Deobandis Refuse Explicit Kufr in Hifzul Imaan

Deobandis insist on justification for Kufr statement in Hifzul Imaan  by their elder Ashraf Ali Thanvi (d.1943 CE) Here
When we talk about cults, we talk about blind following and being unapologetic for even those things that are blatantly inexcusable. Here
If that's cultish, then aren't deobandis the biggest cult of all...?
We're not just talking about justifying haram, such as a shaykhpraising deviants, (Herewe're dealing with statements ofkufr; and still deobandis refuse to accept.

The Biggest Cult!
Saman Alam said: Are the beliefs of the Deobandis kufr or is it that some of their statements are interpreted as kufr by non-Deobandis while they interpret them to not be kufr?
In other words, do Deobandis actually admit to holding beliefs that are kufr?

Sunni responseCourse they don't. Otherwise why would they hold them?
Their elders committed kufr by insulting RasulAllah (صلى الله عليه وسلمand the deobandis refuse to distance from those passages.

Saman Alam said: My question would be, what is the kufr if they don't interpret those passages as insulting RasulAllah?
Sunni responseInterpretations are invalid in explicit words. 33 scholars of Haramayn and 268 of India ruled them as kufr.
Saman Alam Of course, they do not believe these passages are explicit (or implicit) insults.
Are you saying there are no non-Deobandi scholars who did not interpret these passages as insults?

If some impartial non-Deobandi scholars understood them to not be insults, maybe they are not explicit?
Saman Alam I say this, because all excuses have to be exhausted before a statement is ruled to be kufr.
A fatwa of Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah
Saman Alam I was sent an English book called "A Critique of Husam al-Haramayn".
In that book, on page 85 it mentions that this phrase "mitti mei milne" idiomatically means "to be buried". It refers to dictionaries Nur-ul-Lughat, Jami-ul-Lughat, Munir-ul-Lughat and Sa'eed-ul-Lughat.
Maybe the other passages can have similar explanations. If so, it would be necessary to avoid calling them kufr.

Sunni: Saman Alam pretty sure Imam Ahmad Raza exhausted the hundreds of possibilities over 13 years of back and forth conversation with those scholars of Deoband before he finally gave the fatwa of Kufr.
Sunni reply: And that's why explanations are not heard for explicit words, otherwise nothing would be kufr.
Mohammed Kamal Hussain said: But then any Tom,Dick and Harry could put kufr upon anyone. 
Theses disputes have become like Chinese whispers. They will never end and there is no point in trying to fix that which can’t be fix.Just don’t talk about it and carry on with life.

Sunni reply:  Well said. That's why it wasn't Thomas or Richard, it was 33 of the greats of Haramayn.
Saman Alam I'm sure Deobandis also point to some of the greats of Haramayn and other places who exonerated them of kufr. If there is legitimate disagreement, the view of it not being kufr is the safe position.
Sunni reply:  That's where we come to this "exoneration", al-Muhannad
What exactly did they exonerate? (Here)
Saman Alam You can have a look yourself.

Mohammed Kamal Hussain said:  They say that many great ulamaah of haramayn and other say there is nothing kufri in their books.
Sunni reply:  This is the reality of Muhannad: 

Mohammed Kamal Hussain Why is what you put correct and what Saman put incorrect or vice versus ?
Saman Alam I am not in a position to assess the reliability of the historical information.
Nor do I think most people are
Sunni reply:  Saman only posted a link to the book. I posted why that book is a total deceit.
Saman Alam Under question 20, one of the passages in dispute is written out in full:
"Moreover, if this usage were correct for his holy essence (Allah bless him and grant him peace) according to the statement of a questioner, we will ask for clarification from him: what does he mean by this ghayb?

