Friday, 1 July 2011


Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah (d.1328CE)

Ibn Abd-al-Wahhab Najdi (d.1792CE)

Their Admirers followers in the Indian subcontinent 

Ismael Dehlvi (d.1830)

Qasim Nanotvi (d.1879)

Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (d.1905)

Khalil Ahmad Anbethawi (d.1927)

Ashraf Ali Thanvi (d.1943)


Wahhabi/Deobandi says:
“ not call us Gustakh e Rasool

We call your founding forefathers (akaabirs) your elders 

Gustakh e Rasool

and all those Wahhabi/Deobandis who... respect, praise and send (RA) upon them, knowing very well what they uttered when they wrote in their original books... then he/she is also Gustakh e Rasool!

We don't call every tom, dick and harry among the 
Wahhabi/Deobandi cult/sect Gustakh e Rasool !

Most of them are just (blind followers) today they are not even aware, what their (elders) had originally wrote...  The modern day deobandi and their sympathisers are deceived and  lied upon by their own elders by providing them with fabricated and the edited versions (sugar coated) of the original books.

Deobandi says:
“ not call our deobandi akabir Kafir or send Lanaat (LA) upon them...”

Why Not?

because they wrote over 1000's of Islamic books!

They forget that one (1) word of kufr
 renders all those 1000's Islamic books useless!

These Wahhabi-Deobandi/Tableeghi elder’s who you admire and praise are bedrock of your aqidah
Ismael Dehlvi,Qasim Nanotvi,Rashid Ahmad Gangohi,Khalil Ahmad Anbethawi and Ashraf Ali Thanvi...etc

Any Muslim who has knowledge(read their original books) and still insists in praising them is risking their own Imaan!


Imam lbne Hajar in his work Al-Aalam, in chapter of approved unbelief, has quoted references from the illustrious religious scholars as under:
“Whoever utters blasphemy, or whoever appreciates it or shows pleasure upon it, commits blasphemy”.

Qadhi Iyaad (rah) He states in the Ash-Shifa:
 Imam Muhammad bin Sahnoon said: There is consensus (ijma) amongst ulama that anyone who insults the Prophet (Peace be upon him) and finds his defects then such a person is “KAFIR” and there is promise of Allah’s tornment upon such a person and in sight of Ummah the ruling regarding him is to “KILL HIM” rather whosoever doubts in Kufr of such a person then he/she commits kufr himself [Qadhi Iyaadh, Ash-Shifa, Page No. 134, Published by Dar ul Kutb al iLmiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon]



Today most Deobandi and their Sympatheir's
'Hanafi in Fiqh and Maturidi in Aqidah
and we insist in praising them...
 IN what you have shown us Here

- Al Imdaad, page 35, (month of Safar 1366AH).
- Al Baraheynul Kathahaat, page 26 (published in Kutubkhana Imdaadeyaa, Deoband, Uttar Pradesh)
- Aab-e-Hayat, page 169, (1936 CE -1355 H) Qasim Nanotvi, publication, Kutub Khana Khadeemi, Delhi.
- Akhbar-e-Ehl-e-Hadith Amritsari, page 2.
- Al-Jehdul Muqal, page 41( Mahmoodul Hasan, matkata Urdu Bazar, Lahore,1409 H /1989 AD).
- Aljahdul Mikl, page 41.
- Ash-Shahabus Saaqib, page, 46-47.
- Ashrafus Sawaneh, page:2,12,16,17,42,99.

- Balagatul Hairaan, page 8,(Hussain Ali Deobandi, Himayat Islam Press, Lahore Publication).
- Braaheen-e-Qate'a, page 51 ( Khaleel Ambehetvi, Kutub Khana Raheemiya, Saharanpur, 1365 H / 1944 CE)
- Baraaheen-e-Qaati'ah, page 26-51-52-274 (Publisher by Kutub Khana Imdadiya, Deoband UP India 1962).
- Baraaheen-e-Qaati'ah: page number: [02, 03, 26, 51] Published by: Muhammad Ishaq Maalik Kutb khana Rahimia Saharanpur in 1365 AH, written by Khalil Anbethwi

- Deeni Dawah: page 205 and p, 234 by Mohammad Ilyas

- Fataawa Rasheediyah: Vol. 1, page 19 & Vol: 2, page 12, written by Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi
- Fatawa Rasheediyah, Vol.2, page 130
- Fatawa Rasheediya, Volume: 2, page 12 (1352 H, Raheemiya Kutub Khana, Sunehri Masjid, Delhi, Publication. Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi)
- Fatawa Rashidia, (Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, Rahimia Publishers, Delhi, (1363 H /1944AD) Volume 1- Page 19)
-Faza'el Amaal, page 52 / 73 ( Zakariya Kandehelvi, Chapter Fazaa'ele Durood, Maktaba Aarifeen, Karachi Publication.)
-Fatwa Naziriah, page 449.

