MuhammedAli

Updated. Islamic, Wahhabi, Shia, And Deobandi Perspective Regarding A Muslim Who Insults Prophet Of Allah. Introduction: Muslims hold to position that to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is act of Kufr 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] Hence 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 after fulfilling all legal obligations. 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.

Updated. Implications Of Shaykh Thanvi’s Baaz And Ba-wasta Categorisation On Statement Of Hifz ul-Iman. Introduction: Questioner enquired from Shaykh Thanvi about one who believes RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Aalim ul-Ghayb (i.e. knower of Ghayb) and believes knowledge of Ghayb of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is ba-wasta (i.e. through means). While responding to the questioner Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi a founding father of Deobandism made a very distasteful and disrespectful statement about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his Ghayb knowledge. In order to negate the uniqueness of Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) he compared the knowledge of Ghayb of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with knowledge of Ghayb of; infants, lunatics, animals, quadrupeds, Zaid and Amr. Effort will be made to make clear the sort of Ghuyub inclusive of ba-wasta/baaz and how they effect the meaning of his already offensive statement. Relevent Statements Of Hifz ul-Iman: “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 around the graves (of Awliyah-Allah) is permissible. Evidence of permissibility … Amr also stated Knowledge of Ghayb is bil-Zaat , in this meaning only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Aalim ul-Ghayb. And ba-wasta (i.e. bil-Ardh, 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] “Shar’ri application of Mutliq Ghayb (i.e. boundless Ghayb) is upon Ghayb which cannot be established by evidence and for which there is no mean or way of comprehension. On this [stated] foundation it has been stated (in Quran): "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 (i.e. ba-wasta) on this (type of knowledge) application of (word) Ghayb is need of qarina (i.e. evidential support).” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page14, here] “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); 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.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Termonologies Employed And How They Are In Agreement: Bil-Zaat (بالذات, i.e. of Self) is opposite of Bil-A’rdh (بالعرض, i.e. through means). Bil-Zaat is for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Bil-A’rdh is for creation. Bila-Wasta (بلاوسطہ , i.e. without means) is opposite of Ba-wasta (بواسطہ , i.e. with means). Bila-Wasta is for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Ba-wasta is for creation. Mutliq (مطلق , i.e. boundless/limitless) is opposite of Muqayyid (مقيد , i.e. restricted). Mutliq is for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Muqayyid is for His creation. Baaz (بعض, i.e. partial, some) is opposite of Qull (کل, i.e. all, every). Termonologies Used For Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) And His Creation: The terminologies of; bil-Zaat, bila-Wasta, Qull and Mutliq are for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and following are used for creation including RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); bil-Ardh, bil-Wasta, Baaz, and Muqayyid. Scholarly Practice One From Set Is Entire Set In Context Of Tawheed: By employing one or another scholars tend to indicate entire set. So even though Shaykh Thanvi and questioner used different terminologies both are actually referring to same Ghayb. Precision Nazi’s should note questioner mentioned, بواسطہ, and, بالذات. Shaykh used, بواسطہ, and, مطلق. And in the problematic statement he used, بعض. Questioner and Shaykh used Ba-wasta and Shaykh in problematic statement used Baaz for knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In light of this both Baaz and Ba-wasta will be inserted into context. The word difference of Ba-wasta and Baaz means has no real significance because both referr to same knowledge of Ghayb and it will be established ahead. Detail Of Ba-wasta Type Of Ghayb: Ba-wasta means, through means, via means, and such knowledge of Ghayb can be gained through supernatural sight and hearing, and be informed by another. In detail of ba-wasta it is important to point out that there are three main types of ba-wasta type of Ghuyub: i) Akhbar e Ghayb (i.e. news of Ghayb), ii) Mushayda e Ghayb (i.e. seeing of Ghayb), iii) Sama’at e Ghayb (i.e. hearing of Ghayb). Note all knowledge of Ghayb is ba-Atah (i.e. with granting) of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) including ba-wasta (i.e. with means) because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) grants through means of His choosing. In the next section each type of Ghayb will be briefly explained with its evidences. News Of Ghayb: There are verses of Quran which clearly and emphatically state Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) received news of Ghayb: “That is from the news of the Ghayb which We reveal to you. And you were not with them when they cast their pens as to which of them should be responsible for Mary. Nor were you with them when they disputed.” [Ref: 3:44] “That is from the news of the Ghayb which We reveal to you, you knew it not, neither you nor your people, before this. So be patient; indeed, the (best) outcome is for the righteous.” [Ref: 11:49] “That is from the news of the Ghayb which We reveal to you. And you were not with them when they put together their plan while they conspired.” [Ref: 12:102] Yet the foremost evidence for this type of Ghayb is Quran because entire Quran is news/report from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “Say, "I do not know if what you are promised is near or if my Lord will grant for it a (long) period." (25) (He is) Knower of the Ghayb (i.e. hidden), and He does not disclose His (knowledge of the) Ghayb to anyone.(26) Except whom He has approved as Messengers, and indeed, He sends before each Messenger and behind him observers.(27) That he may know that they have conveyed the messages of their Lord; and He has encompassed whatever is with them and has enumerated all things in number.”(28) [Ref:72:25/27] There are two interpretationf of these verses.[1] If verse 26 is understood in context of verse 26, 27, and 28, then Ghayb is Quran. And interpretation is: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) the knower of Ghayb (i.e. Aalim ul-Ghayb) grants knowledge of Ghayb to Messengers and accompanies them with angels so Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knows that the Prophets convey the Message of Ghayb,Wahi/revelation, Quran in context of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Also another verse which reffers to revelation/Wahi, which eventually resulted in Quran, hence establishing Quran is part of Ghuyub known to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “Nor would Allah reveal to you the unseen. But (instead), Allah chooses of His messengers whom He wills, so believe in Allah and His messengers. And if you believe and fear Him, then for you is a great reward.” [Ref: 3:179] Also Ahadith record Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) foretold everything to take place till the day of judgment: “Narrated Umar: One day the Prophet stood up amongst us for a long period and informed us about the beginning of creation (and talked about everything in detail) till he mentioned how the people of Paradise will enter their places and the people of Hell will enter their places. Some remembered what he had said, and some forgot it.” [Ref: Bukhari, B54, H414] “Narrated Hudhaifa: The Prophet once delivered a speech in front of us wherein he left nothing but mentioned (about) everything that would happen till the Hour. Some of us stored that our minds and some forgot it. (After that speech) I used to see events taking place (which had been referred to in that speech) but I had forgotten them (before their occurrence). Then I would recognize such events as a man recognizes another man who has been absent and then sees and recognizes him.” [Ref: Bukhari, B77, H601] This is one of the miracles of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). These two Ahadith establish the amount of knowledge of Ghayb RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) possessed. Seeing Of Ghayb: While Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was leading companions in prayers he saw paradise and the grapes in it and saw hell and Amr bin Luhai in it: “These (lunar and solar eclipses) are two of the signs of Allah and if you see them, pray till the eclipse is over. No doubt, while standing at this place I saw everything promised to me by Allah and I saw (Paradise) and I wanted to pluck a bunch (of grapes) therefrom, at the time when you saw me stepping forward. No doubt, I saw Hell with its different parts destroying each other when you saw me retreating and in it I saw `Amr bin Luhai who started the tradition of freeing animals (set them free) in the name of idols." [Ref: Bukhari, B22, H303] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) saw behind him as he saw with his eyes and sincerity of peoples hearts was not concealed from him as the following Ahadith establish: "It was narrated from Anas that the Prophet used to say: "Make your rows straight, make your rows straight, make your rows straight. By the One in Whose Hand is my soul! I can see you behind me as I can see you in front of me." [Ref: Nisai, B10, H814] "It was narrated from Anas that: The Messenger of Allah said: 'Bow and prostrate properly, for by Allah I can see you from behind my back when you bow and prostrate.'" [Ref: Nisai, B12, H1118] "Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu'z Zinad from al-Araj from Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of Allah ( may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "Do you see the direction I am facing here? By Allah, neither your concentration nor your ruku is hidden from me. I can see you behind my back." [Ref: Muwatta.I.Malik, B9, H73] Other Ahadith establish that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was shown good/bad deeds of his entire Ummah during his life time and he will be shown the good/bad deeds of his Ummah after his deparths from earthly life: “It was narrated from Abu Dharr that the Prophet said: "My nation was shown to me with their good deeds and bad deeds. Among their good deeds I saw a harmful thing being removed from the road. And among their bad deeds I saw sputum in the mosque that had not been removed." [Ref: Ibn Majah, B33, H3683] “Narrated Sulayman bin Harb, Hammad bin Zaid, Ghalib al Qattan, Bakr bin Abdullah al-Muzani: RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: My life is good for you [because] Hadith are narrated for you and you narrate them. When I die then in my death there is good for you [because] your actions are presented to me. If I see goodness I will praise Allah and if I see otherwise I will seek forgive for you from Allah.” [Ref: Khasa’is Ul Kubra, Imam Suyuti, pages 391/392.] He also saw everything to take place on earth till day of judgment established from following Hadith: "Narrated Hakim Bin Nafi, Saeed Bin Sinan, narrated Abu Zahriyat, Kathir Bin Murra Abu Shajara al-Hadhrami, Ibn Umar said: Abdullah bin Umar (radi Allahu anhuma) that Sayyiduna Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) said: "Indeed this entire world is in front of me so that I can observe everything in it. I can see everything in this world and everything that will take place till the Day of Qiyamah. I see the entire world as I see the palm of my hand". [Ref: Kitab al-Fitan, 1st Chapter, Hadith No. 2, by Hafidh Naeem Bin Hammad al-Marwazi] Hearing Of Ghayb It is recorded in Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) heard the screams of people being tortured in the graves: “Narrated Ibn Abbas:Once the Prophet went through the grave-yards of Medina and heard the voices of two humans who were being tortured in their graves. The Prophet said, "They are being punished, but they are not being punished because of a major sin, yet their sins are great. One of them used not to save himself from (being soiled with) the urine, and the other used to go about with calumnies (Namima)." Then the Prophet asked for a green palm tree leaf and split it into two pieces and placed one piece on each grave, saying, "I hope that their punishment may be abated as long as these pieces of the leaf are not dried." [Ref: Bukhari, B73, H81] “Narrated Abi Aiyub: Once the Prophet went out after sunset and heard a dreadful voice and said, "The Jews are being punished in their graves.” [Ref: Bukhari, B23, H457] “Anas b. Malik said: The Messenger of Allah entered the garden of the palm trees of Banu al-Najjar. He heard a voice and was terrified. He asked: Who are the people buried in these graves? The people replied: Messenger of Allah! These are some people who died in the pre-Islamic times. He said: Seek refuge in Allah from the punishment of the fire, and the trail of Antichrist. They asked: Why is it that, Messenger of Allah? He said: When a man is …” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B41, H4733] In another Hadith it is recorded Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his companions heard a loud bang noise and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) explained it is sound of a stone falling bottom of hell: “Abu Huraira reported: We were in the company of Allah's Messenger that we heard a terrible sound. Thereupon Allah's Apostle said: Do you know what (sound) is this? We said: Allah and His Messenger know best. Thereupon he said: That is a stone which was thrown seventy years before in Hell and it has'been constantly slipping down and now it has reached its base.” [Ref: Muslim, B40, H6813] Note sound of stone falling into Hell was heard by companions also because companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) witnessed with their ears a miracle of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Seeing And Hearing All Happenings In Universe By Prophet Of Allah: In another Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: "It was narrated from Abu Dharr that the Messenger of Allah said:“I see what you do not see, and I hear what you do not hear. The heaven is creaking and it should creak, for there is no space in it the width of four fingers but there is an angel there, prostrating to Allah. By Allah, if you knew what I know, you would laugh little and weep much, and you would never enjoy women in your beds, and you would go out in the streets, beseeching Allah.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B37, H4330] And same is reported in another Hadith of Tirmadhi: "Abu Dharr narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: "Indeed I see what you do not see, and I hear what you do not hear. The Heavens creak, and they have the right to creak. There is no spot, the size of four fingers in them, except that there is an angel placing his forehead in it, prostrating to Allah. By Allah! If you knew what I know, then you would laugh little and you would cry much. And you would not taste the pleasures of your women in the beds, and you would go out beseeching Allah." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B10, H2312] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) described what he saw by saying there isn’t a even four-finger gap on which the angels don’t prostrate and informed about the creaking of space. This is indication of how much Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam) saw and heard. Ghayb Knowledge Implication Of Shaykh Thanvi’s Statement: Shaykh Thanvi’s writtenstatement in light of Baaz and Ba-wasta would read like this: “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 (ba-wasta) knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; (ba-wasta) knowledge like (i.e. aisa) this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrpeds and carnivores 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] The baaz/ba-wasta knowledge of Ghayb established in previous sections how does it not make Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his prophetic knowledge unique? And which lunatic, insect, cow, goat, donkey, pig, Amr, buffalo shares with Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) all this knowledge of Ghayb? This much and countless more knowledge of Ghayb being known to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) proves that he is unique. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) having so much of ba-wasta and baaz Ghayb is his uniquesness and to negate his speciality/uniqueness of in baaz/ba-wasta Ghayb by equating his knowledge with lunatics, infants animals is Kufr: “… if baaz ba-wasta knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); ba-wasta Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” Explanation Of Islamic Position With Examples And Their Objectives: When ever someone esteemed is compared with inferior in order to negate a merit then insult is intended. If one says: You’re not slim in fact you’re fat like a pig. He may say I intended to say you’re fat but every sane person would take offence for two reasons being called fat and being equated to pig in fatness. Similarly Shaykh Thanvi’s first offense is that he negated merit of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and second is that he did so by equating him through prophetic knowledge to knowledge of Zaid, Amr, lunatics, infants, and animals. Also considering what the Ghuyub are; especially knowledge of Wahi/Quran, it is disrespect of Quran/Wahi; to say even lunatics, infants, animals … possess such baaz knowledge of Ghayb. And worse it would mean that lunatics, infants, animals and every day idiots can receive Wahi because it is part of baaz/ba-wasta Ghuyub. Conclusion: Baaz and Ba-wasta knowledge of Ghayb known to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is unique and the quantity and the types of Ghuyun known to him establishes his uniqueness/speciality in creation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And therefore to equate Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) prophetic knowledge with knowledge of lunatics, infants, animals and common folk is to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Being equated to animals, lunatics and infants implies being infant, lunatic, animal in knowledge and or no better then them in knowledge. None would take this to be words of endearment. And to think for RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) this would be acceptable/excusable is only dream and wishful thinking of disbelievers. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi. Footnotes: - [1] And if verse 26 is understood in the context of verse 25 and 27 then Ghayb referred is knowledge of judgment day and meaning is Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) does not share it with anyone other then chosen Messengers. Implications would be that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) sends four gardian angels with Jibraeel (alayhis salam) so no one steals knowledge from him and that he delivers it to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).

