Thursday, 21 June 2012

Wahhabi/Deobandi: Imkan e Kidhb - Waque Kidhb - Khlaf e Wayid

update:June 2014



The person/molvi in the above video is:


“ Sheikh Mumtaz ul Haq, completed his Hifdhul Qur’an at Jamia Rashidiyyah, Sahiwal, and then took up studies in Engineering at a UK university.

" He then took to dedicating his life to the cause of Islam, and took the bai’ah at the hands of Maulana Ghulam Habib [r.h] in his first visit to the U.K in 1971.
" He received khilaafat at the hands of Maulana Naeemullah Farooqi [r.h] upon the death of the former.
" Since 1991, he has been Imam of various Jami Masjids in London, and has studied under the supervision of leading scholars like
Allamah Khalid Mahmoud, and been engaged in academic research and lecturing on various pertinent topics affecting the Muslim world.”  (End of quote)

^ Allamah Khalid Mahmoud


Where did they get this Ugly belief from?

lets have a look:

Rashid Ahmad Gangohi said:
''The meaning of the possibility of (Allah) lying is that it is within the power of Allah to lie, meaning that whatever punishment has been promised (for the Kuffaar or Sinners) by Allah, He has the Power to do the opposite of that even if He does not do it. Possibility does not necessarily mean occurrence, but only that it can occur.... So the belief of all the scholars, sufis and 'ulama of Islam is that lies are within the power of Allah."
Book : Fatawa-e-Rashidia, Delhi ed. Volume 1, Page 20, Lines 11,12,14,15

The belief in the possibility of Allah lying is also reported from Shah Isma`il in his booklet Yak Rozi, page 145 according to the Okarvi URL: [] . 

Yak Rozi means "One-dayer" and was written by Shah Isma`il in one day in response to someone's objections to his Taqwiyat al-Iman according to the introduction to the English version of the latter, both introduction and text translated from the original Urdu.

This is confirmed by his statement in the Fatawa Rashidiyya (Lahore ed.? pg. 84):
 "From the servant Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, after Salaam Masnoon: you have inquired concerning the question of 'Imkaane Kazib' (possibility of lying). 'Imkaane Kizb' in the sense that Allah Ta`ala has the power to act contrary to what He has ordered, but, out of His own Free Will, will not, is the belief of this servant."
Wahhabi/Salafi said:  
Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi was right and the Barelwis are wrong. There is no doubt about that.
Allah does not lie, but Allah has the power to do.
Allah’s power to do wrong is something that is known from the Nusoos, yet we also know that these wrongs are not perpetrated by Allah, partly because He is Just, but mostly because of the Hadith Qudsi, “I have made injustice prohibited upon Myself”.
So if Allah was powerless to do injustice in the first place, how can Allah make it prohibited upon Himself? Doesn’t make sense.
It would therefore only make sense that Allah is able to do injustice but has promised not to do so. In other words, only possible things can be prohibited, not impossible things.
This is a basic thing beyond the comprehension of the Barelwis because they are too intoxicated by the fatwa of their highest pir, Ahmad Raza. They treat lying, injustice etc. for Allah just like it is impossible for Allah to die.”



Fatwa Rasheediyah

(Fatwa Rasheediyah,Vol :1, page 18,19)

Talifaat-e-Rashheddiyah page 98,99 by Rasheed Ahmed

More large scans Here


Rasheed Ahmed Gangohi said in his book:
Photocopy of original Fatwa:

Fatawa-e-Rasheedia, vol. 1 pg. 20, lines 11,12,14 and 15 (published: Kutub Khana Raheemia, Delhi - Press: Jayyad Barqi Press, Delhi)

"The meaning of the possibility of (Allah) lying is that it is within the power of Allah to lie, meaning that whatever punishment has been promised (for the Kuffaar or sinners) by Allah, He has the Power to do the opposite to that even if He does not do it. Possibility does not necessarily mean occurance, but that it can occur ... . So the beliefs of all the Scholars, Sufis and Ulema of Islam is that lies are within the Power of Allah. (Allah can lie)."

This absurdity is not limited to this particular person.

It is also endorsed by Khalil Ahmed Ambethwi in his book.
Photocopy of original Fatwa:

In his book: Baraheen-e-Qatiah, pg. 278, lines 13, 14
"This is the meaning of Imkaan-e-Kizb (Possibility of telling a lie) that Allah ta'ala has the power of telling lies but this will not happen."



Imkan e Kidhb  = Allah CAN lie ( possibility)
Waque Kidhb      = Allah Lied ( astagfirullah) 
Khlaf e Wayid     = Allah ( subhanahu ta'ala) with HIS mercy can put big kafirs like Abu Lahab also in 

( The usage by some deobandis is to show Mercy of Allah and it is never said that it is IMkan a kidhb)


Imkan / Wuqu' al-Kidhb - Can or Did Allah Lie? 
Imkan al-Kidhb / Wuqu' al-Kidhb

The fatwa which Imam Ahmed Raza quoted was a fatwa dealing with "Waque Kidhb", that is Allah Lied. ( Astagfirullah) and this is different from Imkan e kidh " Allah CAN lie ".

 The incidence which you have quoted is absolutely correct.

Mawlana Rashid Ahmed Gangohi died 13 years after the fatwa of kufr on him was declared due to his stand on Waque kidhb.

As long as he was alive he and none of the Deobandi denied this fatwa which Imam Ahmed Raza put forward.

Insha Allah I will provide the scan of this fatwa which was printed by the great Mufti of India Mawlana Azmal in his book " Radd e shahabus saqib'.
It is known that "shahabus saqib' was written by Mawlana Huseein Ahmed Tandvee , to refute Hussamul Harmain.

After Mawlana Rashid Ahmed died , Deobandis took a U turn and started saying that
 " when this fatwa of Waque Kidhb is not in “fatwa rashidiya” and when we have not seen this fatwa , then how can Imam Ahmed Raza get this Fatwa? 