Does he mean every particular from the particulars of ghayb or a part of it, whichever part it may be?
If he intended a part of the ghayb, there is no speciality in this for the Chief of Messengers (Allah bless him and grant him peace), since the knowledge of some ghayb, even if it is little, is attainable by Zayd and ‘Amr, rather every child and madman, rather all animals and beasts, because every one of them knows something another does not know and [something that is] hidden from him.
Hence, if the questioner permits the usage [of the term] ‘alim al ghayb for one because of his knowledge of a part of the ghayb, it would be necessary for him to allow its usage for all those mentioned, and if that was the case, it would not then be from the perfections of prophethood because they all share in it; and if it is not the case, he will be asked for a distinction, and will find no path to it. [Here] ends the statement of Shaykh al-Thanawi."
Sunni reply:   Show me in the entire Muhannad the passages verbatim, as they appear in the original books. Time starts now.
Mohammed Kamal Hussain  said: He posted his source and posted yours, besides there are 100s of books from both groups not to mention YouTube clips. It’s not correct to ask for clarification of a derbondi book from a brelvi or vice versa.
Also one could argue that it’s all semantics.
Sunni reply:  I'm asking devbandis about their own book. If that book is an exoneration, show us the passages verbatim that ulama of Haramayn said weren't kufr.
Saman Alam Does the paragraph that I quoted from Muhannad not accurately represent one of the passages in dispute?
Mohammed Kamal Hussain  said: More to the point why should a non drebondi have a say on what the text mean ? Surly the students of the person would have a better understanding of what the text is implying also vice versa.
Sunni reply:  Exoneration would only be if you quote the exact words and THEN ulama say they're not kufr. If the deobandis believed they weren't kufr, why not quote the precise words...
Mohammed Kamal Hussain said: why should the burden of proof be upon the writer, surly it’s upon the claimant. And from what I’ve seen both in writing and on YouTube, it seems all semantic driven by the mob from both sides.
Sunni reply:  The writer's aimed to exonerate themselves by writing Muhannad. Where in that book are their passages that were deemed to be kufr by 33 ulama of Haramayn?
Saman Alam In the paragraph I have quoted above, what would you say requires changing to make it accurate?
Some things would obviously be lost in translation from Urdu to Arabic. 
But what in your view makes the above paragraph not kufr and the original paragraph kufr?

Mohammed Kamal Hussain Exonerate or clarification ?
Sunni reply:  Thanwi wrote: aysa ilm (such knowledge).
Show me from your translated passage these words.

Saman Alam "The knowledge of some ghayb" = "aysa ilm ghayb"
See page 63 of "A Critique of Husam al-Haramayn".
 "Aysa" can mean "this kind of", and is not necessarily used for comparison. So the words say, "This kind of ilm ghayb", or in the translation of Muhannad, "The knowledge of some ghayb", which is what "this kind of ilm ghayb" refers to.
Sunni reply:  But didn't deobandis say it's for comparison? Tashbih.
Saman Alam I'm going by what's mentioned in the above work. Based on what I have mentioned, is the translation of Muhannad a linguistically valid meaning?
Sunni reply:  When aysa is used and the mushabbah and mushabbah bihi are mentioned, it's for comparison. The words are in Urdu and that's the rule in Urdu. 
I've not even commented on the signatories of Muhannad yet..

And why should we forget what deobandis themselves said about aysa? Husain Ahmad Tandwi, anyone? (Here)
Saman Alam Aysa seems equivalent to the English "such", as you have translated it. When it says "such knowledge of ghayb", could it not be referring to "the knowledge of some ghayb" as translated in Muhannad? Is this linguistically possible or not?
Sunni reply:  Aysa ilm e ghayb - 'such knowledge of ghayb'. 
So which two things is SUCH comparing?
If we accept partial knowledge for Zameel, then what is his speciality?

Such knowledge is also held by animals and madmen.
Such is comparing Zameel with dogs and pigs.