- Hifz-ul-Iman (Page 07, Published By: Sheikh jaan Mohammad ala bux kutb uloom-e-mashriki kasmiri bazaar Lahore in June 1934, Printed By: Karimi printing press Lahore, written by Ashraf Ali Thanvi).
- Hifzul-Imaan [page, 7-8] (Date: 8, Muharram, 1319, Matbua: Maktaba Thanvi, Karachi) by Ashraf ali Thanvi
- Hifzul Iman, 1319 AH, page 8 , published by Iyzāziyyah Book House, Deoband.
- Hifzul Iman, Page 7 (published by Shaikh Jan Mohammad Publication, Allah Baksh, Uloom-e-Mashriqiya, Kashmir Bazar, Lahore, Pakistan. Ashraf Ali Thanvi)
- Hifzul Imaan-page 6 (printed in Mazahirul Uloom).

-Izaahul Haqq - Ismail Dehelwi.
- Malfuzaat,-e-Ilyas, page57 ( Mohammad Ilyas).
- Risaala Al-Imdad, page 34-35( 1136 H (month of Safar), Imdad Al-Mutabe, Thana Bhawan Publication. Ashraf Ali Thanvi)

-Sirat-e-Mustaqeem, (Urdu language) page 150, November 1956 publication, Lahore.
-Sirat-e-Mustaqeem, (Ismail Dahlawi (persian language) page 86, Delhi 1308 H publication.
-Siratul Mustaqeem, page86- page169 by (Sayyid Ahmed Shaheed & Shah Ismail Shaheed, Maktaba Salafiyya, Lahore).
-Siraat-i-Mustaqeem: Persian: pg 164, Urdu: pg 280

- Ta'aleefat-e-Rashidia, Kitabul Aqa'ed, page 98( Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, Idara-e-Islamiyaat, Lahore Publications, Pakistan).
- Tasfiyatul 'Aqaa'id (Pg 25, Published By: Syed Maalik Kutb Khana Aizazia Deoband, Written By: Qasim Nanotwi

-TahzeeranNaas, page 5 ( published in Maktaba Fayz Nazd Jami Masjid, Deoband and also published from Kutub Khana Qasimi, Deoband publication).
-Tahzeerun Naas, page, 18 and 34 by Qaasim Nanautwi,Nanotvi is the founder of Darul Uloom Deoband which was established in 1867.
-Tahzeerun-Naas : page, 5 & 25 Published By: Kutub Khana Qasmi Deoband, written by Qasim Nanotwi

- Tafseer Balagatul Hairaan, page 43, (Hussain Ali Deobandi, Himayat Islam Press, Lahore Publication).
- Tafseer Balaghatul Hayyraan, page, 157-158 (Himayat-e-Islam Press, Lahore, written by Hussain Ali Deobandi).

- Taqviyat-ul-Imaan, page,7- 13-14-16-18-29-30-35-44-45-55-58-59-61 (Faiz Aam, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Publication) written by Ismail Dehalvi

Taqwiyatul Iman editions:

Faruqi press Delhi 1895
Mujtabai press Delhi (1900)
Kanpur,1905 edition
Delhi edition,1920
Jayyed press Delhi (1937)
Muhsini press culcutta (1954)
Deoband edition 1976
Salfiyah Varanasi 1986 -1987
Bombay edition 1987
Mubarakpur edition 1997
1990, Riyadh edition (was distributed freely to Urdu speaking pilgrims on Hajj during that year!)
-Taqseedul Qadeer, page 79.

- Tafseer Bulghatul Haieraan, page, 157-158, published by: Himayat-e-Islaam press Lahore, written by Husain Ali
Tafseer Bulghatul Haieraan, pg 43
-Tasfiyatul 'Aqaa'id, page 25.
- Tazkiratul Khaleel, page 135, (Maktaba-e-Qasimya, Siyalkot publication, written by Khaleel Ambehetvi, compiled by Ashiq Ali).
-Talifaat-e-Rashhediyah: [page 98, 99] by Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi
- Yak Rozi, page 151.
- Yak Roza, Farsi (Persian) page 17-18.
- Urf al Jadi Farsi(Persian) version, page 60.