Insha Allah , when my internet service will be restored ( around week end) , I shall post the scan and an analaysis of Deobandi stand on Imkan e kidhb and Waque Kidhb.
As usual, everything will be from Deobandi book itself.

Further, I was much amused when I read on some website that Deobandis are trying to look for the original manuscript of Ghayat Al-Ma’mul supposedly written by Shafi mufti Sayyid Ahmed Al-Barzanji.

The reason for the amusement is that these Deobandis are totally unaware of what they are talking or backing! I am sure they know that when Imam Ahmed Raza Khan met Mufti Al Barzanji, that time mufti has lost his eye sight!

That is why he could not read Ad dawalatul Makkiyah , and heard it when it was read in front of him. So how could he 'write" a book when he lost his eye sight?

And if the deobandis say that it was dictated by him and someone else wrote it , then the least which the Deobandis must do is to find out who was the Katib ( scribe)?

That is the minumum criteria to accept any manuscript and deopbandis have to establish the 'sama'at" for this , as stated by Imam suyuti in the criteria for accepting manuscripts. To add more fun to the story , we have Deobandis going to "middle east manuscript centers" in search of this 'missing manuscript'! They do not know that as per the Deobandi version of the story this original manuscript was taken from Mufti Barzanji and brought to India ! ( and it was never returned back!!).

read full topic: Here
some extracts from the Topic:

Imkan / Wuqu' al-Kidhb - Can or Did Allah Lie? 
Imkan al-Kidhb / Wuqu' al-Kidhb


Regarding  Deobandis Bible:  AL Muhannad "

Who ever quotes Al Muhannad on any issue should know when was AL MUHANNAD written. When the fatwa was issued against Mirza Qadyaani and 4 scholars of Deoand by the scholars of Harmayn and 268 leading Muftis of India , then AL MUHANNAD was written by Deobandis .

Deobandis never present the original quotes of their scholars in any book.
In AL MUHANNAD they have not mentioned the original quotes from their scholars on the issue of Imkan e Kidh (Allah can lie).

Those who are interested in this topic should know that Deobandis always confuse people between Khalfe wayeed and Imkan e kidh. This can be proved from their own books.

Quote :

"If you're asking for the actual use of the words "imkan al-kadhib" that is besides the question, as what is meant by the phrase is found in the references I gave. The references clearly say the Ash'aris hold the view that flaws like falsehood are not rationally impossible and they are within the Power. I'm sure that's clear for all to see.

Yes, Mawlana Thanawi said the like of this knowledge of ghayb is attainable by all, but the Qur'an says the Prophet is a man like [mithl] us; so if someone paraphrasing the Qur'an says the Prophet is a man like us (wretched sinful people) is that kufr? As I showed, to say that that particular type of ghayb as possessed by the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) is available to all, is in fact accurate [according to Razi's division]; so as a factual statement, why is this disrespect and the Qur'an's equivalence of the Prophet's and our humanity not?"

It is not besides the question , as you are conviniently trying to avoid! My respected brother, arent't we talking about imkan kidhb being attributed to Qudrah of Allah? 

Cant we see deobandi quotes ( with scan) where they have used this very word IMKANE E QIDHB ? 

Did you not mention in your first post the relation between Qudrah and Ilm of Allah?

So now how can you avoid ? All I ask is show me the usage of that word.

You gave all single and isolated statements from all possible work which you can , ignoring the quotes present in the same book. but why? Arent you trying to justify deobandi scholars? And if yes , then please bring your PROOF . Let the forum members know which scholar had this ugly and non sense belief of Attributing a possibility of lie to the power of Allah.

Mawlana Thanvee did not call prophet a man , he compared the knowledge of prophet with animals and lunatics.

Be just and tell me , if I say the knwoledge of such and such Deobandi scholar is like the knowledge possed by pet, dog, and all four legged animals , wil it sound disrespectful?

You don't have to reply me on this point.

Please provide the usage of IMKAN E KIDH WITH attributed to Qudrah of Allah.

Sidi, the link you gave is not a scan from maulana gangohi's fatwa, it's a scan from a book that quotes the alleged fatwa from a barelwi scholar's book named "Radd e- Shihab ath thaqib".
Is there any copy of a scan with the actual fatwa of Maulana Gangohi - preferably in manuscript form?

How can Barelwis have manuscript of that fatwa ?

This fatwa was printed in 1908 from Meruth and Bombay.
Deobandis have not printed this fatwa in Fatwa Rashidiya.

If some one says , if it is not in fatwa book, then how can we accept?
Then please read that thread and we can start a discusiion and it will be proved , Insha Allah , without doubt , this fatwa is from Mawlan Rashid Gangohee.

Those who can read urdu
, kindly read that thrad so that we don't have to start from basic.
If not , then am here ! Insha Allah when am back in city , we can discuss this.

But that is not the original fatwa is it? That is with radd.
Can that really be accepted as a valid proof when we have a clear and unambigous statement from him in his own printed fatawa which is completely to the contrary?
Do they or you have anything other than the fatwa 1) allegedly "printed in 1908 from Meruth and Bombay ma'a radd" and reproduced in berailwi works and 2) Reproduced in Deobandi works such as Sayyid Madani's Shihab ath-thaqib and denounced as a forgery?

The fatwa was first printed in 1308 AH. Mawlana Gangohi died in 1323 AH.
For these 15 years there was no denial of this fatwa from Mawlana Gangohee or any of his supporter.

Mawlana Gangohee did not write any thing in which he denied this" alleged fatwa" , he did not publish any pamphlet denying this , did not conduct any rally denying this fatwa ,did not challange any sunni scholar asking them to prove this fatwa.

The day Mawlana Gnagohee died , his followers started denying.

Insha Allah , we will start from shihab ath thaqib and then only we will proceed to this fatwa analysis.
Every one must know what exactly is " shihab ath thaqib". ?