Updated. Hifz ul-Iman’s Statement In Sense Of Tashbeeh And Equality In Quantity Of Knowledge. 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 according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); 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] 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: “Even if we ignore this, even then honorable-Sir, consider this; honorable Mawlana is employing word aisa in statement, not word itna. If it was itna (i.e. this-much) then there would have been possbility, may Allah forbid, that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been quantitively-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 knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); 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 Baazi’at (i.e. 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 which he mentioned 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 Shaykh Madani managed to connect aisa in meaning of itna with comparision in quantity of baaz and this prevented him from taking natural mentioned route. Coming to Shaykh Naumani; if Shaykh Naumani had said the following then his he would have had better ground: ‘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 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 Shaykh Thanvi’s statement would be Kufr if it was understood in meaning which other out of two suggested. 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 Kufr 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. 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 in 2.1; 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 out of two 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. 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. Therefore 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 Qati (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 Zani 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 according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); 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.” [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 Zani 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 and quantity is inumerable by human mind. 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. Therefore 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. Hence 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 is inclusive of types of Ghayb knowledge known to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). 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 etc. 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. This establishes 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 according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); 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.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] 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 prophetic knowledge with those he mentioned. And this Tashbeeh is of quantity and in types of Ghuyub 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. 4.2 - Refuting Shaykh Naumani’s; Aisa In Meaning Of Itna Without Tashbeeh: Consider this as; 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 instead he used itna it would have made 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. Thus 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’1 and ‘the compared to’2. And to establish/negate speciality of ‘the compared’ there has to be a ‘quality/attribute’3 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: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor1 (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge3 like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds2; 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] When all the necessary raw materials of Tashbeeh are found in statement of Hifz ul-Iman then to negate it is either illiteracy or a deliberate coordinated effort to pull wool over the eyes of unsuspecting Muslims. 4.3 - 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) same of knowledge of Ghayb as; Zaid, Amr, infants, lunatics, and animals then he would negate speciality of prophetic knowledge. It becomes apparent that at minimum Shaykh Thanvi deemed prophetic knowledge of Ghayb to be equal in quantity to knowledge of; Zaid, Amr, animals, infants, and lunatics when one reads the following: “Then what would Shar’a, play thing of children, when desired established it and when desired demolished it. If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); 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.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] 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 negated speciality and defended this statement. In the best case scenario Shaykh Thanvi deemed prophetic knowledge of Ghayb to be equal in quantity and in worst case to be less then; Zaid, Amr, lunatics, animals, infants, and quadrupeds. Negation of speciality as per principles can only be for these two reasons. Please bare in mind principally it is possible for one to negate merit of another via comparision between two parties due to less knowledge but the construction of sentence of Hifz ul-Iman does not allow this meaning; it establishes equality in quantity at minimum. And it would be unfair to pass it of as valid possibility. 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.

