The Kufr of Nuh Ha Mim Keller

Introduction (Muqadimmah ):

What follows is a brief yet sufficient summary and rationalization of the contentious dispute between the scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah and the Deobandiyyah sect of the Indo-Pak Subcontinent, in respects to the disparaging remark of one Ashraf Ali al Thanwi [the forerunner of the latter faction] commenting on the knowledge of The Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him). And whether the said is deserving of Takfir or not. This piece has been penned in light of the residual polemics which were materialized by the pen of an American researcher by the name of Nuh Ha Mim Keller , who is associated with the epithet ‘Shaykh Nuh’ in parts of the world.

Primary Warning (Al Tanbih Al Awwal ):

Establishing the emanating of a statement of Kufr from an individual does not necessitate that one is doing Takfir of the Mafu’l or labelling him a kafir . As is prevalent amongst the classical scholars for example Ibn Al Jawzi who affirmed the Kufr of Yazid but remained silent on labelling him a Kafir

The First Chapter ( Al Fasl al Awwal): On Kufr and it’s primary types. When discussing the definition of Kufr in respects to Takfir our scholars have divided Kufr into two types; Luzumi and Iltizami . Imam Ahmad Ridha Khan (May Allah be pleased with him writes):

“Whatever the Master of the Universes Muhammad The Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him) brought from his Lord, affirming it and accepting it beyond doubt is Iman. And mocking any matter from these or rejecting any matter even by the lightest form of rejection is Kufr . Then this rejection (May Allah protect me and all Muslims from such) is of two types; Luzumi and Iltizami . Iltizami is such that the individual explicitly rejects one of the components of the necessities of the religion ‘Dururiyat al Din’ this is kufr by a decisive manner and in accordance with the Scholarly consensus. Even if the individual claims to follow Islam in its entirety such as the destructive factions who reject the existence of Jinn, Angels, Satan, the skies, the fire, the heavens, the miracles of the prophets (Peace be upon them), which according to us have been mass transmitted from The Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him). However they reject the mentioned and give their own abnormal interpretations which they are willing to die with. However these interpretations shall not save them nor their claims to love of the religion.

Luzumi is such that the statement in itself is not Kufr yet after placing it in the form of premises and analyzing it in all manners, ultimately it leads to the rejection of something from the necessities of the religion”

PDF Created with deskPDF PDF Writer - Trial :: http://www.docudesk.com The Second Chapter (Al Fasl Al Thani) : On the stance of the scholars in respects to the one who insults The Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him). The opinion of the scholars in respects to the one who insults the Prophet (Peace be upon him) is clear. Ibn Taymiyyah writes:

“Indeed whomsoever insults [The Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him)] indeed he has committed blasphemy and is killed, and there is no dispute [amongst the scholars] in this. This is the position of the four Imams and others.”

“Muhammad Ibn Suhnun said; It is the consensus of the scholars that the one who insults the Prophet (Peace be upon him) and ascribes defect to him is a disbeliever. And the promise of the punishment of Allah applies to him, and his ruling according to the Ummah is that he be killed. And whoever doubts in his disbelief and his punishment has himself committed apostasy .”

In his written piece Nuh Ha Mim Keller attempts to bring Ashraf Ali Thanvi out from the depths of Kufr into Iman, by suggesting that insulting The Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him) is only kufr if the Qa’il had intended to insult. Supporting his claim by citing an apparent Qai’da of Imam Subki (May Allah be pleased with him) which seemingly suggests the same, that we can only rule with apostasy once the full extent of the reason the Qa’il uttered such words becomes apparent. Ruling out the established principle that consideration is only given on the apparent state and not what may me be concealed in one’s heart. We shall deal with Subki’s principle in its appropriate place but for now it suffices us that we quote Ibn Taymiyyah who writes:

“ Indeed the disparaging of Allah or the disparaging of His messenger is disbeleif in the apparent state and in that which is hidden . Regardless of whether the insulter believes in the forbidden nature of what he has uttered or he considers it permissible, or even if he is oblivious of his creed . This is the methodology of the jurists and all of the Ahlus Sunnah who advocate that Iman is in saying and in action.” Ibn Taymiyyah states that even if one is oblivious of his creed, by insulting the Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him) he still becomes an apostate. Then how is it that Nuh Ha Mim Keller wished to label an individual who was a man of knowledge a Muslim, even after he insulted the Prophet?