This is a detail refutation of  a those who call them self as muslim but ascribe defect to Allah.
 Before we start refuting this sect  it is necessary  to know deviant belief  of some different  cults.
Shia- They say “Allah lies ( astagfirullah)
Wahabis: They say “ Allah has human attributes and Allah is localized in a direction.”
Deobandis:  They say “Allah can lie.”
In the present article, this belief of “ Allah can lie” [ Imkan e Kizb] will be refuted in detail.
To understand this topic we must first know, what is the belief of deobandi scholars on this topic
Deobandi belief:

 1. Shah Ismail Dehalvee writes : It is possible for Allah to be a liar. If you do not accept this , then Human being's ability will be considered more than Allah's ability. ( It means , since Human can lie and if someone thinks Allah cannot lie , then this will mean Allah's ability is less than Human ability.)
2. Khaleel Ambaithwi writes : "This issue of “imkan e kidhb is not a recent issue, but in past people have discussed whether Khalf e waid ”(Allah can give Paradise to even sinners like Pharoah/ Abu Jahal, going against His own ruling) is possible or not. Hence we find in Durrul Mukhtar it is written Khalf e waid is possible /permissible ( jayaz)or not, and Asharis are in support of it because the Asharis do not consider it as an imperfection , rather they consider it as a Mercy of Allah."
 (Here we see how Mawlana Khaleel Ambaithvee is bringing a quote from Durrul Mukhtar on Khalf e waid to use it on Imkan e kIdhb.!) 
3. Khaleel Ambethvee writes : "This is the meaning of Imkaan-e-Kizb (possibility of telling a lie) that Allah Ta`ala has the power of telling lies but this will not happen."
4. Rashid Ahmed writes : " Hence , it is now established that to Lie is within the possibility of Allah subhanahu wa taala"
5. Shaykh Mahmoodul Hasan Al Deobandi writes: How can we say that it is out of the power of Allah that, He cannot perform bad acts.

All the original scans of the above quote can be seen here:

 Mawlana Rashid Ahmed says in his fatawa:

"Page No 97 ... "Pas Sabit Howa Key Kizb Dakhil-e-Qudarat-e-Bari Ta'ala Wa Ala Hai"
Translation:"Hence, it is now established that to Lie is within the possibility of Allah subhanahu wa taala"   Scans:


Subhan'allah (Arabic سبحان الله) is an Arabic phrase often translated as "Exalted is Allah."
Said Mohammed bin Abee Bakr Abdul qader al-Razee, in his book "Mukhtar al-Sihah" one of the classic Arabic-wordbooks:
The meaning of subhanallah is, making Allah pure, and it is bound to its original word (sabh, meaning void) as if he said, I verily absolve Allah from all evil.

The origin for the word is sabh, voidness, or tasbeeh, making something void. So the direct literal meaning of the phrase is Allah is void... And there is a part that is unpronounced which is "void of all evil". And this is the way that it is used in the quran. For example it says; "Subhanallah amma yasiffon - Void/Free is Allah from that (evil) which they ascribe (to Him)" and "Subhanalla amma yoshrikoon - Free is Allah from those polytheistic deeds that they do."

Deobandi scholar, Mawlana Hussein Ahmed Tandvee says:

" Mujaddid Dhaleen ( Hussein Ahmed Tandvee uses this term for Imam Ahmed Raza Rh) says that Gangohi (rh) made his belief of Imkan e kidhb due to his being a follower of (Ismail ) Shaheed rh in this issue. This statement (of Imam Ahmed Raza Khan ) is full of ignorance.
Mawlana Gangohi has followed the salaf as saliheen of this ummat in this issue.
All the Asharis and the Maturidis were on this belief of Imkan e kidhb and Mawlana Gangohi has followed them on this issue.
The books of Kalam are a witness to this fact and the writings of these scholars are present in them. In “Sharah Mawafiq” this issue (of Imkan e kidhb) has been dealt at three places.
In “Masamirah’ also this issue has been explained. In the book’ Taqrirur usool ‘ which is the sharah of Tahreerul usool , muhaqqiq Ibn Hummam in Fatahul qadeer and his student Amir al haaj has stated this same view of Imakan e kidhb and has stated that this is the view of people of knowledge and Ahlus sunnah ,that is Asharis and Maturidis, also have the same belief ( which Ismaeel Dehalvee and Mawlana Rashid Ahmed had) on this issue . Others who are in between Asharis and the Maturidis have disagreed on this issue due to the usage of the words and they have written commentary on this issue."

(End of quote from As Shihabuth Thaqib, by Mawlana Hussein Ahmed Tandvee, p110)
It is very clear from this passage that Ismaeel Dehalvee and Mawlana Rashid Gangohi had the belief of Imkan e kidhb.

This has been accepted and explained by their student, Mawlana Hussein Tandvee.
Not only has Mawlana Hussein Tandvee accepted this fact, but he has even provided proof that this belief of Imkan e kidhb , ( Allah CAN lie) was the belief of all the scholars of Ahlus sunnah.

Let us see how much truth Mawlana Hussein Ahmed Tandvee has provided.

find out/more: Here


Mawlana Ismail Dehalvi wrote in his book 'Taqwiyatul Iman"

"The glory of that King is such that He can create a billion prophets, awliya, jinns, angels, Muhammad and Jibril in a single moment with just a ‘kun’ [the command ‘Be.’] "
(taqwiyatu’l iman, pg.37)

Allama Fazle Haq Khairabadi, student of Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddith Dihlawi, refuted this idea proving it was against the Shari’ah. He wrote that according to the absolute proofs of the Qur’an and hadith, Prophet Muhammad sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam is the last and final Prophet, there can be no other Prophet or Messenger after him. Conceiving another like the Prophet Muhammad is now an impossibility and from those aspects which is an impossibility according to the Shari’ah. To believe that there can be another Muhammad would necessitate that Allah did something apart from what He has stated in the Qur’an, that is, that Allah ta`ala has lied. Lying is a flaw and it is impossible for Allah to have a flaw.

