MuhammedAli

Introduction: Shaykh Thanvi of Deobandi sect wrote knowledge which is gained through another cannot be deemed Ilm al-Ghayb and this belief is need of evidential support. Muslims believe knowledge which reaches through means of another, such as Jibraeel (alayhis salam), is also Ghayb. And Deobandi Shaykh also stated to say a creation has knowledge of Ghayb is prohibited because due to absence of evidence there is danger of falling into Shirk by attributing knowledge of Ghayb to a creation. We Muslims believe Shirk does not become Tawheed by presence or Tawheed become Shirk due to absence evidence. Rather what is Shirk will remain Shirk even if there was evidence and Tawheed would remain Tawheed if there was no evidence. Also to establish that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) granted Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) the knowledge of Ghayb and to attribute Ilm al-Ghayb to beloved Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not Shirk there is danger of Shirk nor it is prohibited. Question Asked Bakr And Answer Given By Shaykh Thanvi: Q: “A certain individual, Amr, stated prostration is of two types, worship, respect, and when on to state Amr believes prostration of respect for other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is permissible. And believes Tawaf (i.e. circumbulation) around the graves (of Awliyah-Allah) is permissible. Evidence of permissibility … Amr also stated Ilm al-Ghayb is bil-Zaat[1] (i.e. of Self), in this meaning only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Aalim ul-Ghayb (i.e. Knower Of Ghayb). And ba-wasta (i.e. with means) and in this meaning RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was Aalim ul-Ghayb. How is Amr’s this evidence (and what is legal ruling on Amr’s) these actions and belief?” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page2, here] A: “Shar’ri application of mutliq Ghayb[2] (i.e. boundless Ghayb) is upon Ghayb which cannot be established by evidence and for which there is no mean or way of its comprehension. On this (stated) foundation it has stated: "None in the heavens and earth knows the unseen except Allah …” (27:65) and: “And if I knew the unseen, I could have …” (7:188) And knowledge which is via means; on this (type of knowledge) application of (word) Ghayb is need of qarina (i.e. evidential support). Then attributing Ilm Ghayb to creation, without supporting evidence, due to danger of Shirk is prohibited and impermissible.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page14, here] The Erroneous Foundation Of Shaykh Thanvi: Generally it is believed all that is seen, or heard, touched, … cannot be Ghayb and all that is heard from another cannot be Ghayb. Shaykh Thanvi has based his following statement on the mentioned point: “And knowledge which is via means; on this (type of knowledge) application of (word) Ghayb is need of qarina (i.e. evidential support).” Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) granted Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aaalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb through angels. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: “(Allah, He is) Knower of the unseen, and He does not disclose His Ghayb to anyone. Except whom He has approved of messengers, and indeed, He sends before each messenger and behind him observers.” [Ref: 72:26/27] There are other verses but one will suffice just as many. Note implication of the verse is when it reaches to His Messenger it is still Ghayb even though it has come through Jibraeel (alayhis salam). If being delivered by another is reason Ilm al-Ghayb is not Ilm al-Ghayb then should Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) have said that He reveals His Ghayb to a chosen Messenger? Alhasil in sight of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knowledge sent via Jibraeel (alayhis salam) to Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is still al-Ghayb. And Shaykh Thanvi can go to hell to convince a believer of truthfulness his position but Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has decided the matter for believers. Note not all knowledge of Ghayb of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was through Jibraeel (alayhis salam) in form of Wahi. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) saw paradise and heard its sounds and tortures of grave. Therefore to negate Ilm al-Ghayb is senseless. And application of Ghayb for knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is established. Refuting Notion; Seeing, Hearing, Informed Of Something Is Not Ghayb: Of course whatever has been seen, or heard, or one is informed of is not Ghayb in normal sense. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) saw hell and paradise, saw Musa (alayhis salam) performing Salah in his heavenly resting place. He had to see, hear, and get informed by Gibraeel (alayhis salam) to know Ghayb. For Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to have knowledge of Ghayb the Ghayb had to be disclosed to his sight, hearing, and had to be informed. When the Muslims say Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been granted the knowledge of Ghayb it is not because Ghayb is Ghayb from Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but it is Ghayb from mankind. All that is Ghayb for mankind; such as paradise, hell and punishment of grave, this Ghayb is known to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallma). Meaning Ghayb knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not Ghayb from him but Ghayb from rest of mankind. And that which was Ghayb from mankind; was known, seen, and heard by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). This explains why Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) called Wahi delievered via Jibraeel (alayhis salam) as Ghayb. Its not Ghayb from Jibraeel (alayhis salam) and not Ghayb from Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) referred to it as Ghayb because Wahi was Ghayb from all mankind in his life time. Alhasil there is no reason to disbelieve in prophetic knowledge of Ghayb or to attribute Ghayb to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Without Evidence There Is Danger Of Shirk: Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “Then attributing Ilm Ghayb to creation, without supporting evidence, due to danger of Shirk is prohibited and impermissible.” In other words Shaykh Thanvi’s belief is in absence of evidence there is danger of committing Shirk if one attributes knowledge of Ghayb to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) therefore it is not permitted to attribute Ilm al-Ghayb to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).[3] Readers should note Shaykh Thanvi’s reasoning is; lack of evidence leads to danger of Shirk, and danger of Shirk leads to prohibition of attributing Ilm al-Ghayb to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Please note evidence refuting Shaykh’s prohibitive injunction has been already presented and discussed. Muslims believe presence and absence of evidence for a belief does not make it Tawheed or Shirk. Suppose if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) willed to have a son/daughter. And Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) mentioned this in Quran saying I have a son. Will the presence of evidence for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) having a son make believing in son of Allah a Tawheedi belief? No! Because attributing a partner, son, father, mother, daughter, and wife is all Shirk and even if there was a verse in Quran instructing us to believe in son of Allah it still would be Shirk. The only difference would be that in current Islam Shirk is sin and punishable by eternal fire. In hypothetical context refusing to believe in Shirki belief of Allah having a son would be punishable. Tawheed and Shirk could have become part of Islam but presence or absence of evidence for one or the other would not have turned one into the other. Fundamentally Tawheed is to believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is the One, and the Only Ilah (i.e. God). And Shirk is to believe there are other Ilahs (i.e. gods) beside Him. Attributing Ilm al-Ghayb does not mean one believes RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is a god beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And this is true on basic level of Tawheed and Shirk mentioned in the section and for in-depth level. If there was no evidence for attributing Ilm al-Ghayb to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) at worst one would be guilty of reprehensible innovation but nothing more. It seems Shaykh Thanvi had defective understanding of Tawheed and Shirk or at the very least didn’t properly understand how Shirk is warranted. Conclusion: Presence of evidence for Ilm al-Ghayb of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) or its absence will not make it Tawheed or Shirk because Tawheed and Shirk are not dependent upon existence or non-existance of evidence in Quran/Hadith. Shirk is attributing a god/gods partners with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and not having proof for attributing Ilm al-Ghayb to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has nothing to do with it. Knowledge of Ghayb received through another and means of eyes, ears, is termed Ghayb because it is Ghayb from mankind. And RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knows Ghayb which was Ghayb for mankind. Textually Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) called the Wahi Ghayb even when it was being sent through Gibraeel (alayhis salam) which is further proof that Ghayb exposed to hearing, seeing of another (i.e. Gibraeel alayhis salam) and received via another is still Ilm al-Ghayb. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi FootNotes: - [1] Bil-Zaat (read, biz-Zaat) knowledge of Ghayb, in Urdu Zaati, knowledge is which is inheritently part of someones knowledge and not been granted to person by another or via gained via means. Bil-Zaat is unique for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). - [2] Mutliq knowledge of Ghayb, ghayr muntahi (i.e. limitless) referrs to limitless knowledge of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). It is inclusive of all that has happened, is happening, will happen, and is inclusive of limitless knowledge of possibilities (i.e. Mumkinaat). - [3] From his belief it can be assumed that he believes if there was/is evidence supporting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has knowledge of Ghayb then there would be no danger of Shirk hence it would be permissible to say RasoolAllah (sallallahua layhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has knowledge of Ghayb.

Introduction: Shaykh Shah Ismail Dehalvi, Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Shaykh Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri and other Deobandi scholars Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Muslims hold to position that to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is act of Kufr/disbelief and therefore those guilty of disrespecting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are guilty of Kufr. And after being fully aware of their Kufr and to agree with their insulting statements and to defend them and to consider those who insulted Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as Muslims is also Kufr. This is injunction is a detailed version of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat’s (rahimullah) edict recorded In Hussam al-Haramayn regarding those who insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and those who defend the insulting/disrespectful statements. Finding Faults In Prophet Is Prohibited And Will Be Punished: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) while adressing the believers says to Muslims: “O you who have believed, be not like those who maligned Moses; then Allah cleared him of what they said. And he in the sight of Allah was distinguished.” [Ref: 33:69] Nation of Prophet Musa (alayhis salam) maligned him by inventing faults and attributing to him. See following for details; here. And Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructs the Muslims to not to find faults in Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and warns those who do: “Indeed, those who abuse Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter and prepared for them a humiliating punishment.” [Ref: 33:57] It Is Prohibited And Kufr To Use Insulting Language For Prophet: In subcontinent and even in Arab context to call someone a shepherd is way of insult. And it is used to insinuate backwardness and illiteracy. Jews twisted word rai’na (i.e. consider us) to raa’eena (i.e. our shephard) while addressing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) mentions this in following verse: “Some of the Jews interchange the words from their places and say, “We hear and disobey” - and they say “Hear- [may you] not be able to hear” - and they say “Raa'ina” distorting it with their tongues and in order to slander religion; ...” [Ref: 4:46] The bold part of verse is referring to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And in following verse Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) prohibited the believers from using such words: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word raina (i.e. consider us), but say undhurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disblievers there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] Instead of word/words which can be misconstrued to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructed the believers to use words which cannot be misconstrued to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi w’s'sallam). Note Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states for disbelievers there is great punishment which indicates one who uses such insulting words are Kafirs/disbelievers. Also in another verse Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “The hypocrites fear lest a chapter should be revealed about them, showing them what is in their hearts. Say: ‘(Go ahead and) mock! But certainly Allaah will bring to light all that you fear.’ If you ask them (about this), they declare: ‘We were only talking idly and joking.’ Say: ‘Was it at Allaah, and His verse and His Messenger that you were mocking?’ Make no excuse; you disbelieved after you had believed” [Ref: 9: 64/66] Alhasil to insult Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Kufr. Fatwah Of Shia’ism To Insult Prophet is Kufr: Solomon Rushdie wrote his book disrespecting Islamic religious figures the then Iranian leader Shaykh Khomeini issued Fatwah of Kufr and said killing Rushdie is a religious obligation. I am unable to quote any referrence of Shia scholars. Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat’s Fatwah Upon Those Who Insults: The Imam of righteous believers, the reviver of Islam, Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Barelwi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) concludes his Fatwah in following words regarding one who insults/disrespects Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “In summary of discussion [of insulters of Allah and His Messenger and distorters of Khatamiyyah] this group [Thanvi, Ambethvi, Nanotavi, Gangohi, and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani]; all of them are disbelievers (i.e. Kafir), apostate (i.e. Murtad) and by concensus of Islamic are out of Islam. And without doubt [Fatawah] al-Bazaziyyah, Al-Durur al-Ghurur, Fatawah Khayriyyah, Majma al-Anhar, Durr al-Mukhtar and in other reliable books with regards to such disbelievers it has been stated; one who doubts in their disbelief and punishment such a person is disbeliever himself. And in al-Shifa it has been said; One who does not consider such a person as a disbeliever who believes in a belief other then belief of Ummah of Islam; we deem such a one also as a disbeliever. Or even if he delays [or adopts silence] it or doubts it. And it is said in Bahr ar-Raiq etc one who praises/approves [Kufr] sayings, or says; it has some meaning, or says; in this statement there are correct meanings and if the uttered words of [heretic] were Kufr then one who praises/approves then such a person is also Kafir. And Imam Ibn Hajr in his book al-A’laam in chapter on which our flag bearings scholar have agreed that one who utters words of Kufr is Kafir and one who deems [Kufr] good or agrees with it such one is also Kafir. Therefore be careful O human because preferred/liked above all things is religion which is respected above all of them [heretics/disbelievers] and without doubt Kafir will not be respected [by Muslims].” [Ref: Hussam al-Haramayn Ala Munhir il-Kufr Wal Mayn, by Imam Ahmad Raza rahimullah, Translated by; Muhammed Ali Razavi Page90/91, here.] There are many other Fatwah of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) but one will suffice. Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah’s Fatwah One Who Disrespects Prophet: The leader of Hanbali anthropomorphists, Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, the great heretic, and a pillar of Wahhabism writes: “Disrespecter of Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) be he a Muslim or Kafir is worthy of murder. This is the understanding of Jamhoor (i.e. majority) of scholars and Madhab. […] Imam Ishaq Bin Rahwiyah (rahimullah) said: ‘All Muslims have unanimously agreed; a person who disrespects/abuses Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) or Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), or rejects a revealed verse, or murders a Prophet from Prophets, such a person is Kafir, even if he believes in all other revealed speech.’ […] Muhammad Bin Sahtoon (rahimullah) has said: ‘All scholars [as if they] had one tongue unanimously have said; one who detracts (i.e. tanqees) from the merits of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Kafir.[1] He is threatened with punishment of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And according to Ummah of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) such one is to be killed and one who doubts his Kufr and punishment is also Kafir.’” [Ref: Al-Sarim al-Maslool Ala Shatim ar-Rasool,by; Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, Page; 23/24, Pblshr; Nooriyyah Razaviyyah, here.] Despite his likening Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to His creation this work of; Sarim Al Maslool … is one of the best on the topic. Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi’s Fatwah Upon One Who Insults Prophet: Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi author of insulting statement also believes that to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Kufr -: Question: “Honorable Mawlvi Ahmad Raza Khan (Barelwi) has stated and has attributed to you in Hussam al-Haramayn that in Hifz ul-Iman you clearly have stated that Ghayb knowledge like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is also possessed every child and madman, in fact by every animal, and every quadruped (i.e. four legged animal). Therefore following matters are need of clarification: (i) Have you stated in Hifz ul-Iman or any other book of yours anything like this? (ii) If not clearly then can it be implicitly derived? (iii) Or do you intend such a topic/meaning? (iv) If you have not clearly stated such topic/meaning, nor indicated )meaning) is derivitive of your statement, nor your intention, then such a person who believes (as such), or explicitly or implicitly says (this), that one do you believe is Muslims or Kafir? (…)” Answer: (iii) “When I deem such topic/meaning filthy and my heart has felt no danger of what has been stated above then how can it be my intended meaning? (iv) Any person believes as such, or without believing it; explicitly, or implicitly utters this; I deem such a person to be out of Islam (because) this person belies definitive evidences and insults/detracts (the merits of one who is) pride of tribe Adam (i.e. Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam). This is the answer to your questions now at the end …” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman -with- Bast al-Banan, Pages; 20/21/22, here.] The objective was to establish; to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Kufr even in Deobandi scholarship not just in Islamic. Conclusion: Evidence of Quran and Ahadith establishes to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Kufr. To agree with insulter, to make excuse for the insulter, to defend a insulter and his insults, is also Kufr. Also State is responsible for implimenting punishment of death upon insulter. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi Footnotes: - [1] Professor Ghulam Ahmad Hariri used word gali which is used for abusive words: “There is concensus amongst the scholars that one who abuses (i.e. gali) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and one who insults him is Kafir.” [Ref: Al-Sarim al-Maslool Ala Shatim ar-Rasool, Page; 40, Pblshr; Maktaba Qudusiyyah] Professor Muhammad Ijaaz’s Urdu translation uses word tanqees. Dictionary meaning is to reduce, to lower, to detract, but its popular meaning is insult/disrespect and I have translated it in accordance with dictionary meaning -: “All scholars [as if they] had one tongue unanimously have said; one who detracts (i.e. tanqees) from the merits of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Kafir.” [Ref: Al-Sarim al-Maslool Ala Shatim ar-Rasool,by; Pblshr; Nooriyyah Razaviyyah] In Islamic perspective to detract from merits of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and to abuse Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Kufr.