Updated. Exposing The Reality Of Statement Of Hifz ul-Iman With Shaykh Thanvi’s Bast al-Banan And Taghyeer Ul-Unawan. 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. 0.0 - Shaykh Thanvi’s Extended Version Of Hifz Ul-Iman’s Statement: Following is near pretty literal translation of Hifz ul-Iman: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); 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] 0.1 – A Template For Explanation: Please note an (alphabet) will be inserted to help fully expand the statement of Shaykh Thanvi to its fullest natural meaning. Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being(a) then matter needs to be enquired(b); is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb(c); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this(d) what is so unique about Hadhoor(e); Ghayb knowledge like-this(f) is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Note that Urdu readers will naturally be able to drive the meanings but in translation to English some connections have been lost hence it is important to point them out clearly and explicitly as possible. So the following exposition is only highlighting imbeded meaning of statement. 0.2 - Statement Expanded In Accordance With Natural Meaning: Shaykh wrote: ““If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being(a) then matter needs to be enquired …” Words ‘zaat e muqaddisa’ translated to mean ‘holy being’ referrs to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In the following, “…then matter needs to be enquired(b); is intended …”, contextually Zaid is enquired and this Zaid can be anyone who suggests Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) possesses Ilm al-Ghayb. In the following, “… is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb(c) …”, Qull means all/every, and erroneously it is believed Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knowledge of Ghayb is Qull, it is too widely held notion, therefore whenever it is used for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) reader should assume limitless knowledge of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In the following, “…is intended; then in this(d) what is so unique …”, word is-mein translated to mean in-this is hint toward baaz ilm al-Ghayb. In the following he uses Hadhoor to referr to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “…if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor(e) …” Hadhoor means, honorable, Hadhir (i.e. present); and in subcontinent it is popularly used individually or as a prefix for religiously esteem personalities. And context here determines it is used for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In the following, “…Ghayb knowledge like-this(f) is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …”, word aisa has been used to mean like-this and it is a hint toward baaz Ilm al-Ghayb being discussed in context. Putting all this into context the statement naturally means: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then matter needs to be enquired from Zaid; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull knowledge of Ghayb of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this baaz knowledge of Ghayb what is so unique about honorable Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); baaz Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” 0.3 - Naturally Implied Further Expansion Of Hifz ul-Iman’s Statement: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then matter needs to be enquired from Zaid; is intended meaning of this Ghayb(a); baaz Ghayb or qull knowledge of Ghayb of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in-this(b) baaz knowledge of Ghayb what is so unique about honorable Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); baaz Ghayb knowledge like-this(c) is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” In all three places some questions and their answers can remove the ambiguity. Please note readers should read the brief questions in context of relevent part of Hifz ul-Iman’s statement. In first part (a): The Urdu says; “… is Ghayb say murad baaz Ghayb heh ya …” English; “..is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or …” Question is; in which Ghayb and whose Ghayb? In second place (b): Urdu reads; “… baaz uloom Ghaybiya murad hen toh is-mein …” English; “… if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in-this …” The questions are; in what and in whose? Finally in third place (c): Urdu reads; “… aisa ilm e Ghayb toh …” English; “… Ghayb knowledge like-this …” Question: what knowledge of Ghayb and whose knowledge of Ghayb? Contextually it is evident he is discussing the Ghayb which Zaid attributed to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and the category of baaz ilm al-Ghayb which Shaykh Thanvi himself suggested out of Baaz and Qull to discuss the attribution of title Aalim ul-Ghayb. In light of this the statement to its fullest sense should be understood in the following: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then matter needs to be enquired from Zaid; is intended meaning of this Ghayb attributed to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); baaz Ghayb or qull knowledge of Ghayb of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this baaz knowledge of Ghayb what is so unique about honorable Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); baaz Ghayb knowledge like-this baaz which was considered for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” The statement is fully expanded and meanings which were understood through Zameers (i.e. hints) of words such as; ees Ghayb, is-mein, aisa and contextually are supported. Readers are more then welcome to referr to original statement quoted in section 0.0 and carry out comparative analysis of original and expanded version. 1.0 - 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 Ghayb knolwedge jaisa (i.e. like-of) RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) aisa (i.e. 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 according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals 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.] 2.0 - 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; Ghayb knowledge jaisa (i.e. like) of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) aisa (i.e. like-it) is also possessed every infant and madman, in fact by every animal, and every quadruped . 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.] 3.0 – First Question Of Shaykh Darbhangi And Answer Of Shaykh Thanvi: Note if you have difficulty grasping the natural meaning of statement of Hifz ul-Iman please referr to section 0.1 and 0.2. Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) quoted the following words of Hifz ul-Iman:“…if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds…” Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to Shaykh Thanvi following meanings: “In which he explicitly stated Ghayb knolwedge jaisa (i.e. like-of) RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) aisa (i.e. like-it) is possessed by every infant, every lunatic, in fact every animal and every quadruped.” 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; Ghayb knowledge jaisa (i.e. like-of) RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) aisa (i.e. like-it) is also possessed every infant and madman, in fact by every animal, and every quadruped …” 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?” Shaykh Thanvi lies 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 (rahimullah) 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 Shaykh Thanvi precisely wrote this in Hifz ul-Iman: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); 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] 3.1 - 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 waqi’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. 4.0 - Second Question Of Shaykh Darbhangi And Second Answer: 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 knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds…” 4.1 - Second Question And 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. Ignoring the apparent contradiction between the two parties; point to note is that there is inherent Kufr/insult in statement of Shaykh Thanvi. This explains why Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi and Shaykh Madani have said; aisa is used 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). All this in effort to defend against accusation of Kufr. And both parties of Deobandi sect consider Taweel of other party as insulting and Kufr. Now if there wasn’t explicit or implicit Kufr then why would both parties consider understanding of other party as insulting and Kufr! In conclusion it needs to be said: there is inherent at the very least implied insult/Kufr in statement of Shaykh Thanvi. 5.0 - Shaykh Darbhangi’s Third Question And Shaykh Thanvi’s Answer: Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) attributed following to Shaykh Thanvi: “In which he explicitly stated Ghayb knolwedge jaisa (i.e. like-of) RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) aisa (i.e. 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 according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals 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.’ 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.” 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 knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds…” 6.0 - Shaykh Darbhangi’s Fourth Question And Shaykh Thanvi’s Answer: For the final time I quote what Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat attributed to Shaykh Thanvi: “In which he explicitly stated Ghayb knolwedge jaisa (i.e. like-of) RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) aisa (i.e. 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 according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals 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.’ 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.” And for the final time I quote what Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); 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.” [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] To inform the readers of belief of Shaykh Thanvi -; 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. And the material that followed Shaykh Thanvi presented arguments to establish the Baaz Ghayb doesn’t establish speciality of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his knowledge of Ghayb. - [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.

Updated. Disrespect And Insult Of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallm) In Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi's Statement Of Hifz ul-Iman. Introduction: Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi a Deobandi scholar is a controversial personality. Scholars like of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (alayhi rahma) deem him to be Kafir due to Shaykh Thanvi writing a statement which insults Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). This brief article will attempt to explain how Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi’s statement of Hifz ul-Iman is disrespectful and insults Prophet (sallallahua layhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Insulting And Disrespectful Statement Of Hifz ul-Iman: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); 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.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Shaykh Negates Uniqueness And Compares Prophetic Ghayb: There are two important features of his statement: i) Shaykh Thanvi negates uniqueness/speciality of Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) via his knowledge of Ghayb. ii) In order to negate/refute speciality of Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb Shaykh compares his knowledge of Ghayb with Zayd and Amr (i.e. regular Joe’s), infants, lunatics, and animals of all types. Aysha’s (radiallah ta’ala anha) Reaction When Counted Amongst Destables: It is recorded in Ahadith if dog, donkey, and a woman pass infront of person performing Salah then it would be invalidated: “It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Prophet said: “The prayer is severed by a woman, a dog and a donkey.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B5, H950] “It was narrated from ‘Abdullah bin Mughaffal that the Prophet said: “The prayer is severed by a woman, a dog and a donkey.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B5, H951] When this was mentioned presence of wife of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) she took exception to mention/inclusion of women into this; as it is established from following Hadith: “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 made our (women) comparision 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] Please note the mere mention of women in the list of unclean animals offended her and took it to mean women are being compared with animals. Shaykh Thanvi explicitly compared Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) through his knowledge with the mentioned: “… Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” First of all to even mention Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) amongst the mentioned is insulting and disrespectful. By comparing RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with mentioned even in knowledge denotes Shaykh Thanvi deemed Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to be equale and like the mentioned in knowledge. Insult And Disrespect Of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): To put it into perspective of UK incident. Recently went for a hair cut. Not having much to do while waiting for my turn I decided to pic news paper and read. What I read in it prompted me to come home and YouTube said incident to see what the fuss was about. A young boy, Ned Woodman, tiny comedian. His first insult/pun began: Why were people so excited to see the talking dog on the Britian’s Got Talent? Amanda Holden has been on it for years. The audience gasped and judges gasped with mouths wide open. What he insinuated was obvious: He called one of talent show judge as a talking dog. If you logically follow what he said then; he implied people are not excited about Amanda Holden talking on BGT then there is no cause for being excited about talking dog being on BGT. Ofcourse there is an argument to be made in defence of Ned Woodman but the easily accessible and first impression cannot be defended. Deobandis too feel there is justification and Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is defendable and so they attempt it. But they cannot escape the injunctions resulted from following verse: "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] Shaykh Thanvi compared Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with mentioned due to his knowledge and little Ned Woodman compared Amanda to talking dog because of her talking. The apparent and easily accessible implication of second is; Ned called her talking dog. So what should the conclusion be with regards to Shaykh Thanvi comparing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to mentioned in knolwedge? That Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is a infant in knowledge, lunatic in his knowledge and no better then infants and lunatics in knowledge. Astaghfir ullah ul-azeem. How can this not be insult and disrespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)! Comparing To Destable And Unclean Is For Insulting And Disrespect: If one says; Shaykh Thanvi is a human being like Dajjal. Or says; Shaykh Thanvi is like village idiot in knowledge of Tajweed. Shaykh Thanvi and cursed Dajjal are both human beings and in being human being they are like each other. By comparing him to a an enemy of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) even in Bashariyyah (i.e. humaness) indicates Shaykh is being insulted. Shaykh Thanvi may have equal knowledge of Tajweed, plus/minus bits, like a village idiot but to compare him to an idiot is to insult him. Shaykh Thanvi compared Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in his knowledge to animals, infants, lunatics, every day Joe’s, unclean carnivorous animals in his following statement: “… Ghayb knowledge like-this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” Yes he may not have intended to do so but from his statement he is indeed guilty of disrespecting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In our daily language we compare people with detestables to insult or to imply an insult. We say; stop eating like a pig. Even though it means stop eating too much. Is that appropriate way of putting it? Ojbective behind is to degrade through comparision in order to achieve the objective – i.e. eating less. So when Shaykh Thanvi compares prophetic knowledge to knowledge of lunatics and infants the primary objective is to degrade Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Shaykh wants to belittle Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to prevent Muslims from believing that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa’sallam) is Aalim ul-Ghayb. From his perspective; when the Muslims realize there is nothing special about his knowledge of Ghayb in comparision to lunatics and infants then there is no reason to hold to the belief at all. Conclusion: Shaykh Thanvi’s statement of Hifz ul-Iman compares Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to infants, lunatics, regular Joe’s, herbivores and carnivores. And it is matter of principle; when a superior is compared to detestable, unclean, and it results a merit being negated then insult is always meant. Also merely being mentioned amongst the list of donkey, dog, and pig is enough to indicate insult and disrespect but when a great personality is compared to inferior merit of lowly then insult is always meant. Shaykh Thanvi compared the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) through his prophetic knowledge to knowledge of lowly and disrespected Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Shaykh Thanvi was indeed guilty of insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and is guilty of negating uniqueness oprophetic knowledge of Ghayb in comparision to infants, lunatics, animals, and regular Joe’s. And fact is prophetic knowledge is unique and special and how and why is for another article.

