MuhammedAli

Members
  • Content count

    1,171
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    55

MuhammedAli last won the day on January 24

MuhammedAli had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

147 Excellent

About MuhammedAli

  • Rank
    Madani Member
  • Birthday 05/20/1980

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Derby, England

Previous Fields

  • Madhab
  • Sheikh
    Mufti Akhtar Raza

Recent Profile Visitors

1,202 profile views
  1. In ko kuch nah kahen is ko Engrezi nahin aati. Is dafa maaf kar denh in ko itni taleem nain in ki. Deviant Latin ka lafz heh jis ka mana ... rastay say hata huwa ... kay hen aur English mein astray/deviant, Urdu mein gum-rah (rah = rasta, gum = khoya). Aur Farman e RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) heh kay joh apnay baroon ka adab nahin karta ham mein say nahin. Is leyeh in ko baroon ko jahalat aur jahil kehna bura nahin lagta. Ghaliban abba ko bi ineeh ilfaz say yad kartay hoon gay aur in ko bi pata heh kay jahalat mein in kay gar walay hen ya Saeedi Sahib magar apnoon ki jahalat dar guzr heh aur sochna gawara bi nahin kartay jahil kehna aur jahalat mein doobay huway gawara kesay keren gay. Dosri baat, kissi ko Shaytan kehna khoobi ki waja say hota heh ... jistera gadda, ullu, sher kay ilfaaz say banday ko bulaya jata heh ... Shaytan gumra karnay wala heh ... baqi aap aqal mand hen samaj gay hoon gay. Tahir ul-Qadri Westernisation kay injection laga raha heh Islam ko aur aap Tafziliyat/Rafziyat kay. Deviant toh phir fit ata heh. Allah kay Nabi nay farmaya Jamhoor kay rastay ko apnana aur yeh ... Kabah kay chakkar toh hen tawaf nahin ... sun kar hubb e Ali (radiallah ta'ala) kay nashay mein Jamhoor ko ghalat sabat karnay nikal ahay. Shaytan tooh bara kameena heh. Tesri baat Mawla bamana Abd bi banta heh ... aur RasoolAllah ka farmana kay jis ka mein Mawla hoon Abd kay manay mein leeya jahay toh ... Allah kay Abd RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) huway aur Abdullah Ali (radiallah ta'ala anhu) bi huway. Panchween baat kay Afziliat e Abu Bakr (radiallah ta'ala anhu) toh Ali (radiallah ta'ala anhu) aur un kay apnay khoon say sabat heh: "It was narrated that Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah (who was the son of ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib) said: “I said to my father, ‘Which of the people was the best after the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)?’ He said, ‘Abu Bakr.’ I said, ‘Then who?’ He said, ‘Then ‘Umar.’ I was afraid that he would say ‘Uthmaan. I said, ‘Then is it you?’ He said, ‘I am only one of the Muslims.’” Ek aur Hadith mein Ali (radiallah ta'ala anhu) nay farmaya: "Narrated by Imam Ahmad in his Musnad, 839. It was narrated from Abu Juhayfah that ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) ascended the minbar and praised and glorified Allaah and sent blessings upon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then he said: “The best of this ummah after its Prophet is Abu Bakr. The second is ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him), and after that, whoever Allaah wants to be good will be good.” Nah Afziliat kay pappar behlo kuch hasil nahin ... Ali (radiallah ta'ala anhu) say bughz rakhnay walay kay naseeb mein tawaf nahin chakkar Kabah toh huway ... jin kay dilloon mein bughz e Siddeeq (radiallah ta'ala anhu) heh farishtay tumaray tawaf ko tawaf toh door chakkar bi nah likhen gay. Shahid farishtay likhen kay yeh jamya hi neeh.
  2. Meray pass Allamah Muhammad Muhi ad-Deen Jhangeer ka tarjumah Shabir Brothers ka publish, saal 2011, ka publish huwa mojood heh. Is mein abhi check keeya heh mojood heh. Aap ko ghalti lagi heh, Surah Saad ki aakhiri Hadith check kar lenh.
  3. Salam alayqum, Bhai yeh Hadith nikalnay ka kohi jawaz nahin banta ... aap ko ghalti lagi hogi. Yeh kaam Deobandi aur Wahhabi kartay hen. Sunniyoon ka yeh tareeka pehlay nahin thah aur abh bi nahin.
  4. Allah tala Syed Muzaffar Hussain Shah Sahib ko jaza e khayr deh.
  5. It was narrated that Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah (who was the son of ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib) said: “I said to my father, ‘Which of the people was the best after the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)?’ He said, ‘Abu Bakr.’ I said, ‘Then who?’ He said, ‘Then ‘Umar.’ I was afraid that he would say ‘Uthmaan. I said, ‘Then is it you?’ He said, ‘I am only one of the Muslims.’” Narrated by Imam Ahmad in his Musnad, 839. It was narrated from Abu Juhayfah that ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) ascended the minbar and praised and glorified Allaah and sent blessings upon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then he said: “The best of this ummah after its Prophet is Abu Bakr. The second is ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him), and after that, whoever Allaah wants to be good will be good.” Hazrat Ali bi Nasabi hen? Agar Hazrat Ali sab kay Mawla hen toh phir Hazrat Ali nay keun Hazrat Abu Bakr aur Hazrat Umar, ko buland martbay wala kaha heh. Kia yeh bughz e Hazrat Ali mein Hazrat Ali nay yeh kaha? Baghayr choon charan kay kalma par loh ...
  6. Ya Sideeq! Haq Sideeq! Haq Sideeq! Afzal Sideeq! Kissi ko mirchi lag rahi hogi! Aag lagi hogi. Jalan woh joh burnol bi heal nah kar sakkay.
  7. Mein toh kehta hoon: Mulhidoon ki kia marawat keejeeyeh, Cher'hna Minhaji Rafziyoon ko adat keejeeyeh. Jal jahen Rafzi Kafiroon kay dil, Ya Sideeq, Haq Sideeq, afzal Sideeq ki kasrat keejeeyeh.
  8. Salam alayqum, Agar yeh qawl waqia hi Shah Sahib ka heh aur editing ka nateeja nahin toh; Sahabi kay tabaruq ka kissi aur Sahabi say afzal hona ... Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala bandoon ki aqaloon par parda daal deta heh ... Syed Muzaffar Shah Sahib jesa aalim esi chavlen maray toh Sunni'at ka bera gharq heh phir ... jazbati Peeroon aur Maulviyoon aur Sufiyoon nay bera gharq kar deeya heh Sunniat ka ... joh andaz Shah Sahib nay apnaya heh gustakhana aur ghaleez heh ... aur agar Shah Sahib Syed nah hotay toh kuch kalamat in ki shaan kay baray mein bi kehta magar apna iman kharab gawara nahin ... in-noon nay Thanvi, Ismail Dehalvi, Saharanpuri kay andaaz ko apnaya ... aur agar in ki bunyadi soch ko agar leeya jahay, toh Nabi kay tabaruqaat Sahabah say afzal huway ... aur is ko leh kar agar kohi mehboob hastiyoon ko jhootiyoon ki matti kay barabar honay ka munkir ho aur un hastiyoon mein Hassan (radiallah ta'ala anhu) aur Hussain (radiallah ta'ala anhu), Ali (radiallah ta'ala anhu), aur Fatimah (radiallah ta'ala anha) ka naam bi leh toh phir Shah sahib ki hosh aqal thakanay ahay.
  9. Introduction: Shaykh Thanvi of Deobandi sect wrote knowledge which is gained through another cannot be deemed Ilm al-Ghayb and this belief is need of evidential support. Muslims believe knowledge which reaches through means of another, such as Jibraeel (alayhis salam), is also Ghayb. And Deobandi Shaykh also stated to say a creation has knowledge of Ghayb is prohibited because due to absence of evidence there is danger of falling into Shirk by attributing knowledge of Ghayb to a creation. We Muslims believe Shirk does not become Tawheed by presence or Tawheed become Shirk due to absence evidence. Rather what is Shirk will remain Shirk even if there was evidence and Tawheed would remain Tawheed if there was no evidence. Also to establish that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) granted Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) the knowledge of Ghayb and to attribute Ilm al-Ghayb to beloved Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not Shirk there is danger of Shirk nor it is prohibited. Question Asked Bakr And Answer Given By Shaykh Thanvi: Q: “A certain individual, Amr, stated prostration is of two types, worship, respect, and when on to state Amr believes prostration of respect for other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is permissible. And believes Tawaf (i.e. circumbulation) around the graves (of Awliyah-Allah) is permissible. Evidence of permissibility … Amr also stated Ilm al-Ghayb is bil-Zaat[1] (i.e. of Self), in this meaning only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Aalim ul-Ghayb (i.e. Knower Of Ghayb). And ba-wasta (i.e. with means) and in this meaning RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was Aalim ul-Ghayb. How is Amr’s this evidence (and what is legal ruling on Amr’s) these actions and belief?” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page2, here] A: “Shar’ri application of mutliq Ghayb[2] (i.e. boundless Ghayb) is upon Ghayb which cannot be established by evidence and for which there is no mean or way of its comprehension. On this (stated) foundation it has stated: "None in the heavens and earth knows the unseen except Allah …” (27:65) and: “And if I knew the unseen, I could have …” (7:188) And knowledge which is via means; on this (type of knowledge) application of (word) Ghayb is need of qarina (i.e. evidential support). Then attributing Ilm Ghayb to creation, without supporting evidence, due to danger of Shirk is prohibited and impermissible.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page14, here] The Erroneous Foundation Of Shaykh Thanvi: Generally it is believed all that is seen, or heard, touched, … cannot be Ghayb and all that is heard from another cannot be Ghayb. Shaykh Thanvi has based his following statement on the mentioned point: “And knowledge which is via means; on this (type of knowledge) application of (word) Ghayb is need of qarina (i.e. evidential support).” Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) granted Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aaalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb through angels. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: “(Allah, He is) Knower of the unseen, and He does not disclose His Ghayb to anyone. Except whom He has approved of messengers, and indeed, He sends before each messenger and behind him observers.” [Ref: 72:26/27] There are other verses but one will suffice just as many. Note implication of the verse is when it reaches to His Messenger it is still Ghayb even though it has come through Jibraeel (alayhis salam). If being delivered by another is reason Ilm al-Ghayb is not Ilm al-Ghayb then should Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) have said that He reveals His Ghayb to a chosen Messenger? Alhasil in sight of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knowledge sent via Jibraeel (alayhis salam) to Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is still al-Ghayb. And Shaykh Thanvi can go to hell to convince a believer of truthfulness his position but Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has decided the matter for believers. Note not all knowledge of Ghayb of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was through Jibraeel (alayhis salam) in form of Wahi. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) saw paradise and heard its sounds and tortures of grave. Therefore to negate Ilm al-Ghayb is senseless. And application of Ghayb for knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is established. Refuting Notion; Seeing, Hearing, Informed Of Something Is Not Ghayb: Of course whatever has been seen, or heard, or one is informed of is not Ghayb in normal sense. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) saw hell and paradise, saw Musa (alayhis salam) performing Salah in his heavenly resting place. He had to see, hear, and get informed by Gibraeel (alayhis salam) to know Ghayb. For Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to have knowledge of Ghayb the Ghayb had to be disclosed to his sight, hearing, and had to be informed. When the Muslims say Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been granted the knowledge of Ghayb it is not because Ghayb is Ghayb from Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but it is Ghayb from mankind. All that is Ghayb for mankind; such as paradise, hell and punishment of grave, this Ghayb is known to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallma). Meaning Ghayb knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not Ghayb from him but Ghayb from rest of mankind. And that which was Ghayb from mankind; was known, seen, and heard by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). This explains why Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) called Wahi delievered via Jibraeel (alayhis salam) as Ghayb. Its not Ghayb from Jibraeel (alayhis salam) and not Ghayb from Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) referred to it as Ghayb because Wahi was Ghayb from all mankind in his life time. Alhasil there is no reason to disbelieve in prophetic knowledge of Ghayb or to attribute Ghayb to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Without Evidence There Is Danger Of Shirk: Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “Then attributing Ilm Ghayb to creation, without supporting evidence, due to danger of Shirk is prohibited and impermissible.” In other words Shaykh Thanvi’s belief is in absence of evidence there is danger of committing Shirk if one attributes knowledge of Ghayb to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) therefore it is not permitted to attribute Ilm al-Ghayb to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).[3] Readers should note Shaykh Thanvi’s reasoning is; lack of evidence leads to danger of Shirk, and danger of Shirk leads to prohibition of attributing Ilm al-Ghayb to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Please note evidence refuting Shaykh’s prohibitive injunction has been already presented and discussed. Muslims believe presence and absence of evidence for a belief does not make it Tawheed or Shirk. Suppose if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) willed to have a son/daughter. And Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) mentioned this in Quran saying I have a son. Will the presence of evidence for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) having a son make believing in son of Allah a Tawheedi belief? No! Because attributing a partner, son, father, mother, daughter, and wife is all Shirk and even if there was a verse in Quran instructing us to believe in son of Allah it still would be Shirk. The only difference would be that in current Islam Shirk is sin and punishable by eternal fire. In hypothetical context refusing to believe in Shirki belief of Allah having a son would be punishable. Tawheed and Shirk could have become part of Islam but presence or absence of evidence for one or the other would not have turned one into the other. Fundamentally Tawheed is to believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is the One, and the Only Ilah (i.e. God). And Shirk is to believe there are other Ilahs (i.e. gods) beside Him. Attributing Ilm al-Ghayb does not mean one believes RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is a god beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And this is true on basic level of Tawheed and Shirk mentioned in the section and for in-depth level. If there was no evidence for attributing Ilm al-Ghayb to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) at worst one would be guilty of reprehensible innovation but nothing more. It seems Shaykh Thanvi had defective understanding of Tawheed and Shirk or at the very least didn’t properly understand how Shirk is warranted. Conclusion: Presence of evidence for Ilm al-Ghayb of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) or its absence will not make it Tawheed or Shirk because Tawheed and Shirk are not dependent upon existence or non-existance of evidence in Quran/Hadith. Shirk is attributing a god/gods partners with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and not having proof for attributing Ilm al-Ghayb to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has nothing to do with it. Knowledge of Ghayb received through another and means of eyes, ears, is termed Ghayb because it is Ghayb from mankind. And RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knows Ghayb which was Ghayb for mankind. Textually Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) called the Wahi Ghayb even when it was being sent through Gibraeel (alayhis salam) which is further proof that Ghayb exposed to hearing, seeing of another (i.e. Gibraeel alayhis salam) and received via another is still Ilm al-Ghayb. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi FootNotes: - [1] Bil-Zaat (read, biz-Zaat) knowledge of Ghayb, in Urdu Zaati, knowledge is which is inheritently part of someones knowledge and not been granted to person by another or via gained via means. Bil-Zaat is unique for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). - [2] Mutliq knowledge of Ghayb, ghayr muntahi (i.e. limitless) referrs to limitless knowledge of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). It is inclusive of all that has happened, is happening, will happen, and is inclusive of limitless knowledge of possibilities (i.e. Mumkinaat). - [3] From his belief it can be assumed that he believes if there was/is evidence supporting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has knowledge of Ghayb then there would be no danger of Shirk hence it would be permissible to say RasoolAllah (sallallahua layhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has knowledge of Ghayb.