Introduction: In an effort to defend against blame of insult/disrespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) Deobandi scholarship engaged in a massive compaign of disinformation and distortion. But the lies and compaign of deception had one missing ingredient, the truth, and a such they all contradicted and belied themselves. All who took on path of defending Shaykh Thanvi from charge of Kufr complicated the problem even more for themselves. In my own words: One Maulvi said it means this, if it was that then it would be Kufr. And the other Maulvi said it means that, and if it was this meaning then it would be Kufr. One declared other Kafir and other declared one Kafir. They all tried their luck and all belied and resulted in refuting each other and indirectly declaring each other Kafir. Controversial Statement Of Hifz ul-Iman: Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like (i.e. aisa) this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here.] Note the underlined Urdu word is aisa (i.e. like). 0.0 - The Quotations Taken From Deobandi Side: This article will utilize material of debate famous debate between Islamic scholar Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) and Shaykh Manzoor Naumani al-Deobandi. The Deobandi account of debate was been published some sixty years after the debate as: Fatah Bareilly Ka Diskash Nazara. In reality this ‘victory’ was such a crushing defeat. When truth became evident to him Shaykh Naumani couldn’t just accept it so Shaykh Naumani made excuse that he needs to refresh his Wudhu. And he didn’t return to his podium; this was due to his ‘victory’. Shaykh Naumani’s great escape was so shameless that he left his, specs, books, turban, walking-staff and even his shoes in the Masjid, and never came back, again sign of his victory. Shaykh Naumani never debated any Islamic scholar again after this crushing defeat. Prior to this debate Shaykh Naumani had some twenty-five debates but this one proved so crushing that it made him debate-pacifist. His magzine which was printed in Bareilly stopped selling due to his ‘victory’. Deobandi Madrassa which he was in-charge of had exodus moment after the debate and was eventually closed its doors again due to his ‘victory’. His Deobandi students joined Madrassa Manazar e Islam which was run by brother of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah). 0.1 - Sixty Years After The Debate Deobandis Claim Victory: Some sixty years after (i.e. in 90’s) the Deobandis decided to publish the work of lie/deception using Muslim account [which was published in same year of debate] as template and inserted great deal in it and called it Fatah e Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara (i.e. beautiful scenary of conquest of Bareilly). Publishing it after so long itself casts doubt on the authenticity and accuracy of Deobandi account because after so long it is almost impossible to remember what happened sixty years ago. Even those who were in twenty’s at the time of writing this account would have been in their eighty’s; an age where it is difficult to remember what the person did yesterday. And which one of them can claim to accurately, in sequence, tell me what they did a week before; sixty years after; get over yourself liar, you’re not that good. Any how despite authors best effort Deobandi account is enough to prove Shaykh Naumani had no place to hide except escape. And if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wills readers will see the truth shining in 3.0/3.4 part of this article. Note Muslim account of debate was published as; Nusrat Khuda-dad Munazra Bareilly Mufassil Rudad (i.e. Clear Account Of God Given Victory In Debate Of Bareilly), here. Coincidently since 90’s Deobandis have also been attempting to turn debate of Jhang [between great scholar; Mawlana Ashraf Sialvi rahimullah and Deobandi Shaykh Haq Nawaz Jhangvi] as their victory. Such decisive was Shaykh Haq Nawaz Jhangvi’s defeat just like Shaykh Naumani’s defeat Shaykh Jhangvi never spoke against Muslims in his speeches instead he targetted Shias. The judges all unanimously gave verdict that Mawlana Ashraf Sialvi (rahimullah) won the debate but 20 years after it it became a Deobandi victory. And luckily the recording of Mawlana Ashraf Sialvi’s (rahimullah) debate with Shaykh Jhangvi is still available so the truth cannot be concealed. So it seems there is concentrated effort to turn past defeats into victories by 90’s generation of Deobandis. 0.2 - Authenticity And Accuracy Of Debate Accounts: I do not believe Muslim account of debate is hundered percent accurate, linked above, because details cannot be remembered. At best even this account is brief and from perspective of person who witnessed it and not what was said by both parties. Meaning author gave his own insight how he viewed the debate. Deobandi account has distinction; it is free of this but its publication in 1990’s erodes its authenticity. At best the content has been improved and likely with aid of Shaykh Naumani because it he was alive uptil 1997, or maybe in light of his written works. The writer omitted the contradiction between Shaykh Naumani and his teacher Shaykh Madani which Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) brought up again and again in debate: Such as mention of aisa (i.e. like this) not being for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) meaning itna/is-qadr (i.e. this-much) and yeh (i.e. this) according to Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi. And according to Shaykh Madani aisa (i.e. like this) being for tashbeeh and not being for itna (i.e. this-much). Shaykh Naumani could not own it nor he could disown position of his senior Shaykh Madani and the result was he had no answer. He was being refuted by his own side and his own teacher. This contradiction will be part of this article. 1.0 – Aisa Is Of Is-Qadr, Itna, Yeh And Not Tashbeeh: Shaykh Manzoor Naumani is reported to have said: “And now you’re saying that even though word jaisa is not used there aisa has been used therefore the tashbeeh/comaprision is established. In fact this is even your deception. Listen! If word aisa (i.e. like this) is within context of word jaisa (i.e. like this) then it is for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) but if aisa is without jaisa then tashbeeha (i.e. comparision) is not definitive. In popular usage it is said; ‘God is aisa all-mighty powerful.’ Now in this sentence word aisa is without jaisa and therefore without tashbeeh but here it is used without meaning of tashbeeh, in meaning of itna. And by this (i.e. itna) intended meaning is all baaz Ghayb knowledge which Zaid believes is proof/reason for application of (words) Alim ul-Ghayb (upon Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages67/68, here.] “There you go now I have established from linguistical (analysis) that aisa is also used in meaning of itna without warranting tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). And in Urdu poetical popular expressions it has been used as such.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages78, here.] “And when I refuted your saying and established that aisa is also employed for purpose of comparision as well as of itna. And in statement of Hifz ul-Iman it (i.e. aisa) has been used without implying tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) -; in meaning of itna. Then you demanded from me evidence in which aisa has been used without indicating comparision and in meaning of itna (i.e. this much). Therefore I established it from linguistical (analysis) and from popular poetical expressions to which you could not respond.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages89, here.] Shaykh Manzoor Naumani also said aisa (i.e. like) can also be in meaning of yeh (i.e. this): “Even now if you have not understood meaning of statement (of Hifz ul-Iman) then try to understand it this way that word aisa is used in meaning of yeh (i.e. this/it). And by it all baaz knowledge of hidden (i.e. Ghayb) is indicated. And usage of aisa in meaning of yeh is published and clear and is part of popular Urdu expression. For example if a person says; ‘I will strike Zaid.’ Another says; ‘Don’t take aisa (i.e. this) action.’ Which means that don’t you ever take this action. You should understand/assume as that in this statement of Hifz ul-Iman, which is part of discussion, word yeh (i.e. this) is instead of aisa.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages90/91, here.] Shaykh Manzoor Ahmad Naumani writes word aisa (means; like this) has been used in meaning of itna (means; this much) and it is not for tashbeeh (means; to compare, comparision) between Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and other group mentioned in statement of Shaykh Thanvi. In the following Shaykh Naumani states both meanings itna/yeh: “I have hope that after this explanation, a worst then ignorant person will have no confusion/doubt regarding the statement (of Hifz ul-Iman). Any how Hifz ul-Iman’s word aisa if it is understood in meaning of itna even then meaning is clear and if meaning of yeh (i.e. this) is taken from it even then meaning (of statement of Hafiz ul-Iman) is clear.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages91, here.] Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi agrees with Shaykh Naumani that aisa is in meaning of itna/is-qadr (both mean; this much): “It should be clear that (word) aisa (i.e. like) is not only used in anagolous (i.e. manand) and comparative (i.e. misl) meanings but (in Urdu language its usage) is also in meaning is-qadr and itna (i.e. this-much). (And these words itna/isqadr) which are intended meaning in this statement. It is unknown for what purpose such a clean/clear and straight-forward meaning is distorted.” [Ref: Taudhi ul-Bayan Fi Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Murtaza Hassan, Page6, here.] “Despite this (Khan Sahib Barelwi rahimullah and his followers are) saying that word aisa is used comparision. How much of this is justice? In the disputed statemend word aisa is in meaning of is-qadr and itna (i.e. this much). Then how is there tashbeeh (i.e. comparision)? The conclusion is that; as much knowledge was assumed for application of Aalim ul-Ghayb that is also true for Zaid, Umar, and Bakr. In this there is no tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) nor disrespect.” [Ref: Taudhi ul-Bayan Fi Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Murtaza Hassan, Page19, here.] Alhasil according to Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi aisa (i.e. like) in statement of Shaykh Thanvi has not been used for sake of tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) but in meaning of yeh, itna, and is-qadr. 1.1 – Aisa For Tasbeeh, Not Of Itna And Is-Qadr: Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani contradicts Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi and says if it was used in meaning of itna (also indirectly implies; is-qadr, because both mean same) then it would be (valid) reason for objection because it would imply prophetic knowledge is being equaled with knowledge of Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrupeds, and carnivores. He goes on to acknowledge that word aisa (like) is for sake of tashbeeh: “Even if we ignore this then please consider this; that honorable Mawlana Thanvi has stated word aisa (i.e. like this) but did not state word itna (i.e. this-much). If it was word itna then it would have occasioned objection, may Allah forbid, that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been equaled with knowledge of other things. If this is not pure foolishness then what else is it. Even if we over look this; even then word aisa is of Tasbih (i.e. comparision) and it is apparent that if something is compared with someothing then comparision is not in all aspects.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani, Page281/282, here.] In another part of his book Shaykh Madani indicates that there is tashbeeh in prophetic knowledge and knowledge of Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrupeds, carnivores but it is in baaz (i.e. limited) al-Ghayb: “Therefore you will find many examples of this where tashbeeh (i.e. comaparision/analogy) is only between a single quality where objective is to assimilate mushabah (i.e. compared with) and mushaba bihi (i.e. compared to). And where there is no intention to compare other things. In this place (meaning in statement of Hifz ul-Iman) it is absolutely not possible that quantity of knowledge of Ghuyub are being compared because he himself says that all knowledges relating to Prophet-hood were all held by RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And these things (of knowledge) are not for Zaid, Umar, Bakr, and others. In here word itna (i.e. this-much) has not been employed. In fact comparision (between Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam and Zaid, Bakr, Umar etc) is in baazi’at (i.e. limitedness) because if from qull (all) Ghayb even one thing is omitted even that would be baaz.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page 282/283, here.] And on same page goes on to say that anyone who deos not see the usage of aisa in meaning of tashbeeh is basicly an idiot: “Any person even with slight sense of understanding statement; such a person would clearly say that aisa is pointing toward word baaz (i.e. some, limited) and discussion is about of it (i.e. baaz). Therefore in context of statement and context of discussion both clearly establish that tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) is in the nafs (i.e. implies; category) of baaz and not in quantity of baaz; that it be subjected to criticism/opposition.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page 283, here.] Shaykh Thanvi in his Tahgeer ul-Unwan quotes letter of un-named Deobandi Mawlvi who requested statement of Hifz ul-Iman is altered because it is: “Such a statement in which knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being compared with knowledge of animals and quadruped; which is extremely disrespectful at first glance. Why not just retract from such a statement due to which sincere supporters of honorable (Shaykh Thanvi); rightly so find it extremely difficult to answer/respond (to criticism levelled against Shaykh).” [Ref: Hifz, Bast, And Tagheer ul-Unwan, Page119, here.] Note this statement of Shaykh Thanvi even according to his own supporter is insulting and is in sense of comparision. 1.2 – Shaykh Naumani On Consequences If Aisa For Tashbeeh: According to Deobandi account of Munazra Maulana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) believes statement of Hifz ul-Iman is in meaning of tashbeeh because aisa is used to compare prophetic knowledge with Ghayb of Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrupeds, and carnivores. And based on his this belief he said the following: “Muslims! Listen again; this is the Kufri statement of Hifz ul-Iman: “If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this a portion from Ghayb or every/all Ghayb (of Allah)? If a portion from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb? Knowledge like (i.e. aisa) of this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrpeds and carnivores possesses (such knowledg of Ghayb) as well because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title) Then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” See the obvious meaning of this statement is that knowledge of Ghayb possessed by jaisa (i.e. like) of Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); aisa (i.e. like) of it is also possessed by every; child, lunatic, and every animal. What can be more disrespectful of Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then this? You (Shaykh Naumani) say; in this statement word jaisa (i.e. like) is not used and I agree this is the case but word aisa (i.e. like) is used and this (aisa) is used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). Note if I say; Maulvi Manzoor Sahib’s knowledge is aisa (i.e. like) of donkey, is like of dog, then will there be no tashbeeh (i.e. comparision)! Certainly there is (tashbeeh) and you will definitely be upset over it (i.e. usage of such words for you) even though (aisa) is without word jaisa (i.e. like) and only word aisa (i.e. like) has been used. Hence due to usage of aisa in statement of Hifz ul-Iman therefore certainly knowledge of Hadhoor (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been compared (i.e. tashbeeh) with (knowledge of) animals, lunatics, and his knowledge has been equaled with them.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Page61, here.] In another part of heavily embellished and greatly distorted account of debate Maulana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) is reported to have said: “(Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad rahimullah says:) You say that if aisa is without jaisa then it is not used for sake of comparision (i.e. tashbeeh. Ok! Tell me if we say like this that Maulvi Manzoor Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) a dog’s. Or (say:) Maulvi Ashraf Ali Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) donkey’s. Then will there be comparision (between Manzoor’s/Ashraf’s and dog’s/donkey’s knowledge) or not? According to your saying (a statement containing aisa without jaisa cannot be for tashbeeh) there will be no comparision (between the mentioned). Then will you tolerate/accept this? I think you will not tolerate/accept this and will start screaming (Maulana) Sardar Ahmad has verbally abused us. And has equalled our knowledge to dog’s and donkey’s. So when Hifz ul-Iman contains this (aisa/like-this) word also then why do you distort/turn (i.e. taweel) obvious/apparent (meaning to another)? Why don’t you just admit Maulvi Thanvi was guilty of Kufr? Does Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) not even have dignity/respect as much as you? Or as much as your Thanvi Sahib?” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages73, here] Please pay attention to the following: Shaykh Naumani and Darbhangi believe aisa was not used to compare the prophetic knowledge of Ghayb with Ghayb knowledge of Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrpeds, and carnivores. Instead aisa is used in meaning of itna/is-qadr (i.e. this much) which denotes quantity and it is used in meaning of yeh (i.e. this). Shaykh Naumani believes if aisa was used for sake of comparision then there would be insult and therefore Kufr: “This should be apparent to the honorable audience due to the discussion that between me and Maulvi Sardar Ahmad Sahib (rahimullah) that there is no dispute over principles and (understanding of) issue (of disrespect being Kufr). Because we all agree that insult of leader of both worlds (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa’sallam) and even slight disrespect is Kufr but it is severe (type of) Kufr. Dispute is only over the meaning of statement of Hifz ul-Iman. Suppose if meaning of this statement is as Maulvi Sardar Ahmad Sahib (rahimullah) says then it would also be Kufr according to us. And if the meaning of statement is that which I have explained then even according to Maulvi Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) Kufr would not be proven.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages69/70, here.] Alhasil point is Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi believe if Shaykh Thanvi’s statement was of comparision/tashbeeh, as Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala), Maulana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah), and as Muslims believe then they too would deem it Kufr. Shaykh Naumani Contradicts His Own Shaykh Thanvi: Shaykh Naumani wrote if statement of Shaykh Thanvi was written in sense of tashbeeh then it would be Kufr. Not surprisingly Shaykh Naumani is contraidicting his own Shaykh Thanvi by saying this. Memory of Shaykh Naumani failed him. Ten years had passed from the first publication of Hifz ul-Iman then Shaykh Darbhangi asked four questions answer to which were published as Bast al-Banan. While responding to Shaykh Darbhangi’s questions Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “If allegedly objectionable (statement) was for tashbiya (i.e. comparision) even then knowledge of Zaid and Umar etc has not been compared with knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but (comparision) is with baaz (i.e. limited) knowledge which has been mentioned above. Entertaining the impossible; even if knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was compared; even then it would not have been in every aspect but only in aspect of possessing of baaz Ghayb; if it (baaz Ghayb) was evidence for application of (title) Aalim ul Ghayb upon Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then in the same fashion baaz Ghayb would warrant application of title Aalim ul-Ghayb for others; even if the both baaz be different (in quantity). Comaprision like of this, in some traits, is evident from Quran.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman –with- Bast Al Banan, pages 24/25, by Shaykh Thanvi, here.] Shaykh Naumani says it would be Kufr if statement of Hifz ul-Iman was in meaning of tashbeeh and Shaykh Thanvi says even though statement is not in comparative sense but even if it was there would be nothing wrong with it because of x y z. 1.3 - Naumani, Darbhangi, Madani, And Thanvi Caught In Their Lies: Over all, its two VS two, match. Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi VS Shaykh Thanvi, Shaykh Madani. Two say tashbeeh isn’t Kufr and two say tashbeeh in Hifz ul-Iman’s statement would be Kufr. Shaykh Naumani says aisa is in meaning of yeh, is-qadr/itna. Meaning of aisa as itna Shaykh Darbhangi agrees with Shaykh Naumani. And against these two is Shaykh Madani who says it is in meaning of tashbeeh and not itna because if there was itna then there would be equality in quantity of prophetic knowledge and knowledge of Zaid, Amr, lunatics, animals, and infants; which would make Shaykh Thanvi’s statement Kufr. In over-all Shaykh Thanvi has two positions, aisa in meaning of itna, evident from his example of Allah is aisa Raziq. And he holds to position even in tashbeeh sense the statement would not be Kufr. In other words Shaykh Thanvi believes there is no possibility of Kufr how ever the statement is understood; in sense of quantity or tashbeeh; there is no Kufr. In tashbeeh sense Shaykh Thanvi gets refuted by his tag team; Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi. In sense of quantity Shaykh Thanvi gets refuted by Shaykh Madani. And Shaykh Madani’s position is refuted by Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi reasoning. And position of Shaykh Naumani/Darbhangi justly is refuted by Shaykh Madani. In summary we witness a little royal jungle rumble between the Maulvis of Deobandism on same statement. 1.4 - The Verdict On Aisa, Itna, Is-qadr, Yeh, And Tashbeeh: Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi believe Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is in meaning of itna/is-qadr and yeh therefore it is not Kufr. And if statement was for sake of comparision then it would be Kufr. And Shaykh Madani believes statement is in meaning of tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) therefore it is not Kufr. And if statement of Hifz ul-Iman was in meaning of itna/is-qadr it would be Kufr. Alhasil Shaykh Darbhangi/Naumani VS Madani; both groups consider other party’s interpretation as Kufr. It would have helped Islamic cause greatly if both parties of Deobandis had declared each other Kafir for holding to Kufri understanding of Shaykh Thanvi’s statement because then Muslims wouldn’t have been accused of saying both parties are Kafir. And we the Muslims say to both of them: Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi you both are correct in your understanding; tashbeeh is Kufr. And Shaykh Madani you’re also correct; statement of Hifz ul-Iman in meaning of itna (or is-qadr) is Kufr. The Islamic verdict is that there is no valid interpretation of controversial and Kufri statement; of tashbeeh is Kufr and of itna/is-qard and yeh is Kufr. Islamic position, inlcuding Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimulllah alayhi ta’ala) and Maulana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah), with regards to Hifz ul-Iman has always been; it is Kufr and there is no valid interpretation which can save Shaykh Thanvi from Kufr accept repentence. 