Here are some of their deobandi akabirs original book
: scans in Urdu and Persian Here
also read more: Here  

(1239 AH - 1823 CE)




Not to forget:

The Nobel Quran

Surat Al-'Ahzāb (The Combined Forces)


إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يُؤْذُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ لَعَنَهُمُ اللَّهُ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالْآخِرَةِ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُمْ عَذَابًا مُّهِينًا


Muhsin Khan
Verily, those who annoy Allah and His Messenger (SAW) Allah has cursed them in this world, and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating torment.
Lo! those who malign Allah and His messenger, Allah hath cursed them in the world and the Hereafter, and hath prepared for them the doom of the disdained.
Yusuf Ali
Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment.

To disrespect / trouble the Holy Prophet – peace and blessings be upon him – is blasphemy.


YOU MUST NOT DOUBT THE KUFR of these Wahhabi/Deobandi elders/founders, otherwise You are exposing YOUR OWN IMAAN TO DANGER!

We do not call every person from Wahhabi/Deobandi Culta a kafir (Gustakh e Rasool)
many of them are following that movement blindly without knowledge.

When we call someone a "Gustakh e Rasool" it is only referring to those Deobandis who defend the kufr committed by their elders(akabir), which can never be defended as you know very well!

There are those deobandis who praise and send (RA) to: Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abd-al-Wahhab Najdi.


The Wahhabi influence on them has been very detrimental and it is something they find very hard to escape from, and for this reason they have deviated from the right path.

The Right path of Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlvi (RA) (d.1762AD) and his children:

Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi (RA) (d.1823AD)
Shah Rafiuddin(RA)
Shah Abdul Qadir (RA)
Shah Abdul Gani(RA)

Also If you study the aqeeda of
Haji Imdadullah Muhajir Makki(RA)(d. 1899 AD) the Murshid (Shaykh) of the deobandi scholars, you will find that he was a Pure Sunni, but sadly his disciples abandoned his way after his demise.


Ashraf Ali Thanvi’s

Hifzul Iman

In 1319 AH (1901 C.E)

 Ashraf Ali Thanvi answered a question regarding:
'Ilm-e-Ghayb and published it as: Hifzul Iman in this book, he has compared the knowledge of Rasulullah sallallahu 'alaihi wasallam or to show its size or smallness to madmen and animals and has said there is nothing unique to Rasulullah sallallahu 'alaihi wasallam regarding this knowledge.

click on scan to enlarge


The actual paragraph is this:
"And then, if it is correct to attribute the knowledge of the unseen (ilm ghayb) to be possessed by Rasulullah sallallahu 'alaihi wasallam, as Zayd says, then it remains to be asked, which one he (the questioner) refers to.?Is it only a 'part' of it (baáĎ) or 'complete'; if he refers to'part', then what is extraordinary about Rasulullah in possessing it? Such knowledge of unseen is also possessed by all and sundry (Zayd, Amr); even infants, lunatics and all the animals and quadrupeds.

Original Urdu wording:

phir yê ke âp kî dhât muqaddasa par `ilm-e-ghayb kâ hukm kiyâ jânâ agar be qawl zayd sahîh hô tô daryâfat talab amri yê hê ke us ghayb se murâd ba`z [ba`D] ghayb hê yâ kul ghayb agar ba`z `ulûm ghaybiyya murâd hê tô is mê Huzûr hi ki kyâ takhsîs hê AYSÂ `
ilm-e-ghayb tô zayd-o-`amr-o-balke har sabî-o-majnûn balke jamî`Haywânât-o-bahâhum ke liye bhi Hâsil hê kayûn kê har shakhs kô kisî ne kisî aysî bât kâ `ilm hôtâ hê jô dusrê shakhs se makhfi hê)

Refuting Deobandi Mufti:

Part 1: Here
Part 2: Here
Part 3: Here
Part 4: Here

The Deobandi author in an attempt to justify this writing says that:

“This statement should not be taken as interpreted by Imam Ahmed Raza Khan RH ".

Who on this earth need any interpretation of this statement?

It is clear like sun shining in the sky . This is such an ugly statement that no Muslim would like to read this statement , forget about talking about those people who have this belief or those who try to justify this.

The Deobandi author says that to make the meaning clear Mawlana Asharf ali Thanvee made changes in the text!

This is another lie.

