KR

I have found that one of the most impressive contemporary Barelwi Ulama from the subcontinent on the subject of Takfir is Moulana Zishan Ahmad Misbahi. He has a book on the subject which I have a physical copy of but could not find a pdf of it. However, the following article of his will give one an idea of the academically robust manner in which he challenges the phenomenon of Takfir found within the community: https://alehsanmedia.com/article/ala-hazrat-ki-takfeerat-fiqhi-hain-ya-kalami#_edn6 Here he, honestly, engages with the contradiction found in the Fatawa of A'la Hazrat, in relation to the subject of Takfir. One one hand, you find fatawa from him where he abstains from doing takfir of Ibn Taymiyyah, Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab and Shah Ismail Dehlawi. On the other hand, you find blanket takfir from him of not only the Shi'a but also the Wahhabis, Ghayr Muqallidin and even Deobandis. Among the ways of reconciling these contradictory Fatawa, some have argued for a distinction between Fiqhi and Kalami Takfir. However, Moulana Zishan expresses his disatisfaction with such a distinction. As a result, when followers are challenged about blanket takfir, then they defend A'la Hazrat by saying that he only did Takfir of a handful of Ulama from another Maslak. Whilst on the other hand, when efforts of uniting the ranks of Muslims are made, then a narrow notion of Sunnism is adopted. Thus, you find, on one hand, Fatawa of prominent Barelwi Ulama rejecting blanket takfir of Wahhabis and Deobandis, yet you find others who are quick to do Takfir, leading to confusion among the masses in the community. So, if an Alim ends up praying their Salah behind a Deobandi or a Janazah over them, then Moulana Zishan says, then the 'Janazah' of the Aqidah and Imam of such an Alim is performed. The examples of Mufti Muneeb-ur-Rehman, Pir Karam Shah, Allamah Ghulam Rasul Saeedi can be cited in this regard. Therefore, Moulana Zishan argues for either the Fatawa of A'la Hazrat to be put down to Sadd-ul-Dhariah; where he has done Takfir based on Luzum-e-Kufr, following the way found among the Muta'kkhirin or we accept A'la Hazrat following the way of the Muhaqqiqin of extreme caution in Takfir and question the attribution to A'la Hazrat of Fatawa to the contrary. In the footnotes, he quotes the concern of some compilers, editors and publishers of Fatawa Rizwiyyah about damage done to the manuscripts by bookworms and the like, to put into question the text of such Fatawa attributed to A'la Hazrat. We pray that the growing number of Ulama, like Moulana Zishan, put to bed the century old Fitnah of Takfir, which continues to poison and divide the ranks of mainstream Sunnis. #Aqidah #Barelwis #Deobandis #MainstreamSunnis #Takfir #Zishan #Misbahi

Oh no. Turkish bookshops in Istanbul selling the books - and books containing the views - of S. Qasim Nanotwi. https://www.irsad.com.tr/urun/el-ilahiyyat-indel-imamil-hucce-muhammed-kasim-en-nanutevi-llhyt-nd-lmm-lhj-mhmd-qsm-lnnwtwy

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Hint Altkıtasında Yer Alan Medreselerin Nebevî Sünnete Hizmetteki Rolü: Dâru’l-Ulûm Diyobend ve Nedvetü’l-Ulemâ Örneği https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/1620556 إن مؤسس دار العلوم ديوبند الشيخ قاسم النانوتوي كان من العلماء الذين لهم سبق في كل فن من فنون العلوم الشرعية، وقد فاقوا في علم القرآن والمتشابه والفقه. لقد ألف الشيخ مؤلفات عميقة ودقيقة في موضوعات مختلفة ما يقارب ثلاثين مؤلفًا مما يدل على سعة علمه ودقة نظره في العلوم الشرعية واللغوية. فقد كان يعرف الشيخ النانوتوي بين أهل العلم لمناظراته مع الهندوس والشعية ومنكري الحديث في شبه القارة الهندية، وربما من أجل ذلك فإن جلّ مصنفاته حول العقيدة في الجواب والشبهات التي أثارتها تلك الفرق. وإضافة إلى ذلك قد كتب حواشي لبعض الأجزاء الأخرى لجامع الصحيح البخاري يطلب من شيخه خليل أحمد السهارنفوري. وتعدّ هذه الحواشي من أدق حواشي البخاري بين علماء الحديث

From the Asanid of S. Yasin Fadani (d. 1990), with mention of M. Qasim Nanotwi, referred to as حجة الإسلام

The Majllah of Azhar describing Qasim Nanotwi as العالم الرباني. How dare they. Time to hop on a Wizz Air to Cairo and disabuse them. Protect their Iman!

Esoteric Takfir التكفير الباطني: Takfir that nobody else understands or agrees with. At this point, it’s like Druze-like behaviour, where nobody either apart from your wee group can grasp fundamental aspects of faith. Takfir of Imam Qasim Nanotwi just happens to be a key tenet in Barelwism. They bark on about Husamul Haramayn, and that ARK got 100 signatories to agree with him on Takfir, over a century ago. That was all attained under dubious circumstances. But let’s disregard that for now. Why don’t these militant Brillos get 100 signatories today? It could be from any non-affiliated Muslim scholars across the world. Let’s get an update and refresh on that Takfir. With all the information out in the open, let’s see how far they get.