For a detailed discussion on the matter, refer to ‘Allama Fazle Haq Khairabadi’s Tahqeeq al-Fatwa fi Ibtal al-Taghwa. The book is has many proofs concerning the matter of ‘possibility of lying by Allah ta`ala’ and ‘Impossibility of another Muhammad to exist’ [Imkan-e-Kizb and Imkan-e-Nazeer-e-Muhammadi.]

Shah Isma’il Dihlawi wrote a monograph on this subject named “Yak Roza” and his student Maulana Haidar Ali Tonki provided support to his teacher’s motif.

As an answer to this, ‘Allama Fazle Haq Khairabadi wrote a book in Farsi (Persian) called “Imtina’un Nazeer” which was published by ‘Allama Sayyid Sulaiman Ashraf (President of Islamic Studies, Aligarh University) in 1908 from Jaunpur.

Maulana Ahmad Hasan Kanpuri (student of Mufti Muhammad Lutfullah Aligarhi and Khalifa of Haji Imdadullah Muhajir Makki) wrote a book on the topic of Imkan-e-Kizb called “Tanzeeh al-Rahman ‘an Shee’at al-Kadhibi wa al-Nuqsan”.
On the same subject matter,
Maulana Hakeem Sayyid Barkat Ahmad Tonki wrote “al-Samsam al-Qadib lira’asi al-Muftari ‘alallahi al-Kadhib” and Mufti Muhammad Abdullah Tonki wrote “Ijalat al-Rakib fi Imtina’yi Kadhib al-Wajib”. With these works, they comprehensively refuted the idea of Imkan-e-Kizb with utmost brilliance.

So whenever anyone raises this topic of  "Can Allah Lie" ?

Please also ask" Can Allah send another prophet or Another Mohammed ( sal lallahu alaihi wa sallam) ?

As per Deobandis this is 'possible', ignoring the fact, Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Apostle of God, and the Seal of the Prophets: and God has full knowledge of all things. S. 33:40

Followers of Ghulam Ahmed Qadyan (died in loo) also twist this verse to prove their claim.

In 1871, a debate took place in Shaikhopur, Badayun, between Muhibbur Rasool Taajul Fuhool ‘Allama Abdul Qadir Qadri Barkati Badayuni (d. 1319 AH / 1901 CE) and Maulana Ameer Ahmad bin Molvi Ameer Hasan Sahsawani (d. 1306 AH / 1889 CE) on the matters of Imkan-e-Kizb and Imkan-e-Nazeer.

Maulana Nazeer Ahmad Sahsawani (d. 1299 AH / 1881 CE) has documented this debate.

Maulana Ameer Ahmad and Maulana Nazeer Ahmad both spent time with Maulana Muhammad Ahsan Nanotwi. Using the Athar of Ibn-e-Abbas as evidence, they not only believed that having Prophet’s like Adam, Nuh, Ibrahim, Musa, Isa ‘alayhimu’s salam and Muhammad sallallahu `alaihi wasallam was possible, they even believed that this was actually the case.

Prof. Muhammad Ayyub Qadri (Karachi) writes:

“It is important to point out that the Ulema of Bareilly and Badayun strongly opposed and disagreed with Maulana Muhammad Ahsan’s (Nanotwi) viewpoint. In Bareilly, the foremost in opposition was Maulana Naqi Ali Khan and in Badayun it was Maulana Abdul Qadir, the son of Maulana Fazle Rasool Badayuni

Maulana Abdul Haq Khairabadi, Maulana Sayyid Husain Muhaddith Rampuri, Maulana Abdul Ali Rampuri, Mufti Noorun Nabi Rampuri and other Ulema of the Ahlus Sunnah opposed the Athar of Ibn Abbas, proving it to be against the Qur’an and a false belief. Hazrat Mufti Irshad Husain Rampuri wrote that believing in it is against the creed of Ahlu’s Sunnah. Because Khatam al-Nabiyyin means The final Prophet – that is Muhammad sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam.

Maulana Muhammad Qasim Nanotwi wrote a book named “Tahzeerun Naas” in which he wrote:

The common folk, the general populace thinks that the meaning of the saying RasulAllah saws is the Seal’ means that his time is after the time of the earlier prophets and that he is the last of all the prophets. 

However, people of discerning know that there is no speciality in being earlier or later.
Suppose if there is a prophet born ever after the time of RasulAllah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, there shall be no difference in his being the Seal. So it wouldn’t make any difference if there is a prophet in his own time on a different planet, or even on this very planet

In a letter to Maulana Muhammad Fazil,

Maulana Muhammad Qasim Nanotwi wrote:

“The meaning of Khatam al-Nabiyyin according to those who look at literal meanings is that the time of the Prophethood of Muhammad is after the time of the Prophethood of all other Prophets and that no other Prophet can come afterwards. However, you know that this is something in which there is neither praise nor any harm.

So as per ' Elite Deobandi Scholars' there "might" come another Prophet . 

I recall a hadith in which prophet parised him self and put last stone/ brick in the wall and said ' my position is like this brick , there will come no nabee after me"

So When a Deobandi says" Allah CAN lie ", he is actullay making his grounds for supporting the stand of Qasim Nanotwiti that  Allah "can also' send another prophet/ mohammed'!!!

May Allah help us to be away from those'elite class scholars having such belief". Ameen

The main difference of opinion between Ahlus sunnah and Deobandis is not minor issues like Mawlid, tasawwuf, sama, tassaware shaykh.

People from outside the subcontinent should know that the real difference is the words of Deobandi scholars from past in which they have shown disrespect to Prophet, the issue of Imkan e kidhb ( Allah can lie), their stand on Ilm e ghayb of prophet , their equating the ilm e ghyab of prophet with the knowledge of any insane, animals etc and their remarks on khatme nabuwat ( seal of prophet hood).

Now they have started tampering their own books like Taqwiyatul Iman (By Ismail Dehalvee). I am compiling a booklet on this. Insha Allah when completed I shall post it here.