Updated. Contradictons In Deobandi Understanding Of Hifz ul-Iman And The Fruits Of Disagreement. 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, and 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 according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); 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.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Note the underlined Urdu word is aisa (i.e. like-this). 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 70’s to 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 and its implications will be mainstay 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, even then honorable-Sir, consider this; honorable Mawlana is employing word aisa in statement, not word itna. If it was itna (i.e. this-much) then there would have been possbility, may Allah forbid, that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been quantitively-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 Taghyeer 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 according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); 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.” 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. 1.3 - 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. 1.4 - 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. 1.5 - 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 according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); 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.” [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 (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); itna/is-qadr (i.e. this-much) Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” (ii) In light of Shaykh Naumani’s aisa meaning yeh the controversial statement would read: “… what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); yeh (i.e. this) Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” 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: “… a) if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); b) 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.” In the underlined part of sentence a he is discussing prophetic Ghayb. Second underlined sentence b Shaykh connected it with a via usage of aisa (i.e. like-this). In simple words; Shaykh Thanvi enquires what is so unique about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because baaz knowledge of Ghayb, 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) and has come to conclusion through comparision (i.e. Tashbeeh) of quantity of Ghuyub; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and the mentioned creations both have baaz knowledge of Ghayb and one party is no better then other. Therefore without Tashbeeh he could not have come to mentioned conclusion and would not have concluded in the following words: “(If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) 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 Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his knowledge of Ghayb; 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. 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: According to Islamic scholarship of subcontinent Shaykh Thanvi’s statement of Hifz ul-Iman is statement of Tashbeeh and Shaykh Madani the Khalifah of Shaykh Thanvi believes this as well. Yet for this little exercise readers should disregard the notion of Tashbeeh and read aisa in sense of itna without Tashbeeh. Shaykh wrote: “…if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa Ghayb knowledge 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: “…if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa baaz Ghayb knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” Also aisa can also be pointing toward prophetic knowledge and this is best and natural understanding of controversial statement. In this context the statement would read: “…if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa Ghayb knowledge being considered for Prophet is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” If aisa was hint toward baaz, or hint toward prophetic-Ghayb; in both cases contextually baaz prophetic knowledge of Ghayb and knowledge of mentioned creations is being equaled in quantity of baaz. Aisa in meaning of Itna/Is-Qadr makes it this much more clear that statement of Hifz ul-Iman is equalling quantity of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb with creations which Shaykh Thanvi mentioned. And this why Shaykh Madani said aisa is not in meaning of itna but in meaning of Tashbeeh. Even without Tashbeeh meaning of Aisa there is Kufr in the statement because Itna’s 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 knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa (i.e. this-much, this) Ghayb 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.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] 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: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb or qull Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); comparatively aisa Ghayb 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.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] According to Shaykh Madani statement of Shaykh Thanvi is in comparative meaning on its natural meaning not in context of itna/is-qadr, or 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 - Shaykh Naumani Bites Trap Set By Mawlana Sardar Ahmad: 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 tolerate his Shaykh and him being insulted and resorted insulting Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) but in process revealed the truth that aisa without jaisa can be insulting too. Despite knowing the truth about aisa’s usage in sentences likes Mawlana Sardar Ahmad employed and Shaykh Thanvi wrote; Shaykh Naumani could not extend this knowledge for honour Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and defended Shaykh Thanvi’s statement. Question arises why would Shaykh Naumani not take the same route in regards to a statement which apparently insults/disrespects Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? Answer is very simple; he had self respect and had love and respect for Shaykh Thanvi. And had no love or respect for the last and final Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). 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.

Updated. Brief Account Of Dispute Surrounding Deobandi Scholar Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi. Introduction: Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi authored Hifz ul-Iman in response to three questions. While answering the last question, about Ilm al-Ghayb, he made number of questionable and disrespectful statements hurting the dignity of Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). The Islamic scholarship of subcontinent challenged him to retract and repent but he refused. Resulting a controversy between his detractors and his supporters which has lasted hundered years. Shaykh Thanvi And His Disrespectful Statement: It should be noted Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi believed only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ta’ala) has knowledge of Ghayb and not Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And this belief Shaykh Thanvi shared with Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi. In context of this belief Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi wrote Hifz ul-Iman (1319H/1901CE) in which he attempts respond request of Fatwah (i.e. edict). Questioner states: “A certain individual, Zayd, stated prostration is of two types, worship, respect, and went 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 … And says Ilm Al-Ghayb is of two types: bil-Zaat [of one’s ownself]; in this meaning only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Aalim ul-Ghayb, none else. And ba-wasta [through means, alternative; bil-Ardh; granted by another] and in this meaning RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was Aalim ul-Ghayb[2]. 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] While answering third and last question he made wrote words which at best are questionable. And in their true nature these words are extremely disrespectful and insult RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) - here: “If according to Zaid it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then matter needs to be enquired; is intended meaning of this Ghayb; baaz Ghayb (i.e. some/limited Ghayb) or qull Ghayb (all/every Ghayb of Allah); if baaz knowledge of Ghayb is intended; then in this what is so unique about Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); 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.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Shaykh Thanvi And His Connections: Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi is the founder of Deobandism and Wahhabism in subcontinent. He can be considered the founding father of all disputes that have plagued the Muslims of subcontinent. He originated the dispute or had laid the foundation of it. He wrote many books but Taqwiyat ul-Iman was considered his legacy and in which he tactfull insulted Prophets and righteous of Ummah. In the mentioned book he wrote: “Because Ghayb is only known to Allah; what news does Messenger have!”[1] [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, Page; 84, pblshr; Fakhr ul-Ubaid Azmi, Maktaba Naeemia, UP, here] Shaykh Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi and Shaykh Qasim Nanotavi’s Deobandism stemed from Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi’s teaching. And Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi drank from the same poisonous cup. As result the two mentioned fruits didn’t fall far from the tree. And Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi being inheritor of their tradition was no different from his three seniors. And disrespecting and insulting the Prophets and Saliheen in pretext of championing Tawheed has ever since become a distinguishing trait via which they are recognised and a repugnant tradition which the theological descendents of Deobandism have kept alive. Hifz ul-Iman And Books Related To It, By Shaykh Thanvi: Hifz ul-Iman was written on 8th of Muharram 1319 Hijri and then ten years later in response to queries of Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi he wrote Bast al-Banan (Sha’ban, 1329 Hijri). In Bast al-Banan Shaykh Thanvi answered the questions posed by Shaykh Darbhangi and resorted presenting Taweel of his statement. Then on 17th of Safar 1342 Hijri in response to a unnamed Maulvi wrote Taghyeer ul-Unwan. He agreed statement of Hifz ul-Iman is such that it is difficult to defend against and commoners take it to mean insult. And therefore he accepted the suggestion that statement needs to be modified and unrepentently modified it. Note typically modification of statement is sign of repentence but Shaykh Thanvi wrote in Taghyeer ul-Unwan that he deems statement of Hifz ul-Iman to be blameless but as an act of strategy of war he modified it. Shaykh Thanvi’s Statement In Perspective Of Islamic And Deobandi Belief: If prophetic knowledge is equale in quantity to the mentioned then there would be no speciality for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Or if the type of knowledge which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) possesses is same as the mentioned then there is no speciality of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And Muslims believe and even sane Deobandis would not disbelieve; both in quantity and type of Ghuyub known to Prophet (sallallahua layhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are unique/special because this is established from Quran/Hadith. If the quantity of prophetic knowledge is greater by inumerable amount. The type of knowledge he has is definitely unique and special. Then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is unique and special in his knowledge. To negate speciality and uniqueness of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in a fashion Shaykh Thanvi did is disrespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and can only be written for insult/disrespect purposes. The Reaction To Shaykh Thanvi’s Statement: When the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah became aware of this insult they protested at the sheer odacity of Shaykh Thanvi. Scholars of Islam directed his attention toward the insulting and the disrespectful meaning of his statement and pointed out implications of his words. They requested that he repent and repeal the statement. And chief amongst them was Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat, the Imam, the Mujtahid, and Mujadid, Ahmad Raza Khan Qadri (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala). Their pleas fell on deaf ears and issue was propelled into realm of debate/discussion. Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) repeatedly requested Shaykh Thanvi to discuss/debate the statement and repent but his effort was without success. The End Result Of Shaykh Thanvi’s Statement: After years of effort requesting Shaykh Thanvi to debate/discuss the statement when it became evident Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi will not repent nor will agree to discuss/debate the statement in public/private. This resulted in a edict from Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) in which Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi’s and Islam of others like him was invalidated. It received wide spread support from scholars of Arabian Peninsula and subcontinent. And it was published 1324H as Hussam al-Hamarayn Ala Munhar il-Kufri Wal Mayn, here. Ever since the controversy has passed on from generation to generation. Scholars from both sides presenting their side of saga. Then And Now And Our Responsibility: The brief historical account was mentioned because Deobandis over the internet have shamelessly are presenting their own side as if their founding fathers were flag bearers of code chivalry, ethics, and upstanding morals. Yet the reality of their elders and disgusting ethics and repugnant conduct is published in their books. Anyone brave enough to swim in sea of insults and abuse should read Shaykh Murtaza Hassan books, and Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani’s master piece of insults, Al-Shihab al-Saqib. If I recall correctly he insulted Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (alayhi rahma) near enough three-hundred times. Historical saga, of who said what, who was brave, and who was cowering in fear, is totally irrelevent because the truth of dispute is not dependent upon it. We have inherited the dispute and the material which resulted it, and we also have respective position of both sides in books. And these sources should be used to determine if Shaykh Thanvi was guilty of insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) or not? And it is in our best interest to judge the dispute correctly from perspective of Sharia. Dispute Not Just Over Shaykh But Connected To It Is Something Greater: It should not be and is not about who from both sides is correct. It is truly about upholding the honor of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). It is about ensuring Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not disrespected by Muslims who may make similar statements using Shaykh Thanvi’s language as template. It is about protecting the Iman of believers. It is about preventing the disbelievers from insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) using Shaykh Thanvi’s statement as template and getting away with insulting and disrespecting him after citing Shaykh Thanvi’s statement. And it is about prohibition of; “… la taqulu raina …” (i.e. do not say raina); meaning using words, sentences which can be misconstrued to insult and disrespect Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And anyone who doesn’t see it as such needs to wake-up and smell the coffee and it should refresh his mind. Judge The Dispute Independent Of People Involved: Me calling Shaykh Thanvi a Kafir wouldn’t make him if he was not and you calling him Muslim will not make him so if he was not. Nothing can be added to his burden of sin nor to his record of good deeds if he has not earned it during his life except the reward of good and burden of evil Sunnahs instituted by him and followed after him. He and his antagonists have reached their destination and will be judged according to what they have earned and the Sunnahs they left for others to follow. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has reported to have said: “He who introduced some good Sunnah in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect. 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] This leaves us; if you and I earn good it is for us and if we sin it is our doing. Depending upon evil/good Sunnah we leave behind those who immitate us will earn us reward or sin. So be fair to your self and make your hereafter your priority. Judge the dispute not the people, give verdict due evidence, and not due to people involved. If you have jumped into this controversy then judge truthfully and honestly because your hereafter is at stake and your legacy will earn you reward or sin. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi FootNotes: - [1] “For example one should not say; Allah and Messenger would will then so will happen. All affairs of world/universe are in accordance with will of Allah. Nothing is done with Messenger’s will. Or if a person says to another; what is in heart/mind of that one. Or when will that-one get married? Or how many leaves are on that three? Or how many stars are in the sky? In Answer to it one should not say; Allah and Messenger know! Because Ghayb is only known to Allah; what news does Messenger have! And there is no harm in some matter of religion; Allah and Rasool knows! Or in this matter Allah’s and Messenger’s instruction is this because all matters of religion Allah has informed the Messenger. And all people have been instructed to obey their Messenger.” [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, Page; 84, pblshr; Fakhr ul-Ubaid Azmi, Maktaba Naeemia, UP, here] - [2] It can be said with hundered percent confidence that none from Ulamah of Ahlus Sunnah stated Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is dseserving of title of Aalim ul-Ghayb. Muslims believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been granted knowledge of Ghayb. And at best from this belief of Muslims; the questioner has implied that we the Muslims believe RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Alim ul-Ghayb. At worst and most likely; Shaykh Thanvi or the alleged questioner deliberately distorted the reality of Islamic belief. It is typical of all Deobandi/Wahhabi scholarship to erect false boggie man and then knock it down to win converts. Consider it modern equivlent of false-flag covert operation designed to lead the listeners to a predetermined conclusion. All a Deobandi has to do is to show me in a book pre-dating Hifz ul-Iman in which title Aalim ul-Ghayb was used for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In fact some eight (1311 Hijri) years prior to Hifz ul-Iman Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) in his; Al Amn Wal Ula Na’at il-Mustafa Dafa ul-Bala stated; it is Makrooh to consider Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as Aalim ul-Ghayb. Yet Shaykh Khalid Mahmood Deobandi, ex-Chief Justice of Pakistan supreme court, in his booklet titled, Aalim ul-Ghayb, state that person who attributed title of Aalim ul-Ghayb to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah).

