were
Ahmad
ibn Taymiyyah (d.1328CE)
Ibn
Abd-al-Wahhab Najdi (d.1792CE)
and
Their Admirers followers in the Indian subcontinent
Ismael
Dehlvi (d.1831)
Qasim
Nanotvi (d.1879)
Rashid
Ahmad Gangohi (d.1905)
Khalil
Ahmad Anbethawi (d.1927)
Ashraf
Ali
Thanvi (d.1943)
others.
---
Wahhabi/Deobandi says:
“...do 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... wrote in their original books... then if he/she after reading the ugly statements Insists and agreed with them is also:Gustakh e Rasool! Note:
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 wahhabi/salafi/ahlehadith and deobandi/tablighi and their sympathisers are deceived and lied upon by their own elders(teachers/imams) by providing them with fabricated/edited versions (sugar coated) of the original books.
Deobandi says:
“...do not call our deobandi akabir Kafir or send Lanaat (LA) upon them...”
Why Not?
because they (Hazrat Maulana Hakimul Ummat Shaykh
al-Hadith
Akabir ul Ulama...) wrote over 1000's of Islamic books!
and did so much for the deen...
---
You forget that one (1) word of kufr
renders all those 1000's Islamic books useless
with their so called "good deeds"
The Bedrock
Their Fouding forefathers of Deobandi/Wahabbi 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!
Why?
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 Wahhabi/Deobandi and their Sympathiser's
say:
But 'Hanafi in Fiqh and Maturidi in Aqidah
and we
insist in praising them...
and WE ARE NOT INTERESTED
IN what you have shown us Here
--
1-Fatawa
Rashidiyah, Vol: 1.page, 19 (Fatawa
-e- Rasheedyah ) -…Can tell lie…
2-Tafsir
Bulghatul Hayieraan, page, 157/158-…Does
not Know?
3-
Barhareen e Qaatiah-…knowledge of
Iblis/Satan…
4-Barhareen
e Qaatiah, page, 51-…Knowledge
behind the Wall…
5-Hifzul
Imaan (Hifzul Ieemaan) page,7-
…knowledge of Prophet…
6-Siraat
e Mustaqeem, page, 86/87-…Thinking
or even thought of Prophet during prayer…
7-Fatawa
Rashidiyah, Vol: 2, page, 12-…Word
Rahmatul Lil Aalamin for Prophet…
8-Tahzeerun
Naas, page,3 and 25-…Khaatim un
Nabiyeen Last Prophet…
9-Baraaheen-e-
Qaatiah, page, 26-…Prophet –Urdu…
10-Taqwiyatul
Ieemaan, page, 58-…Respected as
Elder brother…
(Astaghfirullah)
11-Book
Taqwitul Imaan (Taqwiyatul Ieeman)- …create
million like Prophet…
12-Taqwiyatul
Ieeman page,59-…Mingled with Dust…
13-
Taqwiyatul Ieeman page,29-…are
worthless…
14-Tasfiyatul
Aqaaid, page,25- …not free &
innocent from every lie..
15-
Taqwiyatul Ieeman, page,35-…praise
only as a human being do
reduction…
16-
Taqwiyatul Ieeman, page,24-…are
unaware and foolish…
17-
Taqwiyatul Ieeman, page,14-…more
disgraced than a cobbler…
18-
Tafsir Bulghatul Haieraan,page,43-…call
taaghoot (satan)…
19-
Taqwiyatul Ieeman, page,61-…status
of Prophet…
20-
Taqwiyatul Ieeman, page,41-…no
authority over anything …
(Astaghfirullah)
20-Taqwiyatul
Ieeman, page,41-…they have no
authority over anything…
21-
Taqwiyatul Ieeman, page,55-…lost
his wits…
22-Tahzeerun
Naas, page, 5- A follower
apparently excels in deeds…
23-
Bulghatul Haieraan,page,8- …saved
from falling of Pulsiraat…
24-Risalah
Al Imdad,page,35-…no harm in saying
so…
25-Fatawa
Milad Shreef page,8 - Baraaheen-e- Qaatiah, page,148-…celebrating
Mawlid is like…
26-Aabe
Hayaat,page,169 (Dajjaal)
…blessed with life /characterise are also shared…
27-
Taqwiyatul Ieeman, page,56-Nothing
happens on the wish…
28-
Taqwiyatul Ieeman, page,14-(Belief…)
29-
Taqwiyatul Ieeman, page,54-(…worthless Speck…)
30-Baraaheen-e-
Qaatiah, page,3- (…your brother…)
31-
Taqwiyatul Ieeman, page,7/27- (…is equal to abu Jahal in Kufr…)
32-Darud
Taj -(…not permitted…) -Fatwa
33-Saiyyid
Ahmad of Raae Bareilly (…Bathed put clothes on him…) Siraat e
Mustaqeem
34-Fatawa
Rashidiyah- (Milad and 11 Giyaarveen Shareef…are all unlawful
&false innovations…)
35-Eating
Crow-rewarding act-Fatwa
36-Calling
upon Awliyah (friends) of Allah is infidelity-Fatwa
37-
Funeral prayers— supplicate/forbidden-Fatwa
38-Food
distributed (by Hindus is permitted)-Fatwa
39-Eating
Food-(…cobblers & sweepers…)-Fatwa
40-Drinking
water- (…set up by Hindu/Money/Interest is permitted) -Fatwa
(Astaghfirullah)
______________________________
Some of Their Elders
Publications & Editions:
-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.
-
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
--------------------------------------------------
Note 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
---------------------------------------------
THE RISE OF WAHHABI FITNAH
in the INDIAN SUBCONTINENT
The Nobel Quran
Surat
Al-'Ahzāb (The Combined Forces)
33:57
---
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يُؤْذُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ لَعَنَهُمُ اللَّهُ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالْآخِرَةِ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُمْ عَذَابًا مُّهِينًا
---
Translation:
Muhsin
Khan
Verily, those who
annoy Allah and His Messenger (S)
Allah has cursed them in
this world, and in the Hereafter, and has
prepared for them a humiliating torment.
Pickthall
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.
Note!
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 (Evil Within) who praise and send (RA) to: Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abd-al-Wahhab Najdi.
Why?
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
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.""
(Astaghfirullah)
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:
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?”
Reference:
[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 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-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 heels 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 the strange 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
disrespects 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.”
===============================================
Do
you really need to?
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Deobandis Refuse Explicit
Kufr in Hifzul
Imaan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
For those who are not sure?
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 صلى الله عليه وسلم
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
---