  10. Introduction: Shaykh Shah Ismail Dehalvi, Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Shaykh Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri and other Deobandi scholars Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Muslims hold to position that to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is act of Kufr/disbelief and therefore those guilty of disrespecting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are guilty of Kufr. And after being fully aware of their Kufr and to agree with their insulting statements and to defend them and to consider those who insulted Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as Muslims is also Kufr. This is injunction is a detailed version of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat’s (rahimullah) edict recorded In Hussam al-Haramayn regarding those who insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and those who defend the insulting/disrespectful statements. Finding Faults In Prophet Is Prohibited And Will Be Punished: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) while adressing the believers says to Muslims: “O you who have believed, be not like those who maligned Moses; then Allah cleared him of what they said. And he in the sight of Allah was distinguished.” [Ref: 33:69] Nation of Prophet Musa (alayhis salam) maligned him by inventing faults and attributing to him. See following for details; here. And Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructs the Muslims to not to find faults in Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and warns those who do: “Indeed, those who abuse Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter and prepared for them a humiliating punishment.” [Ref: 33:57] It Is Prohibited And Kufr To Use Insulting Language For Prophet: In subcontinent and even in Arab context to call someone a shepherd is way of insult. And it is used to insinuate backwardness and illiteracy. Jews twisted word rai’na (i.e. consider us) to raa’eena (i.e. our shephard) while addressing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) mentions this in following verse: “Some of the Jews interchange the words from their places and say, “We hear and disobey” - and they say “Hear- [may you] not be able to hear” - and they say “Raa'ina” distorting it with their tongues and in order to slander religion; ...” [Ref: 4:46] The bold part of verse is referring to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And in following verse Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) prohibited the believers from using such words: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word raina (i.e. consider us), but say undhurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disblievers there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] Instead of word/words which can be misconstrued to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructed the believers to use words which cannot be misconstrued to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi w’s'sallam). Note Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states for disbelievers there is great punishment which indicates one who uses such insulting words are Kafirs/disbelievers. Also in another verse Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “The hypocrites fear lest a chapter should be revealed about them, showing them what is in their hearts. Say: ‘(Go ahead and) mock! But certainly Allaah will bring to light all that you fear.’ If you ask them (about this), they declare: ‘We were only talking idly and joking.’ Say: ‘Was it at Allaah, and His verse and His Messenger that you were mocking?’ Make no excuse; you disbelieved after you had believed” [Ref: 9: 64/66] Alhasil to insult Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Kufr. Fatwah Of Shia’ism To Insult Prophet is Kufr: Solomon Rushdie wrote his book disrespecting Islamic religious figures the then Iranian leader Shaykh Khomeini issued Fatwah of Kufr and said killing Rushdie is a religious obligation. I am unable to quote any referrence of Shia scholars. Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat’s Fatwah Upon Those Who Insults: The Imam of righteous believers, the reviver of Islam, Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Barelwi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) concludes his Fatwah in following words regarding one who insults/disrespects Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “In summary of discussion [of insulters of Allah and His Messenger and distorters of Khatamiyyah] this group [Thanvi, Ambethvi, Nanotavi, Gangohi, and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani]; all of them are disbelievers (i.e. Kafir), apostate (i.e. Murtad) and by concensus of Islamic are out of Islam. And without doubt [Fatawah] al-Bazaziyyah, Al-Durur al-Ghurur, Fatawah Khayriyyah, Majma al-Anhar, Durr al-Mukhtar and in other reliable books with regards to such disbelievers it has been stated; one who doubts in their disbelief and punishment such a person is disbeliever himself. And in al-Shifa it has been said; One who does not consider such a person as a disbeliever who believes in a belief other then belief of Ummah of Islam; we deem such a one also as a disbeliever. Or even if he delays [or adopts silence] it or doubts it. And it is said in Bahr ar-Raiq etc one who praises/approves [Kufr] sayings, or says; it has some meaning, or says; in this statement there are correct meanings and if the uttered words of [heretic] were Kufr then one who praises/approves then such a person is also Kafir. And Imam Ibn Hajr in his book al-A’laam in chapter on which our flag bearings scholar have agreed that one who utters words of Kufr is Kafir and one who deems [Kufr] good or agrees with it such one is also Kafir. Therefore be careful O human because preferred/liked above all things is religion which is respected above all of them [heretics/disbelievers] and without doubt Kafir will not be respected [by Muslims].” [Ref: Hussam al-Haramayn Ala Munhir il-Kufr Wal Mayn, by Imam Ahmad Raza rahimullah, Translated by; Muhammed Ali Razavi Page90/91, here.] There are many other Fatwah of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) but one will suffice. Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah’s Fatwah One Who Disrespects Prophet: The leader of Hanbali anthropomorphists, Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, the great heretic, and a pillar of Wahhabism writes: “Disrespecter of Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) be he a Muslim or Kafir is worthy of murder. This is the understanding of Jamhoor (i.e. majority) of scholars and Madhab. […] Imam Ishaq Bin Rahwiyah (rahimullah) said: ‘All Muslims have unanimously agreed; a person who disrespects/abuses Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) or Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), or rejects a revealed verse, or murders a Prophet from Prophets, such a person is Kafir, even if he believes in all other revealed speech.’ […] Muhammad Bin Sahtoon (rahimullah) has said: ‘All scholars [as if they] had one tongue unanimously have said; one who detracts (i.e. tanqees) from the merits of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Kafir.[1] He is threatened with punishment of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And according to Ummah of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) such one is to be killed and one who doubts his Kufr and punishment is also Kafir.’” [Ref: Al-Sarim al-Maslool Ala Shatim ar-Rasool,by; Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, Page; 23/24, Pblshr; Nooriyyah Razaviyyah, here.] Despite his likening Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to His creation this work of; Sarim Al Maslool … is one of the best on the topic. Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi’s Fatwah Upon One Who Insults Prophet: Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi author of insulting statement also believes that to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Kufr -: Question: “Honorable Mawlvi Ahmad Raza Khan (Barelwi) has stated and has attributed to you in Hussam al-Haramayn that in Hifz ul-Iman you clearly have stated that Ghayb knowledge like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is also possessed every child and madman, in fact by every animal, and every quadruped (i.e. four legged animal). Therefore following matters are need of clarification: (i) Have you stated in Hifz ul-Iman or any other book of yours anything like this? (ii) If not clearly then can it be implicitly derived? (iii) Or do you intend such a topic/meaning? (iv) If you have not clearly stated such topic/meaning, nor indicated )meaning) is derivitive of your statement, nor your intention, then such a person who believes (as such), or explicitly or implicitly says (this), that one do you believe is Muslims or Kafir? (…)” Answer: (iii) “When I deem such topic/meaning filthy and my heart has felt no danger of what has been stated above then how can it be my intended meaning? (iv) Any person believes as such, or without believing it; explicitly, or implicitly utters this; I deem such a person to be out of Islam (because) this person belies definitive evidences and insults/detracts (the merits of one who is) pride of tribe Adam (i.e. Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam). This is the answer to your questions now at the end …” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman -with- Bast al-Banan, Pages; 20/21/22, here.] The objective was to establish; to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Kufr even in Deobandi scholarship not just in Islamic. Conclusion: Evidence of Quran and Ahadith establishes to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Kufr. To agree with insulter, to make excuse for the insulter, to defend a insulter and his insults, is also Kufr. Also State is responsible for implimenting punishment of death upon insulter. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi Footnotes: - [1] Professor Ghulam Ahmad Hariri used word gali which is used for abusive words: “There is concensus amongst the scholars that one who abuses (i.e. gali) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and one who insults him is Kafir.” [Ref: Al-Sarim al-Maslool Ala Shatim ar-Rasool, Page; 40, Pblshr; Maktaba Qudusiyyah] Professor Muhammad Ijaaz’s Urdu translation uses word tanqees. Dictionary meaning is to reduce, to lower, to detract, but its popular meaning is insult/disrespect and I have translated it in accordance with dictionary meaning -: “All scholars [as if they] had one tongue unanimously have said; one who detracts (i.e. tanqees) from the merits of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Kafir.” [Ref: Al-Sarim al-Maslool Ala Shatim ar-Rasool,by; Pblshr; Nooriyyah Razaviyyah] In Islamic perspective to detract from merits of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and to abuse Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Kufr.
  11. Introduction: In an effort to defend against blame of insult/disrespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) Deobandi scholarship engaged in a massive compaign of disinformation and distortion. But the lies and compaign of deception had one missing ingredient, the truth, and a such they all contradicted and belied themselves. All who took on path of defending Shaykh Thanvi from charge of Kufr complicated the problem even more for themselves. In my own words: One Maulvi said it means this, if it was that then it would be Kufr. And the other Maulvi said it means that, and if it was this meaning then it would be Kufr. One declared other Kafir and other declared one Kafir. They all tried their luck and all belied and resulted in refuting each other and indirectly declaring each other Kafir. Controversial Statement Of Hifz ul-Iman: Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like (i.e. aisa) this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here.] Note the underlined Urdu word is aisa (i.e. like). 0.0 - The Quotations Taken From Deobandi Side: This article will utilize material of debate famous debate between Islamic scholar Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) and Shaykh Manzoor Naumani al-Deobandi. The Deobandi account of debate was been published some sixty years after the debate as: Fatah Bareilly Ka Diskash Nazara. In reality this ‘victory’ was such a crushing defeat. When truth became evident to him Shaykh Naumani couldn’t just accept it so Shaykh Naumani made excuse that he needs to refresh his Wudhu. And he didn’t return to his podium; this was due to his ‘victory’. Shaykh Naumani’s great escape was so shameless that he left his, specs, books, turban, walking-staff and even his shoes in the Masjid, and never came back, again sign of his victory. Shaykh Naumani never debated any Islamic scholar again after this crushing defeat. Prior to this debate Shaykh Naumani had some twenty-five debates but this one proved so crushing that it made him debate-pacifist. His magzine which was printed in Bareilly stopped selling due to his ‘victory’. Deobandi Madrassa which he was in-charge of had exodus moment after the debate and was eventually closed its doors again due to his ‘victory’. His Deobandi students joined Madrassa Manazar e Islam which was run by brother of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah). 0.1 - Sixty Years After The Debate Deobandis Claim Victory: Some sixty years after (i.e. in 90’s) the Deobandis decided to publish the work of lie/deception using Muslim account [which was published in same year of debate] as template and inserted great deal in it and called it Fatah e Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara (i.e. beautiful scenary of conquest of Bareilly). Publishing it after so long itself casts doubt on the authenticity and accuracy of Deobandi account because after so long it is almost impossible to remember what happened sixty years ago. Even those who were in twenty’s at the time of writing this account would have been in their eighty’s; an age where it is difficult to remember what the person did yesterday. And which one of them can claim to accurately, in sequence, tell me what they did a week before; sixty years after; get over yourself liar, you’re not that good. Any how despite authors best effort Deobandi account is enough to prove Shaykh Naumani had no place to hide except escape. And if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wills readers will see the truth shining in 3.0/3.4 part of this article. Note Muslim account of debate was published as; Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Mufassil Rudad (i.e. Clear Account Of God Given Victory In Debate Of Bareilly), here. Coincidently since 90’s Deobandis have also been attempting to turn debate of Jhang [between great scholar; Mawlana Ashraf Sialvi rahimullah and Deobandi Shaykh Haq Nawaz Jhangvi] as their victory. Such decisive was Shaykh Haq Nawaz Jhangvi’s defeat just like Shaykh Naumani’s defeat Shaykh Jhangvi never spoke against Muslims in his speeches instead he targetted Shias. The judges all unanimously gave verdict that Mawlana Ashraf Sialvi (rahimullah) won the debate but 20 years after it it became a Deobandi victory. And luckily the recording of Mawlana Ashraf Sialvi’s (rahimullah) debate with Shaykh Jhangvi is still available so the truth cannot be concealed. So it seems there is concentrated effort to turn past defeats into victories by 90’s generation of Deobandis. 0.2 - Authenticity And Accuracy Of Debate Accounts: I do not believe Muslim account of debate is hundered percent accurate, linked above, because details cannot be remembered. At best even this account is brief and from perspective of person who witnessed it and not what was said by both parties. Meaning author gave his own insight how he viewed the debate. Deobandi account has distinction; it is free of this but its publication in 1990’s erodes its authenticity. At best the content has been improved and likely with aid of Shaykh Naumani because it he was alive uptil 1997, or maybe in light of his written works. The writer omitted the contradiction between Shaykh Naumani and his teacher Shaykh Madani which Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) brought up again and again in debate: Such as mention of aisa (i.e. like this) not being for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) meaning itna/is-qadr (i.e. this-much) and yeh (i.e. this) according to Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi. And according to Shaykh Madani aisa (i.e. like this) being for tashbeeh and not being for itna (i.e. this-much). Shaykh Naumani could not own it nor he could disown position of his senior Shaykh Madani and the result was he had no answer. He was being refuted by his own side and his own teacher. This contradiction will be part of this article. 1.0 – Aisa Is Of Is-Qadr, Itna, Yeh And Not Tashbeeh: Shaykh Manzoor Naumani is reported to have said: “And now you’re saying that even though word jaisa is not used there aisa has been used therefore the tashbeeh/comaprision is established. In fact this is even your deception. Listen! If word aisa (i.e. like this) is within context of word jaisa (i.e. like this) then it is for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) but if aisa is without jaisa then tashbeeha (i.e. comparision) is not definitive. In popular usage it is said; ‘God is aisa all-mighty powerful.’ Now in this sentence word aisa is without jaisa and therefore without tashbeeh but here it is used without meaning of tashbeeh, in meaning of itna. And by this (i.e. itna) intended meaning is all baaz Ghayb knowledge which Zaid believes is proof/reason for application of (words) Alim ul-Ghayb (upon Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages67/68, here.] “There you go now I have established from linguistical (analysis) that aisa is also used in meaning of itna without warranting tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). And in Urdu poetical popular expressions it has been used as such.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages78, here.] “And when I refuted your saying and established that aisa is also employed for purpose of comparision as well as of itna. And in statement of Hifz ul-Iman it (i.e. aisa) has been used without implying tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) -; in meaning of itna. Then you demanded from me evidence in which aisa has been used without indicating comparision and in meaning of itna (i.e. this much). Therefore I established it from linguistical (analysis) and from popular poetical expressions to which you could not respond.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages89, here.] Shaykh Manzoor Naumani also said aisa (i.e. like) can also be in meaning of yeh (i.e. this): “Even now if you have not understood meaning of statement (of Hifz ul-Iman) then try to understand it this way that word aisa is used in meaning of yeh (i.e. this/it). And by it all baaz knowledge of hidden (i.e. Ghayb) is indicated. And usage of aisa in meaning of yeh is published and clear and is part of popular Urdu expression. For example if a person says; ‘I will strike Zaid.’ Another says; ‘Don’t take aisa (i.e. this) action.’ Which means that don’t you ever take this action. You should understand/assume as that in this statement of Hifz ul-Iman, which is part of discussion, word yeh (i.e. this) is instead of aisa.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages90/91, here.] Shaykh Manzoor Ahmad Naumani writes word aisa (means; like this) has been used in meaning of itna (means; this much) and it is not for tashbeeh (means; to compare, comparision) between Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and other group mentioned in statement of Shaykh Thanvi. In the following Shaykh Naumani states both meanings itna/yeh: “I have hope that after this explanation, a worst then ignorant person will have no confusion/doubt regarding the statement (of Hifz ul-Iman). Any how Hifz ul-Iman’s word aisa if it is understood in meaning of itna even then meaning is clear and if meaning of yeh (i.e. this) is taken from it even then meaning (of statement of Hafiz ul-Iman) is clear.