shaykh Nuh has done and achieved, and this article may appear neutral on the surface but it is anything but neutral. Please answer me this ... Have you actually read the full article and understood it, if so why has Shaykh Nuh, tried to question the judgement and integrity of the greatest scholar and the mujaddid of the last century ?
|
|
ampat1
Valued Member
Posts: 127
|
Post by ampat1 on Apr 19, 2008 22:00:43 GMT
Below is a rebuttal from the main Islamic 786 Website to Shaykh Nuh's essay.It has been written by a number of scholars and can be found under The Deobandi section.
Radd-e-Nûh ba Fatwâ’ Rashîd-e-Gangoh
Rebuttal of Nûh Keller from the Fatwâ’ by Rashîd Ahmad of Gangoh
Rabbanâ iftah baynanâ wa bayna qawminâ b’il-Haqq wa Anta Khayr ul-Fâtihîn
The following fatwâ’ has been translated from the original Urdû book: Fatâwâ’ Rashîdiyyah, Page 71-72, printed by Muhammad Saeed and Sons, Karâchî, Pâkistân.
The fatwâ’ was written by Rashîd Ahmad Gangohî, co-founder of Dâr ul-‘ulûm Deoband and Spiritual Shaykh of many senior Deobandî scholars. Rashid Ahmad is one amongst those whom the Imâm of the Ahl as-Sunnah w’al Jamâ’ah, Imâm Muftî ash-Shâh Ahmad Ridâ Khân of Baraylî Sharîf, ‘alayhi al-rahmah w’al-ridwân, charged with kufr & which the ‘Ulamâ’ & Mashâ’ikh of Haramayn Sharîfayn; the Two Sacred Sanctuaries, endorsed in Husâm al-Haramayn [Sword of the Two Sanctuaries].
Nûh Hâ Mîm Keller in his essay outlined the legal criteria for unbelief; words that entail leaving Islâm quoting from al-Hadiyya al-‘Alâ’iyya, 424-425, authored by Imâm ‘Alâ’ al-Dîn ‘Âbidîn, Hanafî [D1306H]:
“……. “Disbelief” includes:
(1) reviling the religion of Islâm, or Allâh Most High, or the Prophet (Allâh Most High bless him and give him peace);
And:
(9) sarcasm about any ruling of Sacred Law, or quoting a statement of unbelief – even jokingly, without believing it – when one’s intention is sarcasm [about religious matters];
Also:
(10) demeaning any prophet, or saying that prophethood is acquired [by spiritual works];
(11) calumny against ‘Â’isha the wife of the Prophet (Allah Most High bless him and give him peace); …..”
He further elaborates:
“….. Let us now look more closely at three examples of fallacies of takfir all too common in the present day: (1) the fallacy of hearsay evidence, (2) the fallacy of imputed intentionality, and (3) the fallacy of guilt by association.”
And regarding the second example above which is relevant to our rebuttal he asserts:
“The Fallacy of Imputed Intentionality
Words are judged by what the speaker intends, not necessarily what the hearer apprehends. If an utterance is unambiguous and its context plain, there is normally only one possible intention. … The need to contextualize words to establish their intent is even more imperative in possible utterances of kufr that insult Allâh Most High or the Prophet (Allâh bless him and give him peace). Something might be said that while outwardly offensive to Allâh or His Messenger (Allâh bless him and give him peace), was nevertheless intended by the speaker to make a valid point, not as an insult.”
Nûh Hâ Mîm Keller then further elaborates upon a distinction which he finds relevant and quotes an apparently relevant text:
“Offending” however - as the mujtahid Imâm and hadîth master (hafidh) Taqi al-Din al-Subki says in his al-Sayf al-maslul, a more than five-hundred-page work on the legal consequences of insulting the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) – may be either intentional or unintentional, while only if a person intends giving offence to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) has he thereby committed kufr:
One must be aware of this rule, giving due consideration to the intention behind the offense (adha). For a person might do or say something which offends another that he did not have the slightest intention to offend him by, but rather intended something else, not thinking that it might give offense to the other, or understanding it would necessarily do so. Such cases do not entail the legal consequences of “giving offence”…
Furthermore, Nûh Keller in his essay erroneously argues and contends that the Imâm of Ahl as-Sunnah w’al Jamâ’ah was mistaken in his judgement of takfîr & overlooked the above important principle of Sharî’ah. He alleges:
“Knowledge of the above principle could have probably prevented much of the ‘fatwa wars’ that took place around the turn of the last century in India between Hanafi Muslims of the Barelwi and Deobandi schools.”