Intorduction: This article will explain based on verse of Khaatmiyyah (i.e. Finality) why there can not be another Prophet or Messenger after Prophet Muhammed (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam). In the last century three well known individuals Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadiyani of India, Elijah Muhammed of U.S.A, Rashid Khalifah a Egyptian who had settled in U.S.A, have claimed to be Messengers (i.e.Rusul). And due to general ignorance of Muslims, they managed to lead some Muslims astray from path of Islam into path of Kufr. To manage their claims of Prophet-hood and to give themselves a credibility they attempted to distort the meaning of verse of Khaat’m al-Nabiyeen. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani negated the traditional meaning of Khaat’m (i.e. last/end) and resorted to other linguistic meanings of the word to faciliate his claim of Prophet-hood and Messengership. Rashid Khalifah held to traditional meaning of Khaat’m. Yet in order to justify his claim to being Messenger of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) he argued according to the verse; Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is end/last from line of Prophets not Messengers. In contrast to both orthodox Islam teaches; Prophet Muhammed is Khaat’m al-Nabiyeen and after him there is no new Nabi, or new Rasool. And claimants of Prophet-hood and Messengership are liars (i.e. kazzabun) and imposters (i.e. dajjalun) in the word of Prophet Muhammed (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), and disbelievers. 0.0 - Quranic Verse On Khatamiyyah Of Prophet Muhammad: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: “Ma qana Muhammedun aba’hadim mir’rijaliqum wala kir’rasool lal’lahi wa khaat’m un-Nabiyeen.” [Ref: 33:40] Translation of it is as follows: “Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah and the khaat’m of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things.” [Ref: 33:40] Khaat’m has been explained in detail by Arabic linguistis and gramarians. But before knocking on their door lets see how the root word of Khaat’m, Kha-Ta-M, has been employed in Quran. 0.1 Quranic Usage Khaat’m And Its Derivitives And Their Meanings: The root of letter of word Khaatim/Khaatam are letters Kh-Ta-M. These root letters are employed to contruct words which have connecting meanings. In Quran various words evolving from Kh-Ta-M have been employed. Three times word Khatama has been used in connection with sealing/closing of hearing, eyes and heart. Its first occurance is in 2:7: “…خَتَمَ اللّهُ عَلَى” in second in verse 6:46: “…وَخَتَمَ عَلَى …” and lastly in verse 45:23. In another verse 36:65 Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) employs derivative as nakhtimu while mentioning that mouths of people will be sealed/closed and hands/feet will testify against the person regarding how they were used: “…الْيَوْمَ نَخْتِمُ عَلَى”. In verse 42:24 Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) employed it as yakhtim: “…فَإِن يَشَأِ اللَّهُ يَخْتِمْ عَلَى قَلْبِكَ …”. The verse mentions accusation of disbelievers that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has attributed to lies to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In response to whom Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states; if such was the case He would have sealed the heart of Rasoolallah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) so that he could not attribute faslehood to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In verse 83:25 word makhtoom has been employed in context of paradise: “.يُسْقَوْنَ مِن رَّحِيقٍ مَّخْتُومٍ“ Contextually the referrence is to people of paradise being presented a drink which has been sealed/closed to perserve flavour, fragrance, and freshness of drink. 0.2 - Arabic Linguists And Gramarians On Khaat’m: Khaat'm is recited Khaatam and as Khaatim. Khaatim means terminator, finalizer. Khaatam means end/final. Imam Abul Mansur al-Azhari (rahimullah) in al-Tahzib attributes to Imam Zujaj (rahimullah) and gramarian Abu Ishaq (rahimullah); Khatm and Taba’a have same meaning. He went on to explain that both words denote meaning of tightly sealing a thing so nothing enters it and then referrences sealing of hearts mentioned in verse 7 of chapter of al-Baqarah as demonstration of meaning used in Quran. He goes on to state that Khaat’m of all things is its last. And while explaining the meaning of verse in discussion he states Khaatam al-Nabiyeen means Akhar al-Nabiyeen (i.e. end/last of the Prophets). Imam Ibn Hammad al-Juhri (rahimullah) in his al-Sihah stated Khaat’m recited with with Fat-ha (i.e. Zabr) and Kasra (i.e. Zey’r) form words Khitaam and Khaataam; all have same meanings. And plural of these words if Khawatim, and Khatimah of a thing means its Akhir (i.e. last/end). And he states in this defined meaning Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Khatam ul-Anbiyah (i.e. end of the Prophets). Imam Raghab al-Isfahani (rahimullah) in his Mufradat indicated Khaat’m means end/final. He stated Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is considered Khat’m al-Nabiyeen because he ended Prophet-hood; in meaning that he completed/finished it. Long story short scholars of Islam of past and present are in agreement that word Khaat’m in Khaat’m al-Nabiyeen verse means; end of the Prophets. 0.3 - Khaat’m In Light Of Hadith And Its Implication: Word (خَاتَمَ) as many means. Popularly in Hadith it has been employed to mean a signet and seal. Apart from denoting officiality a seal historically was used by Kings to prevent messengers from tempering or gaining knowledge about contents. And companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) informed him that it is custom of Kings of his era to put a seal on letters. As in following Hadith reveals: “Anas reported that when Allah's Apostle decided to write (letters) to non-Arabs it was said to him that the non-Arabs would not accept a letter but that having a seal (i.e. خَاتِمٌ) over it; so he (the Holy Prophet) got a silver ring made. He (Anas) said: I perceive as if I am looking at its brightness in his hand.” [Ref: Muslim, B24, H5217] Typically after writing of letter finished a wax seal at the end was put to indicate completion of letter. If the content was secret then it was roled and on the joint wax was poured and then embossed with stamp. In first case to ensure no new additions were made to content of letter and in second to prevent the information to come out. In this context it becomes obvious Khaatam means denotes meaning of sealing to prevent new additions to letter and sealed prevent information from being leaked. Thus Khaat’m carries the meaning of sealing to prevent additions and sealing to prevent leak of information. 0.4 - Prophetic Explanation Of Khaat’m: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said he is al-Aqib and there is no Prophet after him: “Jubair b. Mut'im reported on the authority of his father that he heard Allah's Messenger as saying: I am Muhammad and I am Ahmad, and I am al-Mahi (the obliterator) by whom unbelief would be obliterated, and I am Hashir (the gatherer) at whose feet mankind will be gathered, i) and I am Aqib, ii) after whom there will be no Prophet.” [Ref: Muslim, B30, H5810] al-Aqib means subsequent, successive, in other words; one who comes at the end of long list, thus it carrys meaning of last/final. And Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) defined what he intended by al-Aqib by saying, after whom there will be no Prophet. A Hadith in Muslim records how Imam Zuhri (rahimullah) understood al-Aqib: “This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of Ma'mar (and the words are): I said to Zuhri: What does (the word) al-'Aqib imply? He said: One after whom there is no Prophet, and in the hadith transmitted on the authority of Ma'mar and 'Uqail there is a slight variation of wording.” [Ref: Muslim, B30, H5812] Note Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said, I am al-Aqib, after whom there will be no Prophet and Imam Zuhri (rahimullah) said al-Aqib means, after whom there is no Prophet. This reveals the second prophetic statement was further explanation of al-Aqib and not a separate unrelated statement. Please take note of how Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) further explained the meaning of al-Aqib because this Sunnah will be repeated in next Hadith. In another Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) explained the meaning of word Khaatam. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: “Thawban narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: "The Hour shall not be established until tribes of my Ummah unite with the idolaters, and until they worship idols. And indeed there shall be thirty imposters in my Ummah,each of them claiming that he is a Prophet. And I am the Khaatam of the Prophets, there is no Prophet after me." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B7, H2219] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was aware that there will be people who will distort the natural meaning of Khaatam so he made the following statement; there is no Prophet after me, to pin point Khaatam’s (i.e. last/final) intended meaning. Note Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: I am Khaatam of Prophets. He stated this in context of his saying; there will be thirty impostors claiming to be Prophets after him. If he is the last Prophet and thirty men from his Ummah claim to be Prophets after him then by default they are impostors because they claim to be something which they cannot be. This logical deduction established the meaning of Khaatam to mean last/final. 0.5 - Commentary On Prophet Not Being Father Of Adult Man: It was customs of Arabs to not to marry the divorcees of their biological sons. The verse Khatamiyyah was revealed in context of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) wanting to marry divorcee of his adopted son Zaid Ibn Harith (radiallah ta’ala anhu). The polytheists and the hypocrites took this as opportunity to malign the character of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) saying; he has married wife of his son. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed the verse in response to this compaign saying: “Muhammad is not the father of any of your men …” [Ref: 33:40] Meaning Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not biological father of any adult male to imply that the compaign to malign him is without foundation. 0.6 - Commentary On Verse Of Khaatamiyyah: Prophet-hood Is In Bloodline: In the preceding verse Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “… but (he is) the Messenger of Allah and the khaat’m of the Prophets ...” [Ref: 33:40] Question begs to be asked: Why would Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) declare that his beloved Prophet is Khaat’m of the Prophets in a apparently unrelated incident? The obvious answer is in the following Hadith: “Narrated Ismail: I asked Abi Aufa: "Did you see Ibrahim, the son of the Prophet?" He said: "Yes, but he died in his early childhood. Had there been a Prophet after Muhammad then his son would have lived, but there is no Prophet after him." [Ref: Bukhari, B73, H214] The negation of adult biological son in the verse and affirmation of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) being Khaat’m of the Prophets is to convey the meaning; the line of Prophe-thood is through bloodline. In other words Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) does not have a biological adult son because Prophet-hood would have been through his bloodline yet he is the last/end of the Prophets. Implying that prophetic bloodline has to come to end too for Prophet-hood to come to an end. And if he had biological adult son then bloodline would continue and so would have Prophet-hood. Following Hadith also supports the point established via reasoning: “It was narrated that Ibn Abbas said: ‘Then Ibrahim the son of the Messenger of Allah died, the Messenger of Allah prayed and said: ‘He has a wet-nurse in Paradise, and if he had lived he would have been a Siddiq and a Prophet. If he had lived his maternal uncles, the Egyptians, would have been set free and no Egyptian would ever have been enslaved.