PDF Created with deskPDF PDF Writer - Trial :: http://www.docudesk.com Qadhi Iyad writes:

“We have already discussed killing the person who, with intent, curses the Prophet, belittles him or slights him in any way. The judgement in this case is clear. The second case concerns when it is necessary to clarify what someone has said. This applies to someone who speaks about the Prophet without intending to curse or belittle him and not believing his words to be true, but who nonetheless speaks about the Prophet using words of disbelief which curse him, revile him or call him a liar or ascribe to him something that is not permitted or deny one of his necessary attributes, all of which constitutes disparagement in respect of him. For instance, he might ascribe a major wrong action to the Prophet, or say that he failed to convey the message or had fallen short in a judgement between people or he might lower his rank, the honour of his lineage, the extent of his knowledge or his asceticism, or deny a famous matter reported form him which has come by many paths of transmission with the intention of refuting the report, or say something insolent and ugly or of a cursing nature in respect of him. However, the state of this individual indicates that he does not mean to censure the Prophet nor curse him but the ignorance, discontent, drunkenness, carelessness, arrogance or hasty speech has led him to say what he said. The judgement in this case is the same judgement that applied to the first individual. Such a person is killed without hesitation since no one is excused for disbelief by ignorance or by claiming a slip of the tongue or by any of the things which we have mentioned if his intellect is basically sound. The only exception is when someone is forced to do it while his heart is at rest in belief.

Qadhi Iyad’s stance is clear that even if one does not intend to insult and is of sound intellect he still becomes an unbeliever by his utterance.

PDF Created with deskPDF PDF Writer - Trial :: http://www.docudesk.com The Third Chapter ( Al Fasl Al Thalith ):

On Imam Subki’s principle in respects to the one who insults the Prophet (Peace be upon him). When defining an insult by intent and without intent Imam Subki (May Allah be pleased with him) writes:

“An insult is of two types; Insult with intent and Insult without intent. Thus Mistah and Hamnah and Hassan their intent was not to insult the Prophet (Peace be upon him), therefore the ruling of disbelief and being killed does not apply to them. As for Ibn Ubay thus his intent was to insult the Prophet (Peace be upon him), therefore he deserved death. However the right is for the Prophet (Peace be upon him) thus for him [only] is the right to pardon.

And this principle and the consideration of intention is in that which an insult is established with and attention [to the insult] is necessary. Thus indeed an individual performs an action or says a statement and what is established from it is the insult of another, however the individual did not intend his insult ever. And merely he intended something else and there is no indication around him that [what he said] necessitates the disparaging of that individual nor is its’ luzum clear. Thus the principle of insult can not be built on this .”

“I say; Whoever angers him (Peace be upon him) by insulting or something to that effect from what we have ruled to be disbelief, then there is not doubt that he is killed so long as he is not made to accept Islam. As for those who anger him (Peace be upon him) from the ignorant and the Bedouins but did not intend to insult, he shall not be ruled as a disbeliever. This, if the permissibility of his killing is proven, indeed that is from his specialities (Peace be upon him) that he rule with the Islam of the one who uttered the insult . And we know that the Prophet (Peace be upon him) did not do that and did not kill a Muslim ever.”