Saman Alam "What Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanavi meant was that if when Zayd says 'Alim al-Ghayb' (Knower of Unseen knowledge) only some of that knowledge of the Unseen is meant then what is the specification of the Messenger in that; for the like of that (i.e. some), and as a result of which Zayd is calling the Messenger “Knower of the Unseen knowledge”, is found with Zayd and Amar, in fact with every child, insane person, and even animal and beast. Therefore it would demand Zayd to call all of them (Allah Almighty forbid) “Knowers of the Unseen”. This has to be so as according to Zayd to be called Knower of the Unseen it is enough to have any piece of knowledge of the Unseen, and it is certain that all these beings have some knowledge of the Unseen. If they do not then at the very least they have knowledge of their Creator and that too comes under Unseen knowledge.
"Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanavi never meant the kind of Unseen knowledge possessed by the Messenger of God is also possessed by the things he lists. Nor did he mean (Allah Almighty forbid) that the knowledge possessed by the Messenger is of the same level and equal to that which is possessed by every child, insane person, animals and beasts as has been portrayed by Mawlana Ahmad Raza Khan, as signified by his words: “See the parity he is creating between the Messenger of Allah and any insignificant being.”" (A Critique of Husam al-Haramayn, page 64)
Saman Alam It is an interpretation to say RasulAllah is the "mushabbah".
It is possible there is no mushabbah, and the word "aysa" means "this kind of knowledge of ghayb", referring to some knowledge of the unseen.
Based on this, the rendition of Muhannad is a possible linguistic meaning and the original passage is not kufr.

Sunni reply:  He mentioned the partial knowledge of RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم and compared it to animals. 
What do you think, is this disrespectful to a chap calledZameel:
If it means Zameel has partial knowledge, then what is special about him?

Such knowledge is also held by animals and madmen.
Is that insulting the knowledge of Zameel or not?
Or Thanwi himself:
If we accept partial knowledge for Ashraf Ali Thanwi and because of that we call him aalim, then what is special aboutThanwi? Such knowledge is also held by animals and madmen.
Hand on heart, would you accept that for Thanwi?

Sunni: Saman Alam If, according to Khalil Anbethwi, there was no kufr in the passages on page 8 of Hifz al-Iman, page 51 of Barahin-e-Qati’ah and pages 3, 14 and 28 of Tahdhir al-Nas;then what was he afraid of?
It was binding upon him to present the actual passages to the scholars of Haramayn and their correct translations and the meaning which he understood from them. He should then have asked the scholars of Haramayn whether these are the meanings of these passages or not and are they free from kufr or not? 
The climax of all dishonesty was that one passage was declared to be the summary of the meaning of Barahin-e-Qati’ah.Another passage was said to be the summary of the subject ofTahdhir al-Nas and at the end of another passage, he wrote that here end the words of Thanwi. 
In al Muhannad Khaleel Ambethwi never presented theactual text. Remember that.

Saman Alam The subject is not knowledge or ilm in general, but knowledge of unseen and ilm al-ghayb.
Can you answer this question. Is the rendition of Muhannad a possible linguistic meaning?
It's not possible to present the actual text when you are communicating between languages! The question is whether the meaning was accurately conveyed.
Sunni: Saman Alam it is definetely possible.
Khaleel Ambethwi was a teacher in arabic literature. (شیخ ادب)
Khaleel made his own interpretation and presented it.
When he can write a whole book in arabic. How can he not translate the passages?
 This clearly reflects injustice and dishonesty that actual texts were not presented.
Sunni reply:  No, it's not accurate and not a possible meaning.Why? Because it was the word AYSA that was the basis of kufr and it is that very word that Muhannad omitted. 
Alahazrat translated it: مثل هذا العلم بالغيب so why didn'tAnbethwi?

Why did he give his interpretation rather than a translation?
Manzoor Numani agreed with Alahazrat's translation, by the way.