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages91, here.] Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi agrees with Shaykh Naumani that aisa is in meaning of itna/is-qadr (both mean; this much): “It should be clear that (word) aisa (i.e. like) is not only used in anagolous (i.e. manand) and comparative (i.e. misl) meanings but (in Urdu language its usage) is also in meaning is-qadr and itna (i.e. this-much). (And these words itna/isqadr) which are intended meaning in this statement. It is unknown for what purpose such a clean/clear and straight-forward meaning is distorted.” [Ref: Taudhi ul-Bayan Fi Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Murtaza Hassan, Page6, here.] “Despite this (Khan Sahib Barelwi rahimullah and his followers are) saying that word aisa is used comparision. How much of this is justice? In the disputed statemend word aisa is in meaning of is-qadr and itna (i.e. this much). Then how is there tashbeeh (i.e. comparision)? The conclusion is that; as much knowledge was assumed for application of Aalim ul-Ghayb that is also true for Zaid, Umar, and Bakr. In this there is no tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) nor disrespect.” [Ref: Taudhi ul-Bayan Fi Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Murtaza Hassan, Page19, here.] Alhasil according to Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi aisa (i.e. like) in statement of Shaykh Thanvi has not been used for sake of tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) but in meaning of yeh, itna, and is-qadr. 1.1 – Aisa For Tasbeeh, Not Of Itna And Is-Qadr: Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani contradicts Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi and says if it was used in meaning of itna (also indirectly implies; is-qadr, because both mean same) then it would be (valid) reason for objection because it would imply prophetic knowledge is being equaled with knowledge of Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrupeds, and carnivores. He goes on to acknowledge that word aisa (like) is for sake of tashbeeh: “Even if we ignore this then please consider this; that honorable Mawlana Thanvi has stated word aisa (i.e. like this) but did not state word itna (i.e. this-much). If it was word itna then it would have occasioned objection, may Allah forbid, that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been equaled with knowledge of other things. If this is not pure foolishness then what else is it. Even if we over look this; even then word aisa is of Tasbih (i.e. comparision) and it is apparent that if something is compared with someothing then comparision is not in all aspects.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani, Page281/282, here.] In another part of his book Shaykh Madani indicates that there is tashbeeh in prophetic knowledge and knowledge of Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrupeds, carnivores but it is in baaz (i.e. limited) al-Ghayb: “Therefore you will find many examples of this where tashbeeh (i.e. comaparision/analogy) is only between a single quality where objective is to assimilate mushabah (i.e. compared with) and mushaba bihi (i.e. compared to). And where there is no intention to compare other things. In this place (meaning in statement of Hifz ul-Iman) it is absolutely not possible that quantity of knowledge of Ghuyub are being compared because he himself says that all knowledges relating to Prophet-hood were all held by RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And these things (of knowledge) are not for Zaid, Umar, Bakr, and others. In here word itna (i.e. this-much) has not been employed. In fact comparision (between Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam and Zaid, Bakr, Umar etc) is in baazi’at (i.e. limitedness) because if from qull (all) Ghayb even one thing is omitted even that would be baaz.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page 282/283, here.] And on same page goes on to say that anyone who deos not see the usage of aisa in meaning of tashbeeh is basicly an idiot: “Any person even with slight sense of understanding statement; such a person would clearly say that aisa is pointing toward word baaz (i.e. some, limited) and discussion is about of it (i.e. baaz). Therefore in context of statement and context of discussion both clearly establish that tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) is in the nafs (i.e. implies; category) of baaz and not in quantity of baaz; that it be subjected to criticism/opposition.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page 283, here.] Shaykh Thanvi in his Tahgeer ul-Unwan quotes letter of un-named Deobandi Mawlvi who requested statement of Hifz ul-Iman is altered because it is: “Such a statement in which knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being compared with knowledge of animals and quadruped; which is extremely disrespectful at first glance. Why not just retract from such a statement due to which sincere supporters of honorable (Shaykh Thanvi); rightly so find it extremely difficult to answer/respond (to criticism levelled against Shaykh).” [Ref: Hifz, Bast, And Tagheer ul-Unwan, Page119, here.] Note this statement of Shaykh Thanvi even according to his own supporter is insulting and is in sense of comparision. 1.2 – Shaykh Naumani On Consequences If Aisa For Tashbeeh: According to Deobandi account of Munazra Maulana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) believes statement of Hifz ul-Iman is in meaning of tashbeeh because aisa is used to compare prophetic knowledge with Ghayb of Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrupeds, and carnivores. And based on his this belief he said the following: “Muslims! Listen again; this is the Kufri statement of Hifz ul-Iman: “If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this a portion from Ghayb or every/all Ghayb (of Allah)? If a portion from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb? Knowledge like (i.e. aisa) of this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrpeds and carnivores possesses (such knowledg of Ghayb) as well because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title) Then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” See the obvious meaning of this statement is that knowledge of Ghayb possessed by jaisa (i.e. like) of Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa (i.e. like) of it is also possessed by every; child, lunatic, and every animal. What can be more disrespectful of Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then this? You (Shaykh Naumani) say; in this statement word jaisa (i.e. like) is not used and I agree this is the case but word aisa (i.e. like) is used and this (aisa) is used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). Note if I say; Maulvi Manzoor Sahib’s knowledge is aisa (i.e. like) of donkey, is like of dog, then will there be no tashbeeh (i.e. comparision)! Certainly there is (tashbeeh) and you will definitely be upset over it (i.e. usage of such words for you) even though (aisa) is without word jaisa (i.e. like) and only word aisa (i.e. like) has been used. Hence due to usage of aisa in statement of Hifz ul-Iman therefore certainly knowledge of Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been compared (i.e. tashbeeh) with (knowledge of) animals, lunatics, and his knowledge has been equaled with them.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Page61, here.] In another part of heavily embellished and greatly distorted account of debate Maulana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) is reported to have said: “(Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad rahimullah says:) You say that if aisa is without jaisa then it is not used for sake of comparision (i.e. tashbeeh. Ok! Tell me if we say like this that Maulvi Manzoor Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) a dog’s. Or (say:) Maulvi Ashraf Ali Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) donkey’s. Then will there be comparision (between Manzoor’s/Ashraf’s and dog’s/donkey’s knowledge) or not? According to your saying (a statement containing aisa without jaisa cannot be for tashbeeh) there will be no comparision (between the mentioned). Then will you tolerate/accept this? I think you will not tolerate/accept this and will start screaming (Maulana) Sardar Ahmad has verbally abused us. And has equalled our knowledge to dog’s and donkey’s. So when Hifz ul-Iman contains this (aisa/like-this) word also then why do you distort/turn (i.e. taweel) obvious/apparent (meaning to another)? Why don’t you just admit Maulvi Thanvi was guilty of Kufr? Does Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) not even have dignity/respect as much as you? Or as much as your Thanvi Sahib?” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages73, here] Please pay attention to the following: Shaykh Naumani and Darbhangi believe aisa was not used to compare the prophetic knowledge of Ghayb with Ghayb knowledge of Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrpeds, and carnivores. Instead aisa is used in meaning of itna/is-qadr (i.e. this much) which denotes quantity and it is used in meaning of yeh (i.e. this). Shaykh Naumani believes if aisa was used for sake of comparision then there would be insult and therefore Kufr: “This should be apparent to the honorable audience due to the discussion that between me and Maulvi Sardar Ahmad Sahib (rahimullah) that there is no dispute over principles and (understanding of) issue (of disrespect being Kufr). Because we all agree that insult of leader of both worlds (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa’sallam) and even slight disrespect is Kufr but it is severe (type of) Kufr. Dispute is only over the meaning of statement of Hifz ul-Iman. Suppose if meaning of this statement is as Maulvi Sardar Ahmad Sahib (rahimullah) says then it would also be Kufr according to us. And if the meaning of statement is that which I have explained then even according to Maulvi Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) Kufr would not be proven.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages69/70, here.] Alhasil point is Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi believe if Shaykh Thanvi’s statement was of comparision/tashbeeh, as Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala), Maulana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah), and as Muslims believe then they too would deem it Kufr. Shaykh Naumani Contradicts His Own Shaykh Thanvi: Shaykh Naumani wrote if statement of Shaykh Thanvi was written in sense of tashbeeh then it would be Kufr. Not surprisingly Shaykh Naumani is contraidicting his own Shaykh Thanvi by saying this. Memory of Shaykh Naumani failed him. Ten years had passed from the first publication of Hifz ul-Iman then Shaykh Darbhangi asked four questions answer to which were published as Bast al-Banan. While responding to Shaykh Darbhangi’s questions Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “If allegedly objectionable (statement) was for tashbiya (i.e. comparision) even then knowledge of Zaid and Umar etc has not been compared with knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but (comparision) is with baaz (i.e. limited) knowledge which has been mentioned above. Entertaining the impossible; even if knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was compared; even then it would not have been in every aspect but only in aspect of possessing of baaz Ghayb; if it (baaz Ghayb) was evidence for application of (title) Aalim ul Ghayb upon Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then in the same fashion baaz Ghayb would warrant application of title Aalim ul-Ghayb for others; even if the both baaz be different (in quantity). Comaprision like of this, in some traits, is evident from Quran.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman –with- Bast Al Banan, pages 24/25, by Shaykh Thanvi, here.] Shaykh Naumani says it would be Kufr if statement of Hifz ul-Iman was in meaning of tashbeeh and Shaykh Thanvi says even though statement is not in comparative sense but even if it was there would be nothing wrong with it because of x y z. 1.3 - Naumani, Darbhangi, Madani, And Thanvi Caught In Their Lies: Over all, its two VS two, match. Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi VS Shaykh Thanvi, Shaykh Madani. Two say tashbeeh isn’t Kufr and two say tashbeeh in Hifz ul-Iman’s statement would be Kufr. Shaykh Naumani says aisa is in meaning of yeh, is-qadr/itna. Meaning of aisa as itna Shaykh Darbhangi agrees with Shaykh Naumani. And against these two is Shaykh Madani who says it is in meaning of tashbeeh and not itna because if there was itna then there would be equality in quantity of prophetic knowledge and knowledge of Zaid, Amr, lunatics, animals, and infants; which would make Shaykh Thanvi’s statement Kufr. In over-all Shaykh Thanvi has two positions, aisa in meaning of itna, evident from his example of Allah is aisa Raziq. And he holds to position even in tashbeeh sense the statement would not be Kufr. In other words Shaykh Thanvi believes there is no possibility of Kufr how ever the statement is understood; in sense of quantity or tashbeeh; there is no Kufr. In tashbeeh sense Shaykh Thanvi gets refuted by his tag team; Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi. In sense of quantity Shaykh Thanvi gets refuted by Shaykh Madani. And Shaykh Madani’s position is refuted by Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi reasoning. And position of Shaykh Naumani/Darbhangi justly is refuted by Shaykh Madani. In summary we witness a little royal jungle rumble between the Maulvis of Deobandism on same statement. 1.4 - The Verdict On Aisa, Itna, Is-qadr, Yeh, And Tashbeeh: Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi believe Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is in meaning of itna/is-qadr and yeh therefore it is not Kufr. And if statement was for sake of comparision then it would be Kufr. And Shaykh Madani believes statement is in meaning of tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) therefore it is not Kufr. And if statement of Hifz ul-Iman was in meaning of itna/is-qadr it would be Kufr. Alhasil Shaykh Darbhangi/Naumani VS Madani; both groups consider other party’s interpretation as Kufr. It would have helped Islamic cause greatly if both parties of Deobandis had declared each other Kafir for holding to Kufri understanding of Shaykh Thanvi’s statement because then Muslims wouldn’t have been accused of saying both parties are Kafir. And we the Muslims say to both of them: Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi you both are correct in your understanding; tashbeeh is Kufr. And Shaykh Madani you’re also correct; statement of Hifz ul-Iman in meaning of itna (or is-qadr) is Kufr. The Islamic verdict is that there is no valid interpretation of controversial and Kufri statement; of tashbeeh is Kufr and of itna/is-qard and yeh is Kufr. Islamic position, inlcuding Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimulllah alayhi ta’ala) and Maulana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah), with regards to Hifz ul-Iman has always been; it is Kufr and there is no valid interpretation which can save Shaykh Thanvi from Kufr accept repentence. 2.0 - Shaykh Thanvi’s Statement And Its Interpretations: “If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like (i.e. aisa) this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi agreed upon itna/is-qadr (i.e. this-much) meaning and Shaykh Naumani ascribed to an additional meaning of yeh (i.e. this). And both of these possibilities have been put into context of Shaykh Thanvi’s : (i) “… what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; this much (i.e. itna/is-qadr) knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrupeds and carnivores …” (ii) In light of Shaykh Naumani’s aisa meaning yeh the controversial statement would read: “… what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb;this (i.e. yeh) knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrupeds and carnivores ...” The objective was to remove natural meaning of tashbeeh, or remove obvious tashbeeh from Shaykh Thanvi and make it difficult for the readers to see tashbeeh in the statement. 2.1 - Claim Of No Tashbeeh In Itna/Is-Qadr Refuted: Shaykh Thanvi statement goes like: “… if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like (i.e. aisa) this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” In the underlined part of sentence he is talking about prophetic Ghayb. Shaykh Thanvi enquires what is so unique about baaz (some/limited), or; what is so unique about prophetic knowledge of Ghayb, and then goes on to say; this-much knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr: “… aisa knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrupeds and carnivores …” It means he has compared the quantity of prophetic knowledge in category of baaz with the mentioned (i.e. Zayid, Amr, lunatics, animals, and infants) otherwise he could not have said this-much knowledge is possessed by them. And he could not have concluded in the following if he had not compared the quantity of prophetic baaz knowledge with the mentioned: “Then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” A point of principle must be remembered: To negate, or to establish uniqueness, speciality of prophetic knowledge; comparision (i.e. tashbeeh) between the Ghuyub of mentioned beings (in statement of Hifz ul-iman) and Ghuyub known to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has to be made. And this comparision must be regarding types of Ghuyub known and of quantity of Ghuyub known to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa alaihi was’sallam) and beings mentioned in statement of Hifz ul-Iman. Please note Shaykh Thanvi negated speciality/uniqueness of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) of knowing Ghayb to negate application of title Alim ul-Ghayb upon Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And from logical point of view therefore he must have compared prophetic knowledge with knowledge of what he mentioned: “… Zayd and Amr; but infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrupeds and carnivores …” Even if reader is unable to percieve it the stated principle, underlined, should make it easy for the reader to accept there is tashbeeh in itna and is-qadr in the light of fact; Shaykh Thanvi negated uniqueness of prophetic of Ghayb. 2.2 - For Argument Sake: There Is No Tashbeeh In Itna And Is-Qadr: Shaykh Thanvi’s statement of Hifz ul-Iman even though is statement of tashbeeh; proof of it apart from Islamic scholarship is Shaykh Madani as well; we will disregard this for sake of argument. Shaykh wrote: “… if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like (i.e. aisa) this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds;…” The statement can be understood in two ways, aisa is referring to baaz, therefore statement: “… then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; this/this-much (baaz; some, limited) knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; …” Also aisa can be zameer (i.e. hint) toward prophetic knowledge and this is best and natural understanding of controversial statement. In this context the statement would read: “… then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; this/this-much knowledge (of Ghayb known to RasoolAllah sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; …” If aisa was hint toward baaz, or even if aisa was hint toward prophetic-Ghayb; in both cases prophetic knowledge of Ghayb and knowledge of mentioned is being equaled in quantity of baaz. This why Shaykh Madani said aisa is not in meaning of itna but in meaning of tashbeeh. Al-hasil even without tashbeeh there is Kufr in the statement because quantity is being compared. 