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B6, H1511] Implication of which is, bloodline of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) came to an end, therefore Prophet-hood ended with Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). 0.7 - Verse Of Khaat’m al-Nabiyeen In Understanding Of Commentators: Commentary of companion Ibn al-Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) interprets the verse of Khaatamiyyah as following: “(Muhammad is not the father of any man among you …) such as Zayd (… but he is the Messenger of Allah …) but Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah (… and the seal of the Prophets …) with him Allah has sealed the advent of prophets; such that there is no prophet after him (… and Allah is Aware of all things …) of your words and works.” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn al-Abbas, 33:40, here] In Tafsir al Jalalayn of Imam Jalal al-Din Suyuti (rahimullah) Khaatam al-Nabiyeen conveys the exact meaning of Ibn al-Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu): “… (… but …) he is (… the Messenger of God and the seal of the Prophets …) And so he will not have a son that is a fully grown man to be a prophet after him. A variant reading for khātim al-nabiyyīna has khātam al-nabiyyīn as in the instrument known as a ‘seal’ in other words their prophethood has been sealed by him. And God has knowledge of all things among these is the fact that there will be no prophet after him and even when the master Jesus descends at the end of days he will rule according to his Muhammad’s law.” [Ref: Tafsir al-Jalalayn, 33:40, here] Ibn Kathir (rahimullah) conveys the same meaning also in his commentary: “(but he is the Messenger of Allah and the last of the Prophets. And Allah is Ever All-Aware of everything.) This is like the Ayah: (Allah knows best with whom to place His Message.) (6:124) This Ayah clearly states that there will be no Prophet after him. If there will be no Prophet after him then there will surely be no Messenger after him either, because the status of a Messenger is higher than that of a Prophet, for every Messenger is a Prophet but the reverse is not the case.'' [Ref: Tafsir Ibn al-Kathir, 33:40, here] 0.8 - What Some Of Other Commentators Stated On Verse Of Khatamiyyah: Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (rahimullah) in his commentary Jami al-Bayan under the verse in discussion reduced the meaning of Khaatam al-Nabiyeen to Akhar al-Nabiyeen (i.e. last/end of the Prophets). The famous Mutazali gramarian al-Zamashkari in his Tafsir al-Kashf stated Khaatam is in meaning of al-Taba’a (i.e. last) and al-Khatm (i.e. end), and in meaning of Khatm al-Nabiyeen (i.e. end of the Prophets). In Tafsir al-Kabir, Imam Fakhr al-Din Raazi (rahimullah) while alluding to completion/perfection of religion of Islam stated that if there was another Prophet to follow after Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then some aspect of Islam would have been incomplete which a later Prophet would have perfected/completed. Alluding to the fact that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has completed/perfected Islam therefore there is no need for sending of Prophet after him. Thus in his unique fashion Imam (rahimullah) affirmed that Khaat’m means last/final and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is last/final of the Prophets. Imam Ibn Jawzi (rahimullah) stated in his Zaad ul-Masir that if Khaat’m is recited as Khaatim then it means Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has ended the line of Prophets. And if Khaat’m is recited as Khaatam then it means Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is last Prophet. Imam Mahmood Nasfi (rahimullah) stated in his Tafsir Madarik al-Tanzeel that Khatam al-Nabiyeen means in line of Prophets Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is the last Prophet. No one will be appointed as a Prophet after him. End. Every single commentator of Quran has interpreted the verse of Khatamiyyah to denote end of Prophet-hood after Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), and there will be no more new Prophet after Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). 1.0 - Refuting The Liar And Impostor Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani: Messenger of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) there will be no Prophet nor a Messenger after him: “Anas bin Malik narrated: "The Messenger of Allah said: 'Indeed Messenger-ship and Prophet-hood have been terminated, so there shall be no Messenger after me, nor a Prophet.' He (Anas) said: "The people were concerned about that, so he said: 'But there will be Mubashirat.' So they said: 'O Messenger of Allah! What is Mubashirat?' He said: 'The Muslim's dreams, for it is a portion of the portions of Prophet-hood.'" [Ref” Tirmadhi, B8, H2272] Prophet Muhammed (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is the Khaat’m al-Nabiyeen, as well as Khatam al-Rusul. After him there is no Prophet, and no Messenger. In other Ahadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: "Narrated AbuHurayrah: The Prophet said: The last hour will not come before there come forth thirty Dajjals (fraudulents), everyone presuming himself that he is an Rasool of Allah." [Ref: Abu Dawood, B37, H4319] "Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger as saying: The last hour would not come until there would arise about thirty Dajjals (i.e. impostors), Kadhabs (i.e. liars), and each one of them would claim that he is a Rasool (Messenger) of Allah." [Ref: Muslim, B41, H6988] Even though these people claim to be Messengers of God but the reality is there cannot be a Prophet, nor a Messenger, therefore their claims prove they are liars, and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani, upon whom be curse of Allah, is one from these thirty [minor] Dajjals and Kadhabs. 2.0 - Prophets And Messengers Are Distinguished By Principles: These are some principles which need to be understood, and remembered, they are crucial in understanding why, and how Prophet Muhammed is Last Prophet as well as Messenger: i) Some humans were sent as Prophets and as Messengers, ii) and some humans were only sent as Prophets. In other words it means: i) Every Messenger is Prophet also, ii) but every Prophet is not Messenger. In conclusion it can be said there are two types of Prophets: i) Nabi, ii) Nabi Rasool: The differences between: i) Nabi: Receives revelation, but receives no Book, communicates with Allah directly from behind a curtain, or indirectly via angle, and rank is lower then Rasool. ii) Nabi Rasool: Receives revelation, as well as Book, communicates with Allah directly from behind a curtain, or indirectly via angle, and is of highiest rank. Following is example of some Prophets belonging to each category: i) Nabi: Haroon, Sulayman, Yaqoob, Jonah, Ismail, Is'haq. ii) Nabi Rasool: Ibrahim, Dawood, Musa, Isa, Muhammed.[1] 3.0 - Rashid Khalifah, Impostor And Liar, Refuting His Taweel: With meaning of Khaat’m decided, we come to conclusion that Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is last, final, and he has sealed the door of Prophet-hood and there cannot be another Prophet after him. By default, the door of Messengership has been closed by ending/sealing arrival of Prophets because every Messenger is a Prophet. Some humans were just Prophets and some were Prophet-Messengers therefore if a Messenger was to be born after RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) that Messenger should also be a Prophet. And according to the verse of Khatamiyyah another new Prophet cannot come after Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah and the Kha'tm of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things.” [Ref: 33:40] Another way of understanding the verse would be is when something inferior is prohibited the greater then it is automatically prohibited. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructs the believers: “And your Lord has decreed that you not worship except Him, and to parents, good treatment. Whether one or both of them reach old age with you, say not to them, "uff," and do not repel them but speak to them a noble word.” [Ref: 17:23] Do not say show dislike, or displeasure to parents. This verse prohibits the lowest and level of displeasure anything greater then that is by default prohibited. Now when it has become evident that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated the lower rank of Nabi has been ended/sealed then by default the greater rank of Nabi-Rasool sealed/ended. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has made following statement narrated in a Hadith: “Anas bin Malik narrated: "The Messenger of Allah said: 'Indeed Messenger-ship and Prophet-hood have been terminated, so there shall be no Messenger after me, nor a Prophet.' He (Anas) said: "The people were concerned about that, so he said: 'But there will be Mubashirat.' So they said: 'O Messenger of Allah! What is Mubashirat?' He said: 'The Muslim's dreams, for it is a portion of the portions of Prophet-hood.'" [Ref” Tirmadhi, B8, H2272] Statement of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been understood as an explanation of verse of Khatamiyyah. And my explanation of verse details, explains how Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) understood the verse of Khaat’m al-Nabiyeen and makes clear the reason he made the statement recorded in Hadith. In addition it explains why and how Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Khaat’m al-Nabiyeen and Khaat’m al-Rusul. And why Taweel of Rashid Khalifa is invalid. Conclusion: Word Khaat’m in Khaat’m al-Nabiyeen is recited with Fat-ha and Kasra. Both readings accord the prophetic explanation, mentioned in Ahadith, and produce understanding, there is no Prophet after Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). The Arabic gramarians and commentators of Quran have given meaning of Akhar al-Nabiyeen to Khaat’m al-Nabiyeen. In addition to this scholars have stated every Messenger is Prophet as well but not every Prophet is Messenger. And Messenger ranks higher then a Prophet. Principle is when lesser is prohibited then greater is automatically prohibited. When this information is computed with meaning of Khaat’m al-Nabiyeen the result is; Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not only the last and final Prophet but he is also final Messenger from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And this is in agreement with prophetic saying, there will be no Messenger and Prophet after me. In other Ahadith he said after him some thirty liars and minor Dajjals will claim Prophet-hood from his Ummah. In light of this all the men/women who claimed Prophet-hood or Messenger-ship after Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are liars and minor Dajjals. This includes the chief of disbelievers, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani, upon him be curse of Allah, and Rashid Khalifah, and Elijah Muhammad of Nation Of Islam. Wama Alayna Ilal Balaghul Mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razvi FootNotes: - [1] These principles were derived by great scholars of Islam and are universally accepted as valid by all sects of Muslims. Those who wish to test them can verify them by analysing Quran, and Ahadith. This is a time consuming, and very detailed analysis, which would be too detailed to casual readers, those who are interested in authenticating these rules are more then welcome to investigate, and if any anamolies apear I would gladly provide further evidence from Quran and Ahadith to remove doubts.