Saman Alam Maybe he felt it was not necessary to provide a verbatim translation and it would be enough to convey the meaning.
Sunni:  Saman Alam wow. One presents according to his own feelings. Where on earth this happens? Particularly when you are in court of Ulama Haramain
Sunni reply:  Ya RasulAllah ( صلى الله عليه وسلم)! Unnecessary?! They were deemed kafirs for the verbatim. 
Why didn't he go to the SAME ulama who called Thanwi a kafir and say, 'you've been duped. Here's the exact translation and this is the meaning.'
You say Alahazrat lied.  Fine. Then why didn't Anbethwipresent the correct TRANSLATIONS according to HIM and get the fatwa of kufr retracted from the SAME scholars who called them kafirs...??

Saman Alam “In the Urdu language the word aysa (like) has several meanings. The poet Ameer Minai in his famous Urdu lexicon Ameer al-Lughaat, explaining the word aysa, writes:
1. Of this kind; used in a phrase such as, to make a pen-case like this is difficult for any person, (Aatish). Also, there is no beloved like her in the garden of the world – neither is there a rose that emits her fragrance nor is there a fruit with the like of her pleasure.
2. This amount or extent; like (this) he struck him (aysa maara) such that he was left lifeless. Also,
This wine-presser‟s body is so (aysa) supple and clean
that the religious believe it tantamount to a wave of wine
Clearly it is possible to take either the meaning of like this kind or of this amount/extent. Keeping this in view the passage ofMawlana Ashraf Ali Thanavi becomes completely faultlessand under no circumstances can it be said he was guilty of blasphemy against the Messenger (Allah forbid), the very thought never crossed his mind.” (A Critique of Husam al-Haramayn, page 63)

Saman Alam It doesn't matter if the word is omitted, if what the word refers to is conveyed accurately.
Is it not possible that "aysa" could mean "this kind of ilm al-ghayb", referring specifically to "some knowledge of the unseen"? Is this a possible meaning or interpretation?

Sunni reply:   It's ok to take the meaning of 'this amount'? So now we're equating the amount of knowledge of RasulAllahصلى الله عليه وسلم  with animals! (Astaghfirullah)
Please, why don't you stop for the sake of your iman?

So now your passage becomes: 
“Then what is extraordinary about RasūlAllāh in possessing it?

This much knowledge of unseen is also possessed by all and sundry [Zayd, Amr]; even infants, lunatics and all the animals and quadrupeds.”
Saman Alam As far as I can see, this is just a matter of linguistic gymnastics. Deobandis clearly have their reasons, linguistic etc.,for believing this passage is not blasphemousThey presented their understanding, and were exonerated of kufr.
"This amount" would mean "the amount of some knowledge of unseen", that is as opposed to "the amount of all knowledge of unseen", not "the amount of knowledge of RasulAllah"!
It seems you will jump to only the worst possible meaning.

Sunni reply:  Then why say 'amount'? What is the need at all to mention amounts and quantities?
You can just say partial or total unless you wish to equate the amount?
Is the amount of partial knowledge of RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم  the same as animals? No! Then why say aysa, 'this amount of partial knowledge of unseen is also held by animals.'
Mentioning amounts with the word aysa is for what? The words itnā and is qadr come to mind...

Amounts and extents are mentioned for quantities, not types.
Partial knowledge is a type.
Total knowledge is a type.
Amount of partial knowledge is for quantity. 
Do you deobandis have any intellect at all?

Saman Alam It would be rendered as, "This amount or extent of knowledge of unseen", not, "This amount of partial knowledge of unseen" as you have rendered it.
"This amount of knowledge of unseen" refers to "partial knowledge of unseen" as opposed to "total knowledge of unseen". An "amount" or "extent" does not have to be static but can be variable, as with the amount of "partial knowledge of unseen". It means: "anything less than total".

Saman Alam The types in reference are quantities: partial quantity or total quantity.
Sunni reply:  Is this acceptable:
If it refers to partial knowledge of unseen, then what is special about RasulAllah  صلى الله عليه وسلم in possessing it? This amountof knowledge of unseen is attainable by animals and madmen.