Before we present the translation of the fatwâ’ let us observe Nûh Keller’s personal comments in his words concerning the excerpts which he and the Ahl as-Sunnah w’al Jamâ’ah jointly consider derogatory:
“….. only one issue remains that offers either side a pretext for takfîr; namely, whether some words written by Deobandi scholars constitute insulting the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) or not. …..
…..Their response was strident and hyperbolic, comparing the knowledge of Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) to that of various lower creatures in a way that probably no Muslim had ever compared him before, and giving the offence whose kufr or iman we are discussing in this section. …..
….. In the heat of argument, some of them met what they deemed exaggerated statements about the Prophet’s knowledge (Allah bless him and give him peace) with equally exaggerated statements about of his lack of knowledge; reaching a degree that, by any ordinary measure, can be only be described as far below the standards of normal Islamic scholarly discourse. …..
….. Thus the Deobandi scholar Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri wrote in his al-Barahin al-qati’a [The uncontestable proofs] that there is no clear, unequivocal text in the Qur’ân to support the belief that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) has vast knowledge, though there is such evidence in regard to Satan and the Angel of Death. …..
….. that believing the Prophet’s knowledge (Allah bless him and give him peace) to encompass the terrestrial realm, and to be incomparably vaster than the Devil’s or the Angel of Death’s, constitutes “an act of shirk,” and “rejecting all the scriptural texts.”
….. Moreover, it is difficult to see how the attribute of knowledge that Khalil Ahmad ascribes to Satan and the Angel of Death should become “shirk” when affirmed of the Messenger of Allâh (Allah bless him and give him peace): either it is a divine attribute that is shirk to ascribe to any creature, or it is not.
But even if we overlook these mistaken innuendos, Khalil Ahmad’s point as a whole, denying that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) had vast knowledge, after affirming it of the Devil and the Angel of Death, is erroneous, …..
….. In sum, Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri’s disadvantageously comparing the Prophet’s knowledge (Allah bless him and give him peace) to Satan’s, the vilest creature in existence – regardless of the point he was making – is something few Muslims can accept. Whether Khalil Ahmad regarded it as a feat of ingenuity to show that because the Prophet’s knowledge was less than the Devil’s, it was a fortiori less than Allah’s, or whatever his impulse may have been, he badly stumbled in this passage. In any previous Islamic community, whether in Hyderabad, Kabul, Baghdad, Cairo, Fez, or Damascus – in short, practically anywhere besides the British India of his day – Muslims would have found his words repugnant and unacceptable. ….
….. Aside from Thanwi’s artless comparison of the highest of creation with the lowest, the very point of saying it in refutation of Reza is not plain …..
….. and finally outright anathema (takfir) of those who had emphasized the Prophet’s humanity (Allah bless him and give him peace) with what appeared to be at the expense of his dignity. …..
….. the Deobandis’ words are interpretable as “having a valid meaning,” for they can be construed as making a distinction, however crudely, between Allah’s knowledge of the “absolute unseen” and man’s knowledge of the “relative unseen.” …..
….. In this instance, “due consideration” means that if it is possible that Deobandi scholars intended something besides insult to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) - for example, a heated rebuttal of supposed innovation (bid’a) – this legally prevents the judgement of kufr against them. …..
….. The vehemence of Deobandi writers “defending Islam against shirk,” however misplaced, plainly affected the way they spoke about the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace). …..
….. This does not mean that the words chosen by these writers were acceptable, even if “retorting against bid’a,” or “fighting shirk.”…..
….. Looking back, one cannot help wondering why Khalil Ahmad’s and Ashraf ‘Ali Thanwi’s own students and teachers and friends did not ask them, before their opponents asked them: When did any Islamic scholar ever compare the knowledge of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) to the depraved, to the mad, or to animals – even to make a point? Few Muslims would suffer such a comparison to be made with their own father, let alone the Emissary of God (Allah bless him and give him peace) . But while such words were indefensible breaches of proper respect, they were not kufr, because the intention behind them was not to insult the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), but to defend Islam from what the writers viewed as a serious threat. …..