2.0 - Shaykh Thanvi’s Statement And Its Interpretations: “If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like (i.e. aisa) this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi agreed upon itna/is-qadr (i.e. this-much) meaning and Shaykh Naumani ascribed to an additional meaning of yeh (i.e. this). And both of these possibilities have been put into context of Shaykh Thanvi’s : (i) “… what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; this much (i.e. itna/is-qadr) knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrupeds and carnivores …” (ii) In light of Shaykh Naumani’s aisa meaning yeh the controversial statement would read: “… what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb;this (i.e. yeh) knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrupeds and carnivores ...” The objective was to remove natural meaning of tashbeeh, or remove obvious tashbeeh from Shaykh Thanvi and make it difficult for the readers to see tashbeeh in the statement. 2.1 - Claim Of No Tashbeeh In Itna/Is-Qadr Refuted: Shaykh Thanvi statement goes like: “… if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like (i.e. aisa) this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” In the underlined part of sentence he is talking about prophetic Ghayb. Shaykh Thanvi enquires what is so unique about baaz (some/limited), or; what is so unique about prophetic knowledge of Ghayb, and then goes on to say; this-much knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr: “… aisa knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrupeds and carnivores …” It means he has compared the quantity of prophetic knowledge in category of baaz with the mentioned (i.e. Zayid, Amr, lunatics, animals, and infants) otherwise he could not have said this-much knowledge is possessed by them. And he could not have concluded in the following if he had not compared the quantity of prophetic baaz knowledge with the mentioned: “Then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” A point of principle must be remembered: To negate, or to establish uniqueness, speciality of prophetic knowledge; comparision (i.e. tashbeeh) between the Ghuyub of mentioned beings (in statement of Hifz ul-iman) and Ghuyub known to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has to be made. And this comparision must be regarding types of Ghuyub known and of quantity of Ghuyub known to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa alaihi was’sallam) and beings mentioned in statement of Hifz ul-Iman. Please note Shaykh Thanvi negated speciality/uniqueness of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) of knowing Ghayb to negate application of title Alim ul-Ghayb upon Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And from logical point of view therefore he must have compared prophetic knowledge with knowledge of what he mentioned: “… Zayd and Amr; but infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrupeds and carnivores …” Even if reader is unable to percieve it the stated principle, underlined, should make it easy for the reader to accept there is tashbeeh in itna and is-qadr in the light of fact; Shaykh Thanvi negated uniqueness of prophetic of Ghayb. 2.2 - For Argument Sake: There Is No Tashbeeh In Itna And Is-Qadr: Shaykh Thanvi’s statement of Hifz ul-Iman even though is statement of tashbeeh; proof of it apart from Islamic scholarship is Shaykh Madani as well; we will disregard this for sake of argument. Shaykh wrote: “… if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like (i.e. aisa) this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds;…” The statement can be understood in two ways, aisa is referring to baaz, therefore statement: “… then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; this/this-much (baaz; some, limited) knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; …” Also aisa can be zameer (i.e. hint) toward prophetic knowledge and this is best and natural understanding of controversial statement. In this context the statement would read: “… then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; this/this-much knowledge (of Ghayb known to RasoolAllah sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; …” If aisa was hint toward baaz, or even if aisa was hint toward prophetic-Ghayb; in both cases prophetic knowledge of Ghayb and knowledge of mentioned is being equaled in quantity of baaz. This why Shaykh Madani said aisa is not in meaning of itna but in meaning of tashbeeh. Al-hasil even without tashbeeh there is Kufr in the statement because quantity is being compared. 3.3 - Mother Of Righteous Muslims And Case Of Implied Tashbeeh: Mother of righteous believers took offense when mention of women was made amongst those which invalidate prayer: “Narrated Aisha: The things which annul prayer were mentioned before me (and those were): a dog, a donkey and a woman. I said: ‘You have compared us (women) with donkeys and dogs. By Allah! I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in (my) bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I disliked to sit and trouble the Prophet. So, I would slip away by the side of his feet.’” (Ref: Bukhari, B9, H493) “Narrated Aisha: Do you make us (women) equal to dogs and donkeys? While I used to lie in my bed, the Prophet would come and pray facing the middle of the bed. I used to consider it not good to stand in front of him in his prayers. So I used to slip away slowly and quietly from the foot of the bed till I got out of my guilt.” (Ref: Bukhari, B9, H486) Note even though it was just a mention of women, dogs, and donkeys being cause of invalidating prayers she took exception to it. The reason is obvious; the tashbeeh was implied due to women being mentioned in list of animals; dogs and donkeys. She had a very refined and comprehensive understanding of tashbeeh therefore she noted the logical implication of being mentioned in list of unclean animals. If an bad-ikhlaq (i.e. ill-mannered) person like our Shaykh Madani says: All humans are children of Adam (alayhis salam) therefore brothers/sisters. Therefore Shaykh Thanvi, the cursed Firawn, the Dajjal, Abu Jahl, Mirza Ghulam Qadiyani, Dhil Khuwaisirah at-Tamimi and others like them are brothers. A person with finely tuned sense of manners will understand that Shaykh Thanvi is being insulted by being mentioned in the list of worst human beings known to a Muslim. In this context lets visit the statement of Shaykh Thanvi again: “… if baaz from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; aisa (i.e. this-much, or this) knowledge is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title) Then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” In this statement at the very least there is argument for tashbeeh due to use of aisa (i.e. like). And proof of aisa in the statement being used for tashbeeh is that Shaykh Madani took it in sense of tashbeeh. What would be the reaction of Umm ul-Momineen (radiallah ta’ala anhu) if she read this statement of Shaykh Thanvi? Would she give him good-news of being righteous Muslim or a disbeliever? Anyone with with love and respect and refined manners and is still upon Fitrah (i.e. pure state) will understand why this statement of Shaykh Thanvi is disrespectful. 4.0 - Aisa In Meaning Of Tashbeeh Is Kufr And Example From Shaykh Naumani: If aisa was in comparative meaning as Shaykh Madani said; aisa is for tashbeeh. In this context Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; comparatively (such) knowledge is even by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; …” According to Shaykh Madani statement of Shaykh Thanvi is in comparative meaning on its natural meaning not in context of itna/is-qadr and yeh. And even Shaykh Naumani agrees it is but not in context of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but in context of his self and his Shaykh Thanvi. 4.1 - Mawlana sardar Ahmad Sets A Trap And Shaykh Naumani Bites: Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) knew Shaykh Naumani would not accept and tolerate if he and Shaykh Thanvi are insulted/disrespected using words similar to what Shaykh Thanvi used for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). So he goes on to say: “(Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad rahimullah says:) You say that if aisa is without jaisa then it is not used for sake of comparision (i.e. tashbeeh). Ok! Tell me if we say like this that Maulvi Manzoor Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) a dog’s. Or (say:) Maulvi Ashraf Ali Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) donkey’s. Then will there be comparision (between Manzoor’s/Ashraf’s and dog’s/donkey’s knowledge) or not? According to your saying (a statement containing aisa without jaisa cannot be for tashbeeh) there will be no comparision (between the mentioned).Then will you tolerate/accept this? I think you will not tolerate/accept this and will start screaming (Maulana) Sardar Ahmad has verbally abused us. And has equalled our knowledge to dog’s and donkey’s. So when Hifz ul-Iman contains this (aisa/like-this) word also then why do you distort/turn (i.e. taweel) obvious/apparent (meaning to another)? Why don’t you just admit Maulvi Thanvi was guilty of Kufr? Does Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) not even have dignity/respect as much as you? Or as much as your Thanvi Sahib? [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages73, similar in page 61, both here.] After this Shaykh Naumani responds to Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) with following: “(Shaykh Manzoor Ahmad Naumani says:) The example you have employed with regards to myself; in that word aisa is without doubt employed for comparision. And there is no uniqueness/speciality of myself or Maulana Thanvi. But if one learns from you (i.e. from examples) and if an ill-mannered and uncultured (person) says with regards to Maulvi Ahmad Raza Khan Sahib; his knowledge was like (i.e. aisa) a pig, (or) like (i.e. aisa) a donkey, then without doubt individual would have very rudely insulted Khan Sahib because according to common usage in such context aisa (i.e. like) is used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages77, here.] He said the same in number of other places. Please note when Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Thanvi’s knowledge was compared to dog/donkey’s Shaykh Naumani tactfully responed to insult/disrespect by making the same statement about Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) and just as Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) predicted Shaykh Naumani could not accept it and ended up telling the truth. Yet despite this Shaykh Naumani could not extend this respect to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and defended Shaykh Thanvi’s statement. Note Shaykh Naumani found it insulting and disrespectful and saw tashbeeh in what Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) said because he had self respect, and had love and respect for Shaykh Thanvi. Any Muslim with an ounce of love and respect for the last and final Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will feel the sting of disrespect and insult directed toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in statement of Shaykh Thanvi. 5.0 - Use Of Ra’ee’ In Hadith By Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) served as guardian/protector of sheep according to following Hadith: “Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said: "Allah did not send any prophet but shepherded sheep." His companions asked him, "Did you do the same?" The Prophet replied, "Yes, I used to shepherd the sheep of the people of Mecca for some Qirats." [Ref: Bukhari, B36, H463] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said; ruler, men, women, slaves are ‘ra’ee’ (i.e. shepherds) in meaning guide and guardian in the following Hadith: “Narrated Abdullah bin Umar:The Messenger of Allah as saying: Each of you is a shepherd and each of you is responsible for his flock. The amir (ruler) who is over the people is a shepherd and is responsible for his flock; a man is a shepherd in charge of the inhabitants of his household and he is responsible for his flock; a woman is a shepherdess in charge of her husband's house and children and she is responsible for them; and a man's slave is a shepherd in charge of his master's property and he is responsible for it. So each of you is a shepherd and each of you is responsible for his flock.” [Ref: Abu Dawood, B19, H2922] And in this context son calling his father, or subject referring to his king as ‘ra’eena’ (i.e. our shepherd, our guardian, our protector) isn’t offensive or insulting. 5.1 - Rai’na Distorted By Jews To Ra’eena: When Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) use to deliver speech companions; if a companion missed something due too far, or someone caughed something was missed, or due to not having capacity to understand what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said, the companions would say ‘rai’na’ (i.e. consider us). And depending upon the circumstance Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) either will repeat what he said or rephrase it so it is accessible for all intellect levels. If the Jews were in the gathering they would distort the word ‘rai’na’ (i.e. consider us) and pronounce it as; ‘ra’eena’ (i.e. our sheperd). And Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) mentions their distortion in the following verse: “Some of the Jews interchange the words from their places and say; “We hear and disobey” - and they say; “Hear- [may you] not be able to hear” - and they say; “ra'eena” (i.e. our shepherd) distorting it with their tongues and in order to slander religion; ...” [Ref: 4:46] Calling someone shepherd was, and even remains to this day way negating/discrediting literacy of someone. Due to Jews distorting the word to insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed following verse: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word rai’na (i.e. consider us), but say undhurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disblievers (those who insult) there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] Note the instruction is to believers to not to use word rai’na because it was used by the Jews to disrespect the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Instead Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) suggests word ‘undhurna’ (i.e. look upon us) which the Jews could not distort to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) cryptively. Alhasil this verse prohibits usage of words/sentences which are perfectly fine but can be misconstrued to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Rule of Islamic law is; if something is prohibited in lesser degree anything greater then the least is also forbidden. Therefore it would stand to reason, by default, words/sentences which are insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are also prohibited and the threat of punishment for disbelievers is inclusive of insulters. 5.2 - Shaykh Thanvi In Light Verse Of Rai’na And Undhurna: The companions used ‘rai’na’ (i.e. consider us) and Jews distorted it and used ‘ra’eena’ (i.e. our shepherd). So one pronounciation was absolutely fine [because both are written absolutely same] and other was Kufr. Yet none of the companions are on the record for saying or justifying their usage through linguistical usage of ‘rai’na’ or even blaming Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for not knowing how they used it. Instead they realized the situation and left it for better suggestion of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). The right course of action as indicated by verse was to abandon the controversial statement after Shaykh Thanvi was informed. Not present taweel (i.e. interpretation) in his defence, repeal it, and repent because his statement was evidently insulting. Instead he resorted to denial and presented taweel of his statement and others from his side followed his evil Sunnah: “And he who introduced some evil Sunnah in Islam which had been followed subsequently (by others), he would be required to bear the burden like that of one who followed this (evil practice) without their's being diminished in any respect." [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] And in this sense Shaykh Thanvi and those who followed him are all equales. 5.3 - Judgement Regarding Statement And Interpretation Of Others: According to Shaykh Naumani’s claim aisa in Shaykh Thanvi’s statement of Hifz ul-Iman is used in meaning of itna/is-qadr and in meaning of yeh and not for tashbeeh because in sense of tashbeeh it would be Kufr. According to Shaykh Madani it is to be understood in sense of tashbeeh and not in meaning of itna/is-qadr because it would be Kufr according to his understanding if it was in meaning of itna. Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Madani both hold to position; statement means this and if it was in this meaning it would be Kufr. Please note Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word rai’na (i.e. consider us), but say undhurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disblievers (those who insult) there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] And the verse gives following meaning; do not use words which insult the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and which can be misconstrued to insult the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihiw as’sallam) but use words which are not insulting and which cannot be misconstrued to insult. In light of verse of ‘consider us’ and ‘look upon us’ Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Madani should have refrained from taweel of Shaykh Thanvi’s because by their own acknowledgment one meaning is insulting and therefore Kufr. And those who use insulting statements or statements which can be misconstrued to insult even after the prohibition of it has been made have been declared Kafirs and threatened with punishment: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word rai’na (i.e. consider us), but say undhurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disblievers (those who insult) there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] Or the verse could also be interpreted to mean: "O believers say not (to the Messenger): word rai’na (i.e. consider us), but say undhurna (i.e. look upon us); and listen (to him): For those disblievers (those who disblieve in the command of verse) there is a grievous punishment." [Ref: 2:104] Both interpretations boil down to Kufr; of those who insult the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), or those who disbelieve in the order given in the verse. And implications of the verse for Shaykh Thanvi, Shaykh Madani, Shaykh Naumani, and Shaykh Darbhangi is that they are disbelievers and apostates. All those who believe and defend statement of Hifz ul-Iman after understanding it they are to be deemed Murtadeen (i.e. apostates) and Kafirs (i.e. disbeleivers) providing all avenues prior to Takfir have been exhausted. Conclusion: Shaykh Naumani understands aisa (i.e. like this) to mean yeh (i.e. this). Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Darbhangi understand the usage of aisa to mean itna/is-qadr (i.e. this-much). And both negate usage of aisa in sense of tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) because Shaykh Naumani considers use of aisa in sense of tashbeeh to be Kufr. In other words; according to Shaykh Naumani, if prophetic knowledge was being compared with every days Joe’s, lunatics, infants, with knowledge of animals then there would be insult and disrespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) therefore verdict of Kufr. Shaykh Thanvi on other hand states it is in quantitive sense even if it was in comparative sense it wouldn’t be Kufr. Shaykh Madani on other hand believes statement was in comparative sense if it was in quantative sense then it would have been offensive. And Shaykh Thanvi agrees with him that in comparative sense it isn’t offensive but also believes it is not offensive in quantitive sense either. Understanding of Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi VS Shaykh Madani are two taweels of Shaykh Thanvi; one in quantitive sense, and other of comparative sense; which each side took from Shaykh Thanvi’s Bast al-Banan while unknowingly considering his other taweel to be offensive. Shaykh Thanvi gets owned by his own representatives because both side of his followers consider one of his accepted version to be offensive. Therefore both positions of Shaykh Thanvi are offensive and Kufr. And the grand act of providence is that Shaykh Naumani party VS Shaykh Madani essentially refute each other. In other words Shaykh Naumani’s understanding of itna/ is-qadr has been argued to be offensive by Shaykh Madani because he said it is in meaning of tashbeeh and not itna. And Shaykh Madani’s position of tashbeeh has been proven wrong by Shaykh Naumani because of his reasoning that comparative rendering would be offensive and quantitive is not. Revealing that if statement of Shaykh Thanvi was understood in light of itna/is-qadr, or yeh, or tashbeeh it is offensive and Kufr. The established contradiction between the Deobandi Maulvis will be enough for an intelligent person to realise; their accounts don’t match because both sides of Deobandism are lieing. And a believer who fears his Lord and loves the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will take this contradiction as proof deception and lies being told by their scholarship to cover-up Shaykh Thanvi’s Kufr. It is important to note that Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) during the debate; as an act of strategy of war against enemy of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and his Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); Mawlana Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) uttered following words about knowledge of Shaykh Naumani and his Shaykh Thanvi: “Maulvi Manzoor Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) a dog’s. Or (say:) Maulvi Ashraf Ali Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) donkey’s.” It was then that Shaykh Naumani took offence citing tashbeeh the reason of his understanding. And this establishes the well known and established fact; Deobandis love/respect their own more then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Considering that one group considers A taweel to be insulting/Kufr and B to be perfectly in agreement with Shari’a. And the other considers A taweel to be perfectly justifiable in Shari’ah and B to be Kufr; in this context it can be said there is concensus that statement is insulting/Kufr in Deobandi scholarship. And it also can be said that there isn’t agreement on its Kufr. Negation of Kufr is explicitly stated and is intended objective and confirmation of statement being Kufr is unintended result of lies and deception. The understanding of verse of ‘consider us’ and ‘look upon us’ made it obligatory for those who considered at least one taweel of Shaykh Thanvi to be of Kufr to abandon their efforts yet they persisted and died upon this. They disbelieved in the injunction given in the verse and they are the disbelievers. Shaykh Thanvi was unique in his understanding that in quantitive sense or comparative sense his controversial statement is not offensive therefore not Kufr and he was refuted by his own side. Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is definitely offensive and insults the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) even though he argues contrary to it and proof against him and his understanding are his sensless representatives aka Shaykh Naumani VS Shaykh Madani. As such he too is no less guilty of Kufr then the those who defend him. They are group of disbelievers and apostates who had disbelieved in what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed in verse of ‘consider us’ and ‘look upon us’ and consistently insulted the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) when the right course of action should have been repentance and repealing of statement. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi.