Saman Alam It is acceptable if "this amount of knowledge of unseen" is referring to "partial knowledge of unseen" and not the knowledge of RasulAllah.
Sunni reply:  Then you wouldn't say amount, would you? It's silly. You'd just say, partial knowledge. If you mention anamount, it only means quantity. 
It's like saying:
Bill Gates has some money but what is special about Bill in this?This amount is even held by Zameel too.

Saman Alam The discussion is about something attributed exclusively to Allah, "Alim al-Ghayb", not about things that are attributed to creation also like knowledge in general or wealth.
So a better analogy would be something like "Khaliq" (Creator). Take the following analogy: 
'If someone said, Elon Musk can be called "the Creator", he of course does not mean creator of everything, but creator of some things, while creating some things is not exclusive to Elon Musk; such an amount of creation is carried out even by ants and other creatures, so they should all be called "Creators".'
It is obvious that what is being attributed to ants is not the same quantity of invention or creation as Elon Musk but of creating some things in general. There is no equation made between Elon Musk and ants. In the same way, no equation is made between the ilm al-ghayb of RasulAllah and the other creatures in the original passage.

Sunni reply:  Yes, equation IS made. Because you've saidAMOUNT.
Saman Alam The amount of "some" as opposed to "all", not the amount held by the person in question.
I would have thought that's an obvious distinction.

Saman Alam In the analogy that I presented and the original passage, the actual amounts held are not even brought up. 
All that is mentioned is that a general amount described as "some" is held by them, which is not something exclusive to them, rather a general amount of "some" is also held by others.
The actual, precise amount of that "some" is not even in question.

Sunni reply:  YOU brought up amounts. YOU said it's a valid interpretation. It would be good if you took that wording back and denounced it, for your sake as it points towards equality.No harm in doing tawbah from something once it's brought to your attention.
Saman Alam ?? You seem to be evading the problems with your blasphemy theory. The passage clearly has a valid, alternative meaning which you are not willing to even consider.
The meaning presented in Muhannad is not linguistically invalid or implausible. If the passage has a linguistically plausible meaning that is not kufr, that meaning will have to be assumed.
Saman Alam "Now at the end I consider it appropriate, in order to complete this reply, that I further explain the passage of Hifz al-Iman that was the basis of this accusation, though it is completely clear. Firstly, I made the claim that the kind of Unseen knowledge that is intrinsic and independent (bi-laa wasita) is exclusively for Allah Most High. As for that Unseen knowledge that is dependent (bil-wasita) it is possible for the creation, but it is not permitted to call the creation Knower of the Unseen (`Alim al-Ghayb) thereby. For this claim I presented two proofs. That passage comes from the second proof which begins with the words: Then if it is true as held by Zayd that the ruling of knowledge of the Unseen is established for the pure person of the Messenger. It means that the application of the ruling of knowledge of the Unseen to the sacred person of the Messenger, is merely due to his possessing Unseen knowledge by dependency (bil-wasita) and this is sound according to you. Then by `Alim al-Ghayb (Knower of the Unseen) if you mean that he possesses all limitless knowledge, then that is impossible by the demand of scripture and reason. If, however, you mean only some branches of Unseen knowledge, even if it were just one thing, no matter how insignificant that one thing was, what is the specification of the Messenger in that. For the likeness (aysa) of that knowledge is possessed by Zayd, Amar etc.
"The word aysa here does not mean they possess Unseen knowledge just as the knowledge of the Unseen possessed in reality by the Messenger, (We seek refuge of God from that). Rather the meaning of aysa here is exactly what we mentioned above, that is (all possess) some of the Unseen Knowledge (be it even a small amount, and no matter how insignificant). The reason for this is that some, as stated above, is general in its application. The very following words in the passage are also the proof for this; namely: The reason for this is that every person will have knowledge of something or other that is hidden from another person….Consequently, if Zayd considers it reason enough to apply knowledge of the Unseen to all cases of possessing any piece of Unseen knowledge, no matter how insignificant, then Zayd will have to call all these beings Knowers of the Unseen. Is it not so that they too know some Unseen things? A superficial reading of this very passage is clearly saying this…." (A Critique of Husam al-Haramayn, page 65)
According to the above work, this was written by the author of the original passage himself in 1910.
What more is required after the explanation of the author himself?