He made changes when Muslim population read this and started abusing him ! He never did tawba/repent and all he did was to change the word:

'Aysa' which means: (this sort of)

For this ugly statement in which Ashraf Ali Thanvi has compared the prophetic knowledge of the unseen with the knowledge possessed by infants, lunatics,sundry,animals and quadrapeds ( four legged animals).

Two hundresed and sixty eight (268) scholars of Ahlus sunnah from Indian subcontinent and thirty three (33) scholars from Makkah al mukarramh and Medina al munawwara issued fatwa of kufr upon  Ashraf Ali Thanvi.

1. The fatwa of Kufr which was issued upon Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvee by Imam Ahmed Raza al Barelwi (Rahimullah) and 33 scholars of Makkah and Medina , was due to Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi comparing the prophetic knoweldge of the unseen (Ghayb) with the knowledge possed by Zayd and `Amr, ( that is any tom and harry) in fact, every person and mad man, in fact, all animals and sundry.
2 The fatwa which was issued upon Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi has nothing to do with denial of ilm e ghayb (knowledge of the unseen) which prophet had. 

The blasphemous comment was used to degrade our beloved Prophet ( sal allahu alaihi wa sallam).

They say: Imam Ahmed Raza Khan (RH) made an interpretation of that text of Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi and if the interpretation was not made, it will not amount to Kufr.

To refute this confusion we need to know Two Basic Facts:

1) Imam Ahmed Raza Khan (r) DID NOT make any interpretation of the text. He translated it word by word into Arabic and presented it to the scholars of Makkah and Medina. The original Urdu text of fatwa and its Arabic translation, both are online. If anyone says Imam Ahmed Raza Khan (r) made interpretation he should bring evidence in support of such a claim.

2) 268 leading muftis of Indian subcontinet, from Sindh (present pakistan), Firangmahal , Lucknow , Hyderabad , Rampur etc, issued the fatwa against Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi. They also did not make any interpretation.

It is very important to refute this confusion being created. Please read this and show me where is Imam Ahmed Raza (r) involved in this?

The paternal grandson of Hazrat Sayyid Muhammad Jilani Qadri Hyderabadi,

Sayyid Nazeeruddin son of Sayyid Moinuddin, expresses his disgust at this statement: [of Ashraf Ali Thanvi]

“Some people brought the book, Hifzul Iman by Ashraf Ali Thanwi to my grandfather (Sayyid Muhammad Jilani Qadri) and asked about it. He read the book and said,

Molvi Ashraf Ali has written an utmost disrespectful thing about ‘Ilm-e-Ghayb”.

A few days after this, Molvi Ashraf Ali was sitting in Makkah Masjid in Hyderabad. My grandfather stood and expressed his disgust at the book and said, “This paragraph stinks of Kufr.”

A few days later, there was gathering of Ulema at the house of Mawlānā Hafiz Muhammad Ahmad (son of Mawlānā Muhammad Qasim Nanotwi). Since he had great affection for my grandfather he invited him too. At the gathering, the Ulema expressed their views on the paragraph in Hifzul Iman. My grandfather mentioned the disgust he felt and presented a fatwa against the book.

Then, some days after this, my grandfather saw Sayyidina Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam in a dream:

The dear Prophet sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam expressed his happiness that my grandfather had refuted the book and had labelled it “Aqbah” (the most repugnant).

Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam said,

“I am happy with you. What do you wish for?”

My grandfather replied that he wished that his remaining life would be spent in Madina and that he be buried in Madina. His wish was granted and he migrated to Madina thereafter. He spent ten years there and passed away there in 1364 AH.21.

Hazrat Mawlānā Abul Khair Naqshbandi Mujaddidi Dihlawi was once resident in Kothi Ilahi Bakhsh, Meerut.

During his stay, Hafiz Muhammad Ahmad, son of Mawlānā Muhammad Qasim Nanotwi, and Mawlānā Ashraf Ali Thanwi came to one of his gatherings. A supporter of Mawlānā Ghulam Dastagir Qasuri read out the passage of Hifzul Iman.

Hazrat Shah Abul Khair Dihlawi found it utterly displeasing and said:
“Is this service to the religion? 
Your elders were upon our path. Why did you oppose this?”
Molvi Ashraf Ali Thanwi replied,
“I have clarified this passage in another book of mine”.
Shah Abul Khair answered,
So many people have diverged from the truth due to your book, what need remains of your clarification?”