Introduction: Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) alleged Shaykh Thanvi equalled Prophetic knowledge of Ghayb with Ghayb of; Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds. A righteous Muslim would have seriously considered the allegation and thought about all angles and upon being informed would have repented. Shaykh Thanvi had other plans he decided to defend his statement. And seeing their Shaykh in battle the minions of Iblees joined and made excuses for their master. Some said Shaykh Thanvi never wrote this statement of Hifz ul-Iman[1] but when they were confronted with truth they had no answer but to run to Thana Bhawan. Others took the course of Taweel (i.e. re-interpreting) of obvious in order to blunt the charge of insult/disrespect. There were two main proponents of Taweel movement apart from Shaykh Thanvi. Shaykh Madani and his student Shaykh Naumani. Note Shaykh Thanvi in his Bast al-Banan laid the foundation of Taweel of both parties. Result was Shaykh Madani claimed there is tashbeeh in statement of Shaykh Thanvi if itna was used instead of aisa then statement would be problematic. Shaykh Naumani said statement is not in sense of tashbeeh because aisa is used to mean itna. If it was tashbeeh it would be Kufr. And all parties agreed that there is no mention of equality in quantity by Shaykh Thanvi in statement of Hifz ul-Iman. This article will address two points, denial of tashbeeh, and denial of equality in quantity. Effort will be made to establish equality and tashbeeh. 1.0 - Controversial Statement And Shaykh Negates Equality In Quantity: Following is portion of Hifz ul-Iman in which Shaykh Thanvi attempted to rightly/justly refute notion that title Aalim ul-Ghayb can be applied upon Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because he knows Ghayb but the tone and language used was insulting/disrespecting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “Then what would Shar’a, play thing of children, when desired established it and when desired demolished it. If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like (i.e. aisa) this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) …” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] In his following pamphlet size booklet some 10 years later Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “If allegedly objectionable (statement) was for tashbiya (i.e. comparision) even then knowledge of Zaid and Umar etc has not been compared with knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but (comparision) is with baaz (i.e. limited) knowledge which has been mentioned above. Entertaining the impossible; even if knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was compared; even then it would not have been in every aspect but only in aspect of possessing of baaz Ghayb; if it (baaz Ghayb) was evidence for application of (title) Aalim ul Ghayb upon Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then in the same fashion baaz Ghayb would warrant application of title Aalim ul-Ghayb for others; even if the both baaz be different (in quantity). Comaprision like of this, in some traits, is evident from Quran.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman –with- Bast Al Banan, pages 24/25, by Shaykh Thanvi, here.] Shaykh Thanvi regarding the statement of Hifz ul-Iman states in his two page pamphlet published as Bast al-Banan hints; he deems the prophetic and knowledge of those whom he mentioned in Hifz ul-Iman to be baaz (i.e. limited) but different in quantity. 1.1 - Shaykh Madani Confirms Tashbeeh But Negates Equality In Quantity: Shaykh Madani taking que from his beloved Shaykh Thanvi writes: “Honorable people! Matter discussed (of Hifz ul-Iman) was if it is correct to use for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) the title of Aalim ul-Ghayb or not. Knowledge and quantity of prophetic knowledge was not being discussed (in Hifz ul-Iman). You should read the statement of Shaykh Thanvi from beginning to end; in it he is arguing the usage of this phrase (Aalim ul-Ghayb) for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not right/legal.” Shaykh Madani continues to write: “In it he is not discussion if he (Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has knowledge of Ghayb of any kind or not; and if there is then how much of Ghayb does he know. Every intelligent person understands the difference between establishing a belief and application of word (as title) details of which will be mentioned ahead. Even if we ignore this then please consider this; that honorable Mawlana Thanvi has stated word aisa (i.e. like this) but did not state word itna (i.e. this-much).” Purpose of negating discussion of quantity is to negate the notion that prophetic quantity was equalled with what Shaykh Thanvi mentioned in list of beings. Shaykh Madani continues: “If it was word itna (i.e. this-much) then it would have occasioned objection, may Allah forbid, that knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been equaled with knowledge of other things. If this is not pure foolishness then what else is it. Even if we over look this; even then word aisa is of Tasbih (i.e. comparision) and it is apparent that if something is compared with someothing then comparision is not in all aspects.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani, Page281/282, here.] Note Shaykh Madani says quantity of prophet knowledge was not discussed in the statement of Hifz ul-Iman. And says if itna was used instead of aisa then equality in quantity would be established and it would have been valid reason for objection because then prophetic knowledge would be equalled in quantity to; lunatics, infants, animals and every day Joe’s. In his next statement he explicitly negates/rejects the notion that there is tashbeeh in quantity in Hifz ul-Imans controversial statement: “Therefore you will find many examples of this where tashbeeh (i.e. comaparision/analogy) is only between a single quality where objective is to assimilate mushabah (i.e. compared with) and mushaba bihi (i.e. compared to). And where there is no intention to compare other things. In this place (meaning in statement of Hifz ul-Iman) it is absolutely not possible that quantity of knowledge of Ghuyub are being compared because he himself says that all knowledges relating to Prophet-hood were all held by RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And these things (of knowledge) are not for Zaid, Umar, Bakr, and others. In here word itna (i.e. this-much) has not been employed. In fact comparision (in Hifz ul-Iman) is in baazi’at (i.e. limitedness) because if from qull (all) Ghayb even one thing is omitted even that would be baaz.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page282/283, here.] In another part of books he writes: “And for this reason word aisa (i.e. like-this) and baaz (i.e. some/limited) has been used. See this is the statement: “…if baaz from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this …” Therefore aisa (i.e. like-this) hints toward the mentioned baaz (i.e. limited/some). That baaz knowledge which is in possession of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not even mentioned (in Hifz ul-Iman). And we will explain this ahead even more. Any person even with slight sense of understanding statement; such a person would clearly say that aisa is pointing toward word of baaz and discussion is about of it (i.e. baaz). Therefore in context of statement and context of discussion both clearly establish that tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) is in the nafs (i.e. implies; category) of baaz and not in quantity of baaz; that it be subjected to criticism/opposition.” [Ref: Shahab as-Saqib, by Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madni, Page283, here.] Alhasil -: In understanding of Shaykh Madani the statement of Hifz ul-Iman is comparative (i.e. of tashbeeh) in nature. And the comparision is in category of limited knowledge not in quantity of limited knowledge. Note he explicitly negated the notion that Shaykh Thanvi’s Hifz ul-Iman compares quantity of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb. 1.2 - Shaykh Naumani Negates Tashbeeh And It Is In Quantitive Sense Of Itna: Shaykh Naumani considers aisa (i.e. like-this) in meaning of itna (i.e. thi-much). According to Shaykh Madani if it was itna then statement of Shaykh Thanvi would establishe equality in quantity (see pages 281/282, above) which is an apparent contradiction. Ignoring this contradiction of liars; who really are senselessly scrambling to cover up with their lies and deception the obvious Kufr. Shaykh Naumani like Shaykh Madani he too believes itna is without establishing equality between quantity: “There you go now I have established from linguistical (analysis) that aisa is also used in meaning of itna without warranting tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). And in Urdu poetical popular expressions it has been used as such. I had stated that author of Hifz ul-Iman honorable Mawlana Ashraf Ali himself deems such a person Kafir who says knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is equal (in quantity) with animals and lunatics. And in support of this I quoted statement of Bast al-Banan.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages78, here.] In another part he is quoted to have said: “And when I (Shaykh Naumani) refuted your arguments and established that aisa is also employed for purpose of comparision as well as of itna. And in statement of Hifz ul-Iman it (i.e. aisa) has been used without implying tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) -; in meaning of itna. Then you demanded from me evidence in which aisa has been used without indicating comparision and in meaning of itna (i.e. this much). […] Anyhow if you have not understood my position so far then try to understand now. In Hifz ul-Iman aisa is in meaning of itna. And by it (meaning; aisa/itna) limited knowledge of Ghayb is intended and meaning of statement (of Hifz ul-Iman) is as follows: Those who attribute to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) title of Aalim ul-Ghayb because limited knowledge of Ghayb and if this is their principle that whoever who knows few matters of Ghayb (…) meaning limited Ghayb knowledge is known to all. Anyhow in this statement word aisa has been used in meaning of itna and from it limited knowledge of Ghayb is intended not (limited) knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).”[2] [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages 89/90, here.] In the following statement Shaykh Naumani explicitly stated that Shaykh Thanvi in his Hifz ul-Iman did not compare the quantity of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb: “In this turn you again read (aloud) statement of Hifz ul-Iman and you have claimed regarding it what you have claimed about it since yesterday. I have given quite detailed and clear response to it and you should remember/recall it. This time I will briefly say another thing about it. Listen to it with attention! I have already stated that statement of Hifz ul-Iman the quantity of Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) isn’t being discussed but in fact the actual discussion is addressing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with title Aalim ul-Ghayb.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages 100, here.] Alhasil Shaykh Naumani to believes itna refers to baaz and prophetic knowledge of baaz is not being compared with baaz knowledge of individuals mentioned in his statement. 2.0 - Shaykhs; Thanvi, Naumani, And Madani Negate Equality In Quantity: In short it is clear that all three are unanimous in their understanding that quantity of limited prophetic knowledge of Ghayb was not part of the discussion nor Shaykh Thanvi intended to discuss the quantity. Shaykh Madani is of view; Shaykh Thanvi compared the prophetic knowledge in limitedness with knowledge of regular Joe’s, infants, animals, lunatics. And he did not compare the quantity of prophetic knowledge with quantity of knowledge possessed by regular Joe’s, lunatics, infants, animals and quadrupeds. Shaykh Naumani on other hand disagrees with his teacher Shaykh Madani and says; there is no comparision in quantity because the word aisa (i.e. like-this) is used in meaning of itna (i.e. this-much) and it is used without denoting quantity. 2.1 Technicalities And Pointlessness And Senselessness Of Shuyukh Of Deoband: Considering both positions in light of that is all logical and rational and intelligent; it has to be said Shaykh Madani has got the right general idea but stupidly negates aisa meaning itna which his position naturally implies. Also Shaykh Naumani is barking up the wrong tree by saying itna is without tashbeeh: If hint of aisa/itna is returning to baaz then Shaykh Thanvi has to compare the prophetic knowledge with regular Joe’s, lunatics, animals, infants, and quadrupeds to negate speciality which he did in his statement. In simple words comparision to negate speciality/uniqueness equals = tashbeeh. Shaykh Madani on other hand has the general concept right but was reluctant to accept aisa is used in meaning of itna. If Shaykh Madani had said: ‘Aisa is for tashbeeh in statement of Hifz ul-Iman and tashbeeh of aisa is with generality of baaz not quantity of baaz and therefore appropriate alternative from linguistic sense for aisa would be itna.’ He could have perfectly held the same position by incorporating part of Shaykh Naumani’s position into his own. He could have but there was little angel in his subconcious saying Shaykh Thanvi’s statement insulting/disrespectfull. Somehow he managed to connect aisa in meaning of itna with comparision in quantity. If Shaykh Naumani had said: ‘Aisa is in meaning of itna due to linguistic usage of aisa in meaning of itna. And aisa/itna is used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) between baaz knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and baaz knowledge of mentioned creations without comparing quantity of prophetic knowledge and mentioned others.’ These Shuyukh could have argued their case and held to same positions but the difference would be that both wouldn’t have contradicted each other. Surprisingly both felt if it would be Kufr if it was in sense of this and not in sense of that. 2.3 - Two Insults In One Statement Of Shaykh Thanvi: Instead of both taking the voices of their concious and agreeing with them both decided to stab their angels to death with the fork of red little Satan. And thought if they supress their concious and say it is not in this meaning and say it is in that meaning then the Kur would be lifted from Shaykh Thanvi. The offense in Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is two fold: i) Shaykh Thanvi negated/rejected the notion that prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is special/unique but it is like the lunatics, animals, infants, every day Joe’s and quadrupeds. ii) Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is actually implying prophetic knowledge is equal to the mentioned relatives of Shaykh Thanvi in quantity and quality. Both of these Shuyukh have focused their Taweelat to negate the first charge. It is worth noting that both these Shuyukh have not managed to successfully defend against the first charge. Note the first charge is naturally and fundamentally part of second charge and if second charge is established then naturally the first charge would be established. 2.4 - Playing Chicken With Kufr And Not Realising After Squished By It: Regardless of how these Shuyukh could have played the defending game; with itna refering to baaz and without tashbeeh in quantity of prophetic knowledge, or aisa referring to baaz and tashbeeh; comparision in general quantity of baaz but not with specific prophetic quantity of baaz. Or even if they had played chicken with Kufr with one of above Taweels presented by me; even then nothing would make their defence of Shaykh Thanvi impregnable. The offense they attempted to lift was beyond their comprehension. They thought with word games we will win the battle against Muslims. Little did they know they can put yeh (i.e. this), or itna and is-qadr (i.e. this-much), and negate or affirm tashbeeh in the statement of Shaykh Thanvi and play whatever Ibleesi game they wish. As long as Takhseesi statement (i.e. what is so unique about Hadhoor’s sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam knowledge of Ghayb) remains in statement of Shaykh Thanvi the tashbeeh cannot be negated and equality argument against Hifz ul-Iman cannot be negated. Please read the following part of article carefully it will lay bare all deceptions these Shuyukh have attempted to defend Shaykh Thanvi by dealing with the dispute in most fundamental fashion; by evaluating their arguments in light of basic facts which no rational or sane human could object to. 3.0 -Principles Of Refuting And Establishing Uniqueness In Knowledge: i) Knowledge of X equals Y. In this context X and Y have no speciality in knowledge over each other. And one is no way better in knowledge then the other. ii) X is more knowledgeable then Y. Y is less knowledgeable then X. In this context X is unique/special because X has greater knowledge. And Y is not unique/special and has no merit above X. iii) X has greater quantity of knowledge and quality of knowledge then Y. In this scenario X has a merit and is unique/special due greater quantity and qaulity. 3.1 - Knowledge of X equals Y: The first principle: ‘Knowledge of X equals Y.’ Thanvi knows numbers from one to hundred. Gangohi knows numbers from one to hundred. Both know exactly the same amount of numbers therefore if it was said that Shaykh Thanvi isn’t any better, any special it would be correct. Following example illustrates the point:’If it is correct to attribute knowledge of numbers to Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Gangohi then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this knowledge of numbers, known to Shaykh Thanvi, limited to one to hundered or is it infinite knowledge of numbers. If it is one to hundered then what is so special/unique about Shaykh Thanvi’s knowledge of numbers; knowledge like this is even possesed by everyday Joe’s, infants in nursery, lunatics and Shaykh Gangohi.’ Ofcourse this statement is correct; Shaykh Thanvi would has no merit over the mentioned because quantity of his knowledge is same as the rest. From this example we learn; to negate speciality, or uniquess of knowledge there has to be equality in knowledge. Shaykh Thanvi knows 1-100 and so does his family of lunatics, infants, and Shaykh Gangohi; therefore he is not special in knowing numbers. Alhasil: In this context Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Gangohi have no speciality in knowledge over each other. And one is no way better in knowledge then the other due to equality in quantity. 3.2 - X Is More Knowledgeable then Y. Y is less knowledgeable then X: The second principle states: ‘X is more knowledgeable then Y. Y is less knowledgeable then X.’ In this scenario we suppose Shaykh Thanvi had Ghayb knowledge of two or twenty matters of Ghayb found in perserved tablet. And all Muslims believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was granted knowledge of Ghayb. And it exceeds all that is in perserved Tablet. Readers are advised to referr to Ad-Dawlatul Makkiyyah of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) to get details and evidences of Islamic belief. Please study the following statement: ‘Indeed it is correct to attribute knowledge of Ghayb to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And upon investigation it became clear it wasn’t of few matters of Ghayb but of all that is in perserved tablet and greater then it. Hence prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is special. And if Shaykh Thanvi has knowledge of few matters of Ghayb then what is so special/unique about Shaykh Thanvi’s knolwedge of Ghayb in comparision to prophetic knowledge? Knowledge like of Shaykh Thanvi is even possesed by every day Joe’s, infants in nursery, lunatics and animals.’ Shaykh Thanvi comparatively isn’t special in his knowledge of Ghayb because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knows all that is in perserved tablet and more. Alhasil -: In this context Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is unique/special because he has greater knowledge; in fact all of knowledge of perserved tablet. And Shaykh Thanvi is not unique/special and has no merit above Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) due to lack of quantity of his knowledge. 3.3 - X Has Greater Quantity Of Knowledge And Quality Of Knowledge Then Y: Third principle states: ‘X has greater quantity of knowledge and quality of knowledge then Y.’ Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb is Qatti (i.e. definitive). Meaning there can be no element of doubt in his knowledge of Ghayb. If Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) says; Dajjal will be blind in one eye. Then there can be no doubt regarding it: Dajjal will be blind in his eye. Also prophetic knowledge is beyound human counting: Consists of all knowledge of Ghayb in perserved tablet and even greater. Ghayb knowledge of non-Prophets is Zani (i.e. indefinitive/doubtful) however they gain it. The non-Prophets can only have Qatti (i.e. definitive) Ghayb when it has been given to them by a Nabi/Rasool. And the quantity of Zanni Ghayb will never be suffient enough merit a challenge to prophetic knowledge of Ghayb or negate speciality of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb. Now in this context try to understand statement of Shaykh Thanvi. Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “Then what would Shar’a, play thing of children, when desired established it and when desired demolished it. If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like (i.e. aisa) this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Now if we insert the established facts into the text of Shaykh Thanvi it means: Prophetic Qatti knolwedge of Ghayb, whose quantity is beyond human comprehension is nothing special in comparision to Zanni knowledge of Ghayb lunatics, infants, animals whose knowledge is questionable and minute quantity, that’s if they have Ghayb. So in Deobandism; few lunatics, cows, sheeps, infants, animals, about whom we don’t even know they have knowledge of Ghayb, and whose quantity knowledge is worth of two dimes; have managed to negate the speciality of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb whose possession of Ghayb, and quantity, and quality is uncontestable. Ofcourse we Muslims do not believe it is correct to attribute title of Aalim ul-Ghayb to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). So please do not take this as argument for application of title Aalim ul-Ghayb. Now when the greater quantity of knowledge establishes superiority and merit and speciality of prophetic knowledge then greater quality by default will add to speciality and uniquessness of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb. Alhasil -: In this context Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has a merit and is unique/special due to his quality knowledge and due greater quantity of his knowledge. 3.4 - Fundamental Rule Of Establishing And Negating Speciality: From these three principles and their explanantions we derive a basic rule; X has to be compared to Y quantity/type to establish/negate speciality/uniqueness. If the quantity is equal on both sides then comparision yields result; one has no superiority over the other. If one has less and other has greater then comparisions establishes two results: i) one possessing less quantity of knowledge has no superiority over who has greater quantity of knowledge. ii) And one with greater quantity of knowledge is superior to one with lesser knowledge. Alhasil in statements like of Hifz ul-Iman comparision is essential to establish and negate merit of one over another: And this comparision is in quantity and can also be in types of knowledge. 4.0 - Brief Account Of Shuyukh On Hifz ul-Iman’s Controversial Statement: Shaykh Thanvi, Shaykh Naumani, and Shaykh Madani all stated the quantity of prophetic knowledge isn’t being discussed in the statement of Shaykh Thanvi. In my own words; Shaykh Naumani said there was no tashbeeh of prophetic Ghayb with Ghayb of lunatics. If it was in meaning of tashbeeh it would be Kufr. Rather the word aisa has been used in meaning of itna. And itna is used without tashbeeh because aisa/itna referrs to baaz Ghayb and not prophetic baaz Ghayb. Shaykh Madani on other hand said there is tashbeeh in statement and tashbeeh is in prophetic knowledge being compared to baaz Ghayb knowledge and not quanity of baaz prophetic knowledge with baaz quantity x, y, and z. He also indirectly indicated he would consider statement to beKufr if itna was used. Alhasil both contradict each other … both indirectly declared each other Kafir but that’s not the point. But they all negated equality in quantity of knowledge. 4.1 - Speciality And Uniqueness Can Only Be Negated Via Comparision: If you recall Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Naumani are of view that statement of Hifz ul-Iman is without Tashbeeh. Even though their own lap-dop aka Shaykh Madani refutes them but it is still important to address it from principle point of view. If a child says; this is sweeter then that one. Has he compared this choclate with that to come to conclusion? An adult says; there is nothing special about this jumper over that jumper. Did the adult compare, one or other quality, to come to this conclusion? You would agree both these statements are result of comparision. Even though words, like, such, as, aren’t used the comparision can be implied because merit/quality is being negated. And for negation/affirmation of any quality/merit in a statement comparative analysis is essential between two parties either by comparing to something materially or via pre-determined criterias of good/bad learnt through experience and knowledge accomulated over time. In this context if we take statement of Shaykh Thanvi: “If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” In here Shaykh Thanvi negated speciality/uniqueness of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb in contrast to; Zaid, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals, and quadrupeds. And for him to reach to this understanding; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not special in his knowledge, he had to compare (or; give tashbeeh of) prophetic knowledge with those he mentioned. And this tashbeeh can be in quantity or in types of Ghayb known to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In addition to this; Shaykh Thanvi used word aisa (i.e. like this) which is used for tashbeeh even if it is without jaisa (i.e. like this): “(Shaykh Manzoor Ahmad Naumani says:) The example you have employed with regards to myself; in that word aisa is without doubt employed for comparision. And there is no uniqueness/speciality of myself or Maulana Thanvi. But if one learns from you (i.e. from examples) and if an ill-mannered and uncultured (person) says with regards to Maulvi Ahmad Raza Khan Sahib; his knowledge was like (i.e. aisa) a pig, (or) like (i.e. aisa) a donkey, then without doubt individual would have very rudely insulted Khan Sahib because according to common usage in such context aisa (i.e. like) is used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision).” [3] [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages77, here.] And in context of rule; establishing or negating any merit/quality of one over another party requires comparision (i.e. tashbeeh) between qualities/merits of party with another. Therefore aisa has to be in meaning of tashbeeh and it was this realisation which forced Shaykh Madani to accept Islamic position of tashbeeh in statement of Hifz ul-Iman. In context of tashbeeh the statement would mean that author is comparing propheting knowledge of Ghayb with knowledge of those Shaykh Thanvi mentioned. Implication of which would be; whatever is the quantity of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb; Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals and qaudrupeds all share his quantity and type of knowledge. It would be best to do away with Shaykh Naumani’s argument of itna. Consider this a throwing Shaykh Naumani’s argument to dogs along side him. Shaykh argued aisa (i.e. like-this) means itna (i.e. this-much) in statement of Hifz ul-Iman and he referrenced poetical verses and popular usage in which aisa can be taken as subsitute for itna. Even if Shaykh Thanvi didn’t use aisa he used itna it would have had no difference because Shaykh Thanvi was negating speciality of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb and foundation of this is tashbeeh/comparision. Golden rule is to affirm/negate a merit of one explicit/implicit comparision is fundamental. And not to under do the research we have following quote from Deobandi account of debate which affirms itna can too be for tashbeeh: “It should be clear that word itna like aisa is sometimes also used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). And sometimes without tashbeeh only in meaning of quantity. For example it is said: Zayd is itna (i.e. so much) rich jitna (i.e. as much as) Umru. In this example itna is for comparision. And it is said: Zaid itna (i.e. this-much) rich of which there is no limit. Here word itna is not for tashbeeh but for quantity.”[4] [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages68, note by compiler, here.] Note even though author doesn’t accept Shaykh Naumani’s itna in statement of Hifz ul-Iman is for tashbeeh; but what does the golden rule say? Referr back to it please and then referr to relevent footnote of my article. Alhasil be it aisa or itna the bottom line is in statement like of Hifz ul-Iman when merit/quality is being negated tashbeeh is fundamental part of it. In addition to what has already been stated please take special notice of following: To establish speciality of one over another or negate naturally comparision has to be made and comparision can be implied or explicit. In statement of Hifz ul-Iman aisa (i.e. like-this) has been used which is always indictive of explicit tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). Secondly for comparision there has to be; ‘the compared’ and ‘the compared to’. And to establish/negate speciality of ‘the compared’ there has to be a quality/attribute in which ‘the compared’ is being compared to ‘the comapred to’. And we find those in Hifz ul-Iman; ‘the compared’ is Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And ‘the compared to’ to are Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals, and quadrupeds. And the quality is Ilm al-Ghayb (i.e. knowledge of Ghayb). Please note all three components are in statemend of Shaykh Thanvi: “Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s1 (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb2; knowledge like (i.e. aisa) this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds3; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] When all the necessary raw materials of tashbeeh are found in statement of Hifz ul-Iman to say negate it is either illiteracy. Or a deliberate cordinated effort to pull wool over the eyes of unsuspecting Muslims. 4.2 - Equality In Quantity Is Essential To Negate Speciality And Uniqueness: Following is rephrasing of first principle: If two are equals one is no better then the other. If Shaykh Thanvi had belief that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has equal quantity of knowledge as; Zaid, Amr, infants, lunatics, and animals then he would negate speciality of prophetic knowledge. Shaykh Thanvi wrote:“Then what would Shar’a, play thing of children, when desired established it and when desired demolished it. If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) … [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] It becomes apparent that at minimum Shaykh Thanvi deemed prophetic knowledge to be equal in quantity to knowledge of; Zaid, Amr, animals, infants, and lunatics. Otherwise Shaykh Thanvi could not have said Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has no speciality over these mentioned. If he believed in speciality of prophetic knowledge he would not have said that and defended this statement. In worst case scenario Shaykh Thanvi deemed prophetic knowledge to be less then; Zaid, Amr, lunatics, animals, infants, and quadrupeds. Negation of speciality as per principles can only be for two reasons. Therefore the following portion of controversial would be read as following: “… then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this (i.e, Prophet Muhammad’s Ghayb knowledge) is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” Coming to second principle: Principally it is possible for one to negate merit of another due to less knowledge but the construction of sentence of Hifz ul-Iman does not allow this. And it would be unfare and deception to pass it of as legitimate point. Only equality in knowledge is valid position. Conclusion: The basic rule regarding statements type of Hifz ul-Iman is; X has to be compared to Y in quantity/type to establish/negate. Without comparision in quantity/type of Ghayb speciality of prophetic Ghayb cannot be negated. And if there is equality in quantity there would be no speciality of one over another. Or if there is less and greater quantity then lesser has no speciality/uniqueness over the greater. In statement of Hifz ul-Iman the structuring of sentence restricts interpretation to; negation of speciality/uniqueness via equality in quantity; and not via prophetic knowledge being less then of creations mentioned by Shaykh Thanvi. In this context Shaykh Thanvi in Hifz ul-Iman stated; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in his baaz quantity of Ghayb knowledge is not special because knowledge like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was possessed by Zayd, Amr, animals, lunatics, quadrupeds, and infants. In defence of Shaykh Thanvi Deobandi Shuyukh stated statement is not about equality in quantity nor the author attempted to establish equality in quantity. Shaykh Naumani deemed Tashbeeh to be Kufr and said aisa (i.e. like-this) is in meaning of itna (i.e. this-much) without tashbeeh. And Shaykh Madani said it is in meaning of Tashbeeh if it was itna it would be Kufr. Both these Shuyukh contradicted each other and both considered other Taweeli understanding of Hifz ul-Iman to be Kufr. Unfortunately for Shaykh Thanvi he was the original source of Taweels of Shaykh Madani and Shaykh Naumani. Shaykh Thanvi said indirectly … tashbeeh or itna … statement is perfectly fine. All Shaykh Naumani and Shaykh Madani collectively managed was; Shaykh Thanvi’s both Taweel are Kufr and certified Shaykh Thanvi’s and their own Kufr. Statement like of Hifz ul-Iman mentions two parties … X and Y … X is not special/unique in his Ilm al-Ghayb. Aisa is used for comparision and all raw materials of comparision are in statement of Hifz ul-Iman. Party X and party Y and the merit/quality of Ilm al-Ghayb which is being negated via comparision. Negation of speciality/uniqueness of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb via comparision is through equality in quanitity. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi FootNotes: - [1] Poor folk were decieved by deception of Bast al-Banan in which Shaykh Thanvi completely denied what he wrote in Hifz ul-Iman. Other extreme is that smart Deobandis say Shaykh Thanvi changed the statement in Hifz ul-Iman therefore he cannot be blamed any longer and he is unfairly being targetted. In response to those; Shaykh Thanvi never repented and Shaykh made that clear in Bast al-Banan and Tagheer ul-Unawan. Changing of statement was merely to avoid difficulties faced by his supporters in debates. And Shaykh realised his statement ‘people lacking depth of understanding’ will ‘misunderstand’ and take it to be insulting therefore he agreed to change it. In other words it was effort to reorganise forces for further battle and not acceptance of fault/sin and repentence. - [2] Slightly longer version:“And when I (Shaykh Naumani) refuted your arguments and established that aisa is also employed for purpose of comparision as well as of itna. And in statement of Hifz ul-Iman it (i.e. aisa) has been used without implying tashbeeh (i.e. comparision) -; in meaning of itna. Then you demanded from me evidence in which aisa has been used without indicating comparision and in meaning of itna (i.e. this much). Therefore I established it from linguistical (analysis) and from popular poetical expressions to which you could not respond. And now in this speech of yours you have adopted a novel (position) that by taking aisa (this-much) in meaning of itna (i.e. this-much) our (Barelwi) position is established. And meaning of statement of Hifz ul-Iman becomes: ‘Knowledge of ghayb as-much (in quanity) was of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) that-much knowledge (in quantity) is possessed by every Zaid, Umar, and animals, and lunatics.’ I am surprised that do you really understand/believe this or are you deliberately trying to misguide people. […] Anyhow if you have not understood my position so far then try to understand now. In Hifz ul-Iman aisa is in meaning of itna. And by it (meaning; aisa/itna) limited knowledge of Ghayb is intended and meaning of statement (of Hifz ul-Iman) is as follows: Those who attribute to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) title of Aalim ul-Ghayb because limited knowledge of Ghayb and if this is their principle that whoever who knows few matters of Ghayb (…) meaning limited Ghayb knowledge is known to all. Anyhow in this statement word aisa has been used in meaning of itna and from it limited knowledge of Ghayb is intended not (limited) knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages 89/90, here.] - [3] Shaykh Naumani argued aisa without jaisa is not always for tashbeeh. In response to which Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) gave following speech during his debate with Shaykh Manzoor Naumani: “(Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad rahimullah says:) You say that if aisa is without jaisa then it is not used for sake of comparision (i.e. tashbeeh). Ok! Tell me if we say like this that Maulvi Manzoor Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) a dog’s. Or (say:) Maulvi Ashraf Ali Sahib’s knowledge is like (i.e. aisa) donkey’s. Then will there be comparision (between Manzoor’s/Ashraf’s and dog’s/donkey’s knowledge) or not? According to your saying (a statement containing aisa without jaisa cannot be for tashbeeh) there will be no comparision (between the mentioned).Then will you tolerate/accept this? I think you will not tolerate/accept this and will start screaming (Maulana) Sardar Ahmad has verbally abused us. And has equalled our knowledge to dog’s and donkey’s. So when Hifz ul-Iman contains this (aisa/like-this) word also then why do you distort/turn (i.e. taweel) obvious/apparent (meaning to another)? Why don’t you just admit Maulvi Thanvi was guilty of Kufr? Does Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) not even have dignity/respect as much as you? Or as much as your Thanvi Sahib? [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages73, similar in page 61, both here.] Note Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) used aisa on its on to tactfully insult Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Naumani to acknowledge aisa without jaisa is for tashbeeh. Feeling the sting of Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad’s (rahimullah) rebuke Shaykh Naumani couldn’t keep his deception going for too long and said: “(Shaykh Manzoor Ahmad Naumani says:) The example you have employed with regards to myself; in that word aisa is without doubt employed for comparision. And there is no uniqueness/speciality of myself or Maulana Thanvi. But if one learns from you (i.e. from examples) and if an ill-mannered and uncultured (person) says with regards to Maulvi Ahmad Raza Khan Sahib; his knowledge was like (i.e. aisa) a pig, (or) like (i.e. aisa) a donkey, then without doubt individual would have very rudely insulted Khan Sahib because according to common usage in such context aisa (i.e. like) is used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages77, here.] For the remainder of debate Muhaddith Sardar Ahmad (rahimullah) enquired from Shaykh Naumani why were his words directed toward Shaykh Thanvi and Shaykh Naumani insult and not Shaykh Thanvi’s word insult toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? - [4] The compiler and I assume that is Shaykh Rafaqat Hussain said:“It should be clear that word itna like aisa is sometimes also used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). And sometimes without tashbeeh only in meaning of quantity. For example it is said: Zayd is itna (i.e. so much) rich jitna (i.e. as much as) Umru. In this example itna is for comparision. And it is said: Zaid itna (i.e. this-much) rich of which there is no limit. Here word itna is not for tashbeeh but for quantity.” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages68, note by compiler, here.] Shaykh Naumani said aisa with jaisa is surely for tashbeeh because there is no jaisa there is no tashbeeh. And aisa is in meaning of itna. Note in the first example Shaykh Rafaqat Hussain used similar strategy which Shaykh Naumani used. His example is itna with jitna with which he is indicating tashbeeh without jitna cannot exist. Fact is Shaykh Naumani conceeded that there can be tashbeeh without jaisa and footnote 3 of this article is proof of it therefore please refer to it for complete detail. And if you remember then please read the following: “(Shaykh Manzoor Ahmad Naumani says:) The example you have employed with regards to myself; in that word aisa is without doubt employed for comparision. And there is no uniqueness/speciality of myself or Maulana Thanvi. But if one learns from you (i.e. from examples) and if an ill-mannered and uncultured (person) says with regards to Maulvi Ahmad Raza Khan Sahib; his knowledge was like (i.e. aisa) a pig, (or) like (i.e. aisa) a donkey, then without doubt individual would have very rudely insulted Khan Sahib because according to common usage in such context aisa (i.e. like) is used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision).” [Ref: Fatah Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazara, By Mawlana Rafaqat Hussain, Pages77, here.] Should I too do itna without jitna and demonstrate itna can be for tashbeeh? It can be said: ‘Shaykh Madani was itna abusive that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani felt like he is an innocent angel in company of Shaykh Madani.’ Implication here is that Mirza al-Kazzab al-Dajjal was abusive but Shaykh Madani was sooOOooO abusive comparision to Mirza; al-Kazzab, al-Dajjal, that Mirza felt he is blameless. Shaykh Rafaqat used two examples lets analyze their reality. Zayd is itna rich jitna Umru. Shaykh Rafaqat agrees it was for tashbeeh. Agar kaha jahay: Zayd bhot maldar heh aur itna hi Umru maldar heh. If it is said: Zayd is very rich and ina (i.e. as-much-as) rich is Umru. Can Shaykh Rafaqat or the clan of defenders of Kufr deny this tashbeeh? Even if the Shayateen disbelieve in tashbeeh the principle makes it clear when merit/quality is being established/negated between two parties in a sentence then tashbeeh is fundamentally part of statement be it implied or explicit. Alhasil; Shaykh Rafaqat can play all games he likes the fundamental rule will not allow him or his ilk evade the evident truth.