PDF Created with deskPDF PDF Writer - Trial :: http://www.docudesk.com The Fourth Chapter ( Al Fasl Al Raabi ):

On Thanvi’s statement and the application of the former set of principles upon it. Ashraf Ali Thanvi writes in his ‘Hifz al Iman’ when asked regarding the Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him) being the “Knower of the unseen”:

“If it refers to but some of the unseen, then how is the Revered One [the Prophet] (Allah bless him and give him peace) uniquely special, when such unseen knowledge is possessed by Zayd and ‘Amr, indeed, by every child and madman, and even by all animals and beasts? For every individual knows something that is hidden from another individual, so everyone should be called “knower of the unseen.” . . . [And] if it refers to all of the unseen, such that not one instance of it remains unknown, then this is incorrect because of scriptural and rational proofs ”

Nuh Ha Mim Keller then writes:

“Thanwi apparently meant that the Prophet’s (Allah bless him and give him peace) knowledge of the unseen was the same in kind as that any of the others mentioned, that is, the knowledge of the relative unseen, which, as explained above, merely means that each of Allah’s creatures knows something that is “unseen” to others, while Allah alone has absolute knowledge of all of the unseen .”

“...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. ”

According to the principles of both Ibn Taymiyyah and Qadhi Iyad the above statement from Thanvi would be considered Kufr:

“ Indeed the disparaging of Allah or the disparaging of His messenger is apostasy in the apparent state and in that which is hidden . Regardless of whether the insulter believes in the forbidden nature of what he has uttered or he considers it permissible, or even if he is oblivious of his creed . This is the methodology of the jurists and all of the Ahlus Sunnah who advocate that Iman is in saying and in action.”

PDF Created with deskPDF PDF Writer - Trial :: http://www.docudesk.com “...The judgement in this case is the same judgement that applied to the first individual. Such a person is killed without hesitation since no one is excused for disbelief by ignorance or by claiming a slip of the tongue or by any of the things which we have mentioned if his intellect is basically sound. The only exception is when someone is forced to do it while his heart is at rest in belief.”

If we look at both principles combined we see that the authors mention that ignorance or being oblivious of one’s creed or by mere mistake [i.e. slip of the tongue] are not valid reasons to prevent Takfir being ruled upon an individual who insults the Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him). Then what are we to say when we have in front of us an individual of a high scholarly calibre [i.e. Thanvi] the author of numerous works who insults the Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him) and who fails to fall into any of the above categories? His insult was by intent in that he was well aware of the manner in which he was constructing his premises and conclusion.

PDF Created with deskPDF PDF Writer - Trial :: http://www.docudesk.com The Fifth Chapter (Al Fasl Al Khamis):

On Nuh Ha Mim Keller’s invalid interpretation of Thanvi’s statement and his misuse of Imam Subki’s principle. Nuh Ha Mim Keller writes:

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, in view of the latter’s explicit acknowledgement that no one can equal Allah’s knowledge or possess it independently or be given anything but a part of it, even if, as Reza says, “what a patent and tremendous difference between one part [the Prophet’s] and another [anyone else’s]: like the difference between the sky and the earth, or rather even greater and more immense” (al-Dawla al-Makkiyya (c00), 291).

This “patent and tremendous difference” is clear, as we have seen, from the great knowledge of the unseen given to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) in the hadiths of Bukhari, Muslim, and Tirmidhi, which, taken with the vastness of the revelation of the Qur’an and sunna as a whole, make it easy to see why Reza and others called him “Knower of the Unseen”—meaning in comparison to the rest of mankind, not to Allah—and that by any measure, he possessed knowledge plainly not of the same order as that possessed “by every child and madman, and even by all animals and beasts,” to use Thanwi’s phrase.