All scans will be provided from different edition to show the tampering in Taqwiyatul Iman.
This is the same book Taqwiyatul Iman , regarding which Mawlana Rashid Ahmed Gangohi said in his fatawa that

" To keep ( in house) , To read and follow this book ( Taqwiyatul Iman) is the Core of Islam ( ayn islam) and this leads to lots of benifits. "

Deobandis should quote all of their scholars on the issue of Imkan e Kidhb.

Mawlana Khaleel Ambaithwi writes in his Book : Braheen e Qaatiya,Page : 6
Publisher : Kutub Khana Imdadiya, Deoband 

Mawalana Khaleel Ambethavi writes
"This issue of “imkan e kidhb is not a recentl issue, but in past people have discussed whether Khalf e waid ”(Allah can give Paradise to even sinners like Pharoah/ Abu Jahal, going against His own ruling) is possible or not. Hence we find in Durrul Mukhtar it is written Khalf e waid is possible /permissible ( jayaz)or not, and Asharis are in support of it because the Asharis do not consider it as an imperfection , rather they consider it as a Mercy of Allah." 
( Hence in past people said that if Allah gives paradise to a sinner , it will be due to mercy of Allah)

Here we see how Mawlana Khaleel Ambaithvee is bringing a quote from Durrul Mukhtar on Khalf e waid to use it on Imkan e kIdhb!

More ever people in Past called it as a mercy of Allah and not as a lie of Allah. ( Mawalana Khaleel has himself quoted this )

Same , Mawlana Khaleel Ambethvee writes in his 
Book : Braheen e Qaatiya,Page : 274
Publisher : Kutub Khana Imdadiya, Deoband
"This is the meaning of Imkaan-e-Kizb (possibility of telling a lie) that Allah Ta`ala has the power of telling lies but this will not happen."

Mahmood Hassan writes in his Book : Al Jehd ul Muqil,Page : 41
Publisher : Maktaba Madniyya Urdu Bazar Lahore that
"Afaal e kabeeha (bad acts) ko Qudrat e Qadeema Haq Taala Shanahu say kiun kar khaarij keh saktay hain"
“How can we say that it is out of the power of Allah that , He cannot perform bad acts.
scan or see below



"Asharis and Maturidis, also have the same belief
 ( which Ismaeel Dehalvee and Mawlana Rashid Ahmed had) on this issue ."

Refuting the Accusation that
Asharis Consider it Rationally
Possible for Allah to Lie

Deviant accusation: the Asharis say that it is rationally possible (jaa’iz `aqlan) for Allah to lie, but contingently impossible (mustaheel `araadi), because He has told us that He tells the truth.

To say that it rationally possible that Allah can lie, but does not, is to say that He can have a flaw. This is obvious to even the most simple minded Muslim. A believer will feel ill for even hearing such words. Tell me, if this is not kufr, then what is?

How would you like to account for your deeds on the Day of Judgment having believed, or said, that it is not absolutely impossible that Allah could lie? Did they not hear Allah’s saying:
وَتَقُولُونَ بِأَفْوَاهِكُمْ مَا لَيْسَ لَكُمْ بِهِ عِلْمٌ وَتَحْسَبُونَهُ هَيِّنًا وَهُوَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ عَظِيمٌ
Meaning: “And you say by your mouths what you have no certain knowledge of, and you think it is a simple matter, while it is in Allah’s judgment gruesome.” (An-Nuur ,15)

Similarly, it was narrated by Ahmad, Al-Tirmidhi and others that the Prophet said:
إن الرَّجُلَ لَيَتَكَلَّمُ بِالْكَلِمَةِ لاَ يَرَى بها بَأْساً يهوي بها سَبْعِينَ خَرِيفاً في النَّارِ
“Verily a man may speak a word he thinks is not bad, but due to it he falls a fall that lasts seventy autumns into the Hellfire.”

This hadith was judged as good (hasan) by Al-`Asqalani. Al-Munaawi said about the expression “seventy autumns into the Hellfire” in his book Al-Taysir bi Sharh-al-Jaami-al-Saghir: “It means that he will be forever rising and falling.” That is, the person became a non-Muslim for saying this, because only non-Muslims go there forever.

In another aayah Allah said:
وَلِلَّهِ الْأَسْمَاءُ الْحُسْنَى فَادْعُوهُ بِهَا وَذَرُوا الَّذِينَ يُلْحِدُونَ فِي أَسْمَائِهِ سَيُجْزَوْنَ مَا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ
Meaning: “Allah is the one that has the most beautiful namings, so call Him by them, and leave those who deviate with respect to His namings. They will pay for what they have done.” (Al-’A`raaf, 180)

There is no taqlid in such an issue, and finding a quote in some book will not help one on the Day of Judgment in something like this. Imagine yourself saying, “but I found this on page 256, volume 4 of book so and so, that it is rationally possible that it is not impossible in the minds eye that you could lie!”

Even if you found supporting quotes in one hundred books, by famous authors, this is not an excuse.

Every sound minded person can understand that saying that it is not absolutely impossible that Allah could lie is an ugly thing to say about Allah. Actually, even the Christians and the Jews would consider this ugly. The one who denies that this saying is kufr, let alone blames those who say it is kufr, is himself a kaafir.

The reason is that this person is saying that one can attribute an obvious flaw to the creator, and still be a Muslim. When one says something about Allah that is not of the most beautiful names, then one has either sinned or fallen in kufr. This is according to the aayahs and hadith mentioned above.

Now, as the hadith says, if one might say something that one thinks nothing of, and fall out of Islam, then what about saying something that just about any human being, even a kaafir, would consider an ugly thing to say about Allah?

I mean, the christians do not have a problem saying that Allah has a son, but they would have a problem with this. This is because the word son does not strike them as ugly, but the latter does.