Ainda walay link par bhot si kutub hen Shia kay radd mein; https://www.scribd.com/lists/2892687/Shia

.... See below.

Introduction: Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi wrote letter to Shaykh Thanvi citing Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat’s Hussam al-Haramayn. Shaykh Darbhangi informs Shaykh Thanvi that Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat has attributed to Shaykh Thanvi following statement; Ghayb knowledge like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is possessed by infant, madman, every animal, and every quadruped. Then he proceeded to ask four questions regarding Hifz ul-Iman’s controversial statement. The response to these four questions was published as Bast al-Banan. Shaykh Thanvi’s Extended Version Of Hifz Ul-Iman’s Statement: Following is near pretty literal translation of Hifz ul-Iman: “If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz (i.e. some) from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb. Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) … [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] … then why (knowledge of) Ghayb is counted above all merits of Prophet-hood. A matter (of Ilm al-Ghayb) in which a Momin in fact a human is not even unique then how can that be considered from merits of Prophet-hood! And if it (Ilm al-Ghayb) is not deemed fundamental (for prophet-hood) then it is important to point out what distinguishes Prophet and non-Prophet.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page16 , here] Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat On Shaykh Thanvi In His Hussam al-Haramayn: Shaykh Naumani in his Faisla Kun Munazra verbatim quoted the following: “From them is a fanatical supporters of Gangohi called Ashraf Ali Thanvi. He has written small pamphlet; not even of four pages long. In which he explicitly stated knowledge of Ghayb like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) like it is possessed by every infant, every lunatic, in fact every animal and every quadruped. And followin is (Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi) the cursed’s statement: ‘If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz from Ghayb or qull Ghayb; if baaz from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but every infant, lunatic, all animal and quadrupeds. And if all knowledge of Ghayb is intended, from which none of detail (of Ilm al-Ghayb) is excluded, then falsehood of this (belief) is proven from textual and logical evidences.’[1] I say look at the effect of Allah’s seal (placed on his heart) how he establishes equality between RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and between creation.”[2] [Ref: Faisla Kun Munazra, Pages, 149, 150, 151, here. .] Following continues from where Shaykh Naumani left but it is being quoted from Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat’s (alayhi rahmat ar-Rahman) Hussam al-Haramayn: “And how the boastful ignormous could not understand that Zayd and Umru and names of others he mentioned; if they know a matter of Ghayb even then it would gained through speculation. And definitive (knowledge of) matters of Ghayb is purely for Prophets (alayhis salam). And definitive knowledge of Ghayb if it is known by non-Prophets then it is through Prophets informing them and not through anyone else. And have you not seen how your Lord has stated: ‘Allah reveal to you the unseen. But Allah chooses of His messengers whom He wills, so believe in Allah and His messengers.’ [Ref: 3:179] ‘The knower of the unseen (i.e. Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala) does not disclose His Ghayb to anyone, Except whom He has approved of messengers, and indeed, …’ [Ref: 72:26/27] See how this man left the Quran and lost his faith. And ended up enquiring what is difference between Prophet and animals (in regards to Ghayb). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) sets seal on heart of every deceptively arrogant (person) like this.” [Ref: Hussam Al Haramayn Ala Munharil Kufr Wal Mayn, Pages 87/88, here.] Bast Al Banan The Deception Of Shaytan: Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi introduces why the need for questions arose: “Honorable Mawlvi Ahmad Raza Khan (Barelwi) has stated and has attributed to you in Hussam al-Haramayn that in Hifz ul-Iman you explicitly stated that Ghayb knowledge like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is also possessed every infant and madman, in fact by every animal, and every quadruped (i.e. four legged animal). Therefore following matters are need of clarification: …” He then proceeds to pose four questions about what was attributed to Shaykh Thanvi by Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala): “(i) Have you explicitly stated in Hifz ul-Iman or any other book of yours anything as such? (ii) If there is no clear (statement) then can this be inherent (part of) your statement (which through deductions) can be implied? (iii) Or did you intend such a topic/meaning? (iv) If you have not explicitly stated such topic/meaning, nor indicated (meaning) is derivitive of your statement, nor your intention, then such a person who believes (as ascribed to you), or explicitly or implicitly says (this); do you believe is Muslims or Kafir?” And following is response of Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi: (i) In response to your letter I say this; I have not written this khabees (i.e. impure) subject/meaning in any of my books. And far be me writing it; danger of it didn’t even cross my heart. (ii) This subject/meaning is not inherent-effect of any of my statement therefore at the end I would like to say: (iii) When I deem such topic/meaning filthy and my heart has felt no danger of what has been stated above then how can it be my intended meaning? (iv) Any person believes as such, or without believing it explicitly or implicitly utters this, I deem such a person to be out of Islam (because) this person belies definitive evidences and insults/detracts (the merits of one who is) pride of tribe Adam (i.e. Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam). This is the answer to your questions. Now at the end …” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman -with- Bast al-Banan, Pages; 20/21/22, here.] 1st Question Of Shaykh Darbhangi And 1st Answer Of Shaykh Thanvi: Shaykh Darbhangi introduced the allegation of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) in the following words: “… that in Hifz ul-Iman you explicitly stated that Ghayb knowledge like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is also possessed every infant and madman, in fact by every animal, and every quadruped (i.e. four legged animal).” Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to Shaykh Thanvi in his own words the following words: “In which he explicitly stated knowledge of Ghayb like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) like it is possessed by every infant, every lunatic, in fact every animal and every quadruped.” And in what he quoted of Hifz ul-Iman: “… if baaz (i.e. some) from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but every infant, lunatic, a animals and quadrupeds …” In context of what Shaykh Darbhangi attributed to Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) and what Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to Shaykh Thanvi Shaykh Darbhangi enquired: “Have you explicitly stated in Hifz ul-Iman or any other book of yours anything as such?” Shamelessly Shaykh Thanvi tells a lie and states: “In response to your letter I say this; I have not written this khabees (i.e. impure) subject/meaning in any of my books. And far be me writing it; danger of it didn’t even cross my heart.” Ala Hadhrat quoted Shaykh Thanvi’s controversial statement and meaning of it is; there is nothing special about baaz knowledge of Ghayb of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because baaz knowledge like of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is possessed by regulars Joe’s, every; infant, lunatic, and all; animals and quadrupeds. And this statement precisely is what Shaykh Thanvi EXPLICITLY wrote in his Hifz ul-Iman: “… if baaz (i.e. some) from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but every infant, lunatic, a animals and quadrupeds …” Tagheer ul-Unwan Exposes Lies Told In Bast al-Banan: Shaykh Thanvi wrote Tagheer ul-Unwan. In which a un-named supporter of Shaykh Thanvi suggests to Shaykh that he should alter the statement of Hifz ul-Iman. He believes statement of Hifz ul-Iman is insulting and based this fact the un-named Mawlvi’s omitted portion of letter likely read: Hifz ul-Iman’s controversial statement is: “Such a statement in which knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being compared with knowledge of animals and quadruped; which is extremely disrespectful at first glance. Why not just retract from such a statement due to which sincere supporters of honorable (Shaykh Thanvi); rightly so find it extremely difficult to answer/respond (to criticism levelled against Shaykh). And that statement is not from heaven/sky nor it is revelation; whose apparent wording and (contextual) reason of statement with exact words should remain” [Ref: Hifz, Bast, And Tagheer ul-Unwan, Page119, here.] Shaykh Thanvi in respose to un-named adviser and questioner writes: “It is very good advice. May Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) reward you. Prior to this no one pointed out the reason (why the statement of Hifz ul-Iman should be changed) therefore (I held to belief that) altering of statement would make it against the intended meaning (of Hifz ul-iman and this would) evidence of confession (of Kufr). And confession of Kufr is Kufr therefore didn’t only think alteration of necessary but didn’t even consider it legitimate. Now in this question the reason stated is realistic enough (i.e.أمرواقعي). Therefore accepting your advice I am altering the …” [Ref: Hifz, Bast, And Tagheer ul-Unwan, Page122, here.] Shaykh Thanvi confesses to fact that statement of Hifz ul-Iman is; if seen has it is written then it is insulting and Deobandis are struggling to defend him. And he stated it is amr wa’qi’i what the questioner stated. In other words he agrees with what the questioner stated; statement is apparently insulting for those lack depth of understanding, the meaning objected are genuine possibility, and his followers struggle in defending his statement. 1st Question And 1st Answer And Great Lie Of Shaykh Thanvi: It can be accepted that did not intend and it the insulting meaning was not even realized by Shaykh Thanvi but to say he remained ignorant of it from date of publishing Hifz ul-Iman to publishing Bast al-Banan is impossible. Hifz ul-Iman was written in 1319 Hijri and year after Sayyidi Ala Hadrat (rahimullah) wrote Al Mo’tamad al-Mustanad (1320 Hijri) in which he pointed out insult/Kufr of Shaykh Thanvi’s statement. Then in 1324 Hijri Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) wrote Hussam al-Haramayn in which he refuted statement of Shaykh Thanvi and declared him Kafir. Then in 1329 Hijri Shaykh Thanvi wrote Bast al-Banan and that is exactly ten years after Hifz ul-Iman. And the controversy which Hifz ul-Iman caused; the protests, Hifz ul-Iman burnings events and for Shaykh to say; I never wrote anything as such is bit stupid and great lie. No sane person would believe that Shaykh remained ignorant of what he wrote for ten years during which mobs were protesting and after his blood. 2nd Question Of Shaykh Darbhangi And 2nd Answer Of Shaykh Thanvi: Shaykh Darbhangi enquires from Shaykh Thanvi: “If there is no clear (statement) then can this be inherent (part of) your statement (which through deductions) can be implied?” Shaykh Thanvi once again shamelessly lies and states: “This subject/meaning is not inherent-effect of any of my statement therefore at the end I would like to say: …” In the following portion Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi states: “A matter (of Ilm al-Ghayb) in which a Momin (i.e. righteous Muslim); in fact a human is not even unique then how can that be considered from merits of Prophet-hood. And if it (Ilm al-Ghayb) is not deemed fundamental (for prophet-hood) then it is important to point out what distinguishes Prophet and non-Prophet.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page16, here] Here Shaykh Thanvi has indirectly/implicitly has stated what he stated earlier and what he was accused of by Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah). Not forgetting he explicitly/directly stated what he was accused of. And once again I quote his own words: ); “… if baaz (i.e. some) from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds;…” 2nd Question, 2nd Answer: Kufri/Insulting Meaning Can Be Implied: Now getting to the meat of matter: Shaykh Manzoor Naumani, Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Darbhangi, and Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani are on the record for presenting Taweel (i.e. alternative interpretation) of this statement of Shaykh Thanvi. Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi are of view statement is in sense of quantity and aisa (i.e. like this) has been used in meaning of itna/is-qadr (i.e. this much) and not in comparative sense. And they believe if it was in comparative sense then statement of Shaykh Thanvi would be insulting/Kufr. Shaykh Madani on other hand is of opinion; Shaykh Thanvi’s statement is to be understood in comparative sense because aisa (i.e. like this) has been used for tashbeeh (i.e. comparision). And if it was used in sense of quantity; in meaning of itna then it would be insulting/Kufr. Moving on while ignoring the apparent contradiction between the two parties; point to note is that there is inherent implicit Kufr/insult in statement of Shaykh Thanvi. This explains why Shaykh Naumani, Shaykh Darbhangi and Shaykh Madani have said it aisa is used in this sense and in this meaning and not in this. And if it was in this meaning then it would have been objectionable (due to being insulting and Kufr). Due to which these Shuyukh resorted to stating in which sense the statement is to be understood, and in which sense it isn’t supposed to be understood, and how the word aisa was used, and how it was not used. So there is at the very least a very real chance of statement being Kufr/insulting and this was known to followers of Shaykh Thanvi and this is why they resorted to interpretation of controversial statement to turn it away from insult/kufr. In conclusion it needs to be said: there is inherent implied Kufr/insult in statement of Shaykh Thanvi. Shaykh Darbhangi’s 3rd Question And Shaykh Thanvi’s 3rd Answer: Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) attributed following to Shaykh Thanvi: “In which he explicitly stated knowledge of Ghayb like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) like it is possessed by every infant, every lunatic, in fact every animal and every quadruped. And followin is (Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi) the cursed’s statement: ‘If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz from Ghayb or qull Ghayb; if baaz from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but every infant, lunatic, all animal and quadrupeds. And if all knowledge of Ghayb is intended, from which none of detail (of Ilm al-Ghayb) is excluded, then falsehood of this (belief) is proven from textual and logical evidences.’” Shaykh Darbhangi enquired regarding what Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to Shaykh Thanvi: “Or did you intend such a topic/meaning?” And Shaykh Thanvi responds to it by saying: “When I deem such topic/meaning filthy and my heart has felt no danger of what has been stated above then how can it be my intended meaning?” Shaykh Thanvi deemed what Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to him as filthy (i.e. khabees) and he said he could not even comprehend it let alone intend such filth. But the grand master of deception and lies precisely wrote what he deems khabees mazmoon (i.e. filthy subject/meaning): “… if baaz (i.e. some) from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds;…” Shaykh Darbhangi’s 4th Question And Shaykh Thanvi’s Last Answer: For the final time I quote what Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat attributed to Shaykh Thanvi: “In which he explicitly stated knowledge of Ghayb like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) like it is possessed by every infant, every lunatic, in fact every animal and every quadruped. And followin is (Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi) the cursed’s statement: ‘If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz from Ghayb or qull Ghayb; if baaz from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but every infant, lunatic, all animal and quadrupeds. And if all knowledge of Ghayb is intended, from which none of detail (of Ilm al-Ghayb) is excluded, then falsehood of this (belief) is proven from textual and logical evidences.’” And for the final time I quote what Shaykh Thanvi wrote: “If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz (i.e. some) from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb. Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) … [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Please study both parts and see if there are differences in summary of what Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to Shaykh Thanvi and what Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) quoted of Shaykh Thanvi’s Hifz ul-Iman. Now coming to what Shaykh Darbhangi enquired from Shaykh Thanvi in quite detail: “If you have not explicitly stated such topic/meaning, nor indicated (meaning) is derivitive of your statement, nor your intention, then such a person who believes (as ascribed to you), or explicitly or implicitly says (this); do you believe is Muslims or Kafir?” Shaykh Thanvi answered the question in detail saying: “Any person believes as such, or without believing it, explicitly or implicitly utters this, I deem such a person to be out of Islam (because) this person belies definitive evidences and insults/detracts (from the merits of) pride of children of Adam (i.e. Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam). This is the answer to your questions.” In light of what was attributed by Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) to Shaykh Thanvi, and what he wrote in Hifz ul-Iman, and his own Fatwah of Kufr: We Muslims would be justified to say; Shaykh Thanvi declared himself Kafir. Conclusion: Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) attributed to Shaykh Thanvi belief that there is nothing special about prophetic knowledge of Ghayb because knowledge of like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is also known to every day Joe’s, every infant, lunatic and all animals and quadrupeds. And this is precisely what Shaykh Thanvi wrote in his Hifz ul-Iman. And Shaykh Thanvi deceptively denied ever writing anything like it and declared it Kufr but Hifz ul-Iman is testimony to it and proof of his own Kufr in light of his own edict. Further proof of Shaykh Thanvi’s Hifz ul-Iman being insulting and disrespecting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), therefore Kufr, is the statement of supporter of Shaykh Thanvi, which he himself quoted in Tagheer ul-Unwan. And Shaykh Thanvi agreed with conclusions of his supporter. Therefore the Muslims were/are justified in declaring Shaykh Thanvi of being Kafir and charging those who defend his statement of Kufr. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi. Footnotes: - [1] Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) only quoted the under lined part of Shaykh Thanvi’s statement: “If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but infants, lunatics, every animal and quadrupeds because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) … [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] … then why (knowledge of) Ghayb is counted above all merits of Prophet-hood. A matter (of Ilm al-Ghayb) in which a Momin in fact a human is not even unique then how can that be considered from merits of Prophet-hood. And if it (Ilm al-Ghayb) is not deemed fundamental (for prophet-hood) then it is important to point out what distinguishes Prophet and non-Prophet. And if all knowledge of Ghayb is intended, from which none of detail (of Ilm al-Ghayb) is excluded, then falsehood of this (belief) is proven from textual and logical evidences.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page16, here] Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) left the material in between because Shaykh Thanvi explicitly stated baaz prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is not special. The material which Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) left out Shaykh Thanvi presented arguments to establish the baaz Ghayb is doesn’t establish speciality of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb. He merely quoted his belief and not reasoning for his belief because objective was to inform readers of Shaykh Thanvi’s belief. - [2] Please note Shaykh Naumani translated Arabic words of Hussam ul-Haramayn in his Faisla Kun Munazra (i.e. the decisive debate) and his translation of Arabic Hussam al-Haramayn is word for word copy of Shaykh Thanvi’s Urdu found in Hifz ul-Iman, here. Indicating Shaykh Naumani did not find any difference between Arabic of Hussam al-Haramayn and Urdu of Hifz ul-Iman. And following his footsteps I have inserted relevent portions of my English translation of Hifz ul-Iman into English translation of Hussam al-Haramayn.