At the latter words, the fiery pen of Ahmad Reza Khan wrote his Husam al-Haramayn [Sword of the Meccan and Medinan Sanctuaries], in which he condemned Thanwi, Saharanpuri, and other Deobandis—without referring to the context of their remarks, or what they had been written in reply to—and said: “All these groups [i.e. they and their followers] are kafirs, apostates, and renegades from Islam, by unanimous consensus of all Muslims” (Husam al- Haramayn (c00), 31), and that “whoever has doubts about [such a person’s] unbelief, or his being [eternally] punished, has himself committed kufr” (ibid.). Now, the temperament of Ahmad Reza Khan, with his acknowledged brilliance, doubtless played a role in this judgement, as did his love of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), which entailed withering scorn of those who did not share his somewhat exotic prophetology, 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.

PDF Created with deskPDF PDF Writer - Trial :: http://www.docudesk.com His fatwa of kufr against the Deobandis, however, was a mistake. It was not legally valid in the Hanafi school for the two reasons named by Imam Haskafi at the beginning of this essay, namely,

A fatwa may not be given of the unbelief of a Muslim whose words are interpretable as having a valid meaning, or about the unbelief of which there is a difference of scholarly opinion, even if weak (Radd al-muhtar, 3.289).

First, 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.” Saharanpuri and Thanwi both later explicitly mentioned this in their defense of themselves and other Deobandi figures.

Secondly, there is a valid “difference of scholarly opinion” about the unbelief of such words, for “even if weak” in the above Hanafi text means, according to commentator Ibn ‘Abidin, “even if the difference of opinion is found only in another school (madhhab) of jurisprudence” (Radd al-muhtar, 3.289). As we have seen, a difference of opinion does exist in another school, namely the position of the Shafi‘i Imam Subki that one must give “due consideration to the intention behind that which gives offense” (al-Sayf al-maslul (c00), 135)—that is, even when offense has been given. 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 sahih hadiths we have cited above show how strong this position of Subki’s is, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was in one instance reproved by an upset wife with the words “I don’t see but that your Lord rushes to fulfill your own whims” (Bukhari, 6:147: 4788); in another, accused of favoritism by those who said, “May Allah forgive the Messenger of Allah: he gives to Quraysh and neglects us” (Bukhari, 4.114: 3147); and in another, actually seized and choked by a bedouin demanding charity (Bukhari, 4.115: 3149)—none of which did he consider a deliberate offense or kufr, because each was interpretable as an unintentional insult.

It is also noteworthy that in each of these instances, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) with instinctive compassion and wisdom gave due consideration to the emotional states that pushed people beyond the ordinary bounds of adab or manners with him. 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). The above hadiths suggest that due consideration should be given to the emotions aroused by the “fatwa wars” of their times, just as the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) gave consideration to people’s emotions.

PDF Created with deskPDF PDF Writer - Trial :: http://www.docudesk.com This does not mean that the words chosen by these writers were acceptable, even if “retorting against bid‘a,” or “fighting shirk.” As we have seen, there was no shirk in the position of Ahmad Reza Khan, who held that the Prophet’s knowledge (Allah bless him and give him peace) differed from Allah’s divine knowledge not only in its extent, as quoted above, but in its very nature, for he was careful to emphasize that, “Allah’s knowledge is intrinsic, creatures’ knowledge is given to them; Allah’s knowledge is a necessary attribute of His being, creatures’ knowledge is merely possible; Allah’s knowledge is beginningless, endless, eternal, and true, creature’s knowledge originates in time; . . . Allah’s knowledge is uncreate, creatures’ knowledge is created” (al-Dawla al-Makkiyya (c00), 277).

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. ”

1. Firstly Nuh Ha Mim Keller attempts to argue that the reason Thanvi wrote such disparaging remarks was to protect Islam from the threat posed by polytheist ideas [Shirk] permeating the religion. Concluding that for this reason we cannot say that Thanvi insulted the Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him) as his intention was not to insult. This demonstrates Nuh Ha Mim Keller’s lack of knowledge of the linguistic sciences. To put Thanvi’s statement in to perspective we have to refer to Arabic rhetoric, according to Keller the Muqtadhal Hal [i.e. demand of the apparent state] for Thanvi was that he refute the false notion that The Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him)’s knowledge can be equated with Allah’s knowledge. I.e. the state of the individual being addressed was such that it demanded of Thanvi that he write his disparaging remark in order to do away with [what both him and Keller considered to be] a bigger threat i.e. Shirk. However Keller himself admits:

On the one hand Keller suggests that Thanvi said what he said with the intention of refuting heretic ideologies. While on the other hand he attests to the absence of such ideologies in the first place!