I think it is clear enough then, that saying “believing that lying is rationally possible for Allah, as long as one does not believe that He does, does not make one a non-Muslim,” is kufr in itself.
Having said that, Allah’s kalaam (speech that is not letters, sounds, language, words, or sequences of expressions) pertains to His knowledge. It is a eternal attribute of Allah that He must be attributed with, and it is neither an act, nor specified by a will. 
As-Sanusi said about the attribute of kalaam:
والكلام الذى ليس بحرف ولا صوت ويتعلق بما يتعلق به العلم من المتعلقات
{Speech (Al-Kalaam/الكلام), without letter or sound, which pertains to whatever His Knowledge pertains to.} That is, an attribute by which He informs without delay the unlimited information that He knows, be it orders, prohibitions, promises, threats, or other information.

To say that Allah could lie is to say that His knowledge is flawed, this is because to lie is to say something that is not true.

Since Allah’s attribute of Speech/Kalaam is an eternal attribute pertaining to what His knowledge pertains to, then saying that He says something untrue is to say that there is a mistake in His knowledge. This is kufr of the highest degree.

Note that Allah’s kalaam is an attribute that Allah must be attributed with, not a possibility or an impossibility. So if you say that it is possible that Allah lies, then you are also saying that His kalaam is a possibility, and that is also impossible, because it cannot be both a must and a possibility. This is because a lie needs specification, and what needs specification is a possibility. In other words, telling a lie cannot be without a beginning or end, because it needs specification. 

A speech telling a lie then is a creation, and Allah’s speech is not created. So the person who says it is possible that Allah lies is saying that Allah’s kalaam is created, which is another kufr.
See also this. Alternatively, such a person is saying that Allah tells infinitely many lies, need I say more?

It is also incredible stupidity to say that it is only contingently impossible (mustaheel `aradi) for Allah to lie, for if it was not absolutely impossible that Allah should lie, then how would one know it is mustaheel `aradi??? Mustaheel `arađiyy is when something is possible, like the existence of any created thing, but Allah tells us that it will not be, such as a mukallaf kaafir entering Paradise.

 That is, it is rationally possible that a kaafir could go to Paradise, but contingently impossible, because Allah has told us that this will never happen, as this is His decree. So if it was not absolutely impossible that Allah should lie, then how would they know that this information about Him not lying was correct? 

This is nothing less than zandaqah, extremem kufr, it is to put doubt in the religion as a whole, let alone contradicting that Allah’s kalaam is not created.
As-Sanusi also says:
وأما الرسل عليهم الصلاة والسلام فيجب فى حقهم الصدق والأمانة وتبليغ ما أمروا بتبليغه للخلق ويستحيل فى حقهم عليهم الصلاة والسلام أضداد هذه الصفات
{All messengers must possess truthfulness, trustworthiness, and must have delivered their messages entirely. It is impossible that they should be attributed with the opposites of the above attributes.}

So if it is not absolutely impossible that Allah lies, then there is no way to say that the Prophet only tells the truth either, and this is yet another kufr.

So the claim that it is true that Allah could lie, but He does not do so, is a kufr that is kufr in itself since it is to insult Allah, and a kufr that leads to accepting several other kufr beliefs, such as that Allah’s Speech is created, or that He tells infinitely many lies, or that He has a flaw in His Speech, or that He has a flaw in His knowledge, and that the prophets could be telling something that is not true about the religion. Allahu akbar.

Without even getting into any of the above, we can simply say that lying, which is to say something that isn’t true, is an obvious flaw, and Allah is only attributed with complete perfection. It is also an attribute of creation, and Allah does not resemble His creation. The one who allows it rationally has made it rationally possible for Allah to have a flaw and resemble His creation, so he is himself a kaafir.
One more thing. The purpose of `Ilm Al-Kalaam is to defend the religion and support it with proofs. When engaging in kalaam leads to conclusions that are destructive of the religion, then one can be sure that one has gone wrong. The difference between Sunni kalaam and that of the philosophers is that the Sunnis knew their conclusions from the Prophet’s teachings before they looked for proofs, whereas the others simply followed their opinion, wherever it took them.

In light of this, let me say that the conclusion that we must reach is that it is impossible that Aļļaah should lie, otherwise the entire religion becomes a 50-50 proposition, and one would have said something outrageous about Allah’s attributes that no sound minded individual would accept. If one could not find an argument to get to this conclusion, then one should keep looking, being sure that any argument indicating otherwise must be wrong. This is the general rule one should hold on to. If one does not, then I can tell you that reading books of kalaam will get you into a great deal of trouble, especially the larger works. This is why Al-Ghazali wrote about the importance of restricting kalaam science to only a few very capable individuals of great piety.

Do you not see that piety would have prevented anyone from daring to say that it is not rationally impossible for Allah to lie? Instead they decided to rely on their minds, and ended up falling out of the religion, along with those who said that they are not blasphemers. Beware that I am not making takfir for any particular individual, because we cannot make takfiir for people based on articles attributed to them on the internet. What I am saying is that if someone says that Allah lying is not mustaheel `aqli, but mustaheel `aradi, and he understands these terms, then he is a kaafir, along with the one who says he is not. I remind you of the aayah above:
وَلِلَّهِ الْأَسْمَاءُ الْحُسْنَى فَادْعُوهُ بِهَا وَذَرُوا الَّذِينَ يُلْحِدُونَ فِي أَسْمَائِهِ سَيُجْزَوْنَ مَا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ
Meaning: “Allah is the one that has the most beautiful namings, so call Him by them, and leave those who deviate with respect to His namings. They will be pay for what they have done.” (Al-’A`raaf, 180)

Note that this whole issue came up with the Mu`tazilah, because a common debating technique in kalaam is to show the opponent that what he claims to be true leads to saying something ridiculuous that all agree is kufr. The Mu`tazailah wanted to show that you can only say that it is impossible that Allah lies if you accept their ideas about qabaa’ih, namely that it is impossible that Allah does what they consider qabaa’ih, or “ugly acts.” The answer of Sunnis was that lying is impossible, because Allah’s kalaam is not created, it is not an act, but an attribute that Allah must be attributed with and pertains only to what Allah’s knowledge pertains to; it is not a created attribute. The same was their technique on the concept of doing injust acts, as I mentioned earlier when I narrated the debate between Al-Isfaraini and Qadi Abdul Jabbaar. The Sunni answer was as you see there, that it is absolutely impossible that Allah’s actions be injust, because He does not have a judge.