3.3 - Mother Of Righteous Muslims And Case Of Implied Tashbeeh: Mother of righteous believers took offense when mention of women was made amongst those which invalidate prayer: “Narrated Aisha: The things which annul prayer were mentioned before me (and those were): a dog, a donkey and a woman. I said: ‘You have compared us (women) with donkeys and dogs. By Allah! I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in (my) bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I disliked to sit and trouble the Prophet. So, I would slip away by the side of his feet.’” (Ref: Bukhari, B9, H493) “Narrated Aisha: Do you make us (women) equal to dogs and donkeys? While I used to lie in my bed, the Prophet would come and pray facing the middle of the bed. I used to consider it not good to stand in front of him in his prayers. So I used to slip away slowly and quietly from the foot of the bed till I got out of my guilt.” (Ref: Bukhari, B9, H486) Note even though it was just a mention of women, dogs, and donkeys being cause of invalidating prayers she took exception to it. The reason is obvious; the tashbeeh was implied due to women being mentioned in list of animals; dogs and donkeys. She had a very refined and comprehensive understanding of tashbeeh therefore she noted the logical implication of being mentioned in list of unclean animals. If an bad-ikhlaq (i.e. ill-mannered) person like our Shaykh Madani says: All humans are children of Adam (alayhis salam) therefore brothers/sisters. Therefore Shaykh Thanvi, the cursed Firawn, the Dajjal, Abu Jahl, Mirza Ghulam Qadiyani, Dhil Khuwaisirah at-Tamimi and others like them are brothers. A person with finely tuned sense of manners will understand that Shaykh Thanvi is being insulted by being mentioned in the list of worst human beings known to a Muslim. In this context lets visit the statement of Shaykh Thanvi again: “… if baaz from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; aisa (i.e. this-much, or this) knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title) Then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” In this statement at the very least there is argument for tashbeeh due to use of aisa (i.e. like). And proof of aisa in the statement being used for tashbeeh is that Shaykh Madani took it in sense of tashbeeh. What would be the reaction of Umm ul-Momineen (radiallah ta’ala anhu) if she read this statement of Shaykh Thanvi? Would she give him good-news of being righteous Muslim or a disbeliever? Anyone with with love and respect and refined manners and is still upon Fitrah (i.e. pure state) will understand why this statement of Shaykh Thanvi is disrespectful. 4.0 - Aisa In Meaning Of Tashbeeh Is Kufr And Example From Shaykh Naumani: If aisa was in comparative meaning as Shaykh Madani said; aisa is for tashbeeh. In this context Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; comparatively (such) knowledge is even by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; …” According to Shaykh Madani statement of Shaykh Thanvi is in comparative meaning on its natural meaning not in context of itna/is-qadr and yeh. And even Shaykh Naumani agrees it is but not in context of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but in context of his self and his Shaykh Thanvi. 4.1 - Mawlana sardar Ahmad Sets A Trap And Shaykh Naumani Bites: Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) knew Shaykh Naumani would not accept and tolerate if he and Shaykh Thanvi are insulted/disrespected using words similar to what Shaykh Thanvi used for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). So he goes on to say: “(Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad rahimullah says:) You say that if aisa is without jaisa then it is not used for sake of comparision (i.e. tashbeeh). Ok! Tell me if we say like this that Maulvi Manzoor Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) a dog’s. Or (say:) Maulvi Ashraf Ali Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) donkey’s. Then will there be comparision (between Manzoor’s/Ashraf’s and dog’s/donkey’s knowledge) or not? According to your saying (a statement containing aisa without jaisa cannot be for tashbeeh) there will be no comparision (between the mentioned).Then will you tolerate/accept this? I think you will not tolerate/accept this and will start screaming (Maulana) Sardar Ahmad has verbally abused us. And has equalled our knowledge to dog’s and donkey’s. So when Hifz ul-Iman contains this (aisa/like-this) word also then why do you distort/turn (i.e. taweel) obvious/apparent (meaning to another)? Why don’t you just admit Maulvi Thanvi was guilty of Kufr? Does Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) not even have dignity/respect as much as you? Or as much as your Thanvi Sahib? [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages73, similar in page 61, both here.] After this Shaykh Naumani responds to Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) with following: “(Shaykh Manzoor Ahmad Naumani says:) The example you have employed with regards to myself; in that word aisa is without doubt employed for comparision. And there is no uniqueness/speciality of myself or Maulana Thanvi. But if one learns from you (i.e. from examples) and if an ill-mannered and uncultured (person) says with regards to Maulvi Ahmad Raza Khan Sahib; his knowledge was like (i.e. aisa) a pig, (or) like (i.e. aisa) a donkey, then without doubt individual would have very rudely insulted Khan Sahib because according to common usage in such context aisa (i.e. like) is used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages77, here.] He said the same in number of other places. Please note when Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Thanvi’s knowledge was compared to dog/donkey’s Shaykh Naumani tactfully responed to insult/disrespect by making the same statement about Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) and just as Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) predicted Shaykh Naumani could not accept it and ended up telling the truth. Yet despite this Shaykh Naumani could not extend this respect to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and defended Shaykh Thanvi’s statement. Note Shaykh Naumani found it insulting and disrespectful and saw tashbeeh in what Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) said because he had self respect, and had love and respect for Shaykh Thanvi. Any Muslim with an ounce of love and respect for the last and final Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will feel the sting of disrespect and insult directed toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in statement of Shaykh Thanvi. 5.0 - Use Of Ra’ee’ In Hadith By Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) served as guardian/protector of sheep according to following Hadith: “Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said: "Allah did not send any prophet but shepherded sheep." His companions asked him, "Did you do the same?" The Prophet replied, "Yes, I used to shepherd the sheep of the people of Mecca for some Qirats." [Ref: Bukhari, B36, H463] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said; ruler, men, women, slaves are ‘ra’ee’ (i.e. shepherds) in meaning guide and guardian in the following Hadith: “Narrated Abdullah bin Umar:The Messenger of Allah as saying: Each of you is a shepherd and each of you is responsible for his flock. The amir (ruler) who is over the people is a shepherd and is responsible for his flock; a man is a shepherd in charge of the inhabitants of his household and he is responsible for his flock; a woman is a shepherdess in charge of her husband's house and children and she is responsible for them; and a man's slave is a shepherd in charge of his master's property and he is responsible for it. So each of you is a shepherd and each of you is responsible for his flock.” [Ref: Abu Dawood, B19, H2922] And in this context son calling his father, or subject referring to his king as ‘ra’eena’ (i.e. our shepherd, our guardian, our protector) isn’t offensive or insulting. 5.1 - Rai’na Distorted By Jews To Ra’eena: When Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) use to deliver speech companions; if a companion missed something due too far, or someone caughed something was missed, or due to not having capacity to understand what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said, the companions would say ‘rai’na’ (i.e. consider us). And depending upon the circumstance Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) either will repeat what he said or rephrase it so it is accessible for all intellect levels. If the Jews were in the gathering they would distort the word ‘rai’na’ (i.e. consider us) and pronounce it as; ‘ra’eena’ (i.e. our sheperd). And Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) mentions their distortion in the following verse: “Some of the Jews interchange the words from their places and say; “We hear and disobey” - and they say; “Hear- [may you] not be able to hear” - and they say; “ra'eena” (i.e. our shepherd) distorting it with their tongues and in order to slander religion; ...” [Ref: 4:46] Calling someone shepherd was, and even remains to this day way negating/discrediting literacy of someone. Due to Jews distorting the word to insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed following verse: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word rai’na (i.e. consider us), but say undhurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disblievers (those who insult) there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] Note the instruction is to believers to not to use word rai’na because it was used by the Jews to disrespect the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Instead Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) suggests word ‘undhurna’ (i.e. look upon us) which the Jews could not distort to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) cryptively. Alhasil this verse prohibits usage of words/sentences which are perfectly fine but can be misconstrued to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Rule of Islamic law is; if something is prohibited in lesser degree anything greater then the least is also forbidden. Therefore it would stand to reason, by default, words/sentences which are insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are also prohibited and the threat of punishment for disbelievers is inclusive of insulters. 5.2 - Shaykh Thanvi In Light Verse Of Rai’na And Undhurna: The companions used ‘rai’na’ (i.e. consider us) and Jews distorted it and used ‘ra’eena’ (i.e. our shepherd). So one pronounciation was absolutely fine [because both are written absolutely same] and other was Kufr. Yet none of the companions are on the record for saying or justifying their usage through linguistical usage of ‘rai’na’ or even blaming Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for not knowing how they used it. Instead they realized the situation and left it for better suggestion of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). The right course of action as indicated by verse was to abandon the controversial statement after Shaykh Thanvi was informed. Not present taweel (i.e. interpretation) in his defence, repeal it, and repent because his statement was evidently insulting. Instead he resorted to denial and presented taweel of his statement and others from his side followed his evil Sunnah: “And he who introduced some evil Sunnah in Islam which had been followed subsequently (by others), he would be required to bear the burden like that of one who followed this (evil practice) without their's being diminished in any respect." [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] And in this sense Shaykh Thanvi and those who followed him are all equales. 5.3 - Judgement Regarding Statement And Interpretation Of Others: According to Shaykh Naumani’s claim aisa in Shaykh Thanvi’s statement of Hifz ul-Iman is used in meaning of itna/is-qadr and in meaning of yeh and not for tashbeeh because in sense of tashbeeh it would be Kufr. According to Shaykh Madani it is to be understood in sense of tashbeeh and not in meaning of itna/is-qadr because it would be Kufr according to his understanding if it was in meaning of itna. Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Madani both hold to position; statement means this and if it was in this meaning it would be Kufr. Please note Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word rai’na (i.e. consider us), but say undhurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disblievers (those who insult) there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] And the verse gives following meaning; do not use words which insult the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and which can be misconstrued to insult the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihiw as’sallam) but use words which are not insulting and which cannot be misconstrued to insult. In light of verse of ‘consider us’ and ‘look upon us’ Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Madani should have refrained from taweel of Shaykh Thanvi’s because by their own acknowledgment one meaning is insulting and therefore Kufr. And those who use insulting statements or statements which can be misconstrued to insult even after the prohibition of it has been made have been declared Kafirs and threatened with punishment: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word rai’na (i.e. consider us), but say undhurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disblievers (those who insult) there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] Or the verse could also be interpreted to mean: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word rai’na (i.e. consider us), but say undhurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disblievers (those who disblieve in the command of verse) there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] Both interpretations boil down to Kufr; of those who insult the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), or those who disbelieve in the order given in the verse. And implications of the verse for Shaykh Thanvi, Shaykh Madani, Shaykh Naumani, and Shaykh Darbhangi is that they are disbelievers and apostates. All those who believe and defend statement of Hifz ul-Iman after understanding it they are to be deemed Murtadeen (i.e. apostates) and Kafirs (i.e. disbeleivers) providing all avenues prior to Takfir have been exhausted. Conclusion: Shaykh Naumani understands aisa (i.e. like this) to mean yeh (i.e. this). Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi understand the usage of aisa to mean itna/is-qadr (i.e. this-much). And both negate usage of aisa in sense of tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) because Shaykh Naumani considers use of aisa in sense of tashbeeh to be Kufr. In other words; according to Shaykh Naumani, if prophetic knowledge was being compared with every days Joe’s, lunatics, infants, with knowledge of animals then there would be insult and disrespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) therefore verdict of Kufr. Shaykh Thanvi on other hand states it is in quantitive sense even if it was in comparative sense it wouldn’t be Kufr. Shaykh Madani on other hand believes statement was in comparative sense if it was in quantative sense then it would have been offensive. And Shaykh Thanvi agrees with him that in comparative sense it isn’t offensive but also believes it is not offensive in quantitive sense either. Understanding of Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi VS Shaykh Madani are two taweels of Shaykh Thanvi; one in quantitive sense, and other of comparative sense; which each side took from Shaykh Thanvi’s Bast al-Banan while unknowingly considering his other taweel to be offensive. Shaykh Thanvi gets owned by his own representatives because both side of his followers consider one of his accepted version to be offensive. Therefore both positions of Shaykh Thanvi are offensive and Kufr. And the grand act of providence is that Shaykh Naumani party VS Shaykh Madani essentially refute each other. In other words Shaykh Naumani’s understanding of itna/ is-qadr has been argued to be offensive by Shaykh Madani because he said it is in meaning of tashbeeh and not itna. And Shaykh Madani’s position of tashbeeh has been proven wrong by Shaykh Naumani because of his reasoning that comparative rendering would be offensive and quantitive is not. Revealing that if statement of Shaykh Thanvi was understood in light of itna/is-qadr, or yeh, or tashbeeh it is offensive and Kufr. The established contradiction between the Deobandi Maulvis will be enough for an intelligent person to realise; their accounts don’t match because both sides of Deobandism are lieing. And a believer who fears his Lord and loves the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will take this contradiction as proof deception and lies being told by their scholarship to cover-up Shaykh Thanvi’s Kufr. It is important to note that Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) during the debate; as an act of strategy of war against enemy of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and his Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) uttered following words about knowledge of Shaykh Naumani and his Shaykh Thanvi: “Maulvi Manzoor Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) a dog’s. Or (say:) Maulvi Ashraf Ali Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) donkey’s.” It was then that Shaykh Naumani took offence citing tashbeeh the reason of his understanding. And this establishes the well known and established fact; Deobandis love/respect their own more then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Considering that one group considers A taweel to be insulting/Kufr and B to be perfectly in agreement with Shari’a. And the other considers A taweel to be perfectly justifiable in Shari’ah and B to be Kufr; in this context it can be said there is concensus that statement is insulting/Kufr in Deobandi scholarship. And it also can be said that there isn’t agreement on its Kufr. Negation of Kufr is explicitly stated and is intended objective and confirmation of statement being Kufr is unintended result of lies and deception. The understanding of verse of ‘consider us’ and ‘look upon us’ made it obligatory for those who considered at least one taweel of Shaykh Thanvi to be of Kufr to abandon their efforts yet they persisted and died upon this. They disbelieved in the injunction given in the verse and they are the disbelievers. Shaykh Thanvi was unique in his understanding that in quantitive sense or comparative sense his controversial statement is not offensive therefore not Kufr and he was refuted by his own side. Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is definitely offensive and insults the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) even though he argues contrary to it and proof against him and his understanding are his sensless representatives aka Shaykh Naumani VS Shaykh Madani. As such he too is no less guilty of Kufr then the those who defend him. They are group of disbelievers and apostates who had disbelieved in what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed in verse of ‘consider us’ and ‘look upon us’ and consistently insulted the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) when the right course of action should have been repentance and repealing of statement. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi.