Sunni reply:   A retraction maybe of the original passage which he changed?
Saman Alam He explained what he meant by the original passage in the above quote, and later made a modification but not because he believed there was anything problematic with the original:
"On the 28th of September 1923 (1342 Hijri), a friend of Mawlana Thanvi from Hyderabad Dakkan wrote to to him with reference to the Bast al-Banaan treatise:
"After your clarificaion there is no room left for any doubt. There is neither the slightest hint of a contrary meaning being intended nor bad ettiqutte. Hence truly there is absolutely no necessity to amend the passage for this reason. However, the Muslim world is filled with all kinds of people with different understandings and there are those who will deliberately cause confusion for their interests. They will of course claim it is for the sake of religion they do what they do, but in reality it is for worldly interest. Due to this situation, in consideration of those with less understanding, who may themselves fall into error or be confused by others, if this passage was modified in a way such that though the words would be altered, the substance would remain the same. It is hoped that this would be rewarded. This modification though would not be at the level of necessity, only desirable. The end decision is whatever you believe is correct.
"This is how Mawlana Thanavi replied to this letter:
"May God reward you. It is a very good idea. Because before this no one showed any real basis for modifying the passage, and so I thought making a modification would be necessarily admitting that the passage had a contrary meaning. It is a principle to make an admission of disbelief is disbelief (iqrar bil-kufr kufr). Thus I considered a modification, not only not necessary, it was actually forbidden. Now your letter has shown me a genuine justification and in line with your advice, I change the words from: 'If it some of the knowledge of the Unseen that is meant, then what is the specification of the Messenger in this? The like of this knowledge of the Unseen (aysa `ilm-e-ghayb) is also found with Zayd, Umar, moreover every child, insane person and even all animals and beasts. The reason for this is that every person will have knowledge of something or other that is hidden from another person, this will then require one to call everyone Knower of the Unseen (`Alim al-Ghayb)…' to this: 'If it is some of the knowledge of the Unseen that is meant, then what is the specification of the Messenger in this? Some knowledge of the Unseen in general terms (mutlaq `ulum-e-ghaybiyya) is also found with other than the prophets, may God's blessing be upon them. Thus it will require one to call every one Knower of the Unseen (`Alim al-Ghayb)….'
"This reply was then published under the title Tagheer al-Unwaan (Modification of the Address) in the same year. This letter was also published as an appendix to future editions of Hifz al-Iman." (A Critique of Husam al-Haramayn, page 68)
Sunni reply:   He changed the passage. It's still problematic as there's no repentance from the original.
The question still remains:
1. Why didn't Anbethwi present the actual passages or their correct translation? He could have then added what Thanwimeant. Why did he hide the original?

If there's no kufr, then why didn't he present it?
2. Why didn't he go to the same ulama who are in Husam?

Saman Alam I have no idea about the second question, but I think it has been established that what he presented accurately conveys the meaning of the passage. 
What matters is the meaning, not the words.

Saman Alam He does not believe the original is problematic, so of course there will be no repentance. In fact, he said to repent would be an admission that the passage is kufr, but he does not accept this based on the clear explanation he has given.
Sunni reply:  Wrong. Totally wrong.
When talking about RasulAllah  صلى الله عليه وسلم, it's words.
Do you know Rā'inā?
The ruling will always be on the apparent.
As for the meaning, NO, it isn't present in Muhannad.