The same technique is used by the Christians also when they say “could Allah have a son?” They want to imply that saying no would lead to saying He is unable. In this case our answer is again that it is rationally impossible for Him to have a son, because if you said it was possible, then you are saying that Allah could lose godhood, which is kufr. We also do not say unable, because that would be insulting Allah, which is also kufr. We say instead that it is impossible; it cannot ever be and therefore has nothing to do with power.

Likewise one does not say that it is not allowed for Allah to lie, because this is to imply that He has obligations. Rather one says that it is impossible that He could lie, as explained above.

More comments and questions on this issue

Question: Someone wrote that if we say that lying is not possible for Allah, it would then imply that humans could do something that Allah cannot do. Is this logic valid?
Answer: No. This is because Allah’s power pertains to the possible category of things. It does not pertain to what cannot ever be, the rationally impossible. It also does not pertain to what must be, such as Allah existing and being one without a parter. Lying is a flaw of speech, so saying that Allah can lie is to say that He can have a flaw. This is kufr, like saying He can have a son or a partner.
Note that it is also kufr to say that Allah is unable to lie, because this is to insult Allah’s attribute of Power. Furthermore, it is kufr to say that Allah is obligated not to lie, because a need to fulfill obligations is a flaw, and attributing a flaw to Allah is blasphemy.
The answer then is that lying is a flaw, and it is impossible for Allah to have a flaw. Allah’s Power is only related to what could possibly exist.
For example, if Allah said that Fir`awn is going to Hell, then it is impossible that Fir`awn never goes there. This is because Allah’s Speech pertains to His Knowledge, that is, He told us of what He knows, namely that Fir`awn will enter Hell. If you say that it pertains to Allah’s Power for Fir`awn not to enter Hell, after knowing that Allah has said otherwise, then you are saying that Allah’s Knowledge is flawed, or that His Will changes, which would again mean flawed knowledge and change. This is all kufr.

Someone asked: Can Allah act against His previous word or command?
Answer: It is not obligatory for Allah to fulfill His promises, because He does not have obligations. That does not make it possible in the mind’s eye, however, quite the contrary. We say that it is not obligatory, but it is impossible that Allah should not fulfill His promises, or threats, because it is impossible that Allah should lie, because lying is a flaw, and Allah is clear of flaws. Accordingly, if someone says, “It is contingently possible for Allah to act against His previous word,” then he has committed kufr, because he is saying that Allah could have a flaw.

Deviant said: “What you need to understand is that to say that it is “impossible” for Allah to lie would necessitate that He has given man the ability to do something that He himself does not have the power to do. This is absurd to suggest.
Comment: This is ignorance. Lying is an attribute of Speech, and Allah’s Speech is a must, an attribute of perfection, it is not something that pertains to Allah’s Power. If you say that it pertains to Allah’s Power, then you are saying that it is created, which is kufr, as stated by the four a’immah.

Deviant said: Furthermore, it is practically an ijma’ that Allah’s speech is known as a result of revelation, not reason, so it makes no sense to say that we only know that Allah has the capacity to communicate to us because of scripture, but it is rationally impossible for Him to lie, when we didn’t even know that He could speak until the revelation came. Hence, the impossibility of lying on Allah is a judgment of scripture, not reason, although reason further emphasizes that lying would be a sign of imperfection….
Answer: This is nonsense. By the agreement of the Ash`aris Allah’s attribute of Speech is a must, not a created attribute. Regardless of whether it can be known by the mind alone or not. Once it is established that Allah’s Speech is not created, but a must, and that not having a speech is a flaw, then you cannot say that Allah’s Speech is also a possibility!

Moreover, you either say that Allah has a Speech or not.
If you say He does not, then lying is impossible, because lying without speech is impossible.
If you say He does, then you either say it is created or not.
If you say that it is created, then you are saying that the “Kalaam Allah” is like saying “Bayt Allah.” This means that Allah does not in reality have a Speech that is an attribute of His Self, so that means in the end that Allah in actual reality does not speak, according to this idea, which means lying would be impossible.
If you say that Allah’s Speech is not created, but a necessary, i.e. eternal, attribute of He Himself, then you are either saying that it changes, e.g. by involving sequential meaning being told one after another, or does not.
If you say it does, like the Wahabis, then you are saying that it is created, because change needs a creator, which would mean again that it is not a necessary attribute, and something cannot be both necessary and not at the same time. So in such a case lying is also impossible, because the attribute proposed is impossible.

Finally, if you say that it is necessary and does not change, then we have arrived at what we want, namely that Allah has an attribute by which He informs. You either say that it pertains to what He knows or not. Since Allah’s knowledge is infinite, it pertains to all that must be, as well as what cannot be and what could be. What could be includes what has been, what is now, and what will be in the future, as well as what could have been in the past, now and in the future.
If you say that Allah’s speech pertains to lying then you are saying that if A is going to be at point in time B, then Allah says both that A is going to be at point B and that it is not going to be at point B. This is a contradiction and therefore impossible. Note that this is not impossible in the case of our speech, because it is a sequential action, i.e. something created, whereas Allah’s Speech is not an action and does not change.

There is no question then, that it is rationally impossible that Allah should lie.

Deviant said: Perhaps if you looked at the fact that a “square-circle” is not actually something that can exist while “lying” is, it would help you in your confusion. We know that lying does exist, while we know that it is not compulsorily existent (wajib). It is possibly existent (ja’iz). If it is ja’iz al-wujud, it falls within the realm of Allah’s qudrah, which are the ja’izat (possible things) and is exactly what His power pertains to. His power does not pertain to a “square-circle” because of square-circle just cannot possibly exist. As for “kadhib” (lying), it not only possibly exists. It “actually” exists.
Answer: This is ignorance. Lying does exist, yes, but as an attribute of creation! Does possible attributes of creation necessitate that Allah also has them? This is one of the ugliest examples of tashbih I have seen in my life.