Salam alayqum, Kameel ka mana akmal, kamil heh ... yehni bey-nuqs. Kameel nam rakh saktay hen ... behtr Abdul Kameel hoga ... is kay ilawa bi rakh saktay hen.

Jin bandoon ka dil murda ho us ko zinda taweez ganda nahin kar sakta aur nah ilm aur samjaya ja sakta heh ... joh insaan ka bacha heh us mein ihsaas aur compassion fitrati heh ... janab ko apni pari heh ... woh buzurg joh tarp rahay hen un ki nahin ... janab khud pait bar khanay aur auroon ko bhook ki ihsaas nah karnay waloon mein say hen ... esoon kay mutaliq Islam mein kuch hota bi toh Islam kuch nahin kar sakta. Walden ko kahen kay khud aa kar mil leeya keren.

Yeh neechay wali teen posts hen:

Salam alayqum, meri posts in thread mein hen, un ko peren, wazahat mojood heh.

Aik toh Ghareeboob ki ghurbat phook biyas ki waja say un ka waqar aur izzat achay aur buray ki tameez jaati rahi ... aur dosri taraf pesay walay maldaroon say Nabi e kareem ki Sunnat ... ameeron ko khilao aur ghareeboon say platenh saaf karwaho ... aah kar joh bacha heh playtoon mein woh leh jao aur khao aur khilao ... joh Musalman bhai bhai hen aur bhen bhen hen ... un kay ghareeb bhen bhai muntazir hen kay ameer bhai aur bhen plate mein kuch choren gay toh ham khaen gay aur bachoon ko khilahen gay ... jis izzat aur waqar ki khatir namaz ko pochnay ki khatir dornay say mana heh ... woh plate mein bachi kuchi hadiyoon aur tuqroon ki khatir nilam heh ... dukh ki baat heh ... kay ghareeb kharay hoon ... aur roz roz das bandoon ka khana khaanay walay kha rahay hoon ... yeh sab murda dil aur zameer logh kar saktay hen aur dekh saktay hen ... jis qaum kay aam logh esay bey-his aur bey-dill hen un ki qutb ul aftab kism kay leaders nahin milnay walay. kameenoon mein kameena raja aur bey-deenoon mein bey'deen. bey-parwa bey-dill bey-zameeroon mein unneeh jaisa NAWAZ SHAREEF. ZARDARI. IMRAN KHAN. BILAWAL. waghayra ... jistera musalman ko musalman ki nahin hakim ki awaam ki izzat maal jaan phook piyas ki qadr nahin ... jesay banday wesay leader ...

Mein browse kar raha thah ... idhar http://www.islamieducation.com/the-prophets-knowledge-of-the-unseen/ Toh yeh parnay ko mila ... joh bey-adabi heh ...

Bhai sahib har Hadith ka zahiri mana nahin leeya jata ... urf mein shararti bachay ko ... yeh bara shaytan heh ... matlab shararti heh ... shaytan yehni Kafir Jinn aag say bana aur oonth aur tamam janwar parinday mitti say ... phir munasbat kahan huwi. Aur har Hadith Sahih bi nahin hoti.

Salam alayqum, Kuch puranay zamanoon kay Ulamah nay lughvi ihtibar say Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) say ilfaaz Hadhir Nazir ko bura jana [keun kay jism aur jismaniat sabat karta heh aur dekhnay ko ankh ka mohtaj banata heh aur Allah in say paak heh] aur kuch Ulamah nay taweel kay saath jaiz mana aur kaha kay agar kohi in ilfaaz kay zahiri lughvi mafoom ko dar guzr karay aur woh mana mutayyin karay joh Allah ki shaan kay laykh hen yehni hadhir Allah ki shaan kay layk hona aur nazir baghayr ankh hona aur baghayr sooraj ki roshini mana jahay toh jaiz heh. Hasil yeh heh kay jinoon nay bura jana unoon nay lafzi manoon ki wajah say aur jinoon nay jaiz unoon nay taweel ki waja say. Abh atay hen Jaa al-Haq ki ibarat ki taraf; Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) ko joh HAR JAGA Hadhir Nazir manay woh bila shak o shuba zindeeq balkay Kafir heh. Magr joh Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) ko jaga aur har jaga ki qaid kay baghayr Hadhir Nazir manay woh toh Musalman heh. Bandoon ko ibaraat parnay ki bi samaj nahin aur fatweh Shaykh ul-Islamoon ki shaan kay layk detay hen. Sayyidi Ala Hadrat kay walid e moteram nay joh baat likhi unoon nay lafzi mafoom mein likhi ... keun kay lafzi mafoom mein Allah ko Hazir Nazir manna yeh mana rakhta heh woh jism aur makhlooq mein mojood heh aur qaynaat kay har hissay mein wujud rakhta heh.

Salam alayqum, Is section mein Abdul Salam sahib ko meri taraf say aik jawab likha gaya thah joh idhar nahin. Yehni in ki akhiri post kay baad mera aik jawab thah ... jis ko kissi waja say delete kar deeya gaya ya forum update karteh huway delete ho gahi. Please check keren aur restore kar denh. 2012/2013 mein post keeya thah.

Janab Hadith ka aik hissa pesh keeya dosra nahin. Hadith ka sayaq o sabaq heh ... hijrat aur shadi ... aur phir kaha gaya kay amaal ka talluq niyatoon par heh ... yehni woh amaal joh ibadat hoon ... ya joh amaal Shariat mein jaiz hoon ... in sab ka daro madaar niyat par heh. Agar niyat raza illahi wasteh kee toh sawab paya aur nah keeh toh kuch nahin ... joh juraim hoon, chori, zina, qatal, gustakh e Ambiyah, waghayra ... in ka talluq niyat say nahin balkay amal say heh. Abh menh tummen kutteh ka bacha kahoon aur kahoon meri niyat yeh thi kay tum wafadar insan kay bachay ho toh kia tum maan loh gay? Joh masail shar'ah mein jaiz hen aur sabat hen aur achay hen in ka talluq niyat say heh ... agar namaz pari aur niyat ibadat nah keeh balkay is wasteh keeh kay Abba dekh raha heh ... chalo dramahi tor par Sajdeh deh loh ... yeh Ibadat nahin hogi ... ibadat ussee waqt hogi jab Allah ki ibadat ki niyat say ibadat karo gay toh. Joh Allamah Kazmi Sahib rahimullah nay likha heh ... aap ki samaj say bahir heh ... woh bilqul tumaray Deobandiat ka radd karti heh ... likha kia heh aur samja kia heh ... Urdu bi parnay aur samajnay say pedal lagtay ho.

Taj ul-Uroos: https://www.scribd.com/document/379550816/There-is-No-Najd-Iraq-or-Najd-Hijaz-In-Taj-Ul-Uroos-Min-Jawahir-Ul-Qamoos Mu'jam Buldan: https://www.scribd.com/document/379382135/Entry-of-Muj-Jam-Al-Buldan-on-Najd-By-Imam-Abu-Abdullah-Yaqut-Al-Hamawi

Siddeeq Akbar is waja say kaha jata heh kay Abu Bakr (radiallah ta'ala anhu) sirf hi Siddeeq nahin thay aur nah hi woh Ummat mein wahid is martbay par faiz hen. Akbar ki izafat sab Siddeeqoon par un ki akbariat ka izhar heh. Yehni woh Ummat mein sab Siddeeqon say afzal hen ...

Salam . Bhai woh mein nay talash kar leeh heh. Pc say Idhar link paste kar doon ga.

