Wednesday, 4 November 2015

Hifzul Imaan 1319AH (1901CE)










In 1319 AH (1901CE)
Mawlānā Ashraf Ali Thanvi (d.1943)
 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 Here to read Large Scan

Quote:
“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.
Quote:
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)

Read the Original Large Scans: Here  

(Also here: Refuting Deobandi Mufti: Part 3  )


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”.

Who on this earth needs 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 Thanvi 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 and all he did was to change the word ‘aysa’ (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 quadrupeds ( four legged animals).

Two hundred 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 Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi.

1. The fatwa of Kufr which was issued upon Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi by Imam Ahmed Raza al Barelwi (Rahimullah) and 33 scholars of Makkah and Medina , was due to Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi comparing the prophetic knowledge of the unseen (Ghayb) with the knowledge possessed 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) Best of Creation.

They say Ahmed Raza Khan  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 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 made interpretation he should bring evidence in support of such a claim.
2) 268 leading muftis of Indian subcontinent, 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 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 Shaykh 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.”

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?”

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


 ANALYSIS OF THE WORD ‘AYSA

Mawlana Ashraf ali Thanvi said:

“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 specialty 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-Imân,page:7-8, (8, Muharram, 1319AH, Matbû’a: Maktaba Thanvi, Karachi)

Aûdhubillâh min dhâlik!

Note :  this, it is clear that Ashraf ali Thanvi does not consider the ghaybi (unseen) knowledge given to the Holy Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam) as one of his (s) specialties 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 disrespect 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-Imân, 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) had 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-Imân was being used in the sense 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-Imân has been used in the sense 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 sentence 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 heels to try to defend Thanvi’s 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 the text 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 possessed 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.

( In the later edition the wordings were changed)

----------------------------------------------------------------
 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.”
---------------------------------------------------------------

RESULT OF THE ANALYSIS

Imam Ahmed Raza issued the fatwa upon Mawlana Ashraf ali Thanvi nearly 1 year after Mawlana Ashraf ali Thanvi’s book was in market.

The rumour which is spread by Deobandis is that Imam Ahmed Raza Khan made tawil (interpretation) of Mawlana Ashraf ali Thanvi’s work and that is how the disrespect towards prophet becomes evident.

This rumour does not make any sense as Imam Ahmed Raza® made no tawil. We have seen in my earlier post that many notable scholars (who had no affiliation with Imam Ahmed Raza khan ® said that these wordings of Mawlana Ashraf ali Thanvi was indeed Kufr.

Before Imam Ahmed Raza Khan issued the fatwa; there was already Fatwa by other scholars and mass rally against this work of Mawlana Ashraf ali Thanvi.

(Please see news paper of 1920)

1) Murtazâ Hasan Darbhangi al Deobandi (principal, Darul Uloom Deoband) writes 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).”

2 Manzûr Ahmad Sanbhalî al Deobandi followed in the line of Darbhangi and wrote
“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'”

He continues:

“If this text has the meaning which is stated by Mawlawî Sardâr Ahmad Sâhib,
 then that to us is ALSO KUFR.”

Note: Manzûr Ahmad Sanbhalî and Shaykh al-Hadîth Hadrat `Allama Sardâr Ahmad ® 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” (thismuch) 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!]

To sum up:

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!

I ask Deobandisi, do they agree with this “tawil” (interpretation) given by 2 Deobandi scholars?

If Deobandis don’t agree with these two Deobandi scholars and accept the meaning of Aysa=tashbih , comparison, then as per above two Deobandi scholars , Mawlana Ashraf ali Thanvi’s statement is KUFR.

If Deobandi  answer is yes , it means they  agree to accept the meaning of AYSA as “ itna” ( this much) , then there is NO KUFR in mawlana Thanvi’s statement as per these two deobandi scholars.

So Mawlana Ashraf ali Thanvi’s sentence will now MEAN (as per above two Deobandi scholars):

“ That sort of (aysâ= itna= this much ) unseen knowledge has also been possessed by Zayd and `Amr, in fact, every person and mad man, in fact, all animals and sundry.”

Everything is fine, if deobandis have accepted the meaning of ‘AYSA” as given by these two top deobandi ‘akabir.This TAWIL (interpretation) saved Mawlana Ashraf ali Thanvi from the charge of Kufr.

The other side of story:

But what did the Shaykh al-Islam of the Deobandi’s in his time, Maulana Husayn Ahmad Tandvee write in his very work:  “Shihâbuth-Thâqib”?