Because Thanwi said aysā for tashbih but there is no word that indicates tashbih in Muhannad.
It was the word aysā that was the cause of kufr and Anbethwiremoved it.
So, again, what was the harm in Anbethwi presenting accurate translations?

Manzoor Numani said the translations in Husām are correct.
Why didn't Anbethwi just show the same translations and THEN give his own meaning?
Listen. Muhannad can only be a reply to Husām if:
The same passages that are in Husām were presented to the same ulama and then they retracted. 
Right now, it's apples and oranges.

Saman Alam Going in circles.
Sunni reply:   The crux of which is, if the passages of devbandis didn't contain kufr, why didn't the very book that sought to exonerate them mention the actual passages?
Why only give the purported meaning and that too as understood by the devbandis themselves?
Why not let the ulama decide the meaning?
Saman Alam are you Zameel?

Saman Alam I am not Zameel.
A big factor would be communicating across languages.
Are you saying that when they wrote their defences in Urdu, like in the work I quoted above, they did not quote the complete passages?

Sunni reply:  Numani did. Chandpuri did. But the clincher is,Anbethwi DIDN'T because the former two didn't have to present to Arabs, the latter did. He hid the original passages.
That's dishonesty. If you're so sure you haven't blasphemer, go ahead and present the actual accurate translations or even the original Urdu to people like Abdul Haq Muhajir Madani.

Saman Alam Were there no impartial non-Deobandi Urdu-speaking scholars who exonerated them of kufr?
Sunni reply:  Keyword: beliefs. The question ISN'T about beliefs, is it?
It's about what was WRITTEN.
The partial knowledge of RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم  has been compared to the partial knowledge of animals and madmen. That's insulting and therefore kufr.
My question remains, if devbandis didn't think it's kufr in the original passage, then:

1. Why didn't they present the actual translation of the passage?
2. Why did they later change the same passage? 
3. Why didn't they present Muhannad to the same scholars who had endorsed Husām?

Changing a passage or only presenting what you claim it means doesn't remove kufr. It actually proves it further.
شهاب صديقي Abd-Allah S. Qureshi this Barelwi is trying too hard.Tell him to shut up and start giving the interpretations that are now being shown from the books of his Akabir. 
Let’s see him use the same yardstick that he uses with Deobandis.
Btw, great job Saman in exposing the hypocrisy of this guy. I am sure it didn’t register with him at all.

Sunni reply: The partial knowledge of RasulAllah  صلى الله عليه وسلم is compared to that of animals and you lot don't see the issue.Sad.
Sunni reply:  Even if aysā refers to partial knowledge of unseen, whose knowledge is being compared with what?
Sunni reply:  Tell me, would a deobandi find this offensive:
And then, if it is correct to attribute knowledge to be possessed by Thanwi, as Zameel says, then it remains to be asked, which one he refers to. Is it only a ‘part’ of it (ba’ad) or ‘complete’; if he refers to ‘part’, then what is extraordinary about Thanwi in possessing it?

Such knowledge is also possessed by all and sundry; even infants, lunatics and all the animals and quadrupeds.
The knowledge of Gangohi, Anbethwi, Nanotwi and Thanwi;what's extraordinary about it?
Such knowledge is possessed by pigs and dogs too.
So we should call pigs aalims too.