PDF Created with deskPDF PDF Writer - Trial :: http://www.docudesk.com This in turn gives birth to Aksul Naqidh in Keller’s argument. I.e. The former portion of the premise invalidating the latter while the latter substantiates the validity of the former, which ultimately leads to either portion invalidating the other. This kind of an argument according to the logicians is impermissible to present during a discussion or debate [Bahth wal Munazarah]. Because la yajtamiu naqidayn fi shayin wahid “ Two Naqidh cannot gather in one thing”. Therefore rendering Keller’s argument useless.

2. Keller fails to clearly condemn Thanvi’s statement. He writes that the statement was an “artless comparison” or “not acceptable” but never outright condemns the statement and it’s content, and due to the manner in which he wrote his piece is unable to condemn the statement. Muaradah [i.e. opposition] is of two types; A) Muaradah fil Da’wah B) Muaradh fil Dalil.

Muaradah fil Da’wah:

When both parties agree that the claim is correct however the evidence to substantiate the claim is incorrect. For example both Zaid and Umar agree that Talha is talented. However Zaid says Talha is talented because he is a good artist, whereas Umar says Talha is talented because he is a good writer.

Muaradah fil Dalil:

When both parties agree on a point but disagree on the claim made from that point. For example both Zaid and Hamid agree that Talha is a good writer but Hamid says that this is not sufficient in proving that Talha is talented, whereas Zaid says it does.

In this case [i.e. with Thanvi’s statement] the Intaj of the claim is from the evidence i.e. the Nataij are deduced from the Tasdiqat of the evidence. Thanvi’s reason for writing his remark was that individuals, apparently, were equating the knowledge of Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him) with Allah’s knowledge. This is the Dalil. And from this he composed his insult. This is the Da’wah. Therefore when the dalil precedes the da’wah, and the former is considered valid, the Da’wah cannot be faulted. And we know that Keller considers Thanvi’s Dalil to be valid as he uses this to be his true intent as opposed to the intent to insult when falsely applying Imam Subki’s principle.

PDF Created with deskPDF PDF Writer - Trial :: http://www.docudesk.com 3. Keller incorrectly applies Imam Subki’s principle to this case he writes:

His fatwa of kufr against the Deobandis, however, was a mistake. It was not legally valid in the Hanafi school for the two reasons named by Imam Haskafi at the beginning of this essay, namely,

Secondly, there is a valid “difference of scholarly opinion” about the unbelief of such words, for “even if weak” in the above Hanafi text means, according to commentator Ibn ‘Abidin, “even if the difference of opinion is found only in another school (madhhab) of jurisprudence” (Radd al-muhtar, 3.289). As we have seen, a difference of opinion does exist in another school, namely the position of the Shafi‘i Imam Subki that one must give “due consideration to the intention behind that which gives offense” (al-Sayf al-maslul (c00), 135)—that is, even when offense has been given. 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.

We have already demonstrated how Keller’s interpretation of Thanvi’s statement is invalid and useless in point 1 and 2. We also mentioned the underlying reasons as to how an insult may be without intent namely ignorance, drunkenness, carelessness, slip of the tongue, being oblivious of one’s own creed etc. Nowhere does Keller’s reason fall into any of the above. More specifically if we look at each portion of the principle individually we will find that it can not be applied to Thanvi or his statement.