….. Khalil Ahmad’s and Ashraf ‘Ali Thanwi’s comparisons of the Prophet’s knowledge (Allah bless him and give him peace) were offensive in their wording, and certainly not of the “ordinary scholarly discourse” acceptable among Muslims. …..
THE FATWÂ’
Rashîd Ahmad Gangohî, in reply to a question writes:
Question No: 30 A poet who in his poetry uses words as idol or statue or calamity of Turks tragedy of Arabia in his compositions of the Prophet, salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam, what is the legal [shar’îy] ruling on this? Elaborate and be rewarded!
Answer: The person expressing these ill words although does not intend the actual real apparent meanings rather intends the metaphorical and figurative meaning, nevertheless, [such words] are not void of inference of insolence, blasphemy and offence of the Unblemished Self of Allâh, Most Exalted and the Messenger of Allâh, salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. For this very reason, Allâh, the Exalted, prohibited the [Prophetic] Companions from uttering Râ’inâ and instructed the usage of the [substitute] word of Unzurnâ. When in actual fact the purpose of the Companions, Allâh be well pleased with them all, was not by any means to intend the meaning which the Jews [deliberately mockingly] intended but since it was a means of pleasing the Jews and carried implications of hurting and offending the Messenger [salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa âlihî wa sahbihî wa sallam] thus, the ruling communicated:
“Say not [to the Messenger, salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam] Râ’inâ but say Unzurnâ [Do make us understand]” al-Qur’ân 2:104
…… and likewise the speaking of the eminent Companions [Allâh be well pleased with them all] in the presence of the Prophet, salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa âlihî wa sahbihî wa sallam, with a raised voice was not, ma’âdh Allâh, intended to harm or offend, on the contrary it was merely due to their nature and character. However, since it carried implications of offending and disregard of honour and respect the ruling was thus given:
“O you who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet [salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam], nor speak aloud to him in talk as you speak loud to one another, lest your deeds may be rendered fruitless while you perceive not.” Al-Qur’ân 49:2
What an unambiguous ruling that though your intention was not to disparage however by doing so your deeds would become wasted and you wouldn’t even be aware of it. Also the same is in a Hadîth: “Kunya [nomen] yourself with the kunya Abî’l Qâsim” which was [later] prohibited during the Noble lifetime [salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa âlihî wa sahbihî wa sallam] for offending the person of the Master of the World, in that if someone was to call someone [with the same kunya] then thy will assuming thyself to be addressed confer attention even though the caller did not whatsoever intend to offend the Messenger of Allâh, salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa âlihî wa sahbihî wa sallam. And, Ibn Mâjah reports that when Ash’ath bin Qays Kundî arrived he enquired, “O Messenger of Allâh, are you not from us?” And this enquiry, and knowledge of ghayb is with Allâh, was simply because all ‘Arabs from Quraysh till Kunda are from the Banû Ismâ’îl. So thee replied, “Do not accuse our uncles of adultery and do not negate our lineage from our fathers, we are the progeny of Nadar.” Behold! This word merely carrying a far reaching implication - to what extent the Prophet [salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa âlihî wa sahbihî wa sallam] rejected and prohibited and insisted on good manners of speech. ….. In sum, these words carried apparent insolence and offence hence to utter such words will be kufr:
“Verily those who annoy Allâh and His Messenger [salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam] – Allâh has cursed them in this world, and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating torment.”
al-Qur’ân 33:57
… It is said in Shifâ’: “That, when a person has uttered something when speaking of the Prophet, salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam, without intending to insult, neither to offend and nor does he believe it to be but has uttered for the Prophet, salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam, words which constitute kufr [like] from cursing him or insulting him or falsifying him or associating that which is unlawful upon him or negating that which is indispensable upon him which for his status are [considered] blemishes, salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam, like associating a major sin …. or uttered something disrespectful out of sheer ignorance which is construed as a kind of verbal abuse even if his circumstances apparently illustrate that he did not intend to demean the Prophet, salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam, nor did he rely on it or he uttered it merely through ignorance or due to distress and depression or due to influence of intoxication or due to lack of thought or by his tongue running away from him or uttered it in the heat of the moment. Then the legal ruling concerning such a person without hesitation is death.”