Deviant said: Allah’s qudra pertains to lying just as it pertains to truth (sidq). Hence, lying is something that He can possibly do “actually” and “rationally” speaking. The only thing is that He has chosen not to lie and He does not have to lie, because He has nothing to fear from telling the truth, since He has power over all things and cannot be subdued or controlled by anyone.
Answer: This is pure i`tizaal. He is saying that Allah’s speech is created and is something that pertains to His Power. If not, then what is lying except something pertaining to speech?

Deviant said: He also does not lie because He has made it His way not to do so as He indicated to us in scripture…
Answer: This is stupidity. If Allah telling lies was a possibility, as he claims, then there is no way to tell whether the indication in the scripture is true!

Someone said: Allah has the power to lie or speak truth. His power encompasses both possibilities. Nothing limits his choice and will. If you can show how what I say is flawed, I’m more than open to see how. However, the flaw is really in exactly what I have explained. Your view necessitates that Allah’s qudra is limited and that He has the power to give the power to lie to man but He doesn’t have the power to do it His self.
Answer: His statement “Allah has the power to lie or speak truth” is pure i`tizaal, it is a plain statement saying that Allah’s Speech is created.

Someone said: Faqid al-shay la yu’ti (one who lacks something cannot give it to another). This would then place man’s power more expansive than the Creator’s own. This is why your logic is flawed and why I say that you have misunderstood the text…
Answer: This man does not have mind. He is a kafir and an ignorant fool. According to this, if someone rides on a mosquito, as Ibn Taymiyyah’s followers say, then it is possible that Allah should ride a mosquito…. Need I say more?


Deobandis not only give the possibility of Lying and cruelty to the Power of Allah , but they also give the possibility of ALL BAD ACTS ( afaal’ e qabeeha)
in this Book: Al Jahd Al Muqeel

Author: Shaykh Mahmoodul Hasan Al Deobandi
Page : 41
Publisher : Maktaba Madniyya Urdu Bazar Lahore 
Afaal e kabeeha(bad acts) ko Qudrat e Qadeema Haq Taala Shanahu say kiun kar khaarij keh saktay hain
“How can we say that it is out of the power of Allah that , He cannot perform bad acts


[Deobandi] claiming Allah ta'ala can lie

Watch video in English/Urdu: Here


The entire Ummah is unanimous in its decision that lies and falsehood are extremely despicable attributes. 

They have considered it to a personal defect.
Lies is a defect which is not worthy of the being (zaat) of Allah ta'ala and is totally Muhaal (Impossible) for Allah ta'ala.

Allah azza wajal is free from all shortages and defects thus making lies Muhaal for Allah Paak.

 But there are certain deobandis who insist that Allah ta'ala has the power to speak a lie.
 Not only this, but that He can also reveal lies to His prophets and Angels! Allah forbid!

In their twisted logic, they have put forward the proof that when man has the power to speak lies, why does Allah Ta'ala not possess the same power?
 If Allah ta'ala did not possess this power, then He would be les powerful than man.

Therefore, they say, we have to accept that Allah ta'ala can speak a lie!

These certain Deobandis in their twisted logic have not only attributed a defect for Allah ta'ala, but also deliberately contradicted the unanimous decision of the Ummah, is apparent from both the books

We should remember that lies and falsehood are defects and that Allah ta'ala is pure of all defects. These defects are impossible for Allah Paak, but are possible for man.

For those brothers who want to know in depth of this issue , should read the following work:

1) Tahqeeq al-Fatwa fi Ibtal al-Taghwa---Allama Fazle Haq Khairabadi
2) Imtina’un Nazeer ( persian) ---Allama Fazle Haq Khairabadi
3) Tanzeeh al-Rahman ‘an Shee’at al-Kadhibi wa al-Nuqsan---Maulana Ahmad Hasan Kanpuri
4) Samsam al-Qadib lira’asi al-Muftari ‘alallahi al-Kadhib---Maulana Hakeem Sayyid Barkat Ahmad Tonki
5) Ijalat al-Rakib fi Imtina’yi Kadhib al-Wajib---Mufti Muhammad Abdullah Tonki


Did Alahazrat (Imam Ahmad Raza Khan) coin the phrase imkān e kizb or was it in use prior to his ruling on it?

Did Deobandis themselves use it or was it ‘mistranslated’ by Alahazrat?

1. In Fayslah Haft-Mas’alah, Ĥājī Imdādullāh Muhājir-Makkī mentions the 6th and the 7th
question as:
chaTTa aur saatwaN mas’alah: imkan e nazir o imkan e kizb ka
the sixth and seventh issue: on the possibility of similitude and the possibility of falsehood.
2. In Ek-Rozah by Ismayīl Dihlawī, on pg.17, he mentions the phrase imkān-e–kazib and
perhaps is the first salvo in this controversy.
3. In Barāhīn e Qaţiah,  Khalīl Ahmed mentions this phrase on page 6: ‘this issue of the
possibility of falsehood (imkān e kizb) is not a new one; the difference of opinion on the
matter of khulf al-wayid has existed among the ancients..’
4. In Fatāwā Rashīdiyyah, a purported letter from Ĥājī Imdādullāh Muhājir Makkī is
presented which mentions the phrase imkān e kizb and that it is included in the Divine
5. In Juhd al-Muqil  by Maĥmūd al-Ĥasan Devbandi, he writes:
khulasa ye nikla ma bihi’n nizaá bayn al-fariqayn, imkan e kazib fi’l kalam al-lafži
hai, imkan e kazib fi’l ílm hargiz nahiN
the summary of the dispute between the two groups is in the matter of possibility of
falsehood in uttered speech (of Allah táala) not in the possibility of falsehood in His

The Truth About A Lie 
Read/download Full Pdf: Here