Introduction: Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi a major scholar of Deobandism in his Hifz ul-Iman wrote something which no believer would find acceptable. Ever since it was penned Shaykh Thanvi himself and his supporters have sort to explain away the obvious insult/disrespect directed toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Out of many Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani, a major Deobandi scholar wrote to defend Shaykh Thanvi and published Al-Shihab as-Saqib, best described as Gali Nama (i.e. master piece of abuse). 0.0 - Islamic Belief Regarding Ilm al-Ghayb Of Prophet: Muslims believe Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been granted Baaz from knowledge of Ghayb. In words of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala); Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb is a drop from limitless ocean of Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knowledge. And despite this his knowledge of Ghayb is unique and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is special in his knowledge of Ghayb. 0.1 - Glimpse Of Types Of Ghuyubs Known To RasoolAllah: It is unique because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) showed him paradise and hell. He saw the grapes of paradise and saw parts of hell destroying each other. He saw Amr bin Luhai in hell and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) told he started the Sunnah of freeing animals in the name of idol gods.[1] Prophet (sallallahua layhi wa aalihi was’sallam) foretold; Syria, Iraq, and Yemen will be conquered by Muslims and Muslims will leave Madinah.[2] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) informed the companions; he can see them behind him just like he can see them when they are infront of him. Nor their concentration in prayer and nor was their bowing is hidden from him.[3] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) informed about two people being tortured in the graves when he passed by them. And this is report of Ghayb relating to present. He told they are not being punished for minor sins. One being punished for backbiting and other for not being careful and allowing urine drops to soil his clothes. Note he knew their sins of past due to which they were being punished.[4] And Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was shown his entire Ummah and the good and bad deeds of his entire nation during his life time.[5] Just from a glimpse it becomes evident prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is unique. And there is no regular Joe, or infant, or lunatic, or animal, or insect with such knowledge of Ghayb. 0.2 - Quantity Of Ghuyub Known To RasoolAllah: Good and bad actions of Ummah were shown to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) during his life time and are presented to him after his passing away.[6] Consider the billions of Muslims and this should tell a Muslim the amount of Ghuyub is known by RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Also Ahadith establish everything was revealed to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) when Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) placed knowledge in chest of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).[7] And therefore Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) told everything from beginning of creation till entry of people to paradise/hell.[8] And this was because Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was witnessing all that is happening.[9] 1.0 - Actual Statement Of Shaykh Thanvi In Discussion: “If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz (i.e. some) from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like (i.e. aisa) this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] 1.1 - Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani’s Taweel: Shaykh Madani argued in defence of Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi; he compared some baaz (i.e. limited/some) with baaz and nd not quantity of baaz knowledge. In context of Shaykh Thanvi’s statement his explanation would be reflected as follows: “… if baaz from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (baaz) knowledge of Ghayb; (baaz) knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds …” In other words Shaykh Madani is saying; instead of comparing the quantity of baaz knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with baaz quantity of mentioned creations; Shaykh Thanvi just compared baaz knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with baaz knowledge of mentioned creations without comparing great quantity of prophetic knowledge with minute knowledge of others. 1.2 – The Right Questions And the Important Answer: Question arises what would be the outcome if this interpretation of Shaykh Hussain Ahmad is right and believed? And what does it mean regarding character of Shaykh Thanvi if this interpretation is true? Would Shaykh Madani earn a badge of honor and Shaykh Thanvi go free of blame of insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? Lets begin with telling you; don’t have your hopes too high about Shaykh Madani’s scholarships and definitely not his smarts (i.e. intelligence). 1.3 - Shaykh Madani’s Taweel In Hifz ul-Iman: In light of Shaykh Madani’s Taweel the statement will be read: “If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is it baaz from Ghayb or every/all Ghayb (of Allah); if baaz from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) baaz knowledge of Ghayb; baaz knowledge like of this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; possesses (such knowledg of Ghayb) as well because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title) Then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb. Now if Zayd decides (and says) yes I will call all of them (with title of) Aalim ul-Ghayb (one should ask Zayd) …” Note words in green are not part of original TEXT but are inserted to convey interpretation of Shaykh Madani. Even though the natural meaning conveys comparision between baaz quantity; please ignore it. Just pretend and go along; Shaykh Madani was correct in his understanding. 1.4 - Shaykh Madani’s Taweel And Its Application On Shaykh Thanvi: As per interpretation of Shaykh Madani the implications are; Shaykh Thanvi wants to negate uniquesness of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb by comparing word baaz with baaz. Without getting into detail of how much this baaz translates to for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and for mentioned creations. And without comparing the type of knowledge of Ghayb which is established for RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). The following demonstrates what Shaykh Madani is saying: If it is some knowledge then what is so special/unique about Shaykh Thanvi’s some knowledge? Knowledge like of Shaykh Thanvi is known to every idiot, dumb mummal, Kafir, and even Fir’awn had some knowledge. Or if someone wants to negate uniqueness of Shaykh Thanvi’s knowledge by saying: What is so unique about Shaykh Thanvi’s limited knowledge of Islam even infants possess limited knowledge of Islam. Please note quantity of limited/some isn’t being compared but just the nafs (i.e. being, or word) of baaz (i.e. limited, some) is compared. 2.0 - Response To Argument: Compared In Limitedness Not In Quantity: Shaykh Madani’s argument is; Shaykh Thanvi compared limited knowledge without making, directly or indirectly, the quantity of limited knowledge part of his statement found in Hifz ul-Iman. Shaykh Madani either lacked the smarts (i.e. intelligence) or was just being typical Deobandi. And my accessment is smarts was not his problem but his love/respect of Shaykh Thanvi exceeded the love and respect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Because even those who have spent two years in Madrassa will be able to tell you speciality and uniqueness cannot be established and cannot be negated without inserting quantity, type and quality of knowledge into equation. If Shaykh Thanvi had not questioned the speciality/uniqueness and had not compared prophetic knowledge of Ghayb with lunatics, infants, animals, Zaid, Amr and not negated speciality of prophetic knowledge: Then quantity argument of Shaykh Madani would have been valid. 2.1 - Shaykh Thanvi’s Equality In Limited Knowledge Established: If Shaykh Thanvi’s statement was worded in following way then it would have been acceptable and Shaykh Madani’s point would have been valid: “if baaz from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then baaz knowledge like of this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; possesses (such knowledg of Ghayb) as well because every person knows something which is hidden from another person.” But Shaykh Thanvi questioned uniqueness of prophetic knowledge and compared it with; Zaid, Amr, lunatics, animals, quadrupeds and infants in limitedness of Ghayb. And all this to negate speciality/uniqueness of prophetic knowledge. To determine or to negate speciality/uniqueness of prophetic knowledge Shaykh Thanvi had to compare the quantity etc. If he believed prophetic knowledge of Ghayb was far greater then Zaid, Amr, lunatics, infants, animals then there would be speciality/uniqueness of prophetic knowledge and and he would have automatically come to conclusion that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is unique and special in his knowledge. Shaykh Thanvi denied speciality/uniqueness of prophetic knowledge and that can only be it if he considered/believed the prophetic knowledge to be equal to mentioned creations: “… if baaz from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) baaz knowledge of Ghayb; baaz knowledge like of this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds; possesses (such knowledg of Ghayb) as well because every person knows something which is hidden from another person.” Alhaisl -: Equality in quantity, type and quality of knowledge is indirectly was implied by Shaykh Thanvi to come to his conclusion. If he had not implied equality into his text his conclusion could not have been against speciality. The principle of determining speciality/uniqueness in knowledge and Shaykh Thanvi’s conclusion is source of equality in quantity argument. 3.0 - Moral Question And Principle Of Establishing Uniqueness: Question; Is this fair way of determining uniqueness of Shaykh Thanvi’s knowledge? If someone truly and genuinely wants to establish uniqueness then it is wrong to compare superiors knowledge with lowers. The correct method is to compare lowers knowledge with superiors knowledge. In other words to establish uniqueness one should not do as follow; infant knows Tajweed and Shaykh Thanvi knows Tajweed therefore Shaykh Thanvi is not special he is like an infant in his knowledge. The right course of action is that; Shaykh Thanvi knows, Tajweed, Tafsir, Hadith, Arabic, rules of Sarf and Nawh etc. The child only knows Tajweed but due to all other knowledge Shaykh Thanvi is unique in his knowledge. In other words uniquesness in knowledge is determined by quantity of knoweldge and type of knowledge and not through word play; Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb vs Baaz Ilm al-Ghayb. The speciality of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is established by type of Ghuyub he knows and quantity of these Ghuyub. 3.1 - Blame On Shaykh Thanvi Through Interpretation Of Shaykh Madani: It is obvious uniquesness/speciality of one individual’s knowledge over another is established through the type of Ghuyub known to him and quantity of the Ghuyub. Please consider; what type of person would use such under handed tactic to negate speciality/uniqueness prophetic knowledge over mentioned insignifcants mentioned by Shaykh Thanvi? What I mean is you need to consider: What kind of Iblees would not use quantity and type knowledge to determine uniqueness of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) over lunatics, infants, animals, and quadrupeds: A person who loves and respects Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? Or Shaytaan al-Laheen who deliberately wants to insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) using this under-handed tactic? And suppose Shaykh Madani wrongly understood the intent of Shaykh Thanvi then just imagine what kind of Iblees would understand the statement in such a way and consider it acceptable? A righteous believer or cursed Iblees? I leave the judgment for the readers. 3.2 - Equating Prophetic Knowledge With Knowledge Of Insignificants: According to Shaykh Madani; Shaykh Thanvi compares baaz prophetic knowledge of Ghayb with baaz knowledge of Ghayb of infants and lunatics. It is true having baaz knowledge of Ghayb is not unique but the type and quantity Ghayb knowledge which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been granted is unique to Prophets and especially to him. Knowledge of Quran/Wahi was Ghayb and was unique to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Which infant, or lunatic, or animal, or regular Joe shared any part of it without his delivering it? And some evidence relating to this was already presented. Using Shaykh Madani’s logic if someone says; what is so unique about face of Shaykh Thanvi; face like of this even is possed by Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, animals, pigs, dogs, and donkeys. Expectedly Deobandi’s would be upset and accuse me of following the Sunnah of Shaykh Madani. But my defence would be in accordance with logic of Shaykh Madani: I merely compared nafs of face with faces of mentioned and not type of faces; therefore no insult was meant because having face is not unique. Natural implication of which is that Shaykh Thanvi’s face is like the faces of mentioned. Rest assured none of them will buy tolerate or accept this Taweel because one of their own is being insulted. But Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is insulted their hearts don’t even percieve it and they preferr distortions of their scholars over what they know to be truth. Conclusion: To begin with; to equate Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and to argue there is no uniqueness of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) over the insignicants mentioned is disrespectful. Shaykh Thanvi’s statement of Hifz ul-Iman if judged in light of Shaykh Madani’s Taweel then Shaykh Thanvi is guilty of employing unwarranted methodology of underminding merit and speciality of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb. And a Muslim can imagine what type of person would go to such length as to compare baaz without comparing quanity of baaz Ghayb knowledge of Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with animals, infants, and lunatics! All this so he can establish there is nothing special about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in his knolwedge: A righteous believer who loves/respects Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? Or a disgusting Kafir impersonating to be Muslim; with no love/respect for the Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) guides whom He wills. Wama alayna ilal balalghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi FootNotes: - [1] “Narrated Aisha: Once the sun eclipsed and Allah's Messenger stood up for the prayer and recited a very long Sura and when bowed for a long while and then raised his head and started reciting another Sura. Then he bowed, and after finishing, he prostrated and did the same in the second rak`a and then said, "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] - [2]“Sufyan b. Abd Zuhair reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Syria will be conquered and some people will go out of Medina along with their families driving their camels. and Medina is better for them if they were to know it. Then Yemen will be conquered and some people will go out of Medina along with their families driving their camels, and Medina is better for them if they were to know it. Then Iraq will be conquered and some people will go out of it along with their families driving their camels, and Medina is better for them if they were to know it.” [Ref: Muslim, B7, H3200] - [3] "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] - [4] "Bahr bin Marrar narrated that his grandfather Abu Bakrah said: "The Messenger of Allah passed by two graves, and he said: 'They are being punished but they are not being punished for anything major. One of them is being punished because of urine, and the other is being punished because of backbiting.'" [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H349] “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] - [5] “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] - [6] “It was narrated from Abu Dhār 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.] - [7] "Narrated Abdur Rahman ibn A'ish: Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said: I saw my Lord, the Exalted and Glorious in the most beautiful form. He said: What do the Angels in the presence of Allah contend about? I said: Thou art the most aware of it. He then placed His palm between my shoulders and I felt its coldness in my chest and I came to know what was in the Heavens and the Earth. He recited: 'Thus did we show Ibrahim the kingdom of the Heavens and the Earth and it was so that he might have certainty.' (6:75)" [Ref: Tirmadhi, Vol5, H3245, Tafsir Surah Sad] "Then I saw Him put his palms between my shoulder blades till I felt the coldness of his fingers between the two sides of my chest. Then everything was illuminated for me and I recognized everything. He said: Muhammad! I said: At Thy service, my Lord. He said: What do these high angels contend about? I said: In regard to expiations. He said: What are these? [...]" [Ref: Tirmadhi, Vol5, H3246, Tafsir Surah Sad] - [8] “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] - [9] "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]

Introduction: Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi wrote Hifz ul-Iman in which he insulted/disrespected Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by comparing knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to knolwedge of regular Joe’s knowledge along side of infants, lunatics, quadrapeds and carnivores. Scholars of Islam requested and pleaded him to repeal the statement from Hifz ul-Iman and repent but instead he indirectly encouraged his supporters to defend him and make excuses on his behalf. This article will briefly address their efforts and if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permits me each of his supporter will receive a due response in time. This is just the beginning greater plans to unravel. Insha Allah. Literal Translation Of Statement From Hifz ul-Iman: “If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like (i.e. aisa) this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds;because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] Aisa/Like In Meaning Of Quantity: Typically Deobandis, such as Shaykh Murtaza Hassan Chandpuri, Shaykh Manzoor Nomani, argued; Shaykh Thanvi’s statement aisa/like is to be understood in meaning of itna (i.e. this much) is-qadr (i.e. in this quantity), yeh (i.e. this) and it was not used comparatively. According to this Taweel (i.e. interpretation) the statement of Shaykh Thanvi would read: “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; itna (i.e. this-much) knowledge (in quantity) 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] This is no less offensive because if the statement is understood in context of itna, is-qadr, yeh then the quantity of Ghayb of Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being equaled to qauntity of every day Joe’s knowledge of Ghayb along side infants, mad-man, every animal quadrapeds, and carnivores. Aisa/Like In Sense Of Comparision/Tashbeeh: In opposition to both of the above another Deobandi scholar; Shaykh Hussain Ahmad Madani argued aisa/like-this is used comparatively if it was in meaning of itna (i.e. this much) then it would be offensive. According to him aisa/like-this was used for sake of comparison (i.e. tashbeeh). If the statement is in this meaning then it is to be understood like: “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 (comparatively) 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 sense the statement means; Ghayb knowledge like [ba-wasta, transltd; via means][1] in comparison to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is also possessed by Zayd, Amr, infants, lunatics, every animal; quadrapeds and carnivores. Implications Of Aisa In Meaning Of Itna And Tashbeeh: Implication of first is; quantity of prophetic knowledge is same as the mentioned in list. People in wordly knowledge aren’t even equale but Shaykh Thanvi made prophetic knowledge equal to the mentioned in list. And not wordly knowledge, but in knowledge of Ghayb, every bit of which establishes speciality of a Prophet. Not only he attributed to them knowledge of Ghayb he attributed equality to them if aisa is in meaning of itna. Implication of second is; the type of prophetic knowledge which suppose to be unique to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not unique to him but the mentioned also share it with him there for he’s not unique/special. And this is Kufr on two accounts comparing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to the mentioned and negating speciality of prophetic knowledge of Ghayb. Ghayb knowledge is special to a Prophet and to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as well and it is inclusive of Wahi. To say it is not special but others share is to negate the very purpose of his Prophet-hood. Conclusion: If aisa/like is interpreted to mean itna/is-qadr (i.e. this much) then knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being equaled to knowledge of mentioned and implication is that he is no different from knowledge of mentioned in quantity. If statement is interpreted in context of – tashbeeh – then it is comparing the knowledge of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with the mentioned and pointing out that he is no different to mentioned due to his knowledge. However the statement of Hifz ul-Iman is interpreted in both statements his knowledge is being compared to the mentioned. In the first case – itna/is-qadr – comparison is implied and knowledge is clearly equaled to mentioned. In the second case – aisa/like – being for TASHBEEH the comparison is obvious in types of Ghuyub. However one roles the dice insult and disrespect of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) cannot be removed from statement of Shaykh Thanvi. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi - [1] “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 stated: "None in the heavens and earth knows the unseen except Allah …” (27:65) and: “And if I knew the unseen, I could have …” (7:188) And knowledge which is via means (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].