He wrote: “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!”
Further on, he writes:
“If we look at this clearly, the word, ‘aysâ’ is clearly a TASHBÎH (comparison)!”
[Husayn Ahmad Tandwî, Shihâbuth-Thiqâb, p. 102]

THE FINAL VERDICT

So according to Manzur Ahmad Sanbhilî’s and Murtazâ Hasan Darbhangî’s ( Two TOP DEOBANDI scholars) 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 ( Top deobandi scholar)understanding, the word, “aysâ” IS a “tashbîh” and whoever says that it means, “itnâ” commits KUFR (, as they wouldbe finding a shortcoming in the Messenger (sal allahu alahi wa sallam)

It is matter of choice upon deobandis that whose fatwa of kufr they want to accept?
1) Murtaza Darbhangee?
2) Huseein Tandvee?

This is a catch 22 situation through which NO DEOBANDI can ever come out.

There is no more beating around the bush, when I have brought the explanations by deobandi akabirs who knew what Mawlana Thanvi wrote and meant!.

SHOWING DISRESPECT TO PROPHET IS KUFR : FATWA FROM SHAYKH RASHID GANGOHI AL DEOBANDI

Below is couple of Fatwa from Deobandi scholars on the issue of Disrespect to Prophet.

The following fatwâ’ has been translated from the original Urdû book: Fatâwâ’ Rashîdiyyah, Page 71-72, printed by Muhammad Saeed and Sons, Karâchî, Pâkistân.

The fatwâ’ was written by Rashîd Ahmad Gangohî, co-founder of Dâr ul-‘ulûm Deoband and Spiritual Shaykh of many senior Deobandî scholars.

Rashid Ahmad is one amongst those whom the Imâm of the Ahl as-Sunnah w’al Jamâ’ah, Imâm Muftî ash-Shâh Ahmad Ridâ Khân of Baraylî Sharîf, ‘alayhi al-rahmah w’al-ridwân, charged with kufr & which the ‘Ulamâ’ & Mashâ’ikh of Haramayn Sharîfayn; the Two Sacred Sanctuaries, endorsed in Husâm al-Haramayn [Sword of the Two Sanctuaries].

THE FATWÂ’

Rashîd Ahmad Gangohî, in reply to a question writes:

Question No: 30  A poet who in his poetry uses words as idol or statue or calamity of Turks tragedy of Arabia in his compositions of the Prophet, salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam, what is the legal [shar’îy] ruling on this? Elaborate and be rewarded!
Answer: The person expressing these ill words although does not intend the actual real apparent meanings rather intends the metaphorical and figurative meaning, nevertheless, [such words] are not void of inference of insolence, blasphemy and offence of the Unblemished Self of Allâh, Most Exalted and the Messenger of Allâh, salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. For this very reason, Allâh, the Exalted, prohibited the [Prophetic] Companions from uttering Râ’inâ and instructed the usage of the [substitute] word of Unzurnâ. When in actual fact the purpose of the Companions, Allâh be well pleased with them all, was not by any means to intend the meaning which the Jews [deliberately mockingly] intended but since it was a means of pleasing the Jews and carried implications of hurting and offending the Messenger [salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa âlihî wa sahbihî wa sallam] thus, the ruling communicated:
“Say not [to the Messenger, salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam] Râ’inâ but say Unzurnâ [Do make us understand]” al-Qur’ân 2:104
…… and likewise the speaking of the eminent Companions [Allâh be well pleased with them all] in the presence of the Prophet, salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa âlihî wa sahbihî wa sallam, with a raised voice was not, ma’âdh Allâh, intended to harm or offend, on the contrary it was merely due to their nature and character. However, since it carried implications of offending and disregard of honour and respect the ruling was thus given:
“O you who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet [salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam], nor speak aloud to him in talk as you speak loud to one another, lest your deeds may be rendered fruitless while you perceive not.” Al-Qur’ân 49:2
What an unambiguous ruling that though your intention was not to disparage however by doing so your deeds would become wasted and you wouldn’t even be aware of it. Also the same is in a Hadîth: “Kunya [nomen] yourself with the kunya Abî’l Qâsim” which was [later] prohibited during the Noble lifetime [salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa âlihî wa sahbihî wa sallam] for offending the person of the Master of the World, in that if someone was to call someone [with the same kunya] then thy will assuming thyself to be addressed confer attention even though the caller did not whatsoever intend to offend the Messenger of Allâh, salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa âlihî wa sahbihî wa sallam. And, Ibn Mâjah reports that when Ash’ath bin Qays Kundî arrived he enquired, “O Messenger of Allâh, are you not from us?” And this enquiry, and knowledge of ghayb is with Allâh, was simply because all ‘Arabs from Quraysh till Kunda are from the Banû Ismâ’îl. So thee replied, “Do not accuse our uncles of adultery and do not negate our lineage from our fathers, we are the progeny of Nadar.” Behold! This word merely carrying a far reaching implication – to what extent the Prophet [salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa âlihî wa sahbihî wa sallam] rejected and prohibited and insisted on good manners of speech. ….. In sum, these words carried apparent insolence and offence hence to utter such words will be kufr:
“Verily those who annoy Allâh and His Messenger [salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam] – Allâh has cursed them in this world, and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating torment.”
al-Qur’ân 33:57
… It is said in Shifâ’: “That, when a person has uttered something when speaking of the Prophet, salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam, without intending to insult, neither to offend and nor does he believe it to be but has uttered for the Prophet, salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam, words which constitute kufr [like] from cursing him or insulting him or falsifying him or associating that which is unlawful upon him or negating that which is indispensable upon him which for his status are [considered] blemishes, salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam, like associating a major sin …. or uttered something disrespectful out of sheer ignorance which is construed as a kind of verbal abuse even if his circumstances apparently illustrate that he did not intend to demean the Prophet, salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam, nor did he rely on it or he uttered it merely through ignorance or due to distress and depression or due to influence of intoxication or due to lack of thought or by his tongue running away from him or uttered it in the heat of the moment. Then the legal ruling concerning such a person without hesitation is death.”
[Qâdî ‘Iyâd bin Mûsâ Mâlikî D544H ash-Shifâ’ Vol 2 Page 203-204 Published by ‘Abd at-Tawwâb Academy, Multân]
Hence, it is required that the writer of such kufr [entailing] words be severely reprimanded and if possible [to do so], if he does not stop then he should be killed because he is the harmer and offender of the Grandeur of the Exalted and His Messenger and Prophet, salla Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
And Allâh, the Exalted is Most Knowledgeable.
Servant Rashîd Ahmad Gangohî
——————————————————