[Maqamat-e-Khair, page 616. Shah Abul Khair Academy, Dehli]
[Bazm-e-Khair az-Zayd, page 11. Shah Abul Khair Academy, Dehli]


Ashraf ali Thanvi wrote:

“phir yê ke âp kî dhât muqaddasa par `ilm-e-ghayb kâ hukm kiyâ jânâ agar be qawl zayd sahîh hô tô daryâfat talab amri yê hê ke us
ghayb se murâd ba`z [ba`D] ghayb hê yâ kul ghayb agar ba`z `ulûm ghaybiyya murâd hê tô is mê Huzûr hi ki kyâ takhsîs hê AYSÂ `ilm-e-ghayb tô zayd-o-`amr-o-balke har sabî-o-majnûn balke jamî`Haywânât-o-bahâhum ke liye bhi Hâsil hê kayûn kê har shakhs kô
kisî ne kisî aysî bât kâ `ilm hôtâ hê jô dusrê shakhs se makhfi hê”

“Then, about his blessed person having the unseen knowledge ordered upon him, if the words of Zayd are to be correct; with regard to it; that ghayb can mean some of the unseen or everything of the unseen. If some of the unseen (ba`z `ulûm ghaybiyya) is meant, how is it a speciality for him (saw)? That sort of (aysâ) unseen knowledge has also been possessed by Zayd and `Amr, in
fact, every person and mad man, in fact, all animals and sundry. The reason being is that every person has the knowledge of certain matters which are hidden to others.”(Hifzul-Iman , page 7,8 written by Asraf ali  Thanvi  (8, Muharram, 1319, Matbû’a: Maktaba Thanvi, Karachi)

Aûdhubillâh min dhâlik!

Note :  this, it is clear that Thanvi does not consider the ghaybi(unseen) knowledge given to the Holy Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam) as one of his (saw) specialities or unique qualities.

That is false as it is, but then to write that this sort of knowledge is also possessed by the various creatures he mentioned, is extreme desrespect against our Master (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam).

Murtazâ Hasan Darbhangi actually wrote a whole booklet called, "Tawdîhul-bayân fî Hifzul-Îmân" on this passage alone and writes on pages 8 and 17 that the word:
 "Aysâ (Urdu: this sort of)" is not only used as a "mithl" (to show similitude) but can also mean, 
"Itnâ (Urdu: this much)" and " is qadar (something like this)."

 Manzûr Ahmad Sanbhalî followed in the line of Darbhangi and in his book, "Fath Bareylî kâ dil kash nazârah" wrote:
"Hifzul-Îmân ki is ibârat me bhi 'aysâ' 'tashbîha' ke liye nahi balke woh yahâ bad tashbîh ke 'itnâ' ke ma`ne me hey."
"In this passage of Hifzul-Îmân, the word 'aysâ' is not being used as a tashbîh (comparison). This [word] here is not a comparison but is being used in the meaning of 'itnâ'." (Manzûr Sanbhali, Fath Bareylî kâ dil Kash nazârah, p. 32)

He also stresses the same idea on pages 40 and 48.

He also writes: "agar ba farz is ibârat kâ wôh matlab hô jô Mawlawî Sardâr Ahmad Sâhib bayân kar rahêhê jab to hamârî nazdîk bhi muwajab kufr hey!"
"If this text has the meaning which is stated by Mawlawî Sardâr Ahmad Sâhib, then that to us is ALSO KUFR." (Manzûr Sanbhali, Fath Bareylî kâ dil Kash nazârah, p. 35)

Manzûr Ahmad Sanbhalî and Shaykh al-Hadîth Hadrat `Allama Sardâr Ahmad (r) did have a debate in Bareili Sharîf.

In the debate, Mawlana Sardar Ahmad was arguing that the word "Aysâ" (this sort of) in Urdu is used for a comparison (tashbîh) between things.

Manzur Ahmad on the other hand, was arguing that "aysâ" in the text of Hifzul-Îmân was being used in the sence of "itnâ" (this much) or "is qadar" (something like this) in Urdu and not as a tashbîh which would also be kufr even according to him.

[Note: The truth is that "itnâ" (this much) and "is qadar" (something like this) in Urdu are also used for comparisons!]

So to recap, both Manzur Sanbhalî and Murtazâ Hasan Darbhangî stress in more than one place in their works that:

1. The word "aysâ" in the text of Hifzul-Îmân has been used in the sence of "itnâ" (this much) or "is qadar" (something like this) in Urdu
2. To take the word "aysâ" to be a "tashbîh" (comparison) would make the sentance one of KUFR!