  12. Introduction: Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) alleged Shaykh Thanvi equalled Prophetic knowledge of Ghayb with Ghayb of; Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds. A righteous Muslim would have seriously considered the allegation and thought about all angles and upon being informed would have repented. Shaykh Thanvi had other plans he decided to defend his statement. And seeing their Shaykh in battle the minions of Iblees joined and made excuses for their master. Some said Shaykh Thanvi never wrote this statement of Hifz ul-Iman[1] but when they were confronted with truth they had no answer but to run to Thana Bhawan. Others took the course of Taweel (i.e. re-interpreting) of obvious in order to blunt the charge of insult/disrespect. There were two main proponents of Taweel movement apart from Shaykh Thanvi. Shaykh Madani and his student Shaykh Naumani. Note Shaykh Thanvi in his Bast al-Banan laid the foundation of Taweel of both parties. Result was Shaykh Madani claimed there is tashbeeh in statement of Shaykh Thanvi if itna was used instead of aisa then statement would be problematic. Shaykh Naumani said statement is not in sense of tashbeeh because aisa is used to mean itna. If it was tashbeeh it would be Kufr. And all parties agreed that there is no mention of equality in quantity by Shaykh Thanvi in statement of Hifz ul-Iman. This article will address two points, denial of tashbeeh, and denial of equality in quantity. Effort will be made to establish equality and tashbeeh. 1.0 - Controversial Statement And Shaykh Negates Equality In Quantity: Following is portion of Hifz ul-Iman in which Shaykh Thanvi attempted to rightly/justly refute notion that title Aalim ul-Ghayb can be applied upon Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because he knows Ghayb but the tone and language used was insulting/disrespecting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “Then what would Shar’a, play thing of children, when desired established it and when desired demolished it. If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like (i.e. aisa) this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) …” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] In his following pamphlet size booklet some 10 years later Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “If allegedly objectionable (statement) was for tashbiya (i.e. comparision) even then knowledge of Zaid and Umar etc has not been compared with knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but (comparision) is with baaz (i.e. limited) knowledge which has been mentioned above. Entertaining the impossible; even if knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was compared; even then it would not have been in every aspect but only in aspect of possessing of baaz Ghayb; if it (baaz Ghayb) was evidence for application of (title) Aalim ul Ghayb upon Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then in the same fashion baaz Ghayb would warrant application of title Aalim ul-Ghayb for others; even if the both baaz be different (in quantity). Comaprision like of this, in some traits, is evident from Quran.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman –with- Bast Al Banan, pages 24/25, by Shaykh Thanvi, here.] Shaykh Thanvi regarding the statement of Hifz ul-Iman states in his two page pamphlet published as Bast al-Banan hints; he deems the prophetic and knowledge of those whom he mentioned in Hifz ul-Iman to be baaz (i.e. limited) but different in quantity. 1.1 - Shaykh Madani Confirms Tashbeeh But Negates Equality In Quantity: Shaykh Madani taking que from his beloved Shaykh Thanvi writes: “Honorable people! Matter discussed (of Hifz ul-Iman) was if it is correct to use for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) the title of Aalim ul-Ghayb or not. Knowledge and quantity of prophetic knowledge was not being discussed (in Hifz ul-Iman). You should read the statement of Shaykh Thanvi from beginning to end; in it he is arguing the usage of this phrase (Aalim ul-Ghayb) for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not right/legal.” Shaykh Madani continues to write: “In it he is not discussion if he (Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has knowledge of Ghayb of any kind or not; and if there is then how much of Ghayb does he know. Every intelligent person understands the difference between establishing a belief and application of word (as title) details of which will be mentioned ahead. Even if we ignore this then please consider this; that honorable Mawlana Thanvi has stated word aisa (i.e. like this) but did not state word itna (i.e. this-much).” Purpose of negating discussion of quantity is to negate the notion that prophetic quantity was equalled with what Shaykh Thanvi mentioned in list of beings. Shaykh Madani continues: “If it was word itna (i.e. this-much) then it would have occasioned objection, may Allah forbid, that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been equaled with knowledge of other things. If this is not pure foolishness then what else is it. Even if we over look this; even then word aisa is of Tasbih (i.e. comparision) and it is apparent that if something is compared with someothing then comparision is not in all aspects.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani, Page281/282, here.] Note Shaykh Madani says quantity of prophet knowledge was not discussed in the statement of Hifz ul-Iman. And says if itna was used instead of aisa then equality in quantity would be established and it would have been valid reason for objection because then prophetic knowledge would be equalled in quantity to; lunatics, infants, animals and every day Joe’s. In his next statement he explicitly negates/rejects the notion that there is tashbeeh in quantity in Hifz ul-Imans controversial statement: “Therefore you will find many examples of this where tashbeeh (i.e. comaparision/analogy) is only between a single quality where objective is to assimilate mushabah (i.e. compared with) and mushaba bihi (i.e. compared to). And where there is no intention to compare other things. In this place (meaning in statement of Hifz ul-Iman) it is absolutely not possible that quantity of knowledge of Ghuyub are being compared because he himself says that all knowledges relating to Prophet-hood were all held by RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And these things (of knowledge) are not for Zaid, Umar, Bakr, and others. In here word itna (i.e. this-much) has not been employed. In fact comparision (in Hifz ul-Iman) is in baazi’at (i.e. limitedness) because if from qull (all) Ghayb even one thing is omitted even that would be baaz.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page282/283, here.] In another part of books he writes: “And for this reason word aisa (i.e. like-this) and baaz (i.e. some/limited) has been used. See this is the statement: “…if baaz from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this …” Therefore aisa (i.e. like-this) hints toward the mentioned baaz (i.e. limited/some). That baaz knowledge which is in possession of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not even mentioned (in Hifz ul-Iman). And we will explain this ahead even more. Any person even with slight sense of understanding statement; such a person would clearly say that aisa is pointing toward word of baaz and discussion is about of it (i.e. baaz). Therefore in context of statement and context of discussion both clearly establish that tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) is in the nafs (i.e. implies; category) of baaz and not in quantity of baaz; that it be subjected to criticism/opposition.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page283, here.] Alhasil -: In understanding of Shaykh Madani the statement of Hifz ul-Iman is comparative (i.e. of tashbeeh) in nature. And the comparision is in category of limited knowledge not in quantity of limited knowledge. Note he explicitly negated the notion that Shaykh Thanvi’s Hifz ul-Iman compares quantity of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb. 1.2 - Shaykh Naumani Negates Tashbeeh And It Is In Quantitive Sense Of Itna: Shaykh Naumani considers aisa (i.e. like-this) in meaning of itna (i.e. thi-much). According to Shaykh Madani if it was itna then statement of Shaykh Thanvi would establishe equality in quantity (see pages 281/282, above) which is an apparent contradiction. Ignoring this contradiction of liars; who really are senselessly scrambling to cover up with their lies and deception the obvious Kufr. Shaykh Naumani like Shaykh Madani he too believes itna is without establishing equality between quantity: “There you go now I have established from linguistical (analysis) that aisa is also used in meaning of itna without warranting tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). And in Urdu poetical popular expressions it has been used as such. I had stated that author of Hifz ul-Iman honorable Mawlana Ashraf Ali himself deems such a person Kafir who says knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is equal (in quantity) with animals and lunatics. And in support of this I quoted statement of Bast al-Banan.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages78, here.] In another part he is quoted to have said: “And when I (Shaykh Naumani) refuted your arguments and established that aisa is also employed for purpose of comparision as well as of itna. And in statement of Hifz ul-Iman it (i.e. aisa) has been used without implying tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) -; in meaning of itna. Then you demanded from me evidence in which aisa has been used without indicating comparision and in meaning of itna (i.e. this much). […] Anyhow if you have not understood my position so far then try to understand now. In Hifz ul-Iman aisa is in meaning of itna. And by it (meaning; aisa/itna) limited knowledge of Ghayb is intended and meaning of statement (of Hifz ul-Iman) is as follows: Those who attribute to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) title of Aalim ul-Ghayb because limited knowledge of Ghayb and if this is their principle that whoever who knows few matters of Ghayb (…) meaning limited Ghayb knowledge is known to all. Anyhow in this statement word aisa has been used in meaning of itna and from it limited knowledge of Ghayb is intended not (limited) knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).”[2] [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages 89/90, here.] In the following statement Shaykh Naumani explicitly stated that Shaykh Thanvi in his Hifz ul-Iman did not compare the quantity of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb: “In this turn you again read (aloud) statement of Hifz ul-Iman and you have claimed regarding it what you have claimed about it since yesterday. I have given quite detailed and clear response to it and you should remember/recall it. This time I will briefly say another thing about it. Listen to it with attention! I have already stated that statement of Hifz ul-Iman the quantity of Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) isn’t being discussed but in fact the actual discussion is addressing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with title Aalim ul-Ghayb.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages 100, here.] Alhasil Shaykh Naumani to believes itna refers to baaz and prophetic knowledge of baaz is not being compared with baaz knowledge of individuals mentioned in his statement. 2.0 - Shaykhs; Thanvi, Naumani, And Madani Negate Equality In Quantity: In short it is clear that all three are unanimous in their understanding that quantity of limited prophetic knowledge of Ghayb was not part of the discussion nor Shaykh Thanvi intended to discuss the quantity. Shaykh Madani is of view; Shaykh Thanvi compared the prophetic knowledge in limitedness with knowledge of regular Joe’s, infants, animals, lunatics. And he did not compare the quantity of prophetic knowledge with quantity of knowledge possessed by regular Joe’s, lunatics, infants, animals and quadrupeds. Shaykh Naumani on other hand disagrees with his teacher Shaykh Madani and says; there is no comparision in quantity because the word aisa (i.e. like-this) is used in meaning of itna (i.e. this-much) and it is used without denoting quantity. 2.1 Technicalities And Pointlessness And Senselessness Of Shuyukh Of Deoband: Considering both positions in light of that is all logical and rational and intelligent; it has to be said Shaykh Madani has got the right general idea but stupidly negates aisa meaning itna which his position naturally implies. Also Shaykh Naumani is barking up the wrong tree by saying itna is without tashbeeh: If hint of aisa/itna is returning to baaz then Shaykh Thanvi has to compare the prophetic knowledge with regular Joe’s, lunatics, animals, infants, and quadrupeds to negate speciality which he did in his statement. In simple words comparision to negate speciality/uniqueness equals = tashbeeh. Shaykh Madani on other hand has the general concept right but was reluctant to accept aisa is used in meaning of itna. If Shaykh Madani had said: ‘Aisa is for tashbeeh in statement of Hifz ul-Iman and tashbeeh of aisa is with generality of baaz not quantity of baaz and therefore appropriate alternative from linguistic sense for aisa would be itna.’ He could have perfectly held the same position by incorporating part of Shaykh Naumani’s position into his own. He could have but there was little angel in his subconcious saying Shaykh Thanvi’s statement insulting/disrespectfull. Somehow he managed to connect aisa in meaning of itna with comparision in quantity. If Shaykh Naumani had said: ‘Aisa is in meaning of itna due to linguistic usage of aisa in meaning of itna. And aisa/itna is used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) between baaz knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and baaz knowledge of mentioned creations without comparing quantity of prophetic knowledge and mentioned others.’ These Shuyukh could have argued their case and held to same positions but the difference would be that both wouldn’t have contradicted each other. Surprisingly both felt if it would be Kufr if it was in sense of this and not in sense of that. 2.3 - Two Insults In One Statement Of Shaykh Thanvi: Instead of both taking the voices of their concious and agreeing with them both decided to stab their angels to death with the fork of red little Satan. And thought if they supress their concious and say it is not in this meaning and say it is in that meaning then the Kur would be lifted from Shaykh Thanvi. The offense in Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is two fold: i) Shaykh Thanvi negated/rejected the notion that prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is special/unique but it is like the lunatics, animals, infants, every day Joe’s and quadrupeds. ii) Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is actually implying prophetic knowledge is equal to the mentioned relatives of Shaykh Thanvi in quantity and quality. Both of these Shuyukh have focused their Taweelat to negate the first charge. It is worth noting that both these Shuyukh have not managed to successfully defend against the first charge. Note the first charge is naturally and fundamentally part of second charge and if second charge is established then naturally the first charge would be established. 2.4 - Playing Chicken With Kufr And Not Realising After Squished By It: Regardless of how these Shuyukh could have played the defending game; with itna refering to baaz and without tashbeeh in quantity of prophetic knowledge, or aisa referring to baaz and tashbeeh; comparision in general quantity of baaz but not with specific prophetic quantity of baaz. Or even if they had played chicken with Kufr with one of above Taweels presented by me; even then nothing would make their defence of Shaykh Thanvi impregnable. The offense they attempted to lift was beyond their comprehension. They thought with word games we will win the battle against Muslims. Little did they know they can put yeh (i.e. this), or itna and is-qadr (i.e. this-much), and negate or affirm tashbeeh in the statement of Shaykh Thanvi and play whatever Ibleesi game they wish. As long as Takhseesi statement (i.e. what is so unique about Hadhoor’s sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam knowledge of Ghayb) remains in statement of Shaykh Thanvi the tashbeeh cannot be negated and equality argument against Hifz ul-Iman cannot be negated. Please read the following part of article carefully it will lay bare all deceptions these Shuyukh have attempted to defend Shaykh Thanvi by dealing with the dispute in most fundamental fashion; by evaluating their arguments in light of basic facts which no rational or sane human could object to. 3.0 -Principles Of Refuting And Establishing Uniqueness In Knowledge: i) Knowledge of X equals Y. In this context X and Y have no speciality in knowledge over each other. And one is no way better in knowledge then the other. ii) X is more knowledgeable then Y. Y is less knowledgeable then X. In this context X is unique/special because X has greater knowledge. And Y is not unique/special and has no merit above X. iii) X has greater quantity of knowledge and quality of knowledge then Y. In this scenario X has a merit and is unique/special due greater quantity and qaulity. 3.1 - Knowledge of X equals Y: The first principle: ‘Knowledge of X equals Y.’ Thanvi knows numbers from one to hundred. Gangohi knows numbers from one to hundred. Both know exactly the same amount of numbers therefore if it was said that Shaykh Thanvi isn’t any better, any special it would be correct. Following example illustrates the point:’If it is correct to attribute knowledge of numbers to Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Gangohi then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this knowledge of numbers, known to Shaykh Thanvi, limited to one to hundered or is it infinite knowledge of numbers. If it is one to hundered then what is so special/unique about Shaykh Thanvi’s knowledge of numbers; knowledge like this is even possesed by everyday Joe’s, infants in nursery, lunatics and Shaykh Gangohi.’ Ofcourse this statement is correct; Shaykh Thanvi would has no merit over the mentioned because quantity of his knowledge is same as the rest. From this example we learn; to negate speciality, or uniquess of knowledge there has to be equality in knowledge. Shaykh Thanvi knows 1-100 and so does his family of lunatics, infants, and Shaykh Gangohi; therefore he is not special in knowing numbers. Alhasil: In this context Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Gangohi have no speciality in knowledge over each other. And one is no way better in knowledge then the other due to equality in quantity. 3.2 - X Is More Knowledgeable then Y. Y is less knowledgeable then X: The second principle states: ‘X is more knowledgeable then Y. Y is less knowledgeable then X.’ In this scenario we suppose Shaykh Thanvi had Ghayb knowledge of two or twenty matters of Ghayb found in perserved tablet. And all Muslims believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was granted knowledge of Ghayb. And it exceeds all that is in perserved Tablet. Readers are advised to referr to Ad-Dawlatul Makkiyyah of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) to get details and evidences of Islamic belief. Please study the following statement: ‘Indeed it is correct to attribute knowledge of Ghayb to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And upon investigation it became clear it wasn’t of few matters of Ghayb but of all that is in perserved tablet and greater then it. Hence prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is special. And if Shaykh Thanvi has knowledge of few matters of Ghayb then what is so special/unique about Shaykh Thanvi’s knolwedge of Ghayb in comparision to prophetic knowledge? Knowledge like of Shaykh Thanvi is even possesed by every day Joe’s, infants in nursery, lunatics and animals.’ Shaykh Thanvi comparatively isn’t special in his knowledge of Ghayb because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knows all that is in perserved tablet and more. Alhasil -: In this context Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is unique/special because he has greater knowledge; in fact all of knowledge of perserved tablet. And Shaykh Thanvi is not unique/special and has no merit above Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) due to lack of quantity of his knowledge. 3.3 - X Has Greater Quantity Of Knowledge And Quality Of Knowledge Then Y: Third principle states: ‘X has greater quantity of knowledge and quality of knowledge then Y.’ Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb is Qatti (i.e. definitive). Meaning there can be no element of doubt in his knowledge of Ghayb. If Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) says; Dajjal will be blind in one eye. Then there can be no doubt regarding it: Dajjal will be blind in his eye. Also prophetic knowledge is beyound human counting: Consists of all knowledge of Ghayb in perserved tablet and even greater. Ghayb knowledge of non-Prophets is Zani (i.e. indefinitive/doubtful) however they gain it. The non-Prophets can only have Qatti (i.e. definitive) Ghayb when it has been given to them by a Nabi/Rasool. And the quantity of Zanni Ghayb will never be suffient enough merit a challenge to prophetic knowledge of Ghayb or negate speciality of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb. Now in this context try to understand statement of Shaykh Thanvi. Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “Then what would Shar’a, play thing of children, when desired established it and when desired demolished it. If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like (i.e. aisa) this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Now if we insert the established facts into the text of Shaykh Thanvi it means: Prophetic Qatti knolwedge of Ghayb, whose quantity is beyond human comprehension is nothing special in comparision to Zanni knowledge of Ghayb lunatics, infants, animals whose knowledge is questionable and minute quantity, that’s if they have Ghayb. So in Deobandism; few lunatics, cows, sheeps, infants, animals, about whom we don’t even know they have knowledge of Ghayb, and whose quantity knowledge is worth of two dimes; have managed to negate the speciality of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb whose possession of Ghayb, and quantity, and quality is uncontestable. Ofcourse we Muslims do not believe it is correct to attribute title of Aalim ul-Ghayb to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). So please do not take this as argument for application of title Aalim ul-Ghayb. Now when the greater quantity of knowledge establishes superiority and merit and speciality of prophetic knowledge then greater quality by default will add to speciality and uniquessness of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb. Alhasil -: In this context Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has a merit and is unique/special due to his quality knowledge and due greater quantity of his knowledge. 3.4 - Fundamental Rule Of Establishing And Negating Speciality: From these three principles and their explanantions we derive a basic rule; X has to be compared to Y quantity/type to establish/negate speciality/uniqueness. If the quantity is equal on both sides then comparision yields result; one has no superiority over the other. If one has less and other has greater then comparisions establishes two results: i) one possessing less quantity of knowledge has no superiority over who has greater quantity of knowledge. ii) And one with greater quantity of knowledge is superior to one with lesser knowledge. Alhasil in statements like of Hifz ul-Iman comparision is essential to establish and negate merit of one over another: And this comparision is in quantity and can also be in types of knowledge. 4.0 - Brief Account Of Shuyukh On Hifz ul-Iman’s Controversial Statement: Shaykh Thanvi, Shaykh Naumani, and Shaykh Madani all stated the quantity of prophetic knowledge isn’t being discussed in the statement of Shaykh Thanvi. In my own words; Shaykh Naumani said there was no tashbeeh of prophetic Ghayb with Ghayb of lunatics. If it was in meaning of tashbeeh it would be Kufr. Rather the word aisa has been used in meaning of itna. And itna is used without tashbeeh because aisa/itna referrs to baaz Ghayb and not prophetic baaz Ghayb. Shaykh Madani on other hand said there is tashbeeh in statement and tashbeeh is in prophetic knowledge being compared to baaz Ghayb knowledge and not quanity of baaz prophetic knowledge with baaz quantity x, y, and z. He also indirectly indicated he would consider statement to beKufr if itna was used. Alhasil both contradict each other … both indirectly declared each other Kafir but that’s not the point. But they all negated equality in quantity of knowledge. 4.1 - Speciality And Uniqueness Can Only Be Negated Via Comparision: If you recall Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Naumani are of view that statement of Hifz ul-Iman is without Tashbeeh. Even though their own lap-dop aka Shaykh Madani refutes them but it is still important to address it from principle point of view. If a child says; this is sweeter then that one. Has he compared this choclate with that to come to conclusion? An adult says; there is nothing special about this jumper over that jumper. Did the adult compare, one or other quality, to come to this conclusion? You would agree both these statements are result of comparision. Even though words, like, such, as, aren’t used the comparision can be implied because merit/quality is being negated. And for negation/affirmation of any quality/merit in a statement comparative analysis is essential between two parties either by comparing to something materially or via pre-determined criterias of good/bad learnt through experience and knowledge accomulated over time. In this context if we take statement of Shaykh Thanvi: “If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” In here Shaykh Thanvi negated speciality/uniqueness of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb in contrast to; Zaid, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals, and quadrupeds. And for him to reach to this understanding; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not special in his knowledge, he had to compare (or; give tashbeeh of) prophetic knowledge with those he mentioned. And this tashbeeh can be in quantity or in types of Ghayb known to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In addition to this; Shaykh Thanvi used word aisa (i.e. like this) which is used for tashbeeh even if it is without jaisa (i.e. like this): “(Shaykh Manzoor Ahmad Naumani says:) The example you have employed with regards to myself; in that word aisa is without doubt employed for comparision. And there is no uniqueness/speciality of myself or Maulana Thanvi. But if one learns from you (i.e. from examples) and if an ill-mannered and uncultured (person) says with regards to Maulvi Ahmad Raza Khan Sahib; his knowledge was like (i.e. aisa) a pig, (or) like (i.e. aisa) a donkey, then without doubt individual would have very rudely insulted Khan Sahib because according to common usage in such context aisa (i.e. like) is used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision).” [3] [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages77, here.] And in context of rule; establishing or negating any merit/quality of one over another party requires comparision (i.e. tashbeeh) between qualities/merits of party with another. Therefore aisa has to be in meaning of tashbeeh and it was this realisation which forced Shaykh Madani to accept Islamic position of tashbeeh in statement of Hifz ul-Iman. In context of tashbeeh the statement would mean that author is comparing propheting knowledge of Ghayb with knowledge of those Shaykh Thanvi mentioned. Implication of which would be; whatever is the quantity of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb; Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals and qaudrupeds all share his quantity and type of knowledge. It would be best to do away with Shaykh Naumani’s argument of itna. Consider this a throwing Shaykh Naumani’s argument to dogs along side him. Shaykh argued aisa (i.e. like-this) means itna (i.e. this-much) in statement of Hifz ul-Iman and he referrenced poetical verses and popular usage in which aisa can be taken as subsitute for itna. Even if Shaykh Thanvi didn’t use aisa he used itna it would have had no difference because Shaykh Thanvi was negating speciality of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb and foundation of this is tashbeeh/comparision. Golden rule is to affirm/negate a merit of one explicit/implicit comparision is fundamental. And not to under do the research we have following quote from Deobandi account of debate which affirms itna can too be for tashbeeh: “It should be clear that word itna like aisa is sometimes also used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). And sometimes without tashbeeh only in meaning of quantity. For example it is said: Zayd is itna (i.e. so much) rich jitna (i.e. as much as) Umru. In this example itna is for comparision. And it is said: Zaid itna (i.e. this-much) rich of which there is no limit. Here word itna is not for tashbeeh but for quantity.”[4] [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages68, note by compiler, here.] Note even though author doesn’t accept Shaykh Naumani’s itna in statement of Hifz ul-Iman is for tashbeeh; but what does the golden rule say? Referr back to it please and then referr to relevent footnote of my article. Alhasil be it aisa or itna the bottom line is in statement like of Hifz ul-Iman when merit/quality is being negated tashbeeh is fundamental part of it. In addition to what has already been stated please take special notice of following: To establish speciality of one over another or negate naturally comparision has to be made and comparision can be implied or explicit. In statement of Hifz ul-Iman aisa (i.e. like-this) has been used which is always indictive of explicit tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). Secondly for comparision there has to be; ‘the compared’ and ‘the compared to’. And to establish/negate speciality of ‘the compared’ there has to be a quality/attribute in which ‘the compared’ is being compared to ‘the comapred to’. And we find those in Hifz ul-Iman; ‘the compared’ is Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And ‘the compared to’ to are Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals, and quadrupeds. And the quality is Ilm al-Ghayb (i.e. knowledge of Ghayb). Please note all three components are in statemend of Shaykh Thanvi: “Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s1 (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb2; knowledge like (i.e. aisa) this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds3; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] When all the necessary raw materials of tashbeeh are found in statement of Hifz ul-Iman to say negate it is either illiteracy. Or a deliberate cordinated effort to pull wool over the eyes of unsuspecting Muslims. 4.2 - Equality In Quantity Is Essential To Negate Speciality And Uniqueness: Following is rephrasing of first principle: If two are equals one is no better then the other. If Shaykh Thanvi had belief that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has equal quantity of knowledge as; Zaid, Amr, infants, lunatics, and animals then he would negate speciality of prophetic knowledge. Shaykh Thanvi wrote:“Then what would Shar’a, play thing of children, when desired established it and when desired demolished it. If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) … [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] It becomes apparent that at minimum Shaykh Thanvi deemed prophetic knowledge to be equal in quantity to knowledge of; Zaid, Amr, animals, infants, and lunatics. Otherwise Shaykh Thanvi could not have said Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has no speciality over these mentioned. If he believed in speciality of prophetic knowledge he would not have said that and defended this statement. In worst case scenario Shaykh Thanvi deemed prophetic knowledge to be less then; Zaid, Amr, lunatics, animals, infants, and quadrupeds. Negation of speciality as per principles can only be for two reasons. Therefore the following portion of controversial would be read as following: “… then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this (i.e, Prophet Muhammad’s Ghayb knowledge) is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” Coming to second principle: Principally it is possible for one to negate merit of another due to less knowledge but the construction of sentence of Hifz ul-Iman does not allow this. And it would be unfare and deception to pass it of as legitimate point. Only equality in knowledge is valid position. Conclusion: The basic rule regarding statements type of Hifz ul-Iman is; X has to be compared to Y in quantity/type to establish/negate. Without comparision in quantity/type of Ghayb speciality of prophetic Ghayb cannot be negated. And if there is equality in quantity there would be no speciality of one over another. Or if there is less and greater quantity then lesser has no speciality/uniqueness over the greater. In statement of Hifz ul-Iman the structuring of sentence restricts interpretation to; negation of speciality/uniqueness via equality in quantity; and not via prophetic knowledge being less then of creations mentioned by Shaykh Thanvi. In this context Shaykh Thanvi in Hifz ul-Iman stated; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in his baaz quantity of Ghayb knowledge is not special because knowledge like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was possessed by Zayd, Amr, animals, lunatics, quadrupeds, and infants. In defence of Shaykh Thanvi Deobandi Shuyukh stated statement is not about equality in quantity nor the author attempted to establish equality in quantity. Shaykh Naumani deemed Tashbeeh to be Kufr and said aisa (i.e. like-this) is in meaning of itna (i.e. this-much) without tashbeeh. And Shaykh Madani said it is in meaning of Tashbeeh if it was itna it would be Kufr. Both these Shuyukh contradicted each other and both considered other Taweeli understanding of Hifz ul-Iman to be Kufr. Unfortunately for Shaykh Thanvi he was the original source of Taweels of Shaykh Madani and Shaykh Naumani. Shaykh Thanvi said indirectly … tashbeeh or itna … statement is perfectly fine. All Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Madani collectively managed was; Shaykh Thanvi’s both Taweel are Kufr and certified Shaykh Thanvi’s and their own Kufr. Statement like of Hifz ul-Iman mentions two parties … X and Y … X is not special/unique in his Ilm al-Ghayb. Aisa is used for comparision and all raw materials of comparision are in statement of Hifz ul-Iman. Party X and party Y and the merit/quality of Ilm al-Ghayb which is being negated via comparision. Negation of speciality/uniqueness of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb via comparision is through equality in quanitity. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi FootNotes: - [1] Poor folk were decieved by deception of Bast al-Banan in which Shaykh Thanvi completely denied what he wrote in Hifz ul-Iman. Other extreme is that smart Deobandis say Shaykh Thanvi changed the statement in Hifz ul-Iman therefore he cannot be blamed any longer and he is unfairly being targetted. In response to those; Shaykh Thanvi never repented and Shaykh made that clear in Bast al-Banan and Tagheer ul-Unawan. Changing of statement was merely to avoid difficulties faced by his supporters in debates. And Shaykh realised his statement ‘people lacking depth of understanding’ will ‘misunderstand’ and take it to be insulting therefore he agreed to change it. In other words it was effort to reorganise forces for further battle and not acceptance of fault/sin and repentence. - [2] Slightly longer version:“And when I (Shaykh Naumani) refuted your arguments and established that aisa is also employed for purpose of comparision as well as of itna. And in statement of Hifz ul-Iman it (i.e. aisa) has been used without implying tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) -; in meaning of itna. Then you demanded from me evidence in which aisa has been used without indicating comparision and in meaning of itna (i.e. this much). Therefore I established it from linguistical (analysis) and from popular poetical expressions to which you could not respond. And now in this speech of yours you have adopted a novel (position) that by taking aisa (this-much) in meaning of itna (i.e. this-much) our (Barelwi) position is established. And meaning of statement of Hifz ul-Iman becomes: ‘Knowledge of ghayb as-much (in quanity) was of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) that-much knowledge (in quantity) is possessed by every Zaid, Umar, and animals, and lunatics.’ I am surprised that do you really understand/believe this or are you deliberately trying to misguide people. […] Anyhow if you have not understood my position so far then try to understand now. In Hifz ul-Iman aisa is in meaning of itna. And by it (meaning; aisa/itna) limited knowledge of Ghayb is intended and meaning of statement (of Hifz ul-Iman) is as follows: Those who attribute to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) title of Aalim ul-Ghayb because limited knowledge of Ghayb and if this is their principle that whoever who knows few matters of Ghayb (…) meaning limited Ghayb knowledge is known to all. Anyhow in this statement word aisa has been used in meaning of itna and from it limited knowledge of Ghayb is intended not (limited) knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages 89/90, here.] - [3] Shaykh Naumani argued aisa without jaisa is not always for tashbeeh. In response to which Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) gave following speech during his debate with Shaykh Manzoor Naumani: “(Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad rahimullah says:) You say that if aisa is without jaisa then it is not used for sake of comparision (i.e. tashbeeh). Ok! Tell me if we say like this that Maulvi Manzoor Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) a dog’s. Or (say:) Maulvi Ashraf Ali Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) donkey’s. Then will there be comparision (between Manzoor’s/Ashraf’s and dog’s/donkey’s knowledge) or not? According to your saying (a statement containing aisa without jaisa cannot be for tashbeeh) there will be no comparision (between the mentioned).Then will you tolerate/accept this? I think you will not tolerate/accept this and will start screaming (Maulana) Sardar Ahmad has verbally abused us. And has equalled our knowledge to dog’s and donkey’s. So when Hifz ul-Iman contains this (aisa/like-this) word also then why do you distort/turn (i.e. taweel) obvious/apparent (meaning to another)? Why don’t you just admit Maulvi Thanvi was guilty of Kufr? Does Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) not even have dignity/respect as much as you? Or as much as your Thanvi Sahib? [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages73, similar in page 61, both here.] Note Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) used aisa on its on to tactfully insult Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Naumani to acknowledge aisa without jaisa is for tashbeeh. Feeling the sting of Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad’s (rahimullah) rebuke Shaykh Naumani couldn’t keep his deception going for too long and said: “(Shaykh Manzoor Ahmad Naumani says:) The example you have employed with regards to myself; in that word aisa is without doubt employed for comparision. And there is no uniqueness/speciality of myself or Maulana Thanvi. But if one learns from you (i.e. from examples) and if an ill-mannered and uncultured (person) says with regards to Maulvi Ahmad Raza Khan Sahib; his knowledge was like (i.e. aisa) a pig, (or) like (i.e. aisa) a donkey, then without doubt individual would have very rudely insulted Khan Sahib because according to common usage in such context aisa (i.e. like) is used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages77, here.] For the remainder of debate Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) enquired from Shaykh Naumani why were his words directed toward Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Naumani insult and not Shaykh Thanvi’s word insult toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? - [4] The compiler and I assume that is Shaykh Rafaqat Hussain said:“It should be clear that word itna like aisa is sometimes also used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). And sometimes without tashbeeh only in meaning of quantity. For example it is said: Zayd is itna (i.e. so much) rich jitna (i.e. as much as) Umru. In this example itna is for comparision. And it is said: Zaid itna (i.e. this-much) rich of which there is no limit. Here word itna is not for tashbeeh but for quantity.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages68, note by compiler, here.] Shaykh Naumani said aisa with jaisa is surely for tashbeeh because there is no jaisa there is no tashbeeh. And aisa is in meaning of itna. Note in the first example Shaykh Rafaqat Hussain used similar strategy which Shaykh Naumani used. His example is itna with jitna with which he is indicating tashbeeh without jitna cannot exist. Fact is Shaykh Naumani conceeded that there can be tashbeeh without jaisa and footnote 3 of this article is proof of it therefore please refer to it for complete detail. And if you remember then please read the following: “(Shaykh Manzoor Ahmad Naumani says:) The example you have employed with regards to myself; in that word aisa is without doubt employed for comparision. And there is no uniqueness/speciality of myself or Maulana Thanvi. But if one learns from you (i.e. from examples) and if an ill-mannered and uncultured (person) says with regards to Maulvi Ahmad Raza Khan Sahib; his knowledge was like (i.e. aisa) a pig, (or) like (i.e. aisa) a donkey, then without doubt individual would have very rudely insulted Khan Sahib because according to common usage in such context aisa (i.e. like) is used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages77, here.] Should I too do itna without jitna and demonstrate itna can be for tashbeeh? It can be said: ‘Shaykh Madani was itna abusive that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani felt like he is an innocent angel in company of Shaykh Madani.’ Implication here is that Mirza al-Kazzab al-Dajjal was abusive but Shaykh Madani was sooOOooO abusive comparision to Mirza; al-Kazzab, al-Dajjal, that Mirza felt he is blameless. Shaykh Rafaqat used two examples lets analyze their reality. Zayd is itna rich jitna Umru. Shaykh Rafaqat agrees it was for tashbeeh. Agar kaha jahay: Zayd bhot maldar heh aur itna hi Umru maldar heh. If it is said: Zayd is very rich and ina (i.e. as-much-as) rich is Umru. Can Shaykh Rafaqat or the clan of defenders of Kufr deny this tashbeeh? Even if the Shayateen disbelieve in tashbeeh the principle makes it clear when merit/quality is being established/negated between two parties in a sentence then tashbeeh is fundamentally part of statement be it implied or explicit. Alhasil; Shaykh Rafaqat can play all games he likes the fundamental rule will not allow him or his ilk evade the evident truth.