PDF Created with deskPDF PDF Writer - Trial :: http://www.docudesk.com Imam Subki writes:

Firstly Imam Subki (May Allah be pleased with him) makes clear that the right to pardon someone of their insult is only for The Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him) and not for anyone else. Demonstrating that the restriction of intent and without intent is specific to the time of the Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him).

He continues:

“And this principle and the consideration of intention is in that which an insult is established with and attention [to the insult] is necessary. Thus indeed an individual performs an action or says a statement and what is established from it is the insult of another, however the individual did not intend his insult ever. And merely he intended something else and there is no indication around him that [what he said] necessitates the disparaging of that individual nor is its’ luzum clear. Thus the principle of insult can not be built on this .”

Imam Subki clarifies that this principle only stands if the Qail is unaware that he has insulted the individual and that his statement is not Iltizami [i.e. blameworthy], and that there is no indication which suggests to him that he has insulted the individual. It suffices to say that Thanvi was alerted by Imam Ahmad Ridha Khan (May Allah be pleased with him) about the disparaging nature of his statement in his work ‘Al Mustanad al Mutamad’ and ‘Husam al Haramayn’, and in the numerous letters Imam Ahmad Ridha Khan wrote to Thanvi, the excerpt of the first follows in which our Imam mentions:

“You are well aware that from our side numerous works have been published in your refutation and in the refutation of Mowlwi Gangohi. All praise be to Allah these works have not been answered. Mowlwi Gangohi and yourself have explicitly given the challenge to a debate. Questions have been sent but we have received no answer, epistles and messengers have been sent but they have been rejected and sent back. You appointed Chanpuri as your spokesman who wrote to me:

PDF Created with deskPDF PDF Writer - Trial :: http://www.docudesk.com We follow the heads of the Deobandi School whatever they have said we say and we consider the opposing of Thanvi Sahib to be degrading, suicide, placing a noose around one’s neck, an impure action, and acting without shame!”

Shaykh Mahmud Ahmad Qadri who gathered the letters of the Imam writes:

“The Imam is referring to a letter he received from Mowlwi Murtadha Hassan head of education of Dar ul Uloom Deoband. This letter symbolises the character of the Deobandi School. Such distasteful words are mentioned within that should one hear them he would feel embarrassed!”

Imam Subki concludes:

Once again making clear that only the Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him) has the right to state whether an individual insulted him with intent or not. This right is not reserved for another least for a second rate researcher! Similairly all of the Ahadith which Imam Subki quotes are in which The Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him) alone pardoned individuals.

PDF Created with deskPDF PDF Writer - Trial :: http://www.docudesk.com 4. Keller writes:

This, once again, demonstrates Keller’s lack of knowledge on the subject which only proves that he should not have delved into matters which were beyond his comprehension. In fact one of Thanvi’s students wrote to him asking him to change his original statement (it seems as if even Thanvi’s own students were aware of the derogatory nature of this remark) as he claims:

“Not all individuals shall be able to comprehend the wisdom of your writings”!

And it is obvious that the Deobandi scholars affirmed the derogatory nature of Thanvi’s remark as they even altered the statement when presenting it to the scholars of the two noble sanctuaries. Which was later published in their deceptive work ‘Al Muhannadh’. The original statement is:

Whereas in ‘Muhannadh’ we find:

“If it refers to but some of the unseen, then how is the Revered One [the Prophet] (Allah bless him and give him peace) uniquely special, when such unseen knowledge, even if it is little, is possessed by Zayd and ‘Amr, indeed, by every child and madman, and even by all animals and beasts? For every individual knows something that is hidden from another individual. If the questioner permits labelling anyone who knows something of the unseen “Knower of the unseen” because he knows something of the unseen. Then he would have to label all the mentioned as such, and if he does so it will not remain as something from the prophetic perfection as they would all share the same [attribute]. And if he does not he will be sought out with the difference and he shall not find any way in this.”