After all of this, non-affiliated scholars all agree that M. Qasim Nanotwi was a luminary of Islam. At the very least, they are ambivalent and don’t say anything about it. What is certain is that nobody pronounces Takfir on him. Militant Brillos can huff and puff but the fact that they’ve been unable to convince all the aforementioned scholars of his Takfir not only shows their incompetence, it speaks to a lack of introspection. It isn’t possible for them to say Ahmad Raza Khan got this one wrong, because their whole identity revolves around Takfir. But it’s not only that. It’s the Takfir of anyone who refuses to pronounce Takfir! That is why they’re utterly brain damaged. They’re bursting at the seams to pronounce Takfir upon the whole Ummah that doesn’t do Takfir of Imam Nanotwi, yet they know they can’t do so as that would be reputational suicide. Nor have they taken the necessary steps to “save” the scholars of the Ummah - from 42 countries and more - to warn them against him. With the necessity of chain Takfir firmly embedded in the constitution of Barelwiiyat itself by ARK no less, and the fact that these numbskulls haven’t taken the necessary steps to warn the Muslim scholars across the globe, perhaps it is finally time - as per the ridiculous rules on chain Takfir - that these militant Brillos declare themselves Kuffar. A random debate in Birmingham or Bradford or somewhere in Pakistan doesn’t absolve them of that “sacred responsibility” to convince all other Muslims that Nanotwi is at they claim he is. It must be very hard being a Brillo and maintaining mental stability.

Biography of Imam Nanotwi https://ia803101.us.archive.org/30/items/Maktaba-Maulana-Fakhrul-Islam-Mazahiri/Hujjat-al-Islam-Tahqeeq-wa-Takhreej-Maulana-Hakeem-Fakhrul-Islam-Sahib.pdf

On the Asanid of Imam Muhammad Qasim Nanotwi https://x.com/salyounas/status/1211378814485434368

الإمام محمد قاسم النانوتوي ت1297هـ كان فرائد الزمان، جمع بين العلم والتدريس والتأليف والجهاد ومناظرة الفرق الضالة - محمد وائل الحنبلي

Scholars from 42 countries attending the Imam Qasim Nanotwi conference in Istanbul. Here are interviews with a few of the scholars in attendance. https://youtu.be/t599EdDzpFI

Scholars in attendance at the Imam Qasim Nanotwi conference in Istanbul https://youtu.be/Fw5HIewlRek

Mahmut Ustaosmanoğlu (d. 2022), more commonly known as Mahmud Effendi of Turkey, was awarded the Imam Qasim Nanotwi Prize for services to Islamic knowledge https://youtu.be/gjMHjKiU_3k

From the book الدلائل في غريب الحديث by Qasim al-Awfi (d. 302 AH) of Zaragoza (al-Saraqusti): A man in Kufa had a dream that whoever prays in the Mosque of Kufa will be forgiven.. The people gathered in the mosque. Harithah ibn Muضarrib came to Abdullah ibn Mas'ud and informed him of this. He stood up hurriedly and walked until he came to the mosque. He stood at the mosque door and started pointing to his clothes (i.e., signalling to the people to come out), saying, "Leave so that you are not punished. It is but a breeze from satan. There is no prophet after your Prophet, and no scripture after your scripture." Lessons: 1. Keep your dreams to yourselves. 2. There is no prophet after the Prophet. 3. Ibn Mas'ud did not like newly invented practices in the religion at all.

One can legitimately disagree with the interpretation of خاتم النبيين as offered up by M. Nanotwi and Qari Tayyib Qasmi. It is a minoirity view, and it is a weak one. But that doesn't mean they denied the chronological finality of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم overall. It does seem to me that Iblis (no less) continues to do his magic on Brillos and keeps them labouring under a misunderstanding of this basic point. Iblis is doing his best to keep them on Takfir and the Ummah disunited. There can be no unity unless this cancer of Takfir emanating from Barelwis is chemoed and expunged.

There is a chapter in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah called: من كره أنه يقول: لا نبي بعد النبي Those who disliked saying "There is no prophet after the Prophet" Two narrations here. One from A'ishah with a broken chain, and another from Mughirah with a weak narrator in it. Assumed in the former and explicitly mentioned in the latter, the reason for this is Isa عليه السلام will come towards the end of times. So if we are to take these narrations as admissible (which I personally am not due to their weakness), I wouldn't hasten to Takfir someone based on this statement alone, as indeed they might have a ta'wil for this statement (i.e., Jesus is a prophet who will come after the Prophet). So those to whom the undesirability of saying "There is no prophet after the Prophet" is ascribed does nto entail they disbelieved in the finality of the prophethood of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. Rather, it is to avoid the semblance of denying the return of Jesus. Without this context, and without knowing who brought this chapter in his Hadith work, I'm sure the Brillos would have unwittingly pronounced Takfir on Ibn Abi Shaybah. Such is their ISIS-like obsession with Takfir.