Other Fatwa:

“Uttering of words which may be thought to belittle the prince of the universe (Sallal Laahu Alaihi Wasallam) even where the intention of the person uttering those words is not to do so is liable to make such a person a polytheist”.
(Lataaif-i-Rasheediyah, Page 22, by Janab Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi and Ash-Shahaab-us-Saaqib, Page 57, Husain Ahmad Tandvi Madani.)

* “He who utters a single polytheistic word is, in the eyes of all, a polytheist”.
(Al-lfaazaat-ul-Yaumiyah, Vol. 7, Page 234, by Janab Ashraf Ali Thanvi).

* “With all his claim to adhering to Islam and faith and striving his best in this regard, a person who is insolent towards the Prophet and rejects the essentials of Deen is, without doubt, an apostate and a polytheist in the eyes of all Muslims”..
(Ashaddul-‘Azaab, Page 5, by Janab Murtaza Hasan Darbhangi.)

* “He (Gangohi) also mentioned utterances which could be said to cause hurt to the holy Prophet (Alaihis Salaam), and declared that a person uttering polytheistic words should be deterred from doing so by all possible means, and if such a person does not refrain from doing so he should be killed because he has been insolent to Almighty Allah and His trustworthy Prophet (Sallal Laahu Alaihi Wasallam)”.
(Ash-Shahaabus Saaqib, Page 50 by Husain Ahmad Tandvi Madni and Lataa’if-i-Rasheediyah, Page 22 by Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi.)

* “All ulama are unanimous in holding that he who is insolent to, and belittles, the holy Prophet (Sallal Laahu Alaihi Wasallam) is a polytheist and he who doubts the polytheism of such a person is himself a polytheist. . . The verdict of polytheism is passed on the basis of things, which are obvious, not wilful, or intended or deduced. . . The ulama have said that to show annoyance with the Prophets (Alaihimus Salaam) is polytheism even if insolence is not intended”.
(Al-lifaar-ul-Mulhideen, Pages 51, 83 and 86, by Janab Anwar Shah Kashmiri, a teacher at Deoband.)

* “He who believes that the holy Prophet (Alaihis Salaam) is only as much distinguished from us as an elder brother is from the younger one goes, in our view, out of the pale of Imam.
(Al-Muhannad Page 28, by ulama of Deoband.)

* “Certain harsh words which have occurred in Taqwiyat-ul-Imaan (written by Isma’iel Dehlvi Phulti Balakoti) were intended to cure the ignorance prevalent in those days. . . The words used by Isma’iel Dehlvi are, of course, disrespectful and insolent. These words may never be used”.
(Imadaad-ul-Fataawa, Vol. 4, Page 115, by Thanvi.)


---



Post Edited by ADHM