 Now let’s have a look at what "the Shaykh al-Islam of the Deobandi's in his time, Maulana Sayyid Husayn Ahmad al-Madani" wrote in his very work "Shihâbuth-Thâqib":

"Hadrat Mawlânâ Thanvî ibârat me lafz 'aysâ' far mâ rahêhê lafz 'itnâ' to nahî farmâ rahehê - agar lafz 'itnâ' hôtâ to us waqat aybtiya ihtimâl hôtâ ke ma`âdhallâh huzûr `alayhis-salâm ke `ilm ko or chîzô ke `ilm ki barâbar kardiyâ!"

"Hadrat Mawlana Thanvi in his text used the word 'aysâ' and NOT 'itnâ.' Had it been 'itnâ', this would have been finding a SHORTCOMING ma`âdhallâh and making his `alayhis-salâm's knowledge like the knowledge of things!"
 [Husayn Ahmad Tandwî (who later changed to Madanî), Shihâbuth-Thqqib, p. 102]

 Further on, he writes:
"is se bhi agar qati nazar kar liyê to lafz 'aysâ' tô kalema TASHBÎH ka hê!"

"If we look at this clearly, the word, 'aysâ' is clearly a TASHBÎH(comparison)!"
(Husayn Ahmad Tandwî, Shihâbuth-Thiqâb, p. 102)

So according to Manzur Ahmad Sanbhilî's and Murtazâ Hasan Darbhangî's understanding of Thanvi's text, "aysâ" means, "itnâ" and " Is qadar" and the one who says that the word, "aysâ" is a "tashbîh" becomes a KÂFIR. On the other hand, according to Husayn Ahmad's understanding, the word, "aysâ" IS a "tashbîh" and whoever says that it means, "itnâ" commits KUFR ,{as they would be finding a shortcoming in the Messenger (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam)}.

So who is right?

Hence, if I were to become a Deobandi and believe that all three of these scholars were correct, then I would have to believe that using the word "aysâ" with either meaning is going to be kufr!

They bent head over heals to try to defend Thanvi’s statement.
Their main aim was to put blame and insult on Ala Hadrat Imam Ahmad Ridâ Khan (r).
But Allah Ta`âlâ saw their plans and ended up putting the truth on their own tongues. They contradicted each other upto the extent that without realising it, they considered each other’s interpretations of the word "aysâ" as KUFR!

Now, they should leave Imâm Ahmad Ridâ alone and keep quite about this whole affair, or be ready to call each other kâfirs first because their own interpretations go against each other. Why blame the Imâm of Ahlus-Sunnah, Ala Hadrat Shah Ahmad Ridâ Khan (q) of giving his fatwa when your own "scholars" couldn't and can't defend thestrange statement?

As for Thanvî Sâhib himself, he didn't even bother to defend his text at all and changed it altogether. One of his sincere murîds spoke truthfully and advised him to do this.

It also looks as though Thanvi concedes that the text desrespects the Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wasallam).

His murîd said as quoted by Mawlana Thanvi himself:
“aysâ lafz jin mê mamsalat `ilmiyyat ghaybiyyat Muhammadiyya kô `ulûm majânîn-o-bahâ’im se tashbîh dî ga’î hê jô bâdî an-nazr mê sakht sô adabî kô mash`ar hê kyû aysî `ibârat se rujû na kar liya jâ’ê jis mê mukhlisîn hâmi’în janâb-e-wâlâ kô Haqq bajânib jawâbe dî mê sakht dashwârî hôtîhê wôh `ibârat âsmânî or ilhâmî `ibârat
nahî ke jis kî masdarah sûrat or hamiyyat `ibârat kâ bâlio yâ lafzî bâqî raknâ zurûri hey.”

“Those sort of words in which the Muhammadan Unseen Knowledge is compared to that of madmen and sundry, after pondering over it, is of extreme desrespect. Why shouldn’t one come back (make rujû`) over such a text in which the righteous and ordinary people like us are being given answers the truth of which is being shown with such difficulty? That text is not from the heavens, nor is it inspiration, like the sort whose beauty and respect has to be preserved by keeping every single word. (Thanvi, Taghyîrul-`Unwân, p. 1)

So, Thanvi changed the text from:

"…agar be qawl zayd sahîh hô tô daryâfat talab amri yê hê ke us ghayb se murâd ba`z [ba`D] ghayb hê yâ kul ghayb agar ba`z `ulûm ghaybiyya murâd hê tô is mê Huzûr hi ki kyâ takhsîs hê AYSÂ `ilm-e- ghayb tô zayd-o-`amr-o-balke har sabî-o-majnûn balke jamî`
Haywânât-o-bahâhum ke liye bhi Hâsil hê…”