  13. Ainda walay link par bhot si kutub hen Shia kay radd mein; https://www.scribd.com/lists/2892687/Shia
  14. Introduction: Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi wrote letter to Shaykh Thanvi citing Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat’s Hussam al-Haramayn. Shaykh Darbhangi informs Shaykh Thanvi that Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat has attributed to Shaykh Thanvi following statement; Ghayb knowledge like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is possessed by infant, madman, every animal, and every quadruped. Then he proceeded to ask four questions regarding Hifz ul-Iman’s controversial statement. The response to these four questions was published as Bast al-Banan. Shaykh Thanvi’s Extended Version Of Hifz Ul-Iman’s Statement: Following is near pretty literal translation of Hifz ul-Iman: “If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz (i.e. some) from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb. Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) … [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] … then why (knowledge of) Ghayb is counted above all merits of Prophet-hood. A matter (of Ilm al-Ghayb) in which a Momin in fact a human is not even unique then how can that be considered from merits of Prophet-hood! And if it (Ilm al-Ghayb) is not deemed fundamental (for prophet-hood) then it is important to point out what distinguishes Prophet and non-Prophet.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page16 , here] Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat On Shaykh Thanvi In His Hussam al-Haramayn: Shaykh Naumani in his Faisla Kun Munazra verbatim quoted the following: “From them is a fanatical supporters of Gangohi called Ashraf Ali Thanvi. He has written small pamphlet; not even of four pages long. In which he explicitly stated knowledge of Ghayb like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) like it is possessed by every infant, every lunatic, in fact every animal and every quadruped. And followin is (Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi) the cursed’s statement: ‘If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz from Ghayb or qull Ghayb; if baaz from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but every infant, lunatic, all animal and quadrupeds. And if all knowledge of Ghayb is intended, from which none of detail (of Ilm al-Ghayb) is excluded, then falsehood of this (belief) is proven from textual and logical evidences.’[1] I say look at the effect of Allah’s seal (placed on his heart) how he establishes equality between RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and between creation.”[2] [Ref: Faisla Kun Munazra, Pages, 149, 150, 151, here.] Following continues from where Shaykh Naumani left but it is being quoted from Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat’s (alayhi rahmat ar-Rahman) Hussam al-Haramayn: “And how the boastful ignormous could not understand that Zayd and Umru and names of others he mentioned; if they know a matter of Ghayb even then it would gained through speculation. And definitive (knowledge of) matters of Ghayb is purely for Prophets (alayhis salam). And definitive knowledge of Ghayb if it is known by non-Prophets then it is through Prophets informing them and not through anyone else. And have you not seen how your Lord has stated: ‘Allah reveal to you the unseen. But Allah chooses of His messengers whom He wills, so believe in Allah and His messengers.’ [Ref: 3:179] ‘The knower of the unseen (i.e. Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala) does not disclose His Ghayb to anyone, Except whom He has approved of messengers, and indeed, …’ [Ref: 72:26/27] See how this man left the Quran and lost his faith. And ended up enquiring what is difference between Prophet and animals (in regards to Ghayb). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) sets seal on heart of every deceptively arrogant (person) like this.” [Ref: Hussam Al Haramayn Ala Munharil Kufr Wal Mayn, Pages 87/88, here.] Bast Al Banan The Deception Of Shaytan: Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi introduces why the need for questions arose: “Honorable Mawlvi Ahmad Raza Khan (Barelwi) has stated and has attributed to you in Hussam al-Haramayn that in Hifz ul-Iman you explicitly stated that Ghayb knowledge like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is also possessed every infant and madman, in fact by every animal, and every quadruped (i.e. four legged animal). Therefore following matters are need of clarification: …” He then proceeds to pose four questions about what was attributed to Shaykh Thanvi by Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala): “(i) Have you explicitly stated in Hifz ul-Iman or any other book of yours anything as such? (ii) If there is no clear (statement) then can this be inherent (part of) your statement (which through deductions) can be implied? (iii) Or did you intend such a topic/meaning? (iv) If you have not explicitly stated such topic/meaning, nor indicated (meaning) is derivitive of your statement, nor your intention, then such a person who believes (as ascribed to you), or explicitly or implicitly says (this); do you believe is Muslims or Kafir?” And following is response of Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi: (i) In response to your letter I say this; I have not written this khabees (i.e. impure) subject/meaning in any of my books. And far be me writing it; danger of it didn’t even cross my heart. (ii) This subject/meaning is not inherent-effect of any of my statement therefore at the end I would like to say: (iii) When I deem such topic/meaning filthy and my heart has felt no danger of what has been stated above then how can it be my intended meaning? (iv) Any person believes as such, or without believing it explicitly or implicitly utters this, I deem such a person to be out of Islam (because) this person belies definitive evidences and insults/detracts (the merits of one who is) pride of tribe Adam (i.e. Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam). This is the answer to your questions. Now at the end …” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman -with- Bast al-Banan, Pages; 20/21/22, here.] 1st Question Of Shaykh Darbhangi And 1st Answer Of Shaykh Thanvi: Shaykh Darbhangi introduced the allegation of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) in the following words: “… that in Hifz ul-Iman you explicitly stated that Ghayb knowledge like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is also possessed every infant and madman, in fact by every animal, and every quadruped (i.e. four legged animal).” Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to Shaykh Thanvi in his own words the following words: “In which he explicitly stated knowledge of Ghayb like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) like it is possessed by every infant, every lunatic, in fact every animal and every quadruped.” And in what he quoted of Hifz ul-Iman: “… if baaz (i.e. some) from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but every infant, lunatic, a animals and quadrupeds …” In context of what Shaykh Darbhangi attributed to Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) and what Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to Shaykh Thanvi Shaykh Darbhangi enquired: “Have you explicitly stated in Hifz ul-Iman or any other book of yours anything as such?” Shamelessly Shaykh Thanvi tells a lie and states: “In response to your letter I say this; I have not written this khabees (i.e. impure) subject/meaning in any of my books. And far be me writing it; danger of it didn’t even cross my heart.” Ala Hadhrat quoted Shaykh Thanvi’s controversial statement and meaning of it is; there is nothing special about baaz knowledge of Ghayb of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because baaz knowledge like of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is possessed by regulars Joe’s, every; infant, lunatic, and all; animals and quadrupeds. And this statement precisely is what Shaykh Thanvi EXPLICITLY wrote in his Hifz ul-Iman: “… if baaz (i.e. some) from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but every infant, lunatic, a animals and quadrupeds …” Taghyeer ul-Unwan Exposes Lies Told In Bast al-Banan: Shaykh Thanvi wrote Taghyeer ul-Unwan. In which a un-named supporter of Shaykh Thanvi suggests to Shaykh that he should alter the statement of Hifz ul-Iman. He believes statement of Hifz ul-Iman is insulting and based this fact the un-named Mawlvi’s omitted portion of letter likely read: Hifz ul-Iman’s controversial statement is: “Such a statement in which knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being compared with knowledge of animals and quadruped; which is extremely disrespectful at first glance. Why not just retract from such a statement due to which sincere supporters of honorable (Shaykh Thanvi); rightly so find it extremely difficult to answer/respond (to criticism levelled against Shaykh). And that statement is not from heaven/sky nor it is revelation; whose apparent wording and (contextual) reason of statement with exact words should remain” [Ref: Hifz, Bast, And Taghyeer ul-Unwan, Page119, here.] Shaykh Thanvi in respose to un-named adviser and questioner writes: “It is very good advice. May Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) reward you. Prior to this no one pointed out the reason (why the statement of Hifz ul-Iman should be changed) therefore (I held to belief that) altering of statement would make it against the intended meaning (of Hifz ul-iman and this would) evidence of confession (of Kufr). And confession of Kufr is Kufr therefore didn’t only think alteration of necessary but didn’t even consider it legitimate. Now in this question the reason stated is realistic enough (i.e.أمرواقعي). Therefore accepting your advice I am altering the …” [Ref: Hifz, Bast, And Taghyeer ul-Unwan, Page122, here.] Shaykh Thanvi confesses to fact that statement of Hifz ul-Iman is; if seen has it is written then it is insulting and Deobandis are struggling to defend him. And he stated it is amr wa’qi’i what the questioner stated. In other words he agrees with what the questioner stated; statement is apparently insulting for those lack depth of understanding, the meaning objected are genuine possibility, and his followers struggle in defending his statement. 1st Question And 1st Answer And Great Lie Of Shaykh Thanvi: It can be accepted that did not intend and it the insulting meaning was not even realized by Shaykh Thanvi but to say he remained ignorant of it from date of publishing Hifz ul-Iman to publishing Bast al-Banan is impossible. Hifz ul-Iman was written in 1319 Hijri and year after Sayyidi Ala Hadrat (rahimullah) wrote Al Mo’tamad al-Mustanad (1320 Hijri) in which he pointed out insult/Kufr of Shaykh Thanvi’s statement. Then in 1324 Hijri Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) wrote Hussam al-Haramayn in which he refuted statement of Shaykh Thanvi and declared him Kafir. Then in 1329 Hijri Shaykh Thanvi wrote Bast al-Banan and that is exactly ten years after Hifz ul-Iman. And the controversy which Hifz ul-Iman caused; the protests, Hifz ul-Iman burnings events and for Shaykh to say; I never wrote anything as such is bit stupid and great lie. No sane person would believe that Shaykh remained ignorant of what he wrote for ten years during which mobs were protesting and after his blood. 2nd Question Of Shaykh Darbhangi And 2nd Answer Of Shaykh Thanvi: Shaykh Darbhangi enquires from Shaykh Thanvi: “If there is no clear (statement) then can this be inherent (part of) your statement (which through deductions) can be implied?” Shaykh Thanvi once again shamelessly lies and states: “This subject/meaning is not inherent-effect of any of my statement therefore at the end I would like to say: …” In the following portion Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi states: “A matter (of Ilm al-Ghayb) in which a Momin (i.e. righteous Muslim); in fact a human is not even unique then how can that be considered from merits of Prophet-hood. And if it (Ilm al-Ghayb) is not deemed fundamental (for prophet-hood) then it is important to point out what distinguishes Prophet and non-Prophet.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page16, here] Here Shaykh Thanvi has indirectly/implicitly has stated what he stated earlier and what he was accused of by Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah). Not forgetting he explicitly/directly stated what he was accused of. And once again I quote his own words: ); “… if baaz (i.e. some) from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds;…” 2nd Question, 2nd Answer: Kufri/Insulting Meaning Can Be Implied: Now getting to the meat of matter: Shaykh Manzoor Naumani, Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi, and Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani are on the record for presenting Taweel (i.e. alternative interpretation) of this statement of Shaykh Thanvi. Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi are of view statement is in sense of quantity and aisa (i.e. like this) has been used in meaning of itna/is-qadr (i.e. this much) and not in comparative sense. And they believe if it was in comparative sense then statement of Shaykh Thanvi would be insulting/Kufr. Shaykh Madani on other hand is of opinion; Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is to be understood in comparative sense because aisa (i.e. like this) has been used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). And if it was used in sense of quantity; in meaning of itna then it would be insulting/Kufr. Moving on while ignoring the apparent contradiction between the two parties; point to note is that there is inherent implicit Kufr/insult in statement of Shaykh Thanvi. This explains why Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi and Shaykh Madani have said it aisa is used in this sense and in this meaning and not in this. And if it was in this meaning then it would have been objectionable (due to being insulting and Kufr). Due to which these Shuyukh resorted to stating in which sense the statement is to be understood, and in which sense it isn’t supposed to be understood, and how the word aisa was used, and how it was not used. So there is at the very least a very real chance of statement being Kufr/insulting and this was known to followers of Shaykh Thanvi and this is why they resorted to interpretation of controversial statement to turn it away from insult/kufr. In conclusion it needs to be said: there is inherent implied Kufr/insult in statement of Shaykh Thanvi. Shaykh Darbhangi’s 3rd Question And Shaykh Thanvi’s 3rd Answer: Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) attributed following to Shaykh Thanvi: “In which he explicitly stated knowledge of Ghayb like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) like it is possessed by every infant, every lunatic, in fact every animal and every quadruped. And followin is (Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi) the cursed’s statement: ‘If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz from Ghayb or qull Ghayb; if baaz from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but every infant, lunatic, all animal and quadrupeds. And if all knowledge of Ghayb is intended, from which none of detail (of Ilm al-Ghayb) is excluded, then falsehood of this (belief) is proven from textual and logical evidences.’” Shaykh Darbhangi enquired regarding what Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to Shaykh Thanvi: “Or did you intend such a topic/meaning?” And Shaykh Thanvi responds to it by saying: “When I deem such topic/meaning filthy and my heart has felt no danger of what has been stated above then how can it be my intended meaning?” Shaykh Thanvi deemed what Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to him as filthy (i.e. khabees) and he said he could not even comprehend it let alone intend such filth. But the grand master of deception and lies precisely wrote what he deems khabees mazmoon (i.e. filthy subject/meaning): “… if baaz (i.e. some) from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds;…” Shaykh Darbhangi’s 4th Question And Shaykh Thanvi’s Last Answer: For the final time I quote what Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat attributed to Shaykh Thanvi: “In which he explicitly stated knowledge of Ghayb like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) like it is possessed by every infant, every lunatic, in fact every animal and every quadruped. And followin is (Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi) the cursed’s statement: ‘If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz from Ghayb or qull Ghayb; if baaz from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but every infant, lunatic, all animal and quadrupeds. And if all knowledge of Ghayb is intended, from which none of detail (of Ilm al-Ghayb) is excluded, then falsehood of this (belief) is proven from textual and logical evidences.’” And for the final time I quote what Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz (i.e. some) from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb. Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) … [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Please study both parts and see if there are differences in summary of what Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to Shaykh Thanvi and what Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) quoted of Shaykh Thanvi’s Hifz ul-Iman. Now coming to what Shaykh Darbhangi enquired from Shaykh Thanvi in quite detail: “If you have not explicitly stated such topic/meaning, nor indicated (meaning) is derivitive of your statement, nor your intention, then such a person who believes (as ascribed to you), or explicitly or implicitly says (this); do you believe is Muslims or Kafir?” Shaykh Thanvi answered the question in detail saying: “Any person believes as such, or without believing it, explicitly or implicitly utters this, I deem such a person to be out of Islam (because) this person belies definitive evidences and insults/detracts (from the merits of) pride of children of Adam (i.e. Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam). This is the answer to your questions.” In light of what was attributed by Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) to Shaykh Thanvi, and what he wrote in Hifz ul-Iman, and his own Fatwah of Kufr: We Muslims would be justified to say; Shaykh Thanvi declared himself Kafir. Conclusion: Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to Shaykh Thanvi belief that there is nothing special about prophetic knowledge of Ghayb because knowledge of like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is also known to every day Joe’s, every infant, lunatic and all animals and quadrupeds. And this is precisely what Shaykh Thanvi wrote in his Hifz ul-Iman. And Shaykh Thanvi deceptively denied ever writing anything like it and declared it Kufr but Hifz ul-Iman is testimony to it and proof of his own Kufr in light of his own edict. Further proof of Shaykh Thanvi’s Hifz ul-Iman being insulting and disrespecting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), therefore Kufr, is the statement of supporter of Shaykh Thanvi, which he himself quoted in Taghyeer ul-Unwan. And Shaykh Thanvi agreed with conclusions of his supporter. Therefore the Muslims were/are justified in declaring Shaykh Thanvi of being Kafir and charging those who defend his statement of Kufr. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi. Footnotes: - [1] Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) only quoted the under lined part of Shaykh Thanvi’s statement: “If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but infants, lunatics, every animal and quadrupeds because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) … [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] … then why (knowledge of) Ghayb is counted above all merits of Prophet-hood. A matter (of Ilm al-Ghayb) in which a Momin in fact a human is not even unique then how can that be considered from merits of Prophet-hood. And if it (Ilm al-Ghayb) is not deemed fundamental (for prophet-hood) then it is important to point out what distinguishes Prophet and non-Prophet. And if all knowledge of Ghayb is intended, from which none of detail (of Ilm al-Ghayb) is excluded, then falsehood of this (belief) is proven from textual and logical evidences.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page16, here] Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) left the material in between because Shaykh Thanvi explicitly stated baaz prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is not special. The material which Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) left out Shaykh Thanvi presented arguments to establish the baaz Ghayb is doesn’t establish speciality of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb. He merely quoted his belief and not reasoning for his belief because objective was to inform readers of Shaykh Thanvi’s belief. - [2] Please note Shaykh Naumani translated Arabic words of Hussam ul-Haramayn in his Faisla Kun Munazra (i.e. the decisive debate) and his translation of Arabic Hussam al-Haramayn is word for word copy of Shaykh Thanvi’s Urdu found in Hifz ul-Iman, here. Indicating Shaykh Naumani did not find any difference between Arabic of Hussam al-Haramayn and Urdu of Hifz ul-Iman. And following his footsteps I have inserted relevent portions of my English translation of Hifz ul-Iman into English translation of Hussam al-Haramayn.