وهو بعد أن علمنا الله عز وجل أنه لا نبي بعد محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم ممتنع لا سبيل إليه في الوجود لا على معنى أنه تعالى لا يوصف بالقدرة على ذلك بل نعوذ بالله من الفكر في هذا أو التشكيك بل هو عز وجل قادر الآن وأبدا على أن يبعث نبيا آخر بدين آخر ولكنه أخبرنا أنه لا يفعل ذلك مريدا لتركه This is Ibn Hazm in al-Ihkam spelling out that Allah is able a prophet after the Prophet, though He will not do it. Ibn Hazm seeks Allah's refuge in doubting Allah's ability to do so.

Is it possible for a prophet to be sent after the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم? The simple answer is yes, as per the following narration from Sunan Ibn Majah: حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ نُمَيْرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بِشْرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ أَبِي خَالِدٍ قَالَ: قُلْتُ لِعَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ أَبِي أَوْفَى: رَأَيْتَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ ابْنَ رَسُولِ اللهِ ﷺ؟ قَالَ: مَاتَ وَهُوَ صَغِيرٌ، وَلَوْ قُضِيَ أَنْ يَكُونَ بَعْدَ مُحَمَّدٍ ﷺ نَبِيٌّ لَعَاشَ ابْنُهُ، وَلَكِنْ لَا نَبِيَّ بَعْدَهُ The wording of the same narration in Sahih 'l-Bukhari reads: حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ نُمَيْرٍ حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بِشْرٍ حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ قُلْتُ لِابْنِ أَبِي أَوْفَى : «رَأَيْتَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ ابْنَ النَّبِيِّ ﷺ قَالَ: مَاتَ صَغِيرًا، وَلَوْ قُضِيَ أَنْ يَكُونَ بَعْدَ مُحَمَّدٍ ﷺ نَبِيٌّ عَاشَ ابْنُهُ، وَلَكِنْ لَا نَبِيَّ بَعْدَهُ.» This basically means that, had Ibrahim رضي الله عنه lived, he would have been a prophet. But it was destined that his father صلى الله عليه وسلم would be the last prophet, therefore Ibrahim was taken by Allah as a child. Ibn Hajar commentates: هَكَذَا جَزَمَ بِهِ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ أَبِي أَوْفَى. وَمِثْلُ هَذَا لَا يُقَالُ بِالرَّأْيِ، وَقَدْ تَوَارَدَ عَلَيْهِ جَمَاعَةٌ: فَأَخْرَجَ ابْنُ مَاجَهْ مِنْ حَدِيثِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ قَالَ: لَمَّا مَاتَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ ابْنُ النَّبِيِّ ﷺ صَلَّى عَلَيْهِ وَقَالَ: إِنَّ لَهُ مُرْضِعًا فِي الْجَنَّةِ، لَوْ عَاشَ لَكَانَ صِدِّيقًا نَبِيًّا، وَلَأَعْتَقْتُ أَخْوَالَهُ الْقِبْطَ. وَرَوَى أَحْمَدُ، وَابْنُ مَنْدَهْ مِنْ طَرِيقِ السُّدِّيِّ: سَأَلْتُ أَنَسًا: كَمْ بَلَغَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ؟ قَالَ: كَانَ قَدْ مَلَأَ الْمَهْدَ، وَلَوْ بَقِيَ لَكَانَ نَبِيًّا، وَلَكِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ لِيَبْقَى ; لِأَنَّ نَبِيَّكُمْ آخِرُ الْأَنْبِيَاءِ. وَلَفْظُ أَحْمَدَ: ولَوْ عَاشَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ ابْنُ النَّبِيِّ ﷺ لَكَانَ صِدِّيقًا نَبِيًّا، وَلَمْ يَذْكُرِ الْقِصَّةَ. فَهَذِهِ عِدَّةُ أَحَادِيثَ صَحِيحَةٌ عَنْ هَؤُلَاءِ الصَّحَابَةِ أَنَّهُمْ أَطْلَقُوا ذَلِكَ According to Ibn Hajar, this is a mawquf narration that is technically marfu'. He then went on to reject the claims of some other scholars who found these narrations to be implausible. The idea therefore that it is logically and intrinsically impossible for a prophet to come after the Prophet flies against the aforementioned narrations. Even if it is a purely mawquf narration (i.e., a Sahabi's own position), I wonder if these numbskull Brillos would like to pronounce Takfir on Ibn Hajar, or on Ibn Majah and Bukhari, or indeed on Abdullah ibn Abi Awfa himself.

Qari Tayyib's book on ختم نبوت https://dn790006.ca.archive.org/0/items/Maktaba-Hakeem-ul-Islam-Maulana-Qari-Tayyib-ra/Khatam-al-Nabiyyin.pdf