PDF Created with deskPDF PDF Writer - Trial :: http://www.docudesk.com

Scan of the Indo-Pak subcontinent edition of ‘Al Muhanand’

PDF Created with deskPDF PDF Writer - Trial :: http://www.docudesk.com The Sixth Chapter (Al Fasl Al Sadis):

On refuting Thanvi’s defence of his statement. In ‘Bastul Banan’ Thanvi’s defence to his initial epistle, Thanvi provides two arguments to prove that his statement is not kufr. The first being that he employed the word “eisa” rather than “jaisa”, only the latter according to Thanvi establishes a form of similarity Tashbih. The second argument being that his example gives the effect of negation not affirmation i.e. by mentioning Zaid, Amr, Animals etc. he is individually negating their existence as “Knower of the unseen” and by doing so negates the same from the Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him). Concluding that the comparison he drew was not in their knowledge but in the absence of anyone of them being a “Knower of the unseen”. It seems as both Keller and Thanvi share the same inadequacies in Logic as these two arguments necessitate Tanaqudh between one another.

In the first Thanvi clearly removes any possibility of him making any sort of similarity and that no form of similarity can be drawn from the word he used “eisa”.

Whereas for the second argument to stand some form of similarity needs to be made. Every student reading will be aware of Qadhiya Mujiba Salibah and the same bil aks. I.e. a premise which affirms something only to negate it from something else. For example Zaid is a human, therefore Zaid is not a rock. And the second is in its opposite. For example Zaid is not a rock, therefore Zaid must be a human or animal etc.

The logical formula Thanvi is using to prove the comparison he is making is as follows:

A is not B C is also not B Therefore A is like C in that it is not B.

Kulu Aa Laysa Ba, wa kulu Tha laysa Ba. Fa Aa Ka Tha biannaha laysa Ba

It is clear that some form of Tashbih is established invalidating his first argument. Whereas his first argument then invalidates the second as it dictates that no Tashbih is established. This then necessitates Tanaqudh and Dawr both which are useless in discussions and debates. Rendering Thanvi’s whole work ‘Bast al Banan’ useless.

PDF Created with deskPDF PDF Writer - Trial :: http://www.docudesk.com Conclusion (Khulasah):

The above statement, and in fact, the whole article written by Nuh Ha Mim Keller suffices in placing him under the ruling of “And whoever doubts in his apostasy and his punishment has himself committed apostasy .” As not only does Keller doubt the Kufr of Thanvi but also provides an interpretation to his disparaging remark. My sincere request to Nuh Ha Mim Keller is that he retract and repent from his article, once again read the declaration of faith, renew his marriage contract, and once again enter the realms of the Ahlus Sunnah.

Abdur Rasool Al Dhia’i 25/05/2011

PDF Created with deskPDF PDF Writer - Trial :: http://www.docudesk.com Bibliography:

Fatawa Ridhawiya; Imam Ahmad Ridha Khan; Barkati Publications; Lahore, Pakistan As Sarim al Maslul ala Shatim Ar Rasul; Ibn Taymiyyah; Dar Ibn Hazm; Beirut, Lebanon As Shifa Bi Ta’rifi Huquq al Mustafa; Qadhi Iyad; Dar Ibn Hazm; Beirut, Lebanon As Sayf al Maslul Ala Man Sabb ar Rasul; Imam Subki; Dar al Fath; Amman, Jordan Maktubat Imam Ahmad Raza Khan; Mahmud Ahmad Qadri; Maktabah Nabawiah; Lahore, Pakistan Hifz al Iman ma’a Bast al Bana wa Tagyiyr al Unwan; Asharu Fi’li Thanvi; Dar al Kitab; Urdu Bazar; Lahore, Pakistan Al Muhanandh alal Mufannadh; Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri; Nafiz Manzil; Lahore, Pakistan Iman, Kufr, and Takfir; Nuh Ha Mim Keller; www.shadillitariqa.com

PDF Created with deskPDF PDF Writer - Trial :: http://www.docudesk.com