...

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 Ghayb knowledge of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In order to negate the uniqueness of Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb he compared the knowledge of Ghayb of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with knowledge of Ghayb of; infants, lunatics, animals, carnivores and harbivores. 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 it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz (i.e. some/limited) from Ghayb or qull (i.e. every/all) Ghayb (of Allah); if some from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like (i.e. aisa) this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; every infant, lunatic, all animals and quadrupeds;because every person knows something which is hidden from another person. (If knowing Ghayb is criteria of attributing title;) then we should call everyone of them Aalim al-Ghayb.” [Ref: Hifz ul-Iman, by Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Page15, here] 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 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 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 some from (ba-wasta) knowledge of Ghayb is intended then 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; 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 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 his prophetic knowledge to knowledge of lunatics, infants, and animals. Also considering what the Ghuyub are, especially knowledge of Wahi/Quran, it is disrespect of Quran/Wahi to say even dogs 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 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).

...

Salam alayqum. Maulana has written no such book. There is a speech in Urdu with similar name and it should be available on youtube. Yeh kitab dekhen Shia kay mutaliq: http://books.nafseislam.com/read-book.php?book_id=541&book=mazhab-e-shia

Amar Iqbal [02 December 2017 22:20]: Ok no problems however for me it's more productive to discuss the subject matter then batter over emails which is more time consuming but Khair. In addition such topics are not a priority for me with the concurrent reality of the ummah as we see Syria is bombed daily and hospitals destroyed on an industrial scale - with everyone in them -but we have become numb to it; torture, rape and live executions occur in Iraq in the name of fighting terrorists (who did the same) and we remain unmoved; entire populations of Rohingya in towns and villages are ethnically cleansed and at best we donate some money. Guantanamo remains open, prisons fill with Muslims convicted of newly created and ever-increasing crimes of thought as recently Saudi Arabia has arrested over 60 scholars and activists since September alone, Muslims are targeted daily through oppressive laws, anti-Muslim hatred on the streets and a vile media that populises all of the above. And yet - please forgive me - when the speakers famous throughout the Muslim world for addressing and teaching about every Islamic matter EXCEPT for the above, our masses swoon and fall over themselves because of the way the make us feel and how their understanding and knowledge causes our minds and hearts to avoid the bitter reality. As a result we place our trusts not only in the personalities - although that is partially true - but, crucially, it is how they make us feel about ourselves that is the most important part for the masses. Seeking knowledge, of course, is an obligation upon all of us and that continues until the grave. But what use is that knowledge unless its beneficial, applicable and appropriate to the time, circumstance and need? Prayers are prescribed at their specific times, obligatory fasting is only in Ramadan, Zakat was collected once yearly etc and, the oppressive and abused are defended, supposedly, when their rights are violated. And that is our problem. Why is that a talk by famous speakers and scholars, who are generally free to travel around the world, unhindered, speaking in matters of ritual purification, marital problems, angels, jinns and exorcisms - which all have their place in Islam - attract far more attendance than, say, an event to highlight and oppose the imprisonment of people without trial in Guantanamo and secret detention sites or, to challenge laws and measure that unfairly target Muslims? There is a sickness that has permeated our hearts and some of these well-intentioned speakers and scholars have caused it to grow within us, unabated. That sickness is wahn - a belief that life is eternal and death will never rely affect us and hence, love of the former and hatred of the latter. Our state as a people is not due to lack of numbers. The Prophet (s) foretold that we would be many, “like the filth of the floodwater” when our lands would be carved up and our hearts filled with terror and cowardice. We should never place our hopes solely in individuals. Rather, it must be solid principles that we follow and, we must be prepared to defend them - in the knowledge that we may lose wealth, time, freedom and life in protecting them. Until then, we await the birth of our true guides and leaders whose lectures, speeches, classes and sermons are not governed or limited by fear but are inspired by faith, fortitude and defiance of evil and courage in its face. Waslaam. Amar Iqbal:Can you please add this email and not omit from your article ... “Note: Brother Amar sent another E-Mail where he in some detail pointed out the the sufferings Ummah is afflicted with but nothing related to the topic of innovation hence it is being omitted.”Waslaam MuhammedAli: Salam alayqum. My apologies for late response ... sure i will add it. It will be accompanied with brief comment from me. MuhammedAli: With regards to your email sent 2nd December 2017: (1) In a Gharib (Da’if) Hadith it is recorded that: “… the Messenger of Allah said: "Beware of the believer's intuition, for indeed he sees with Allah's Light." Then he recited: Surely in this are signs for those who see.” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B47, H3419] All you have written sounds good. Gives impression you truly and genuinely care about plight of Ummah. Yes it sounds good when I say we should unite and be one Ummah and we should follow Quran and Sunnah and not scholars … Ummah is suffering … Muslims are being killed … tortured … bombed until they become collateral damage … but reality is this is just showmanship. Just a trap to lure the idiots thinking you/I want best for the Ummah. The reality is most use such rhetoric to distance listener from familial sectarian belief. Its sounds so beautiful … We must follow the Quran and Sunnah and none else. We must unite and be one Ummah forget the scholars they have divided us. Then right after saying this; person goes on to brain-wash his listeners to follow teaching of his sect. Their slogan is do not divide into sects … and they quote la tafarraqu and qullu muhdasatin bidda as opening part of their khutba but propagate teachings that go against the Jammah of Muslims (i.e. the main body of Muslims) and they introduce evil innovations into Islam and yet claim to purify religion of Islam. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: "In the last days of this world there will appear some young foolish people who will use (in their claim) the best speech of all people (i.e. the Qur'an) and they will abandon Islam as an arrow going through the game. Their belief will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have practically no belief), so wherever you meet them, kill them, for he who kills them shall get a reward on the Day of Resurrection." [Ref: Bukhari, B56, H808] This kind talk is just show manship and conversion strategy. Idealistic dialogues that reach to core of every Muslim’s hearts are used to win hearts and minds of listeners. And this is actually sign of Khawarij. Hadith of Khawarij … they will have best of speech (i.e. Quran and Sunnah of RasoolAllah) … but will have nothing to do with them … Hadith describes them young and foolish. (2) Brother reflect over what you say and what are your motives. We should read our behavior/actions. And then read Quran and Hadith. Of course I am not saying what you wrote was for show manship. We do certain things and don’t realize why we do them because Shaytan clouds our senses and confuses us. Shayateen whisper into our heart erroneous ideas and we feel these are our thoughts without realizing these thoughts only become our thoughts/actions after we accept their suggestions. And I feel compelled to point out all which you wrote is purely to damage control. Failing to authenticate and furnish your belief and understanding of innovation. You made excuse … you prefer to discuss in person … writing is time consuming … yet you spent more time writing your latest post then anything else before it. Point is brother, Amar, Shaytan has to justify to you; why you should not believe this and ignore it. Your failure to defend your belief was not taken as proof of invalid/incorrect understanding of Ahadith of Good Sunnah in Islam and erroneous understanding of innovation. To cover up Shaytan made you feel/think the issue isn’t important; the suffering of Ummah was/is more important. If you and I truly felt for Ummah as we should, I don’t think I or you would be sitting here and doing our 8-12 hour shifts for roti and salan and occasional roast chicken. We would be out there and doing everything for our brothers and sisters. Without any disrespect or detracting any sincerity from your feelings I will say the show of concern for Ummah is just façade to cover-up Wahhabism’s deficient understanding of subject of innovation. Brother Amar I looked up to you and still have great deal of respect for you. Your down to earth nature and humility has always been inspirational and due to which I have always held you in respect. But I cannot blunt the sharpness of truth or at the very least what I understand to be truth out of respect and love I have for you. The best act of kindness someone can do for me is tell me truth and guide me to what is straight path of Islam. Any how my brother deen is important and we should not take it lightly. Shaytan is mine and your enemy don’t let him win and make the right decision to follow what is evidently established over what has become beloved to you. You have been instructed like all Muslims: “O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best (way) and best in result.” [Ref: 4:59] (3) Every Abdullah’s priority is his hereafter and should be hereafter. With wrong creed/belief even if we truly care about Ummah nothing will be accepted. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) told the Khawarij will be so punctual in their prayer, fasting, Quran recitation that even the companions would be embarrassed by their outwardly piety. Yet they will go out of Islam like an arrow leave the bow. Meaning they will have little sign of Islam on them and according to another Hadith they will leave Islam never to return to it. Point I am making is foundation of our care and love is right belief/creed and if that foundation is incorrect our genuine concern and hurt at the suffering of Ummah will not benefit you or me. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) informed the Ummah will be divided into 73 sects out of which 72 are in hell. One from them will be entered to paradise. In this situation to prioritize suffering of Ummah over your own/my hereafter would be foolish. Imagine you’re or I am standing quick-sand and you’re pre-occupied in ensuring safety of others and not having enough concern about your own safety. Abdullah your safety and your hereafter is your priority and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will not excuse defect in belief. And understanding corrupt understanding of innovation is itself an evil innovation which will take to hell-fire. (4) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “The similitude of believers in regard to mutual love, affection, fellow-feeling is that of one body; when any limb of it aches, the whole body aches, because of sleeplessness and fever.” [Ref: Muslim, B32, H6258] And in this context we too feel the pain at the suffering of Muslims at the hands of disbelievers and alleged-believers in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Myanmar, Kashmir, Palestine, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Mali. In following areas; Kashmir, Palestine, Syria, and Iraq, Myanmar originally the killers were/are disbelievers. At the present in; Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, and Mali the cause of destruction of Muslims is alleged-Muslims and precisely Wahhabis. It started in Najd in 17th century, and you know what Shaykh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab and his followers did the hundreds of thousands of Muslims women, children, men, old, and young, and thousands of Muslim scholars who opposed Kharijism of Shaykh of Najd. And what we are experiencing is continuation of that brutality and Wahhabi barbarity. Muslims are being declared Kafir/Mushrik for one reason or another, spilling of their blood is made permissible, their property and women are made halal for sexual pleasures even if they were/are married. The Muslims are stuck between the Kafirs and the Wahhabis, the alleged-Muslims. Of course the suffering of Muslims by the hands of alleged-Muslims and Kafirs is something that bathers me, it hurts me, it eats me inside and it does the same to every Muslim who truly believes in Islam. What bathers me even more is that one who claims to be Muslim and accuses Muslims of Shirk and Kufr; like Khawarij accused Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) of Shirk. And kills the Muslims like Khawarij made killing of companions Halal for themselves even though Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “Anas bin Malik narrates from the Prophet who said: Three things are the roots of faith: To refrain from (killing) a person who says “there is no Deity worthy of worship except Allah” Not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits and also not to declare him out of Islam due to any of his action/deed.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B14, H2170] (5) The Western world in past played the dance of death of destruction in lands of Muslims for sake of religious reasons at present its economic reasons. And they see Islam and a true Muslim as enemy to their way of life. And deem a stable and powerful Muslim and non-Muslim (i.e. Russia, China) country to be threat to their way of life, their economic prosperity, and well-fare of their subjects (be they Muslim, or non-Muslims), and will do everything to ensure their isn’t challenge to this. And to ensure their interests are best served if they have to step on few Muslims in Iraq, or Syria, or Afghanistan, its not a big deal to them because they are not answerable to them they are answerable to populations of their own nations. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as informed the Jews and the Christians collectively will not be happy with you until you follow their deen. Note to appease both, you don’t become Christian, or Jew simultaneously; you become Westernized; dress like them, wines, women; enjoy theirs and share your own and they will be happy with us. Point is this is struggle destined to take place and nothing you and I can do to prevent it. And until that don’t happen they will continue to display their dominant military power and continue to experiment on live targets and declare them to be collateral damage. Most importantly this is how Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) destined it to be. And nothing can change what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) destined you and I both have to make the best of situation we find our selves and be the best Muslim we can be. The One and the Only can change the situation if He wills and His will is contrary to our. And He does not change His will until people change themselves. And for that reason it is important for us to change us become a Ummah learn the right religion the religion of Islam and let go of all isms, wahhabism, sufism, shiaism, and be Muslims as we are supposed to because the only religion accepted in court of Allah is Islam not; Wahahbism, Deobandism, Salafism, Shiaism. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said; hold to the rope of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and be not divided. Yet we’re divided and the heretical scholars have succeeded in doing so and this is despite the fact that religion accepted by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Islam. And Prophet explained this accepted religion of Islam is of the main body of Muslims, the Jammah, the great majority. (6) The failure of Islamic scholarship to address the current political affairs if of course of concern but not a major issue. Talk is cheap and actions speak louder then words. And words achieve nothing where actions are needed. And Ummah is not in position to unite nor the minions of Iblees will allow it to unite. The need of hour is unity and to act as one body but will the Shias leave their Shiaism and will the Wahhabis consider anyone other then their own self Muslim and Muwahid to stand with them? Will the Wahhabis (Isis, al-qaidah, TTP, Al-Shabab, Boko Haram, and operating under countless other names) stop bombing and suicide bombing schools, wedding halls, mosques, markets, busses, filled with children, women, men, old, young; to allow peace and prosperity to return to Muslims so we can gather our miserable lives and be in position to strive for betterment of Ummah? Or will I stop believing the only solution to unity and peace in Ummah is Jihad against the very foundation of all ills in the Ummah; total, absolute, complete, destruction of Wahhabism and Wahhabis? Will I stop believing this when the final solution by Prophet of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is kill them where ever you find them and one who kills them will earn reward? Will you understand Tawheed enough to realize that Shaykh Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhab didn’t understand Tawheed. And the Ahadith he employed to prove Muslims have fallen into Shirk only holistically come together to mean … after death of Muslims, the Arabs would return to worship of idols which their pre-Islamic ancestors worshiped? And will you abandon Wahhabism; its Mushriking everyone, its halaling of everyone’s blood and property, and women? Answer is; no, no, no, and no. (7) Coming to suffering of Ummah: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has stated: “It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn 'Umar that the Prophet said: Beware. every one of you is a shepherd and every one is answerable with regard to his flock: The Caliph is a shepherd over the people and shall be questioned about his subjects (as to how he conducted their affairs). A man is a guardian over the members of his family and shall be questioned about them (as to how he looked after their physical and moral well-being). A woman is a guardian over the household of her husband and his children and shall be questioned about them (as to how she managed the household and brought up the children). A slave is a guardian over the property of his master and shall be questioned about it (as to how he safeguarded his trust). Beware, every one of you is a guardian and every one of you shall be questioned with regard to his trust.” [Ref: Muslim, B20, H4496] Prophet said a man is shepherd of his household, woman of house and children, Khalifah/king of his subjects. As Ummati’s Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has not burdened us with responsibility of going to far and wide to provide food, shelter, clothing, for Muslims and the Hadith is proof of this. Khalifah will be questioned and is responsible for his subjects. And man is responsible and will be questioned regarding his household, and others are also responsible and will be questioned with regards to what was entrusted to them. My and yours; Our primary responsibilities are our families, wife, mother, son, daughter, their education … Shariah has not asked us to leave them to their devices and serve the Ummah instead. This leaves our concern for Muslims and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: "The Muslim is the brother of the Muslim, he doesn't oppress him and doesn't put him into ruin, and whoever is concerned for the needs of his brother, Allah is concerned for his needs, and whoever relieves a Muslim of a burden, Allah will relieve him of a burden from the burdens of the Day of Judgment and whoever covers (the faults of) a Muslim, Allah will cover (his faults) on the Day of Judgment." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B15, H1426] Yes we feel the pain when Ummah suffers and that is natural because of the bond we have each other as one body: “The similitude of believers in regard to mutual love, affection, fellow-feeling is that of one body; when any limb of it aches, the whole body aches, because of sleeplessness and fever.” [Ref: Muslim, B32, H6258] But we are not responsible and answerable for well-fare and prosperity of Ummah. Yes we are aware of their suffering and our comfort but fretting about their suffering will not resolve anything. The best way we can help them is through our charity. Note we cannot leave our families because we are responsible for them and will be held accountable for negligence. So we must earn for them and do what is our responsibility. This leaves our brothers and sisters who are suffering … we are not responsible and will not be held accountable for them … but we can give them charitable donations to alleviate some of their difficulties. Given the Shari restriction charity is best and perfect solution: "Whoever relieves a Muslim of a burden from the burdens of the world, Allah will relieve him of a burden from the burdens on the Day of Judgment. And whoever helps ease a difficulty in the world, Allah will grant him ease from a difficulty in the world and in the Hereafter. And whoever covers (the faults of) a Muslim, Allah will cover (his faults) for him in the world and the Hereafter. And Allah is engaged in helping the worshipper as long as the worshipper is engaged in helping his brother." [Tirmadhi, B1, H1930] (8) And with regards to dealing with those who inflict the suffering upon Muslims … Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has put them in position of power due to their hard work and effort. And made their stick longer and has taught them more ways of striking us with it and there is nothing I or you can do to prevent it but to bare it with patience and perseverance. And all this suffering is due to abandonment of Islam and prophetic teaching. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: “There is nothing (in the form of trouble) that comes to a believer even if it is the pricking of a thorn that there is decreed for him by Allah good or his sins are obliterated.” [Ref: Muslim, B32, H6241] And the suffering, pain, torture and death via illness, bombs, all is expiation of sins of Muslims. Those who suffer at the hands of Kafirs and alleged-Muslims have their sins expiated. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: “He (a Muslim) who dies of an abdominal disease is a martyr, and he who dies of plague is a martyr." [Ref: Muslim, B71, H629] "The martyrs are five: Those who die of the plague, stomach illness, drowning, being crushed, and the martyr in the cause of Allah" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B5, H1063] "Whoever is killed over his wealth, then he is martyr." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B14, H1419] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “If a man's property is wrongfully targeted, and he is killed, he is a martyr.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B20, H2582] Subhan-Allah! Cruise missile wrongly targeting Abdullah’s house … the collateral damage of disbelievers is martyr. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “Whoever fights to protect himself, he is a martyr. Whoever fights to protect his family is a martyr." [Ref: Nisai, B37, H4099] And there are other Ahadith which define what is martyr. And you should know that: “Our Prophet has informed us our Lord's Message that whoever of us is martyred, will go to Paradise.” [Ref: Bukhari, B93, H621] “…and whoever is killed over his religion, then he is a martyr, and whoever is killed over his blood, then he is martyr …” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B14, H1421] The suffering of Ummah and their deaths caused by natural and un-natural ways is way of forgiveness of Muslims. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is merciful to believers and has devised His plan for forgiveness of those who say; none has the right to be worshipped except Allah. The little suffering in earthly life compared to eternal suffering of hell … is a bargain. Have faith in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and in his grand plan for Muslims and don’t despair. (9) With regards to Islamic scholarship not addressing the current political affairs and focusing on practical aspects of Islam and diverting the focus of Muslims from sad situation Ummah is in. My brother indeed Ummah is suffering and result is of abandonment of practice of Islam. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: "(Religious) knowledge will be taken away (by the death of religious scholars) ignorance (in religion) and afflictions will appear; and Harj will increase." It was asked, "What is Harj, O Allah's Messenger?" He replied by beckoning with his hand indicating "killing." [Ref: Bukhari, B3, H85] “From among the portents of the Hour is that the religious knowledge will betaken away (by the death of religious Scholars) and general ignorance (of religion) will appear; and the drinking of alcoholic drinks will be very common, …” [Ref: Bukhari, B82, H800] In this context scholars are struggling against a tide of ignorance and foolishness where a Muslim doesn’t even know how to perform Salah and how to perform funeral prayers properly. Sign of day of judgment is lifting of Quranic knowledge and then even the script. And in another Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “You must acquire this knowledge before it is taken away, and its taking away means that it will be lifted up.' He joined his middle finger and the one that next to the thumb like this, and said: 'The scholar and the seeker of knowledge will share the reward, and there is no good in the rest of the people.'" [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H228] And if this knowledge is of basics such as ritual prayers then I am afraid it must be learnt. And if it is of other matters then it is essential we learn before knowledge is lifted. We all should learn according to what our need is and what is most important. One who doesn’t know how to perform Salah or properly perform Wudhu. Or Fiqh issues related to purity which are essential for valid Salah what good is him learning Arabic grammar or about actively getting into political affairs? Point knowledge has to be according to our needs. When situation of Ummah is that we cannot agree upon shar’ri definition of innovation. We cannot even agree on what Tawheed is and what Shirk is. What your side deems to be Shirk and makes a Muslim into Mushrik and spilling of his blood becomes Wajib that belief in teaching of another is perfectly in agreement with Tawheed. When we have such fundamental differences where we don’t even agree on Tawheed and Shirk anymore. And we have steeped into new level of ignorance of religious knowledge then what is more important learning about Jihad and getting swords ready Jihad or learning basics on which our hereafter and every act of worship hinges! Suppose I deem a belief to be major Shirk and believe it invalidates Islam of anyone who holds this notion. And declare anyone who holds this belief to be Kafir/Mushrik or believe if all avenues of guidance were exhausted for the person then he would be Kafir. And suppose I am wrong at my belief and I have gone to wage Jihad and die upon this error. Do you think this fundamental error will be over-looked? Someone who doesn’t even know Tawheed properly or Shirk properly how’s that person a Muslim? Especially one who spent his life declaring people Kafir/Mushrik for his own error. Priorities my brother, priorities. People need to get their priorities straight in order of importance; aqeedah and fiqh. Knowledge of these matters is extremely essential and it is important for Islamic scholarship to spread the correct understanding. Scholarship changing their focus to political fields … where few thousand die via bombs … and all unite to campaign and give speeches and all deal with current affairs and abandon the basics which are essential for hereafter will only result in entire Ummah going to hell. Imagine entire or majority Islamic scholarship focusing on current political affairs and manage to save lives of few thousand or even a few millions in few decades. But at what cost … allowing the people to die in ignorance of Tawheed … Shirk … ignorance of way of performing … wudhu … Salah … death of millions at cost of hereafter of billions. (10) Righteous Muslims and scholars always have and will continue to stand tall in defense of Islam. And will tell Islam as it is even if the disbelievers hate it. It is the Noor of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and it will be perfected and will dominate all as much as Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wills. They do not and will not wait for another to come and do what is their responsibility. Jihad is obligation under leadership of a righteous leader and Khilafat established on principles taught by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and upheld by Khulafah ar-Rashideen. Imperialistic domination and rule of world is destiny of Islam and it will happen even if there is a single day for judgment. Qital of disbelievers for extension of boundaries of Islamic rule over the world is something which a true and knowledgeable Muslims aspires and desires. But under leadership of Khalifah ar-Rashid not Ayman al Zawahiri, bin Laden, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi other Khariji disbelievers. Not under leadership of those who love to fight and look forward to kill but whose natural disposition is dislike of killing/war. The following verse talks about disposition of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) toward killing/qital: “Fighting/killing has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not.” [Ref: 2:216] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated Muslims are gentle with each other and harsh against disbelievers but in George Orwells illuded Wahhabi Khilafat the atrocities and barbarity which the Muslims suffer at the hand of these alleged-Muslims is far from kindness and love and compassion of prophetic Sunnah. Where even minor offences are punished by death. And the Wahhabi alleged-Muslims do everything to eradicate the Noor of Allah from Hitler’s concentration camp called Khilafat. They accuse Muslims of Kufr/Shirk like it happened in Saudi Wahhabiyyah in middle of 17th century under leadership of Shaykh Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhab, and then proceed to whole sale slaughter. The most recent example of this was in Iraq in city of Mosul where five hindered Muslim scholars were killed in first day of Wahhabi take over. And they exclusively targeted Muslim scholars and not Wahhabis. And they did this because they believed these Muslim scholars are Mushrik and they the Wahhabis are Muslims. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “Anas bin Malik narrates from the Prophet who said: Three things are the roots of faith: To refrain from (killing) a person who says “there is no Deity worthy of worship except Allah” Not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits and also not to declare him out of Islam due to any of his action/deed.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B14, H2170] And they clearly negate this prophetic teaching. I firmly believe Jihad against the disbelievers and hypocrites aka alleged-Muslims, not just the Jihad with pen, or tongue, or wealth, but Jihad with sword but under leadership of righteous Khulafah and those who establish the rule of Islam. Where mercy, compassion, justice, fear of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), rule of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is upheld, and all live in peace and tranquility. And where the rights if minorities and their lives, property, honors, women are protected. Where a disbelieving woman isn’t kidnapped and raped and sold into sexual slavery for being non-Muslim. What would my Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would have felt if he had heard the monstrosities committed in the name of Islam. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was presented a woman of polytheists. Her head was uncovered and he instructed she is covered. And a companion said: Ya RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) she is polytheist and not Muslim. Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: Is she not even a daughter of someone? And here we are grabbing non-combatant women and selling them into sexual slavery. That is Khilafat people call to and people fight for. Khilafat was of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali (Allah be pleased with them all) and in absence of such righteous leadership and such Khilafat Rashidah to pick up sword is foolishness putting yourself in destruction.