Malik Ibn Wahb related that Malik said,
إن رداء النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم ـ و يروى زر النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم ـ وسخ ، أراد عيبه ـ قتل
"Anyone who says that the Prophet's cloak (or button) wasdirty, thereby intending to find fault with him, should be killed."
Abu'l-Hasan al-Qabisi gave a fatwa that
فيمن قال في النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم : الحمال يتيم أبي طالب ـ بالقتل
a man who called the Prophet "the porter, the orphan of Abu Talib" should be killed.
Abu Muhammad ibn Abi Zayd gave a fatwa to kill a man who was listening to some people discussing what the Prophet looked like. When a man with an ugly face and beard walked by, he said to them, "You want to know what he looked like? He looked like this passer-by in physique and beard." Abu Muhammad said,
و لا تقبل توبته و قد كذب ـ لعنه الله ، و ليس يخرج من قلب سليم الإيمان
"His repentance is not accepted. He lied, may Allah curse him. That could not come out of a heart with sound belief."
Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman, the companion of Sahnun, said,
إن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم كان أسود يقتل
"Anyone who says that the Prophet was black should be killed."
Muhammad ibn Sahnun said that
أجمع العلماء أن شاتم النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم المتقص له كافر . و الوعيد جار عليه بعذاب الله ، و حكمه عند الأمة القتل ، و من شك في كفره و عذابه كفر
The 'ulama' agree that anyone who reviles the Prophet anddisparages him is an unbeliever and the threat of Allah's punishment is on him. The community's judgment on him is that he be killed. Anyone who has any doubts about such a person's disbelief and punishment is also an unbeliever.
Ibrahim ibn Husayn ibn Khalid, the faqih, uses the instance ofKhalid ibn al-Walid killing Malik ibn Nuwayra for referring to the Prophet as "your companion."
Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi said,
لا أعلم أحداً من المسلمين اختلف في وجوب قتله إذا كان مسلماً
"I do not know of any Muslim who disagrees about the necessity of killing such a person if he is a Muslim."
Ibn al-Qasim reports from Malik in the book of Ibn Sahnun, the Mabsut, and the 'Utibiyya and Ibn Mutarrif relate the same from Malik in the book of Ibn Habib,
من سب النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم من المسلمين قتل ، و لم يستتب
"Any Muslim who curses the Prophet is killed without being asked to repent."
Ibn al-Qasim said in the 'Utibiyya,
من سبه أو شتمه أو عابه أو تنقصه فإنه يقتل ، و حكمه عند الأمة القتل كالزنديق
"Anyone who curses him, reviles him, finds fault with him ordisparages him is killed. The community says that he should be killed just like the dualist. Allah made it obligatory to respect the Prophet and be dutiful to him."
In the Mabsut from 'Uthman ibn Kinana we find,
من شتم النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم من المسلمين قتل أو صلب حياً و لم يستتب و الإمام مخير في صلبه حياً أو قتله
"Any Muslim who reviles the Prophet is killed or crucifiedwithout being asked to repent. The Imam can choose between crucifying him and killing him."
Abu'l-Mus'ab and Ibn Abi Uways, they heard Malik say,
من سب رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم ، أو شتمه ، أو عابة ، أو تنقصه ـ قتل مسلماً كان أو كافراً ، و لا يستتاب
"Anyone who curses the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, reviles him, finds fault with him ordisparages him is killed, be he Muslim or unbeliever, without being asked to repent."
Habib ibn Rabi' al-Qarawi said that
مذهب مالك و أصحابه أن من قال فيه صلى الله عليه و سلم : ما فيه نقص ـ قتل دون استتابة
The school of Malik and his companions is that anyone who says anything disparaging about the Prophet is killed without being asked to repent.
Ibn 'Attab said that
الكتاب و السنة موجبان أن من قصد النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم بأذى أو نقص ، معرضاً أو مصرحاً ، و إن قل ـ فقتله واجب ، فهذا الباب كله مما عده ا لعلماء سباً أو تنقصاً يجب قتل قائله ، لم يختلف في ذلك متقدمهم ولا متأخرهم
The Book and Sunnah require that someone who intends to even slightly harm or disparage the Prophet, either by allusion or clear statement, must be killed. Anything like this which is something that the 'ulama' consider to be a curse or disparagement necessitates that the one who says it be killed. Neither the early or later people disagree about that.
If you want answers to Usman Deobandi's videos, you can see:

Shaykh Asrar Rashid & Usman Deobandi Videos


(Edited by ADHM)