Arabi mein Taaj ul-Uroos mein Najd say mutaliqa pooray section kay scanned pages chahyeh. Ya phir is version mein kon si volume aur kon sa page heh: https://archive.org/details/TajUlAroos Mein nay bhot maghz mari keeh heh ... bari mushkil say mojam buldan ka doh din ki mehnat kay baad referrence nikala abh idhar pans gaya hoon. Mushkil heh Arabi nahin aati ... fehristoon ki fehristen chaan mari hen magr kamyabi nahin huwi.

1) Pehli baat kay Wahhabi ko ilfaaz ka mana hi nahin pata. Ummat Shirk nahin kar sakti bilqul darust heh ... keun kay lafz Ummat das, bees, pachaas, 10 lakh par nahin bola jata, balkay Ummat lafz saray Musalmanoon par bola jata heh ... yehni tamam Ummat e Muhammadi (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) Shirk nahin karay gi ... aur Wahhabi sabat kar deh kay Ummat Mushrik ho gai toh khud bi Kafir hi hoga. Ummat mein say afrad ka Kafir ho jana, Mushrik ho jana muhaal nahin balkay sabat shuda baat heh ... misaal kay tor par Musaylmah Bin Kazzab kay fitnay say kitnay log Kafir ho gay aur baad mein bi hotay rahay. 2) Dosri baat lafz Ummat Jamhoor yehni aksiriat/majority jissay sawad al azam aur al-Jammat par bi ittlaq hota heh. Is ki misaal Quran say lenh, Farishtoon mein Iblees thah ... Allah nay farmaya farishto Sajdah karo halan kay wahan par Jinn yehni Shaytan bi thah aur ussay bi hukum thah ... ... hasil kalam yeh kay aksiriat ki waja say lafz farishta istimal huwa. Is'see tera jamhoor kay wasteh lafz Ummat istimal huwa. Ummat ka Jamhoor Shirk nahin kar sakta. keun kay RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) nay farmaya kay meri Ummat ka jamhoor gumrahi par kabi raazi nahin hoga. Gumrahi toh aik choti baat heh jis par Jamhoor Ummat raazi nahin ho sakti toh ... Shirk e Azeem par jamhoor ka raazi hona kesay ho sakta heh. Aur Wahhabi toh Ummat kay Jamhoor ko hi Mushrik mantay aur shirk azeem ka ilzam detay hen minority ko nahin phir un ka ilzaam kesay darust ho sakta heh aur Wahhabi kesay Musalman ho sakteh hen, keun kay Takfir uneeh par wapis lauti. Aur ham Ahle Sunnat Wal Jammat Musalman aur Jahmoor aur Sawad alAzam hen ham kesay Kafir/Mushrik hoon gay ... 3) Sahabah kay leyeh khaas karnay kay wasteh khasoosiyat ki daleel chahyeh apnay qiyas ki bunyad par khaas un kay wasteh nahin kee ja sakti. Us say poocho kay farman e RasoolAllah say khasoosiyat sabat karay warna maan leh keh esi beghayr daleel wali takhsees ko qatti jannay wala biddati heh. Umoom ki takhsees daleel par hoti heh qiyaas ki bina par nahin. Aur joh hamari takhsees heh aur us ki daleel heh mein nay bayan kar di point doh mein. 4) Aur akhiri baat kay joh Wahhabi aap ko kohi point bayan karay us ki Quran Hadith say daleel mangen. Jab taq woh apnay mowaqif ki daleel pesh na karay aap us ki jaan nah choren. Us ka dawah yeh Sahabah wasteh heh ... aap kahen Quran Hadith say sabat kar doh ... agar nahin toh Ummat wasteh heh Sahabah wasteh nahin. Yeh asool bana lenh joh Wahhabi kehta heh us ki daleel mangen, agar woh sans bi leta heh daleel mangen. Mein janta hoon in ko mein Wahhabi thah ... in kay pass kohi Quran aur Hadith say daleel nahin ... yeh tor mor kar aur apni aqal aur qiyas arahi say kehtay hen Hadith ka matlab yeh heh ... yeh Quran say aur Hadith say kuch bi sabat nahin kar saktay. Agar yeh sachay hotay mein in kay mazhab ko parh kar samaj kar kabhi nah chorta. Jitni bi yeh Ahadith is maslay par pesh kartay hen un ki tashri ghalat kartay hen. Mein nay is mozoo par English mein taqriban panch chay article likhay hen aur in kay tamam itrazat ka jawab deh deeya heh. 7 aur 8 mein ziyada hoon gay pehaly teenoon mein mein bi aik aik hoon gay. Is kay ghor say parh lenh inshallah in ko aap lajawab kar denh gay. https://www.islamimehfil.com/forum/94-articles-and-books/?page=4 https://www.islamimehfil.com/forum/94-articles-and-books/?page=5 https://www.islamimehfil.com/forum/94-articles-and-books/?page=6 https://www.islamimehfil.com/forum/94-articles-and-books/?page=7 https://www.islamimehfil.com/forum/94-articles-and-books/?page=8

Bakwas heh ... doh baten. Aaj kay dawr mein tehreeri Fatwah joh Ahle Sunnat kay mashoor nazria kay khilaf jata ho us ko dar guzr kar denh. Doh wujuhat ki bunyad par. Awal aaj kay dawr mein Fatweh garh kar Ulamah say mansoob karna aik rawayat ban gahi heh. Joh bad-mazhab hen woh idhar udhar yeh harkaten kartay rehtay hen. Dosri baat agar kissi nay aqeeqi tor par aisa fatwah deeya heh toh woh qabil e qubul nahin chahay woh sahih bi ho. Dr Tahir Ul-Qadri Sahib nay Yahood aur Nasara ko BELIEVER bataya heh toh kia aap ya kohi aur in ko BELIEVER man leh ga aur kia man'na chahyeh? Aakhiri baat kay yeh question Fiqha kay mutaliq thah ... Fiqha Jafria aqahid kay mutaliq nahin ... English mein joh likha us say Fiqha Jafria ko follow karna ka likha heh ... Fiqha ka masla yahi heh joh Shia Jafria Fiqha heh jahan taq woh darust heh toh woh darust heh. Chand mashoor masail mein woh ghalat hen ... gadda/go'ra halal samaj kar khana aur Muttah aur masla teen talaq ka aik hona ... aur bi hoon gay ... magr jahan taq un ki namaz kay zahiri harkatoon ka talluq heh toh woh Maliki Fiqh kay mutabiq hen. Namaz mein partay kia hen Allah hi behtr janay. Balkay kuch toh namaz mein bi Aliyun Wali Allah khalifatul bil fasl partay hen ... yeh biddat heh ... Fiqhi ikhtilafat mein ziyada shiddat nahin honi chahyeh bilkhasoos un masail baray mein joh Ijtihadi tor par akhaz keeyeh gay hen aur wazia Quran o Sunnat mein un ko nahin paya gaya. Joh Shia ka nazriat Sunnat e RasoolAllah kay khilaf hen un ka radd karna chahyeh. Aakhiri baat Aalim Fatwah ilm aur haqaiq par dena chahyeh. Misaal kay tor par yeh joh namaz mein Aliyun wali Allah partay hen ... kohi bi Sunni Aalim is par raazi nahin hoga ... aur fatwah denay walay ko shahid is ka ilm bi nah ho. Ya yeh ho sakta heh jahan par yeh fatwah deeya gaya ho wahan yeh nah keeya jata ho. Ya jis dawr mein yeh amal jari huwa woh baad ka ho aur Fatwah pehlay ka ... aur bandeh is ko is harkat kee taeed mein bi pesh keren. Masla yeh heh kay esay fatwoon ki achi tara tehqeeq karni chayeh ... balkay joh Ahadith aap kay amal kay khilaaf hoon un ki bi achi tara tehqeeq karni chahyeh aur agar phir amal ko Hadith kay khilaaf paya jahay toh chorna chahyeh ... Zahiri tor par aik fatweh ko leh kar us ko har zamanay par fit karna aur har ilaqay kay Shia par fit karna aqalmandi nahin. Aap aur baqi Sunniyoon ko meri advice yahi heh kay apnay ilaqay kay Ulamah say rabta rakhen. Arab mumalik mein kon kia heh kia nazria rakhta heh aur keun ... hamaray leyeh janna mushkil hota heh ... jistera hamaray Pakistan mein Sunniyoon ki bi mukhtalif branches hen ... aik branch woh heh joh WESTERNISATION kay injection laga rahi heh Islam ko taqay Islam Western values kay mutabiq ho aur West walay raazi ho jahen ... aik Dawat e Islami heh joh puranay zamanay aur Sunnat ki taraf bula rahi heh ... ham ko pata heh kon si jammat ki kia bunyad heh aur kon say Ulamah hamaray suttoon hen (yehni Ala Hadrhat rahimullah) jin ki bunyad par ham apnay Pakistani Hindustan kay logoon ko janch saktay hen ... Muritania, Africa ... ARabia, Malaysia ... ka ham ko kia pata koi kia heh ... Shaykh Mahmud Shaltut ka Fatwah is waja say ho sakta heh kay Jamal Abdul Nasir (joh Shia thah) us nay in ko hakumati taraf say Al-Azhar mein psoition deeh thee ... aur zahir heh jis ka khao us ka gao toh hoga ... yeh dekh lenh yeh mera tajziya nahin balkay kissi aur ka bi heh: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Azhar_Shia_Fatwa

There is no sazza for this ... but if you referr to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) with Mo, or Moe, or Mohd, thats insulting and disrespectul. Altering the name Muhammad to Mo is an innovation and evil one at that so refrain from it and repent. If you used such language while referring to Prophet (sallallahu alayahi wa aalihi was'sallam) by exident then you should repent. There is no punishment nor Kufr if done in ignorance or forgetfulness but done to insult him is Kufr and punishable by death. Alternatively if someone addressed him wrongly using Mo and someone corrected and person insists on using Mo for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) then such a person would be guilty of Kufr and eventually will lead to Takfir and punishment of death. Referr to following my article on the topic.