Salam alayqum, Account say chalay jana aur istimal mein nah lana toh samajh mein ata heh magr delete ki request kis waja say. Janab khayriat toh heh?

Blue underlined mawad kee taraf tawajoh: Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat ki ibarat mein, zameer yeh aur woh kis taraf lotahoon? Yeh Quran ki ayaat kay mutaliqa mazmoon par ya thanvi kay asool; mutliq fadheelat kay ahata ki taraf? Dosra ... Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) ko ashya mein/sha'i mein gina gaya ... mein janta hoon kay Ahle Sunnat aur Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat kay yeh nazria nahin kay Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) sha'i heh ... keun kay unoon nay bey-deen likh kar ibarat shoroon ki heh ... kohi esa firqa heh joh Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) ko ashya mein ginta ho aur woh firqa musalmanoon say mansoob ho?

salam alayqum, kafi kitaben hen is mozoo par ... thora intizar karen in sha allah jald mill jahen gi ...

Salam alayqum, Dr Saeed Sahib aur moteram Khalil Rana Sahib ki wazahat kay mutabiq mein nay is ibarat ka English mein tarjumah yoon keeya heh: “From them is a fanatical supporters of Gangohi called Ashraf Ali Thanvi. He has written small pamphlet; not even of four pages long. In which he explicitly stated knowledge of Ghayb like of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) like it is possessed by every infant, every lunatic, in fact every animal and every quadruped. And followin is (Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi) the cursed’s statement: ‘If it is correct to attribute knolwedge of Ghayb to holy being (of Prophet) then issue needing to be enquired is: Is this baaz from Ghayb or qull Ghayb; if baaz from knowledge of Ghayb is intended then what is so unique about Hadhoor’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowledge of Ghayb; knowledge like this is even possessed by Zayd and Amr; but every infant, lunatic, all animal and quadrupeds. And if all knowledge of Ghayb is intended, from which none of detail (of Ilm al-Ghayb) is excluded, then falsehood of this (belief) is proven from textual and logical evidences.’ 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 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. Notice how he restricted; limited knowledge (i.e. علم مطلق) and unlimited knowledge (i.e. مطلق علم): And he (Shaykh Thanvi) did not differentiate between knowing of one or two matters (of Zanni Ghayb by; Zaid, Amr, lunatics, animals, infants) and of those matters (of Ghayb known by RasoolAlllah sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) which are beyond enumeration.” [Ref: Hussam Al Haramayn Ala Munharil Kufr Wal Mayn, Pages 87/88] Baqi ka tarjuma jari heh ... Mein koshish mein hoon kay Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat ka Thanvi kay mutaliq joh material heh us ka tarjuma karoon. English mein ek tarjuma para joh samaj say bahir aur rooh e mazmoon say khali heh ... parh kar yeh pata nhin chalta kay joh zameer heh woh kis ki taraf heh aur maqabal o mabad mein kia talluq heh... koshish heh kay brackets mein izafaat kay saath tarjumein ko asaan banaya jahay ... aur aam fehm banda thori mehnat say samaj sakkay. In sha Allah kissi ahle ilm say is pooray mazmoon ki Sharh likhwa kar woh bi tarjumah kar doon ga ...

Ala Hadhrat nay farmaya: "phir khiyal karo us nay keun-kar mutliq ilm aur ilm mutliq mein hasr kar deeya aur ek do har janay ..." Meri samaj mein yeh nahin aya kay mutliq ilm aur ilm mutliq mein kia farq heh ... bazahir toh donoon ek hee hen. Dosra Thanvi nay hasr kesay keea ... meri samaj mein yeh ibarat nahin aa rahi. In points ki wazahat kay saath agar kohi Ala Hadhrat ki ibarat ko asaan Urdu mein pesh kar deh toh bot mahirbani hogi.

Is ka jawab pehlay bi deeya thah ... kay esi kohi baat nahin. Deobandi ya Wahhabi esay sawalat kartay hen. Aksar log title par kar chalay jatay hen aur shuba rehta heh ... jis ka nateeja hota heh kay gappoon mein is ko discuss kartay hen ya bayan kartay hen aur issue pehal jata heh. Misaal kay tor par, Thanvi haram zada thah ya nahin? is ko thread ka title bana denh. peech kuch nah likhen ... agar pachas banday is ko paren aur apas mein is question ko share karen kay sawal huwa thah kay thanvi haram zada heh ya nahin ... toh 40wen taq janay say pehlay yeh sach ho jahay ga ... aur sawal kay bajahay is ko haqiqat kay tor par pesh keeya jahay ga. syscological studies say sabat heh kay joh baat shuba kay tor par pesh kee jahay woh haqiqat mein lee jaati heh.

Earlier while writting account from memory I had confused some details and forgot others over the time I have tried to recall accurately as possible in what sequence the events transpired. After much thinking following section has been revised. I just wish the discusion was recorded in its entirity. It would have been a great way of dealing with all relevent issues. Best of my articles and research has been in produced after debates/discussions because it opens up so many topics to write about. And provides such a wealth of material from opponent it makes it s much more easier to churn out material but unfortunately time and opportunity was wasted which I am doing best to capitalise on as best as my memory serves. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discussion On Haram And Halal And Mawlid: He was asked: Is mawlid permissible or prohibited? He said it is Haram. I quoted the following Hadith: “It was narrated that Salman Al-Farisi said: “The Messenger of Allah was asked about ghee, cheese and wild donkeys. He said: ‘What is lawful is that which Allah has permitted, in His Book and what is unlawful is that which Allah has forbidden in His Book. What He remained silent about is what is pardoned.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B29, H3367] “Allah has prescribed certain obligations for you, so do not neglect them; He has defined certain limits, so do not transgress them; He has prohibited certain things do do not do them; and He has kept silent concerning about other things out of mercy for you, and not because of forgetfulness, so do not ask questions concerning them.” [Ref: Sunan Darqutni, Vol2, Page137] “What Allah has made lawful in His Book is halal and what He has forbidden is haram, and that concerning which He is silent is allowed as His favor. So accept from Allah His favor, for Allah is not forgetful of anything. He then recited, "And thy Lord is not forgetful." [Ref: Musnad Al Bazzar] I said to Shaykh (hafidha-ullah): The Haram and Halal have been clearly stated by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And I said to him Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said burden of evidence is upon claimant. Therefore give me evidence which establishes it is Haram. He said Mawlid is an innovation and therefore not permissible. Islamic position was; it is permissible because nothing HARAM in it. It would be Haram if it was composed of Haram. Secondly the Haram/Halal are said to be stated clearly and emphaticly and not implied; like you have implied Haram-ness of Mawlid. And there is no Hadith which prohibits Mawlid celebration, or commemoration. To establish permissibility in the light of Ahadith it was pointed out Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are silent (i.e. not declared Haram or Halal) on Mawlid therefore it can be celebrated because there is no sin for it. Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) presented the following Hadith to undermine what I stated: “What is lawful is evident and what is unlawful is evident, and in between them are the things doubtful which many people do not know. So he who guards against doubtful things keeps his religion and honour blameless, and he who indulges in doubtful things is liable to indulge in unlawful things, just as a shepherd who pastures his animals round a reserve will soon pasture them in it. [Ref: Bukhari, B10, H3882] Focus of discussion changed because trying to establish detail of Hadith of Bukhari and I was unable to point out his incorrect understanding of Hadith. So here it goes: Mawlid is not doubtful because it is composed of all that it permissible and good of Islam. Mutashabihat mentioned in the Hadith of Bukhari are those modern inventions and some old regarding which have no specific injunction of Haram/Halal in in Quran and Sunnah i.e. eating elephant, prawns and modern sexual fads. All aspects which make up Mawlid are from prophetic Sunnah. Walking, talking, smiling, food, zikr, Quran recitation, religious sermons, giving charity, flags, and marches are all from prophetic Sunnah. Hence nothing in it is doubtful in it. And to refute permissibility of Mawlid through the Hadith of Mutashabihat is proof that Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) has very shallow understanding of texts he has read. Therefore the mutashabih Sunnah would be which is composed of all that is new and has no connection with prophetic Sunnah in part or as whole. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Salam alayqum, Yeh Shah Wali-Allah rahimullah wali baat darust nahin. Shah Ismail Dehalvi jab Hajj par gaya toh wapis Wahhabi ho kar aya thah ... ghaliban Mawlana Umar Ucharvi (rahimullah) say naam likhnay mein khata ho gai jis ki islah ka moqa nah milla. Agar Mawlana rahimullah nay esa haqiqi mantay huway bi likha ho toh phir bi kissi ghalt fehmi ki bina par hoga. Shah Wali Allah rahimullah kay aqahid o nazriat ka un ko ilm nahin huwa hoga. Shah Wali-Allah rahimullah kay aqaid o nazriat ahle sunnat walay hee hen aur un ki kutub say esa sabat heh. Jab haqaiq un kay Wahhabi honay kay khilaaf hen toh phir Mawlana Umar Ucharvi rahimullah kay farman ko ghalt fehmi par hi mahmool keeya ja sakta heh. Ham donoon qabil e qadr hastiyoon ka adab kartay hen aur sachay aur suchay Sunni mantay hen. Aur kissi ghalt fehmi ki bunyad par un kay Sunni honay ka inqar nahin kartay.

Qasim Nanotavi ki ibarat kay tarjumen mein bil zaat ki jaga sayyidi Ala Hadhrat nay aslan ka lafz likha ... magar bey-imanoon ko ihtiraz huwa. Manzoor Nomani nay bila waja ... bil zaat kuch fadheelat nah hogi ... kay jumley mein bil arz mafoom mukhalif leeya ... yehni bil zaat fadheelat nahin bil arz zeroor heh ... aur issee bunyad par baqiyoon nay bil zaat kay tarjumein aslan par ihtiraz keeya ... magar bey-imanoon ko sharm nah aahi ... kuch ka lafz tamam fadheelat ka munkir karta heh bil arz aur bil zaat ka ... jistera jumla ... aap ko yaar kuch aqal nahin ... toh mana huwa bilqul aqal nahin ... yeh nahin kay thori heh ya aur wali heh yeh wali nahin ... yehni Nomani ka jawaz bil arz bil qul mardood heh keun kay kuch zaati aur arzi donoon ki nafi kar chuka. Is kay ilawa bil-zaat ko jis mana mein istimal keeya gaya aur jis ka dawa heh Nanotavi Sahib ko ... asl, aslan [yehni bunyad/bunyadi] bi kutub fiqha mein issee mafoom mein istimal huwa heh aur hota heh. Bey-asal jis ki foundation/bunyad ghalat ho, yehni walidul haram ho. Is kay ilawa sayyidi Ala Hadhrat nay bi lafz asal ba-mana bunyad/bunyadi istimal keeya heh ... jistera sher mein heh; yahi heh asal e alam mada ijaad khalqat ka ... aur Nanotavi nay bi bil-zaat ko bunyadi Nabi jis say awal koi nah ho hee bataya heh ... Abh mein research kar raha thah toh Tahzir Un Naas ka ek naya addition chapa heh jis mein ilm e Nabi ko asli (bil-zaat) aur auroon kay ilm ko arzi (bil arz) bataya gaya heh ... arzi ka mukhalif zaati heh jis par asli ka label lagaya gaya heh ... abwaab ki fehrist mein 16 number par aya heh aur safa 18 par is ki tafseel heh ... safa 18 par Nanotavi nay ilm e RasoolAllah ko haqiqi bataya aur ba-fehm fehrist qaim karnay walay kay asli, bil arz ka mukhalif toh bil zaat heh is leyeh joh bi ho bil zaat ka mana jaiz hoga. Is say Nomani ki hadiyoon ko in sha Allah aag ahay gi kuen kay yeh mantiq Nomani heh bil zaat say bil arz akhaz keeya toh kia bura keeya agar musalman nay bil arz say bil zaat akhaz kar leeya. Is bey-iman kay ham mazboon par Islam ki haqqaniat aur wazia huwi aur zalim khud zaleel huwa. Is new edition ka link yeh heh ... https://archive.org/stream/Tahzirun-Naas#page/n2/mode/1up

Safa 131/132 bi parnay kay qabil heh ... is mein Tazir un Naas kay masla imkan nazeer kay baray mein kuch arz huwa heh. Qasim Nanotavi ki ghalt fehmi dekhyeh ... muhaal bil zaat awaliat yehni Nooraniat ki waja say heh keun kay misl woh hoga jis ki awaliat bi sabat ho. Jistera ek aur Ilah ka awal Ilah hona muhaal bil zaat heh istera kissi aur makhlooq ka awal makhlooq hona muhaal heh ... aur awaliat RasoolAllah ki shaan heh toh phir muhaal bil zaat huway ... aur agar satti nazr say dekha jahay toh imtinah bil ghayr wada e bari ta'ala ki waja say heh ... magr haqiqat mein wada illahi kay RasoolAllah sallallahua layhi wa aalihi was'sallam jesa peda nah karoon ga ... is ko shamil heh keh aap jesa awal e makhlooq aur sabab tamam makhlooq peda nah karoon ga ... toh is nazr say yeh muhaal bil zaat huwa keun kay joh awal makhlooq kay sabab say peda huwa woh awal makhlooq nahin ... aur muhaal bil zaat ki shart awaliat heh jis say maqabal aur jis ka ma-bad nah ho sakay.

Qasim Nanotavi nay likha thah Ambiya Ilm Mein mumtaz hotay hen amal mein Ummati barabar ya bar jatay hen. Neechay wali kitab kay safa 74 par likhta heh ilm ladunvi ka talluq tawqa say heh ... Khidr alayhis salam taqwa mein ziyada thay aur Musa alayhis salam kam jis waja say Khidr alayhis salam par teen waqiat ka ilm ladunvi hasil huwa ... Musa alayhis salam sirf Wahi walay ilm mein behtr thay ... aur keun kay Khidr alayhis salam taqwa mein behtr thay is waja say uneh ziyada ghaybi ilm hasil huwa ... https://archive.org/stream/TOOBAA-RESEARCH-LIBRARY.FaraidEQasmiyaMakateebHazratAllamaQasimNanotaviRh.A/faraid-e-qasmiya-makateeb-hazrat allama qasim nanotavi rh.A#page/n47/mode/1up