“…if the words of Zayd are to be correct; with regard to it; that ghayb can mean some of the unseen or everything of the unseen.
If some of the unseen (ba`z `ulûm ghaybiyya) is meant, how is it a speciality for him (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam)? That sort of (aysâ) unseen knowledge has also been possessed by Zayd and `Amr, in fact, every person and mad man, in fact, all animals and sundry…” (Thanvi, Hifzul-Iman, p. 7)

Changed To:

"agar baz `ulûm ghaybiyya murâd hey to is me Huzûr Sallallâhu `alayhi wa sallam kî kya takhsîs hey - mutlaq baz `ulûm-e- ghaybiyya to ghayr anbiyâ `alayhimus-salâm ko bi hâsil hey."
“…if it is to mean some unseen knowledge, then how is this his Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam’s speciality - absolutely, some knowledge of the unseen is also possed by non-Prophets `alayhimus-salâm.” (Thanvi, Taghyîrul-`Unwân, p. 3)

Hence, he removed the word,aysâ” altogether and changed the context and meaning of the sentence altogether. In fact, I think this is the only sentence in the whole book that was changed.

Anyway, the sentence shows that he believes non-Prophet’s can also have ghaybi knowledge upon them.

 Just for the record, the following is the meaning given for the word, “aysâ” in the huge Urdu dictionery, “Firawzul-Lughât” by al- Hâjj Mawlawî Firawzuddîn:
aysâ: is qisam kâ, is dahng kâ, is tarah kâ, is qadar.”

“this sort of: of the like of this, of this sort, like this,something like this.”


Hifzul Iman & Shaykh Thanvi: Here 

Do you really need to?
If you Insist  Here and Here
scans in Urdu and Persian Here


Part Four

The judgements concerning those who think the Prophet imperfect or curse him

Section One The Judgement of the Shari'a regarding someone

who curses or disparages the Prophet

Know that all who curse Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, or blame him or attribute imperfection to him in his person, his lineage, his deen or any of his qualities, or alludes to that or its like by any means whatsoever, whether in the form of a curse or contempt or belittling him or detracting from him or finding fault with him or maligning him, the judgement regarding such a person is the same as the judgement against anyone who curses him. He is killed as we shall make clear. This judgement extends to anything which amounts to a curse or disparagement. We have no hesitation concerning this matter, be it a clear statement or allusion.
The same applies to anyone who curses him, invokes against him, desires to harm him, ascribes to him what does not befit his position or jokes about his mighty affair with foolish talk, satire, disliked words or jies, or reviles him because of any affliction or trial which happened to him or disparages him, because of any of the permissible and well-known human events which happened to him. All of this is the consensus of the 'ularna' and the imams of fatwa from the time of the Companions until today.
Abu Bakr ibn al-Mundhir said that the bulk of the people of knowledge agree that whoever curses the Prophet is killed. These include Malik ibn Anas, al-Layth, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, and it is the position of the Shafi'i school.

Qadi Abu'l-Fadl said that it is based on the statement of Abu Bakr as-Siddiq. His repentance is not accepted. Something similar was stated by Abu Hanifa and his people, ath-Thawri and the people of Kufa and al-Awza'i about the Muslims. However, they said that it constitutes apostasy.

At-Tabari related something similar from Abu Hanifa and his companions about anyone who disparages the Prophet, proclaims himself quit of him or calls him a liar.

Sahnun said about those who curse the Prophet, "This is apostasy in exactly the same way as heresy (zandaqa) is. Therefore there is some dispute about whether such a person should be called to repent (as a Muslim) or whether he is an unbeliever. Is he to be killed by a hadd-punishment (as a Muslim) or for disbelief?" We will make this clear in Chapter Two. We do not know of any dispute among the 'ulama' of the community and the Salaf regarding the permissibility of shedding his blood.
Several people have mentioned that the consensus is that he is to be killed and considered an unbeliever. One of the Dhahirites, Abu Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Farisi, however, indicated that there is some disagreement about whether to consider someone who belittles the Prophet as an unbeliever. The best-known position has already been stated.