  15. Introduction: Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi wrote letter to Shaykh Thanvi citing Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat’s Hussam al-Haramayn. Shaykh Darbhangi informs Shaykh Thanvi that Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat has attributed to Shaykh Thanvi following statement; Ghayb knowledge like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is possessed by infant, madman, every animal, and every quadruped. Then he proceeded to ask four questions regarding Hifz ul-Iman’s controversial statement. The response to these four questions was published as Bast al-Banan. Shaykh Thanvi’s Extended Version Of Hifz Ul-Iman’s Statement: Following is near pretty literal translation of Hifz ul-Iman: “If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz (i.e. some) from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb. Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) … [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] … then why (knowledge of) Ghayb is counted above all merits of Prophet-hood. A matter (of Ilm al-Ghayb) in which a Momin in fact a human is not even unique then how can that be considered from merits of Prophet-hood! And if it (Ilm al-Ghayb) is not deemed fundamental (for prophet-hood) then it is important to point out what distinguishes Prophet and non-Prophet.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page16 , here] Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat On Shaykh Thanvi In His Hussam al-Haramayn: Shaykh Naumani in his Faisla Kun Munazra verbatim quoted the following: “From them is a fanatical supporters of Gangohi called Ashraf Ali Thanvi. He has written small pamphlet; not even of four pages long. In which he explicitly stated knowledge of Ghayb like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) like it is possessed by every infant, every lunatic, in fact every animal and every quadruped. And followin is (Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi) the cursed’s statement: ‘If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz from Ghayb or qull Ghayb; if baaz from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but every infant, lunatic, all animal and quadrupeds. And if all knowledge of Ghayb is intended, from which none of detail (of Ilm al-Ghayb) is excluded, then falsehood of this (belief) is proven from textual and logical evidences.’[1] I say look at the effect of Allah’s seal (placed on his heart) how he establishes equality between RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and between creation.”[2] [Ref: Faisla Kun Munazra, Pages, 149, 150, 151, here. .] Following continues from where Shaykh Naumani left but it is being quoted from Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat’s (alayhi rahmat ar-Rahman) Hussam al-Haramayn: “And how the boastful ignormous could not understand that Zayd and Umru and names of others he mentioned; if they know a matter of Ghayb even then it would gained through speculation. And definitive (knowledge of) matters of Ghayb is purely for Prophets (alayhis salam). And definitive knowledge of Ghayb if it is known by non-Prophets then it is through Prophets informing them and not through anyone else. And have you not seen how your Lord has stated: ‘Allah reveal to you the unseen. But Allah chooses of His messengers whom He wills, so believe in Allah and His messengers.’ [Ref: 3:179] ‘The knower of the unseen (i.e. Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala) does not disclose His Ghayb to anyone, Except whom He has approved of messengers, and indeed, …’ [Ref: 72:26/27] See how this man left the Quran and lost his faith. And ended up enquiring what is difference between Prophet and animals (in regards to Ghayb). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) sets seal on heart of every deceptively arrogant (person) like this.” [Ref: Hussam Al Haramayn Ala Munharil Kufr Wal Mayn, Pages 87/88, here.] Bast Al Banan The Deception Of Shaytan: Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi introduces why the need for questions arose: “Honorable Mawlvi Ahmad Raza Khan (Barelwi) has stated and has attributed to you in Hussam al-Haramayn that in Hifz ul-Iman you explicitly stated that Ghayb knowledge like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is also possessed every infant and madman, in fact by every animal, and every quadruped (i.e. four legged animal). Therefore following matters are need of clarification: …” He then proceeds to pose four questions about what was attributed to Shaykh Thanvi by Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala): “(i) Have you explicitly stated in Hifz ul-Iman or any other book of yours anything as such? (ii) If there is no clear (statement) then can this be inherent (part of) your statement (which through deductions) can be implied? (iii) Or did you intend such a topic/meaning? (iv) If you have not explicitly stated such topic/meaning, nor indicated (meaning) is derivitive of your statement, nor your intention, then such a person who believes (as ascribed to you), or explicitly or implicitly says (this); do you believe is Muslims or Kafir?” And following is response of Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi: (i) In response to your letter I say this; I have not written this khabees (i.e. impure) subject/meaning in any of my books. And far be me writing it; danger of it didn’t even cross my heart. (ii) This subject/meaning is not inherent-effect of any of my statement therefore at the end I would like to say: (iii) When I deem such topic/meaning filthy and my heart has felt no danger of what has been stated above then how can it be my intended meaning? (iv) Any person believes as such, or without believing it explicitly or implicitly utters this, I deem such a person to be out of Islam (because) this person belies definitive evidences and insults/detracts (the merits of one who is) pride of tribe Adam (i.e. Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam). This is the answer to your questions. Now at the end …” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman -with- Bast al-Banan, Pages; 20/21/22, here.] 1st Question Of Shaykh Darbhangi And 1st Answer Of Shaykh Thanvi: Shaykh Darbhangi introduced the allegation of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) in the following words: “… that in Hifz ul-Iman you explicitly stated that Ghayb knowledge like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is also possessed every infant and madman, in fact by every animal, and every quadruped (i.e. four legged animal).” Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to Shaykh Thanvi in his own words the following words: “In which he explicitly stated knowledge of Ghayb like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) like it is possessed by every infant, every lunatic, in fact every animal and every quadruped.” And in what he quoted of Hifz ul-Iman: “… if baaz (i.e. some) from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but every infant, lunatic, a animals and quadrupeds …” In context of what Shaykh Darbhangi attributed to Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) and what Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to Shaykh Thanvi Shaykh Darbhangi enquired: “Have you explicitly stated in Hifz ul-Iman or any other book of yours anything as such?” Shamelessly Shaykh Thanvi tells a lie and states: “In response to your letter I say this; I have not written this khabees (i.e. impure) subject/meaning in any of my books. And far be me writing it; danger of it didn’t even cross my heart.” Ala Hadhrat quoted Shaykh Thanvi’s controversial statement and meaning of it is; there is nothing special about baaz knowledge of Ghayb of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because baaz knowledge like of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is possessed by regulars Joe’s, every; infant, lunatic, and all; animals and quadrupeds. And this statement precisely is what Shaykh Thanvi EXPLICITLY wrote in his Hifz ul-Iman: “… if baaz (i.e. some) from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but every infant, lunatic, a animals and quadrupeds …” Tagheer ul-Unwan Exposes Lies Told In Bast al-Banan: Shaykh Thanvi wrote Tagheer ul-Unwan. In which a un-named supporter of Shaykh Thanvi suggests to Shaykh that he should alter the statement of Hifz ul-Iman. He believes statement of Hifz ul-Iman is insulting and based this fact the un-named Mawlvi’s omitted portion of letter likely read: Hifz ul-Iman’s controversial statement is: “Such a statement in which knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being compared with knowledge of animals and quadruped; which is extremely disrespectful at first glance. Why not just retract from such a statement due to which sincere supporters of honorable (Shaykh Thanvi); rightly so find it extremely difficult to answer/respond (to criticism levelled against Shaykh). And that statement is not from heaven/sky nor it is revelation; whose apparent wording and (contextual) reason of statement with exact words should remain” [Ref: Hifz, Bast, And Tagheer ul-Unwan, Page119, here.] Shaykh Thanvi in respose to un-named adviser and questioner writes: “It is very good advice. May Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) reward you. Prior to this no one pointed out the reason (why the statement of Hifz ul-Iman should be changed) therefore (I held to belief that) altering of statement would make it against the intended meaning (of Hifz ul-iman and this would) evidence of confession (of Kufr). And confession of Kufr is Kufr therefore didn’t only think alteration of necessary but didn’t even consider it legitimate. Now in this question the reason stated is realistic enough (i.e.أمرواقعي). Therefore accepting your advice I am altering the …” [Ref: Hifz, Bast, And Tagheer ul-Unwan, Page122, here.] Shaykh Thanvi confesses to fact that statement of Hifz ul-Iman is; if seen has it is written then it is insulting and Deobandis are struggling to defend him. And he stated it is amr wa’qi’i what the questioner stated. In other words he agrees with what the questioner stated; statement is apparently insulting for those lack depth of understanding, the meaning objected are genuine possibility, and his followers struggle in defending his statement. 1st Question And 1st Answer And Great Lie Of Shaykh Thanvi: It can be accepted that did not intend and it the insulting meaning was not even realized by Shaykh Thanvi but to say he remained ignorant of it from date of publishing Hifz ul-Iman to publishing Bast al-Banan is impossible. Hifz ul-Iman was written in 1319 Hijri and year after Sayyidi Ala Hadrat (rahimullah) wrote Al Mo’tamad al-Mustanad (1320 Hijri) in which he pointed out insult/Kufr of Shaykh Thanvi’s statement. Then in 1324 Hijri Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) wrote Hussam al-Haramayn in which he refuted statement of Shaykh Thanvi and declared him Kafir. Then in 1329 Hijri Shaykh Thanvi wrote Bast al-Banan and that is exactly ten years after Hifz ul-Iman. And the controversy which Hifz ul-Iman caused; the protests, Hifz ul-Iman burnings events and for Shaykh to say; I never wrote anything as such is bit stupid and great lie. No sane person would believe that Shaykh remained ignorant of what he wrote for ten years during which mobs were protesting and after his blood. 2nd Question Of Shaykh Darbhangi And 2nd Answer Of Shaykh Thanvi: Shaykh Darbhangi enquires from Shaykh Thanvi: “If there is no clear (statement) then can this be inherent (part of) your statement (which through deductions) can be implied?” Shaykh Thanvi once again shamelessly lies and states: “This subject/meaning is not inherent-effect of any of my statement therefore at the end I would like to say: …” In the following portion Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi states: “A matter (of Ilm al-Ghayb) in which a Momin (i.e. righteous Muslim); in fact a human is not even unique then how can that be considered from merits of Prophet-hood. And if it (Ilm al-Ghayb) is not deemed fundamental (for prophet-hood) then it is important to point out what distinguishes Prophet and non-Prophet.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page16, here] Here Shaykh Thanvi has indirectly/implicitly has stated what he stated earlier and what he was accused of by Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah). Not forgetting he explicitly/directly stated what he was accused of. And once again I quote his own words: ); “… if baaz (i.e. some) from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds;…” 2nd Question, 2nd Answer: Kufri/Insulting Meaning Can Be Implied: Now getting to the meat of matter: Shaykh Manzoor Naumani, Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi, and Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani are on the record for presenting Taweel (i.e. alternative interpretation) of this statement of Shaykh Thanvi. Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi are of view statement is in sense of quantity and aisa (i.e. like this) has been used in meaning of itna/is-qadr (i.e. this much) and not in comparative sense. And they believe if it was in comparative sense then statement of Shaykh Thanvi would be insulting/Kufr. Shaykh Madani on other hand is of opinion; Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is to be understood in comparative sense because aisa (i.e. like this) has been used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). And if it was used in sense of quantity; in meaning of itna then it would be insulting/Kufr. Moving on while ignoring the apparent contradiction between the two parties; point to note is that there is inherent implicit Kufr/insult in statement of Shaykh Thanvi. This explains why Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi and Shaykh Madani have said it aisa is used in this sense and in this meaning and not in this. And if it was in this meaning then it would have been objectionable (due to being insulting and Kufr). Due to which these Shuyukh resorted to stating in which sense the statement is to be understood, and in which sense it isn’t supposed to be understood, and how the word aisa was used, and how it was not used. So there is at the very least a very real chance of statement being Kufr/insulting and this was known to followers of Shaykh Thanvi and this is why they resorted to interpretation of controversial statement to turn it away from insult/kufr. In conclusion it needs to be said: there is inherent implied Kufr/insult in statement of Shaykh Thanvi. Shaykh Darbhangi’s 3rd Question And Shaykh Thanvi’s 3rd Answer: Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) attributed following to Shaykh Thanvi: “In which he explicitly stated knowledge of Ghayb like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) like it is possessed by every infant, every lunatic, in fact every animal and every quadruped. And followin is (Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi) the cursed’s statement: ‘If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz from Ghayb or qull Ghayb; if baaz from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but every infant, lunatic, all animal and quadrupeds. And if all knowledge of Ghayb is intended, from which none of detail (of Ilm al-Ghayb) is excluded, then falsehood of this (belief) is proven from textual and logical evidences.’” Shaykh Darbhangi enquired regarding what Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to Shaykh Thanvi: “Or did you intend such a topic/meaning?” And Shaykh Thanvi responds to it by saying: “When I deem such topic/meaning filthy and my heart has felt no danger of what has been stated above then how can it be my intended meaning?” Shaykh Thanvi deemed what Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to him as filthy (i.e. khabees) and he said he could not even comprehend it let alone intend such filth. But the grand master of deception and lies precisely wrote what he deems khabees mazmoon (i.e. filthy subject/meaning): “… if baaz (i.e. some) from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds;…” Shaykh Darbhangi’s 4th Question And Shaykh Thanvi’s Last Answer: For the final time I quote what Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat attributed to Shaykh Thanvi: “In which he explicitly stated knowledge of Ghayb like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) like it is possessed by every infant, every lunatic, in fact every animal and every quadruped. And followin is (Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi) the cursed’s statement: ‘If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz from Ghayb or qull Ghayb; if baaz from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but every infant, lunatic, all animal and quadrupeds. And if all knowledge of Ghayb is intended, from which none of detail (of Ilm al-Ghayb) is excluded, then falsehood of this (belief) is proven from textual and logical evidences.’” And for the final time I quote what Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz (i.e. some) from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb. Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) … [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Please study both parts and see if there are differences in summary of what Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to Shaykh Thanvi and what Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) quoted of Shaykh Thanvi’s Hifz ul-Iman. Now coming to what Shaykh Darbhangi enquired from Shaykh Thanvi in quite detail: “If you have not explicitly stated such topic/meaning, nor indicated (meaning) is derivitive of your statement, nor your intention, then such a person who believes (as ascribed to you), or explicitly or implicitly says (this); do you believe is Muslims or Kafir?” Shaykh Thanvi answered the question in detail saying: “Any person believes as such, or without believing it, explicitly or implicitly utters this, I deem such a person to be out of Islam (because) this person belies definitive evidences and insults/detracts (from the merits of) pride of children of Adam (i.e. Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam). This is the answer to your questions.” In light of what was attributed by Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) to Shaykh Thanvi, and what he wrote in Hifz ul-Iman, and his own Fatwah of Kufr: We Muslims would be justified to say; Shaykh Thanvi declared himself Kafir. Conclusion: Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to Shaykh Thanvi belief that there is nothing special about prophetic knowledge of Ghayb because knowledge of like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is also known to every day Joe’s, every infant, lunatic and all animals and quadrupeds. And this is precisely what Shaykh Thanvi wrote in his Hifz ul-Iman. And Shaykh Thanvi deceptively denied ever writing anything like it and declared it Kufr but Hifz ul-Iman is testimony to it and proof of his own Kufr in light of his own edict. Further proof of Shaykh Thanvi’s Hifz ul-Iman being insulting and disrespecting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), therefore Kufr, is the statement of supporter of Shaykh Thanvi, which he himself quoted in Tagheer ul-Unwan. And Shaykh Thanvi agreed with conclusions of his supporter. Therefore the Muslims were/are justified in declaring Shaykh Thanvi of being Kafir and charging those who defend his statement of Kufr. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi. Footnotes: - [1] Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) only quoted the under lined part of Shaykh Thanvi’s statement: “If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but infants, lunatics, every animal and quadrupeds because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) … [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] … then why (knowledge of) Ghayb is counted above all merits of Prophet-hood. A matter (of Ilm al-Ghayb) in which a Momin in fact a human is not even unique then how can that be considered from merits of Prophet-hood. And if it (Ilm al-Ghayb) is not deemed fundamental (for prophet-hood) then it is important to point out what distinguishes Prophet and non-Prophet. And if all knowledge of Ghayb is intended, from which none of detail (of Ilm al-Ghayb) is excluded, then falsehood of this (belief) is proven from textual and logical evidences.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page16, here] Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) left the material in between because Shaykh Thanvi explicitly stated baaz prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is not special. The material which Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) left out Shaykh Thanvi presented arguments to establish the baaz Ghayb is doesn’t establish speciality of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb. He merely quoted his belief and not reasoning for his belief because objective was to inform readers of Shaykh Thanvi’s belief. - [2] Please note Shaykh Naumani translated Arabic words of Hussam ul-Haramayn in his Faisla Kun Munazra (i.e. the decisive debate) and his translation of Arabic Hussam al-Haramayn is word for word copy of Shaykh Thanvi’s Urdu found in Hifz ul-Iman, here. Indicating Shaykh Naumani did not find any difference between Arabic of Hussam al-Haramayn and Urdu of Hifz ul-Iman. And following his footsteps I have inserted relevent portions of my English translation of Hifz ul-Iman into English translation of Hussam al-Haramayn.