[Qâdî ‘Iyâd bin Mûsâ Mâlikî D544H ash-Shifâ’ Vol 2 Page 203-204 Published by ‘Abd at-Tawwâb Academy, Multân]
Hence, it is required that the writer of such kufr [entailing] words be severely reprimanded and if possible [to do so], if he does not stop then he should be killed because he is the harmer and offender of the Grandeur of the Exalted and His Messenger and Prophet, salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
And Allâh, the Exalted is Most Knowledgeable.
Servant Rashîd Ahmad Gangohî
We can only but say: “On such a very vocal protest thy own testimony is severe enough”
As for the examples from the Qur’ân & Sunnah which Nûh Hâ Mîm Keller expands upon – there is no contradiction or restriction which he implies. Where the adhâ [offence or harm] was made during the lifetime of the Prophet, salla Allâhu ta’âlâ ‘alayhi wa âlihî wa sahbihî wa sallam, the Messenger of Islâm, salla Allâhu ta’âlâ ‘alayhi wa âlihî wa sahbihî wa sallam, exercised and enforced his personal right to either pardon or reprimand as explained by the classical mujtahid scholars of Islâm. May Allâh, the Most Compassionate reward them all.
This is the official & authorised response of the Ahl as-Sunnah w’al Jamâ’ah ‘Ulamâ’ & Mashâ’ikh-e-Haqq of UK to the essay compiled by Nûh Hâ Mîm Keller. Since, Nûh Keller decided to write his treatise without consultation with the ‘Ulamâ’ & Mashâ’ikh of the Ahl as-Sunnah w’al Jamâ’ah & simply relied on certain Deobandî students for translations & references, the Ahl as-Sunnah w’al Jamâ’ah do not deem it necessary to lengthen this matter any further. The essay is neither recognised to be impartial nor thorough in its detail. The Deobandi fatwâ’ clearly rebuts and contradicts the fiqhî principles and methodology identified and personally adhered by Nûh Hâ Mîm Keller. The author of the fatwâ’ incriminates himself by his own set principles from the blasphemy which Nûh Hâ Mîm set out to justify and defend. The above fatwâ’ is sufficient food for thought for the writer & those who petitioned for its publication. We finally leave it for Nûh Hâ Mîm Keller, his Deobandî students & murîds to decide in their own arena as to who - they or their notable scholar Rashîd Ahmad Gangohî and his like were mistaken & created the social problem which concerns them so. And we also leave it to them to decide if the issue of insulting the Prophet, salla Allâhu ta’âlâ ‘alayhi wa âlihî wa sahbihî wa sallam, and its legal consequences are “central enough to be necessarily known of the religion”.
The sad irony in this was and is that the Deobandi’s like the Salafiyya wahhabiyya in their alleged denunciation of shirk unleashed the greatest Wahhabi bid’a of all, takfîr of fellow Muslims, at as Nûh Keller agrees, the expense of the Beloved Prophet’s, Honour and Dignity, salla Allâhu ta’âlâ ‘alayhi wa âlihî wa sahbihî wa sallam, which to guard and observe is an obligation clearly articulated in the Qur’ân:
“… and that you assist and honour him [salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam] …” al-Qur’ân 48:9
Nûh Hâ Mîm Keller has an open invitation to meet the ‘Ulamâ’ & Mashâ’ikh-e-Haqq of the Ahl as-Sunnah w’al Jamâ’ah in the UK to personally discuss such matters should he have the need to do so.
An invitation as such will be personally & privately extended to Nûh Hâ Mîm Keller in the near future at the appropriate time.
Wa salâmun ‘alâ man ittab’a al-hudâ
And, Allâh Alone is All-Knowing & Wise.
Authorised by the ‘Ulamâ’ & Mashâ’ikh-e-Haqq of Jamâ’ah Ahl as-Sunnah [UK]
|
|
|
Post by aabassi on Apr 21, 2008 9:57:19 GMT
Assalamu 'Alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu
Absolutely!
|
|