Muhammad ibn Sahnun said that the 'ulama' agree that anyone who reviles the Prophet and disparages him is an unbeliever and the threat of Allah's punishment is on him. The community's judgement on him is that he be killed. Anyone who has any doubts about such a person's disbelief and punishment is also an unbeliever. For a proof of this, Ibrahim ibn Husayn ibn Khalid, the faqih, uses the instance of Khalid ibn al-Walid killing Malik ibn Nuwayra for referring to the Prophet as "your companion."'[3]

Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi said, "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 relates the same from Malik in the book of Ibn Habib, "Any Muslim who curses the Prophet is killed without being asked to repent."

Ibn al-Qasim said in the 'Utibiyya, "Anyone who curses him, reviles him, finds fault with him or disparages him is killed. The community say 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,
"Any Muslim who reviles the Prophet is killed or crucified without being asked to repent. The Imam can choose between crucifying him or killing him." In the variant of Abu'l-Mus'ab and Ibn Abi Uways, they heard Malik say, "Anyone who curses the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, reviles him, finds fault with him or disparages him is killed, be he Muslim or unbeliever, without being asked to repent."

Asbagh said, "He is killed in every case, whether he conceals it or makes it public, without being asked to repent because his repentance is not recognised."

'Abdullah ibn 'Abdu'l-Hakam said that and at-Tabari related something similar from Malik Ibn Wahb related that Malik said, "Anyone who says that the Prophet's cloak (or button) was dirty, thereby intending to find fault with him, should be killed."

One of our 'ulama says that people agree that anyone who curses any of the Prophets using the expression "Woe to him" or anything disliked is to be killed without being asked to repent.

Abu'l-Hasan al-Qabisi gave a fatwa that 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, "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, "Anyone who says that the Prophet was black should be killed."

He was told about a man to whom someone said, "No, by the right of the Messenger of Allah," and he replied, "Allah did such a thing to the Messenger of Allah," mentioning some ugly words. People said to him, "What are you saying, enemy of Allah?" Then he said some even harsher things and added, "I wish for a scorpion for the Messenger of Allah." When someone asked him for fatwa about this man, lbn Abi Sulayman said, "Testify against him and I will be your partner," i.e. in killing him and getting the reward. Habib ibn ar-Rabi' said that is because trying to explain away the literal expression is not accepted because it is clear contempt and lack of respect for the Messenger of Allah. His blood is permitted.

Abu 'Abdullah ibn 'Attab gave a fatwa about a tax-collector who said to a man, "Pay and complain to the Prophet. If I ask or am ignorant, the Prophet was ignorant and asked," to the effect that he be killed.
The fuqaha' of Andalusia gave a fatwa that Ibn Ha tim, the scholar of Toledo, be killed and crucified because there was testimony that he made light of what is due to the Prophet. In the course of a debate, he called him "the orphan" and the in-law of the lion (i.e. 'Ali)," and claimed that his doing-without (zuhd) las not intentional. He alleged that if he had been able to have good things, he would have eaten them. He said other similar things.

The fuqaha' of the Qayrawan[4] and the companions of Sahnun gave a fatwa for the killing of Ibrahim al-Ghazari, a poet and master of many sciences. He was one of those who attended the assembly of Qadi Abu'l-'Abbas ibn Talib for debate. He was accused of objectionable things like mocking Allah, His Prophets and our Prophet. Qadi Yahya ibn 'Umar and other fuqaha' summoned him and commanded that he be killed and crucified. He was stabbed and crucified upside down. Then he was brought down and burned. One of the historians related that when the post to which he was tied was lifted up, the body turned around away from qibja. It was a sign to all and the people said, "Allah is greater!" Then a dog came and licked his blood. Yahya ibn 'Umar said, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, spoke the truth," and he mentioned a hadith in which the Prophet said, "A dog will not lick a Muslim's blood."[5]

Qadi Abu 'Abdullah ibn al-Murabit said, "Whoever says that the Prophet was defeated is asked to repent. If he repents, it is all right. If not, he is killed because it detracts from the Prophet. Such a disparaging remark could not be said about the Prophet by anyone with understanding of his affair and certainty about his inviolability."

Habib ibn Rabi' al-Qarawi said that 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 the Book and Sunna 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, but they disagree about the basis for killing him as we have indicated. We will make this clear later.

This is also my position regarding the judgment of anyone who belittles him or insults him about having been a shepherd, oversight, forgetfulness, sorcery, any wound he received, the defeat of one of his armies, injury by an enemy, the intensity of his illness or his being attracted to his wives. The judgement of all this is that the one who intends to disparage him by it is killed. The position of the 'ulama' is as we have already stated and it will be proved by what follows.

Translated by

Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley